Thursday, January 13, 2005

Nuclear Sub Story

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/10/nuclear.submarine.update/index.html

I keep hearing about the nuclear sub that ran aground 350 miles from any land.
What keeps on irking me is why is it always referred to as a nuclear sub?
Does the US have any non-nuclear subs at all? Do we refer to cars as
gasoline cars or the mars rovers as the solar mars rovers?
It's not as if there are any dielsel subs out there any more. In general I think
th US has a huge irrationaly fear of nuclear energy.

In the entire history of nuclear energy in the US, accidents have killed
less than a dozen people. Compare this record to that of coal and
fossil fuels. I know people aren't too excited about the few pounds
of long-lasting radioactive waste you get per year but compare this
to the millions of tons of pollutants other forms of energy spew off
into the atmosphere and water. Think of all the cancer and disease
we could have if we take nuclear power seriously.

In this country no new nuclear plants have been built since the 70s.
The thing is the new plants they are building in Europe, China, and
Japan are far safer and far more environmentally friendly than
anything we have in the US. China's pebble breeder reactors
for instance can never undergo a meltdown because the
reaction does not take place without the presence of coolant.
The old reactors we still have would undergo a runaway reaction
if the control rods or coolant werent present (there are safeguards
in place of course that has kept this from ever happening).

I guess that's all I had on my mind... Later.

Thursday, December 30, 2004

The 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami Media Coverage

Well this is my first post and here it goes. Sometimes the American media drives me insane. As I lie in bed I'm viewing the tradegy of our generation through a frosty glass of selfish sensationalism. Current reports list 125,000 dead in India, Indonesia and Sri Lanka yet the only victim who is getting any air time is this 6 year old blond Swedish kid. o_O. It boggles the mind how to put a tradegy of epic proportions into a perspective for the American public to care about that the media bends over backwards to find some of the handful of white people affected by it.

It is ridiculous that the only people I've seen on the cameras are those who are least representative of the victims of this tradegy. Does the media think that brown people can't draw the emotions that drive the ratings? This is just another ugly face of profitable sensationalism. The real face of the victims is a brown one, those are the people who are being affected, whose homes are destroyed. I haven't been this angry since 9/11.