Article should not advocate on behalf of nuclear industry

William Pan/Staff

Kimberly Nielsen’s article in your May 31 edition and the DoseNet project are nothing but lies and propaganda for the nuclear industry, which unfortunately includes institutions like the University of California and its Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore labs, along with its professors and scientists who work in this area. People who in any way make money from the nuclear industry have absolutely no credibility on the issue of the harms caused by radioactivity (ionizing radiation). This is similar to cops investigating themselves: there is too much conflict of interest to get an honest answer or result. The most credible people on this issue are those who don’t stand to profit in any way from the nuclear industry, the foremost of whom are Dr. Helen Caldicott. The following are indisputable facts about nuclear issues:

  1. There is no safe level of radioactivity, period. Any amount of radioactivity is harmful, though greater levels of it are obviously more harmful than lower levels.
  2. Natural background radioactivity is the main cause of aging. If our planet had no background radioactivity, we and other animals would live a lot longer.
  3. The only benefit of radioactivity is that in a tiny percentage of instances, the mutations it causes turn out to be a positive evolution. This is a species-wide and possibly ecological benefit, but because this only happens rarely from radioactive contamination, it only very rarely benefits individuals; instead, it is usually very harmful.
  4. All nuclear power plants leak and/or emit radioactivity.
  5. In order to make “nuclear” anything, uranium has to be mined. Uranium mining is an extremely environmentally and ecologically destructive process, akin to mountain-top removal coal mining. Like coal and oil, uranium should have been left in the ground.  Bringing toxic substances like these to the surface is harmful per se and what scientists have done with them is even worse.

Please don’t use The Daily Californian to shill for the nuclear industry. I realize that the University of California is heavily involved and invested in this industry, but this involvement is not supported by most Californians and would be stopped if we had a real democracy. What this article should have done was to expose DoseNet for the lie and propaganda that it is. Berkeley is, by local law, a nuclear-free zone, and we would have this type of research and development removed from our city if we could do so.  I would hope that the Daily Cal would at least respect our local laws and the Berkeley attitude.

Jeff Hoffman is an environmentalist and attorney who resides in Berkeley.

Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comment policy
  • Brian

    You will see multiple repeated deception that claim nuclear power cause fewer deaths per KWH. They don’t even count mining deaths, they ignore LNT and the blame coal deaths on solar and wind. They use pro nuclear PR agenceis statements to “prove” their deceptions.

    really.

    I feel for you new folks see thing thread for the first time. scan down and see the support for LNT. LNT or worse has been proven well below 10 mSv. Even down to a single cell, traversed or EVEN A NEAR MISS, will cause double strand DNA damage indicative of mutation and future cancers. The nuclear power industry spend billion of dollar per year on pr and influence, they own the UN and the DOE. they really do. the DOE is the old Atomic Energy Commission and still 90% nuclear work ad workers. Not conflict of industry there, huh? The UN was formed form the nuclear 5, who all sell nuclear tech. the IAEA is in charge of everything nuclear and radidation related, and their charter is to PROMOTE NUCLEAR POWER. The are a PR agenceis. Yet you see folks pretend they are independent sources!

    The two disasters are killing millions of people. Sadly, 100,000 years into the future as well. LNT it’s the law,, and everything else is PR.

    If you care, scan down the thread and see my detailed, linked comments on the subject.

    To recap, nuclear power kills millions, creates deadly wastes, needs as much mining as coal, is short of fuel in ten years, cost 4 times avaible solar and wind, will cost 16 times avaible solar and wind in the 12 years it takes to install new nuclear. Nuclear is inflexible baseload, just what we do not need. There is nothing good about nuclear.

    Solar, wind, hydro and waste to fuels, with electric cars and efficiency are all the world will ever need, even with 12 B first world level energy use, and forever. NO OTHER ENERGY SOURCE CAN DO THAT. 100% recyclable, sustainable, cleaner, safer. better.

    Did I mention available cheaper NOW, BEFORE GOV BREAKS?
    https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf
    Solar and wind are available cheaper than fossils and 4 times cheaper than nuclear before gov breaks.

  • J.L.

    Nuclear energy is literally the safest form of energy, in terms of deaths/KWh

    • Brian

      Only if you lie and ignore LNT.

      But that’s what you folks do!

  • Eric Robinson

    I am not sure if Jeff Hoffman is trolling by submitting this article to see who pipes up.

    He invoked Helen Caldicott. If you have a couple of hours to kill…

    https://youtu.be/Qaptvhky8IQ

  • Michael Mann

    Nuclear power is clean, carbon free energy,listen to people who know!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-d3BtrWo2A

  • Michael Mann

    LNT-based radiophobia fuels needless evacuations, inspires avoidance of life-saving medical procedures, and promotes nuclear fear. Considerations of the basic sciences of biology, physics, chemistry, and other natural sciences should be either the source or the final arbiter of scientific hypotheses about ionizing radiation, and not sterile epidemiological studies, designed to yield mathematically convenient relationships, that ignore the manifold findings of those basic sciences and rest their conclusions on circular reasoning. Failure to take proven biological reality into account leads to counterproductive statistical exercises, sometimes fraught with numerous errors, that carry the misleading appearance of erudition through mathematical complexity. These studies are not benign; they do not err on the safe side; and they have deadly consequences.

    This unscientific practice must end, for the sake of much of humanity. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13752-016-0244-4

    • Brian

      LNT is proven. It is you and your pro nuclear pr that is a deadly deception.

      Not to mention nuclear power is causing millions of cancer deaths, cost 4 times available solar and wind, is short of uranium in ten years, and has a bad habit of meltdown and blowing up.

      http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7508/77.full 1-2% of cancer that nuclear industry workers get are from radiation, proving LNT.

      http://llrc.org/fukushima/subtopic/fukushimariskcalc.pdf 200,000 people will die from the 400,000 cancer they will get.

      “These data provide direct evidence that a single a particle traversing a nucleus will have a high probability of resulting in a mutation and highlight the need for radiation protection at low doses.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9108052/
      together about .5 to 1% alphas cause mutation.

      • Michael Mann

        Radiation science is dominated by a paradigm based on an assumption without empirical foundation. Known as the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis, it holds that all ionizing radiation is harmful no matter how low the dose or dose rate. Epidemiological studies that claim to confirm LNT either neglect experimental and/or observational discoveries at the cellular, tissue, and organismal levels, or mention them only to distort or dismiss them. The appearance of validity in these studies rests on circular reasoning, cherry picking, faulty experimental design, and/or misleading inferences from weak statistical evidence. In contrast, studies based on biological discoveries demonstrate the reality of hormesis: the stimulation of biological responses that defend the organism against damage from environmental agents. Normal metabolic processes are far more damaging than all but the most extreme exposures to radiation. However, evolution has provided all extant plants and animals with defenses that repair such damage or remove the damaged cells, conferring on the organism even greater ability to defend against subsequent damage. Editors of medical journals now admit that perhaps half of the scientific literature may be untrue. Radiation science falls into that category. Belief in LNT informs the practice of radiology, radiation regulatory policies, and popular culture through the media. The result is mass radiophobia and harmful outcomes, including forced relocations of populations near nuclear power plant accidents, reluctance to avail oneself of needed medical imaging studies, and aversion to nuclear energy—all unwarranted and all harmful to millions of people.

        • Brian

          Ya notice Mann didn’t actually say anything but the whole pro nuclear troll army faved him?

      • Nigel

        I was keen to read the BMJ study. Thank you for the link. However, I’m afraid that you have misinterpreted the results. The finding was that each Sv received to the colon increased the risk of specific cancers by 1 (or 100%) – but remember, this is relative not absolute risk – the absolute risks of these types of cancer are very low. 99.9% of the workers received a cumulative dose of less than 0.5 Sv (average was ~0.02 Sv), so most workers had less than 50% increase in the risk of (rare) cancer. This is not the same as attributing a number of cancers to radiation.

        • Brian

          We already know the baseline cancer rates. So radiation increases that by a number we can easily calculated. When you do that for nuclear power and all it’;s disasters, and leaks, it means millions more cancer deaths. Cancer isn’t even the only way radiation can kill you.

          LNT is correct. Nuclear pow is killing and will kill millions of people with cancer. All the nuclear power pr captive agencies refuse to calculate mass radiation does deaths: because it would be bad for business.

      • Brian

        Ya know why the statistical evidence is “weak”?

        because epidemiology happens to have a limited resolution of 1-2%.

        you know what’ suspicious? the legal limit just happens to be the limit for the epidemiological resolution.

        in fact, go look up the IAEA claim for 4000 cancer from Chernobyl. They didn’t say what you think they said. They said only 4000 were likely to be traceable back to Chernobyl. Interesting, eh?

        No hormesis effect has even been proven in humans. period. LNT has been overwhelmingly proven with hundreds of studies.

        The pro nuclear people are promoting mass murder hidden in statistics. Many know it,m some seem to be in a trance of denial.

        The industry tries to stop all measurements too, because then they might have to calculate the deaths.

  • Michael Mann

    Steve, I am only posting the truth

    • Frank Energy

      And Google is not evil, LOL

      • TimS

        Frank has vested interests, he is a solar PV seller in Hawaii or somewhere else. It’s the green money that drives his anti-nuclear/pro-renewable dogma.

  • Frank Energy

    Radiation Pollution, Enabled By A False Dose Model, Is Causing a Cancer/Disease Epidemic

    http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/06/radiation-pollution-enabled-by-false.html

    • Michael Mann

      Frank Energy is an alias of NukePro ( one of at least 7 sock-puppet accounts ) and he is linking you to his personal website, where he can gather personal information.

  • Sparafucile

    Jeff Hoffman is clearly too stupid to practice law and advocate for clients. Any bar license he has should be revoked after this display of rampant idiocy.

  • JenniWest

    There are too many lies and serious levels of misinformation in this man’s post to even tackle this close to bedtime. I cannot believe this media source posted this conspiracy garbage. Are you OBLIGATED to post every letter to the editor? I’m asking because I do not know. He quoted Helen “I never met a nuclear lie I didn’t tell” Caldicott. Queen of Quackwatch herself. Please don’t use the Daily Californian to shill for people who get paid to lie to the world about nuclear power being bad.

  • WhatTheFlux

    If there were no safe level of radioactivity, we’d all be dead.

    Every adult has a steady dose of 4400 bqs of internal radiation from the potassium-40 they ingest as part of their diet.

    The “no-safe-level-of-radiation” myth is based on the long-discredited Linear No Threshold “theory” — which is actually a thoroughly disproven hypothesis.

    In a word, LNT is bunk.

    In the decades since LNT became the anti-nuker’s rallying cry, scientists have determined — beyond a shadow of a doubt — that all living cells routinely repair chromosome damage to the tune of about one damage event per second, including damage from radiation.

    So if you really, truly, deeply believe that there is no safe level of radiation, you’d be working hard to evacuate Denver, and to outlaw bananas, Brazil nuts, and granite countertops.

    And don’t forget to condemn every house that has a trace of Radon in the basement.

    • Paul Murphy

      Brazil nuts, bananas, and granite counter tops are clever ways to trivialize the damage the split atom has caused, including Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The experiment with nuclear energy is an absolute failure. No place to put the deadly unsafe waste. No more billions of dollars to rip off the taxpayer for this ridiculously exorbitant carcinogenic energy source. You have no answer to the valid fear of the waste. So don’t pretend that it’s safe. If you feel it’s so safe, go live next to Hanford and see how long your thyroid can hold out, or how long you’ll be in the hospital with a mysterious ‘idiopathic’ cancer.
      This is a great link that is incidentally not sanctified by fox tv:
      http://www.psr.org/resources/nuclear-power-factsheet.html

      • Michael Mann

        You question my motivation, but listen to someone whose paycheck is directly related to how much fear they can generate? That is funny, I can see you have a sense of humor LOL

        • Paul Murphy

          We both have a sense of humor. I appreciate your sending the inquisitr article (I actually read it), which also printed that Obama murdered Scalia.
          Let’s go further, and say that he shot him, and that wind, solar, and hydro energy leave behind tons of carcinogenic waste that even the Russian-roulette, atom-bomb lovers don’t want in their backyard.

          • Michael Mann

            I not only want it in my back yard, I already have over 40 years worth basically in my backyard (<5 miles away) now.. It seems your statement is false. I am not an atom bomb lover, so maybe I can't speak for them…

          • Paul Murphy

            You can understand why the downplaying of the destructive health effects of radioactivity has alarmed the public:
            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/us/decades-later-sickness-among-airmen-after-a-hydrogen-bomb-accident.html?_r=0

          • Michael Mann

            It only seems like downplaying because it is so over hyped…

          • Paul Murphy

            Not to the people who live near nuclear power plants and have contracted leukemia.

          • Michael Mann

            Wow I live near a power plant, how about the people who don’t live next to a nuclear power plant and have contracted leukemia? It’s convenient to prey on people’s fear of radiation, but it lets the real culprit get away with it… Don’t be so gullible!

          • Paul Murphy

            The fact that radioactive waves are invisible is a great plus for the industry. Every disease then is just an odd coincidence. You seem to be quite gullible when the atom-bomb inspired industry pooh poohs any talk of disease that’s related to radioactivity. Why do you deify this Nagasaki-inspired industry?
            Then why did these soldiers have such an irrational fear of radiation?

            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/us/decades-later-sickness-among-airmen-after-a-hydrogen-bomb-accident.html

          • Michael Mann

            I am not gullible, I am knowledgeable there is a difference. I have over 35 years hands on experience as a qualified radiation worker, your radiophobia skews your perception so much that a reasonable approach seems outrageous to you. Your fear is understandable, but luckily there is a cure…knowledge! http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/122-a276/ http://hps.org/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlFT6nEFaLQ

          • Paul Murphy
          • Michael Mann

            A BS KOS opinion piece? seriously this rant is your knowledge? Your more gullible than I thought! Radiation science is dominated by a paradigm based on an assumption without empirical foundation. Known as the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis, it holds that all ionizing radiation is harmful no matter how low the dose or dose rate. Epidemiological studies that claim to confirm LNT either neglect experimental and/or observational discoveries at the cellular, tissue, and organismal levels, or mention them only to distort or dismiss them. The appearance of validity in these studies rests on circular reasoning, cherry picking, faulty experimental design, and/or misleading inferences from weak statistical evidence. In contrast, studies based on biological discoveries demonstrate the reality of hormesis: the stimulation of biological responses that defend the organism against damage from environmental agents. Normal metabolic processes are far more damaging than all but the most extreme exposures to radiation. However, evolution has provided all extant plants and animals with defenses that repair such damage or remove the damaged cells, conferring on the organism even greater ability to defend against subsequent damage. Editors of medical journals now admit that perhaps half of the scientific literature may be untrue. Radiation science falls into that category. Belief in LNT informs the practice of radiology, radiation regulatory policies, and popular culture through the media. The result is mass radiophobia and harmful outcomes, including forced relocations of populations near nuclear power plant accidents, reluctance to avail oneself of needed medical imaging studies, and aversion to nuclear energy—all unwarranted and all harmful to millions of people. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13752-016-0244-4

          • Paul Murphy

            I’m out of time on this so this is my last response so I’m letting you have the last word on defending our atom-bomb repositories.

            1. The US was supposed to have 1000 carcinogenic Atomic power producers by the year 2000. Fewer than a 100 exist to date.

            2. The KOS opinion piece has a lot more evidence-based info than the truth-fighter, David Rupeik. He’s a paid propagandist for the government-leeching corporations.

            3. Atom-bomb energy is too controversial to consider no matter how many so-called experts sugar-coat the staggering number of deaths and cancers it has caused.

            4. Most important, loads of inroads have been made in increasing the efficiency of alternative sources of energy, so much so, to make highly expensive, government handout-dependent, inefficient atom-bomb energy obsolete.

          • Michael Mann

            1. Absolutely correct, nuclear energy could have made a huge difference, my air would be cleaner, climate change would have been reduced, and the standard of living would have been higher had we been able to expand nuclear power plants as planned. It is very sad,
            2. David Ropeik is a Harvard Professor, an expert in risk perception, I’m sorry his insights conflict with your anti-nuclear tribal beliefs.
            3. There is no such thing as “atom bomb energy” there is however “explosive natural gas” energy which it seems you are a proponent, increased carbon emissions, increased fracking, increased environmental damage seem to be things you endorse in favor of a quick buck. I am a bit more environmentally conscious.
            4. Most importantly, the expansion of nuclear energy could save 7 million lives and raise the standard of living across the globe without the environmental damage of fossil fuels. Unfortunately the people in charge care more about short term profits than long term benefit to humanity.

          • Michael Mann

            Radioactive waves may be invisible, but they are easily detected down to the tiniest amount.

