<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments for Atomic Insights</title> <atom:link href="http://atomicinsights.com/comments/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://atomicinsights.com</link> <description>Atomic Insights: Energy Technology, Economics and Politics from an Atomic Point of View</description> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 07:18:34 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator> <item><title>Comment on Debunking the Fukushima Spent Fuel Fable by Rod Adams</title><link>http://atomicinsights.com/2012/05/debunking-the-fukushima-spent-fuel-fable.html#comment-18045</link> <dc:creator>Rod Adams</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 07:18:34 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://atomicinsights.com/?p=12478#comment-18045</guid> <description>@Joe BIt is not geometry that keeps fresh fuel from fissioning. In order to create a self sustaining chain reaction using fuel assemblies made of low enriched uranium, you need to put together exactly the right combination of moderator (which encourages the reaction), a critical number of assemblies, and a reflector to help prevent neutron losses at the boundary of the assembly from preventing a keff of 1 or greater.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Joe B</p><p>It is not geometry that keeps fresh fuel from fissioning. In order to create a self sustaining chain reaction using fuel assemblies made of low enriched uranium, you need to put together exactly the right combination of moderator (which encourages the reaction), a critical number of assemblies, and a reflector to help prevent neutron losses at the boundary of the assembly from preventing a keff of 1 or greater.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>Comment on Debunking the Fukushima Spent Fuel Fable by Rod Adams</title><link>http://atomicinsights.com/2012/05/debunking-the-fukushima-spent-fuel-fable.html#comment-18044</link> <dc:creator>Rod Adams</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 07:14:53 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://atomicinsights.com/?p=12478#comment-18044</guid> <description>@Joe NeubarthYou sure can spew a load of bull. As a retired US Navy submarine officer, I can testify that there is absolutely zero evidence for any of your assertions about an increased rate of early deaths. Not only do I know a large number of ancient mariners who served on nuclear submarines personally, but I also spent four years (2004-2008) at OPNAV N1. For those who are unaware of how the Navy headquarters staff is structured, OPNAV N1 is the organization that is responsible for the people (human resources). We analyzed and budgeted for all costs related to personnel. I was involved in preparations of four budgets. Many topics were discussed, including rising costs of medical care. NOT ONCE was there a single mention, either in the briefing rooms or in the cubicle farms where we all worked very closely together of any issue related to illness or early deaths among submariners or other nuclear qualified sailors.PS - if you really worry about the longevity statistics for people who have worked with radiation all of their careers, I suggest you find some back issues of Nuclear News and look in the obituary column. There are often several people in each monthly issue in their late 80s or early 90s. One of my heroes, and an occasional contributor of guest columns on Atomic Insights, is Ted Rockwell, who is well into his late 80s and still going strong.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Joe Neubarth</p><p>You sure can spew a load of bull. As a retired US Navy submarine officer, I can testify that there is absolutely zero evidence for any of your assertions about an increased rate of early deaths. Not only do I know a large number of ancient mariners who served on nuclear submarines personally, but I also spent four years (2004-2008) at OPNAV N1. For those who are unaware of how the Navy headquarters staff is structured, OPNAV N1 is the organization that is responsible for the people (human resources). We analyzed and budgeted for all costs related to personnel. I was involved in preparations of four budgets. Many topics were discussed, including rising costs of medical care. NOT ONCE was there a single mention, either in the briefing rooms or in the cubicle farms where we all worked very closely together of any issue related to illness or early deaths among submariners or other nuclear qualified sailors.</p><p>PS &#8211; if you really worry about the longevity statistics for people who have worked with radiation all of their careers, I suggest you find some back issues of Nuclear News and look in the obituary column. There are often several people in each monthly issue in their late 80s or early 90s. One of my heroes, and an occasional contributor of guest columns on Atomic Insights, is Ted Rockwell, who is well into his late 80s and still going strong.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>Comment on Debunking the Fukushima Spent Fuel Fable by Joe B</title><link>http://atomicinsights.com/2012/05/debunking-the-fukushima-spent-fuel-fable.html#comment-18043</link> <dc:creator>Joe B</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 06:57:45 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://atomicinsights.com/?p=12478#comment-18043</guid> <description>Yes it is not irradiated yet but i mean wouldn&#039;t it have a lot more potential energy if the necessary geometry that keeps it from fissioning were lost? (if the building goes down or the cladding melted) assuming it was 1/3rd of a full load that is fresh, that would be around 30 tonnes of fresh to 430 tonnes spent.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes it is not irradiated yet but i mean wouldn&#8217;t it have a lot more potential energy if the necessary geometry that keeps it from fissioning were lost? (if the building goes down or the cladding melted) assuming it was 1/3rd of a full load that is fresh, that would be around 30 tonnes of fresh to 430 tonnes spent.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>Comment on Atomic Show #183 &#8211; Discussion with Dr. Arjun Makhijani by James Greenidge</title><link>http://atomicinsights.com/2012/05/atomic-show-183-discussion-with-dr-arjun-makhijani.html#comment-18040</link> <dc:creator>James Greenidge</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 05:07:22 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://atomicinsights.com/?p=12491#comment-18040</guid> <description>Great peg-down! Hope the door didn&#039;t slam on his way out! Do always hang this expose somewhere on the front page (and it behooves other nuclear blogs to do same!) like a trophy of fact and critical inquiry, doing the job the media won&#039;t do! May Arnie and Helen step up at bat!Great job!James Greenidge
Queens NY</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great peg-down! Hope the door didn&#8217;t slam on his way out! Do always hang this expose somewhere on the front page (and it behooves other nuclear blogs to do same!) like a trophy of fact and critical inquiry, doing the job the media won&#8217;t do! May Arnie and Helen step up at bat!</p><p>Great job!</p><p>James Greenidge<br
/> Queens NY</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>Comment on Atomic Show #183 &#8211; Discussion with Dr. Arjun Makhijani by DV82XL</title><link>http://atomicinsights.com/2012/05/atomic-show-183-discussion-with-dr-arjun-makhijani.html#comment-18039</link> <dc:creator>DV82XL</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 04:15:04 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://atomicinsights.com/?p=12491#comment-18039</guid> <description>As I wrote in an earlier comment in another thread, those that do know the subject and do not support nuclear energy (fission) know better than to cross swords with pronukes in public, or have their ideas subjected to any scrutiny by the same.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As I wrote in an earlier comment in another thread, those that do know the subject and do not support nuclear energy (fission) know better than to cross swords with pronukes in public, or have their ideas subjected to any scrutiny by the same.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>Comment on Debunking the Fukushima Spent Fuel Fable by Nathan Wilson</title><link>http://atomicinsights.com/2012/05/debunking-the-fukushima-spent-fuel-fable.html#comment-18038</link> <dc:creator>Nathan Wilson</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 04:11:18 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://atomicinsights.com/?p=12478#comment-18038</guid> <description>Stella,
I&#039;m quite sympathetic with the plight of the non-technical public.  They are supposed to be able to get good science news from scientifically literate science reporters.  But as an engineer, I hear a lot of science news that is so wrong, it makes me cringe (particularly with regard to nuclear power).In engineering, we only believe the things we (or others) can measure.  If someone tells me a catastrophe has happened, I&#039;ll ask for a quantitative measure, such as the fatality count (note that the Fukushima nuclear fatatlity count is still zero).  If someone tells me a pool has dried up, I&#039;ll ask what is the evidence.  If someone tells me a giant area has been contaminated with radioactivity, I&#039;ll ask how contaminated (we can detect radiation that is a minuscule fraction of the danger level).Also, in engineering, people&#039;s reputation is built upon their track record for success.  Working at a policy institute and writing critiques of other peoples success doesn&#039;t count for anything (actually, it&#039;s a negative).  The engineers and scientists who designed our fleet of reactor have earned my trust by virtue of the fact that they built them successfully.  Note that it also takes talent to build a good fossil fuel power plant, but the fossil fuel safety record is not nearly as good as that of the nuclear industry.Regarding untrustworthy company executives, none of them are trustworthy.  A good reporter knows this and asks to interview scientists or engineers instead (but again the mainstream media rarely does any good nuclear reporting).In closing, the bad news is that you can&#039;t escape from radiation or risk by moving to New Zealand, the entire planet is full of both.  The good news is that small doses of radiation are harmless, and you can reduce risk by wearing your seat belt when you travel by car and by not smoking.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stella,<br
/> I&#8217;m quite sympathetic with the plight of the non-technical public.  They are supposed to be able to get good science news from scientifically literate science reporters.  But as an engineer, I hear a lot of science news that is so wrong, it makes me cringe (particularly with regard to nuclear power).</p><p>In engineering, we only believe the things we (or others) can measure.  If someone tells me a catastrophe has happened, I&#8217;ll ask for a quantitative measure, such as the fatality count (note that the Fukushima nuclear fatatlity count is still zero).  If someone tells me a pool has dried up, I&#8217;ll ask what is the evidence.  If someone tells me a giant area has been contaminated with radioactivity, I&#8217;ll ask how contaminated (we can detect radiation that is a minuscule fraction of the danger level).</p><p>Also, in engineering, people&#8217;s reputation is built upon their track record for success.  Working at a policy institute and writing critiques of other peoples success doesn&#8217;t count for anything (actually, it&#8217;s a negative).  The engineers and scientists who designed our fleet of reactor have earned my trust by virtue of the fact that they built them successfully.  Note that it also takes talent to build a good fossil fuel power plant, but the fossil fuel safety record is not nearly as good as that of the nuclear industry.</p><p>Regarding untrustworthy company executives, none of them are trustworthy.  A good reporter knows this and asks to interview scientists or engineers instead (but again the mainstream media rarely does any good nuclear reporting).</p><p>In closing, the bad news is that you can&#8217;t escape from radiation or risk by moving to New Zealand, the entire planet is full of both.  The good news is that small doses of radiation are harmless, and you can reduce risk by wearing your seat belt when you travel by car and by not smoking.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>Comment on Debunking the Fukushima Spent Fuel Fable by DV82XL</title><link>http://atomicinsights.com/2012/05/debunking-the-fukushima-spent-fuel-fable.html#comment-18037</link> <dc:creator>DV82XL</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 04:06:39 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://atomicinsights.com/?p=12478#comment-18037</guid> <description>Again with the &quot;I used to support nuclear but&quot; attempt to ingratiate the poster and underline his/her sincerity.  I simply don&#039;t buy this line anymore and it only shows me that the poster is untruthful and cannot be trusted.The tactic is old now, give it up.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Again with the &#8220;I used to support nuclear but&#8221; attempt to ingratiate the poster and underline his/her sincerity.  I simply don&#8217;t buy this line anymore and it only shows me that the poster is untruthful and cannot be trusted.</p><p>The tactic is old now, give it up.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using memcached

Served from: atomicinsights.com @ 2012-05-17 03:35:26 -->
