[Marxism] [pen-l] Fwd: Is a Controversial Nuclear Plant to Blame for Soaring Thyroid Cancer Rates in New York? | Alternet,

DW dwaltersmia at gmail.com
Tue Dec 12 07:45:35 MST 2017


On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Nick Fredman <nick.j.fredman at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Well I was just commenting on one aspect of the evidence that been used,
> but I'll be more general. One big problem with David’s claim that his
> figures on deaths attributable to forms of power shows that nuclear power
> entails least risk to human health is that they're a static picture of the
> current situation of nukes being a small proportion of global power usage
> and don't tell us much about the real issue, the related technical and
> political aspects of de-carbonising the current economy.
>
> Indeed...this was a health centered discussion in response to a haphazard
posting by Louis P. Actually, Nick, it's very important. It's not 'static'
at all: it is showing the deaths per unit of energy for most types of
energy. It is used as risk assessment and it totally dynamic as these
numbers can and do change as various forms of energy start predominating
over other forms. But those numbers are only 'static' because it shows
which are safe and which are not. And it shows that nuclear is safer...the
proportions don't change that much. Nuclear is a "small proportion" of
global power usage...if you mean electricity? It's around 16%...not so
small.


> If he seriously wants leftists and environmentalists in a country like
> Australia, with no nuclear power and a massive over-reliance on fossil
> fuels, to somehow be convinced that 99% of them are wrong and that nukes
> should be campaigned for, to the extent that they are successful in the
> massive task of convincing the public that this is a good idea and the huge
> investment already in solar, hydro and wind a less good idea, then there
> would be a massive use in *fossil-fuel* derived energy to build the things,
> and the resultant deaths and disease from that extra use of energy, and
> while they're being built the 5-10+ years of the current massive use of
> fossil fuels continuing, optimistically, before they helped in any way.
> That's all in the unlikely event that they'd be a plausible political force
> that would both build nuclear power and wind down fossil fuels, of which
> there is now virtually zero.
>
> On the other hand the alliance of activists, scientists and engineers
> Beyond Zero Emissions http://bze.org.au/ have a feasible plan for a rapid
> transition to renewables with ideas that have wide support among the left,
> the Greens, Labor left, unions and the public, and with technology and
> infrastructure that's being rolled out now. That this is political feasible
> on a big scale with a stronger left and environmental movement is shown by
> the recent victory by a broad front of campaigners including Socialist
> Alliance members in pressuring the South Australian Labor government to
> replace a coal fired plant with a big solar thermal plant, which will be
> online in 3 years.
>
> Indeed...never said it was going to be easy :).   The left most places has
long ago given up it's science based understanding of political economy for
knee-jerk...and not serious, concern about climate change. No solar thermal
plant has or ever will replace the same equivalent of coal. Germany has
shown the failure of renewables to replace  fossil fuel, where that country
just put on line the largest coal plant in Europe and built scads of
natural gas turbines. If you read the articles in Dissent I posted (a
debate actually) Germany has been an unmitigated failure and they will
never reach their goals. As opposed to nuclear France where close to 80% of
their grid is nuclear powered and they did away with fossil fuel for
generation in 15 years. Don't say it can't be done, Nick. It has. Wanna
guess which big country in Europe has the lowest carbon footprint and why?

David Walters

>
>



More information about the Marxism mailing list