George Monbiot vs. Dr. Helen Caldicott: A Debate on the Future of Nuclear Energy. Part 1 of 2

[Voice for Peace]

Run time: 08:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p0d05M5JpY   Posted on YouTube: March 30, 2011 By YouTube Member: mediagrrl9 Views on YouTube: 1773   Posted on DU: April 11, 2011 By DU Member: Voice for Peace Views on DU: 554

 
part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb5HItRpDY8

[Voice for Peace]

1. kicking this as it doesn't seem to be showing up

excellent watch, compelling and I think Monbiot will be rethinking his position.

[Karenina]

2. K&R!

She was ready to throttle him, ya think?

[Voice for Peace]

3. she was great

and even though she was exasperated with him I thought she communicated beautifully.

[swilton]

4. Debate well worth having

Better to listen to this kind of discussion than the whither Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, _______ (fill in the blank).

I like both of the arguments; however, find Caldicott more convincing.

After reading Monbiot's MANIFESTO FOR A NEW WORLD ORDER thought his arguments were convincing until March 2011...the basic Monbiot argument being that we have to invest in nuclear power because it is a technology we have now...However, that thorny issue avoids the questions of what to do with nuclear waste or the nuclear accident. Monbiot is still an advocate for nuclear power and his current theme is overcoming public opposition...

Following that Monibot line of logic - if public opposition is the critical obstacle with nuclear power, why couldn't the public opposition to 'conservation' or solar or wind farms just as easily be targeted to overcome...

The Caldicott precautionary theme seems most convincing to me as the political power of the nuclear industry (spiinoff of the MIC) is not to be underestimated. From my own research on depleted uranium I know that the arguments vis a vis the increases of incidence of cancers and that relationship to the nuclear power/weapons industry (both closely linked) is very compelling. Due to the time-lapse in the development of many cancers from the accumulated exposure, the smoking gun is hard to identify. I further support the Caldecott theories of the politicization of the nuclear watch-dogs - from my own experience I do know that academia is politicized grants, research funding is very controlled by foundations.

Thank you for posting this important debate!

[Voice for Peace]

5. yes, I agree and thanks for your contribution. I hope Monbiot is rethinking his position.