Nuclear protests
Thought this was pretty interesting events going on over in Britain. Prime Minister Blair was making a speech on energy (as well as many other topics) and he was interrupted by greenpeace protesters. Its intersting to me for 2 reasons.
The first is that nuclear power is being looked at a potential energy source for the futrue. Now, even as a fan of nuclear power, I admit that there are alot of concerns with it. The storage of nuclear waste, the security of the plants and i am sure there are a few more as well. Containment really isn't a problem as it used to be given the amount of development that went into failsafe measures after 3-mile island, during which the failsafes did work but they were massively beefed up anyway. Its a very intersting subject to me so over the next few months i really wanna see how it plays out.
The second is the protesting that happened. Pretty much it encourages my belief against greenpeace and these protesting. The main problem i have here is that they do not encourage debate at all but want to silence other people against their collective position. The speech didn't advocate switching to nuclear power or lay it out as a future plan but it did initiate a dialogue about it. There is no argument that the coal plants being used are not a sustainable option. It also presented renewable energy as the preferable option but logistical and practical reasons make it impossible to make up the energy shortfall. Instead of bringing up a debate or putting out reasons for why nuclear power is bad, they simply disrupted a speech. Their answer is to silence debate and attempt to keep silence the stance for nuclear power. Why would they have to do that if nuclear power is as bad as they say, it would come out in a debate?
BBC
The first is that nuclear power is being looked at a potential energy source for the futrue. Now, even as a fan of nuclear power, I admit that there are alot of concerns with it. The storage of nuclear waste, the security of the plants and i am sure there are a few more as well. Containment really isn't a problem as it used to be given the amount of development that went into failsafe measures after 3-mile island, during which the failsafes did work but they were massively beefed up anyway. Its a very intersting subject to me so over the next few months i really wanna see how it plays out.
The second is the protesting that happened. Pretty much it encourages my belief against greenpeace and these protesting. The main problem i have here is that they do not encourage debate at all but want to silence other people against their collective position. The speech didn't advocate switching to nuclear power or lay it out as a future plan but it did initiate a dialogue about it. There is no argument that the coal plants being used are not a sustainable option. It also presented renewable energy as the preferable option but logistical and practical reasons make it impossible to make up the energy shortfall. Instead of bringing up a debate or putting out reasons for why nuclear power is bad, they simply disrupted a speech. Their answer is to silence debate and attempt to keep silence the stance for nuclear power. Why would they have to do that if nuclear power is as bad as they say, it would come out in a debate?
BBC
posted by Maddawg at 11/29/2005 02:07:00 PM
2 Comments:
Howdy Chris, greetings right back from the US!
This is a good post. There generally isn't a logical debate with these groups. They just shout you down until you are supposed give up.
Post a Comment
<< Home