No, it's just that if you're unaware of the continuing devastation that has
resulted from that accident, saying that the damage from fossil fuel energy
is more dangerous, is an opinion based on inadequate information. My point
was that the damage done to that area of the world has been downplayed. No
one can ever liv in the immediate area again. People have been permitted to
move back to nearby areas, even though there is still evidence of dangerous
radiation there. Those people and their children and their children's
children may be negatively affected in ways that we aren't aware of. You
haven't heard about the hundreds of workers who died, trying to seal off the
under water radiation which is, in fact, still leaking, nor about the real
possibility that the radiation reached Tokyo, nor about the fact that some
of it reached our Pacific shores a few years ago. No one is writing about
the fact that some of our nuclear energy plants were designed identically to
the one in Japan. I've read statistics about the danger of the plants, but
you never see that information on TV or read it in the corporate press or
hear it on the radio. The reason is not that it isn't important news. It's
that it isn't in the interest of the nuclear industry, which has a powerful
lobby, for the public to know the facts about the danger. Many years ago,
there was a nuclear energy plant in Suffolk County on eastern Long Island at
Shoreham. Thank God, after public pressure, it was closed. There were many
problems with it. Had there been an accident. There's no way that all of us
who lived on Long Island could have left quickly enough to be safe. There
just aren't enough roads, nor could the Long Island railroad handle the
situation. And this plant was located about 65 miles from Manhattan.
Radiation spreads. There were, at the time, about 8 million people living in
the 5 boroughs of New York City. There's an old, leaky nuclear plant at
Indian Point on the Hudson River, not far from New York City now. There's
been public pressure to close it for years. Our Corporate Democratic
Governor Cuomo who is very friendly to Wall Street, as is our corporate
friendly Democratic Senator Schumer, has been resisting closing that plant.
But perhaps, while I've been otherwise engaged withother dangers and
injustices, that plant has been closed. I'd be very relieved if it were.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2018 10:56 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Evan: nuclear power
Oh, so I gotta pass a test before you will consider my viewpoint worthy of
consideration?
Do you ask people who agree with you what they know about a subject before
you consider their views as legitimate? I would bet not.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2018 10:32 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Evan: nuclear power
iOK. So what do you know about the aftermath of that nuclear accident in
Japan?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2018 9:57 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Evan: nuclear power
Once again, if someone disagrees with you, it's not because they might have
a legitimately different perspective, it's only because they've been
manipulated by the so-called "corporate" media, not because they might
actually have a different point of view.
What would be the point of discussing the issue if you come at it with that
kind of attitude?
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2018 9:50 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Evan: nuclear power
I belatedly found part of one of Evan's emails which I managed not to see or
forgot about or something. So, I would just like to mention the nuclear
accidents that took place at Three Mile Island, in Russia, or was it
Ukraine? And in Japan. We have no reasonable method for dealing with
nuclear waste, and we have no reasonable way of dealing with the results of
nuclear contamination. What has happened in Japan is a nightmare, but the
corporate media has been downplaying it. There have been serious informative
articles about it in the alternative media for years, and a few good novels
have been written about the problem in the past few years. But for the
majority of Americans, out of sight, out of mind. This method of
manipulating the public works beautifully. Intelligent people who want to be
informed about what is happening, can be diverted from the most disturbing
information. And by the way, these nuclear plants in the US are old and
falling apart, and they're heavily subsidized by the government because,
apparently, they don't do well in that free market that all the promoters of
capitalism praise. It's interesting that our government also subsidizes
fossil fuel companies. Now what good is a low carbon footprint when the
water and vegetation and earth are irradiated and will remain so for
thousands of years? How is supporting nuclear waste more environmentally
friendly than carbon emissions?
Miriam
Evan wrote
How many people have died as a result of nuclear power, as opposed tohttp://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/11/21/why-i-changed-my-mind-a
say, coal mining, or oil drilling? Now solar power is probably safer,
and I guess wind power might be up there, although I can think of ways
people could be injured or killed working with or on windmills. I'll
stack the safety of nuclear power against any of the fossil fuels
though. And yes, I do support subsidies of nuclear power. It will help
us get off carbon emissions faster. For the same reason, I support
subsidies for renewable energy. It's also worth noting that, "...
according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nuclear
produces four times less carbon emissions than solar does. That's why
they recommended in their recent report the more intensive use of
renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage."
