He said, she said:

Here’s a little debate from earlier today on Democracy Now! titled, “‘Prescription for Survival’: A Debate on the Future of Nuclear Energy.” In one corner: George Monbiot, British journalist and author. He is a columnist with the The Guardian (U.K.) and most recently wrote the article “Why Fukushima Made Me Stop Worrying and Love Nuclear Power.” I had posted the link to this article a week or two ago and Eric referred to it in last week’s podcast. In the other corner: Helen Caldicott, world-renowned anti-nuclear advocate, author and pediatrician. She has spent decades warning of the medical hazards posed by nuclear technologies. She is the co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

I’m glad Monbiot is anti-coal, but how is that suddenly the only alternative to nuclear energy in the 21st century? By the way, you can make the video full-screen by clicking in the lower-right corner. – amanda

8 thoughts on “He said, she said:”

  2. I confess that I went about my day re-assessing people under two headings: pudding-diver – not a pudding-diver.

    Then I moved on to people who sell steaming piles of shit as pudding and those that don’t.

    An eye-opening exercise, to say the least. And an effective metaphor.

    The best I could do with myself is that I abhor pudding as much as steaming piles of shit. Nausea. (Literally and metaphorically.)

  3. There is a deeper idea involved, which is what do you do in the case of doubt, or missing information?

    On what side do you err?

    Also the debate is not taking place on level ground. It’s like an argument between whether it’s better to make toast in the toaster, or to light the couch on fire and do it there — and having the “two sides” be taken seriously as equivalents. “Oh well, it’s more even in the toaster,” “yes but it’s more exciting to watch the couch burn, it’s like going camping. the kids will love it.” and so on.

    The problem with this debate is that both sides are being presented as being on the same level. They are not. Besides the medical evidence there is the issue of ethics. Monbiot is making no ethical appeal or demonstration at all.

    It is not enough to say “there is not cause and effect proof” (which almost never happens). It is enough to say, “that might be really, really dangerous.” The fact that he comes out with his advocacy of nuclear power in the midst of a meltdown is proof that he is a shill.

  4. Hmm. Yeah, it’s a conspiracy of facts, conspiring against baseless spin. And when did numbering deaths become the way to determine how bad something is, or good? not very intelligent. Even if the numbers are correct, it is a totally meaningless argument.

  5. I listened to most of the debate this a.m. George came out immediately framing Helen as a conspiracy theorist and dismissing her comments with muffled background chortles. When one hears the term “conspiracy theorist”, it is meant to paint the opposition and those who question the prevailing story line as having a screw loose. Somebody needs to invent a stronger counter term.

  6. This is a classic attempt to prove Truth through the mind and debate – can’t be done.

    This is from Kim at Love Your Design (Facebook) today:

    “I had a dream last night where I was making my way out of the matrix. I realised that the portal out was via the ‘dark’. And that this is why we are taught to avoid it at all costs – the void, the undoing, the ambiguous and unknown, the waiting place, the responsive place, the being. These are our tools of power that will release us from spiritual slavery.”

  7. I don’t support the death penalty, but if I did, Monbiot would be at the top of the line. This is what an apologist sounds like — and I am sure he’s being paid handsomely. His whole “where does the conspiracy end” is the perfect heap of steaming shit that everyone who needs reassurance likes to dive into like a bowl of pudding. He’s giving this 43 deaths from Chernobyl number — don’t let me anywhere near the guy. It will be ugly.

Leave a Comment