Sunniva Rose is a nuclear engineer working on her PhD at the University of Oslo. She is also a talented public speaker who likes to capture her audience’s attention, partially by choosing colors like pink and green to highlight facts about nuclear energy, deaths per terawatt hour, and growth in human population.
In Nov 2013, she gave a TEDxOslo talk titled How bad is it really Nuclear technology – facts and feelings. For your convenience, I’ve embedded the YouTube video of that talk.
Ms. Rose is studying nuclear energy systems that will take advantage of thorium. She is not a fan of plutonium, but I will not hold that against her. She wryly points out that it might not be quite fair that Norway was endowed with both oil and perhaps the third largest thorium resource in the world. She is also rightfully proud of the fact that thorium was discovered in Norway and is named after the Norse god of thunder, Thor.
At the end of her talk – spoiler alert – Ms. Rose channels her inner Stuart Brand by asking a puzzling question that needs to be posed more often — especially at gatherings of liberal, pro-science critical thinkers.
How is it possible to worry about global warming and not be pro-nuclear?
I’m not sure why none of my contacts have pointed this video out before now, but I am glad I found it on a Singularity, Inc. web page titled Still Don’t Believe?
Aside: Singularity, Inc.’s story is worth retelling. That is a task for another day and time. Please remind me if you do not hear more soon. End Aside.
Sunniva Rose has a multilingual blog – sometimes English, sometimes Norwegian – titled SunnivaRose – about nuclear physics and research and stuff. I recommend a visit; you might want to be using a browser that can perform translations on the fly.
While browsing Sunniva Rose’s site, I found this thoughtful and beautifully photographed piece about contrasts, challenges and opportunities related to nuclear energy.
Sushi & Nuclear (12min) from Bulldozer Film on Vimeo.
So we’re at a bizarre guilt by association: Car manufacturers are bad because a used car salesmen ripped off my aunt Bea.
Good topic. I jut regret that Rose has standard hangup about plutonium despite its unproven perils and its contributions to humanity in the space program.
Hate to crash a topic but I just found that the Hall of Science here in NYC has a perm display exhibit of this ditty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH3AlPmavDk&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs
I thought science was supposed to be factual and neutral yet there’s absolutely no counter-weight to this flick where thousands of school kids are exposed and brainwashed by it every week. In fact there’s no nuclear ANYTHING in the Hall of Science(!), but LOTS of solar and windmill and recycle stuff to stuff back on. No wonder Indian Point is having to battle FUD with its hand tied behind its back. This is also the haunt of Neil deGrasse Tyson in case you want to know where the heads of the Hall’s administrators is coming from.
A heads-up and a FUD-busting PR mission to all nuclear advocacy organizations.
James Greenidge
Queens NY
“Ms. Rose channels her inner Stuart Brand by asking a puzzling question that needs to be posed more often — especially at gatherings of liberal, pro-science critical thinkers.”
What an oxymoron – liberal and critical thinking. BTW, there is a difference between science (read Pope St John Paul II’s Fides et Ratio) and the pagan religion of scientism with its myth of anthropogenic global warming. Oh, excuse me – I mean climate change.
Liberal. Progressive. Democrat. You are the reason for nuclear having been stymied during the reign of Barack Hussein Obama.
Ioannes, nuclear didn’t make much progress during the reigns of George Bush the First and George Bush the Second, either. You’ll be sad to see that the latest papal encyclical wasn’t even released in Latin, and that the English text claims –
‘A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.’
I don’t get my science from the Pope, but it’s a bit unfortunate that he also claims –
‘Each year hundreds of millions of tons of waste are generated, much of it non-biodegradable, highly toxic and radioactive…’
The quantities that are radioactive, apart from coal ash, would be in the low tens of thousands of tons, rather than hundreds of millions, and the term ‘waste’ is arguable.
Great video Sushi and Nuclear. Well done, educational and original.