One of the more puzzling aspects of Climate Alarmism/Fanaticism is this: While they are opposed to use of oil, gas and coal, claiming that the CO2 emitted (which they refer to as “carbon”) is harming our climate and will eventually end life as we know it on this planet. They instead favor “renewable” energy in the form of solar and wind power. What they do not explain is why they are opposed to nuclear energy, which is safe, and emits no CO2. There is the problem of spent fuel rods, but I think we have that pretty well under control. (I am aware of a certain sentiment among some readers that nuclear power is not real, following as it did in the wake of nuclear bombs, which may well never have been built. I think that nuclear power is real, and one reason I think that is because Climate Alarmists are opposed to it.)
I suppose that is a little tongue-in-cheek, as I am fully aware of what they are up to, and it has nothing to do with our climate. There is no need to save the planet. We do need to control some of our destructive activities, like over-fishing, for instance. The purpose of Climate Alarmism is hidden from view, but easily discerned: To impoverish us, reduce our numbers, and prevent development on continents occupied by darker skinned people. Europe is now gearing up for a cold winter, and massive supplies of liquefied natural gas await on tankers for the inevitable emergency caused by failure of wind and solar to keep people warm and factories running. Businesses have shut down or moved elsewhere due to the high cost of energy. This is no surprise. You might even say that this is the objective.
One of the least developed, poorest nations on the planet is the Congo. Most people there rely on subsistence farming and use charcoal for cooking. To make charcoal, trees are cut down and heated at a low temperature underground, or by some other means kept away from oxygen. What’s left is mostly carbon which burns slowly and evenly, producing uniform heat so that people can do other stuff while cooking. When I learned that charcoal production threatens forests in that country, I had to wonder why they do not convert to something cheaper and more reliable: Natural gas, or at least propane.
To do so would require investment in infrastructure, and I doubt very much that the people behind World Bank and International Monetary Fund would make money available for investment in (gasp!) fossil fuels. There is a dam being built to allow for hydroelectric power, managed by Warren Buffet’s son, Howard. That will certainly help some.
The United States, Britain, and China all got wealthy by use of cheap energy. That’s really all that Africa needs to jump start their poorest countries, allow them access to tools, cars and trucks and tractors, and consumer goods. Soon follows investment in infrastructure, roads and bridges, and before you know it, you have a higher standard of living for everyone. It is not magic. It is fundamental economics, that cheap energy is the key to growth and prosperity.
But what if your real goal as a Climate Alarmist is to prevent growth and prosperity? Then it would make sense that you attack cheap energy in all forms, oil, gas, coal, and, oh yeah, nuclear. This is not hard to figure out, and explains why there is so much power behind the scenes backing these crazy climate scientists, the IPCC, and goofballs like Greta Thunberg and Bill McKibben. All news concerning Climate Change is biased, all skeptics are censored, all politicians pay the piper. It’s a deliberate attempt to inflict massive suffering and harm on us. Like Covid, it hatches forth from places like City of London, the Vatican, Washington, unseen faces, unimaginable power.
I do not believe in most coincidences, even as I know they happen now and then.** The movie China Syndrome, starring Jane Fonda at her peak of annoyance, was released on March 16, 1979. The movie is about a fictional nuclear power plant that experiences a meltdown due to improper management and some maneuvering to keep it open even as it was known there was trouble. The “Syndrome” is the idea that once a melt down starts, it will not stop until it reaches the other side of the world. That is nonsense, of course. But fear mixed with propaganda is deadly. Nuclear power is safe. No one died at Fukushima itself, and sources there say that 573 people died in nearby communities in “disaster-related” manners. I do not know what that means. Jemin Desai and others reported on nuclear power deaths in Environmental Progress in February 2020, saying that as of that date the entire death toll for the world-wide nuclear power industry was a little over a hundred, for the entire history of the technology.
Twelve days after the China Syndrome was released, the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant had its partial melt down, apparently a series of small errors that became a major accident. Again, no one died in this disaster, though there were increased reports of thyroid cancer, a less deadly and more treatable illness with a death toll of less than 1% of victims. I read the Wikipedia page on TMI, and while of course over my head, I was looking for signs of sabotage. Valves that should have been shut were left open, and those that should have been open were closed. The control panel operator (Homer Simpson’s job) missed some flashing lights, or the lights did not flash.
Of course it is all possible, but is it also possible that the anti-nuclear power movement was just an early version of Climate Alarmism? Again, the coincidence of a melt down twelve days after release of a propaganda film is too much for me to buy. Something is fishy.
By the way, a large part of the fear is that the nuclear power plants will explode, Hiroshima style. That’s irrational, and it is hard to overcome irrational fear. But if people are sincere in wanting to eliminate fossil fuels, nuclear would be the way to go.
**For instance, while a sophomore in high school, our geometry teacher, as a lesson for us, invited all of us to write down the numbers 1-9 in any order so long as each number was used only once. He did so as well, and when we were all done, he revealed what he had written down. The odds of any of us having written down the exact sequence as he did were 9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2, or one in 362,880. I had done so. He was shocked. So was I. That was a coincidence, a real one.
22 thoughts on “China Syndrome, Three Mile Island”
A really disturbing movie is “K-19: The Widowmaker”. I’ve seen it in the theater, 2002. A guy sacrificing himself, like Spock in Star Trek, saving the ship, but the radiation effects on people are shown really graphic here. There are multiple aspects to this, one is artificial deficiency. We get it everywhere ATM. There is no solution, because they want energy to be scare and expensive. Maybe something new will be rolled out, when the Hegelian solutions are presented. EVs would finally make sense. Or think about 911 Judy W, she’s all about mystery energy in the end.
PS got a similar school story. Some 25 years ago, I hadn’t done my math homework. Instead of confessing, I just told random numbers, and was right. Some 10 digits too.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/11/08/mother-nature-inc/ By Robert Hynziker
Neoliberalism’s End Game — assured to be won through proven winning strategies of:
a.) Privatization of The Commons;
b.) Deregulation of The Commons;
c.) Corporate (unaccountable) Outsourcing of government (accountable) management of The Commons; and,
d.) Commodification / Financialization of The Commons.
This, specifically enabled by the structure of the 501 (c) (3) US tax code; the feckless corporate “environmentalists“ of Team FME (Free Market Environmentalism); and their multi-billionaire foundation paymasters.
Similar here Steve:
His 2 follow up articles are:
Seizing Everything: The Theft of the Global Commons, parts 1 & 2
He lays it all out quite succinctly with plenty of source links
I remember being scared by the 3mile Island story at the time. Everything you could read was antinuclear, but somehow somebody somewhere was for it. In retrospect, I think a strawman opposition was just as cooked up and misrepresented as antivax is now. Has anyone heard of Galen Winsor? I read interviews with him years later. His is a completely different point of view so much that to him, nuclear power was safe as baby powder. (baby powder is probably more dangerous see J&J lawsuit)
Maybe the scarcity mindset is so that we can’t conceive of a world not ruled by balance sheets it or maybe its entrained like the dialectic to curtail any thought or consideration outside the electric fence? A concept memory hole, like revising the dictionary. If you don’t have a word for it, it doesn’t exist. It is impossible, so you can’t think about it.
I have a grade school story about arithmetic. I didn’t do the homework so I counted by fives and got them right. For days I thought that was how homework was done. Both ways were mysterious.
I think what I missed here, whoosh!, is that nuclear had the potential to provide cheap energy for everyone, and had to be stopped. That is the bottom line, cheap energy creates wealth, and that would not be allowed. Instead we were ushered into an era of fake shortages.
man there are so many issues i have with what you are saying mark but i will choose just one or two; in short though you really are no less mainstream in your thinking then the “common man”
you speak of “least developed country and “growth and prosperity” and all your unthought out assumptions is grounded in the idea that “progress” and a “higher standard of living” is good and even desirable by all those “subsistence farmers” I mean what standard of living are we talking about? The ones here in japan and the usa? Go mingle with those subsistence farmers; i am not advocating the noble savage idea or anything of that sort, but those peoples humane-ness puts the lie to your progress and higher standard of living to shame. yes you get your operations and live to be 90 and they MAYBE die at 75 because they do not get the operations (those this is probably untrue also) but what about the quality of a life? forget the quantity. well this is all too common knowledge but as i have said before once things are “common knowledge” they go in one ear and out the other and cease to be understood.
there are SO MANY variables involved in so called “cheap nuclear energy”, some very few consider, for example, to just pull one of the top of my head, and which is not negligible, is its upkeep by the scientists who earn 6 digit annual salaries…thousands upon thousands of these scientists….
besides that let me tell you that i have almost firsthand experience that there is no such thing as a nuclear power plant…though i admit i cannot say if nuclear power exists or not ( i suspect actually that it does, in submarines for example);
i can only say that after fukushima, japan, a country supposedly 60% (?) dependent on nuclear power had absolutely no shortages that following summer…zero!! and it was a mystery to millions who noticed the same thing; sure there was a tepid short lived campaign to “save energy” but no one even bothered and all things functioned as always…(just as now there is no virus and all things continue as normal)
still, my mind is open to hearing how it could be that there was no shortage of power when all plants were (supposedly?) turned off. In short, i am always weary of saying anything that is dependent on media…second hand news; i try to speak almost only from first hand experience; i have visited the fukushima area and by the way, those few farmers who resided right next to the plant and refused to kill their cattle DID NOT DIE as the press said they did; if the cattle did not die, how could there have been nuclear power leaks?; furthermore, an Israeli manufacturing plant opened their doors a few weeks after the “disaster” i believe it was warren buffet who flew in to cut the ribbon. For me such “circumstantial evidence” is almost as good as first hand experience.
cheap and safe nuclear power? come on man!, you cut and chop your own wood and that chore is probably one of the best things still going on to keep you healthy; why must the whole world come up to the standard of the usa and japan? subsistence farming keeps a man grounded and humane, not to mention how lovely the heat of a wood stove is compared to what? nuclear power? it is the difference between reading a book from the internet and reading a paperbound book; the qualitative difference is the only difference that matters, but that might be difficult for a mathematician and account like you to remember.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will answer at length later today, other things interfering. I did just pound out a response on the iPad, but a new IOS is operating, and I lost it all in an instant due to a finger fart. You bring up good points and I need to both think and respond respectfully.
LikeLiked by 1 person
drives me nuts when i write out something and then lose it!!!
in any case, i do not expect responses all the time; sometimes i just write to clear my own thoughts; and after i wrote the above my mind got racing and i began thinking new ideas.. so i appreciate the opportunity to be heard every now and then; please forgive my tendency to get abit personal; everything is personal anyway whether we wish to admit it or not: ;
concerning the above; i learned through the process of writing that out, that my whole idea that there was no nuclear power because there was no shortage after fukushima IS BASED ON MY BELIEVING THE MEDIA when they said that all power plants had been turned off…but what if the government just lied and never shut down any of reactors?….which just goes to show how easy we deceive ourselves and live and think inconsistently…and that in the end, it is best to rely on first hand experience as much as possible, and by doing so, one reduces and simplifies life to a wonderful degree
Your points in order: I think it is true that hunter gatherers in places like Papau New Guinea enjoy long lives in good health. I was influenced by a long podcast between Jordan Peterson and Michael Schillenberger wherein the latter felt, like you, that subsistence farming was a desirable thing among people doing it. Not so, he learned, living among them and interacting in the Congo … he was surprised that for the most part, they wanted to get away from it, get a job in a factory, get their kids educated to have a better life. I am talking about what we call “sweatshops,” which Congolese found more desirable than subsistence. Anyway, Shillenberger is my source on that, and I do like the guy even as we do not see the world through the same lens.
Fukushima: Japan shut down its entire nuclear program after that event. I would guess they had natural gas backup, as natural gas plants can be put in motion quickly. Natural gas is planned to be the backup for wind and solar when they fail us, as they will. Gas was the backup in Texas last February, but for reasons not clear to me, failed shortly after the windmills siezed, probably having to do with ice cold above-ground equipment, but that is just a vague memory.
As Minime described, nuclear power is merely steam generation, the heat source the part I do not understand. The track record for nuclear is very good, as I mentioned, around 100 deaths for the entire history of the industry. Of the three plants that gave us trouble, TMI, Chernobyl, an d Fukushima, the “disasters” were minor, some radiation released, some incidence of thyroid cancer around either TMI or Chernobyl, I forget which.
I do like our wood stove, and do like the work involved in gathering, cutting, splitting and stacking wood. It does keep me fit, and also gave me the hernia I just had repaired.
I will admit I am afraid of nuclear energy and have never really looked into it. I am more afraid of the charges for storing the spent rods and ‘fixing’ disasters than any other part but I have no doubt the propaganda has also worked on me. Congratulations to the powers that be.
Having said that where I live solar panels 6.6kW and 5kW inverter and battery (perhaps with a small diesel generator as back up) would produce more power than my family uses. And all the pollution is elsewhere so there are plenty of viable cheap solutions. I have a free energy machine on my roof (I also consider burning a tree as free energy) that is currently producing 4.9kW as I write.
I suspect the current ‘vaccine’ green cards are part of the agenda and think it’s a reasonable plan that’s been put in place that will actually reduce pollution in the areas rich people live. As much as I don’t like the measures taken and the lies is there really another way to achieve it (I think calling carbon dioxide carbon and focusing solely on that is genius it is a simple message for the herd to get behind imagine what would happen if they talked about multiple causes of pollution)
This will be extremely controversial but I believe the powers that be are running the world in the only real way it can be run currently (not suggesting they are doing it for the greater good why should they no other animal does). The scams and fake events along with the possibility of ‘ordinary’ people living a ‘good’ life if they are motivated to achieve but with the all important glass ceiling to stop them ever progressing too far all seems necessary to me. I deal with working class people all the time including kids and oldies and honestly most of us are not any where near as ‘good’ a people as we pretend and most are not very bright (about half of all people are under average intelligence and 90 percent are dumber than the top 10 percent). Sometimes we talk as if we could wave a magic wand and do this or that but we or they are always limited by what others will do or allow us to do.For example the majority of power (people) invested in energy companies would not just allow a ruler to shut down their source of wealth without a plan for another almost no one wants to give up most of what they have to help others (despite what we might pretend). To get people to give something up they generally need to be tricked or given something in return. I could go on and someday I will but maybe not today.
Sounds like a noble lie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, great piece.
The unwitting public – artfully set up through years of unrelenting propaganda – trapped in the corner with hands down and chin up gets blinded by the stiff jab of the covid hoax. The right hook of the climate scam follows with resounding effect, knocking them to the ground leaving the only hope to muster enough energy to stand and fight another round before the 10 count runs out.
They call it the sweet “science.”
If it’s a noble lie it’s only by accident (or perhaps definition being lied to by nobility). I am just suggesting telling the truth will not work yet (it would not be believed in the first place) if ever.
Radioactive elements are real. Their attribute is special physical structure, which allows these elements to recycle far more charge than “normal” elements do. Charge is also heat, which is why these radioactive elements can be used to produce electricity – such heat is harnessed, turning water into steam, which is propelling the generators to produce electricity. It’s actually nothing special if you think about it. The very same principle, turning the heat into electricity, is used in thermal electrical plants – coal us used to produce heat, turning water into steam, which propels the generators. The mechanical aspect is 100% physical and doable.
I’m still on the fence about the radioactivity being deadly or harmful to humans or life in general. I’ve talked to a couple of MDs and have got their admission – they could not discern a burn caused by radiation from a burn caused by usual heat source. Also, these MDs have hundreds of operating hours done under a powerful Xray machine, with no long-term health issues whatsoever. So what gives?
They scared us all into believing in the great danger of radioactivity. But how could we verify such claims? Looking at the site of Chernobyl, life is undisturbed there ever since the alleged meltdown happened. In fact, ever since humans left the area to reinforce the myth of radioactivity being dangerous, plant and animal life there literally exploded. Isn’t that exactly the opposite of what they’ve been telling us about the “nuclear winter”? There should be no life present in the close vicinity of a radioactive source, yet we’re able to see the exact opposite and still belive their explanation for it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can add a bit more on where the energy of nuclear energy comes from.
Supposedly, inside the nucleus of an atom, the protons – being positively charged -reject each other, extremely strongly given their small size: the current theory (which is certainly incomplete) in fact predicts that the closer the charges are, the stronger the force, going up to infinity. The neutrons are also slightly repelling each other, though being neutral in charge, it has been theorized that the surface of a neutron is slightly negative charge while the core of the neutron slightly positive, thus they still repel.
In any case, to counter the repelling force of the proton-proton pairs and neutron-neutron pairs, it is said that the nucleus contains this “binding energy”.
In a radioactive element, when it decays into smaller elements, the binding energy needed in the smaller elements is lower, and the excess energy is released – that is the source of nuclear energy.
As a side note, Einstein was famous for the equation E=MC^2, but that was is fact not an explanation of nuclear energy, but simply a way to calculate the amount of binding energy released, by measuring the loss in mass of the decayed products compared to the original radioactive compound.
If you keep people technologically suppressed you control them – – The same can be said with medicine, education, even food.
Control the people is power… well “that” and fear.
