1. Rod, thanks for the updates on this: I rather appreciate hearing about what’s going on with these meetings. Lyman’s comments are of course, predictable – the same shopworn objections I’ve seen him give at every conference he’s been at.
    I actually just had the opportunity to meet with someone at Oak Ridge who actually worked at West Valley and other U.S. reprocessing efforts – very fascinating fellow, and you might get a lot out of talking with him. He had some very trenchant observations about the past and future of reprocessing in the U.S. (he is strongly in favor of it, and his argument is that by and large we’ve learned a great deal since West Valley). Not only that, of course, but he has much to tell of the specific lessons we’ve learned. I can give you his contact info if you’re interested.

    1. Steve:
      Please send me the Oak Ridge guy’s contact information. My email address is at the bottom of the blog – just keep scrolling down. It would be a terrific conversation to have for the Atomic Show.

  2. Hi Rod. Thank you for the helpful update. By the way, I think Lyman’s words actually show that the nuclear renaissance is affecting even real anti-nukes, the ones who used to say: “we don’t want SAFE nukes! We don’t want ANY nukes!” Most of the anti-s I meet nowadays say things just like Lyman: “I’m not pro-nuke or anti-nuke, I just have THESE objections to THIS project.”
    I think this is progress. This is what people always used to say about renewables (and still say). It is not acceptable to be against renewables, so people who were intervening against geothermal plants always explained that they weren’t AGAINST geothermal, they just had these objections to this project, etc.
    I think what has happened is that people are no longer comfortable being identified as “anti-nuke under all circumstances.” The tide is shifting, and now the nuclear opponents must use the kind of wording the anti-renewable people used.
    It reminds me of civil rights. WAY back (I’m older than you) many people in the South had no difficulty saying terrible things about people of color. They just out and out SAID this stuff. Then, with the civil rights movement, they stopped saying these things outright, though they still probably thought the same way. I remember thinking: “sometimes hypocrisy is actually progress!”

  3. Thanks for the excellent report, Rod. I look forward to your further thoughts and updates on BRC doings.
    UCS always claims to be neutral about nuclear power but consistently trots out antiquated data to support its actual, anti-nuclear stance.

  4. I tend to agree with Kirk Sorensen and NNadir that even the fission product portion of the fuel leftovers should not be considered to be waste.The following somewhat older paper attempts to document all the fission products produced in commercial Light Water Reactors and their value (in 1965 dollars)

  5. Rod Adams wrote:
    Dr. Lyman started off his talk by categorically stating that the Union of Concerned Scientists is neither pro-nuclear nor anti-nuclear.
    Of course not. They just want to hold nuclear power to impossibly high standards, while ignoring the real and on-going hazards of the other methods of power generation that surround us right now.

  6. So Lyman says that UCS is not anti-nuclear, in front of a large, important audience.
    Where is congressman Joe Wilson when you need him (“you lie!!!”).
    Seriously, has Mr. Lyman ever seen UCS’s website, or heard any of their public statements about nuclear? The fact that they think they can tell professional nuclear audiences that they’re not against nuclear, even in principle, is simply an insult to our intelligence. It shows just how little they think of us.

    1. I think that it’s entirely possible that they might have convinced themselves that they are not an anti-nuclear organization.
      When you tell as many lies as they do (and not just about nuclear), it becomes difficult to differentiate fact from fiction. Remember that this is also a group that refers to itself as “scientists.”
      They are fooling themselves in more ways than one.

  7. Dr. Lyman: “And that horse-less carriage idea? It’ll never fly … hmm, perhaps I need a different metaphor.”
    I’ve seen someone else refer to the UCS as the UCL – Union of Concerned Lawyers. (or Luddites)

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts