Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Subscribe to Comments:


  1. “… you can make uranium hexafluoride. Simple. The most deadly freaking stuff there is.”

    Please, please, don’t anyone tell Bill Nye how solar panels are made. His head might explode.

    1. I’ve worked with anhydrous HF acid at a facility that produces fused quartz products – and I can tell you that HF acid is far more terrifying to me than UF6.

    2. Even more interesting is that the fluorine is recovered from the uranium when it is converted back to a powder. International Isotopes, of Idaho Falls, ID, has a business purifying the stuff so it can be used to make solar panels and computer chips. Ironic?

  2. Regarding Yucca Mountain – it’s in the unsaturated zone (i.e., above the water table). This, incidentally, was the very basis of the many, many complaints Prof. Allison MacFarlane would make about it – because being above the water table (~1000 feet, in fact) makes it an oxidizing geochemistry.

    So, no. Bill Nye is wrong about this one. The same was he was infamously wrong about his descriptions of how reactors work during Fukushima. I’ll say that this was what lead me to lose all respect for Nye; namely, because he doesn’t have the humility to say, “I don’t know,” much less actually deign to ask someone who does actually know.

  3. “Three Mile Island was almost a really big problem. Big mess up almost created a huge problem. Almost blew up….”

    See how persistently damaging this NRC created myth remains; even today? Do you suppose Mr. Nye has actually ever looked at what this conclusion is based on? Maybe he should.

    1. Wimp. Dihydrogen monoxide kills far more people worldwide every year. Now there’s a deadly chemical.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if (regular) kimchi kills more people every year than FOOF.

  4. Wow, talk about a litany of rambling, vague anti-nuclear talking points all wrapped up in one 30 minute discussion. And the constant use of “dude” was becoming a little irritating.

    It is one thing to be “skeptical. It is another thing for a degreed mechanical engineer, who has several patents as he does, to NOT PROVIDE ANY IDEAS/SOLUTIONS/VISIONS in this type of discussion. Does he honestly think wind and solar will power our society? We don’t know because, despite what he said about speaking his mind, he did not discuss alternatives to using nuclear power.

    Yes humans make mistakes. Yes equipment fails. Yes he knows that. BUT rambling on about war time secrecy, atomic weapon research and then associating that with nuclear power while making a reference to Homer Simpson is just standard anti-nuclear scare tactics straight from the playbook.

    He also used the standard PR technique of personalizing or humanizing his dislike of nuclear power by tying his family’s time in the war to nuclear power. A blatant attempt of using emotional arguments to push his anti-nuclear opinions at a forum regarding nuclear power. And his family was never even involved with nuclear weapons but the way he wove his story, I suspect there are people who left the discussion thinking his parents were somehow involved in weapons development.

    How many people left feeling confused? First they hear a positive message about nuclear power then they hear a negative message from a well-known science entertainer who has credentials. And the science entertainer was pushing the standard vague talking points they are used to hearing.

    This would have been one of those times to do a before and after vote about nuclear power. I think the overall numbers would not have budged due to Nye’s negative slant.

    And yes I gave up on Nye years ago. His speech is just more confirmation for me of his general overall anti-nuclear attitude which is similar to Neil deGrasse’s attitude.

    1. And the constant use of “dude” was becoming a little irritating.

      Well, remember that he used to host a children’s show on TV — in the 1990’s. I guess it comes with the territory.

      His speech is just more confirmation for me of his general overall anti-nuclear attitude which is similar to Neil deGrasse’s attitude.

      Neil deGrasse Tyson just makes things up. Then, when he’s called on it, he denies it. I mean, I’m more than willing to forgive a couple of errors in Cosmos II (which was enjoyable, if not entirely accurate), but after what I’ve read and after what I’ve heard come out of his own mouth, I’m beginning to think that the guy is just a pathological liar. It’s probably a good thing that he’s running a museum instead of doing scientific research.

