dshelton_08

Thanks for doing this Michael, I’m not science literate so it’s difficult to find the line between fear-mongering and real science especially in the nuclear discussion.

That leads to my question, as a progressive concerned with climate change I'm in a minority that believes nuclear offers the best way forward. So it can be jarring to see progressive like Harvey Wasserman write that nuclear power facilities do contribute to climate change by 1) dumping water (either H20 used for cooling or by steam generated in the towers) that has been “irradiated” back into the environment above the temperature of the “natural environment” 2) Power plants emit Carbon-14 and finally 3) various forms of nuclear waste Wasserman lists.

Do you have a response to these claims?

(his article here: http://www.progressive.org/news/2016/09/188947/how-nuclear-power-causes-global-warming)

Thanks to you both. This is really helpful.

The left/progressive anti-nuclear faction tends to be hyperbolic it seems (not that the right isn't). If you had the time Fordiman, I'd love to see you tear apart the rest of Wasserman's article (and the countless others people like him make, but there's only so many hours in a day)

That's probably a great question to do some deeper research into haha!

I don't have a definite answer by any means, but I'd venture to guess that the resistance to Cold War/Mutual Assured Destruction/Vietnam War during the 60s poisoned the well regarding anything "nuclear." Then came nuclear events and the media hype around stuff like 3-mile Island. Plus groups like Greenpeace being hard-line against nuclear for the reason that it is a "danger to Earth and Humanity." So it's easy to "lift and shift" from nuclear weapons to nuclear facilities for the average person. However, I don't think this is just the left. The right has hyped up Fukushima just as much, if not more than, the left.

You've sparked my interest though and I'll look deeper into it!