Nuclear problem is costs, not safety. If safety was the primary goal you would be arguing that we should be shutting down solar arrays and wind turbines, given they kill far more people than nuclear. They’ve also wiped out a lot fewer towns than dams and coal plants have, but those don’t have big scary words attached to them and so people don’t care.
It is eminently reasonable to try and keep clean power operating instead of continually shuttering it for more natural gas plants.
Let's play a game: solar == bicycle, wind == motorcycle, coal/methane == automobile, hydro == train, nuclear == airplane — admittedly, the metaphors analogies aren't perfect but they'll do for today. Although it would be regrettable having an accident with any of these transports, which one's "worst case scenario" would you prefer?
There's a nice table a few paragraphs down. Solar and wind definitely have much smaller death rates than any fossil fuel, but nuclear still wins.
Also, planes are the poster child of things that seem scary and get a lot of news, but are actually much safer on a mundane basis. You're literally arguing that we should do the thing with a higher death toll because the other thing looks scary.
That article's a little stale, ain't it? Even Forbes says so. And "deathprint per trillion kWhs"? What is that in months? Years? What does solar's "deathprint" ultimately work out to? 8 people fell off their roof installing panels in, what, 10 years?
It lists deaths per kwh to normalize over how much power you gain. A power source that kills 10 people and gives you 1 million kwh is safer than a power source that kills 3 people and gives you 100 kwh.
Deaths due to solar are hard to estimate. Most people just point at roofing (which is pretty dangerous even compared to most construction jobs) and assign a percentage of roofing deaths based on how many panels are being installed. This article estimates 100-150 deaths a year just in the US.
Again, your logic is false. The size of a particular accident is irrelevant. What matters is total deaths over a long time, averaged out over how much energy they generated. If there is a demand for X amount of power over a decade, whichever energy source meets that demand with the fewest deaths should be the one we pick. Anything non-fossil fuel is two orders of magnitude better, so that is what we should be building.
Quite bluntly, you seem allergic to big numbers. That is not an argument.
They love to claim Martin Luther King as one of their own, but when Lyndon B. Johnson told him to wait until after the 1964 election to demand civil rights, MLK also told him to suck it. LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act in 1963 and lost the support of southern Democrats, but beat Goldwater in 1964.
Joe Biden knows what he has to do to get Rashida Tlaib and her supporters' vote. Tlaib isn't the one supporting Trump; it's Netanyahu.
As a Michigan resident, I think part of the problem is the 10 cent deposit hasn't changed since it was enacted 50 years ago. 10 cents used to get you a lot further than today. A relative told me back in the '80s when he was struggling that he would go through public garbage bins for pop cans and return them to get himself lunch for that day. Can't exactly do that now unless you find several hundred cans and bottles and have a way to transport them.
Hell, I remember seeing a Seinfeld episode where Cramer takes a van-full of New York returnables and brings them to Michigan to double his earnings. I don't think he was successful.
If we want to keep this system and keep recycling high, I think we need to raise the deposit to 25 cents or more per bottle/can. That may encourage drinkers to start recycling again. Though I also realize that will piss off a lot of people.
And/Or include the deposit on literally every bottle and can sold in the state. Not just carbonated beverages.
No such thing as antisemitism on the left. It's antithetical to leftism. If you're antisemitic then you're not in the leftist camp. Anti Zionism is not antisemitism.
And maybe even more so sickened by those who want to define what antisemitism is and [what] it isn't," Moss said.
So not only is it antisemitic to talk about the fact that Israel is committing genocide, it's antisemitic to even mention that Israel doesn't represent all Jewish people?
I don't know about you, but to me, that sounds a lot like stereotyping. I think there's a word you're supposed to use for that, but I can't quite think of it...
My religion says all of the land of Michigan is holy. I'm going to kick all of the current residents out and make it mine. Got a problem with that? Wow, it's like you don't even think I have a right to self-determination, you bigot.
Michigan
Oldest
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 5 day(s) ago). Subscribe to start receiving updates.