like Piper Alpha, like the zillion coal mine collapses in the Ukraine.
Thirty years from now you'll still be talking about it, sort of like Three Mile Island, where no one died.
:eyes:
Or maybe not. I never heard of this one again:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/19/373671/-Situation-Grave-at-Chinese-Coal-Mine:172-Human-Beings-Missing-Underground.The way I see it, every person who
ever dies in any kind of nuclear event anywhere is worth 1,000,000 dangerous fossil fuel deaths in the mind of our anti-nukes.
Let's be clear on something. The anti-nuke mentality is working for the gas industry.
Anti-nuke rhetoric shut Yankee Maine with fear and fantasy.
The result:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept05me.xlsSimilar results were obtained at Trojan and at Rancho Seco.
Now the anti-nukes are trying to bring gas dependency to Vermont, and trying to do it here in my State by destroying Oyster Creek.
There is nothing more dishonest than an anti-nuke promising - after decades of such destruction that wind and solar will work and "replace nuclear." I
never hear an anti-nuke talking about displacing
gas or
coal or
oil. They don't have a clue how to do these things, nor are they interested in doing these things. Those toys have
failed for decades to displace natural gas, coal or oil not that I consider ONE anti-nuke to give a rat's ass about dangerous fossil fuels and the people they kill.
Solar, and wind and geothermal are trivial forms of energy but still the anti-nukes rail against what? Nuclear. The world's largest source of climate change gas free primary energy for three deacades running.
I've been listening to denialist "we aren't gas people, we're wind people"
tripe since 2002.
Since 2004 the entire wind, solar, and geothermal industry
totals have not managed to keep pace with the
increase in dangerous natural gas.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.htmlSpare me the crocodile tears, and the "evil corporation" rhetoric. It's bull.