  5. In effect Nye is advertising renewable energy at his place of business. I wonder who or what pays for it all. What do you want to bet that it is the same people who provide Greenpeace with their chump change. Look these guys are all alike. They are in the same business. Lets stay real,. this is the world we live in.

  6. Nitpick. The submarine reactor compartments are not actually buried at Hanford.
    They are laid in an enormous open trench. This is so the Russian spy satellites
    can see then and be confident that the submarine actually was broken up.

    The 1200 to 1600 ton compartments are offloaded from barges on the Columbia
    and trucked 20 miles to the trench. Pretty impressive.

  7. I was curious about the “stream seen from the parking lot” comment as well so I looked up the Yucca Mt. facility on Google maps. The only “stream” that I can see which could be viewed from the parking lot area is to the East where you can see a series of erosion lines leading to this main erosion line. Even the road leading to Yucca crosses over this but does not appear to have even been elevated over that section to insure drainage. Water would undoubtedly flow along these erosion lines when it rains or snows but they otherwise look completely dry.

    So to describe this as a “stream” with flowing water, would be inaccurate. Yes, these are erosion lines where water did flow and will flow. With only about 20mm of precipitation per year, Yucca is not the driest spot on Earth, but that’s hardly enough to see constant flowing streams.

  8. We need a Celebrity Science Hall of Shame.

    A bit of fun and possibly a wake-up call to get then to finish their education.

      1. As long as the dog is green. It’s up to you to decide whether the green represents an environmental group or a dollar bill.

  9. I don’t like celebrity scientists. They show they are lazy and irresponsible about what they say about nuclear energy. It takes a special kind of arrogance to misrepresent a field and industry with a lack of education in that field. I think he is basically a fool for accepting to speak at an the event and reveal his obvious bias knowing that he does not know the facts that any so-called science engineer should make a serious attempt to get right.

    When does such a person decide they have learned all they need to know?

    But the one point I tend to agree with is that, outside the two nuclear bombs of WWII, the secrecy that began the era of nuclear science probably did the most damage to it’s reputation. We’re talking about a secrecy that was shared in the labs but not shared in schools never mind the public. It is understandable how and why it was secret. There was a good reason for the secrecy but the leadership has never done very much self examination. It does not even seek to admit the need to improve communications let alone correct the myths.

  10. At the same time, Bill Nye’s organisation, The Planetary Society, actively works to promote increased production of Pu238 for deep space missions.
    There is obviously a big disconnect here.
    Not quite as outrageous as Michio Kaku, but still out there in cuckoo land.
    Nye famously changed his mind on GMOs. Maybe he can be persuaded on nukes as well ?

    1. Pu-238 is typically produced from Np-237 by neutron bombardment, but the reactor which produces the neutrons is going to have U-238 in the fuel and neutron captures will also produce Pu-239.

      Why are you so paranoid about Pu-239 anyway?  It’s an alpha emitter, so harmless unless consumed.  24 kyr half-life means not exactly hot.  And it’s a good fuel for fast-spectrum reactors, which have a very high probability of fissioning it if it’s hit by a fast neutron (thermal neutrons only cause fission in Pu-239 about 65% of the time).

      The longevity of the UPPU group (contaminated by work exposure) suggests that Pu-239 is far less of a hazard than the fainting-couch brigade wants you to believe.

      1. In troll mode today?

        When in Rome …

        You’re the one who is concern trolling about plutonium, and you’re the one who can’t take a joke.

        Mr. “Galt,” did it ever occur to you that the difference between the DOE’s “the maximum permissible occupational concentration in air” has more to do with the fact that lead is ubiquitous, whereas plutonium is extremely rare? These are a practical limits. They really have nothing to do with the relative toxicity of the two elements.

        Lead is literally everywhere in the environment. Concentrations in the soil are typically 10 to 30 milligrams of lead per kilogram.

