Since the tsunami that did more work on Japan in one day than Godzilla has accomplished in decades, hippies and “activists” have been outraged about the dangers of nuclear power and how it should be abandoned. Common explanations include some allusion to environmental awareness, a reference to either the Fukushima accident or Chernobyl, and guttural sounds usually made by large Australian lizards. Regardless of the extreme form of reactionary acclaim surrounding most of these hyped-up claims, nuclear power has indeed taken a bad rap lately from legislators and policymakers across some of the nuclear power-using nations in the world. In the classic vein of politicians, however, there’s a real look at the short term going on and a blatant miss on long-term realism. Anti-nuclear activists pay about as much attention to consequences as Richard Nixon.
Guardian.co.uk
“This seems legit, guys.”
Let’s pretend for a second that we don’t immediately disregard these activists as products of horrible American sitcoms and actually take them seriously. I’m going to compare each claim made by anti-nuclear power proponents and show how McDonald’s is worse.
NUCLEAR POWER IS BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!
You know what else is bad for the environment? Shutting down these nuclear plants and replacing them with power-generating systems that will produce at comparable levels. Explaining this fact is akin to smashing one’s head against the door, except with the added benefit of turning on light bulbs and slightly less cranial blood. Let’s take a quick count at other things bad for the environment.
- Excessive farting, which produces methane and is pretty consistent across the animal kingdom.
- Toilets filled with water. Clean, fresh water is a precious resource; we should obviously shit in it.
- Buying food from McDonald’s at the current rate, which makes more obese people and thus requires human civilization to make more food.
Nuclear power produces little in terms of waste besides spent nuclear rods, which are radioactive and a big hazard. Consuming Big Macs by the millions, however, produces a ton of waste that has to be disposed of, often via landfill. This is probably why that show Hoarders is so popular. Considerable McDonald’s intake produces great gastric distress, and as you can see above – excessive farting is bad for the environment. We should outlaw it.
OTHER ENERGY SOURCES ARE CLEANER!
Sure. They also don’t replicate anywhere near the amount of power we need – with 13% of the world’s electricity produced by nuclear plants. Tidal, solar, and wind farms are great in theory – in practice, they also have this little effect of “not powering your television in time for you to masturbate to Xena.” Theoretically they could – we’d just have to build a ton of them, and as you’ve probably noticed, the economy has been slightly less stable than the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.
vibrationdata.com
“I think we lost something” ~World Economy
Let’s see how each power system hurts the environment:
- Wind: It kills birds by the truckload and takes up a lot of space.
- Solar: Takes up a huge amount of land for little efficient gain.
- Hydro: Dams rivers and disrupts aquatic animal migration patterns; upsets Poseidon.
- Oil: Makes BP create Gulf Tourism ads on my tv during Bowl Season.
- Coal: Really?
On the flip side, servicing the thousands of McDonald’s retailers across the world requires a metric shit-ton of power that could go towards things like “blowing up African dictators.” Also, see the fart thing above. That’s not very environmentally-friendly of you, McDonald’s!
NUCLEAR MELTDOWNS ARE DANGEROUS!
Nuclear meltdowns do have this side effect of creating ghost cities later used in Call of Duty and Transformers, but I say that’s a good way to stimulate the economy. Of course, on a catastrophe level, the BP Gulf oil spill hemorrhaged oil all over the place – that’s like claiming the bonfire in your backyard is a fire hazard as F-15s napalm your house.
globalsecurity.org
Pictured: Minimal fire hazard.
In truth, everything is dangerous. Waking up in the morning is dangerous. Going to work is dangerous. Taking a dump at work on the boardroom conference table instead of in the bathroom is dangerous, but slightly less than doing it in the bathroom. Here’s something else that governments have conveniently overlooked as dangerous: invading countries. There’s no way that’s dangerous, right, since we do it with regularity these days?
In truth, eating regularly at McDonald’s is far more dangerous. As the title (and Kanye West) mentions the filet-o-fish sandwich, let’s take a gander at the nutritional “value.” Slightly less than 400 calories (1,600 kJ for our overseas readers) with 28% of your daily fat intake – on one of their healthier items! This is a recipe for a quick trip to emergency liposuction. Obesity and the fat epidemic across the United States has killed far more people than nuclear accidents have, and will continue doing so for the foreseeable future – so the answer is clear: ban nuclear energy and keep eating burgers that would make Newt Gingrich sacrifice his pancreas to the fire demons.
NUCLEAR POWER PROMOTES NUCLEAR TERRORISM!
I’m going to conveniently ignore that we’ve entered the George W. Bush zone, because this is patently idiotic. Yes, terrorism is a problem in this day and age. No, we don’t need to ban everything because of it – otherwise, we’d need to start with, oh, everything in our daily lives. Russia and Pakistan don’t even have clear grips on their nuclear weapons and the complaint is that nuclear power is a culprit here? Sure, other countries may want nukes to threaten with each other or promote their foreign policy dicks; it’s apparently easy to forget that Russia and the US had a forty-five year-long Cold War with both packing thousands of nukes.
I’m not sure how to relate McDonald’s to nuclear terrorism, but I do know that looking into the eyes of Ronald McDonald is looking into the very bowels of Hell itself.
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE NUCLEAR BOMBS!
We’re already dead.