Den politiska energigalenskapens hysteriska tidsålder

Imagine you invented a machine that revolutionized travel. You know your invention could cut local and long distance travel time substantially and vastly improve the ability for business to deliver freight efficiently. The invention would add trillions to global GDP. If released, your invention would no doubt be universally used and admired. However, based on the initial safety assessments, analysts predict that if used widely your invention would cause the deaths of 300,000 Americans per year and countless more around the globe. Would you still release it?

If not, imagine a world without cars.

It turns out that car accidents are among the leading causes of death in the US, and yet few of us would give up the luxury, convenience, and autonomy of owning an automobile. We’ve decided the benefits are worth the risk.

Now, the bigger question: why isn’t this same measure used when judging nuclear energy?

Citatet ovan passar in apropå den senaste tidens anti-kärnkraftshysteri och lögnerna om strålningens farlighet i grundvattnet runt det havererade kärnkraftsverket i Fukushima Dai-ichi.

Mer om denna hysteri kan man läsa i Capitalism Magazine i artikeln av John Downs, ”The Symptoms of Nuclear Hysteria”. Där kan man ta del av en mer vetenskapligt och faktamässigt orienterad inställning till de få kärnkraftskatastrofer, snarare missöden, som trots allt inträffat de senaste 60 åren till skillnad från de faktiska lögner som prånglas ut av välståndsfientliga vänsterjournalister och miljögröna aktivistfascister som Greenpeace och deras falska påståenden kring kärnkraftens mytiska farlighet.

John Downs säger följande om radioaktiv strålning och de nivåer som EPA tillåter:

[…] But radiation is not nearly as pernicious or outright dangerous as the media leads us to believe. In the US, by EPA regulations, nuclear plants are expected to annually release radiation less than what any passenger receives on one flight from LA to New York (a route I travel quite often). Living in a brick or concrete building for a year will give you twice the dose of that flight. A chest X-ray will give you over 80 times the dose of your brick-walled apartment. A nuclear plant worker is allowed 10 times the dose from a medical X-ray scan per year. Still, the worker would have to receive double his maximum yearly dose to have a measurable increase in cancer risk – and 4 times that dose in a day to show any signs of radiation sickness.

[…] In comparison, other forms of energy have led to significant deaths and environmental risks. The burning of fossil fuels pumps greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Coal mines collapse, trapping and killing miners. Oil tankers and offshore derricks spill petroleum into the ocean. But these risks are more tolerated than nuclear concerns.  The difference lies in the fear of radiation.

Perhaps due to its invisibility, or its mysterious and often long-delayed effects, or perhaps as a relic of Cold War propaganda, the threat of radiation exposure provokes an irrational, emotional response. As a result, nuclear power is often held guilty until proven innocent.

[…] The risk is truly minuscule, especially when we consider the alternatives. As much as President Obama likes to talk about “renewable energy” and “green initiatives,” the reality is that there is no clean source that can provide energy nearly as inexpensively as our current sources. This means that a switch to entirely “green” sources, including wind, solar, and hydro, would cause the average American’s standard of living to drop by an order of magnitude. So, the viable alternatives to nuclear energy are limited to coal, oil, and natural gas. Each of these poses significantly more health and environmental dangers than nuclear.

I artikeln, ”The Enemies Of Nuclear Power”, säger Travis Norsen:

[…] Its safety record is also exemplary. In America today, the nuclear industry ranks among the safest places to work. It experiences only 0.34 accidents resulting in lost work time per 200,000 worker-hours, compared with a 3.1 average throughout private industry. While during the past 40 years, hundreds of thousands have died as a result, directly and indirectly, of coal mining and other means of energy production, there has not been a single fatality, or even a serious injury, resulting from the operation of civilian nuclear plants in the United States.

[…] The annual probability of radiation leakage for the newest reactors is estimated at less than one in a billion–a level of safety no other source of energy can even approach.

Why then is opposition to nuclear power so strong?

The loudest objection raised by the anti-nuclear groups is that there is “no safe level of radiation.” It is also the phoniest. The major sources of radiation are natural and ubiquitous: we are continuously bombarded with radiation from cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere and from naturally occurring radioactive elements in the earth. Compared with these background sources, the radiation from nuclear power plants is negligible.

[…] The average annual radiation dose received by Americans is 360 millirems (or “mrems”), about 300 of which come from naturally occurring sources like radon. By contrast, you would get only 0.01 mrems per year as a result of living 50 feet from a nuclear power plant. Even a single annual cross-country airplane flight exposes you to 3 mrems, while a medical X-ray gives you a dose of 20 mrems.

[…] They are against nuclear power, not on any sound scientific grounds, but for the same reason they consistently oppose logging and oil drilling and dam construction–because they want to reverse the progress we have made in conquering nature to serve man’s interests.

Ja, ni förstår ju att sån här nyansering av hur det verkligen förhåller sig med kärnkraft inte passar in i den Grönpolitiska propagandan, eller hur?

Så det är som vanligt med (grön-)vänstern och deras förhållande till siffror, statistik, fakta, vetenskap och verkligheten, de jobbar alla emot dem så det är därför de drivs till att berätta lögner för den del av befolkningen som de vet inte har kunskap att ifrågasätta deras politik, de är ju dessutom redan köpta via deras korrupta och resursförstörande bidragspolitik.

Den politik de driver måste förneka, relativisera och ljuga om verkliga förhållanden för att kunna få igenom sin politiks misantropiska ”endlösung” (alltså, konsekvenser de aldrig nånsin själva kan förmå sig att inse och givetvis än mindre erkänna). Det är en politik som strävar efter att hålla de fattiga i världen på sin fattigdomsmatta och använda dem som schackbönder i deras avskyvärda politiska spel för att vinna den politiska makten. Energipolitiken är bara en av deras spelstrategier för att nå detta slutmål.

För vidare läsning och kunskapsmässig förkovran:

The Enemies of Nuclear Power ( … the motives of it´s militant opponents)