Heritage Foundation Paper Debunks Myths About Nuclear Energy

[kristopher]

Heritage Foundation Paper Debunks Myths About Nuclear Energy

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., has published a new backgrounder by Jack Spencer and Nick Loris. The backgrounder, titled "Dispelling Myths About Nuclear Energy," is available on The Heritage Foundation's web site.

In the backgrounder, the Heritage authors argue that nuclear power is safe and affordable and not damaging to the environment. Nuclear power can reduce the dependence of the United States on foreign energy, the authors say, and they offer in the backgrounder several myths, and their responses, about nuclear energy.

The first myth, Heritage says, is that nuclear energy increases global warming. In response, the authors write that nuclear power generation facilities produce virtually no atmospheric emissions and conversion to nuclear power will reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Second, according to the backgrounder, is the myth that nuclear waste is a problem for which there is no solution. Heritage says that the nuclear waste problem was resolved some time ago with interim or long-term storage facilities. Further, Heritage argues, reprocessing or recycling waste would reduce reliance on storage facilities and proved a more varied solution.

The third myth is that nuclear energy puts dangerous levels of radiation into the atmosphere, which the authors respond to by saying that the emitted levels of radiation are environmentally insignificant and are below the limit set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The fourth myth is that nuclear reactors are susceptible to attacks by terrorists. To counter this myth, the authors say that nuclear reactors are designed to survive impact attacks and that security has been improved by the Nuclear Regulator Commission. ...

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/469507/heritage_foundation_paper_debunks_myths.html?cat=15

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. The nightmare scenario for Big Energy is ...

the emergence of local, safe, renewable energy production. It is critical for the industry to do everything possible to draw funding from research and development of non-nuclear, non-fossil fuel energy. The worst scenario for big energy is the emergence of technologies that would enable individuals or communities to generate their own power from solar, wind etc.

[Zenlitened]

9. Exactly. - n/t

:thumbsup:

[Cleita]

2. The Heritage Foundation?

The same people who brought us Richard Mellon Sciafe and the Swiftboaters?

Thanks but no thanks for the RW myths about nuclear power. I'll pass. The energy giants are scared to death of alternative power that will put them out of business. I say good riddance.

[kristopher]

4. I hope I made that point clearly

...by including the second link.

[Cleita]

5. You did for me, but it was a little vague and not everyone will

pick up on it, hence my post.

[stopbush]

3. Strawman arguments.

Especially #3. Radiation is only a problem when something happens to a nuke plant that is outside of its normal operation, like an explosion (Cheyrnoble) or a near melt down (3-Mile Island). Then, there's always the feared terrorist attack on a nuke plant.

In short, nuke plants are just as safe as nuke weapons, as long as they remain safe.

Of course, the bigger issue is that these concerns don't attend to other forms of energy. An accident at or a deliberate attack upon a hydro-electric plant or a coal-fired electric plant or a wind machine or a solar panel or any other form of energy-generating plant doesn't have the potential for wide-spread disaster as does a nuke plant. Yes, people will lose power for a length of time, but there won't be a cloud of deadly radiation hanging over the immediate vicinity for decades. There won't be birth defects and elevated death rates because a solar panel went bad.

[Statistical]

7. "An accident at or a deliberate attack upon a hydro-electric plant or a coal-fired electric plant"

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province,<5> in the province, approximately 26,000 people died from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. ... It has been reported that around 90,000 - 230,000 people were killed as a result of the dam breaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining#China
An estimated 5 million people work in China's coal-mining industry. As many as 20,000 miners die in accidents each year.

West Virginia Coal Mine Disaster: Funerals Begin as Hope Dwindles
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/west-virginia-mine-disaster-funerals-begin-hope-dwindles/story?id=10334920
29 miners killed in coal mine explosion

[stopbush]

10. Apples and oranges.

Why are you comparing deaths in coal MINES to deaths that might occur from the destruction of a coal-fired ELECTRIC PLANT? You may as well compare the number of accidental deaths in auto plants to the number of accidental deaths related to driving cars on the streets.

How many people are killed every year mining nuke fuel? I don't know. Do you?

[Statistical]

13. So where does the coal come from?

Oh yeah it has to be mined. What matters is the entire lifecycle for energy.
Unless God starts raining down magic coal right into the coal plant boiler the cost (both in environmental damage and lost lives) of mining must be included.

Also one of the largest energy disaster in the history of the world was a hydro plant that burst. Guess you didn't happen to notice that.

[stopbush]

16. So where does gasoline come from?

Might as well blame the oil well and refinery operators for traffic deaths as they are involved in the "life cycle of energy" that leads to tens of thousands of deaths on US roads every year.

[Statistical]

17. Well if you really think that well you can't be helped.

That obivously isn't true however the reverse is true.

Car culture in the US is directly responsible for the deaths related to oil industry (including wars & occupations).

