Print 134 comment(s) - last by Radeon99.. on Sep 12 at 5:10 PM

Sierra Activists Ann Harris and Linda Modica speak during a meeting they organized for area residents  (Source: Bill Jones, Greenville Sun)
...but will the public fall for it?

In rural Tennessee lies a small uranium processing plant. In operation since the 1960s, its primary activity today is converting nuclear warhead material into a form no longer usable for weapons, but suitable for nuclear power plants.

Last year, the facility experienced a leak in a transfer line, spilling some nine gallons of uranium solution onto a floor. The company took appropriate cleanup measures, and immediately notified the Nuclear Regulatory Committee, which investigated.

Their conclusions? Had the leak not drained onto a floor, but into some sort of bowl-shaped container, the fluid might have been able to amplify its own weak level of radiation. Had a worker not wearing protective gear been nearby at that particular moment, they might have received a dangerous, or even fatal dose. None of these events happened, of course, but even if they had, the risk to the public at large would still have been zero.

Zero. None.  Zip.  Nada. Zilch.

The NRC issued a reprimand to the plant operator, Nuclear Fuel Services Inc, and ordered the hiring of an outside team of experts for to review all safety practices. Ordinarily the action would have gone into the public record immediately. But because NFSI supplies fuel to the U.S. Navy, the DOE had previously required all documents sealed for further review.

You might think this is the end of an amazingly boring non-story.  Not so. A year later, that review finally happened, and the commission decided there was no national security threat from disclosing the event. And so our alarmist media learned of it.

Reaction was swift. "Uncontrolled Nuclear Reaction Possible!" screamed news stories. "Public Kept in Dark!" "Veil of Secrecy Must Be Lifted!" Papers in London and Paris even picked up the story, repeating the alarmist calls verbatim. While some of the more responsible journalists eventually admitted there was no risk to the public, they usually did so in the final paragraph of a lengthy story, ensuring most of their readers would not be burdened by that inconvenient truth.

Environmental groups were even more shrill. The Sierra Club's anti-nuclear task force went into immediate overtime, demanding to know why the company wasn't fined, or even shut down. A SWAT team of Sierra Club activists descended upon the site, where they promptly organized public meetings for "concerned citizens," and called for the NRC to hold public hearings to explain their actions. Combining innuendo and hand-waving, they attempted to convince area residents their property and very lives were at stake.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why clean, cheap, safe nuclear power is dead on the vine in this country. It's why we still burn millions of tons of coal each year, despite the horrendous cost in environmental damage and the thousands of lives lost to coal mining. It's why widespread use of electric cars will still result in enormous amounts of toxic emissions, and why the "hydrogen economy" can never be practical.

To those of you who care about the environment, I say this. If you want to do some good -- go and protest the Sierra Club. Demand more responsible, biased reporting by your news media. And let your government representatives know you're too educated to fall for such manipulative fear tactics.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By ChoadNamath on 8/22/2007 12:51:51 AM , Rating: 3
I must have missed this story in the news, but it's really ridiculous how we're still fighting nuclear power despite advances in the past 25 years. It's sad how so many people in America think that it's dangerous or environmentally unfriendly because of Three Mile Island. Meanwhile the rest of the developed world has been refining nuclear technology while we sit on our asses and let NIMBYism retard our progress.

RE: Word
By Christopher1 on 8/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: Word
By James Holden on 8/22/2007 3:02:56 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, until we get fusion, Nuclear is dirty. It's not the dirtiest. Do you know that the coal burning plants in Illinois releas more uranium into the atmosphere than if we just took the nuclear pile out of TMI and dumped it into Lake Michigan?

Michael mentioned miner death. Hell, what about civilian death from the coal plants. That number is *huge*

I don't see anyone protesting that!

RE: Word
By KristopherKubicki on 8/22/2007 3:50:07 AM , Rating: 2
I think that's true for Illinois, though I don't know the exact figures. There are definitely deaths attributed to coal plants, which is why Illinois is really pushing Zero-Emission Coal. Awesome idea if you consider like a third of IL sits directly on top coal.

As for the quote, let us read from the Book of Masher:

If you live in a New England or Rocky Mountain state, you already have radioactive nuclear waste buried in your own backyard...waste left over from when Mother Nature made the planet. The first meter of topsoil in one acre alone contains 60 kg of thorium, 20 kg of uranium, 5 kg of radium, and 70,000 kg of potassium...all of it radioactive.

Lord Marshall of the U.K's Central Electric Generation Board once caused a furor by announcing that one of their electric plants had released a kg of uranium into the air the day earlier...and in fact had been releasing that amount daily for many years. When shocked reporters pressed for details, he named a coal -powered plant. The uranium released was that found naturally within the coal itself.

RE: Word
By 1078feba on 8/23/2007 4:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
Somebody pls help me with this:

IIRC, I read an article, in Nat Geo I think, about how our current process of nuke fuel enrichment and usage actually only uses approx 5% of the fuel available in the rod. That there are other, newer processes that use up to 97% of fuel available, thus when we discard what is left over, there is virtually no harmful radioactive elements left.

Jeez, I wish I could remember where I read that. Maybe it was linked at Instapundit, or in Pop Mech's...

RE: Word
By RyanM on 8/24/2007 9:24:57 AM , Rating: 3
This is what is called an Integral Fast Reactor, or a breeder reactor. If we build any nuclear power plants, they should be this type, and not the far less efficient but slightly safer "pebble-bed" design.

RE: Word
By noxipoo on 8/24/2007 11:24:59 AM , Rating: 2
pebble bed is slightly safer? it's pretty much meltdown proof.

RE: Word
By Jellodyne on 8/24/2007 12:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
It was a terrific Scientific American article. I found a copy online here:

RE: Word
By borowki on 8/22/2007 6:40:04 AM , Rating: 3
Well, at least storing nuclear waste in the desert is more sensible than the idea of storing liquefied CO2 in the bottom of the ocean.

RE: Word
By SandmanWN on 8/23/2007 10:05:42 AM , Rating: 2
And if push comes to shove with the US going back to the moon whats to stop us from building a nuclear waste facility on the moon? That would alleviate all concerns over left over nuclear waste. Drop a pod on the moon and pick it back up in a few thousand years when it has decayed enough. Just a thought anyway.

RE: Word
By Schrag4 on 8/23/2007 2:04:47 PM , Rating: 3
I think people's concern with trying to put our radioactive waste on the moon is that the rocket could fail and we'd basically end up dumping the waste in the form of rocket/waste-debris into the ocean. Maybe we would have a tolerance for that happening from time to time, I don't know.

Not only that, but what's the environmental impact of a rocket blasting off into space? Probably not the same as burning the coal that it would take to generate the electricity that was instead created in nuclear plants that created that amount of waste (confusing statement). But then again I'm no rocket scientist, I don't even know the components of the rocket fuel and what's left over when it's used.

RE: Word
By SandmanWN on 8/23/2007 2:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
I see your point. Perhaps when something like the proposed space elevator comes along and proves reliable it might become a more viable option.

RE: Word
By grenableu on 8/23/2007 2:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
and we'd basically end up dumping the waste in the form of rocket/waste-debris into the ocean
And whats wrong with that? Do you know how much millions of tons of uranium and other radioactive elements are already in the ocean? As long as you launch so any accident occurs over deep water, there's no problem at all with a crash-landing.

But the REAL solution is even simpler. Glassify the stuff and drop it in some ocean trench miles deep. Problem solved.

RE: Word
By masher2 on 8/23/2007 4:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
Interestingly enough, the Russians have been dumping spent military reactors and nuclear waste into the Barents Sea and the Kara Sea for decades. This is a very unsuitable location, as the water is shallow and currents extend all the way to the ocean floor. But, though environmentalists often protest the actions, no ill effects have been noted.

RE: Word
By TheGreek on 8/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: Word
By TomZ on 8/23/2007 5:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
Are you asking masher2 to do all your research for you? Is your "google" broken?

RE: Word
By TheGreek on 8/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Word
By porkpie on 8/24/2007 5:29:13 PM , Rating: 2
You didn't ask him to note his sources, you asked a totally different set of questions. Learn the difference.

RE: Word
By TheGreek on 8/27/2007 10:17:12 AM , Rating: 2
2. Is anyone bothering to note any?

Apparently you don't recognize implication anymore than you're willing to admit all the problems with MTBE.

Objectivity rules!

RE: Word
By TheBaker on 8/23/2007 11:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. Classic "Prove the Negative" counter-argument. Nice try, but you should go take a debate class or two before you bring that trash in here.

RE: Word
By TheGreek on 8/27/2007 10:19:11 AM , Rating: 1
Wow. Classic "Prove the Negative" counter-argument. Nice try,

As if a batting average of 1 out 4 makes you an expert.

Oh please.

RE: Word
By Amiga500 on 8/22/2007 8:10:19 AM , Rating: 2
Go google accelerated particle reactor and transmutation ;-)

Its the future (pre-fusion).

RE: Word
By elFarto on 8/24/2007 4:13:36 AM , Rating: 2
Nuclear power is only 'dirty' because the so-called 'waste' produced by the power plants still contains usable fuel, yet we don't recycle/reprocess it, we just just bury it.

I vote for the Integral Fast Reactor (


RE: Word
By DigitalFreak on 8/24/2007 3:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
out in the middle of the desert is NOT safe at all!

Yeah! Have you seen The Hills Have Eyes?!?

RE: Word
By meepstone on 8/24/2007 4:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
SO, we use more of every resource every year. Whats our point?

RE: Word
By Kuroyama on 8/22/2007 8:47:42 AM , Rating: 2
Which "rest of the developed world" would that be? Other than France and Japan I don't recall hearing any recent news (say in the last 15 years) about other developed countries loading up on nuclear technology as you suggest. Meanwhile, Sweden is shutting theirs down, Germany seems to be pointing that way, and I believe that is the overall the trend in most of Western Europe. Sure, some countries like Iran, India, and China seem to be moving along their work on nuclear plants, but those are generally not considered to be part of the "developed world".

RE: Word
By masher2 on 8/22/2007 9:34:32 AM , Rating: 3
Finland is investing pretty heavily in nuclear power at the moment. A few years ago, they began construction of the world's largest reactor on the island of Olkiluoto. Russia, Canada, Lithuania, South Korea and Taiwan are also building or planning to build new nuclear capacity. Britain and Switzerland have a "revived interest" in nuclear power, but so far have ordered no new construction.

In the "developed world", that's pretty much it, but there's far more activity in nations like China, India, Argentina, Brazil, etc.

RE: Word
By HaZaRd2K6 on 8/22/2007 11:48:32 AM , Rating: 3
Russia, Canada, Lithuania, South Korea and Taiwan are also building or planning to build new nuclear capacity.

Speaking for Canada, I know that just down the 401 in Pickering they're still trying to get about 2 or 3 more reactors back online at the Darlington Nuclear Power Station (they were shut down a few years ago, but I don't remember why). The company that owns the plant (I believe it's Bruce Power) has started running TV ads advocating the use of nuclear power. Personally, I think nuclear power is the best way to generate power right now.

The problem is, most people (like the Sierra Club) have a "not in my backyard" attitude towards nuclear power. It's cleaner (for the most part) than coal, generates more power than it, and doesn't harm the environment when it's buried hundreds of feet underground in containers made of lead, steel and concrete.

So to all the people who say nuclear power harms the environment: would you rather have a small, controlled nuclear reaction away from the population at large with the waste buried away out of the way, underground and sealed, or would you rather burn huge amounts of coal that throwing hundreds of tonnes of carbon dioxide, monoxide and nitrogen oxides and sulphites into the air each year? All those chemicals do nothing for the environment, result in huge amounts of smog and make life for both humans (especially those with breathing problems like myself) and anything living in the environment miserable.

I thought so.

Take a look at the options we've got: solar takes up huge amounts of space and generates very little power; wind power also takes up massive amounts of space to generate any substantial amount of power; coal power takes lives throughout the generation of power (from the mining to the burning) and is very dirty. Nuclear power is viable, cheap for the amount of power it generates, very controllable and most importantly: clean.

Think about it: nuclear power is the future.

By the way, great article masher2.

RE: Word
By arazok on 8/22/2007 12:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking for Canada, I know that just down the 401 in Pickering they're still trying to get about 2 or 3 more reactors back online at the Darlington Nuclear Power Station (they were shut down a few years ago, but I don't remember why).

Those reactors were taken offline because inspections found cracking pipes etc. Not a surprise as the reactors were past their expected life span already.

They are being completely rebuilt will be brought back online as the work completes over the next couple years.

I believe they are looking at building a new plant somewhere in Ontario as well, but with all the environmental assessments, community consultations, bureaucracy etc this is 5-10 years away. Nothing moves slower then the government.

RE: Word
By chsh1ca on 8/22/2007 11:51:14 PM , Rating: 2
Spent radioactive material isn't the only issue with Nuclear power. Consider the number of heavy water leaks and the "don't go swimming/fishing" policies in a lot of Durham Region, as well as the well above average instances of illness and cancer (which could just as easily be related to the heavy industry which is prolific in the area as well). There's lots of reasons to question it. Especially after incidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

That being said, I'll take the relative "roll of the dice" that is nuclear power over burning off tonnes of coal any day.

Tbh I think the whole thing with Nuclear power is the same way air travel gets treated. It's statistically safer and cleaner (and cheaper too), but there's always that threat of "what if I end up living near the one that melts down and kills me" paralleling the flight version of "what if I'm on the one that crashes?"

RE: Word
By masher2 on 8/23/2007 2:58:28 PM , Rating: 2
> "Consider the number of heavy water leaks..."

I'm not sure which leaks you're referring to, but heavy water is not radioactive and almost comically safe in the environment. If a human drank a liter of pure heavy water a day for several weeks, you'd start to experience some strange (but reversible) effects, but otherwise its wholly safe. In dilute amounts, you could drink it your entire life without ill effects (in fact, we already do, as "normal" water already contains roughly 0.03% heavy water)

RE: Word
By mars777 on 8/23/2007 11:43:44 PM , Rating: 1
You can also drink/eat food with E330 or other cancerous substances whole your life.

You wont suffer but with more and more you put in yourself you shorten your lifespan.

Now don't take this as stone, somebody can live 100 years with doing it, but most will shorten they lifespan with strange illnesses in their elder years.

But the problem is not you, its your children and their children... we will start to feel genetic degradation of evolution because of these substances.

We can adapt a lot but we can adapt to natural effects, not human made effects. It's like saying we can adapt to antrax... sure we can survive if it's not a dose big enough to make you direct harm. But it's neither good to periodically repeat that (talking in big timespans)... we will feel the effects.

RE: Word
By mars777 on 8/23/2007 11:52:18 PM , Rating: 1
And to make the point clear:

This is nothing compared to Big Macs and French fries people puts in themselves, like in big trash cans :)

It all adds up. It's dangerous when combined.
Like with ecstasy, if you take 1 pill and it's not a deadly one you have little effect. When you take them a lot in a month, effects exponentially grow to huge amounts of brain damage.

It's the same with low radiation or heavy water or food additives, although effects are not visible in months but in years.

RE: Word
By masher2 on 8/24/2007 8:45:21 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but it is *not* the same with heavy water. Chemically, its identical to natural water (which itself contains a small amount of heavy water). Trace levels are not harmful, no matter over how long a period you are exposed to them. This is basic fact, and isn't up for debate.

RE: Word
By mars777 on 8/24/2007 9:33:59 AM , Rating: 1
Heavy isotopes of chemical elements have very slightly different chemical behaviors, but for most elements the differences in chemical behavior between isotopes are far too small to use, or even detect. For hydrogen, however, this is not true. The larger chemical isotope-effects seen with deuterium and tritium manifest because bond energies in chemistry are determined in quantum mechanics by equations in which the quantity of reduced mass of the nucleus and electrons appears. This quantity is altered in heavy-hydrogen compounds (of which deuterium oxide is the most common and familiar) far more greatly than for heavy-isotope substitution in other chemical elements. This isotope effect of heavy hydrogen is magnified further in biological systems, which are very sensitive to small changes in the solvent properties of water.

To perform their tasks, enzymes rely on their finely tuned networks of hydrogen bonds, both in the active center with their substrates, and outside the active center, to stabilize their tertiary structures. As a hydrogen bond with deuterium is slightly stronger than one involving ordinary hydrogen, in a highly deuterated environment, some normal reactions in cells are disrupted.

Particularly hard-hit by heavy water are the delicate assemblies of mitotic spindle formation necessary for cell division in eukaryotes. Because eukaryotic cell division stops in heavy water, seeds therefore do not germinate in heavy water, and plants stop growing when given only heavy water.

So basically it has effects on our body but the effects are visible only when the water has a high concentration of heavy water and then we should consume much more water then we are accustomed to.

RE: Word
By masher2 on 8/24/2007 10:13:07 AM , Rating: 2
> "So basically it has effects on our body but the effects are visible only when the water has a high concentration of heavy water "

None of what you said changes anything in the least. To cause ill effects, a very high concentration is required. Some 25-50% of the water in your body, by weight. For a 200lb man, that means absorbing 35 to 70 pounds of heavy water.

This is why heavy water poisoning is essentially impossible. Someone would have to drink massive quantities of pure heavy water for weeks to suffer any ill effects. As heavy water is not preferentially absorbed in the body, you'd have to drink nothing else, and eat nothing containing large amounts of fluid as well.

In trace levels, its perfectly harmless, even over exposure periods of decades. Which is a good thing, as natural water contains it in a ratio somewhere around 1:3000.

RE: Word
By PlasmaBomb on 8/27/2007 8:30:16 AM , Rating: 2
If you are going to lift a large amount of text from wiki at least reference it.

RE: Word
By aeroengineer1 on 9/3/2007 2:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
Typically wiki articles, while containing useful information are not referenced. The reason is that the posters are anonymous and the article is constantly changing. The only reason a person references something is so that they can go and verify a constant non changing source. This is the same reason that many teachers/professors do not let you reference web pages and any other changing material. Plus remember this is not intended to necessarily be a scholarly article, this is a blog with valuable information, reliant on the reader to go and search out more information. I think that he got you to do just that.


RE: Word
By chsh1ca on 8/24/2007 11:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
Heavy water on its own is one thing, and no, it isn't radioactive. From a Nuclear Reactor after having been used as a coolant is something totally different. Perhaps a clearer statement would have been Heavy water + Tritium leaks.

Canadian Nuclear plants are apparently horribly bad at leaking Tritium into the surrounding area.

As for the leaks I'm referring to:

The biggest one was the 50 trillion Becquerels in '96. I have no newspaper links, but if you're seriously interested I'm sure it can be found pretty easily. It was a pretty big deal at the time.

RE: Word
By stromgald on 8/23/2007 2:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it's just like how we launch RTGs (radio-isotope thermal-electric generators) for deep space probes all the time. People will complain, but the risks are minimal.

I don't think it's so much a matter of all the ignorant protesters, it's the government. The main reason nuclear power has not succeeded in the United States (compared to other countries) is because of the insane amount of government regulations.

I know someone that works in a nuclear plant down in Texas and they have dozens of people who's daily job is to check for hairline cracks in the lead paint of pipes. If they find one, they have to shut down for a week or more for immediate repair despite tons of evidence that a hairline crack could mean nothing if it doesn't propagate. Any sensible engineer would just make a note of all the cracks and shut down once or twice each year to fix everything.

RE: Word
By mars777 on 8/23/2007 11:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you on the hairline crack thing but seriously doubt the government regulations have anything to do with nuclear power adoption. They are just consequences of this:

The USA is the world’s second largest coal producer after China.


PS. it's the same thing with slow adoption of electric engines or engines fueled by water. The oil industry employs too much people in the world, and nobody mentally sane enough wants to challenge them.

RE: Word
By SandmanWN on 8/27/2007 10:26:15 AM , Rating: 2
Not entirely sure your assessment of the situation is correct. For example...

The TVA which is government owned is turning on two new reactor units. One went online just 13 days ago which will provide another 1,155 megawatts/650,000 homes. The other will take a few years but has already been given the go ahead.

These plants are not entirely "new" so to speak. They each have two units but only one unit has ever been in service. The others were never completed due to lack of need. The infrastructure was there but the guts were lacking.

While I agree the Coal industry is speaking loudly into certain congressman's ears, the recent cave in tragedy with the coal mine in Utah has apparently turned some heads.

By Joz on 8/22/2007 1:46:21 AM , Rating: 2
I pitty the ignorants of the public, and those that view situations like this to amass attention upon themselves.

Media, stay away from stuff that has been around for years and years. Go cover something new, like the fact that Bush is still somehow president?.

""Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive"

best quote ever.

RE: ...sigh...
By Ringold on 8/22/2007 7:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
Go cover something new, like the fact that Bush is still somehow president?

It was this little thing back in 2004 called an election.

The DNC hoisted Kerry before the people, and the RNC marched out Bush. Both sides spooled up the propaganda machines, and the people got to see both.

Then off to the polls, and the people decided, essentially, Kerry was more a wanker than even Bush. Four more years to the victor.

Patience -- the 2008 elections started November 7, 2006 and will be here before ya know it.

RE: ...sigh...
By TomZ on 8/22/2007 8:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
It does seem that our presidential elections have devolved to having to make a choice from between the least of two big idiots. In my opinion, the past 2-3 presidential elections have been of that category.

Although I'll admit that Bush Jr. has make me appreciate what a (relatively) good president Clinton was, although I was not fond of him at the time.

Here's a scary thought: what if the next president makes Bush look like a good president, by relative comparison? In that case we're screwed!

RE: ...sigh...
By Master Kenobi on 8/23/2007 2:48:24 PM , Rating: 3
Dunno, as a working middle class American, Clinton boned me more than Bush ever could have. I will take Bush over Clinton thanks.

RE: ...sigh...
By TheGreek on 8/23/2007 4:43:58 PM , Rating: 1
That's the logical choice if the Constitution doesn't mean anything to you.

Fortunately you're outnumbered both here and abroad, and I doubt you would speak up anywhere outside the US if you thought about it.

But some people love a corporate-cracy administered via a puppet regime.

RE: ...sigh...
By grenableu on 8/23/2007 4:49:09 PM , Rating: 2
But some people love a corporate-cracy administered via a puppet regime
Dude, please stop. I'm not a Bush fan by any means, but your semi-unintelligible tinfoil-hat rantings are just making the other side look good.

RE: ...sigh...
By TheBaker on 8/24/2007 12:03:35 AM , Rating: 2
No, dude, don't stop him. It's like watching a train wreck; you just can't stop looking at it. Everybody loves to watch the crazy guys talk. Besides, it gives us all something to laugh at and rebut thoroughly.

RE: ...sigh...
By mars777 on 8/24/2007 12:15:14 AM , Rating: 2
but your semi-unintelligible tinfoil-hat rantings are just making the other side look good.

I dont think so. I'm not an USA citizen. I live in Europe and think that he actually did describe it pretty good. This is exactly how the USA government looks like form outside.

Maybe from the inside you are somehow blind eyed with your middle-class comfort and pretty good earnings?

RE: ...sigh...
By rsmech on 8/24/2007 1:22:34 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe from the inside you are somehow blind eyed with your middle-class comfort and pretty good earnings?

I can't believe I allowed myself to be fooled by those evil corporations into becoming the envy of the world.

RE: ...sigh...
By mars777 on 8/24/2007 9:48:44 AM , Rating: 2
LOL :)

As a scientist and programmer I already had a few job opportunities in the USA. Yes you have good pay checks but I preferred to stay home. I enjoy more the real freedom my country gives me, such as to organize a night beach party without calling cops and firemen or not being hassled in banks because i have a strange surname :)

And yes, i had a two months business trip in LA, and had extensive conversations with people living in the USA about their lives so i know how it is there. I'm just used to another lifestyle, and to me yours gives no reason for envy. I can choose good versus best and be happy with that, while the same cannot be said for most Americans.

I'm not bashing your nation in any way, just pointing the differences. But what the OP of this post said is true: from the outside view your government makes no good for your country. That coudnt be said in the 60ties when many people from my country were very pleased to emigrate there.

RE: ...sigh...
By SandmanWN on 8/27/2007 11:17:33 AM , Rating: 2
The first thing you did wrong was equate California to the rest of the US. CA != USA. That region is the most whacked out group of people on the face of the planet. I seriously doubt some of your statements however. A bank hassling someone because of their name? I don't know of any banks around here that discriminate when it comes to money. Hell, at the moment they take money from illegal aliens without question. Police & Fire for a beach party? What were you trying to do, light fires and serve alcohol to the public?

The outside view of the US has never been and will probably never be a positive one. It is envious towards our middle class having more money and power than most wealthy classes have in their own nations. The US never receives admiration for its society, just a bunch of nit picking. As a US citizen I've heard similar assessments from foreigners a thousand times over and have come to the conclusion that I quite frankly don't give a damn. We do whats best for our own nation, because whenever we do something for another nation it is always under appreciated and overlooked.

RE: ...sigh...
By TheGreek on 8/27/2007 1:15:50 PM , Rating: 1
We do whats best for our own nation

Meaningless statement, everyone does that. Its about collateral damage.

RE: ...sigh...
By SandmanWN on 8/27/2007 5:13:27 PM , Rating: 3
Don't really care about the collateral damage any more. Every time we attempt to do something that helps others it is ignored, belittled, challenged, refuted, or deemed an act of imperialism.

From the sounds of it the US saved this guys country not to long ago. Now he despises the US because of some political BS that no one really cares about that was spouted by someone like yourself with a tin foil hat. So, since we cannot please anyone except for rolling over and dying then quite simply put... to hell with everyone else.

RE: ...sigh...
By TheGreek on 8/28/2007 11:20:57 AM , Rating: 1
That region is the most whacked out group of people on the face of the planet.

No bigotry in that statement.

I seriously doubt some of your statements however.

Based on the high level of objectivity, no doubt.

whenever we do something for another nation it is always under appreciated and overlooked.

Gee, always? No exceptions? And of course 100% of them are 100% wrong. Isn't life swell in Perfectland?

RE: ...sigh...
By TheGreek on 8/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: ...sigh...
By SandmanWN on 8/27/2007 11:25:01 AM , Rating: 3
LOL A comedy show loosely based on a news broadcast deemed more objective. I guess a bunch of one liners about any negative thing in the press is consider good objectivity to you but I prefer to hear from people that are actually in the industry and have informed/credible sources.

You have issues.

RE: ...sigh...
By TheGreek on 8/27/2007 1:10:38 PM , Rating: 1

Everyone hear lowers their standards when the news is what they want to hear.

You have issues.

But thankfully I don't have Fox.

RE: ...sigh...
By SandmanWN on 8/27/2007 5:01:22 PM , Rating: 2
Watching news is a form of lower standards? Hrmm...

RE: ...sigh...
By TheGreek on 8/28/2007 10:43:12 AM , Rating: 1
No, implying Fox is news indicates no standards at all.

RE: ...sigh...
By Radeon99 on 9/12/2007 4:55:24 PM , Rating: 2
For the past 30 years, the left has controlled the media. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, Public Radio can all firmly be counted in the left wingers camp and pocket. And let's not even delve into how Leftist the NY TIMES is. But I'm sure it's the main source of your information, TheGreek.

RE: ...sigh...
By rsmech on 8/24/2007 12:31:46 AM , Rating: 2
If you are at all concerned with the constitution you would know it doesn't matter what they think abroad when it comes to our elections. I care what happens here first. Including protecting our national security and no bombing a medicine factory doesn't count.

RE: ...sigh...
By bfonnes on 8/23/2007 4:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the quote...

If my memory serves me correctly back in 2002, Pres. Bush essentially unilaterally "tore up" the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Well, he backed us out of it because the missile defense program was a violation of the treaty. I am surprised that this little reported fact wasn't used in the 2004 election.

I'm not sure that most of the country understood the implications of this decision, although, we surely do now. It seems to me that it has made it much easier for N. Korea and Iran to make excuses for their nuclear weapons programs when we disregarded one of the most successful nuclear disarmament programs in history with much fanfare.

Now, without sounding foolish, it also seems to me that this issue should have been at least mentioned in the 2004 campaign by Kerry as it is one of the most important issues that has been facing not only this nation, but also most of the world for over 50 years, that being the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

RE: ...sigh...
By grenableu on 8/23/2007 4:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
You have your facts all wrong. The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was never ratified by the US. Bush couldn't have "backed us out" of the treaty, because we were never in it.

Bush DID though continue the US policy of a unilateral, voluntary ban on underground nuclear tests.

RE: ...sigh...
By bfonnes on 8/23/2007 7:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
Um, sorry to disagree sir, but the facts are the facts...

Note, The United States of America is clearly listed in the reference as one of the 'parties' that signed the treaty and that USA is not listed under the "Countries that have signed, but not yet ratified - (17) Algeria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, Ethiopia, Haiti, Libya, Mali, Pakistan, Paraguay, Portugal, Somalia, Tanzania, Uruguay, Vietnam, Yemen"


"It was opened for signature on August 5, 1963, and entered into force on October 10, 1963."

I was not alive during that time period, but I do know history and I believe that is very close to the time period of the Cuban Missile Crises which is the closest this world has come to nuclear war. There is also a movie about this.

The facts are, that it was reported in the media, near the time period stated in my previous post, that the use of a missile shield is a clear violation of the treaty, and although our violation of the treaty may seem to be a technicality to some, it has, in my opinion, clearly been used as a rationale for proliferation by some countries, which is not however a justified excuse by any of those countries that may be proliferating nuclear technology/weapons.

RE: ...sigh...
By bfonnes on 8/23/2007 8:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, correction.. I did some further research and I think we are talking about two different things. I mentioned the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty not knowing that there is a separate treaty called the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which was signed by not ratified as you stated. Whether the provisions about testing missile defense systems were a part of that treaty or the other one, I do not know.

RE: ...sigh...
By masher2 on 8/23/2007 8:12:00 PM , Rating: 3
> " but the facts are the facts..."

Your facts are incorrect. The first problem is there are two treaties called the "Nuclear Test Ban Treaty"- the Partial NTBT (which bans test explosions anywhere but underground), and the Comprehensive NTBT (which bans all explosions, anywhere). The US ratified the Partial, but not the Comprehensive. You didn't specify which, so I assume the OP thought you meant the latter.

Still worse, neither of the above treaties is the one you actually meant. The actual treaty which bars missile defense shield (and the one from which Bush withdrew) is the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which has nothing to do with nuclear proliferation. That treaty was only signed by two nations in any case, one of which (the Soviet Union) no longer even exists.

RE: ...sigh...
By TheGreek on 8/27/2007 10:24:00 AM , Rating: 2
I pitty the ignorants of the public

You mean like people who still think voters count more than lobbyists?

Pro Nuclear?
By 3kliksphilip on 8/22/2007 10:42:09 AM , Rating: 1
I'm not sure if it's just that this is an American website and that everybody's pro-nuclear and everything, as in England there are far more people who loathe Nuclear. Although there is a slight risk of a melt down, in my opinion the most worrying thing is the waste left after it's been used in a powerplant. There are bound to be accidents, but when a fuel source's waste is dangerous for thousands of years, is it really worth using it as a power source when generations to come will have to deal with the consequences? It's a bit like when people cut down the rain forests, not caring about their children or what ever. I'd rather that we waited for Fusion to use Radioactive power- how can radioactive material at 10,000,000 degrees hot, held in position with magnets fail? I've restrained from posting to Masher's claims like 'more respectable journalists admit that there's no risk' (suggesting that anybody against nuclear isn't worth listening to), or saying that anybody believing that radiation is dangerous has 'fallen for it'. I know that most news sites have their biases, couldn't somebody blog to counter Masher's strong beliefs? Not me, of course, because I'm English and don't have a clue about some of the things posted on these pages. *Awaits people to pick my post apart and turn it against me*

RE: Pro Nuclear?
By TomZ on 8/22/2007 10:58:17 AM , Rating: 3
I don't see the waste as an issue at all. Consider this - with nuclear power, the waste is very well managed, being placed in special containment sites. With all other power-generation methods that have emissions, those emissions are simply dumped into the air, water, etc. with very little attention being given to them.

In addition, you have to look at the amount of such waste - simply, you have a very small amount of waste in the case of nuclear plants, compared to huge amounts of emissions in the case of, e.g., coal power plants.

RE: Pro Nuclear?
By 3kliksphilip on 8/22/2007 11:37:00 AM , Rating: 2
I see what you mean, and although they're well kept now, we're talking about thousands of years. Of course, we may have more pressing matter by then.

I believe that with all non-renewable sources we're using up energy which could be used in an emergency. If any of you know Age of Empires 2, I don't kill my sheep until I'm besieged and farms are too time consuming. BACK TO THE REAL WORLD, I wish that more could be put into researching solar, wind and hydro electricity. Coal, gas, oil and nuclear are all things which should only be used as a last resort. I know it's not possible in this day and age. (I'd like a windmill on every roof top really). It's just that Masher makes me think that he wants the entire world to be nuclear powered for ever, screwing every other resource and anything against using non renewable sources (ie, GLOBAL WARMING DOESN'T EXIST posts). Yeah, I know what you're thinking, if I don't like it, I should go elsewhere for something to do when I'm waiting for my video project / latest game / map to render. I'm so bored.

RE: Pro Nuclear?
By Moishe on 8/22/2007 3:47:11 PM , Rating: 3
I think nuclear should be used a lot more than it is, but I don't say that because I have a stake in nukes I say it because it makes sense. The instant a better fuel shows up I will support that.

It's just that Masher makes me think that he wants the entire world to be nuclear powered for ever,

I think your general assumption about MAsher is common but sadly it's not based on anything solid. I've not seen any extremism whatsoever in any of these blogs. I've seen a guy simply standing on the unpopular side of a topic. I think people fail to realize that "unpopular" doesn't necessarily coincide with wrong or nonfactual.

I want a better fuel than coal. I think nuclear is better.
*Better* means it can keep up with demand AND be cleaner, or it can produce better for the same cleanliness.
*Better* does not mean more clean and less production.

I think we've had this fuel for years. The safety standards are high and accidents are super low. Even if the waste is completely useless (which it's not) it's still treated with kid gloves. The waste is really taken care of. Coal and other fuels have waste as well, and they're toxic as well but we just throw that waste into the environment. This doesn't make sense and it isn't even remotely fair to nuclear power. I think common sense says that we should use the safest and best producing fuel possible.

It can't be that hard for scientists to produce a test that will pretty much prove which source of electricity is the safest and cost efficient. Even if they did this the issue is so muddled with politics and fear-mongering that it removes the ability to get anything done.

Facts involving safety and finances are no longer the deciding factor about which fuel is used.

If you want to take it to the logical conclusion, the only way to remove all energy usage is to kill all living things. Trees and animals use energy too... why not kill the ones that use more than others? I think nature produces waste and uses energy. That waste is another entity's food.

RE: Pro Nuclear?
By TomZ on 8/22/2007 4:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
It can't be that hard for scientists to produce a test that will pretty much prove which source of electricity is the safest and cost efficient. Even if they did this the issue is so muddled with politics and fear-mongering that it removes the ability to get anything done.

I think it is more the case that all power-generation methods known to date have serous drawbacks. Therefore, the selection of the "best" one depends a lot on the tradeoffs one is willing to make. Although nuclear is good overall, but it has its problems too.

RE: Pro Nuclear?
By Moishe on 8/23/2007 7:52:06 AM , Rating: 2
I agree... I guess my point is... if I in all my humble foolishness can make decisions based on tradeoffs and select the best "prod X" for my household, then the government ought to be able to do so as well.

We all make tradeoffs in our daily lives. It's better to move forward and learn than it is to sit and whine and hope everything is handed to us on a platter.... but that's just me :)

RE: Pro Nuclear?
By Amiga500 on 8/22/2007 11:08:59 AM , Rating: 3
Google accelerated particle reactor and transmutation :-)

RE: Pro Nuclear?
By masher2 on 8/22/2007 11:24:16 AM , Rating: 3
Are you referring to Rubbia's energy amplifier? I've written a few posts about it some point, a full column might be in order. It is indeed revolutionary technology.

RE: Pro Nuclear?
By Amiga500 on 8/22/2007 1:31:14 PM , Rating: 3
Never heard of that term for it before, but after a quick check it works on the same principal.

Artificially accelerate particles (essentially a particle beam) into a sub-critical nuclear reactor. The beam causes fission to occur, cutting the beam cuts the reaction - instantly.

The great thing about it is that current long-lifed nuclear waste can be used as the fuel, and in undergoing the fission reaction through this process, 99% of the material is rendered stable, and the other 1% has its half-lives reduced to much smaller scales than before (30-50 years IIRC). Thats the transmutation part.

The Japanese have already demonstrated the accelerated particle process, and the transmutation aspect of it. Here is a paper on it:

"Research and development on accelerator-driven transmutation system at JAERI"

Toshinobu Sasa, Hiroyuki Oigawa, Kazufumi Tsujimoto, Kenji Nishihara, Kenji Kikuchi, Yuji Kurata, Shigeru Saito, Masatoshi Futakawa, Makoto Umeno, Nobuo Ouchi, Yasuo Arai, Kazuo Minato and Hideki Takano

Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, 2-4, Shirakata-Shirane, Tokai, Ibaraki 319-1195, Japan

Nuclear Engineering and Design
Volume 230, Issues 1-3, May 2004, Pages 209-222
11th International Conference on Nuclear Energy

RE: Pro Nuclear?
By masher2 on 8/22/2007 11:38:53 AM , Rating: 3
> "when a fuel source's waste is dangerous for thousands of years, is it really worth using it as a power source"

Many industrial wastes are dangerous forever. Contaminants like lead, mercury, arsenic, chlorine, etc, never decay.

Radioactive waste, on the other hand, is a different story. The truly dangerous actinides decay in a matter of months. its a basic law of radioactivity, the higher the level of radioactivity, the shorter the half-life. Most of the longer-lived ones can be recycled back into the fuel cycle-- we don't do it today primarily for politicla and cost reasons, but there's no technical bar.

But the largest factor in favor of nuclear power was mentioned already by TomZ-- the relative size of the waste problem. A single fuel rod bundle for a CANDU reactor is about 18 inches long and small enough around to be picked up with one hand. That tiny bundle will generate as much power as a few thousand tons of coal, which, when burnt, will generate huge amounts of particulate matter, CO2, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and even uranium. Even ignoring the waste and environmental harm caused by coal mining itself, the relative levels of pollution between the two aren't even comparable.

RE: Pro Nuclear?
By Etsp on 8/23/2007 2:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
Just out of curiosity, how much energy is consumed to make the nuclear fuel? and how does that process compare to how much energy it takes to mine the amount of coal that can be consumed to generate the same amount of electricity...I honestly don't have a clue, and would like some kind of idea about that part of process before I take sides.

RE: Pro Nuclear?
By masher2 on 8/23/2007 2:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
A direct comparison is rather difficult. Comparing mining alone, nuclear wins by several orders of magnitude, i.e. it is several tens of thousands of times more efficient.

Once you consider the enrichment process, the issue is much closer. How much so we can't say exactly, as exact details on enrichment are sparse for understandable reasons. However, many newer reactor designs (mostly on the books, unfortunately) don't even require enriched fuel.

