Modern-day Tower of Babel

  • Thread starter Thread starter JoeShlabotnik
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No one died at TMI. I don’t dispute that tens of thousands died at Chernobyl, but that was because of panic, not radiation. Panic led to mass abortions. I note that you did not even address the fact that coal plants emit more radioactivity into the environment than nuclear plants.
 
Propaganda. People died at Chernobyl because of radiation. Most of the people there did not even know about the danger until it was too late for them to get to safety. Many later died from cancer deaths that resulting from exposure. But then you already know that don’t you, Myth?
 
Yes, some people died from the radiation, from an event that involved such utter disregard for safety protocol as to constitute the crime of sabotage. However, the number of victims of the radiation was far surpassed by the panic-driven abortions by women thinking their babies would be horribly deformed.
 
Myth, you have already said that you are a nuclear engineer. So naturally you are a true believer when it comes to nuclear power. Just as people who word in the coal industry believe in coal. And the people who work in the oil and gas industry believe in their products. You have a vested interest in seeing that your product in used, regardless of what dangers there are. More work for you. With all that going, I would not expect you to see the other side of the issue. The side that many of us see when we think of nuclear power. You must attack, belittle, and talk down to those of us who do not want nuclear power. You must talk about what a safe and cheap source of energy nuclear power is. Tell that to the folks in Japan who will be cleaning up the mess from Fukushima for years and years to come.
 
More baloney. Slice in big slices or smaller slices, but it is still baloney.
 
I assume Myth works for some company, for example Westinghouse, that designs and constructs nuclear power plants. To sell the product, they have to say the product is good.
Please don’t compare the nuclear power energy to the Catholic Church.
One is a for-profit group, while the Church and its people are here on this Earth to save souls.
 
I have driven through many parts of the state of Texas. It is amazing how many wind farms and solar farms there are in the state. I guess these agencies that are making money from these farms are just in in for the grins. Just a pipe dream. 🤣😂🤣😂
 
Westinghouse went bankrupt a few years back because their engineers were incompetent. I work for the government. Furthermore, I already mentioned that I decommission facilities, which means that shutting them down means more work for me.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully, the government will keep you busy. We need to decommission as many nuclear plants as possible. The sooner the better. 👍👍👍
 
Nuclear energy is dangerous. People who are incompetent should not be designing, building, or operating a facility that works with materials that are radioactive.
Didn’t Westinghouse make the nuclear reactors in Fukushima?
 
And replace them with what? Don’t say “solar and wind” because those are not baseline power. Even if they were sufficiently reliable, it takes 3 GW of solar/wind to replace 1 GW of nuclear, due to differences in capacity factor. Then, there’s the matter of land use: because solar and wind have such low energy density, they require vast tracts of land for large-scale power.
 
We have a lot of land in this country that is not good for much other than solar and wind farms.
But as long as we have shills trying to snow the public on how safe and cheap nuclear energy is, we can not explore expansion of solar and wind power.
The thing that is ironic.
Every time, nuclear energy hawks start to gain some public support momentum, some accident like Chernobyl or Fukushuma comes along and people see just how not safe and not cheap nuclear energy is.
The fact of the matter is that your average American does not want to live anywhere near a nuclear power plant or a nuclear waste disposal dump site.
 
This what I would expect a nuclear engineer to say.
Nuclear power is safe and cheap.
A petroleum engineer will tell you that oil and gas is a non-polluting energy.
Those who are in the goal industry think it is great.
Myth, keep on speaking out for nuclear.
Splitting the atom will go down as one of the worst things that ever happened to mankind.
 
Wanted: Moderately priced three-bedroom home, with two car-garage. Preferably located near a nuclear power plant ⚛️ or a radioactive waste dump. ☢️
 
Those who have benefited from medical isotopes will disagree forever with your statement.
 
No, what we have is fossil fuel shills and the environmentalists they con lying to the public about how dangerous nuclear power is. Meanwhile, explosions at natural gas plants kill more people on a regular basis than nuclear ever has. Energy is not safe. It wouldn’t be useful if it was.
 
Not many people want to live near landfills, either, but those who are willing to get to buy their homes dirt cheap.
 
My guess is that Pope Francis knows nothing about nuclear power other than Chernobyl and Fukushima. He probably doesn’t know the difference between how a nuclear power plant works and how a nuclear bomb works. He probably doesn’t know that nuclear power generates electricity carbon-free. He probably doesn’t know how regulated nuclear power is, or how trained and dedicated the workers at the plants are.

So am I surprised that the Pope takes a position on nuclear power that is in line with many left-leaning politicians and talking heads in the world? Not really.

When we’re talking about providing electricity to improve the quality of life and standard of living for the entire world, any method of generating that electricity will have pros and cons, risks, advantages and disadvantages. In some areas, hydroelectric power makes the most sense; in others, solar; for others, nuclear, or wind, or coal, or gas, or so on. The Pope is so black and white on political issues when it comes to choosing the “liberal” stance on many things, but for some reason when it comes to Church teaching everything is in a messy grey area.
 
I think I will make a thread of this. ECOLOGISM is not equal to LIBERALISM. I would like that CAF users stop labeling catholics that have varying opinions on the environment (from believing in anthropogenic climate change to believing nuclear power is bad) as liberal. Even I am not against nuclear power, but I see many users equaling it with liberalism. It has nothing to do with it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top