    • Frank Energy

      4400 Bqs is not a “dose”. In fact the way the nuclear industry abuses the ICRP dose model, is one of the primary enabling lies of the cartel. more here, if you wish to have an open mind.

      http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/06/radiation-pollution-enabled-by-false.html

  • SA Kiteman

    Turns out that the first “fact” by the letter writer is in fact a lie.
    Jeff stated “There is no safe level of radioactivity, period. Any amount of radioactivity is harmful, though greater levels of it are obviously more harmful than lower levels.”
    This is false. Jeff conflates “damage” with “harm”. They are NOT the same thing. “Harm” is what remains after damage has been repaired. Jeff totally ignores the fact the biological system like the human body can repair damage. Indeed, there is about 10,000 times as much DNA damage done by simple life processes (breathing, staying warm) than by background levels of radiation. A low level of increased radiation does minuscule levels of increased damage. BUT… it also triggers an increase in the repair activity (this is called “up-regulation”). That increased repair not only repairs the increased radiation damage, but also some more if the damage from typical life processes. Thus, the OVERALL HARM goes down. This biological process is known as hormesis and applies to any biological stressor with evolutionary context. Since radiation is omni-present and significantly variable around the world, high levels of radiation hormesis is to be expected.
    The rest of Jeff’s statements are tainted by the absolute falseness of his first.

    • SA Kiteman

      I was correct. They are all tainted.
      “2) Natural background radioactivity is the main cause of aging. If our planet had no background radioactivity, we and other animals would live a lot longer.”
      >> Bold statement, unsupported by science. Basically as wrong as the first.

      “3) The only benefit of radioactivity is that in a tiny percentage of instances, the mutations it causes turn out to be a positive evolution. This is a species-wide and possibly ecological benefit, but because this only happens rarely from radioactive contamination, it only very rarely benefits individuals; instead, it is usually very harmful.”
      >> Immaterial to the issue.

      “4) All nuclear power plants leak and/or emit radioactivity.”
      >> So do all humans, and in comparable amounts. So what?

      “5) In order to make “nuclear” anything, uranium has to be mined. Uranium mining is an extremely environmentally and ecologically destructive process, akin to mountain-top removal coal mining. Like coal and oil, uranium should have been left in the ground. Bringing toxic substances like these to the surface is harmful per se and what scientists have done with them is even worse.”
      >> Nuclear energy requires less mining than any of the top three renewable energy sources. And as it turns out, modern mining for uranium uses many of the same processes used by mining for geothermal heat sources.

      All in all, Jeff’s arguments are without technical merit.

      • Sparafucile

        You’re too kind. His “arguments” are raging ignorance.

  • Lucian DiPeso

    1. You should avoid bananas AT ALL COSTS. In fact, avoid any source of potassium, carbon, or nitrogen. Radioactive isotopes of those elements are far too common.

    2. If the Earth had no natural background radiation, it would be a cold rock in the middle of nothing. No life would be possible, and the Earth would need to exist in a complete vacuum: the cosmos is permeated with natural radiation, probably from the formation of the Universe itself.

    3. And cancer treatments, smoke detectors, deep space probes, etc. etc.

    4. As do all bananas.

    5. Mining is, in general, a very environmentally unfriendly activity. However, the modern world could not exist without it (actually, just about everything past the neolithic age couldn’t exist without mining—those Bronze Age weapons weren’t made from dirt and rocks!). Uranium mining makes up a small minority of all mining activity, so unless you’re suggesting we abandon all mining activities, this by itself is not a particularly good argument against nuclear power.

  • Sam Arthur

    These are definitely not indisputable facts. This writer of this letter is sadly misinformed.

    1) Like Nigel commented, this is based on the Linear No Threshold theory. The theory is drawn from the linear trend of observable effects of high doses of radiation (events like Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Points for low doses are linearly extrapolated. This theory is used for radiation exposure standards, but there is a second, more updated theory called hormesis, and I invite you to search it up. Hormesis is the concept that low doses of radiation are actually beneficial. The theory is that the low doses of radiation stimulates the repair mechanisms in cells. When cells receive damage from radiation, there are proteins that fix mutations in the DNA. Hormesis is backed by both population and scientific evidence and proposed a long time ago. Atomic bomb survivor data supports this and hormesis has been found in studies on mice. Interestingly, while not concrete evidence, areas with higher background radiation tend to have lower cancer rates and nuclear industry workers have a lower cancer rate.

    2) Background radiation might just be beneficial and help us stay alive longer. See above. Like Nigel stated, we receive a lot more radiation than ones you are thinking of. Radiation is something we have been exposed to forever. It is a natural thing that is everywhere: in our food, our buildings, our bodies. In fact, radiation as a term covers a broad range: UV, infrared, cosmic, even radio waves are considered radiation.

    3) So many benefits have come from radioactivity and radioactivity is not only used in the nuclear power industry. I’d like to make the distinction between radiation and radioactivity. Radioactivity refers to unstable isotopes that disintegrate. Radiation on the other hand, is defined as energy in the form of electromagnetic waves or subatomic particles. When people are worried about the effects of radiation, they are thinking specifically of ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is used in the medical field (CAT scans, X-rays, radiotherapy, etc. and contrary to a scarily popular misconception, radiation exposure does not make you radioactive). ionizing radiation is used for security to scan baggage at airports and to scan trucks and trains that pass our borders (if you meant only radioactivity, a good amount of these machines contain radioactive isotopes as their source). Finally, nuclear power is a huge benefit and in 2015 accounted for 19.5% of our electricity. That’s huge.

    4) While nuclear plants may leak radioactivity, the industry has extremely strict requirements for shielding and cannot expose the general public to more than 5 rems for total body (which is tiny). Radiation safety is a crucial area of the nuclear field and these requirements are checked multiple times by many professionals, including third parties. As Nigel also pointed out, plenty of other buildings emit radiation, including hospitals.

    5) We mine very little uranium in the U.S. and we mined only 7% of what we will use this year. Furthermore, it is not unique in open pit mining. Many of our resources come from open pit mining. What nuclear power has over coal and gas is it emits no environment damaging CO2. The byproducts of nuclear fission need only to be shielded and stored underground away from the population until it has decayed sufficiently. Additionally, extensive research is being done on nuclear fusion, where the only byproduct is helium and energy.

    I disagree with Mr. Hoffman on the non-credibility of people in the industry. They are credible because they are the ones who actually work with radioactivity and are experts in their respective areas. Why would people outside of the field be more trustworthy to deliver information about the effects of radiation? Would you ask an accountant for the details and in and outs of the police force? The example he listed, Dr. Helen Caldicott, is neither an expert in nuclear physics nor nuclear energy; she was a pediatrician not a radiation oncologist. If you actually try to verify her hyperbolic claims, you will find they are exaggerated and incorrect.

    I would also like to address Mr. Hoffman’s statement about the Daily Cal. I believe that The Daily Californian should be able to write on anything it wants to. The whole idea of free speech, which UC Berkeley is strongly rooted in, is that no idea should be censored. The Daily Cal publishes articles that takes both sides of arguments. It does not censor the pro-nuclear side and, as I am commenting on this letter to the editor, the Daily Cal does not censor the anti-nuclear side either. The Daily Cal is not obliged to “respect our local laws and the Berkeley attitude” by not writing about DoseNet.

    I strongly encourage Mr. Hoffman to do some thorough reading before he forms his opinion on the nuclear industry.

    • Paul Murphy

      However valid your points are about the miracle of healthful radioactivity, the main reason people have never voted for this source is the danger of it when things go wrong. The fallout is catastrophic. Thousands of years of deadly genetic-altering consequences. Check out Chernobyl. Ask the people who lived around that plant how nuclear energy has given them great health benefits. Ask them how long birth defects will continue in that region of the world. Ask the countries that had the huge cloud of radioactivity surf over their lands and contaminated both domestic life and wildlife. Ask the civilians of Nagasaki and Hiroshima about the health benefits of the bombs we dropped on them. Fukishima, Three Mile Island, and areas of the world we haven’t heard from because the atomic hierarchy keeps those things secret.
      Furthermore, the argument that nuclear energy is good for the environment is a cynical one, and you know it. What you write about nuclear power is propaganda — pure and simple. I hope it helps you when you go to work for them, even though it’s the anti-nuclear public who make your multibillion dollar projects possible.

      • Sam Arthur

        Yes, you are correct in that when there is an accident, the consequences are severe. However, if you look up deaths per terrawatt-hour by energy source, you will see that nuclear energy provides a lot more energy for deaths. There have only been three big accidents in 60 years.

        People have an irrational fear when it comes to radiation and nuclear power because they aren’t familiar with it or educated about it. It’s like how many people tend to be scared more of flying a plane than driving a car; you are much more likely to die in a car accident, but because a plane crash seems so much more scarier, you fear that more.

        I don’t understand what you mean by the “atomic hierarchy”; could you elaborate? That sounds like a conspiracy theory. I’m not spewing propaganda. Do some more research on the subject. No one is trying to fool the public about nuclear. No one is in cohorts to try and make money off of the public. You realize those dollars go towards research and development, right?

        And for what it’s worth I’m not planing on going into the nuclear power industry so I hope that helps your argument.

        • Paul Murphy

          Comparing the fear of plane crashes and car accidents is a jaded argument for a lot of things, but it’s not germane in this discussion.
          The most important point is that the public never asked for nuclear power. If you were to have a plebiscite on the issue, the majority would reject it. So when I mention the “atomic hierarchy”, I mean the people who usurp the will of the people by forcing us to use a highly dangerous source of energy. Perhaps it sounds conspiratorial, but what I mean is that for every accident that the public knows of, I imagine that there are lot more little deadly ones that we don’t hear about. Why? Because the owners (who, in reality, are the taxayers) naturally don’t what an already wary public to know the details of their screw-ups.
          Propaganda is spreading stories about how safe nuclear energy is, when all the evidence proves it is not. (I wonder how many nuclear-power safety advocates would like to live in Nagasaki.) One accident — Chernobyl — should have marked the end of nuclear power.
          The nuclear power industry hasn’t made money off the public; they’ve confiscated it from them. That’s not business, that’s robbery. Not only do they steal tax dollars from the public to build their dangerous monoliths, they leech more tax dollars from us because they apparently don’t want to spend their own money for the clean-up.
          Research and development are mostly done with government grants, in other words, again, from taxpayers. R & D money would be better spent on how to make wind, water, solar, and other forms of energy practicable. Nuclear power is not worth the exorbitant costs, nor the long-term thousand-year-old mutations it brings.
          Good to know you’re not going into the industry. Although, if you change your mind, I would apply soon since it’s an obsolescing industry.

          • Sam Arthur

            It’s used a lot because it’s a good metaphor that many people can understand. My point is just like the fear of flying, the fear of nuclear is irrational because the outcome is scarier even though the chance of death is lower. You are more likely to die working in a traditional fuel industry like oil or gasoline.

            Actually, public opinion on nuclear in the 2000s was high and the number of those in favor of nuclear was increasing. What damaged that interest was Fukushima and that goes back to the irrational fear. Obviously when there’s an accident in nuclear it’s big news and people are scared. Do some research. Although private companies own nuclear reactors, they are not the ones dictating whether or not there is nuclear; the government is in control of that. Government is affected by how people vote. If so many people were against it nuclear would be completely banned. An example of
            this is California. We voted on having no more nuclear reactors built and because of the opposition, no new reactors have been built. Private companies aren’t in cohorts to “usurp the will of the people” .. they aren’t even the ones who dictate whether or not nuclear energy is allowed.

            I think you underestimate the amount of strict regulations on the nuclear industry. The NRC is an independent agency created by Congress to ensure the safety of the public. They run thorough safety checks on new reactor design proposals before liscence a are granted as well as approving any changes, risk assessment, create policies and rules, and inspect reactors and other industry companies to ensure everything is safe. There are radiation safety officers at every company where people are working with isotopes or x-rays that ensure all limits (which are already strict and way below even close to dangerous levels) are met. Employees have to wear dosimeters to evaluate personal exposure and detectors are used to evaluate as well. Shielding is meticulously calculated and checked multiple times by different people including third party, both calculations and with radiations detectors. All of these safety procedures aren’t seen by the public and so there is a lack of information.

            I disagree with your idea of the industry “stealing money” from the public. There are subsidies for solar energy as well but it would be dumb to complain about that. You pay taxes to the government… the nuclear industry does not take money directly. Surely you realize that the government passed bills and such that decide these subsidies? It’s not a pool of money up for grabs lol

            Nuclear has potential to be the cleanest, safest, and consistent source of energy. Of course there are arguments for wind, solar, and etc but they all have their problems.

          • Paul Murphy

            If you read my comment carefully, I never said there was a “pool of money” for nuclear money. What’s indisputable is that there would be no nuclear threat to the environment if there weren’t the taxpayers who have foot the bill for the hazardous nuclear waste.
            The only motive I can see in your argument defending a highly dangerous energy source is that you’re getting paid off by someone to propagandize for the soon-to-be defunct dangerous nuclear power industry. It makes no sense for anyone to cheer-lead for yet more radioactive waste in the environment. Do you work at the tax-funded plant in Hanford? Do you live in the safer-than-a-car-accident Nagasaki or Chernobyl?
            Your argument is senseless, so the only conclusion I can draw is that it’s money motivated. If you did the research on it, you wouldn’t be defending the most dangerous industry on the planet.
            Instead of defending the wonderful health effects of radioactivity, you could spend your time finding ways to expand the research done on alternative energy. There are some miraculous findings in the last decade, with no radioactive waste to spend billions of taxpayers’ money on. Do the research on the fiasco in Hanford, Washington and if you can stop thinking about money, you’ll see why the fear the public has of nuclear power is valid. Stop countering with non evidence based arguments to what eyewitnesses have attested to, no matter how much your think tank is paying you.
            Furthermore, no matter how much you get paid, or have been paid, for spouting your Goebbels-like arguments, the majority of people don’t want any more Fukishimas, Three Mile Islands, or Chernobyls. Their fear is highly rational.
            Incidentally, it’s “in cahoots with” (not in “cohorts”). The jaded car
            accident example is an analogy, not a metaphor; and “nuclear” is an
            adjective, not a noun, so it’s “nuclear power” or “nuclear energy”.
            Your English is as faulty as your logic.

          • Sam Arthur

            I tried to explain it to you because you just seem to think that the nuclear industry exists without public support. If everyone was against it there wouldn’t be a nuclear industry but you just don’t understand how democracy works.

            Resorting to accusing of me of being PAID to comment on a minor letter to the editor section on a college website is frankly, pathetic. You’re in denial and so far into it that you have a conspiracy theory that the nuclear industry is trying to fool people. What is your background? Do you have as much knowledge as the actual professionals in the field? I’m not cheerleading for radioactive waste I’m trying to educate people like you who are clueless to how nuclear power actually works. Nobody would pay someone to comment on such a small page(it’s not even really an article) and no one would take the little money that would be offered. You actually believe I’m being paid? Thats hilarious.

            All of my arguments have been evidence based and I can back them with sources. On the other hand, you have just been wildly pointing fingers and imagining what supposedly goes on in the nuclear industry that is done in secret and kept from the public. You actually sound like an conspiracist.

            Incidentally, English is not my first language but even I can do research on the nuclear industry and learn facts that are agreed on by the scientific community, backed by statistics and experiments. Sure I used a couple of words incorrectly while typing quickly but are you really nitpicking “nuclear”? We both clearly know what I mean. Sometimes people say morning instead of good morning but the meaning is still clear? What a ridiculous argument that’s not even related to what we are discussing. (Maybe if I was being paid I would edit and focus on grammar lol) A lot of your phrases on nuclear power haven’t been exactly correct either but I refrain from nitpicking to focus on the main idea.

            I’d like to hear your thoughts on a couple points I touched on above that you ignored. Like the extreme regulations etc. with the NRC (I didn’t mention international organizations) and the high amount of energy to deaths that nuclear has compared to other sources of power. You’ve ignored a lot of my points (backed by hard evidence) and just kept spewing on stuff about propaganda and whatnot.

          • Paul Murphy
          • Frank Energy

            LOL how democracy works, just precious. The nuke cartel spends over $1 Billion a year to promote itself, and last year it doubled the effort to try to save the dying industry.

        • Sparafucile

          And misinformed propagandists like Paul make things worse, and harm the public.

    • Frank Energy

      LOL “more updated theory called ‘radiation is good for you’

      I handled that issue here:

      http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/08/nrc-promoting-hormesis-which-is-lie.html

      and

      http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-current-pretty-safe-rule-on.html

      Jimmy Conca tried to promote hormesis due to a flaky study in his beloved WIPP underground by a young student. Conca relayed information between me and the author and the author admitted that the lack of moisture control on bacteria samples between the one single test and the one single control, and the fact that ONLY the pretty harmless K40 in salt was used as the “radiation” made his test results unreliable and he indeed wanted to do a more detailed and better planned test.

      The “updated theory” is simply the wishes of a dying nuclear industry rolling out a playbook to save itself while damaging humans and the whole environment.

      • TimS

        Frank is a well-known professional Mr. Click Bait; he lures people to click and go to his personal website to read his BS that he fabricates on-the-fly in order to get people brainwashed by his anti-nuclear scary fables, so he thinks he can evangelize worldwide people for believing in his pro-renewable fantasies.

      • Michael Mann

        “Frank Energy” is one of many aliases NukePro uses to drive traffic to his personal web site for whatever reason. Yes science can stop experimenting and using real data to update understanding.. just go to NukePro and get made up answers instead… Be aware, if you visit his site you have given him your IP address, and he has threatened peoples employment when they don’t agree with his point of view.

        • Frank Energy

          Thats all you got Mikey?

  • Paul Murphy

    The experiment Truman tried in Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed that nuclear energy is an anti-mankind tool. Even the gamblers of Wall Street won’t put up any money up for this dangerous source of energy.
    Furthermore, citizens are sick and tired of supplementing the building of these monstrosities with their taxes, and also paying for the carcogenic clean-up.