I have a forebear who was a pioneer in nuclear energy. His focus was on leakage. Primarily the bolts holding the water tanks together. He had a slide rule to keep things safe. No computers.
I know that, like a jumbo jet, there are multiple, multiple redundancies in a nuclear power plant so if a light stops blinking, a dozen more will start blinking as back up.
In my opinion, the only way 3 Mile or The China Symulation could happen is if Jack Lemmon and Wilfred Brimley and a squad of ONI assets were given the go-ahead by the admiral on the Joint Chiefs and his cousins at the IMF or some such to stage a “disaster”.
The coordinated “breakdown” would require a lot of people to sabotage each level of fail-safe and that’s not possible, in my opinion.
A press release echoing a blockbuster film is much easier. And as for snitches, I have observed point blank within the medical industry just how much gusto well paid medical professionals can have getting behind a scamdemic. Professional extinction is a very effective threat, even to those who certainly know better. But it answers the question once and for all: How could the German people get behind the Nazi agenda? People are fundamentally ignorant cowards* and scaring them, and not letting up, works every time.
*Maybe outside of Frisco people are making a better accounting of themselves, so take my universal condemnation with shovel’s worth of salt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, was there a point in the movie where Jane Fonda said, “Look out! This plant’s got itself a bad case of the CT’s… China Syndrome, that is!”
…And then a crude animation of isotopes melting their way through the planet?
Or maybe a character knowingly smirks and says, “China Syndrome? That’s just an old wives’ tale…”
Followed by a red alert, workers’ skin bubbling off, and a total nuclear meltdown. And Fonda yells at the guy over the sound of sirens, “This real enough for you, Mr. Old-Wives-Tale??”
To which the guy looks sheepish. As his skin bubbles off.
Anyway I would be disappointed if there’s no mention of the title in the movie itself.
The title is not only mentioned but explained in detail.
In fact, the term may have been invented for the movie. It was certainly new to the public.
I’m almost curious to watch it, because it seems too cartoonish and jokey a concept to be used in a “serious” disaster drama.
The term sounds dramatic, until it’s explained, and then it seems more appropriate for “Airplane” or “Naked Gun.”
Speaking of Chernobyl, that Netflix documentary is interesting and entertaining, if only because it feels so different from most shows and movies. It’s like a chronicle of a clusterfk, with all kinds of embarrassing government a-covering, terrible decision-making by people looking to save face, etc. Like most things on Netflix, it’s propaganda of course, but it’s interesting and an easy watch (it’s a miniseries).
But I was just thinking of it the other day and noting how different the supposed Soviet “cover-up” of Chernobyl supposedly was compared to the “Covid pandemic” which has been relentlessly PROMOTED, in spite of supposedly similar origins (an embarrassing government screw-up, an “accident” due to dangerous technology, etc.) It suggested to me that Covid is more obviously fake because the government is PROMOTING it rather than downplaying it.
Of course propagandists use both techniques (downplaying and playing up) all the time. Or even a combo. In the case of Chernobyl, the “terrible nuclear accident” was hyped UP majorly in the West, including the part about “the big bad Soviet Union blundering and lying about it.”
Anyway, just a few thoughts.
To the main point, though, I agree with Mark that I previously missed the fakeness of the nuclear energy fear-mongering.
I’ve come to believe that nuclear weapons do not exist, and I saw on this very site I think the old commercial for “The Day After” which, a few decades later, reeks of clumsy fake propaganda. And I’ve always appreciated Mark’s point that today’s hobgoblins used to scare people are the descendants of things he went through as a kid, like hiding under desks as a drill for nuclear attack!
But I do find this latest idea eye-opening….that all the fears about “deadly radiation” (an invisible airborne spirit just like Covid and carbon-dioxide) were promoted to demonize an energy source that might have been “people-friendly,” cheap, safe, etc. It was easy for libertarian types like me to believe that the nuclear proponents were the big bad business and government types and the nuclear protesters were the good guys. But now that I understand how MUCH of what we see in the media is propaganda rather than actual news, I realize that big protests are often staged to benefit TPTB.
Another piece of evidence for safe nuclear energy (assuming it exists) is the fact that it’s so widely used in places like Japan and France. It feels like it’s one area where there’s a big difference across countries. Once France was getting most of its energy from nuclear, it would no longer play along in the demonization, and the nuclear demonizers in the U.S. just left France alone. If nuclear power plants were truly epic radiation disasters waiting to happen, it wouldn’t be the main source of energy in France.