Page 4 of 4

Re: Are Renewables Cheaper than Nuclear?

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:47 pm
by brimstoneSalad
@Jamie in Chile It's an interesting notion, but I think we need to stress climate change prevention rather that what may happen if everything goes to shit. Ultimately, nuclear meltdowns aren't that dangerous, and cases like Chernobyl can't really happen with modern plants even if left to melt down. Plus, consider the context of a population without iodine deficiency...

Re: Are Renewables Cheaper than Nuclear?

Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:11 pm
by Red
I forgot to respond to this.
teo123 wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:13 am 1. WHO is hardly a reliable source about matters that are somewhat related to politics. During the Cold War, WHO kept publishing statistics that supposedly showed that, for instance, Cuba had good health care.
Climate change is a science issue, not a political issue. The WHO has no interest in hearing the opinions of morons with no scientific credentials.

Of course they can make errors, but in a hard-science like this, I wouldn't count on that. And while I have heard of them praising the healthcare in Cuba, I'm not sure how they're defending that; they could mean that the system of healthcare in Cuba is good (they have a universal government run system).

If I were to guess it might be that the people who conducted the study were looking at statistics from under Castro's regime (which was during the Cold War), which may have fudged the numbers, and they took them in good faith.

I haven't done too much research, but hey, it might be better than other countries. I doubt it of course, but it's possible.
teo123 wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:13 am2. WHO isn't primarily concerned with environmental issues.
Of course it is! What the hell are you talking about?

The WHO is especially concerned with environmental issues that affect human health (like climate change). Have you ever listened to what the WHO puts out? They usually alert when a natural disaster is about to strike an area.
teo123 wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:13 am3. In what way is WHO an NGO?
I never said it was an NGO, but I'm not surprised you interpreted how I said it in that way.
teo123 wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:13 am4. Why would NGOs be reliable sources about those things? Greenpeace is an NGO, yet it keeps spreading anti-nuclear-energy and anti-GMO pseudoscience.
Oh yes, I forgot Greenpeace is representative of all NGOs out there.
teo123 wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:13 am5. Have you watched my video? Why do you think my arguments against global warming being catastrophic aren't good?
I did not watch your video.