UPDATED: ACM Graphic: Understanding nuclear power

Seems to be summed up thus:

Confusion reigns

UPDATE: The Sydney Morning Herald beat me to the link between these events:

“Sixty years ago, my father was in the Royal Australian Navy. The ships he sailed on took him to the Korean War and to Japan, when Australia was part of the occupation force after the bombs ended the war in the Pacific.

He saw what was left of Hiroshima after nuclear power was rained upon it. My father remembers the flattened countryside. When he reads some commentators say that the nuclear threat to Japan and beyond from the stricken reactors is a media beat-up, he gets annoyed. He has seen nuclear power in its destructive guise. To downgrade its threat – even in peacetime – is to him idiocy.” (source)


  1. I can see where the idiocy is.. it’s at the SMH

  2. SOYLENT GREEN says:

    Current rate of emission 1 uSV / hour. That’s twice as much as standing next to someone.
    See the chart below from C3 Headlines, who’ve done yeoman’s work dispelling the Nuclear Apocalypse drummed up by the Mad Max Media.


  3. Laurie Williams says:

    Brown is the result of mixing red and green.

    If I referred to Julia as Mrs Brown would people understand the historical significance?

    • Big call, that one.
      People would need to understand a bit of history.
      History is a big no-no in a post-carbon world.

    • …and it does bring the gorge up a bit to think of Bob Brown in regal terms…

      • ..on second thoughts, that would make Brown “the Queen”, so maybe it would work after all. Who gets to be on top, I wonder?

  4. Yeah — well — they both end in “SHIMA”.
    Where’s the problem?
    In a post-carbon world, that’s a smart as you need to be.

  5. Somehow the hippies never figured out that the military will make bombs regardless of whether there are power plants. DERP DERP DERP

  6. The two technologies (nuclear power and nuclear weapons) are about as different from each other as any two technologies can possibly get.

    To equate the generation of nuclear power with the destructive side-effects of nuclear weapons, is like trying to argue that a refrigerator is the same as a toaster because they both run on electricity, and so therefore my refrigerator should be able to toast bread.

    • I know that and you know that, but a huge proportion of the public are superstitious about “nuclear” power because it is something “scary” they don’t understand.

%d bloggers like this: