Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Subscribe to Comments:


  1. “That market was not designed to solve this climate problem.”

    There is the whole problem in a nutshell.

  2. The market was not designed to solve the problem of over-grazing of the commons,
    but mankind figured out a way to make the market work in allocating grazing rights,
    a couple of thieving nutcases in Nevada excepted.

    We simply need to start charging for the use of our atmosphere,
    and the market will work wonders.

    1. Re: “We simply need to start charging for the use of our atmosphere,
      and the market will work wonders.”

      I wouldn’t give the green crazies any ideas that spineless windvane city councils would hop hoops for. It wouldn’t stop at factories. They’d start taxing you for backyard barbecues and mowing your lawn to fineing anyone covertly pissing in the surf at the beach for polluting the ocean like you can for lakes (forgot to tell the bears that). If New Zealand’s that crazy to totally ban nukes I think these wild pro-green measures can get that crazy here.

      James Greenidge — who remembers the homespun beauty and scents and romance of burning fall leaves on NYC streets when we used to have fireflies lighting up spring and summer nights like snowflakes. Not anymore. Not since EPA.
      Queens NY

  3. Sorry for being off topic but:

    Science Magazine, May 20, 2016:

    title: “Near miss at Fukushima is a warning for U.S., panel says”

    Second paragraph: [[ Thanks to a lucky break detailed in a report released today by the U.S. National Academies, Japan dodged that bullet. The near calamity “should serve as a wake-up call for the industry,” says Joseph Shepherd, a mechanical engineer at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena who chaired the academy committee that produced the report. Spent fuel accumulating at U.S. nuclear reactor plants is also vulnerable, the report warns. A major spent fuel fire at a U.S. nuclear plant “could dwarf the horrific consequences of the Fukushima accident,” says Edwin Lyman, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit in Washington, D.C., who was not on the panel. ]]

    (The author adds “The near calamity” to the opening statement “should serve as a wake-up call.)

    Anyway, I thought some might find this interesting.

    The National Academy of Sciences


    1. Calling NEI & ANS & other media nuclear champions (cough) to step up to the plate and call these people out before they royally get away with poisoning the masses with FUD again!

    1. That is not a balanced or credible source. It is a one-sided article designed to generate FUD, nothing more. It rehashes the debunked speculation about F. Daiichi SFP4 being “a raging inferno”, when in fact calculations and experimental data show that the zirconium cladding will not “burn” in those conditions, nor will the uranium oxide fuel pellets. As it turned out, there was little or no damage to SFP4, but I have yet to hear an acknowledgment from those who said there was that they were wrong, and wrong to incite the FUD that they did. The article is also rife with FUDdy phrases, things like “the odds of the assemblies’ zirconium cladding catching fire would have skyrocketed” (emphasis added). “Skyrocketed”, is a focus group-tested expression designed to enhance fear and/or excitement. The only thing that “skyrocketed” at F. Daiichi was the unnecessary panic and fear that resulted from an unneeded evacuation, which in turn caused fatalities among the affected group. The responsibility for those fatalities can be laid at the door of the FUDdites who caused the unwarranted anxiety and foreboding.

      1. Wayne SW:

        You’re totally absolutely correct, but the lasting fly in the ointment here is that the public knows squat what you know, only what’s constantly fed them by these “authorities” and “scientific sources” they know squat about. They know squat there were zero rad casualties at Fukushima and that the reactors didn’t cause all that (quake) mass destruction like half the media over their coyly imply. The antis and the NAS and Science Mag royally get away with not giving the straight story on nukes because there’s no nuclear org or mass media spokesperson to openly contest or challenge them. So-called “science guys” in the media have never really put Fukuskima much less TMI in perspective so (theoretically) it’s left up to nuclear advocacy groups like ANS and NEI to Get Out There and challenge and correct the antis on the playing field of the mass media and open debates, not rebuffing antis from the deep holes of a blog. Until the nuclear community and industry really REALLY “get” that this the real battleground for nuclear’s image and public acceptance, they’re just stroking whiz-bang future reactor wet dreams on the deck of the Titanic. Do I damn the antis for spreading FUD? You bet! Do I begrudge them for leaping on opportunities to fill PR voids left wide open and vacant by neglectful and incompetent pronuclears? I believe in Darwin, that’s my answer.

        James Greenidge
        Queens NY

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts