What are the principled objections you hear [to nuclear power], anyway?
...
Jordan covered the typical objections here:
<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100329/004946.html>
Additionally, there are the eco-romantic objections raised by some friends -- either 1970s movement vets or younger people spell-caught by hauntological nostalgia for activist times they never experienced. These decry a large-scale technology which, according to this POV, stands as the iconic symbol of our supposed alienation from Nature.
(Never mind the naturally occurring, life sustaining fusion reaction approx. 93 million miles distant or, closer to home -- or actually, within 'home' itself -- natural fission reactors -- <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor> )
Jordan's list includes most of the serious, practical problems I have with nuclear power under capitalism (i.e., for the foreseeable future). I tend to agree with people who build their arguments on such solid foundations.
My real argument is with people who insist that the nuclear idea itself is, in some vague sense, spiritually unsound and something we should never pursue (regardless of future social and economic arrangements).
Andy also asked:
I know you (Dwayne) take [climate change] seriously, so I'm curious what you've found compelling by [Garth Paltridge].
...
There are large parts of Paltridge's argument as presented in the unfortunately named _Climate Caper_ (which is just an awful title...did a 6th grader think of it?) that I strongly disagree with.
Nevertheless, I think that Paltridge is on his game when he asks serious questions about the accuracy of climate model predictions *as applied to local area effects*. Even James Lovelock -- surely no denialist -- has recommended that Paltridge's work in the *specific area* of de-constructing our assumptions about distributed, climate change impacts be taken seriously.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock>
.d.