Thursday, June 20, 2013
Along with a strange and puzzling credulity about "alternative" medicine, the horror of vaccines, and the transcendent value of drum circles, reflexive opposition to nuclear power is one of the things that bug me about certain liberals.
Which is not to say that concerns are without merit. On the other hand, Chernobyl was an antiquated system and nearly impossible to reproduce with more modern plants. I gather that storage of waste is less of a problem now than it was when Hanford was built.
I worry about that stuff, too; but the sooner we get off fossil fuel, the obviously better. Leave it in the ground, where god intended it. All I'm saying is it shouldn't be a write-off out of hand. Liberals, as they generally do when it comes to science -- aforementioned lacunae damnably excepted -- should accept the possibility that nuclear power can be made as safe as other forms; and be open to embracing it as a cost-effective and efficient alternative to oil and coal and gas. The movie, which I haven't yet seen, attempts to make that case.
(Thanks, Dougie, for sending me the link.)
Here comes my next newspaper column: Once upon a time, most Republican members and leaders had integrity. Believed in science. Consi...
My next newspaper column: “Being president doesn’t change who you are. It reveals who you are.” (Michelle Obama.) The same can be sa...
My next newspaper column : Allocated only around 700 words once a week, I’m always playing catch-up. So here’s a time- and space-limit...
My next newspaper column, sent in with too little time to address the latest mass murder. But Trump sent condolences, so it's all ok...
Tomorrow's newspaper column: Bullet points for Trumpists: · Trump said he’d protect Medicare and Medicaid. His budget cu...