Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. resumer (resumer@quitter.no)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Oct-2016 14:46:28 UTC resumer
   @xj9 The obvious implications of your comment are: 1. there is a hierarchy of energy sources that qualifies nuclear as 'our best option' above fossil (source?) 2. ... of which the latter I did not even promote although that is what you are implying 3. that our rate of consumption is left out of the scope of the solution to the problem and is considered, hence, a growing variable or a constant at best 4. the usual narrowing down the argument on 'our energy' in order to leave out effects of 'our radiation pollution' and 'our security-political side effects' of nuclear fuels. What you call 'our dependency' is nothing else but another word for a recent 20th century type of life style (as so eloquently put by Marlon B. here https://quitter.no/url/640454) which may, historically, dwarf compared to more immediate and factual dependencies on clean and particularly non-ionising soil, water and air. All that being my humble and likely uneducated opinion. https://quitter.no/url/640455