I notice you still haven't touched one the fact that the largest energy disaster in the history of mankind was a hydro project. Kinda totally blows you claim that when hydro fails nobody is hurt out of the water.

[kristopher]

18. Chernobyl

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former.

Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations.

Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination.

Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[Statistical]

19. BS. Every respectiable international organization disagrees with that assesment by a magnitude. n/t

[kristopher]

22. No they don't.

This is the latest data available.

[Confusious]

24. Why don't you give the number of Americans

Who have died from American nuclear commercial reactors. Or french?

[stopbush]

20. You're moving the goal posts to make your point.

I said a hydro electric PLANT. You say a hydro PROJECT. They aren't the same thing. The dams in China would have given way during that 1975 tsunami regardless of whether hydro power generation were part of the dam project. Just like the levees in NorCal could easily give way and kill tons of people. You do realize, don't you, that hundreds of dams exist and are constructed without any hydro power being generated?

My point was that if you look at energy PLANTS, an attack against a nuke plant holds the potential for greater disaster than does an attack against any other form of energy generating plant.

BTW - I also qualified my statement by saying "accident" and "terrorist" attack. A tsunami isn't either of those. It's a natural disaster.

Try reading what I wrote next time, rather than what you imagined I wrote and you'll save yourself some embarrassment. At present, you're arguing against something I didn't say.

[Statistical]

21. Those damns were built for sole purpose of provided power.

If you want to pick nits then fine change the wording to hydro PLANT.

The hydro PLANT was built to provide electrical power. Building the PLANT flooded dozens of towns. It wasn't built to manage water it was built to provide electrical power.

"My point was that if you look at energy PLANTS, an attack against a nuke plant holds the potential for greater disaster than does an attack against any other form of energy generating plant."

Who cares? Dead is dead. Those people wouldn't be dead if there was no hydro plant there.

Be honest you had no idea so many people have been killed by hydro electric power have you? That disaster while the worst isn't an isolated incident. Total deaths from hydro electric power is shocking. Of course it is "water" and water isn't scary like atoms so it must be safe right?

[kristopher]

23. But the dead at Chernobyl don't count...

[Statistical]

29. Of course they do.

However by legitimate studies (including WHO) the number of casualties was 58 direct and 4000 indirect (via increased risk of cancer).

4058 is a tiny fraction of the quarter million killed from this single hydro electric power plant.

[kristopher]

31. Again, those studies are outdated.

I hope the spirits of those who you deny visit your dreams in force.

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

What part of that do you not understand?

[Statistical]

33. I will trust the UNSCEAR, IAEA & WHO over the claims of a nobody author.

WHO revisted the issue in 2006 and stood by their original conclusions.

58 people died at Chernobyl. The incidents of cancer (over expected cancer rate) resulted in another 4000 deaths. 4058 not millions and millions like this nobody claims.

There are lots of papers denouncing the IPCC findings. Do you take all those as gospel?

I will take word of international body of scientists. Let me know if UNSCEAR, WHO, or IAEA update their estimates.

[kristopher]

35. Really?

Considering the known problems that are associated with gathering information on state sponsored nuclear (is there any other kind) anything, it isn't surprising that the picture changes as previously missing data is supplanted by gathered data from other sources. My god man, don't you think you've just about worn that type of horseshit out?

There is no one but you disputing this study which was published in the "Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences"

The New York Academy of Sciences is the third oldest scientific society in the United States. An independent, non-profit organization with more than 25,000 members in 140 countries, the Academy’s mission is to advance understanding of science and technology. It identifies and promotes scientific advances across disciplines and professional and geographic boundaries, and builds bridges and synergies between institutions and individuals. It helps to expand scientific knowledge by convening leading experts in meetings, seminars, and interdisciplinary conferences, and by disseminating information through both print and electronic media. The current president of the Academy is John Sexton, President of New York University....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Academy_of_Sciences



The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences is one of the oldest scientific journals in the United States and among the most cited of multidisciplinary scientific serials. Continuously published since 1823, the Annals is the premier publication of the Academy, offering the proceedings of conferences sponsored by the NYAS as well as those of other scientific organizations.
With 32 volumes published annually, the Annals provides multidisciplinary perspectives on research of current scientific interest with far-reaching implications for the wider scientific community and society at large. The Annals' scope, although primarily focused on biomedicals areas...
http://www.ovid.com/site/catalog/Journal/569.jsp

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct.

Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl.

Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent.

Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies. In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former.

Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations.

Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination.

Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[joshcryer]

36. "There are lots of papers denouncing the IPCC findings. Do you take all those as gospel?"

It would seem as though this person is easily persuaded by such reports, yes.

[stopbush]

26. "Killed by hydro electric power"? Again, that's a non sequitor.

And, yes, I knew all about the tragedy in China. It was a big topic at my university in those days.