But even with the our current reactor designs (which are essentially 1960s-era technology), nuclear power still rings in the cheapest form of energy. In 2006, the US nuclear industry averaged costs of 1.66 cents/kilowatt hour produced, a figure that includes the regulatory costs of operating the plants and disposing of all waste.

RE: Pro Nuclear?
By B on 8/22/2007 6:46:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rather that we waited for Fusion to use Radioactive power

Fusion doesn't use 'radioactive' power. Fusion takes two Hydrogen atoms and smashes them together to make Helium; this reaction generates the extreme heat. There's really nothing radioactive about it. Its clean.

Fission is the process of splitting the atom. This type of power uses radioactive elements such as Uranium and Plutonium.

RE: Pro Nuclear?
By Ringold on 8/22/2007 7:06:04 PM , Rating: 3
how can radioactive material at 10,000,000 degrees hot, held in position with magnets fail?

Ever watch Star Trek?

Google "warp core breach" :P

RE: Pro Nuclear?
By TheGreek on 8/23/2007 1:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
What a scientific response. It adds a lot to the original article. No, I mean it, it really does.

RE: Pro Nuclear?
By TheBaker on 8/24/2007 12:01:03 AM , Rating: 3
Did you actually do what he suggested, or are you just doing what you always do? The theoretical warp core technology they came up with for Star Trek is basically identical to the "10,000,000 degrees held in place by magnets" technology he mentioned. And in more than one episode of Star Trek, THOSE MAGNETS FAILED. So yes, he answered the man's question in a roundabout way and contributed something useful to the conversation. You might note the complete dissimilarity to what you have brought to this discussion.

RE: Pro Nuclear?
By TheGreek on 8/24/2007 4:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
You might note the complete dissimilarity to what you have brought to this discussion.

You mean I didn't bolster my argument with science fiction?

I'm crushed.

RE: Pro Nuclear?
By PlasmaBomb on 8/27/2007 8:43:45 AM , Rating: 2
In star trek its antimatter held in place by magnets.

Go google "What would happen to me if I licked an antimatter lolly".

A Little Overzealous
By JasonMick on 8/22/2007 9:11:29 AM , Rating: 5
While I agree with some of your points, this article is as overzealous and irrational as those of the news media.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that a serious safety violation did occur. 9 gallons is not a little tiny spill, it is a big spill. I agree with your point that it is not a nuclear disaster, however chemical spills should be treated with scrutiny. The same goes for any sort of hazardous chemical spill.

I agree that the story was blown out of proportion, but an investigation should occur with these kind of accidents. For example, at my old job, I used to work with aqueous KOH, a caustic basic liquid, and if we ever spilled even a small amount of it...even just 100 or less milliliters worth, we had to go through a large process in which both the company's internal safety/environmental hazard team did an investigation,filling out a bunch of paperwork, and we had to face government involvement via a report to the government and possible investigation of practices. Maybe the company I worked at was being overcautious, but I was under the impression that this was standard.

Actually, had the leak not been properly cleaned and if it had found its way into the water supply, you could see serious consequences. This is one reason why a government investigation was necessary. And the investigation was up front and honest about the fact that they did a good job and only a wild scenario could have led to any real danger. They basically were saying, you shouldn't have screwed up, but good job on the cleanup, guys! That is exactly what they should say to the company. How is that government "manipulative fear tactics". I think you need to criticize the government where criticism is due, but I think you are grasping at straws in this case.

I agree mostly with your criticism of the news media. However, the Sierra Club, though misguided in this case has done a tremendous job protecting vast tracts of land worldwide. How can you dismiss that signficant contribution, in light of one small policy mistake? I would never protest the Sierra Club, as I respect about 95% of what they do. That is a significantly higher percentage than most politicians I am familiar with.

Now, where I really began to take issue with your article was at your statement:

why the "hydrogen economy" can never be practical

This article has nothing to do with the hydrogen economy! If you are inferring because nuclear power can't be used to produce hydrogen, the hydrogen economy will never be practical that is a rather ridiculous leap. Let's see...there is solar, tidal, hydroelectric, and wind power. More importantly it has recently been discovered that hydrogen can be biologically synthesized and in 20 yrs. you may see hydrogen being mass produced via microcrobes using water or organic waste.

I really think your article was more of a rant than a worthwhile story. While I agree that the media was overzealous in this case, you were equally overzealous is derriding any involved party you could think of and jumping to wild conclusions about the future of energy based on this incident. I respectfully disagree with your point of view.

RE: A Little Overzealous
By masher2 on 8/22/2007 9:51:31 AM , Rating: 2
> "For example, at my old job....if we ever spilled even a small amount of it...even just 100 or less milliliters worth, we had to go through a large process..."

Did you have to notify the public, and endure calls to be shut down, simply because you spilled a little potash on the floor?

> "How is that government "manipulative fear tactics".

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not criticizing the government at all. Their investigation and subsequent action I applaud. The problem here began once the results of that investigation were made public.

> "had the leak not been properly cleaned and if it had found its way into the water supply, you could see serious consequences"

Such as? Ground water flows through uranium-bearing rock constantly. Had all 9 gallons of this ended up in the local watertable, the resultant water would still be less radioactive than natural water coming out of most mineral springs.

> "If you are inferring because nuclear power can't be used to produce hydrogen, the hydrogen economy will never be practical that is a rather ridiculous leap. Let's see...there is solar, tidal, hydroelectric, and wind power"

All those except hydro are far too expensive today, and will be for the foreseable future. Most aren't even practical for direct energy use without heavy government subsidies. Even assuming nuclear power, hydrogen for transportation is going to be considerably more expensive than gasoline. But generating it from solar or wind would be equivalent to $100/gallon gasoline. Maybe in 30 years that won't be true; maybe not. But nuclear is a proven solution, not wishful thinking.

Yes, there is hydro. But good spots to generate hydro power are limited...and we're already using most of them.

RE: A Little Overzealous
By Amiga500 on 8/22/2007 11:06:13 AM , Rating: 1
You didn't mention the impact that hydro electric has on the envronment.

It contributes more "greenhouse gases" to the atmosphere than fossil fuel plants of equivalent size, and it also destroys much more natural habitat than fossil fuel plants of equivalent size.

Hydro-electric power is not the 'clean-fix' many think it is... far from it.

RE: A Little Overzealous
By Amiga500 on 8/22/2007 11:07:52 AM , Rating: 1
PS - I used quotes around "greenhouse gases" as I do not want the influence (or non-influence) of them to be the point of the post.

RE: A Little Overzealous
By TheGreek on 8/23/2007 1:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
It contributes more "greenhouse gases" to the atmosphere than fossil fuel plants

Can you cite a source?

RE: A Little Overzealous
By masher2 on 8/23/2007 4:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
I think this is what he's referring to:

The green image of hydro power as a benign alternative to fossil fuels is false, says Éric Duchemin, a consultant for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)... Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels .

RE: A Little Overzealous
By TheGreek on 8/24/2007 4:27:26 PM , Rating: 1
Are there any global efforts on methane reclamation?

RE: A Little Overzealous
By KristopherKubicki on 8/25/2007 1:04:59 AM , Rating: 2
You didn't mention the impact that hydro electric has on the envronment.

Hydro-electric is something that I believe is quite a bit more "damning" (hah) than many have elaborated on.

Has anyone seen the Colorado River lately? Anyone seen the research linking Sea of Japan wildlife disruption with the Three Gorges Dam?

While damming is great, if not necissary in many parts of the world, there are some aspects of the technology we should consider replacing if viable alternatives come onboard, at least in my opinion.

RE: A Little Overzealous
By Puddyglum1 on 8/22/2007 2:12:37 PM , Rating: 3
I agree that the story was blown out of proportion, but an investigation should occur with these kind of accidents.
And an investigation did occur, which Masher explained was appropriate and effective.