  • Professor S Freeman

    Wind and solar are great when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining!

    The most reliable sources of carbon free energy are nuclear and hydroelectric.

    • Brian

      Solar and wind can provide about 80% of our energy needs without storage. Then Hydro and wastes converted to oil and gas can supply the backup, chemicals, and long haul needed. We can get 50% efficiency improvement on our energy consumption, and use electric vehicles, so oil and gas from wastes can handle what’s left.

      Nuclear will be short of fuels in just ten years according to the IAEA after only 40 years or so of providing 2% of the worlds energy demand, costs 4 times available solar and wind according to Lazard(energy version 8 or 9), takes 12 years to install at which time solar and wind will be available for 16 times less. Each nuclear power plant generates 27 tons of deadly million years, billion dollar to store in dry casks for 100,000 years, spent fuel rod waste. Each year, each plant produces up to 2M tons of toxic mining wastes.

      Nuclear power will be short of fuel in ten years.
      The IAEA says that we will have uranium shortages starting in 2025, then getting worse fast.
      Pub1104_scr.pdf “As we look to the future, presently known resources
      fall short of demand.”
      Fig 16 show the shortfall in 2025 and it going 1/4 of that 2050
      fig 20 also show shortfall.

      • Professor S Freeman

        Advanced Nuclear 101

        “Fast breeder or neutron reactors, collectively known in this paper as fast reactors, keep the neutrons moving quickly, which makes the fission reaction more efficient and in some cases can actually breed more nuclear fuel. These reactors can consume the most dangerous waste of light water reactors thereby reducing the total quantity of waste requiring deep geologic disposal.10”

        http://www.thirdway.org/report/advanced-nuclear-101

      • Brian

        Notice the pro nuclear pr people immediately switch to future fantasy mode when I prove just how terrible real nuclear power is.

        The fast reactors use tons of liquid sodium. There have been many fires with just a couple of prototype reactors. One of the largest leaks was a CA reactor of that type. No reactor is burning spent fuel even though decades and billions o taxpayer money have been spent on it.

        Isn’t it amazing how the pro nuclear fanatics take failed prototypes and 100 billion dollar wasted as “proof” breeder reactors “real”?

        I mean real COMMERCIAL reactors, not deadly prototypes.
        Go ahead and imagine this Japanese liquid sodium reactor getting flooded. 30 tons of liquid sodium! are you kidding me?????
        https://dotsub.com/view/b9e, 640… sodium leak japan reactor.
        https://www.usfa.fema.gov/down
        Go online and search for sodium explosions, and they will be tiny little pieces. NOBODY would dare risk 30 tons of liquid sodium, but the nuclear fanatics.
        Sodium reactor accidents: Santa Susana Monju
        ,Lagoona Beach

        • Professor S Freeman

          Your links are bad

          • Brian

            fixed.

          • Professor S Freeman

            I am NOT pro-nuclear.

            OK, precaution must be taken when building and locating any nuclear power plant.

            Sodium-cooled reactors can be located away from population centers, large bodies of water (oceans, rivers, man-made lakes, etc.), and earth quake faults.

            BTW, clean coal technology exists (and has existed for years).
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology
            http://www.fe.doe.gov/education/energylessons/coal/coal_cct2.html

          • Brian

            Yes you are*, not they can’t and no it does not.

            Your links to prove clean coal exist, are hilarious. They say no such thing. nothing commercial, token efforts ad remove sulfur, and no economical clean way to permanently store the CO2. Pumping co2 in to wells is not a solution. virtually all wells leak, 60% within 30 years.

            “Maybe you are just anti renwables. I notice you have not dealt tithe the simple fact that baseload needs reserve generators and those reserve generators work great for solar and wind, and solar and wind need less fuel for those reserve generators.

          • Professor S Freeman

            Spicoli, are you smoking weed?
            “Yes you are*, not they can’t and no it does not.” ?????

          • Brian

            Well? you are pro nuclear you repeat all the tired nuclear pr memes. You are anti solar and wind for the most ridiculous false reasoning imaginable. Child’s logic: the sun sometimes doesn’t shine and the wind sometimes doesn’t blow, I guess we can’t use it.

            Sodium reactors can’t be located far from civilization, because then the grid is strained, and the people are still at risk.

            Clean coal does not exist, except as a fantasy.

          • Professor S Freeman

            Spicoli, explain “the grid is strained”.

          • Brian

            Why? You haven’t delt with a real issue yet.

            Central power requires a bigger heavier grid. Also it makes the nuclear reactor more vulnerable to an emergency “station blackout”.

            If Peak solar pv power is distributed, the energy from any one panels travel a very short distance toe where it is consumed. If the energy comes from far away, a large trunk line has to carried it to everyone.
            http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/62631.pdf

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_generation

            You do know what “station Blackout” emergencies are, right? You understand those can lead to a meltdown if the emergency generators and cooling systems fail, which they do 30% of the time in tests.

          • Professor S Freeman

            Solar power in California comes from Utility-Scale Solar Power Plants far from the consumer. Examples:
            – Ivanpah Solar Power Facility
            – Desert Sunlight Solar Farm
            – California Valley Solar Ranch
            – Genesis Solar Energy Project
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_California
            So if the grid works for Solar it should work for Nuclear.

          • Brian

            Yes, solar can be done poorly too. But it’s still 1/4 the cost, doesn’t melt down, and doesn’t generate deadly million year wastes. You can’t put nuclear power in your basement, but you can put solar pv on your roof.

            Here, let me cherry pick like you just did. Fukushima and Chernobyl blew up, so nuclear power plants blow up.

          • JenniWest

            Brian passes off the same old comments, the same old lies over and over even when he has been repeatedly educated. Chernobyl was not a commercial nuclear power reactor. It was designed for creating weapons grade materials and use on the side to generate power.

            So technically, there are no deaths from radiation from commercial nuclear power. (Bet you’ll ride that epiphany like a rented mule.) The Soviets were conducting dangerous experiments with their weapons reactor and were repeatedly warned. Chernobyl was abused and it blew up. But the reactor type no longer is used. The Soviets no longer exist. And less than 100 people were killed. All workers. That is the lowest for any major industry in the world. Yet you cherry pick and make it seem like a big deal. You can walk into a steel plant and cause the same amount of destruction or a coal plant, if you abuse them. It’s not a flaw inherent with nuclear power that caused Chernobyl. And with your premises, that is what YOU constantly imply.

            Fukushima was an even less impressive case. A perfectly functional reactor AFTER both the earthquake and the tsunami had a build up of hydrogen gas after losing power to its backup systems. The hydrogen gas is what blew up. Not the reactor. That is a grievous level of misinformation to pass around, yet you continue to do so even after being repeatedly told. Because YOU NEED TO LIE to make nuclear look bad. You MUST cherry pick to make nuclear look bad. Otherwise, if you didn’t you would be forced to admit that when it comes to power generation, there is nothing that is superior to nuclear power in EVERY category.

            We could have a build up of hydrogen gas blow up inside a stuffed animal factory and you would never mention it. But attach the word “nuclear” and your cherry picking begins.

          • George Carty

            You’re not quite right about the RBMK reactor design used at Chernobyl — although it was a scaled-up version of a military plutonium-production reactor design, it was never itself used for military purposes (in fact the Soviets didn’t even reprocess their spent RBMK fuel).

            Incidentally, your “designed for creating weapons grade materials and use on the side to generate power” comment would be far more true of Britain’s first-generation Magnox reactors.

          • JenniWest

            Let’s not change the subject, George. Brian makes a career of it.

          • Brian

            Did ya notice the old zero deaths from nuclear power lie?

            Not even the pro nuclear pr agencies claim that. But the trolls and cargo cult nuclear power enthusiasts do.

            Did you know that natural disaster happen around the world, and the nuclear rower plants are exempt? The NRC just admitted they had not realized the dam break danger to some 50 nuclear power plants and are scrambling to deal with it.

          • Professor S Freeman

            Show the link to your source (The NRC just admitted they had not realized the dam break danger to some 50 nuclear power plants and are scrambling to deal with it).

            As I said previously:
            – Precaution must be taken when building and locating any nuclear power plant.
            – Sodium-cooled reactors can be located away from population centers, large bodies of water (oceans, rivers, man-made lakes, etc.), and earth quake faults.

          • JenniWest

            Did you know that coal plants are exempt from reporting, containing or measuring the amount of radioactive materials they release into the air from burning coal?
            Exemptions happen in EVERY industry and every major industry has harmed, polluted and killed more people than nuclear. Even with two “disasters” in nuclear, the death toll from radiation is under 100 people, IF you count Chernobyl. I think you are an expert at beating dead horses, Brian, but you are getting silly here.

          • Brian

            Notice the pro nuclear folks have not rebuttal, just coal does it too! Coal does NOTHING like a nuclear power plant does in terms of the variety of isotopes. Nothing like the particulate alpha emitters than nuclear does. It’s a good thing coal and nuclear are dying: they are both super dirty and destructive energy sources we don’t need.

            The pro nuclear deny LNT, and thus claim low deaths. They are millions of times wrong. Over a million deaths from Chernobyl:
            http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov_Chernobyl_book.pdf Denial won’t stop those deaths. The pro nuclear people seriously want us to believe the IAEA agency chartered to promote nuclear power. A PR Agencies.

      • JenniWester

        Why does it need storage? If you hire a plumber, does he have to bring in a carpet layer because he can’t do his job? Would you hire a quarterback if he had to bring with him three other quarterbacks because he can’t do his job? Why can’t solar and wind do their ONE JOB? Because they are intermittent and unreliable. They are resource intensive, short lived, toxic to build power forms. Solar is toxic to dispose of, and neither one passes ANY of the criteria used to judge power efficacy. Power density? Fails. Scale? Fails. Costs, when not subsidized at high levels? Fails. And fails again because neither lasts as long as nuclear, hydro or even coal plants. Power density? Fails.

        You are worshiping power forms that are only one thing: popular. That’s it. They stink at everything else.

        Brian, I cannot state enough times over and over that you lie about too much in these conversations. A thousand people could come in here, experts at every level, and tell you that you are lying and you still come back hoping to get a new crop of suckers who will believe you. Basically that is the MO of the entire green energy industry. Finding suckers who never were educated in REAL energy generation.

        Nuclear power is the most sustainable power we have. Between uranium and thorium, we have a supply of at least 2 billion years. We have not even tapped the oceans for their uranium content and it is massive. Thorium containing ore is just tossed away in huge masses when mining for other metals and elements. Your reports are based on current mines only. Just another way of manipulating the data.

        I won’t even dignify your “waste” comments because I KNOW you have been educated by MULTIPLE people on why nuclear power waste is not even waste, yet you ignore them like some kind of programmed bot. Which is probably what you are.

        • Brian

          Why does baseload need storage? oh you didn’t know? Baseload need load following and peak reserve generators. More reserve energy than a solar and wind system, would need.

          • JenniWest

            It doesn’t. I’m throwing you a bone, garbage power lover.

          • Brian

            Yes, baseload needs more of the same kind of “storage” that solar and wind need: Reserve backup generators.

      • Brian

        Nuclear need storage more than Solar and wind. Baseload plants hate to throttle, so they can only supply about 50% of the total energy. The rest comes from reserve, peak generators. Because most energy is used during the daylight hours and more can be, solar can supply some 60% of our total energy, including charging eletric vehicles. Wind another 20% uncorrelated with solar. . That means solar and wind need only 20% reserve generator energy. Solar and wind are 1000’s of times less toxic than nuclear power, and need 1000’s of times less mining per KWH. Power density is a bad thing, it means you require a bigger grid to distribute it. Solar falling on the average roofs can provide enough electricity for the average home. add parking lots, sand road coverings, and it’s more than we need.

      • Brian

        Yes, baseload need storage, and in fact us the biggest user of pumped storage. that’s because baseload hates to throttle. Baseload plants are the only plants willing to offer negative electricity prices because the cost of throttling is high, damaging even. https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2013/Agora_Negative_Electricity_Prices_Web.pdf

        http://energytransition.de/2012/10/flexible-power-production-no-more-baseload/ good article on why baseload is not what we need. Flexible power is.

        http://www.renewablesinternational.net/renewable-energy-versus-nuclear-dispelling-the-myths/150/537/94984/

        We put up with baseload power because it was cheaper. Now predictable intermittent solar and wind are much cheaper, so we will adapt to that.

  • ShadrachSmith

    Does pointing the bony finger of shame make you a scholar or a nag?

  • vlady47

    Nuclear energy is uneconomical, unnecessary, unsafe and produces a waste product that is ultimately unmanageable.
    Yes, it’s time to STOP the nuke con job!

  • M2000

    And oh, “green energy” those are not lies and propaganda?

  • Nigel

    1. This statement is based on a theory known as Linear No Threshold or LNT for short. The effects of high levels of radiation are known from a few severe accidents (including the theft of medical isotopes) with high dose levels and these results show a linear trend. No solid evidence exists for low levels of radiation so the conservative assumption of LNT is taken. Refutable? Yes.
    2. If our planet had no natural radiation we’d be dead – it’s called the sun – the source of much of our cosmic radiation, itself the main (unless you’re undergoing radiotherapy, or live on granite) source of average dose.
    3. You missed: smoke detectors, space exploration, x-Ray’s, radiotherapy, to name but a few.
    4. True. So do coal fired power stations, granite, and hospitals. See Item 1.
    5. Open pit mining (which I assume you are referring to) is commonly used for a wide variety of materials: (thanks Wikipedia…)
    Bitumen
    Clay
    Coal
    Copper
    Coquina
    Diamonds
    Gravel and stone (stone refers to bedrock, while gravel is unconsolidated material)
    Granite
    Gritstone
    Gypsum
    Limestone
    Marble
    Metal ores, such as copper, iron, gold, silver and molybdenum
    Uranium
    Phosphate

    I hope that clarifies some of the “indisputable” facts you mention.

    • Paul Murphy

      This list of counterpoints offers nothing. It’s just a list of thngs to say that are opposite to Jeff Hoffman’s points. The Wikipedia-inspired counterpoint to #5 is especially childish and meaningless. The main point is that pit mining is destructive to the environment. With all that destruction, why would the unnecessary addition of uranium be added to that list?. It’s like saying noncompostable trash such as glass is unnecessarily thrown into the ocean, but how about all the plastic bags that are also thrown there?
      Nuclear energy should have never been established anywhere, in the first place. It costs billions of dollars for those who pay taxes. Those who pay taxes are, of course, NOT the filthy-energy dons who trash the environment and make us pay another multibillion-dollar bill for their toxic clean-up!

      • Nigel

        Thank you for the detailed deconstruction of my argument. Of course, as I stated in conclusion, my point was that the “indisputable facts” in the centre of the opinion piece were neither facts nor indisputable.

        • Paul Murphy

          Not so. All nuclear power plants leak. That is an “indisputable fact”. As far as the writer using that term for the other four points, as you point out, it could be disputed if you want to cavil.
          The gist of what he says in this short piece is that nuclear power is a loser. Alternative sources of energy exist that are far safer than Nagasaki-inspired atomic energy. At least with wind, solar, and water power, you won’t be reading about long-term deadly consequences from Chernobyl and Fukishima a thousand years from now.

          • Michael Mann

            I’ll yield the point all nuclear power plants leak, all people also leak, the inference is that this leaking is harmful and that is very disputable…Nuclear power uses less resources, has less waste, less environmental impact and is more reliable than solar, wind, and fossil fuels… nuclear power is a winner in every important area, unfortunately the word “nuclear” scares some people, that fear is misplaced.

          • Paul Murphy

            That’s very funny about people leaking. Thank God the leaks don’t permeate the ground and contaminate it for thousands of years, which is what nuclear waste does. Are you saying Chernobyl’s, Fukishima’s, Three Mile Island’s impact were nothing to worry about? Thousands of years of the loss of life, cancer, and unusable land are nothing to fear?

          • Michael Mann

            Are you sure you don’t? Look again, closer…

          • Paul Murphy

            Thanks for that. At least you’re joking when you write that the fear is misplaced. The other atom-bomb-loving commenters actually believe that nuclear power is not the most dangerous source of power on the planet.

          • Michael Mann

            I am not joking, your fear IS totally misplaced. Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Nuclear power happens to be the safest and cleanest way to produce electricity today. You leak many things and those things are pretty nasty and eventually will get into the environment. The fact that radioactive elements are easier to monitor and detect at extremely low levels does absolutely nothing to make them more dangerous. Your radiophobia is scary.

          • Michael Mann

            Yes, except for Chernobyl there was little to no effect outside of the facilities themselves and even in Chernobyl, which was a total abortion of poor design and operation, the fear of radiation was more deadly than the radiation. Yet people still try to increase and spread that fear! https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4397 http://www.inquisitr.com/2301716/nuclear-power-study-says-fear-of-energy-source-is-much-worse-than-any-possible-radiation-effects/

          • Paul Murphy

            Very funny. Even funnier than the “nuclear power is safe” comment.
            I’d believe a group that won a Nobel Peace Prize rather than a website, inquisitr) (aside from the ridiculous spelling) that claimed that Obama murdered Judge Antonin Scalia. Thanks for the sample, though, of a cleverly manipulated article.
            Here’s one you can take seriously:
            http://www.psr.org/resources/nuclear-power-factsheet.html

          • Michael Mann

            Helen Caldicott’s band of loonies? LOL Except for the fact your fear-mongering hurts people, I really don’t care that you choose to believe radiophobic propaganda and nonsense. I still can’t understand how anyone with a brain can take her seriously.

          • Paul Murphy

            Very funny. It hurts no one, and helps many. Fox tv hurts everyone. It’s been a plague on the US, much like tons of highly hazardous nuclear waste — something you cannot answer nor can anyone else, loonie or non-loonie.
            You apparently didn’t read the article I’d sent. I’m pretty sure it’s because there are too many facts in it.
            Loonies don’t win Nobel Prizes. I read your article from inquisitr LOL.Half-baked websites win many loonie awards, especially for the brilliant conclusion that Obama murdered Scalia. That’s your source LOL for some Mickey Mouse science. Next thing you’ll tell people with your fox tv-approved propaganda is that the atom bomb on Nagasaki was totally safe.

          • Sparafucile

            Not only are you obviously an imbecule, your fact-free propaganda does real harm.

            That makes you a downright horrible person.

          • Paul Murphy

            Name-calling coward, what is fact-free about tons of radioactive waste polluting the environment? No answer to that. Continue watching fact-free fox tv.

          • Sparafucile

            You poor rube. Your handicap isn’t your ignorance, it’s your willful insistence to preserve it.

          • Michael Mann

            She didn’t win, did she? Appeal to authority figure when you have no facts? Interesting tactic, especially when that authority figure has little to no understanding of the subject…

          • greenthinker2012

            I for one can’t take your source seriously for anything science related.
            PSR is an activist group opposed to nuclear weapons. Good for them and great they won a peace prize their efforts.
            Their opinions on civilian nuclear power are loonie.
            The article you linked to is so biased that it lacks any credibility.
            They don’t seem to be able to distinguish between nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear power.
            They dismiss concerns about the serious issue of climate change.
            You can believe whomever you wish, just don’t expect to be taken seriously.

          • Paul Murphy

            You and others, who believe serious, Africa-is-a-country Sarah Palin, Trump- brown-noser, fox tv is actually a credible source of information, are in the minority.
            Three facts you never answered in your joking response —
            1. No one wants, including you, the nuclear waste in their backyard because there is no place to put the deadly tonnage.
            2. Atom-bomb energy is way more expensive than any other source of energy.
            3. Wall Street has never invested, and will never invest, in atom-bomb energy.
            If you have evidence that these are not facts, inform me.

          • greenthinker2012

            1) I have no problem with spent nuclear fuel being stored near me. Dry cask storage is perfectly fine for the next hundred years until we burn it up in the next generation of reactors. Dry cask storage has not harmed a single person.

            2) The US Energy Information Agency states the levelized cost of new nuclear is $95 per MWHr. This is cheaper than offshore wind, solar voltaic, and solar thermal. However to be clear, the difference in price is small and I support the use of ALL low-CO2 energy sources to get us off fossil fuels.

            3) Is this the Wall Street that crashed the US economy and cost the US taxpayers trillions of dollars to bail them out? Are you a giant fan of Wall Street Paul?

            4) Calling civilian nuclear power “atom bomb energy” shows that you have nothing of substance to argue. It i a cheap and dishonest appeal to emotions.

          • Michael Mann

            1. I not only am fine with storage in my backyard, I chose to live close (<5 miles) from the storage of over 30 years of once used nuclear fuel, commonly referred to as "high level nuclear waste" This is not a hypothetical this is reality. The facility near my home just completed another ISFSI campaign, which set a new record for lowest dose received by workers. The techniques for fuel handling and storage are well understood and being improved all of the time

          • Paul Murphy

            1. Wonderful that you’re using your body as a guinea pig. To date, the majority of people don’t want to go your route, brave as it is. Only time will tell in seeing how much damage or lack of damage it will do to you. 72 years after Nagasaki and Hiroshima, I’m glad the ones using our money are taking radiation-caused leukemia, birth defects, and other fallout sickness seriously.
            2. If we hadn’t done the experiment over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there most likey wouldn’t have been such a push to turn it into something peaceful, hence the appellation “atom-bomb energy.
            3. No respect for Wall Street, but they have always steered away from nuclear energy simply because the returns are negligible. I think, like a lot of other people, they don’t trust an industry because it’s a good possiblily that less conspicuous accidents don’t get reported. Obvious reasons for this.
            As a compromise, it would be a good idea to put a moratorium on playing Russian roulette, and see how we do over the next twenty years without it. Then, if the people don’t think eco-friendly sources are for them, then they can put up the billions of dollars for nuclear power again.

          • Michael Mann

            I understand the difference between a bomb and a power plant. They are not the same thing, are you concerned that your car runs on a form of napalm? When you understand and have a realistic evaluation of risk, it’s really not that brave.

          • Paul Murphy

            Cars are no model to go by. They are highly inefficient and polluting, just like the fading nuclear power plant industry.
            This is a lot more clever way to use our ingenuity to not only produce power but to also cut down on the number of fat people we have:
            http://www.trueactivist.com/60-minutes-on-this-bicycle-can-power-your-home-for-24-hours/

          • Michael Mann
          • Paul Murphy

            Evidence?r.

          • Michael Mann
          • Sam Gilman

            You’re wrong in costs and wrong in how the technology works (you’re claiming that reactors are bombs). So you’re spreading false information.

            You also claim that only right wingers would support the technology, when the Obama administration supports it. So this is misdirection. You then make a weird misstep for someone claiming to be left wing, by insisting that Wall Street’s blessing is what makes something good.

            So I’m wondering what’s going on.

            What are your motivations for opposing the most effective low carbon technology we have for replacing fossil fuels?

            Are you a global warming denialist? Perhaps you have financial interests in fossil fuels.

          • Paul Murphy

            If you read my posts and links, you would never conclude I’m a global-warming denier; politicians who’ve been bought by the dirty-energy lobby (including atom-bomb lobbyists) are the puppets who deny it.
            The connection between Nagasaki and nuclear power is real, because plutonium played a role in that city, and it plays a role in nuclear power, otherwise known as atom-bomb energy.
            Wall Street are a bunch of robbers, no denying that. But even with their selfish ways considered, they won’t touch atom-bomb energy, simply because they don’t see a future in it. So they’ve let the unwitting taxpayers foot the bill.

          • Sam Gilman

            If you’re not a global warming denialist – and I’m sure you believe you’re not – then, to be blunt, you have got to stop trashing nuclear like a timnitus-enraged drunkard with a shotgun and at least listen to those environmentalists who have reassessed nuclear power for themselves through the same scientific lens as they view climate change and come to support it.

            You need to at least listen to the IPCC which says we should consider it as much as we consider solar and wind, and the IEA which sees it as a key part of tackling climate change. You should at least listen to the leading climate scientists who can see no other way of having even a chance of effectively addressing climate change without it as part of our global energy make-up. These are people who are not any kind of Fox-watching numbskulls. These are mainstream science figures. Many of these people are, like me, squarely on the left. We’re clearly coming from the right place.

            If you cannot even listen to what such people have to say, and cannot engage with them in a discussion of evidence, then what does that say about the authenticity – the honesty – of your stance on climate change?

            Are you willing to at least listen?

          • Paul Murphy

            I have listened to both sides for many years. This industry would not exist if not for the billions that taxpayers had to cough up to get it going. The Eisenhower government did a great job of selling it the public. But,why can’t these big believers in the newly-packaged, super-safe industry put up their own money for it? Please give me an answer to why we have to pay for their tens of billions of dollars for cleaning up the carcinogenic waste when they screw up?
            The industry is a boondoggle. They started out decades ago telling us how cheap it would be. Instead it’s been a huge, burdensome financial drain on the public, with a huge sprinkling of leukemia as a special thank-you to the public who support the boondoggle.
            1000 monster plants were promised back in the fifties. Instead, there are fewer than a 100 of these dinosaurs in the US. As I mentioned before, they have a lot of other people’s money invested in this industry, and they are helping themselves to it in a gigantic lobbying effort (one is the innocuous-sounding Nuclear Energy Institute) to prevent the people’s will from being implemented.

            Yes, I know it’s hard to prove the connection between disease and atom-bomb inspired energy, but why continue defending such a Russian-roulette industry, especially when government R & D money could go into way less risky sources of energy?

            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/us/decades-later-sickness-among-airmen-after-a-hydrogen-bomb-accident.html

          • Sam Gilman

            So you’re saying no, you’re not going to listen?

            You don’t mind being wrong – you don’t want to check?

          • Sparafucile

            You’re gish galloping.

          • Michael Mann

            Are people radioactive? Where does the effluent from your body go?http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/faqradbods.html

          • Aaron Oakley

            “long-term deadly consequences from Chernobyl” A rather emotive clam.

            Meanwhile, Chernobyl has become a thriving wildlife refuge.
            http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)00988-4

          • Paul Murphy

            Bet you that this is another corporate-backed truth-fighting think tank. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’d be glad to accept it.

          • Aaron Oakley

            The authors of the paper I linked to are from public universities: University Belfast, UK; Zoological Institute RAS, Rybachy; St. Petersburg State University, Russia; Department Vertebrate Zoology, Moscow State University, Russia and Universität Oldenburg, Germany.

          • Aaron Oakley

            “All nuclear power plants leak.” So do you every time you pee. Your urine contains (100% natural) potassium-40.

          • Paul Murphy

            Someone else also made this sillty remark in an older post.
            Maple trees leak maple syrup. What’s your point?

            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/us/decades-later-sickness-among-airmen-after-a-hydrogen-bomb-accident.html?_r=0

          • Aaron Oakley

            The point of the remark is that it is easy to frighten people by saying a nuclear plant “leaks” –without specifying the substance in question (did you mean tritium, a low energy beta emitter?). The fact that WE “leak” a radioactive substance, K-40, helps provide context.

            Also, I don’t see the relevance of a military operation (your NYT link) to peaceful civilian energy programs.

      • JenniWest

        Sorry, Paul. You are on the losing side of fact here. Nuclear power is superior in every way power is judged. Every criteria. Including safety. Whatever tripe you have filled your head with needs to be purged. The facts are there for the taking. But you have to be willing to make some space by disgorging the lies. PS: do you think solar panels just appear magically, fully formed on the installer’s truck? Nope. Comes from a mine. All the little magical things like rare earth metals, aluminum and cadmium. Nice toxins there. Everything comes from the earth. Except that with solar and wind, you have to build billions and millions of units, respectively, and not even come close to the reliability, output or safety of nuclear. And they have lifespans about a 1/3rd to a 1/4 of a nuclear plant. Which means that non-green, resource intensive shindig has to happen every 15 to 25 years. And then, to add insult to injury, solar and wind are so craptastic at their one job, they both need a backup. Which is usually natural gas or, snort, batteries. Because THEY are so green, right?

        • Paul Murphy

          Sorry, Jenni, but I don’t know whether to take your note seriously. Fox tv would concur with you, however that station takes Trump seriously.
          Tripe is not that NO ONE knows what to do with the deadly radioactive waste of nuclear power plants. Look it up.
          Forget about these kindergarten analogies with other rays that occur all over the place. The sole fact that there’s no place to put the carcinogenic waste anywhere should cancel out any discussion of or building of these EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE tax-paid monstrosities .Our scientific community has the know-how and resources to figure out how to use other energy sources without the environmental costs of the deadly waste of nuclear power. If you were to do the research, you;d discover that. If you can’t do that, I’ll link it to you.
          This is an excerpt from a more reputable source than fox:
          (http://www.psr.org/resources/nuclear-power-factsheet.html)
          In 1979, the United States had its own disaster following an accident at
          the Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor in Pennsylvania. Although there
          were no immediate deaths, the incident had serious health consequences
          for the surrounding area. A 1997 study found that those people living
          downwind of the reactor at the time of the event were two to ten times
          more likely to contract lung cancer or leukemia than those living upwind
          of the radioactive fallout.(6)
          The dangers of nuclear power have been underscored more recently by the
          close call of a catastrophic meltdown at the Davis-Besse reactor in
          Ohio in 2002, which in the years preceding the incident had received a
          near-perfect safety score.

          • Sparafucile

            You either are offering your uninformed speculation as fact, or you’re a mendacious liar. Could be both, I suppose…

          • Paul Murphy

            When you have nothing to say, do not post.

          • Sparafucile

            So it’s both.

          • Aaron Oakley

            “the incident had serious health consequences for the surrounding area”
            You have been lied to. For perspective, the journos who flew to cover the story received more radiation (flying means exposure to cosmic rays) than the TMI locals.

          • Paul Murphy

            Don’t be so quick to judge, especially when you have no evidence to back your point.
            Exposure to radiation affects people in many different ways. Its effects are really not understood. And the atom-bomb energists want to keep it that way. They can, therefore, weave and bob when results come out they don’t like. In general, when any huge industry comes out with wonderful findings, it’s a good bet they’re lying. There’s too much of the taxpayers’ money they’ve helped themselves to to motivate them to tell the truth.

          • Aaron Oakley

            “you have no evidence to back your point.” Well, here’s a start:

            https://www.ohio.edu/riskandsafety/radiationsafety/flying.htm

            “Its effects are really not understood” Its effects have been studied for decades and there is a large body of literature accessible, e.g. through PubMed.

            “There’s too much of the taxpayers’ money they’ve helped themselves to to motivate them to tell the truth.” That is a serious accusation against nuclear physicists and engineers. Perhaps you should name names.

          • Paul Murphy

            Physicists and engineers do not own the huge failing annihilating Frankenstein atom-bomb storage tanks that we euphemistically call nuclear power plants.
            Regarding your citing academics all over the world who deny atom-bomb fallout is safe enough to use in a children’s sandbox. they’re beholden to those who pay them. No one likes to bite the hand that feeds them. even if that hand happens to belong to a truth-fighting pro-pollution, Koch-style benefactor.

          • Aaron Oakley

            “Frankenstein atom-bomb storage tanks that we euphemistically call nuclear power plants” That statement owes more to fear and emotion that science.

            “citing academics all over the world who deny atom-bomb fallout is safe enough to use in a children’s sandbox” Now you are making things up. I never endorsed that statement, and I do not do so now.

            “they’re beholden to those who pay them” That is a very lazy and unconvincing way to dismiss data that disagrees with your prejudices.

            “Koch-style benefactor” Try loosening your tinfoil hat.

          • J.L.

            If you think an American nuclear power plant is anything like a nuclear bomb, you are sorely mistaken! There is no way a nuclear power plant could create a nuclear explosion. Of course, a regular explosion could occur, but this is a risk of all power sources, even solar.

      • Frank Energy

        Paul, Jenni is a pimp for nuclear. Or maybe a madam

        • Sparafucile

          Thanks, disqus … now we can block this spamming troll.

    • SA Kiteman

      I like to refer to it as the Linear No Thinking (LNT) model!

      Each of the top three renewable energy sources require more mining per kWh than does nuclear. And when we start up GEN IV breeder or sustainer reactors, the mining for nuclear will go down to 1/100th of what it is now.

      https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=583773445110475&set=pb.100004334741337.-2207520000.1452555918.&type=3&theater

    • Brian

      LNT is proven from single cells to the largest cohort studies and found correct every time. In case you didn’t notice, x-ray tech wear heavy lead clothing, and leave the room to take a shot. The sun causes cancer so does radon.

      • LNT is proven from single cells to the largest cohort studies and found correct every time.

        As a physicist who has taken radiation health physics within the last 10 years, I must ask that you support your contention.

        As a counter-example, the AAAS (the largest scientific society in the World) advises against the LNT, noting that no study has confirmed it and that it was only ever adopted as a safety guideline in the absence of reliable data on the effects of low doses of radiation, following the precautionary principle, a fallacious argument.

        http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vaRSKzaqUZsJ:www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/reports/Asan-Report_Science-and-Technology-to-Prevent-and-Respond-to-CBRN-Disasters.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

        • Michael Mann

          New info! science is always learning! Radiation science is dominated by a paradigm based on an assumption without empirical foundation. Known as the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis, it holds that all ionizing radiation is harmful no matter how low the dose or dose rate. Epidemiological studies that claim to confirm LNT either neglect experimental and/or observational discoveries at the cellular, tissue, and organismal levels, or mention them only to distort or dismiss them. The appearance of validity in these studies rests on circular reasoning, cherry picking, faulty experimental design, and/or misleading inferences from weak statistical evidence. In contrast, studies based on biological discoveries demonstrate the reality of hormesis: the stimulation of biological responses that defend the organism against damage from environmental agents. Normal metabolic processes are far more damaging than all but the most extreme exposures to radiation. However, evolution has provided all extant plants and animals with defenses that repair such damage or remove the damaged cells, conferring on the organism even greater ability to defend against subsequent damage. Editors of medical journals now admit that perhaps half of the scientific literature may be untrue. Radiation science falls into that category. Belief in LNT informs the practice of radiology, radiation regulatory policies, and popular culture through the media. The result is mass radiophobia and harmful outcomes, including forced relocations of populations near nuclear power plant accidents, reluctance to avail oneself of needed medical imaging studies, and aversion to nuclear energy—all unwarranted and all harmful to millions of people. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13752-016-0244-4

Tags No tags yet