Sadly, a lot of the population are members of at least one group. Would love to know if the membership numbers of are 1-5 going up or down
Given how expensive chemotherapy is can you blame anyone. Theres also another batch anti corn syrup, anti fluoride toothpaste, anti eating meat, anti self driving cars, anti electronical voting, and so on. The list goes on. And on....
Umm, no. Flat earthers have been around since long before we’ve even had chemo or known what cancer is...
Pollution from coal kills hundreds of thousands of people a year when it's working normally. (This is even if we completely ignore the effects of global warming, whose future death toll is unknown).
Nuclear being seriously dangerous because of a few isolated accidents IS your imagination. It's similar to people who refuse to fly, and drive long distances instead.
And there are other alternatives than coal, which are much more economical than nuclear when each producer carries their own costs, including environmental and insurances.
I don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with me about nuclear, but I do have a problem who are so narrow minded and lazy that they group everyone that have different ideas than themselves together.
And if you really have a degree in physics you should know that nuclear waste is a very manageable problem. Finally nobody advocates about building more ChNPP style reactors - there are plenty extremely safe alternatives. France is a good example on this
And it is just pure bullshit that nuclear waste is manageable. Or tell me why there’s still no long term storage facility open anywhere in the world. It’s not that they haven’t spent decades trying. The only way waste management isn’t a problem is if you just say it is someone else’s, ie, future generations problem, or if you rely on reprocessing that still won’t reduce all waste, or also seems to be hard to find economy in.
Every other form of pollution can at least be cleaned up in a human timeframe. This kind can't even be approached by machines without them breaking down.
The only way I'd ever support nuclear power is if the nuclear industry were to develop an actually safe reactor (and by safe I mean that it's literally IMPOSSIBLE to cause a nuclear hazard, not "we have safety protocols in place"). But so far that hasn't happened in any meaningful way, so I'm all for dismantling everything and forbidding any new reactors until they can actually prove their safety (this is where I applaud Merkel).
But that's never going to happen, because big projects like this are full of graft, lies, payoffs, and plain fraud (just look at Boeing). So effectively, I don't expect I'll ever be anything but anti-nuclear. And that's a shame, because it has huge potential :/
Also, GMOs are probably not spoken against for the reasons you think. Most anti-GMO advocates (that I know) are advocating against them because of the dangerous business model of companies like Monsanto that sue farmers because GMO seeds blow into the farmers’ fields, not because of mistaken beliefs about the health risk.
Then discussion moved to if nuclear plant will be replaced by coal plant, is it really that better in the end? When faced that question, it was observed that anti-nuclear movement splits, where one side thinks that nuclear makes sense to stop coal, while another thinks that we must ban nuclear even if whole planet will die from climate change.
This is why, at least in Germany, some parts of anti-nuclear movement can be perceived as somewhat radical.
It’s intellectually dishonest, lazy and counterproductive to groups everyone that you disagree with. That means that you never actually cared to understand the arguments.