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.)
My upcoming newspaper column: Wow. Is there any chance on God’s green earth or in the hot brimstone of Hell that a single Republica...
My next newspaper column : “Thinking NFL players are protesting the flag is like thinking Rosa Parks was protesting public transportati...
My next newspaper column: After failing to stop even the most conspicuously unsuitable of Trump’s nominees, Democrats clearly have ze...
Here's my next newspaper column, to be published Saturday: I n the age of Trump, having only a weekly column makes it challenging t...
Tomorrow's newspaper column , today: Now isn’t the time to talk about it, the White House said, and Sean Hannity agreed. They were ...