Temple of the Anti-Hippies
Because they hate them both. They hate nuclear power because they are still stuck in the 1960’s “Nuclear Power No Thanks” bumper-sticker mentality, despite the fact that technology has advanced to the point that nuclear is the cleanest and safest form of electricity generation. And they hate “carbon pollution”, in fact harmless carbon dioxide, because they’re saving the planet. But which is worse? This is the dilemma facing the ecotards.
Now the Japanese earthquake has reignited their hatred of nuclear power because of possible incidents at a couple of nuclear facilities. So the logic goes like this: you build a nuclear power station on an active fault; everyone is surprised when the fault ruptures and damages the station; therefore, nuclear power should be abandoned everywhere. Capisce?
The BBC is flying the flag for the hippies as usual:
However, possible implications outside Japan are already beginning to emerge.
In Germany, scene of a big anti-nuclear protest on Saturday, Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen suggested that safety systems at nuclear plants would be analysed anew in the light of the Fukushima incident.
“This happened in a country with very high safety standards… the fundamental question of whether we can guard against all dangers is now open again, and we will address that question,” he said.
In the UK, the Stop Hinckley pressure group has called for a halt to a proposed new reactor at Hinckley Point in southwest England, on safety grounds.
Environment groups are beginning to feature Fukushima in their energy communications – and whatever actually happens at the site, it is likely to become a major card in campaigns to promote renewable energy above nuclear. (source)
Because obviously we could switch off all our nuclear plants tomorrow and rely on farts and sunbeams.
But as James Delingpole points out:
I’m grateful to “David” – a reader at Watts Up With That – for putting this into perspective: in the last decade the wind farm industry, it turns out, has killed far more people for far less electricity produced than the nuclear industry
Nuclear fatalities in the last ten years: 7
Wind farm fatalities [PDF] in the last ten years: 44.
In those ten years nuclear provided thirty times the energy of wind. This means in the last decade, nuclear has been around 200 times safer than wind on an energy produced/accidents basis. (source)
Australian Climate Madness 
Hippies probably don’t vote, so does it matter what they think?!!!
The Titanic killed 1500 people in one night. Yet nobody called for the abandonment of the shipping industry.
The recent coal mining accident in New Zealand was far more tragic than this event.
People need to get some perspective. No energy source is risk-free.
When all the dust settles and the amount of radiation released is found to be minor, this could actually be a poster child for nuclear safety. Here a plant was hit with an earthquake and a tsunami, both bigger than the design parameters expected, and it looks like successfully being resolved with no loss of life from radiation. Just an expensive junk pile that will need to be decomissioned and taken away.
Don’t forget brc cars kill 100,000 people a year and no one wants them banned. Sorry the hippies do.:-)
We all know, this has NEVER been about facts……but a twisted anthrophobic, green socialist ideology.
There is no dilemma for the Geenie, the answer is simple: Neither.
“We ought to be using solar and wind!” they squawk.
When the lights go out, I wonder if it will finally dawn on them what they’ve done?
The hippies don’t want anyone to have any kind of energy at all.They want us all to die with just them to remain as custodians of the planet.
No, that’s not quite right is it rukidding?
They do encourage the use of “cosmic energy” – which might help “the concept of the strong Gaia becoming physically manifest” a la Tim Flannery…
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/gaia_is_risen/