from Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen :
I can‘t say enough how it‘s time that we get beyond and—and start focusing on the technology we have and move forward into the future, so that our grandchildren and—can have the same lifestyle we have.
And—and this earth‘s been here 6,000 years. … It‘s been here 6,000 years, long before anybody had environmental laws. And, somehow, it hasn‘t been done away with.
And we need to get the uranium here in Arizona, so this state can get the money from it and the—the revenue from it. And it can be done safely, and you’ll never even know the mine was there when they‘re done.
I am for this.
Personally, I don’t think I know enough about the technology, the risks, the trade-offs, etc. to form judgments on my own about nuclear power vs. the alternatives. On matters like this, I need to rely on people I can trust who do have the required knowledge and education. So this post is not about the substantive policy questions. It’s about the qualifications of people who don’t hesitate to actually make policy decisions who are even less qualified than I would be.
The reactions that I’ve seen to this state senator’s remarks have pretty much been limited to her reliance on the belief that the earth is just 6,000 years old.
But that’s only the beginning of her nonsense. For example:
- … her implicit assumption that the only risk worth thinking about would be a risk to the existence of the planet. But the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl posed no risk to the existence of the planet — does that mean that any possibility of other such incidents should be of no concern to us? or
- … the logic of her thinking that the relevant trial period is the time span of the earth’s existence, rather than the half-century that humans have had use of nuclear technology. (First, I thought that the minuscule time that we humans have been here in comparison with the age of the earth would be a problem with her reasoning; then I realized that she thinks humans missed only the first five days or so of earth’s existence.)
Other problems: Well, to start with, how does somebody even believe in nuclear energy if they don’t believe in the theory that also gives us carbon dating?
I guess the bottom line is that, like many climate-change deniers, this woman thinks that nothing really bad can happen to God’s creation unless He’s the one who’s doing it — you know, like the flood in Genesis.
But can there really be a legislative district anywhere in this country that would want somebody like her making the decisions? What does that tell us about the state of education in this country?