Does it make you uncomfortable when I talk about nuclear like it’s just another energy source? Or when I unashamedly advocate for it, does it automatically bring to mind platitudes about leaking reactors, nuclear waste and Chernobyl mutations? Do you reckon that when advocates for medical evidence-based childhood immunisation talk about its necessity for worldwide public wellbeing and development, maybe anti-vaccination people* might be feeling something similar?
Not even New Zealand, famous for its nuclear-free stance, disallows by law the consideration of nuclear energy. Australia’s population has achieved an enviable standard of living and societal freedom, largely on the back of plentiful, inexpensive fossil fuel energy. The science is in, the technology has progressed: now is the time to start planning the replacement of our energy sources that have so well served us yet might bring calamity. Just ask Ziggy Switkowsky:
(*I don’t mean to specifically target those who choose against vaccination, but the point is they put themselves in an emotionally-informed position at odds with the established science. Some even label the medical professionals, who attempt to inform them of the true benefits versus risks, as being shills for big pharma. I could go on.)