cures for fibromyalgia

Hoping for a Nuclear Disaster

Is it Murdoc, or do some people seem to be almost hoping for a nuclear disaster at at least one of Japan’s earthquake/tsunami-damaged power plants?

The media, of course, is licking its collective lips over the possibility of an even-more-gripping story, but I wonder if those opposed to nuclear power or those in favor of more government regulation are quietly, maybe subconsciously, hoping that things go badly. Sort of like how gun control proponents seem to like it when someone uses a gun in a crime.

Maybe Murdoc’s just cynical and/or paranoid.

Don’t miss Nuclear Facts to Remember While Following Japan and Going bananas over radiation.

The Banana Equivalent Dose is something Murdoc has always liked and he wishes he could remember the numbers when radiation and public safety and regulation.

Via Instapundit, who also writes:

I’d say that members of Congress should take a time-out — and maybe, you know, pass a budget — before they start trying to pass new laws on nukes. They should also explain where the energy is going to come from if we can’t drill for oil, can’t burn coal, can’t dam streams, can’t put windmills where they might spoil a Kennedy’s view, and can’t build nukes. Vague allusions to “green power” don’t count.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Comments

  • GeekLethal says:

    A fizzing Japanese atomic reactor can’t do more damage to us than our own nuke tests have.

  • Bram says:

    Maybe they can explain where in the U.S. a reactor would be subject to a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami on the same day. Despite these twin disasters, nobody has been exposed to a dangerous level of radiation. And these are rather old designs!

    To anyone without his head crammed completely up his ass (this excludes Joe Lieberman apparently), this an great example of the relative safety of nuclear power.

  • Phelps says:

    Of course they are hoping for a catastrophic failure. If a 40 year old plant can get hit with a 9.0 earthquake, and then a 30 meter tsunami, and THEN a hydrogen explosion in the secondary containment, and still doesn’t have a problem… that pretty much proves that nuclear is safe.

  • Flanker says:

    No it’s not you Murdoc, the lefties, and greenie weeinies are hopping from foot to foot, over this, like an 8 year old who’s waited too long to pee. As a strong nucler power proponent of many years……..I would observe building your nuclear power plant in an earth quake, tsunami prone area (pretty much all of Japan) probably was doomed to some sort of serious incident eventually. Not really sure what the Japanese could have done insead though (considering when many of their plants were planned/built), they’ve sure saved a lot of power plant coal/oil/natural gas imports over the decades by going so strongly nuclear.

  • jaymaster says:

    I’m just worried about what has happened to Charlie Sheen.

    It’s like he fell off the face of the Earth…..

  • James says:

    Thousands dead, whole cities washed away, millions without power or shelter and the real risk are three reactors? Even if all three blowup in a runaway trinity of nuclear orgies, the effects are going to be a mere fraction of the true damage this quake causes. it’s like being trapped in a burning building and worrying about the lead paint.

  • Toejam says:

    All the “Save-the-Earth” wackos are currently spouting the “Nuclear power is dangerous and we told you so” mantra.

    And, of course, they’re using your taxpayer funded NPR to spread the terror!

  • Sam-hec says:

    Who?

    • Sam-hec says:

      Gaaah! meant to reply to the Harley Sheen thing. or whatever his name is.

      Anyway, enviro-wackos or not, Nukes put alot of eggs in one basket, one owned by the privileged few.

Comments Closed