His broad point is that the public, common understanding of nuclear risks is paranoid. His specific point is that it's so paranoid that energy reform is walking around nuclear energy as a possibility.

Your company's standards certainly seem to match the standards that were practiced in this 9-gallon dilluted-uranium spill. Really, I think you're trying to simply say "but still! nuclear energy needs to be extremely cautiously handled!" Which is like a parent in the passenger seat saying, "slow down! there's brake lights ahead!"

RE: A Little Overzealous
By grenableu on 8/22/2007 5:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, had the leak not been properly cleaned and if it had found its way into the water supply, you could see serious consequences
Where do you think that uranium came from in the first place? think hard got it! right out the ground itself. This wasn't spent nuclear waste, it was pure uranium in some sort of solution. Only a little more radioactive than natural uranium ore.

RE: A Little Overzealous
By TheGreek on 8/23/2007 1:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with some of your points, this article is as overzealous and irrational as those of the news media.

But it would make Machiavelli very proud.

RE: A Little Overzealous
By TheBaker on 8/24/2007 12:12:35 AM , Rating: 2
I love how you just throw out things you've heard and think are clever, while the author of the blog uses well-researched sources. He is consistently showing people the figures and articles they are requesting, wile you are just sniping from the back, hoping someone will pay attention to you. Despite my comments higher up, I wish to revise my statement thusly:

Please just shut up and go away. You are contributing nothing of value to a discussion of topics on which you are COMPLETELY ignorant. Come back when you can talk intelligently about the topic at hand.

RE: A Little Overzealous
By mars777 on 8/24/2007 12:29:31 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe he didn't contribute to the discussion, but neither did you. He wont go away and nothing will change :P
And me too, just 1 more useless post :=)

RE: A Little Overzealous
By TheGreek on 8/24/2007 4:30:35 PM , Rating: 1
But not as easy as believing everything you hear.

This is a much better story, real progress.

RE: A Little Overzealous
By TheGreek on 8/24/2007 4:25:16 PM , Rating: 1
But I never came here disguised as a psuedo-scientist to gather up highly educated cult followers. Even as far back as the days of Benjamin Franklin it was noted that you can send a stupid person to college, and when he comes out not only is he still stupid, he's arrogant as well. (Anybody come to mind in the last 7 years on that one?)

while the author of the blog uses well-researched sources.

Really, you know this..... how? But how many times have I asked for scientific method and was blown off?

If you don't like the science then fight it with real science. Like I asked before if he really believed he wants the public to know the truth he would be spending as much time showing how many "well researched sources" are simply backed by the API, sources you are gullible enough to believe as fact. Funny how you didn't bother pointing out any of that stuff, you and the author show a genuine sense of objectivity. And you do know who the API is, don't you?

You can go anywhere just to hear what you want to hear, no sense coming here just for that.

wile you are just sniping from the back

If this is the back, then where is the front? I'll go there.

By the way, if you aren't happy with the free speech system, too bad. It's getting killed off slowly, but real Americans don't just shrug and give up their rights.

Thank you for your highly scientific contribution, it truly bolsters the argument of the author.

RE: A Little Overzealous
By Radeon99 on 9/12/2007 5:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
You're right. Political correctness is killing freedom of speech, thegreek. Unless you try to make a joke about White people. Then it's ok...

RE: A Little Overzealous
By Radeon99 on 9/12/2007 5:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
Colleges and Universities today think it's their job to Create a new generation of left wingers, and they're doing a damn good job. They can't just teach, they have to indoctrinate. You were right about that TheGreek.

By Griswold on 8/22/2007 3:24:25 AM , Rating: 6
Will you also write an article about one of the many "non-pseudo scandals", companies and governments around the world tried to cover up over the last 5 decades, but eventually failed? Or is that inappropriate for you?

RE: Request
By KristopherKubicki on 8/22/2007 3:45:57 AM , Rating: 5
How about instead of asking Michael to do one, you write one and I'll publish it on DailyTech for you? :)

RE: Request
By brenatevi on 8/22/2007 6:11:08 AM , Rating: 2
Because it's easier to react to masher's blog than to formulate something?

RE: Request
By Kuroyama on 8/22/2007 8:41:24 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like a pot shot at my earlier posts :-)

I do have one question. What is the difference between posting columns on the "global warming controversy" versus posting columns on the "evolution controversy"? Both are science topics not covered much by the mainstream media. Is it that the former is more technology related, that you don't take the latter "controversy" seriously, or something else like no one offering to write the columns?

RE: Request
By KristopherKubicki on 8/22/2007 11:03:23 AM , Rating: 2
Both are science titles, and DailyTech is a technology and science journal. Nobody has ever pitched me an ID vs evolution article -- if that's what you're asking.

I've had very brilliant people post some very brilliant responses to Michael ... never seen anyone able to really formulate an article at that same level though for me to republish!

This site is a forum, I *want* both sides of the argument.

RE: Request
By TomZ on 8/22/2007 4:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
I would enjoy a blog post on the so-called "evolution controversy," especially a post that might attempt to extol the virtues of the so-called "intelligent design" explanation. That would be fun. :o)

RE: Request
By TheGreek on 8/24/2007 4:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
How about instead of asking Michael to do one, you write one and I'll publish it on DailyTech for you? :)

Beyond his capacity or his agenda?

RE: Request
By Moishe on 8/22/2007 8:58:36 AM , Rating: 2
He wrote an article exposing lies or exaggerations about something. Basically what we have here is a little balance to other forms of media who will not tell you the whole story or who will sensationalize and turn it into a circus.

When they can't attack the story (because it's true or because they're lazy or uneducated) then a lot of people will attack the writer, or throw up some other false obstacle. It looks like your response falls into this category.

Masher obviously has a passion about certain topics and instead of whining (like many do) he's actually doing something about it. Whether or not I agree with his topics or opinions, I can respect people who stand up for what they believe in. If you think there are relevant topics, then write about them. Maybe it's your destiny.

RE: Request
By masher2 on 8/22/2007 9:12:29 AM , Rating: 5
> "Will you also write an article about one of the many "non-pseudo scandals", companies and governments around the world tried to cover up "

Good idea. Earlier this month I wrote about an actual scandal involving a government coverup of flawed climate data:

RE: Request
By TheGreek on 8/28/2007 11:24:43 AM , Rating: 1
Had the scandal been opposing your argument would you have been as quick to point out "the truth"?

Please cite sources.
By lukasbradley on 8/23/2007 9:19:21 AM , Rating: 1
Please cite the sources of the "alarmist media" including the exclamation points please.

"Uncontrolled Nuclear Reaction Possible!"
"Public Kept in Dark!"
"Veil of Secrecy Must Be Lifted!"

I found the "public kept in dark" quote, but it didn't have an exclamation point, and it wasn't an alarmist article.

I'm not pro nor con nuclear power, but it seems as if you are really the only one fueling a fire that isn't there.

RE: Please cite sources.
By grenableu on 8/23/2007 9:53:29 AM , Rating: 2
Took me about 10 seconds to find this Yahoo news story, complete with lots of scary innuendo starting with the leadoff paragraph:
A three-year veil of secrecy in the name of national security was used to keep the public in the dark about the handling of highly enriched uranium at a nuclear fuel processing plant — including a leak that could have caused a deadly, uncontrolled nuclear reaction.
Oooh! Scary! I don't think the reporter ever got around to mentioning that the "reaction" wouldn't have endangered the public.

RE: Please cite sources.
By lukasbradley on 8/23/2007 11:07:26 AM , Rating: 2
I also noted I found the same article.

You missed my point. The exclamation is missing from that quote. The author, as commenter JasonMick notes above, is falling into the same trap of over-sensationalizing and taking statements out of context.

It might be a very minor problem to you, but in this world of increasing quasi-journalism, the semantics are very, very important to me.

RE: Please cite sources.
By grenableu on 8/23/2007 11:22:25 AM , Rating: 2
What statements were taken out of context? Sounds like the author summed things up perfectly to me. A lot of scary innuendo and trying to frighten the public with talk of terrorists and phrases like "uncontrolled nuclear reactions", without even bothering to say there was no risk to the public. And you're quibbling because you didn't see an exclamation point?

Besides, thats just one story out of about 60,000 I saw on Google. I'm sure at least some of the others were even worse than the Yahoo version.

RE: Please cite sources.
By TheGreek on 8/28/2007 10:47:01 AM , Rating: 1
Sounds like...

Doesn't get anymore scientific than that, believing in what pleases you.

RE: Please cite sources.
By rsmech on 8/24/2007 1:16:11 AM , Rating: 2
"!!!!!!!!!" This is more misleading to you than the words below in relation to the actual story of what happened?

Uncontrolled Nuclear Reaction Possible

Public Kept in Dark
Veil of Secrecy Must Be Lifted

It looks like the big picture just went over your head.

Policy change?
By Kuroyama on 8/23/2007 11:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
Some time ago Kristopher said that no one, including himself, can revise or remove a message. Has there been a policy change? My message

regarding whether someone can start an "Intelligent Design" blog is no here, and Kristopher's response has disappeared as well.

RE: Policy change?
By KristopherKubicki on 8/24/2007 5:40:53 AM , Rating: 2
Someone (not Masher) has abused some privledges on the DailyTech back end. That person's DailyTech employment has been terminated, and the post rated to 6. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

RE: Policy change?
By TomZ on 8/24/2007 8:37:32 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, controversy!

RE: Policy change?
By TheGreek on 8/28/2007 10:49:02 AM , Rating: 1
Someone (not Masher) has abused some privledges on the DailyTech......

And in the process developed his requirements to work at the White House. Mission accomplished.

Quick Question....
By Dfere on 8/22/2007 12:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't find this anywhere and I had heard it to be true (and admittedly I did not look incredibly hard for it).

I had heard that some of the storage sites for nuclear waste out west had reported an increase in ambient readings of a few degrees farenheit of surface temperature along the ranges where some of this stuff was stored. Urban Myth?


RE: Quick Question....
By masher2 on 8/22/2007 12:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
Low-level waste doesn't heat up, period. High-level waste does, but comparatively, there is very little such waste generated-- you could fit all the high-level waste in the US into a few large buildings.

Such waste, if buried shallowly may indeed raise surface temperatures slightly, but only in a very limited area. If by "along the ranges", you mean temperature changes miles away-- even hundreds of meters away-- then no.

In any case, the permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain, specifies waste to be 300m below ground, far below the level at which temperature changes would be recorded.

RE: Quick Question....
By JonB on 8/30/2007 10:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
The chambers drilled into Yucca Mountain's labyrinth have been tested by adding HUGE electric heaters to them, heating the rock to much higher temperatures than the stored nuclear fuel would reach. This was done to check the stability of the rock (would it crack, would it spall, would it melt, etc...) and to check how it heated up the surrounding area.

Not a problem. The rock stayed as rock. The surface temperature was unaffected.

Keep in mind that the spent fuel sent to Yucca Mountain will have been stored and "aged" at the nuclear plant long enough that they generate very little heat. Some of the 40 year old fuel bundles that exist now are probably only 1 or 2 degrees warmer than ambient temperature when stored in dry casks.

I won't let my grandchildren go running through the tunnels as a play room, but I'd certainly let them climb the mountain outside.

ad hominem
By SirRoger on 8/22/2007 8:49:52 AM , Rating: 2
Does anybody else think its odd that all of the sierra club members in the photo are overweight? I would think that a love of nature would cause them to go hiking once and a while. Or maybe hunger strikes.

RE: ad hominem
By Moishe on 8/22/2007 9:02:22 AM , Rating: 3
The Sierra Club used to be a really good organization, but for quite awhile now they're really just another ELF, Greenpeace, etc. It's a shame because I love nature and I think nature needs heroes and people who will bring nature into the limelight. Instead we have too many groups who think humans are a blight on the planet and should be exterminated. They are less pro-nature than they are anti-civilization.

It's turning into a religion and the original really good and necessary goals are left behind.

Save the trees?
By Kuroyama on 8/22/2007 8:59:34 AM , Rating: 3
Having grown up in the redwood forests of Northern California I used to think of the Sierra club as a group that wanted to save the virgin redwoods, national parks, etc. Even made the mistake of giving them money 5 years ago for those reasons.

Oops, I think they then spent at least as much money harassing me with near monthly telemarketing calls about how I have to vote for Kerry, and oh, by the way how about another donation?

These days I rarely hear a news story about Greenpeace or the Sierra Club that doesn't get me angry at them. Wish they would go back to their roots and work on the fundamentals (I see nothing wrong with trying to save the environment), instead of always trying to manufacture controversy. And shut up on the "save the whales" stuff! Sure they're big and neat, but why should those species that aren't endangered be treated any differently than any other animal?

RE: Save the trees?
By Ringold on 8/22/2007 7:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
You'd think at least one major group would listen to posts like that and serve those like you by keeping to the roots... but they can't just bury the political hatchet.

I think it's telling you don't see many Republican GreenPeace supporters. Many Republican's cherish and respect nature, so you'd think it'd be a decent fit for many -- and it would be, if GreenPeace didn't try to position itself on the left. Club for Growth doesn't care if a supporter of small government, free markets and modern sensible economic policy is a Democrat or Republican, I dont know why environmentalists have to worship at the alter of Obama.

Well, I do know why, but beside the point. :P

This time, I agree with Mr. Asher
By dluther on 8/23/2007 11:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
Normally, Michael Asher and I have divergent views on ecological and environmental issues. He tends to paint environmentalists with broad strokes as evil ne'er-do-wells, with limited intellect and unlimited resources, on some evil mission to return mankind to the trees and caves from whence we came.

However, on this particular subject, Michael and I see directly eye to eye.

Nuclear energy is infinitely cleaner than coal or petroleum powered electricity generation. It is extremely efficient, renewable, and comparatively safe. When placed in geologically stable areas such as the mid west (Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas) and built underground, they could power the country for generations to come for literally pennies on the dollar compared to what we currently invest in electricity generation.

In my not-so-humble opinion, radical environmental groups like the Sierra Club need to end their Luddite culture and embrace this technology, if for no other reason that the only way we are going to get better at anything is by actually doing it in the first place.

Nuclear power is not without its drawbacks and challenges; this I will not deny. However, as with all challenges, the solutions are best given by those who actually know something about the subject. And, at least to me, the Sierra Club simply doesn't have that knowledge.

Way to go, Mike.

By SandmanWN on 8/27/2007 12:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
Everything has its purpose. Industry creates new sources, anti-industry pokes holes in it, professionals either change designs or refute those theories.

Without one another things tend to slip by and go unnoticed and cause larger issues. Although it seems that the longer some of these organizations continue the more radical they become. At some point you have to dismiss them and continue down the road of change. It is vastly approaching this point for Nuclear energy. Its time to make some strides in the advancement of nuclear energy.

cnn and all media
By lompocus on 8/25/2007 3:15:13 PM , Rating: 1
It's funny how they exxagerate EVERYTHING. They aren't 'scare tactics'. They just flat out exxageration. OMG, a little bit of stuff spilled? gosh, that must mean nuclear power plants are really nuclear weapons in disguise! Ban them to save the earth!

It's just a stupid public.

THIS IS WHY THE GOVERNMENT KEEPS MANY THINGS CONFIDENTIAL! You have people like the sierra club as byproducts of letting CNN and msnbc get ahold of such information.

cnn and all media
By lompocus on 8/25/2007 3:39:06 PM , Rating: 1
It's funny how they exxagerate EVERYTHING. They aren't 'scare tactics'. They just flat out exxageration. OMG, a little bit of stuff spilled? gosh, that must mean nuclear power plants are really nuclear weapons in disguise! Ban them to save the earth!

It's just a stupid public.

THIS IS WHY THE GOVERNMENT KEEPS MANY THINGS CONFIDENTIAL! You have people like the sierra club as byproducts of letting CNN and msnbc get ahold of such information.

"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki