So beautiful... Too bad the risks are too big... All it needs is a tiny mistake or a natural disaster like an unexpected tsunami... Until there's an "antidote" to radiation people will naturally find it scary.
I don't know what makes you think so, but to me it looks very much like a fossil fuel power plant, most likely coal [link] . The many cooling towers [link] show it to be a thermal power station, but nuclear power plants have no such need for flue-gas stacks [link] ("chimneys").
I know. People are usually just dumb. They see cooling towers, and they think "nuclear power plant". But these reinforced reactions are a powerful example of how good media brainwashing works, since in this case it is simple classical conditioning [link] - a method now known for 100 years. Once the brains are conditioned in a certain way, the trigger (here: "cooling towers") turns of all reasonable reactions and instead makes the brain pursue the thoughts desired by the brainwasher (here: "nuclear power plant"). And if you then make sure that nuclear power is always associated with strong negative emotions like fear, danger, suffering, et.al. then people will not ask whether all of that is true, they just want it gone (so their bad feelings are gone too).
That's why most discussions about the issue are a waste of time, because you aren't dealing with rational people open to arguments, but with brain conditioned people who act entirely on feelings with no scientific foundation. It's like trying to tell Pavlov's dogs not to produce saliva when they hear a bell.
You do realize that I was not agreeing with you, right? I was merely trying to explain what should have been obvious to someone who claims to have so much knowledge on the ins and outs of power plants.
If you're truly trying to be rational, as you claim, then you wouldn't go around saying stupid shit like that and calling people "goddamn tree huggers". I really have to question what your true agenda here is.
I didn't take it that way, because I assumed you weren't making such an obvious mistake with the statement "cause it looks freakishly similar to Chernobyl", because that statement is incredibly stupid: The Chernobyl NPP did not have these cooling towers, while on the other hand pretty much every heavy industrial site has chimneys (factories, ...), so to conclude "chimney" => "nuclear power" is a form of ignorance I did not deem you capable of. But I stand corrected. Thank you.
I don't care if people agree with me, as that would be a very stupid thing to do for a scientist. I care about what is demonstrable/provable and what is not.
I don't call people "goddamn tree huggers". First, that is a level of profanity I do not employ; second, I do not damn people in the name of God just because they're uneducated fools.
I am rational and reasonable. Your mistake in misinterpreting me lies in assuming that reasonable behavior always expresses itself in the (cliched) way how scientists talk about issues in public. Being reasonable towards emotionally disturbed/conditioned people en masse does not mean you talk cool-headed about facts - as that is utterly useless - but to beat them back into reality/sanity for their own good.
That is why it is very reasonable to confront people with their own conditioning rather than discussing the topics they were conditioned about. And so I did. Also, talking to people about energy production, who have no scientific education to speak of, is useless anyway.
Example: If a high-school drop-out and notorious junkie comes into a hospital and tries to tell the physicians how to treat their patients and how to perform surgery, would it be reasonable to argue with him over surgery techniques? No, the only sane response is to tell him that he is utterly unqualified and to kick him out asap.
Now why would it be any different here, with people who know basically nothing about the issues? You tell them to drop their fantasies about "making energy from air, light and love" (post-modern hippies) and to get a meaningful education.
Your wife/husband? Your lover, children, parents, family, friends, pets? Those who live in poverty and could use a hug and some help during the cold season?
Honestly: Trees don't give a damn if you hug them or not, but people who feel down or suffer would love the show of affection. Mata "Mother" Amritanandamayi [link] is a great example of how you can make use of hugs, or the fact that hugs have a positive effect on (cardiovascular) health (mostly in women): [link]
You have a point = priority. I can understand it. But, of course, this "hug" is metaphorical, and the comment I adressed to sounds like supporting polution, 'cause ecolgists are pejoratively called tree-huggers - My bad? (English is not my language hope this is readable...)