Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(34,962 posts)
16. I really have no time or interest in learning about antinukes.
Tue May 16, 2023, 01:19 PM
May 2023

I know that like antivaxxers they hate and despise science and of course scientists, and of course that they don't give a shit about human life or about the closely related issue of climate change.

As a scientist I know the type. They became better known as a type during the Covid event, but I've been aware of this type for many decades in the form of antinukes.

In general, they imagine that if anyone any where at any time is exposed to radiation, a subject about which, given their contempt for science they know zero, it is therefore acceptable for hundreds of millions to die from fossil fuels, which they do continuously without stop as pointed out in the "stats," from the provided reference met with total indifference.

Of course I don't know the details of who these people are, and I really don't want to know more about them. They're generic, unintersting and useless.

I'm far more interested in the lives of ethical people who are trying to save what's left to save, and restore what can be restored.

It's always startling to hear from the preternaturally obsessive that I should be interested in their depressing lives. I'm not.

My position is that ignorance kills people, and say what one may about me, I care about human life.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Another serious cluster-F the world ignored. Irish_Dem May 2023 #1
I have never been able to understand why we build nuclear power plants next to the oceans. Lasher May 2023 #2
The San Onofre state beach has 3.6 million pounds of nuclear waste buried underneath it, a byproduct womanofthehills May 2023 #3
Shouldn't the release be reviewed by the IAEA or some other body with deep expertise? JudyM May 2023 #4
"saying it's an unavoidable step" - no, just the less expensive step NullTuples May 2023 #5
So, expect massive marine animal kills there Bayard May 2023 #6
There won't be marine animal kills from this release NickB79 May 2023 #7
It will probably be beneficial to marine life if it discourages fishing. hunter May 2023 #17
How come nobody ever visits a coal plant before it releases stuff that's actually harmful? NNadir May 2023 #8
We are basically screwed- even our own military is a huge polluter womanofthehills May 2023 #15
Whatever happened to the Fukushima Unit 3 plutonium? Kid Berwyn May 2023 #9
It wiped out the planet. Everybody on Earth died. Thank God that our antinukes were right... NNadir May 2023 #11
So, no answer about plutonium. Why so condescending? Kid Berwyn May 2023 #12
I really have no time whatsoever to brook a conversation about... NNadir May 2023 #13
Still zip on plutonium. Thanks on the stats! Kid Berwyn May 2023 #14
I really have no time or interest in learning about antinukes. NNadir May 2023 #16
How much plutonium does it take to overdose a person? Kid Berwyn May 2023 #20
I used to be an anti-nuclear activist, and a radical one at that. hunter May 2023 #18
Tsunami was horrific. So is an atmosphere contaminated with radioactive dust. Kid Berwyn May 2023 #22
I don't automatically respect anyone's religious views. hunter May 2023 #23
Corporate media seldom mention plutonium or Karen Silkwood. Kid Berwyn May 2023 #24
Either slagged in the bottom of the reactor, or washed out to sea NickB79 May 2023 #19
And to the four winds. Kid Berwyn May 2023 #21
We've scattered 3.5 tons of plutonium across the planet from 1945-1990 NickB79 May 2023 #25
iijio Martinez8889 May 2023 #10
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Japan, South Korea agree ...»Reply #16