@janic
. But do you know, in the history of mankind, a technical progress that did not first serve wars? Me, I do not know, since the discovery of bronze (and even before); that's enough to disqualify wars and military, but not science or technology.
Unfortunately you say true, but it ended up becoming the justification for a regrettable situation considering that it is the only solution to remember.
On the WHO Chernobyl study
You obviously do not know the methods used in epidemiology and public health studies. No one is restricted to the personal situations of individuals, but the principle is to compare the prevalence and incidence of a population at risk with that of an identical population not subject to this risk; Cohort studies are used to specify these data.
I humbly admit that nuclear is not my priority in my favorite subjects. This is also why when one invokes studies of cohorts, multidisciplinary teams and touti qant, I am wary knowing, by experience, that this often hides a one-way speech. Read the topic on vaccinations where the same principles are mentioned with its own difficulties of interpretation and also to want to defend this or that system.
But epidemiological studies can be piped like any other topic
when only one point of view, majority, is imposed on the populations, naive and too gullible, by an official speech which they have little the possibility to analyze and possibly to contest.
The study at Chernobyl was remarkably dense and long, by a multi-disciplinary multinational team of high expertise, and the results are precise and detailed, with discoveries of paradoxical phenomena astonishing, and carrying lessons on the conduct to be held. But all this is much better explained in the full text of the study (unfortunately published in English), that I invite you to read (even if you do not agree, you will learn a lot).
I would already have to read English which is not the case. Others probably did and analyzed. What interests me is what other "experts" say, for comparison.
Reassure yourself, the experts involved did not belong to the WHO majority (but these stories of global conspiracy tend to make me smile, even if some conflicts of interest are often very real).
We must stop with these stories of plot at all ends of fields. It's like invoking the fact that associations that analyze consumer products are making a plot because they point out the defects that manufacturers are careful not to point out (for example planned obsolescence). The reality is unfortunately much simpler (not simplistic). ) it is simply human where everyone defends his or her choice of interests and their convictions or interests, which are not indicators of truth for all that, and it is valid for all convictions and opinions.
The question today is not stated in terms of virtue, but of efficiency, it is more down-to-earth.
Efficiency as an argument! An atomic bomb is much more effective than a field war, does this justify a recommendation of effectiveness?
See, for example (the subject is evoked by the TV behind me) the effectiveness of crop treatment products and boomerang effect, the catastrophic mortality of bees and generally on all pollinating insects.
And it's subject to constraints that, it seems to me, are a little too neglected by various stakeholders in this forum.
Of course, but constraints that are "self-centered" preoccupied by the direct impact of the sector on its environment without taking into account all possible indirect aspects. Another comparison: if fishing was not constrained by decrees, there would be little fish to sin and limit or prohibit this or that action, also serves to protect the populations concerned. However, the nuclear power had no restrictive constraint which blocked the early use of alternative solutions, of course.
Concretely, our country is, like all the others, in the obligation to leave carbon energies; for us, on the 1500 TeraWh consumed annually, convert about 1 000 TeraWh, twice the electricity consumption ... It's huge, not easy, very expensive, painful; for some activities, you do not even know how to do it. And some cling to the 24 TeraWh provided by the new EnR, and propose to remove more 500 TeraWh produced by the nuclear.
From his memory, he has never been able to interrupt the nuclear industry in spite of its dangers, but to replace this technology progressively and as quickly as possible.
But, with similar reasoning, are we not a little crazy? Have we taken the measure, even approximate, of the task at hand? For me, the priorities are obvious: let us fool the peace with the nuclear power, which is not dangerous, not very expensive, and has the merit to exist and to provide us with the essence of the electricity ... Let's treat him the peace Even Fessenheim ... Anyway, even with everything, it will not be enough ...
Bad reasoning! Filling the peace with the nuclear power is like invoking to make peace with the drug (not dangerous to the population) to tobacco or alcohol or to the terrorists who make only very few victims globally, whereas besides immense efforts are being made to prevent the death of a single individual every year by an absurd sanitary policy.
And let's hurry to invest in what will be the most effective way to get out of oil, gas and coal, without wasting anything and making the best choices; which means:
- a global, intense, determined energy saving and sobriety (and it is not bikes or led bulbs ...)
- optimization of all that is carbon-free energy production (in this context, there is room for renewable energy)
- unbridled development of new technologies producing or saving energy.
Here we meet (I mean at the level of ecologists obviously!) But if it was so simple it would be long since! and the last point is only wishful thinking especially for its frantic side obviously! on the other hand you do not evoke anything to get out of the nuclear!
Inside, virtue, aesthetics, emotional or ideological dogmas have little place ... They are for the rich, the rich, and we are not ...
except that virtue, aesthetic, emotional are powerful engines of societies, especially human, and we can not reasonably do without!
On the other hand, a maximum of social justice and a strong solidarity with the less well endowed countries are a prerequisite ...
It's oh how true! I argue (at my small level) so that conscience is taken on the impact of agriculture, and especially livestock, on pollution, the global waste (at the expense of less favored populations elsewhere) much more serious than certain pollution industrial. A frantic development of these food industries would hardly be offset by another frantic development of technologies, even though it is often the technology that fucks us.
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
.jpg?ext=.jpg)