Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Comments:


  1. Excellent Article (and comment provided to ABC news.)
    Hopefully some common sense will be returned to Nuclear Power.
    Here is one example of the ludicrous changes as a result of changes to Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations and in particular 10 CFR 20 by these changes.
    Many changes have occurred and been brought about simply because of the increased sensitivity of the monitoring equipment. In the early sixties while I served on Nuclear subs when a fluorescent lamp burnt out or was replaced the old lamp was discarded with the trash. In the mid seventies we had a significantly more sensitive pancake GM Probe monitor. During that time someone had discovered that the burnout fluorescent bulbs exceed the level of acceptable trash. Thus we were collecting these bulbs and packaging them up with other “contaminated waste” for proper disposal. Meanwhile, I noticed no changes on how these lamps were handled in Navy buildings, and non nuclear ships. One company I worked at had a policy of replacing all fluorescent lamps every 4 (5?) years, They claimed it was less expensive to have all new lamps that last that long than to call in a crew every week or so and replace a few dozen flickering lamps. How much “Contaminated waste” was discarded in the local dump each time they did this? And I am sure this is still going on today at many companies. Why are they “exempt?” Yet we still have activists protesting any reductions in what has to be called Radioactive Waste.

  2. Any speculation on what is motivating ABC news to quash these informative comments? I could (sort of) excuse them removing yours, because you called out the Rockefeller Foundation by name and they might have a liability concern, but the other two contain sanitary academic references.

  3. Several other comments experienced similar treatment of being initially accepted and then removed.

    THIS is why you use archive sites to save snapshots so that the public can go back and see what has been removed.

  4. Rod Adams — There is a suitable depository for the comments that you mentioned were removed from the ABC site: The
    Brave New Climate Discussion Forum
    now has a new Global Moderator. Under the Energy section you could start a thread on radiation models and include separate posts for the three essays.

    A suitable place to advertise these is, currently, the
    Open Energy 1
    thread on Euan Mearns’
    Energy Matters
    blog. Euan has expressed interest in having a separate thread about LNT and what is wrong with it. I turned down his invite as not being sufficiently knowledgeable but also not having the production facilities on this mobile device. If you have time and interest to do this, send me an email so I see if Euan Mearns is interested in following up; he is extremely busy these days.

    1. How long was it? This site allows for some fairly lengthy comments. If yours can fit within the limits, perhaps we should discuss a guest post. Email me via the contact form on this site.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts