Ring of Conservative Sites Ring of Conservative Sites
JOIN!

[ Prev | Skip Prev | Prev 5 | List |
Rand | Next 5 | Skip Next | Next ]

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Chernobyl's Mythology

Michael Fumento asks:

Why would an energy-craving nation (the U.S.) that also demands a pristine environment put the kibosh on a limitless form of power (nuclear energy) that produces no air pollution and no emissions environmentalists claim cause global warming?

It is Chernobyl's mythology. Fumento explains that rather than the half million expected deaths deaths from radioactive fallout, there were 4,000. Rather than the claimed 30,000 immediate deaths, there were 47. Other problems, like children drinking contaminated milk, were avoidable (except in a totalitarian socialist state).

He reports something I had never read before:

Tragically, women as far away as southern Italy aborted their babies because of environmentalist propaganda essentially claiming they’d be born with three eyes and tentacles. Yet the report finds no evidence for excessive birth defects.

Fearmongering kills. And costs.

Never mind that nuke plants supply 20% of our energy and yet have never harmed a single American, nor that there’s never been an accident in France where they supply 75% of the nation’s energy.

Never mind that accidents caused by natural gas, petroleum products, and accidents and
black lung disease from coal take a steady toll of lives each year. Never mind that we’re constantly bombarded with radiation from above (the sun) and below (the earth).

And never mind that even U.S. reactors designed four decades ago are incomparably safer than Chernobyl. Newer technologies such as “
pebble bed reactors,” in which the radioactive material is sealed in small graphite balls, are safer still.

6 Comments:

At 10:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How easy is it to insure nuclear facilities like those described in posting?

 
At 11:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

only 4,000 deaths--so far?

what does phrase "no excessive birth defects" mean?

piqued by first statement. merely inquisitive as to meaning by second.

italy has highest abortion rate in europe. so i've heard.

 
At 11:44 AM, Blogger Neal Phenes said...

If you are ignoring the death and disease brought by the alternative fuels we need, then I guess nuclear energy is dangerous. If other forms of energy creation and use are considered, then there is room for discussion. But, blowing off a form of energy due to urban legends containing some truth (obviously we have a reasonable fear of radioactive contamination not found in petroleum and coal) does not give the energy issue its due consideration. The cost-benefit analysis must always be utilized.

 
At 3:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

what recourse does a property owner have against a utility operating a nuclear power plant if there is a radiation leak that makes his property uninhabitable? does the federal govt come to the rescue? (that is, the taxpayer?) think there have been a few changes in this area since the president took office.

 
At 4:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

best regards, nice info video editing schools

 
At 7:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent, love it! Camelot mortgage colorado Undo active hard drive partition in windows xp Fax cover Order generic tenuate medication Allergic reaction to ivp iodine Following upskirt Bel vector radar detector venlafaxine hydrochloride and solubility merchant processing account

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Ring of Conservative Sites Ring of Conservative Sites
JOIN!

[ Prev | Skip Prev | Prev 5 | List |
Rand | Next 5 | Skip Next | Next ]