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

(38,492 posts)
3. I have my own criteria for defining what an antinuke is and is not.
Wed Apr 22, 2026, 02:04 PM
Apr 22

One criterion involves selective attention.

Another is, well, carrying on about Chornobyl and Fukushima, both of which are trivial events on the scale of the collapse of the planetary atmosphere or even on the scale of the less discussed 1976 Banqiao serial dam failure event.

Fukushima is interesting in this regard, since around 20,000 people died from seawater and collapsed buildings and it's difficult to say if anyone died from radiation exposure. Nevertheless we never hear concerns about the safety of living in coastal cities in an Earthquake zone, something much worsened by the climate disaster well underway but we hear all the time about nuclear safety.

I don't credit self reporting. The Orange Pedophile in the White House says he's a very stable genius. I obviously judge how I view him based on his actual actions and words.

I define antinukes based on their words and actions. I know an antinuke when I see one.

I of course expect lots of selective attention in the coming weeks about Chornobyl, very little about the ongoing death toll associated with combustion of coal in Germany. It was the German response to Fukushima and Chornobyl that lead to the German decision to kill people by running coal plants because they shut their nuclear plants.

Antinukes and "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes will be carrying on for quite some time this year, about Chornobyl, a major paroxysm, of their selective attention. The media will go crazy with it.

Here at DU we'll hear all about it, usually couched in appalling nonsense saying we don't "need" nuclear energy because the unreliable and unsustainable mass and land intensive so called "renewable" solar and wind are so great, coupled with illiterate "percent talk." There will be no corresponding effort to prove we don't need fossil fuels.

By the way is there an impetus in the Chornobyl hype industry to show evocative photographs of the waste lands of wildfire residue all over the world because we have never used nuclear energy to its full potential?

Enquiring minds want to know.

As for "truth" it is true while we talk all about Chornobyl the planet is burning all over the place from climatic extremes.

All the hydrogen bullshit, all the battery bullshit, all the bulldozed wilderness for so called "renewable energy" industrial plants and the vast mining pits to create them has done nothing to prevent this.

That's a "truth" I accept.

Have a wonderful afternoon.


Recommendations

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

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»PHOTO ESSAY: AP photograp...»Reply #3