        When it comes to swallowing something, lead is far more dangerous. When swallowed, only about 0.05% of plutonium is absorbed by the body (the rest is passed), whereas about 10 to 15% of ingested lead is absorbed into the bloodstream of a typical adult. If the person hasn’t eaten recently, over half of the lead will be absorbed.

        If you give me a choice between swallowing a pill of Pu-239 and swallowing the same amount of lead, I’m choosing the plutonium.

        And that’s the inorganic kind of lead. Fortunately, our cars run on unleaded gasoline these days.

      2. Why are you so ill-informed?

        Why are you so disinformed?

        > Harmless unless consumed.

        Or made into weapons.

        You can’t make weapons from reactor-grade Pu.  It has too many spontaneous fissions from Pu-240; there’s no way to build an implosion system fast enough to prevent fizzles and get significant yield.

        Isolating it from consumption for thousands of years is the point.

        Consume it in fast-spectrum reactors.  They can also convert the U-238 (which is itself a toxic heavy metal) to transition elements and energy.

        And yet, plutonium’s position is frighteningly high on the lethal ladder. A few millionths of a gram (or a few micrograms) distributed through the lungs, liver, or bones may increase the risk for developing cancer in those organs.

        You quote that without giving a source (which I found), and the robust good health and longevity of the UPPU group proves conclusively that “may increase” is a flat lie at those exposure levels.  I quote (emphasis added):

        “Another study involved 26 chemists, metallurgists, and technicians at Los Alamos, who were accidentally exposed to plutonium between 1944 and 1946. The plutonium body burdens of these men were from 5 to more than 360 times the current annual limit of intake set by DOE. By weight, the corresponding body burdens, 50 years after exposure, ranged from 0.02 to 1.4 micrograms and were estimated by analysis of the men’s urine. Estimates are that the men took up about twice this amount at the time of exposure. Wright Langham, the originator of this ongoing study, roguishly called this tiny cohort of men the UPPU (or U-P-Pu!) club, a name by which they have been known since.

        It is important to note that the mortality rate of the club members has been lower than that of the population in general.

        If you are truly concerned about weapons proliferation, a shift to fast-spectrum converter reactors should be one of your top priorities.  They produce an isotope mix that cannot be weaponized, they require no fuel enrichment (no centrifuges to re-purpose to weapons use), and a parity-design converter from which fissiles are siphoned off will eventually run out of fuel and reveal the diversion.  But your priorities are the opposite of this, showing that neither the climate nor weapons proliferation matter much to you.

      3. “Did you ever wonder why so few people comment here? See BS directly above, for one”

        Yeah, makes alot of sense. Snivel and moan about FUD, then insult and piss off anyone that comes here looking for an alternative to it.

        Or worse, be so insulting that it gives the appearance of not being able to counter the assertions, with substance, of those whose claims you oppose.

      4. @John Galt : yeah, calling the “healthy worker effect” but carefully not looking at the fact that it’s not just the global mortality rate that was low but specifically despite high level of uranium exposure the rate of lung and bone cancer were not increased at all either.
        The link EP gave you document that out of the 26 of the UPPU club, the 3 that died from lung cancer were all very heavy smokers, and the resulting incidence was totally normal for males born in this period.It also references other, larger cohorts than the UPPU clud exposed to low level plutonium, and none had an increased incidence of lung and bone cancer.

        Makes me think of a study a saw some time ago about french CEA (Atomic Energy Commission) workers wich was supposed to show an “abnormal” percentage of cancer deaths.Carefully reading the numbers actually showed they had the same rate of cancer deaths as the general population, but a much lower mortality from other causes. That was the real “healthy worker effect”, but it seems it will not protect from cancer.

  11. I’m sure most scientists and educators are trained in LNT/ALARA. It doesn’t occur to them to question that mantra. So many are obstinatly cautious about nuclear energy – including health physicists!

    1. @ChrisB

      It is difficult for me to fathom how one can become a scientist or educator without having a healthy questioning attitude and curiosity about everything.

      Perhaps it happens when people are “trained” by carefully selected textbooks rather than educated by exposure to a variety of points of view, good literature, lousy literature that is just fun to read, a variety of professional experiences, conversations with many people, and a constant search for knowledge/enlightenment.

      1. I’m pretty sure Bill Nye is a perfect example of someone who has been misled into believing that nuclear is not worth studying in depth.

        On the basis perhaps of “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” reasoning, he has long ago decided on the basis of popular (antinuclear) misinformation that nuclear is ‘obviously’ a flawed technology which has more disadvantages than advantages.

        Combined with the equally popular (mistaken) belief that unreliables are – or soon will – ‘cheaper than fossil fuels’ and that they ‘obviously’ have more advantages than disadvantages, this has caused him to decide that his superficial (misguided) understanding of nuclear is sufficient and does not need to be deepened or expanded. The fact that he feels confident about spewing incorrect information about nuclear in this video indicates that he simply does not care about the facts where nuclear is concerned: he is confident that his popular superficial version of the facts is ‘good enough’.

        I believe a large part of the non-activist anti-nuclear intelligentsia is very similar to Bill Nye in this way. Fortunately, the knowledge gap causing them to be blind to the true situation concerning nuclear should be easily remedied.

        If someone knowledgeable sat alone with Bill and carefully discussed all his mistaken anti-nuclear viewpoints and factoids which together support his misguided perspective on nuclear, he will become a born-again pro-nuke quite quickly. Hence I like the final word you added to the title of this post.

        1. “If someone knowledgeable sat alone with Bill and carefully discussed all his mistaken anti-nuclear viewpoints and factoids which together support his misguided perspective on nuclear, he will become a born-again pro-nuke quite quickly.”

          Joris, I don’t believe you’ve even framed the problem accurately for Mr. Nye’s case. Consider this (from wikipedia):

          “In November 2010, Nye became the face of a new permanent exhibition at the Chabot Space & Science Center in Oakland, California. Bill Nye’s Climate Lab features Nye as commander of the Clean Energy Space Station, and invites visitors on an urgent mission to thwart climate change. Beginning with a view of Planet Earth from space, visitors explore air, water, and land galleries to discover how climate change affects Earth’s connected systems, and how to use the Sun, wind, land, and water to generate clean energy. In an interview about the exhibit, Nye said, “Everything in the exhibit is geared to showing you that the size of the problem of climate change is big. Showing you a lot about energy use … It’s a huge opportunity … We need young people, entrepreneurs, young inventors, young innovators to change the world.””

          Mr. Nye is “all in” on this idea. Forget about nuclear for a moment. This is an idealist approach to solving climate change, and you would first have to convince Mr. Nye this is misguided. How are you going to do that, when you have a country like Germany trying it? This problem goes way deeper than simply being generally anti-nuke. His whole persona is tied to the success of this idea; without an understanding of the total impact on the cost of energy to the consumer, much less if it is even feasible at a world scale.

          As long as he, and others, believe this, why would they even entertain a discussion about nukes? As he did in his keynote address he will always come back with “TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.”

          These folks first have to stop believing their “feel good” solutions before nukes can even be entered into the discussion for providing part of the solution. The starting point for the discussion is not convincing them nukes are safe enough to be part of the clean energy solution, but rather that their perceived solution won’t work without reliable 24/7 base load generation. Once they believe that maybe they will start looking for a solution other than their fantasy.

          1. I agree. You describe quite closely my own development toward embracing nuclear. I realized (like many I suppose) in the course of working in energy engineering consultancy that the economics would never favour an all-renewables solution, even given plausible future technological improvement of renewable technologies, storage, etc, and that this represented a fatal weakness of such technologies. Dismayed by this conclusion, and in the course of investigating every aspect of it to make sure I wasn’t simply mistaken to be so dismayed, I necessarily came across nuclear power, and what I discovered then changed everything. It had indeed been my unsubstantiated trust in non-nuclear technological options which had caused me to be (almost unconsciously) comfortable with little more than a superficial and ultimately biased understanding of nuclear technology. Being forced by circumstance to make sure that that understanding was accurate, I found out that what I thought I knew about nuclear was seriously inadequate.

