Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Subscribe to Comments:


  1. Rod:

    Unless Google isn’t coughing up the true facts for me I’m really disturbed by this. This morning just a few minutes ago a Hudson River Clearwater Alliance member — the pitchfork and torches mob after Indian Point, clucked on WABC Newsradio that that “the people of NY have spoken on nuclear and we don’t want it, just like no nuclear ships this Fleet Week.”

    I Googled NY Fleet Week to check this out but can’t tell if any of the Navy ships are nukes unless our green nanny mayor is keeping it underwraps. I can’t believe the Navy would kowtow to greens and not proudly have on display at least one of it’s nuclear ships in the US’s largest city and the home of 911! What does that say to the public??

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

    1. None of the listed ships are nuclear. To my knowledge, the Navy no longer has any active nuclear surface ships which are not carriers. The only “Carrier” in attendance is an LHD. That’s the Marine equivalent to a carrier and is sort of a mini-carrier. It can carry helos, Harriers, F35Bs, and V-22 Ospreys, but has no catapult or arresting gear. It also has hovercraft it can launch out the back from a wet well. It basically is meant for amphibious assaults. Anyway…it is non-nuclear.

      1. The USN has not had nuclear-powered surface ships for some time now, the last decommissioned in 1999, so that Hudson River Clearwater Alliance member is either woefully misinformed, or mendacious.

  2. In response to your game suggestion to “Jot down any comments or discussion points that the panelists made that seem familiar based on your status as an Atomic Insights reader.” Wow, where to begin? I can only envision this as a series of posts.

    First off, Jacob DeWitte’s efforts at Oklo to build a VERY small, commercially viable reactor for locations that lack the need, infrastructure, etc. for a 50MW reactor let alone a 500MW-1300MW reactor is, though not directly analogous, eerily reminiscent of your efforts a decade ago to engender interest in the Adams Engine. This area alone could be the topic of a great deal of discussion and perhaps an Atomic Show with Jacob DeWitte as a guest.

    Much more to follow in subsequent posts relating to other things that were covered.

  3. A comment by Cynthia Pezze with respect to the Nuclear Industry always emphasizing “Safety” above all other aspects and benefits of nuclear power rather than cultivating a matter of fact vocabulary surrounding the subject that inculcates a recognition that nuclear is currently the safest form of energy and will remain so as advancement in the technologies proceeds. This echoes the presentation by Malcolm Grimston gave at the CNA 2016 Conference you brought to readers attention in your May 7, 2016 post.

    This dovetails into a comment by John Hopkins about what he referred to as “Manipulatable Uninformed” – subject of my next post

  4. Aahh…..the “Manipulatable Uninformed”, to whom John Hopkins referred. Rod, as both you and many times Jim Hopf have commented at Atomic Insights, Public Perception is often characterized by FUD. The FUD is a product of a variety of factors. One, the misinformation continually provided for consumption by the public from anti-nuclear advocacy groups and much of the media in general. Two, the belief that any exposure to radiation is damaging (i.e. LNT which has been a topic of discussion at Atomic Insights) despite the fact that nuclear materials are used pervasively in diagnosis and intervention by the medical community at levels far exceeding any that could be amassed emanating from a commercial nuclear reactor. Third, much of the public can be correctly portrayed as the “Manipulatable Uninformed” largely due to a dearth of robust effort by the Nuclear Industry to allay public FUD. When Cynthia Pezze suggested that nuclear science needs to be integrated into science curriculum at the High School level she is absolutely right….but who is going to take up the challenge of developing a stimulating set of tools for teachers to use that will capture the imagination of their students…..maybe the Nuclear Industry could provide funding to the Kahn Academy to play such a role…..the creative thought exhibited by Rod and many who comment at Atomic Insights could very well serve to spring board such an effort if the industry demonstrated interest in such an endeavor and to provide a counter to the naysayers.

    John Hopkins challenging the Naysayers – subject of my next post

  5. On May 16, 2016 Rod provided the post “Sierra Club’s Michael Brune Offers Lousy Excuses About Nuclear Energy Position” here at Atomic Insights that was also picked up in “Best of the Blogs” at the Nuclear Townhall. The posting alerted readers to a revealing interview of Miichael Brune by Wall Street Journal writer Russell Gold. In the interview Brune repeated oft used canards and mostly dodged Gold’s questions. In the panel discussion at NEA 2016 John Hopkins stated that he subsequently had the opportunity to meet and speak with Michael Brune and invited Brune to visit him at NuScale to review the technology and ask any questions he wished to get a clearer picture of where Nuclear is Now and where it is heading. Although Hopkins obviously had his doubts as to whether Brune would take him up on the invitation.

    1. Cindy Pezze (Westinghouse) education comments begin at 56:30, the rest follow.

      Hope Micheal Brune accepts the challenging opportunities offered by NuScale’s John Hopkins. Perhaps Melinda Gates could discuss the B&MGF world view with him as well.

  6. Some may say that I’m way off, but Obama’s tacit Hiroshima apology hints heavily how he generally views nuclear energy as a whole.

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

    1. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the first successes of nuclear fission changing the world.
      By 1945, two irrefutable facts dominated the decision to use Fat Man and Little Boy. The US Pacific Forces had large losses fighting the Japanese during the Island campaigns. The Japanese never posed an easy win, the generally fought to death. Saipan, Phillippines, Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal represented significant challenges to the Pacific Forces. Counting Chinese civilians – over 26,000,000 were killed by the Japanese 1937 to 1945. These are numbers that rival the Holocaust. Chinese lives lost were just as dear as European Jews.
      With a large rested Army that had essentially occupied Manchuria for 2 years, the concept of a battle on the Japanese Island of Honshu was estimated to cost 100s of thousands to 1,000,000 additional lives of the Pacific Forces, plus an unknown number of civilian deaths.
      The Japanese refused surrender warnings and lost two cities, sparing the 1,000,000 plus deaths of a mainland attack.
      Liberals have tripped over themselves apologizing over August 1945 for decades.
      This is, in historic context – ridiculous.
      Evaluating alternatives, the correct decision was made then, and it stands today.
      There were no Shinto extremist Japanese Kamikaze pilots (religiously inspired suicide bombers) attacking US assets after 1945.
      Success, at great human cost – that prevented a far greater cost.

      1. Rob…I’m a liberal, and I know many liberals. I don’t know a single one that is “tripping over themselves” apologizing for our use of nuclear weapons to end WWll.

        However, I do know a number of so called “conservatives” that are prone to using ignorant blanket statements in order to advance the divisive partisan crap they’ve been brainwashed into believing.

        1. @poa

          I know many liberals. I don’t know a single one that is “tripping over themselves” apologizing for our use of nuclear weapons to end WWll.

          However, I do know a number of so called “conservatives” that are prone to using ignorant blanket statements…

          That sounds a little blanketing and divisive to me.

          1. Well…Rod. it begs the question…

            Do you know any liberals tripping over themself to apologize for Hiroshima?

            And, uh, what about any conservatives that make ignorant blanket statements that RW media loudmouths like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity have planted in their heads.

            Be honest now.

            1. @poa

              Actually, there is a whole subgroup of people on the Left that strongly advocate for the US to formally apologize for Hiroshima.

              Here is a piece in The Nation from the last anniversary of the bombing titled “70 Years Later, We Still Haven’t Apologized for Bombing Japan: We’ve somehow convinced ourselves that Hiroshima was an act of mercy.”


              Here is the guilt-laden lede from that article.

              Here we are, 70 years after the nuclear obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I’m wondering if we’ve come even one step closer to a moral reckoning with our status as the world’s only country to use atomic weapons to slaughter human beings. Will an American president ever offer a formal apology? Will our country ever regret the dropping of “Little Boy” and “Fat Man,” those two bombs that burned hotter than the sun? Will it absorb the way they instantly vaporized thousands of victims, incinerated tens of thousands more, and created unimaginably powerful shockwaves and firestorms that ravaged everything for miles beyond ground zero? Will it finally come to grips with the “black rain” that spread radiation and killed even more people — slowly and painfully — leading in the end to a death toll for the two cities conservatively estimated at more than 250,000?

              Does that constitute “tripping over themselves?” I think so.

              Do I know ANY conservatives that make blanket statements traceable to Limbaugh or Hannity — of course. Do I know hundreds of conservative people who never, ever listen to either one of those performers — absolutely.

              On the second answer, in case you question my numbers, please remember that I am a retired US naval officer. The Navy’s officer corps runs about 80% to the right of center, but it is full of thinking, caring, service oriented leaders that, in most cases, have learned how to treat and respect people of all kinds. Their wives and families are pretty neat as well.

          2. Rod, you cited a media piece about a group of liberals wanting to apologize to the Japanese. With a simple google search, I too can find a media piece saying just about anything I want to cite. That not what I asked you though. I asked if you knew any liberals holding that sentiment. I sure don’t. What about liberals waging a war on Christmas? Know any? The list goes on and on. These are all media implanted false premises, designed for people like Brian or Rob to go forth and sputter. And sputter they do, loudly, and prolifically.

            1. @poa

              Citing an article in The Nation magazine, which has been an outlet for thought leaders on the left for more than 150 years is not exactly a “media piece.”


              I’m not trying to discourage participation here, but there is a big difference between popular media that is designed to entertain and thought literature that is aimed at intellectuals that build their whole careers on influencing thinking and policy-making.

          3. Egads…Rod. Your defense of The Nation is remarkably similiar to what one hears from a conservative complimenting an equally agenda driven right wing publication. Certainly, as a past online subscriber to The Nation, I can assure you that it is not without its editorial biases.

            1. @poa

              You don’t get it. I’m not “defending” The Nation. I was simply stating that it is an oracle of The Left in a similar way that National Review is an oracle of the right.

              Neither are aimed at “the masses.”

              Big difference between them and the mass entertainment media.

          4. Rod….on the one hand you state that you know many conservstives that are intellectually untethered to the Limbaugh/Hannity static. Then, on the other hand, you offer a bastion of leftist media as evidence to back up Rob’s assertion that liberals are “tripping over themselves” to apologize for Hiroshima. So, are you arguing tjat the majority of liberals read the Nation, but a minority of conservatives listen to or watch Limbaugh and Hannity? I asked you if you KNOW any liberal that hold the views that Rob attributes to them. Of course, your subsequent dance answers that question clearly. Have you ever considered the possibility that the two media factions, left and right, are in collusion with our so called “leaders”, and are engaged in a purposeful and highly successful effort to sow widespread and crippling division in the populace? There has been much said, erroneously, about the crippled state of our government in reachibg consensus. This is false. They are accomplishing quite a bit. We are engaged in war on a number of fronts in a myriad of countries. Laws robbing us of our rights and freedoms are being passed left and right. Trade agreements that advance global players above the benefit of the people are becoming commonplace. And what do we get? Divisive media rhetoric masterfully designed to keep Rob and I bickering about bullshit. Your optimism still sees a kind of country that long ago became a false front, a charade. We the people lost our voices along time ago. Wake up.

        2. Rod is quite right. This is not directed exclusively at poa but a general appeal to all who frequent the valuable venue that Rod graciously provides.

          Why do any conversations have to degenerate into ideological battles. I often describe myself as an “Age of Enlightenment Classical Liberal” which paradoxically has very little to do with what being an American Liberal means today. I have many friends and acquaintances with very diverse perspectives on myriad topics. They are able to capably espouse their perspective on subjects while avoiding rancor. As one stanza of Rudyard Kipling’s classic poem “IF” intoned to his son, whom he lost as a result of WWI…..”If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you. But make allowance for their doubting too……Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it, And – which is more – you’ll be a Man, my son!”

          1. NCV – Some people have difficulty with reality and tend to react somewhat explosively when simple facts are pointed out.

            Facts are facts. Circling the wagons and throwing excrement against the wall out of pure spite serves only to demonstrate how intellectually bankrupt one’s ideas and one’s position are.

            In the end, cooler heads prevail and are given due attention — in spite of all of the screaming, drama, and faux outrage by lesser minds.

            1. @Brian Mays

              Yes, but sometimes you confuse your own opinions with “facts”. Even when what you say is true under certain limitations you neglect to add the necessary qualifiers. Not all environmentalists oppose nuclear energy; that has never been true and is even less true today. Not all liberals dislike nuclear energy or other contributors to human progress.

          2. Rod – Nah … that’s not true.

            I don’t confuse these things. I know what is solid fact and what is opinion. Moreover, I know what is a sad strawman argument.

            For example, I have never said that “all environmentalists oppose nuclear energy.” If I have a low opinion of environmentalists, particularly the professional ones, that is due to my personal experience with them. Believe me, based on these experiences, they have an even lower opinion of me and that’s without me saying anything at all. They don’t care about what I have to say, and they will shout very loudly so that I know that.

            When I state facts, I state facts, and I usually back them up with solid figures and references. When I express opinions, I express options, and what’s wrong with that?

            Most of what this blog has been over the years is merely a collection of opinions, isn’t it?

            Anyone who so cavalierly tosses around a term as emotionally charged as “denier” should not be lecturing others about not inserting the “necessary qualifiers.” And that’s my opinion.

            1. @Brian Mays

              Thank you for providing a link to support your opinion that I am someone who “cavalierly tosses around a term as emotionally charged as ‘denier’.”

              Just to remind myself of what I might have said, I followed the link to find a post titled

              “Are Mark Cooper and Peter Bradford climate change deniers?”

              Note the sentence structure and the punctuation mark at the end.

              Using the trusty find feature, I discovered that the post and its comment thread included “denier” 18 times. Of those, I started it with the question in the title. The only other instance in which I used “denier” in the combination of post and comment thread was as follows:

              …I am willing to keep pointing to the cognitive dissonance and illogic of people like Cooper and Bradford. They claim to be worried about CO2 – unless the offered solution happens to be nuclear fission energy. Calling them climate change deniers – based on their actions, not their words – is purposely designed to make heads spin.

          3. Heh … See? This is clearly a case of neglecting to add the “necessary qualifiers.” 😉

            Going forward, I suggest adding at least some (ironic) quotation marks to distinguish clearly between fact, opinion, and the use of a term employed by someone else, which you have repeated to offer criticism. Otherwise, people might accuse you out of the blue of being confused.

    2. “We come to ponder a terrible force unleashed in a not so distant past.” —@POTUS at Hiroshima

      Nuclear bombs need nuclear reactors to make them, so get rid of all nuclear reactors and the nuke bomb threat decays away. Simple! After all it IS a certified “terrible force”, right?

      1. It is a force. Nuclear weapons are a ” terrible” force. The energy for humanity provided by Nuclear Reactors is a “wondrous” force.

        Far greater death and destruction resulted from fire bombings in Europe and Japan during WWII. Napalm was, and is, a “terrible force” but we don’t get rid of gas stations.

        How an element is used is a reflection of the human condition and both the individual and collective human psyche, not the inherent characteristics or qualities of the element.

  7. Large volumes of hazardous wastes are produced each year, however only a small proportion of them are radioactive. While disposal options for hazardous wastes are generally well established, some types of hazardous waste face issues similar to those for radioactive waste and also require long-term disposal arrangements. The objective of this NEA study is to put the management of radioactive waste into perspective, firstly by contrasting features of radioactive and hazardous wastes, together with their management policies and strategies, and secondly by examining the specific case of the wastes resulting from carbon capture and storage of fossil fuels. The study seeks to give policy makers and interested stakeholders a broad overview of the similarities and differences between radioactive and hazardous wastes and their management strategies.

    1. @RMAU

      I’m confused. Did you mean to include a link to a study or at least it’s title? Your comment refers to “this NEA” study but there is no discussion in the rest of the thread about a study.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts