One scientist has tweeted – “evidence can often be uncomfortable – it’s also known, colloquially, as life.”
On the basis of evidence then, I’d like to discuss people saying nuclear power is the cleanest and safest energy form – err, hello?? Am I missing something?
Chernobyl? Fukushima? Around 4000 radiation-related deaths? And it hasn’t even been around that long. How many deaths have you heard of as a result of wind farms?!
Is this like Titanic being the ‘unsinkable’* ship? Or some stubborn scientists poo-poohing any negative assertions about discoveries because they can’t see the truth (/wood) for their life’s work (/trees)? #historyrepeating
Scientists are currently operating in a Microsoft manner - working confined by the initial limitations of their method, still in awe that some things are possible at all, and not being user-friendly. Society needs Mac scientists, ones that ARE user-friendly, who know what questions people actually have and who can give understandable answers within the wider framework of life.
*re: debates that 'unsinkable' is a misquote - the fact that there were insufficient lifeboats proves, more than any quote, that this was the general opinion.
Scientists are currently operating in a Microsoft manner - working confined by the initial limitations of their method, still in awe that some things are possible at all, and not being user-friendly. Society needs Mac scientists, ones that ARE user-friendly, who know what questions people actually have and who can give understandable answers within the wider framework of life.
*re: debates that 'unsinkable' is a misquote - the fact that there were insufficient lifeboats proves, more than any quote, that this was the general opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment