Four Reasons Why Nuclear Power Is Stupid

Deek, I used to think exactly the same things you do about nuclear power. About 18 months ago, I was asked to take part in a blogging project run by the Institute of Physics looking at nuclear power. They asked us to look at the *science* of nuclear power- they are the IOP after all – which I duly did.

I knew nothing about radiation, waste, reprocessing, safety other than what I’d read in the papers. It didn’t take me long to realise that I’d been reading misunderstandings and sometimes flat out lies.

I soon realised that the ‘anti-nuclear’ lobby is simply much better at media manipulation than the nuclear industry (who misguidedly have thought that as they have ‘the facts’, everyone will listen… much the same mistake the Democrats in the US have made!). Also, the anti-nuclear’s stance is based on emotion, not fact, and with something as important as the future survival of the human race at stake, I tend to prefer facts.

You can read the summary of my nuclear ‘journey’ here: http://www.potentialenergyuk.com/?p=74

you use the word inimical. this in and of itself makes me love this blog and vow to visit it at least every third day. rock on!

Deek,

From what I’ve understood your argument goes like this:
I don’t support nuclear power because our economy is built on natural resources and we don’t have an infinite amount of them therefore our entire economy will collapse therefore it won’t be able to support science until it can make nuclear power safe and risk-free.

Am I understanding you correctly?

If so, the reason why I can’t answer that is that it’s built on a whole host of assumptions and inaccuracies which need to be addressed first. Namely: nuclear power is unsafe, nuclear power is risker than any other power source, our economy is based on natural resources, our economy will remain exactly at it is an never evolve again.

If, for example, you are concerned about over-population a better use of your time might be to, for example, work to prevent children being vaccinated in Africa, stop cheap AIDS medication in Africa, stop all famine relief, stop all disaster relief in developing nations and support all cases of genocide. I’m being facetious (again), but the fact is that population is only growing in the developing world not ‘the West’.

If, however, you want to work, as I do, on bettering and extending the lives of EVERYONE on the planet, then medicine, science and technology is the only way. Education and wealth, of course, is the one proven way of reducing birth rates.

This is getting long.

I invite you to look into CO2 rates- both the total output of countries AND the per capita output and see where the UK is on that list.

We aren’t ‘the bad guys’ on the planet, so stop beating yourself up. 🙂

Indigobusiness- “Pedaling poison, disingenuously, makes anyone a bad guy.”

Let’s look at the wording of your sentence to see just how skewed your view of the world is and how emotive your language is…

“Pedalling”(sp- peddling) is synonymous with hawk, huckster, market, monger, push, shove, solicit. Instead of using a word like ‘exchange’ ‘pass on’ ‘inform’ you’ve chosen a word with negative connotations.

“Poison” – That is a presupposition – an assumption whose truth is taken for granted- and a negative one at that. Explain to me everything you know about nuclear power AND compare it to ALL other energy sources THEN explain why you use the word ‘poison’.

“Disingenuously”- It assumes that I (as I’ve assumed your remark is aimed at me) am speaking deceitfully. I have never been anything, but honest in this discussion. I am offended by your insinuation.

“makes anyone a bad guy”- when I said ‘bad guy’ I was asking Deek to look at where the UK sits compared to the rest of the world as far as CO2 emissions are concerned. We aren’t ‘the bad guys’, we are very low down the lists. The number one bad guy when taking into consideration both the total and the per capita outputs of CO2 is the US by a long, long margin.

In the UK, per captia, we are 37th on the list, one above Germany. France, where nuclear provide 78% of their energy, is number 63 (per captia) and the lowest carbon emitter of all G8 countries.

You can either continue to attempt to block the only clean way we can provide energy for ourselves in the future by seeing all ‘energy’ as a bad thing OR you can drag yourself out of the irresponsible mindset you’ve locked yourself into and join James Lovelock- who founded the environmental movement with the Gaia theory- Patrick Moore – co-founder of Greenpeace – Bob Geldolf and countless other intelligent environmentalists who have taken some time to look into the actual facts (not the misinformation ‘peddled’ by Greenpeace and FotE) and realised that nuclear is the only way to go.

Gia- Thanks for pointing out my spelling howler, but the imagery it conjured -given the seriousness of this topic- was too funny to clean-up (believe it or not, I did notice).

Poison? Unparalleled, I’d say. Far worse than even the bomb’s poisonous impact.

Disingenuous is not too strong a word for anyone hawking the nuclear lobby’s argument that nuclear power is safe and clean and a wise choice.

Alternate forms of energy are far cleaner, and obviously wiser. Had they equal research and development funding , they would have already buried the nuclear threat. Soon will, anyway. The grid is a dinosaur, and small fuel cell units
are in the cards. Aside from wind and solar.

Tell my friends living near the Hanford reactor, who have suffered mightily, that nuclear power isn’t poisonous.

Nuclear power was advanced for its war leverage, and now we live in a cowering world as a result. It’s only ostensibly an energy issue.

Indigobusiness –I live near the “Hanford reactor”. I grew up here and I raise my children here. First of all, you are clumping “Hanford”, which is the government site from 1943 that made the plutonium that was dropped on Hiroshima in with the Columbia Generating Station, which is a nuclear power plant that began operating in 1984. The Hanford site has isssues. Columbia Generating station does not. The government site left over from the 40s was not a nuclear reactor. There was no nuclear power generation happening there. They were enriching unranium for making a bomb (yes, it makes me ill as well to think about it) and yes, its a mess. The technology from the 40s was not well defined. Again, please realise that the mess at that site is not from commercial nuclear power, or any type of nuclear power used for electricity generation. It is from making a bomb. You do not need a nuclear reactor to make a bomb. Its not even preferable.

I really have to laugh at the idea that you have friends that work at the “Hanford reactor” who are suffering from health problems. Please, have one of your friends who worked at Columbia Generating Station fill us in on their occupational related illness. If they have some sort of issue from being at HANFORD, I could take that a little more seriously, but from working at the nuclear plant? You are just being silly.Commercial nuclear power has a stellar safety record. Please instead, have one of your disease ridden coal worker friend fill you in on their job. Or have one of your friends who helped clean up the oil spill write in and tell us about their experiences. maybe you can have the widow of one of the workers who have been killed on any nymber of oil rig explosions write in and tell us how safe those energy sources are. I understand that all things NUCLEAR scares many people but re it's like being afraid of fire. Fire is pretty dangerous stuff, as is water.More people are killed each year from fire and water than they are from anything even remotely nuclear related.

Could you please let me know if you are opposed to nuclear medicine as well?