Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

3

jhasse wrote

we should only use nuclear when all those other clean methods aren't feasible

There's another alternative: Don't produce more power.

If you're anti-GMO, though, you most certainly are anti-science.

Why? It's also quite a political topic, regarding patents etc.

2

sudo wrote

There's another alternative: Don't produce more power.

But we will have to, at some point, dismantle the old fossil fuel power plants. If we don't replace them with something else, then everyone in that region will go without electricity. That will mean no refrigeration for food, no electricity to power the life-saving machinery in hospitals, no traffic signals, telephones, computers, or any other thing you can think of. If that power can be produced with solar panels or windmills, excellent. If no other form of clean energy is feasible for that region, then nuclear power will work.

Why? It's also quite a political topic, regarding patents etc.

Then say you are anti-patent, or anti-DRM (or whatever its equivalent for genetic engineering is called). If I told you I hated coffee, but I really meant that I only hated coffee mixed with cream because I'm lactose intolerant, then I would be responsible for the misunderstanding. Anti-GMO means someone is against GMOs as a whole.

2

jhasse wrote

If we don't replace them with something else, then everyone in that region will go without electricity.

Actually if we remove nuclear power plants, the first thing to happen will be that electricity prices will go up. That will result in consumption going down. Maybe enough so that we can go without nuclear power plants.

or whatever its equivalent for genetic engineering is called

That's the thing: I don't know a term for this, that's why I would say I'm "anti-GMO". But I get what you mean :)