1. It reminds of the attitude that some environmentalists have these days. Babyboomers that had a great deal of fun driving muscle cars that had halve the mpg and lots of toxic emissions. They enjoyed the economic benefits of an uninfluential environmentalist movement that was only just beginning, with manufacturing jobs and a government with industry friendly policies.
    BUT for today’s youth, for the new generation, these SAME people have a different plan:
    Reducing our carbon footprint is now considered far more important than individual pleasures that consume energy. We’re supposed to have no car at all, and if we do, make it very very small and use it only on special occasions. Green building codes require higher density living rather than having more space for oneself. Air conditioning is being replaced with “energy efficient” solutions that don’t work. The future of sustainable development reads like mideaval history, with massive restrictions on food, employment, transportation, housing.
    All in the name of reducing energy use, since energy means carbon emissions, means climate change, nevermind nuclear – we can’t have that. The same people that lived so “wasteful” are lecturing the youth now about the need for sustainability – always combined with anti-nuclearism -, some actively, some passively, but few speak out against it.

  2. Rod, Thanks for the content and well thought out detail to clarify the Admirals position….
    Great job!

  3. If we need to reduce radiological substances in the environment, then we need to do two things:
    1. Replace coal-fired power plants with nuclear power plants. The radiological releases from coal-fired plants are higher than from nuclear plants.
    2. Proceed with great effort to develop advanced nuclear reactors that can use all that nasty uranium and thorium that is rather randomly scatterd about. The resulting fission products will decay much faster than the orginal uranium and thorium, greatly speeding up that natural decay process that is supposed to be so good for us. After a few centuries, that “waste” (really a source of rare-earth elements) is less radioactive than the original ore. What a deal! Uranium and thorium get removed from the open environment, and are replaced by fast decaying fission products (safely stored in a closed environment) that then become less radioactive then the original stuff in a relatively short period of time.

  4. I have had the honor to be in the presence Admiral Rickover three times. The last time he had been an officer 50 years longer than I had. It was embarrassing. His force of will had not diminished but the intellect to direct was gone

  5. Why not publish Rickover’s full presentation, instead of interpreting his words one way or another? We all know how to read and make up our minds.
    Yo did not show that Rickover did no say what Grossman atributes to him, so in a way you confirmed that he did say so. Therefore, what is the point oy your blog entry?

    1. The point is that when a person says they oppose something they have long supported, there may be reasons for that withdraw of support that are apart from the actual nature of the case. Children who tell their parents “I hate you!!” when their parents discipline them are a case in point. So, Rod’s case here is that, pride coupled with rejection and a habitual over caution led to these statements.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts