One question I regularly keep asking here, who made us doubt nuclear. Are all green parties funded by Big oil.
I've posted this before in response to this conspiracy, but I have to ask. In the US, why do people think the environmental movement had anything to do with stopping nuclear?
The environmental movement, though hardly a monolithic group, was unable to stop the expansion of coal, fracking, offshore drilling, or so many pipelines from the fossil fuel industry over the past half century. It's clear when money was on the table, the fossil fuel industry won time and time again.
So if nuclear were such an attractive and cost-effective option, how was an entire industry, led by some of the biggest companies in the world, derailed by a movement that's never had much national political power?
The simpler answer to me is that it either
* building multi-billion dollar nuclear power plants is not as safe or cost effective as proponents make it out to be.
* actual powerful players like big gas and oil saw a threat and crushed it like every other big industry, through captured politicians crafting favorable regulation
All nuclear plants blowing up will be safer than amount of pollution we create in a day. We have to realize nothing is worse than the pollution.
I am not saying green groups are the driving force or promoting a conspiracy. its more of disappointment that green groups and oppose nuclear.
I did and it only made me lose a lot of respect for an author who wrote such classics as The Andromeda Strain, Timeline, and Jurassic Park.
He is (and was) neither of those things; Assange isn't a whistleblower, he is, at best, a conduit for information some of which might originate with whistleblowers; and Crichton was neither that nor a whistleblower, but a popular author who, as he gained the popularity to be granted relatively free rein by publishers, took increasingly to using his fiction increasingly as a partisan soapbox.
Like Tom Clancy, but starting as a better fiction writer and ending up worse, so the fall is much more pronounced.
For me it was the contrast between what I'm looking for in a SciFi book and what Crichton writes. I like SciFi that asks an interesting question and then tries to (speculatively) answer it. What would the world be like if <X> was different?
Crichton pretty clearly adopted a pattern of "OMG THIS TOPIC IS A DISASTER!!1!!1!! READ THIS THRILLER TO SEE THE DISASTER!!11!!". I exaggerate, but not by much. At some point each of his novels had a theme, and each theme was some well-written disaster porn. What if genetics goes awry (Jurassic Park)? What if nanotech goes awry? Etc, etc.
Which was sad for me - he was a good writer, and I enjoy reading his novels. It's just not what I'm looking for anymore.
That was the movie, not the book. The book was "What if profit-motivated biotech startups go awry." In the book Hammond is an unsympathetic greedy asshole who causes a disaster by cutting corners and evading regulators/oversight, all to get filthy rich. His reward is being devoured alive by petty scavenger dinosaurs at the very end of the book when everybody is is being rescued. The book is more a critique of capitalism than it is science. A critique of the commercialization of science.
Predictably, these themes were diminished for the Hollywood adaptation. Hammond becomes a naive manchild who loves dinosaurs and is more a victim than a villain.
I am a big believer in polluting less and using as much as you need. Live in small houses, use cooling only above 40 degree centigrade and heating below 0 degree. Walk more have less children.
How many have you looked at? Have you done studies to determine that "most of these people" haven't changed their lifestyles? Does it matter if activists change their lifestyles when considering the truth of whether or not climate change is happening? They're independent things, right?
not if the industry prevents you from knowing you are eating it
Ask yourself, who stood to lose a lot if nuclear power became successful?, and the question answers itself: coal.
Remember Kahneman and Tversky's research into human reasoning. Loss aversion is a far greater motivating force than hope of gain.
My guess is that is was closer to the latter than the former.
The decision-makers make the decisions.
Ah, but have you yet understood the propaganda in State of Fear?