1. I think it is bordering on criminal behavior to focus attention on the nuclear plants whose damage in the face of a terrible disaster is contained within the plant while ignoring the effects of oil, coal and gas facilities that spew hazardous materials out of designed leaks called smokestacks even under normal circumstances.
    Funny that you’d approvingly quote something that calls what you are doing “criminal behavior.” Or do industry shills like yourself get a special exemption from your hero’s arrogant, self-righteous, and thoroughly obnoxious condemnation of their paying close attention to Japan’s unfolding nuclear disaster? Only the Kool-Aid Brigade can talk about it, and everyone else is a criminal.
    How dare he, and you. Just who do you people think you are — God?

    1. Please don’t stop Jack, your infantile posts are putting all antinuclear zealots in just the right light.

    2. @ Jack – I believe Rod’s bio is clearly posted on his sight. Also, did you not realize that the name of this site is ATOMIC Insights?

    3. I don’t want to waste time finding all of the links again – you can with very little effort, but:
      More people die annually from Carbon Monoxide poisoning from gas heating than have died in total from nuclear power plants. It gets much worse if you factor in gas line explosions!
      Wind turbines provide about the same number of annual death rates.
      Similar , and worse, statistics for coal, oil, and even hydro can be found on the internet. And these are all comparing ANNUAL against the TOTAL, historical, record of nuclear power plant operation.
      And these are all historical, government tabulated actual deaths – not that dooms-day prediction that Chernobyl will cause more than 4000 deaths. It has been 25 years, and so far the actual number is still at 50.
      A nuclear power plant would be shutdown if it dumped the same amount of radioactive materials into the air that the average coal plant does.

      1. Rich – It doesn’t matter that other things kill more people. The loony Left freely recognizes that greatest health risks come from fossil fuels, but — get this — that’s precisely their reason for avoiding using nuclear power. (Link)
        You can’t make this stuff up. These are the people who claim that “global climate distruption” is “the most important issue facing humankind’s future,” so important that we must abandon the largest source of carbon-free energy that we have. The cognitive dissonance must be painful.

        1. Hey I am very liberal, but please do not lump me in “loony left”, because I am pro-nuclear. Many of us are on the left are pro-nuclear and are embarrassed by those Know Nothing Alarmists on the left. It is time to win this argument, so if you a liberal and pro-nuclear it is past time to speak up and tell the truth about Nuclear Power.
          Lets win this battle for our children’s sake!!!

          1. I’m not saying that every liberal is a loon, but the Center for American Progress is definitely a left-wing advocacy organization. As for “loony,” did you read the article?! I can’t think of any other way to describe it.

            1. Brian
              First, thanks for your reply.
              Second, I couldn’t read more than a few sentences before I became sick. This is one area some of my friends on the left are embarrassing themselves. So I would agree some of my liberal friends are loony on this issue, but are very good on other issues. I think most people on the left are reasonable and thoughtful people and I just wanted to make that point.
              However, I do agree there are loons who want the human population to crash to bring the world back in so called balance. Greenpeace is one organization which really wants this happen, but they are not main stream left.

              1. Are you sure about that, Stephen?
                I’m no fan of Greenpeace, but I couldn’t imagine them making explicitly pro-dieoff statements (unlike ultra-extremist green groups such as Earth First!, or elitist think tanks like the Club of Rome).
                Do you have a cite?

                1. George
                  Thanks for calling me out on Green Peace. I was talking off the top of my head and should have done better. I grouped them unfair with the pro-dieoff groups.

  2. follow – and please note that a few of the posts last night were from me. I found that replying to an email has you listed as guest. Heading for work so no time to go through and correct each one.

  3. First of all thank you Rod for all your great work! I’ve been following your blog for the past couple of days, ever since I saw “Dr.” Lyman on Maddow Friday and realised I’d have to find my own sources of information..
    Just thought I’d share another curious comparison of Fukushima to Chernobyl in the UK’s Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366670/Japan-earthquake-tsunami-French-claim-scale-nuclear-disaster-hidden.html) where the FAQ section says this:
    “How does Fukushima compare to past accidents?
    In Chernobyl in 1986 a steam explosion exposed the reactor core before it was shut down and sent a plume of radioactive material 30,000 feet into the atmosphere. In Japan the reactors were shut down during the earthquake. The radiation is floating on winds relatively close to the ground.”
    That’s all! That is the only difference they feel is worth mentioning!? And in a way that could even be interpreted as making Fukushima worse since radiation close to the ground must be worse than radiation high up in the atmosphere!
    Anyway, thanks for providing a great service and references even (especially) for us non-techs!

  4. Hi Rod, I just wanted to say thanks for all your posts, and the perspective you provide. I’m new to both the professional world of engineering (ME) and the nuclear field, and I’ve been amazed at how fast my attitude has shifted from excitement at getting a job in a fascinating field (nuclear was not something I had been actively pursuing, I came across it purely by chance), to unabashed nuclear advocacy in my few months at the plant.
    As I first read about the events in Japan, I was overcome by the same feelings of dread and sympathy as when I saw the first images of 9/11 on TV. As the days continue and I read more about the nuclear situation and the public’s reaction, I’ve been surprised at how strong a personal reaction I’ve had to the misinformation put forth, and to the fact that public attitudes and misconceptions have the potential to set back the industry’s political progress by decades.
    I hope that you are right regarding things being different now about the way information is made available to the public. One drawback of the widespread availability of information on the internet, however, is that the relative anonymity of the medium seems to incite a fervor where misinformation and sensationalism is spread with little regard for critical thinking or consequence.
    The glaringly obvious typographical errors in many internet posts should, by themselves, be an indication of how little consideration went into the original post, yet many get

  5. Rod, I have been fairly anti-nuclear for the last 25 years. Seeing your first conversation at Blogging Heads, coming to your website, following up on other articles and points of view, and now your commentary on this disaster has really been educational and my position on the technology is very different now. Thanks to you.
    I think you’re a great communicator when describing the technology and the measurable dangers involved. However, I’d like to encourage you to avoid referring to the employment or other behavior of nuclear opponents. The only thing that matters is that their arguments are demonstrably incorrect. It doesn’t matter if a guy is growing pot in his basement or that someone was fired from somewhere. All that matters is the argument. If it’s demonstrable that it’s wrong, you don’t need to speculate about ulterior motives or personal history.
    I say this because too often have I heard anti-vaccine activists dismiss the opinions of experts because of their employment. I’ve heard opponents of genetically modified crops do the same. It’s what I’m sure some people will do to you.
    Instead of saying, “These people worked here and did these other silly things, so ignore them,” I think you should say, “These people said this and predicted that and each time was completely wrong, so ignore them.”
    I think this approach makes your message clearer, without distractions for the ideologically sensitive.
    Again, I can’t thank you enough for your educational writings and discussions and I wish you much success in the future.

    1. @Lester Milton – thank you for the kind words and the advice. I appreciate it, but will not be taking it.
      There are simply too many people who are professionally opposed to nuclear energy who have what sound like impressive credentials but lack personal integrity. I have a number of friends who are professional journalists, they have helped me to understand how important those credentials are in getting onto various TV and radio shows. For a journalist, a PhD sounds really impressive, especially if it is in Physics. They have no way of understanding that particle physics has nothing to do with designing, building, operating or maintaining a nuclear power plant.
      I served in a profession that starts with an honor code – midshipmen do not lie, cheat, or steal. My fellow service members in the US Army add an important clause that I have always thought made theirs just a bit better – Cadets do not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do.
      The battle against the use of nuclear energy is not an academic debate. It is a really important effort that has an enormous impact on the lives of many very real people. I cannot allow people who have demonstrated a lack of personal integrity to have an influence on that debate, ESPECIALLY when they know little to nothing about the topic.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts