The sample contained 1.5 becquerals per kg of iodine 131, well below the tolerable limit for food and drink of 300 becquerals per kg, the government added.When I read that headline, that radioactive iodine is now found in Tokyo drinking water, I imagined what this would mean if our government reported the same thing in one of our major cities.
I can only imagine the first thing folks would do would be to go to bottled water. I remember San Francisco talking about banning bottled water due to plastic waste, but I don't know the status of San Francisco's plans right now.
Meanwhile, when it comes to energy, the administration's worse nightmare: coal.
And the plan when the President was still a senator -- to bankrupt coal plants:
Interestingly, that press conference was held in the same city that wants to ban bottled water.
I'm also seeing some report on the fact that coal is worse for you than nuclear.
ReplyDeleteYup.
ReplyDeleteI don't see a lot of folks evacuating areas due to "coal" issues; I don't see folks in a panic to obtain medication to protect them from CO2.
But as JRR Tolkien said: we all have our myths.
An energy policy based on a hate for what works and a waving a magic wand to make "green energy" efficient. Sounds like a great plan...
ReplyDeleteAgree 100%.
ReplyDeleteI remember early on some folks described the president as being an "angry young man."
One of the hallmarks of successful leaders (business, political, political) is a genuine love for humanity. Whether you like them or not, whether you agree with their politics or not, I think both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton loved humanity, and "could feel their pain." Jimmy Carter and current president don't seem to have that characteristic. They (Carter/Obama) both seem to see things as cups half empty rather than half full. I think the Bushes did but were unable to articulate it. John F. Kennedy probably did, and even his brothers probably had a genuine love for humanity, but became skewed in their politics as the super-rich often do. And whether they (successful leaders) have that characteristic or not, they need to exude it or make people think they have it. I never had the feeling that Jimmy Carter was really interested in the plight of the common man, which is ironic, because of all our modern presidents (since 1960) he might have been most common. But I digress.
"I don't see a lot of folks evacuating areas due to "coal" issues; I don't see folks in a panic to obtain medication to protect them from CO2.
ReplyDeleteBut as JRR Tolkien said: we all have our myths. "
Might it be a myth that coal is safer than nuclear???
Its just a question. I am sure you can prove that your thesis is true.
I cannot prove that either is safer than the other.
ReplyDeleteThat's why the issue falls into the category of myths for me, and probably JRR Tolkien, if he were alive and willing to opine on the subject, which I doubt he would.
We all have our myths.
I may do a stand-alone posting on this so folks understand where I am coming from. Maybe next weekend.
But I think you are correct: if you polled Americans, 99% would overwhelmingly agree that nuclear is safer than coal.
My point was that evacuations and panic responses don't prove one way or the other which technology is "worse for you" or which (if either or both ) is a myth.
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly why I have to do a stand-alone post sometime.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, if you poll Americans, I'm sure you will find that 99% agree overwhelmingly that you are correct: nuclear is safer than coal.
Polling has nothing to do with the question.
ReplyDeleteWe are dealing with science and the laws of physics. There are also major economic implications.
This isn't a popularity contest . Both have advantages, both have disadvantages.
People who view energy in a one dimensional way are completely missing the point .