            So sure: I agree that Bill Nye will need to realize that his trust in the feasibility of a non-nuclear solution to AGW lacks a firm basis commensurate to the seriousness of the climate problem. That could then propel him to a new, improved perspective on the energy/climate nexus.

        2. By the way, the German ‘example’ continues falling to pieces, slowly but surely. There is already ample evidence that it is only a matter of time before they give up on it in one way or another. I suspect that those in charge of the energiewende are already looking for an exit strategy. Antinukes who insist on pointing to Germany as ‘proof’ that the all-renewables option is feasible – let alone cost-effective and quick enough – can be re-educated on the basis of this increasing volume of evidence. If anything, Germany will soon(?) serve as a clear example that the all-renewables option is *not* feasible, certainly on the global scale, and never has been. The fallout from that revelation can be expected to be tremendous, finally shattering the pumped-up cognitive dissonance of so many anti-nukes who currently hold powerful positions in enterprise, academia and politics.

          1. @Joris van Dorp

            It’s worth knowing that the Germans have taken no irreversible actions to begin dismantling any of the reactors they have shut down since 2011.

          2. @Rod : Opposite that what happened at SONGS. I found it very surprising to in such a hurry to destroy the RPV head as soon as possible.

  12. Here is a link to the ensuing panel discussion with Nye, Stone, Revkin, and Wagner.

    At the 11:40 mark Nye provides his fantasy land renewable decarbonization scenario, completely unaware of nuclear’s potential.

    Nye appears really uniformed about next generation reactors. At the 21:00 mark, Nye refers to them “class IV” and was unaware of the new NPP construction in Georgia and S.C. and appears to learn what an AP-1000 is for the first time after Stone mentions it to him.

  13. Project management notes:

    a. Ensure keynote speaker is an expert in the subject of the conference.
    b. If keynote speaker is not an expert ask to review his speech ahead of time.

    IDKCMC (I don’t know. Call me crazy).

  14. I feel the keynote address is very discombobulated in line with the many points raised in this article. He jumped from stories to analogies to examples without coming back to a theme. I was left with “what is he trying to say exactly?” The only clear message that came across was that when it comes to nuclear energy, Bill Nye doesn’t know what he’s talking about.


    He was confused, however, about the Navy’s prime motivation for being interested in nuclear power; he told the audience it was because it reduced the need to refuel ships.

    Certainly the case for aircraft carriers but of course there was a more important reason for nuclear-powered subs as pointed out in this article. In any case if his premise is that the motivation is a reduction in fuel requirements, that, along with CO2 reduction, is a key differentiator being promoted by nuclear advocates but for the Earth, our ship in the cosmos.

  15. @ Rod

    Are you able to contact Nye and get an explanation or interview, or talk to him in some fashion?
    It would be worth it to educate him on the issues.

    1. Google his web page (I don’t want to post the link). It has a “contact” page. I contacted him there the day of this post and “splained” a few things (as in ‘watch my lips’); still waiting an answer. Suspect he only talks when paid; I’m poor.

  16. I suspect he does not care that he is ignorant on the subject for which he pretends comprehension. “Pretending” to be an expert pays very, very well on TV. I saw this clown on TV right after 3/11/11 (Fukushima). Egregious nonsense. I saw him on TV in Seattle regularly in the local comedy show “Almost Live” in the 1990s. He has comedy chops. It pays well. There is currently “no money” in being a pro-nuclear advocate. Nye will become such when it serves his interest. Perhaps when the nuclear renaissance takes off big time (when we build reactors that are cheaper than coal–which may be sooner than many think, even with Gen III+ technology). When Wall Street etc. (TV advertising too) favor something, the clowns will follow. Celebrity scientists with courage often don’t eat. (Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan might be exceptions. But they did not depend on TV.)

