Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
It's not that uncommon with those who take science to support one position only to ignore it for something else, like GMOs, vaccines, etc.
Look at how many environmental groups want to stop the building of new nuclear power plants and shutdown existing ones, which invariably leads to increased CO2 emissions and thus promoting the climate change that they want to stop.
|
Well the nuclear fuel debate is much more nuanced than the anti-vax and other conspiracies. I'll preface by saying I do think nuclear power is an important cog in the energy machine and could be instrumental in a greener future, especially in the early years. However, there is no denying that when it goes wrong, it goes disasterously wrong. It deadens the area around it and pollutes the whole world. Not only should certain goverments not have them cause they can't maintain them safely (Chernobyl) but some areas just shouldn't have them due to geographical concerns (Japan). Not to mention that we still haven't figured out what to do with the waste, 70 years later.
So while I think more investment and especially more research should go into nuclear power and making plants even safer, you can't really blame someone from going all NIMBY on a nuclear powet plant.
I will agree however, it's an issue armchair environmentalists argue against without really knowing the facts.