Then they fight you . . .

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi


After this blog url was released by KVUE Austin in connection to an interview they did with us, a pro-nuke comment was made on my "A reflection of purpose" post. I find such a comment made on that particular post to be insensitive and disrespectful to those currently struggling back in Japan, like my friend I spoke about in that post. 

Accordingly, I am deleting that comment from its current location and responding to the full comment (presented in its entirety, but broken out for easy response) in this post.

Here is my response:


First off let me say I am impressed with how most Japanese citizens overcome disaster both by nature and man.
We are most able to overcome those disasters from nature, and most bitter of the  cruel disasters caused by man (e.g. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and now Fukushima . . .). Furthermore, I find your comment inappropriate here as it is far too soon to even mention overcoming the ongoing Fukushima crisis. People are currently suffering from this disaster as I type this post.

In the US there're no deaths directly related to nuclear power plant radiation. 
Can you please supply the research done to support this statement? That seems like a very strong statement. For instance, I was unaware that we knew every cause for every occurrence of cancer in the U.S. and, which would be required in order to be able to state that no deaths have ever been caused by nuclear power related activities in the U.S. It is astounding if we are that technologically advanced to prove this statement you are making. Please provide evidence that your statement has, indeed, been proven.

In Japan two people died in the Tokaimura accident and no one died from radiation at Fukushi.
It is spelled  "Fukushima" (you might as well at least learn the proper name of the place you are about to misrepresent) and, again, to have a meaningful discussion, you need to provide actual sources supporting your statements or be more concise on exactly what you are trying to state. The current limitation on our ability to actually assess the impact of radioactive contamination does not mean no such impact exists. There was a time when the impacts of tobacco and asbestos were also not fully understood. That does not mean, even back then, that tobacco and asbestos were not hurting and killing people.

At Chernobyl the IAEA and WHO attributed 56 direct deaths and estimated that there may be 4,000 more cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 highly exposed people. 
Implying that a WHO report about the impact of radiation is some how separate from the IAEA is misleading. Since 1959, the IAEA has been given authority over everything the WHO publishes about radiation health impacts. No other health related reports from the WHO require such oversight from a separate body. The IAEA was formed to "accelerate and enlarge the contribution  of atomic energy." There are studies that put the death toll at closer to a million, by a group of people whose mission happens NOT to be "accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy." Guess which one I tend to trust more?

Japan did a wonderful job of rebuilding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they are two very robust cities today. 
That is an interesting statement . . . I have a very close friend from Hiroshima. Let me ask her if she is thankful for the bombing so that Japan could rebuild it into a very robust city. And I suppose all that suffering that all those people went through was negligible because the overall city did not cease to exist. Those Japanese should just shut-up and take Fukushima like they did Hiroshima and Nagasaki, right? Furthermore, why not compare apples with apples? How robust do you consider the city of Prypiat to be these days?

Candles kill more than nuclear power plant radiation.
Again, this is my site, so I think I can set the standards for scientific fact. Proof please . . . Frivolous, unsupported statements will be treated as such here. "The sky is purple." See, anyone can make such statement, but it does little to advance public discourse on the matter, now does it?

Nuclear power has a very strong safety record, 
Really, I have yet had to evacuate due to any other power sources yet. Perhaps you could provide some credible supporting evidence that includes the ongoing Fukushima accident? And what a place to champion the safety of
nuclear power (especially considering where you had originally posted your comment). . . Do you champion the safety of air travel at the funerals of plane crash victims, as well? Do you think anyone in Japan believes such a statement when over 10% of their reactors have had catastrophic failure and now risk the very existence of its largest city?

what power source would you use to replace it? 
Hmm . . . after losing my home and livelihood, little over a year ago, I would have to say ANYTHING. Especially in earthquake prone areas like Japan. In fact, I have heard people impacted by Fukushima say that they would have been better off completely without electricity than with nuclear power. How is that for the "power source of the future" for you? And don't pretend nuclear power needs much replacing at a mere 13% world share. Yes, 60 years of effort and BILLIONS  invested in this technology, and most of the power it generates could be negated by just a little smarter use of electricity. If Japan (an already very power efficient nation) can go from over 30% to less than 1% nuclear in less than a year, I really think the rest of the world will have little issue.

Should the automobile be condemned because more than 40K are killed by them each year?
Hmm . . . how is an automobile different from a nuclear reactor . . .

• No one is claiming the automobile is completely safe (and in inappropriate forums).
• Individuals, themselves, do have some degree of control over automobile safety.
• Individuals have the choice whether or not to use an automobile.
• Automobiles do not blow-up when the power goes out.
• Automobiles do not cause large areas of land to become uninhabitable for thousands of years.
• Automobiles are usually not operated for 60 years at a time.
• Automobiles do not leave behind waste that must be safely stored for thousands of years.
• Automobiles do not require government subsidies to build (unless you are GM).
• Automobiles require liability insurance so that if you cause damages to someone else, that individual will be compensated.
• The automobile industry is extremely competitive which results in higher industry transparency and less regulator capture.

You know, I probably could think of a million more reasons why cars are different than nuclear reactors, which probably just means your analogy is not very good. Why don't we just leave it at that.

Green energy doesn’t fair well at all when compared to nuclear
Again, either provide support for your statement or limit its scope. What do you mean by "fair well?" If you are in Texas with extended droughts, I would think solar would fair much better than a water hogging nuclear plant. How cheap is nuclear power when you have to pay for the water? Oh, if you are about to say "base loading," nuclear is a horrible base loading technology for renewable sources (like wind, which Texas gets more of its electricity from than nuclear), which require sources capable of a wide range of electrical output (like natural gas, another thing Texas is more abundant in than water). 

In conclusion, just because you think nuclear is superior compared to everything else and in all situations, does not make it so. In fact, NO technology is 100% appropriate EVERYWHERE, so your underlying argument seems more like theology than something that can actually be debated. 

However, I am all for open debate, so I do invite you to respond. However, there are going to be some ground rules.

First, please provide us an introduction of yourself. From the blog, you already know a lot about me, my husband, and son. You know our real names, what we look like, what city we live in, etc. . . I know nothing about you. That is not a very level playing field for a debate, now is it? If you want to continue with this discussion, please first provide relatively the same amount of information we have already provided you. Please include your reason for being interested in this matter and specifically why you are interested in the ongoing disaster in Fukushima.

You chose this very personal forum to start this debate and began it in a very inappropriate post (Exactly one year after 311: A reflection of purpose). Now is the time for you to unveil yourself so that we can discuss this fairly and openly. I hope you do have the courage to finish what you have started.

In fact, I invite the entire pro-nuke industry to come here to debate with me, on the condition that you do so openly and let us know the same level of information we have already let you know. I have nothing to hide. I care about this issue dearly because I have people I care very strongly for that are currently living in a perilous situation. I want to help them, and I think the nuclear industry is creating an economic incentive for the Japanese government to minimize the issue and not provide those people the level of protection they deserve.