nuclear-news

New York Times’ unflagging support for nuclear power

Is Thomas Friedman worried about his manhood?

Media With Conscience, by Ace Hoffman 25 Sept 09“………..Unflagging support for government policies on nuclear power and nuclear weapons, and for various wars, despots, agendas and so forth, have been a part of The New York Times’ editorial process for decades.

The government loves a public that is asleep about the dangers of nukes.  Friedman wants to help with that.  Romancing France’s nuclear policies is especially useful right now for the pro-nuclear agenda, because the two large French nuclear “corporations” (arms of the government, really, especially in the case of AREVA) are both buying American nuclear power companies, enrichment companies, mining companies, etc..

Once invested, they will use local employees to sway public policy based on French government interests, not those of the majority of Americans, who want to preserve our land and protect our children’s DNA.  Radiation destroys our DNA, and the way the French handle their nuclear problems is to lie about them, to sink protestor’s boats (and even kill protesters), and to bribe foreign workers.  Yet Friedman calls us “wimps” for not embracing their murderous nuclear habit.  The French also smoke a lot more cigarettes than, say, Californians.  Just thought I’d mention it………..

The opposite of building more nukes isn’t just “not building more nukes.”  It’s also shutting down the ones that are currently operating.  But that view never makes it into the venerable (by some vestige of their former reputation) New York Times.  Only “build a lot more nukes” versus “build a few more nukes” or maybe, once in a while, “don’t build any more right now.”  But NEVER will the New York Times give space to “shut ’em all down immediately” which is, actually, the scientifically, economically, and medically sound thing to do.

Thus, the patriotic thing to do.  Not doing so allows about 10 tons of hazardous high-level radioactive waste to be produced each day in America, for which no valid (safe, economical) solution exists because plain old physics gets in the way.  Friedman calls Yucca Mountain “totally safe.”  He’s totally wrong.  And getting the waste to Yucca Mountain isn’t safe, either.  And leaving it where it is?  That’s the worst choice of all.  Ten tons worse every day in America, and about 50 tons worse around the world……… Friedman calls those who do not endorse the random killing of humans and other living things “wimps.”  What are we to do when the New York Times allows him to do this, and lets him call anyone who opposes his views “wimps” year after year?  Challenge him to a duel?  How uncivilized!  Ask them to print our responses?  How hopeless!

Scorn them on the Internet?  Sure, it’s a start. http://mwcnews.net/content/view/33356/26/

September 25, 2009 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster, USA | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear spin, nuclear wastes, radioactive, uranium