And I'm hardly picking nits, while you look to be picking a fight.

[Statistical]

28. Not looking for a fight just pointing our your outright lie about safety of hydro electric power.

I assumes it was due to lack of knowledge most people assume hydro electric power is safe. It is just water right however if you really did discuss it in university then you are aware how many people have died from "safe" hydro electric power. Having knowledge and then making false claim is far worse.

Trying to separate the damn (built to generate hydro electric power) from the actual hydro electric power is weak.

By that logic we should build more coal plants. Coal PLANTS have actually every killed someone it is the burning of coal in the coal plant that has killed people.
So coal plants (minus the coal) are actually very safe.

China damned rivers to generate electrical power. Those dams broke and quarter million people died. It is the single largest loss of life in history of electrical power. To pretend otherwise is simply dishonest.

[kristopher]

30. Only if you ignore those that died from Chernobyl.

I don't know what is worse, the fatalities from the accident, or willfully pretending those who died don't exist.

[stopbush]

32. You wrote:

"China damned rivers to generate electrical power. Those dams broke and quarter million people died. It is the single largest loss of life in history of electrical power. To pretend otherwise is simply dishonest."

Might I suggest that citing an incident that happened 30 years ago in China as comparison for power usage in the modern world is a bit of a stretch? Besides, Greenpeace estimated that the Chernobyl disaster caused 250,000 cancers that had resulted in 93,000 deaths by 2006. That nuke accident has a death toll that is on pace with the tsunami deaths in China.

[Statistical]

34. Greenpeace (who has a stated goal of ending all nuclear power) is your objective source?

Really?

How about World Heatlth Organization you know the UN body commissioned to study the disaster. Conclusion was that it resulted in 58 direct deaths and 4000 indirect deaths.

Also you state a disaster 30 years ago in China is not appropriate to comparison on modern power however a disaster in Soviet union using a design that is prohibited in the western world 24 years ago is? That doesn't seem to be a disconnect to you?

The Soviets used a graphite moderated RBMK design that has a positive void coefficient of fission (positive feedback loop when overheating) and no containment structure. That is you comparison? Really?

30 years is ancient history however an accident 24 years ago on an obsolete and dangerous reactor design in Soviet Union is "recent" and "modern".



Of course this in on an unstable positive void, Soviet design without a containment structure. Hardly indicative of the risk to Western PWR designs.

Still you must be knew to this "game". Check Kris he goes right to the most unbelievable source. Why claim tens of thousands of deaths when you can quote the study he does and claims hundreds of thousands.

[Nihil]

38. *cough*

> My point was that if you look at energy PLANTS, an attack against
> a nuke plant holds the potential for greater disaster than does
> an attack against any other form of energy generating plant.

Operation Chastise anyone?

:shrug:

[kristopher]

6. Just to be clear.

Heritage Foundation is a right wing think tank established to promote RW ideology; it has no interest in truth. It is well funded by the petroleum industry among others and it embraces these positions:

Nuclear energy is good.
Renewable energy is a waste of time.
Renewable energy subsidies are a waste of money.
Nuclear subsidies do not go far enough.
Climate change is a hoax.
Nuclear energy should be used to address climate change.

[Statistical]

8. It's called a logical fallacy

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

Poisoning the well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person.

Before Class:
Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist."
Jill: "Yeah."

During Class:
Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America."

After Class:
Bill: "See what I mean?"
Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn't."

[bananas]

11. Yes, kristopher is trying to discredit the Heritage Foundation

especially by including that link to sourcewatch!
:rofl:

[Statistical]

12. No your brain is a logical fallacy if you couldn't follow that.

He is trying to discredit all positive claims about nuclear energy by saying that since a "poisoned well" (Heritage foundation) makes those claims they can't be true.

Similar to this "logic":
My neighbor voted for Bush.
My neighbor says we put a man on the moon.
We all know Bush voters are stupid/liars therefore we must not have landed on the moon.

If I tried to tell you we landed on the moon you would say "Liar. A Bush voter said we landed on the moon so it must not be true".


Try reading again:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

[Kolesar]

14. No, he (kristopher ) is not

However, the excerpt in the Heritage document needs some scrutiny. I was not aware that the waste storage issue has been solved.

[Confusious]

25. Yes he is

It's what he always does.

[joshcryer]

37. No, kristopher is trying to malign many regulars on this forum.

We don't deserve it because we aren't deluded about nuclear power.

[bananas]

15. Yes, right-wing ideology is full of logical fallacies

"Climate change is a hoax.
Nuclear energy should be used to address climate change."
:rofl:

[Confusious]

27. Just to be clear

poor thinking is a sign of a right-wing mind.

Equating something like nuclear power = right wing

is like saying eating = right wing ( They do it too, so you must be one of them )

You're either with us or against us.

Right wing much?