Tuesday, 29 March 2011

Yet More Misconception, Stupidity And Exaggeration

I'm at least seven or eight pieces behind where I should be: three more on energy policy in Taiwan (including a letter), another two on U.S. foreign policy, one on defence and at least two recent photography essays. Were I blogging full-time, these could all be done before this weekend. As it is, I'm about to dash out downtown in a moment and will not realistically get any proper web-time until the weekend.

So very briefly...
“People are concerned about the consequences of the Fukushima accident because what happened was unprecedented.
That's Chan Chang-chuan (詹長權) of National Taiwan University quoted in today's headline piece in the Taipei Times. Look here Chan: neither earthquakes or tsunamis are properly designated under the concept "accident". That can only be either a mistranslation, a stupid mistake on your part, or a willful lie in the service of anti-nuclear propaganda - whichever it is, it's more bullshit disgracing Taiwan's top "academic" institutes. There's more...
“If construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant is stopped or phased out, the losses will be in [the billions of dollars]. The KMT cannot accept a resolution that would cost the public so much money.”
That's Hsieh Kuo-liang (謝國樑), a KMT legislator also quoted in the same piece. Damn it Hsieh: stop thinking like an insect - the issue is much larger than a few hundred billion dollars. What would the economic costs be to Taiwan's industries, and by extension, the lives of thousands of Taiwanese were Tsai's plan to be implemented?

From another article about the lunacy taking over Germany...
"Forty-five percent of voters called nuclear power a key issue in light of the disaster in Japan..."
What is happening in Fukshima is bad, but it is most certainly not a "disaster" - yet more dishonest propaganda and willful exaggeration.


  1. Whut?

    It's definitely a disaster.

  2. If you want to comment here - argue your case; in what sense are the events at Fukushima a "disaster"?

  3. How is the unexpected loss of (multiple) nuclear power reactors not a disaster.

    You're just sitting there, happily splitting atoms, doing your job just like your fellow co-reactors, making people happy with all the electricity you're giving them ...

    Then you start overheating and they have no choice but to pump seawater into you ... game over, it looks like they're going to have to put you guys down. Hell, even your relatively healthy co-reactors are probably going to be put to sleep for kicks.

    How is that not a disaster??

  4. Blob - look here, posted a whole day before your first comment. I meant "disaster" here in the same sense that the earthquake and tsunami were "disasters", i.e. thousands of people getting killed and whole towns getting destroyed. Jesus man...

  5. Plus you got the media making everyone scared, and even causing people to cancel trips to Taiwan ...WTF

    (It's not a radiation disaster though, if that's what you think I meant.)


Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:

1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.

2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.

3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.

4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.

5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.