    1. @djysrv

      Beg to differ. Navy spent fuel is stored at the Expended Core Facility in Idaho.


      The components stored at Hanford are reactor compartments, not reactor cores.

      Your Wikipedia entry says the same thing under spent fuel storage:

      Spent nuclear fuel is shipped by rail to the Naval Reactor Facility in the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), located 42 miles (67 km) northwest of Idaho Falls, Idaho, where it is stored in special canisters.[1]

  17. Nye is the equivalent of your high-school science teacher. He does not, by any stretch of the imagination, fit the definition of a scientist.

    1. @Russ Findley

      I might have just been lucky, but my public high school had science teachers with advanced degrees in the subjects they taught. Please do not insult their memories by putting them in the same category of Bill Nye.

      1. Similarly here. Our second year chemistry teacher had an MS in biochemistry and boy could he teach organic chem. Our second year biology teacher had an MS in microbiology. Our physics teacher was a retired naval aviator. I don’t know what his academic background was but he was the most rigorous of the three.

        That was 35 years ago, though. I must say that even though my son is at the science magnet middle school here, other than one retired navy submariner, I’ve been very disappointed in his math and science teachers and curriculum, and these are supposedly some of the best a large district offers. Maybe high school will be better, but talking to folks with HS age kids makes me doubt it.

  18. According to Wikepedia he has many honors:


    The article shows he has been doing this on the national (world) stage for some time. I’ll bet he has stashed a lot of bucks away so maybe he isn’t totally motivated by money. Looks like he has been a crusader for science.


    Science is a humongous field dude! I don’t think you can expect Bill Nye to know all of the ins and outs of nuclear power. Maybe, he can be politely educated. He is getting to the age where maybe he is thinking of his legacy of being known as a great science educator. I’ll bet he wants to get it right. He may even be reading all of these comments. I hope he can find some good links on Atomic Insights to help him separate the facts from anti nuclear propaganda. The nuclear issue is similar to climate change or evolution. I’ll bet he wants to get it right.

    1. Eino…..

      Good post. Calling Nye dishonest, or questioning his intelligence and motives is hardly the way to open his mind to being set straight on the issue of NE. Any correspondence sent Nye’s way by participants here should be worded carefully and respectfully. Such an approach might even get a response from him.

      (Hopefully, Brian and/or EP have refrained from contacting him.)

      1. @ POA

        Great advice! Perhaps someday you’ll take your own advice to heart here in the pages of atomicinsights; so far, that’s been a tall order for you.

          1. Rod…..as a student of english, surrly you know the word “instigate”. Yes, I suppose I’m guilty on occassion. But I think, if you examine my engagement here, you will find that truly, I give what I get. In that order.

            1. @poa

              Perhaps that philosophy is why you have chosen to work as a skilled craftsman instead of as a leader of large groups, a communicator, and an active promoter of a highly capable but politically disrespected technology.

              Human beings deserve respect until they have proven they are not worth it. They don’t prove unworthiness with a few ill-chosen words.

          2. Perhaps. But philosophies, mindsets, do tell a story.in regards to integrity. Do you respect someone that advocates torture? Or someone that can educate themselves about what is going on in Gaza, yet still claim that no human rights abuses are occurring? What about making that claim without bothering to educate themselves about what is actually happening? What about professing a great love of God and morality, while sitting in judgement of your fellows?? Misplaced words are one thing….but…..

  19. I’m curious…….

    Is there a way to put internet pieces like Rod’s on the top of the scroll if someone googles “nye”, “nuclear”, “renewables”, etc???

    As more and more people utilize internet search engines to get themselves out of information tunnels, like Fox or MSNBC, being able to come out on top, in front, in internet searches will be an extremely powerful tool. The way it stands now, searches involving the word nuclear invariably land you on sites carrying a message that drowns your own. The antis are winning the internet battle. There must be a way to change that.

  20. Okay…..take a hypothetical….

    Nye gets an email inviting him to comment. He clicks in, and reads Rod’s piece, and in turn the comments…..

    “I might have just been lucky, but my public high school had science teachers with advanced degrees in the subjects they taught. Please do not insult their memories by putting them in the same category of Bill Nye.”

    “Nye is the equivalent of your high-school science teacher. He does not, by any stretch of the imagination, fit the definition of a scientist.”

    “I suspect he does not care that he is ignorant on the subject for which he pretends comprehension. “Pretending” to be an expert pays very, very well on TV. I saw this clown on…”

    “Hopefully he’ll get a clue.”

    “Suspect he only talks when paid”

    “I don’t like celebrity scientists. They show they are lazy and irresponsible about what they say about nuclear energy. It takes a special kind of arrogance to misrepresent a field and industry with a lack of education in that field. I think he is basically a fool…..”

    Does it make sense to insult and alienate someone while claiming a desire to “educate” him about NE? If he’s reading these comments, do you think the derision is an incentive for him to open his mind? Its one thing to insult and piss off some carpenter from podunk California. But wheres the wisdom behind insulting and alienating a celebrity who has the ears of a huge fan base and the platform of modern media by which to reach his fan base?

    Wise up, people.

    1. So you think that treating his arrant nonsense spiel with unwarranted deference is going to get him to take a closer look at the issues, instead of just skimming and going away with the impression that everything he said was just fine?

      Thank you, but that’s as much concern-trolling as I care to deal with today.

      1. Actually, EP, I consider your approach counter productive, and ignorant.

        And who said anything about “deference”. Not me. But you can approach him, and comment on what you beg to differ with, without insulting him, and without showing “deference” to the man.

        Let’s see, EP, who do you think has the most ears tuned in and listening?? Nye, or Adams? And, what apptoach do you think might intice Nye to visit here, and begin to examine his own “knowledge” about NE?

        Instead, apparently, you would prefer Nye considering this blog community as a bunch of arrogant pricks, who insult anyone that doesn’t adhere to the group-think here. Yeah, thats a great strategy, EP. And if Nye is asked “What do you think of Rod Adam’s site, Atomic Insights”, how do you think he is going to answer after you’ve worked your PR magic on him?

        Do you say “ouch” everytime you step on it, EP, or did you flatten all the feeling out of it a long time ago? I mean hey, stepping on your own is one thing, but stepping on Rod’s is quite another.

        Respect? You gotta be kidding me, Rod.

        1. I consider your approach counter productive, and ignorant.

          Considering that you consciously consider the phenomenon of gatekeepers on “information tunnels”, while refusing to evaluate the trustworthiness of the ones you’ve gotten your major opinions on this subject from, your feelings about my approach matter exactly zero to me.

          TL;DR I don’t care.

          who do you think has the most ears tuned in and listening?? Nye, or Adams?

          Fallacy of popularity.  I see rather large groups evaluating Nye negatively because of his other positions.  Those groups are set to increase their influence a lot in the near future, and winning THEM over to the pro-nuclear side matters a lot more than anything Nye says.

          Instead, apparently, you would prefer Nye considering this blog community as a bunch of arrogant pricks, who insult anyone that doesn’t adhere to the group-think here.

          Either Nye is an ideological actor who doesn’t care if he has his facts wrong so long as he identifies with Goodthink (so I don’t care), or he cares about being right in which case accurate criticism will get his attention and cause self-reflection.  Either way, third parties will notice.  It’s no-lose from my POV.

          You already know what I think of your opinions, I don’t need to repeat it.

      1. Actually, I did send him an email, but apparently the address given at the website I landed on was no longer a good email address.

        I’m hoping someone sent him a non adversarial invitation to read and comment. And should he respond, one hopes the group here uses thier common sense in how they treat him.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts