The Nuclear Omnicide

[marmar]

from truthdig:


The Nuclear Omnicide

Posted on Apr 1, 2014
By Harvey Wasserman


In the 35 years since the March 28, 1979, explosion and meltdown at Three Mile Island, fierce debate has raged over whether humans were killed there. In 1986 and 2011, Chernobyl and Fukushima joined the argument. Whenever these disasters happen, there are those who claim that the workers, residents and military personnel exposed to radiation will be just fine.

Of course we know better. We humans won’t jump into a pot of boiling water. We’re not happy when members of our species start dying around us. But frightening new scientific findings have forced us to look at a larger reality: the bottom-up damage that radioactive fallout may do to the entire global ecosystem.

When it comes to our broader support systems, the corporate energy industry counts on us to tolerate the irradiation of our fellow creatures, those on whom we depend, and for us to sleep through the point of no return.

.....(snip).....

Cesium and its Fukushima siblings are already measurable in Alaska and northwestern Canada. They’ll hit California this summer. The corporate media will mock those parents who are certain to show up at the beaches with radiation detectors. Concerns about the effect on children will be jovially dismissed. The doses will be deemed, as always, “too small to have any impact on humans.” .............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_nuclear_omnicide_20140401

[darkangel218]

1. It all falls on deaf ears, when it comes to many if not the majority of our population

Very few people I know in real life are concerned with the dangers of nuclear reactors. I don't understand their ignorance. Its so frustrating..

[phantom power]

2. Over 20 million people died from fossil fuels since Fukushima. 7 million each year. 20K per day.

At least a dozen people died from fossil fuels while I typed this post.

That's just direct air pollution, it's not even counting deaths from climate change due to CO2.

There's an omnicide going on, but it has nothing to do with nukes.

[kristopher]

4. The "two wrongs make a right" defense?

Nuclear provides 2.5% of the energy consumed globally, and we already have significant worries about the by-products of its use. The ONLY reason it is even a subject of discussion is that corporate interests are promoting a massive increase in its use.

400 reactors for 2.5% scales to 16,000 reactors for 100% - not counting growth in demand and redundant systems for normal downtime.

I don't think we should follow your lead and build all of that before we look at the associated problems.

[phantom power]

6. Another 20,000 people died from fossil fuels since you replied to me yestreday.

Anybody who writes articles about "the nuclear omnicide" simply doesn't understand what the fuck is going on.

[kristopher]

7. Yet another attempt at diverting the topic...

..by a proponent of nuclear energy.

If you actually cared about getting rid of fossil fuels, the last thing you'd Promote or Defend would be nuclear power as it does nothing but strengthen the economics supporting coal burners.

[villager]

3. "Industry apologists say reactors can moderate the climate chaos...

...caused by burning those fossil fuels. But fighting global weirding with atomic power is like trying to cure a fever with a lethal dose of X-ray."

[RobertEarl]

5. Never before so much in the Pacific

This is a science experiment the likes of which this planet has never seen.

But the available science does cause the alarms to start ringing given what we know about the effects of radiation on biological systems.