Helen Caldicott’s writings, along with John Gofman, a qualified voice, helped educate me to the dangers of nuclear power as with its aftermarket child, nuclear weapons, dangers i was already deeply aware of.

look, the pro-nuke lobby has its advocates, obviously.

and they lie all the time.

anyone who advocates nuclear power over safer green alternatives is either ignorant or evil, in my humble opinion.

years ago, i made a stand with the Caldicotts and Wassermans of the world and my understanding of the extreme dangers of nuclear power and its diabolical child, nuclear weapons…deliverable now by suitcases…is only intensified by incidents like Chernobyl and, now, in the wake of Earthquake Japan. Diablo Canyon in CA, where Trudell, Jackson Browne, I and hundreds of others protested startup in the early ’80s is close to a faultline.

it can, and will, happen here. increased nuclear dependency results in increased risk to our Generations when catastrophe occurs.

in the short lifespan of this technology we have already seen enough literal impact (weapons, 1945…incidents since)
to understand that this is a moral issue.

nuclear is immoral. it always was and always will be. it is not safe; it is inherently volatile and uncontrollable under catastrophic condtions.

but it will function as a good population control mechanism at some point.

perhaps that is the objective?

the half-lives of nuclear by-products is measureable in tens and hundreds of thousands of years.

this results in genetic alterations in all species, now observable to the naked eye in species in the vicinities of nuclear power plants.

but, forgive me, you don’t know me any better than i know any of the other commentators here.

study, research, walk the areas around nuclear power plants, think about the Generations.

then decide.

it’s all part of a monopoly game played by plutocrats without souls who have no understanding or respect for ancient natural sacred ways.

a vote for nuclear is a vote for apocalypse. and that’s the reason we have it….because of Greed and Arrogant Ignorance by the perps.

committed pro-nukers have no soul. anyone with a soul would get out of that business.

anyone who cares about the Future Generations as a priority would get out of that business and fervently oppose it. that’s where we started, where we repented and i am proud that my children saw this establishment guy to that point repent and put his ass on the line AGAINST nuclear power, the parent of nuclear war and invisible pollution.

Stephen Pipkin-Savage
Clearwater, FL

>Chernobyl was the worst possible design, the worst >possible equipment failures, with the worst possible >morons operating it.

I mean yes.. but isnt that the point? The technology needs to be safe even when subject to worst case conditions.

I’ve done the rad surveys. I’ve touched a shutdown reactor with my bare hands. If you live in a valley, you’re exposed to more radiation due to temperature inversions and the radon involved than you are in the “control room” of a reactor, only 60 feet from the reactor itself.
There are so many safe guards within the reactor, even IF a terrorist group managed to get into the “control room,” they wouldn’t be able to cause a meltdown. They’d have to have taken years of instruction – after passing thorough background checks – to even begin to know how to cause a meltdown, save shutting down the reactor, placing C4 all over the reactor compartment, and then starting back up. Without that training, it’d be hilarious to see them try.
That’s also providing that they get past the dozens of ex-marines and ex-army security guards armed to the teeth, the cameras, dogs, pressure and electrical sensors, then somehow get the codes to actually get into the reactor plant building, et cetera…
I’d also like to see an aircraft try to bring down a reactor. They’d have a small target to hit over a large site. That’s if they get through the primary and secondary shields, then the containment barrier alone is enough to take quite a bit of the blow of an aircraft, and is designed to do so.
A truck bomb? Good luck. I’m not even going to touch that retarded idea.

This is basically people who know what they are talking about against those who know nothing about nuclear power other than Chernobyl being bad. Chernobyl was the worst possible design, the worst possible equipment failures, with the worst possible morons operating it.

As an engineer, this possibility looms large, and frankly I won’t go down with the ship with all the rats. That’s why emigration from the US is likely in my future. I’m now ex-pat, former CA resident.

Go for wind and solar. T Boone Pickens agrees. Get vehicles on natural gas too.

Also, if I took an infra-red picture from a satellite, would reactors glow as hot spots? How about mine-tailings?

The amount of power we need must rely on a relative constant.
The flows change in speed, not to mention the extreme heat causing things to melt and whathaveyou. There’s almost nothing today that can withstand that kind of constant heat.
Plus, if we all started stuffing magma mills into the ground, we would tax it so hard the flows would stop and we’d all be doomed to… well, I don’t know what would happen, really… :P

But seriously, I agree with the sort of idea you have behind this, but I’m not really on board with the practical application.

Chernobyl was an accident.

France has been living off of Nuclear power for decades now, and some places since WWII!
Length of life vs casualty rate. The numbers favor Length of Life, which means it’s considered a favorable option.

Thanks again for the great book.

Tom

There is an absence of real data to quantify amounts of radiation and pollution in this book. Here are a few examples from this book of vague references of overhyped/misleading/missing data:

“Nuclear energy creates SIGNIFICANT greenhouse gases and pollution today, and is on a trajectory to produce as much as conventional sources of energy within the next one or two decades.”

“Nuclear power is not “clean and green,” as the industry claims, because LARGE amounts of traditional fossil fuels are required to mine and refine the uranium needed to run nuclear power reactors, to construct the massive concrete reactor buildings, and to transport and store the toxic radioactive waste created by the nuclear process.”

“Burning of this fossil fuel emits SIGNIFICANT quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2)—the primary “greenhouse gas”—into the atmosphere.”

“In addition, LARGE amounts of the now-banned chlorofluorocarbon gas (CFC) are emitted during the enrichment of uranium.”

“Within ten to twenty years, nuclear reactors will produce no net energy because of the MASSIVE amounts of fossil fuel that will be necessary to mine and to enrich the remaining poor grades of uranium.”

this sentence actually has two of these vague words… “However, this process is EXTREMELY expensive, medically dangerous for nuclear workers, and releases LARGE amounts of radioactive material into the air and water;”

“This waste contains extremely toxic elements that will INEVITABLY pollute the environment and human food chains”

“Nuclear power is EXORBITANTLY expensive, and NOTORIOUSLY unreliable.” …unreliable… really?

“To compound this problem, the global supplies of usable uranium fuel are finite” … the universe’s supply of hydrogen is also finite. …the amount of lint in my pocket is finite.

“So, in essence, a nuclear reactor is just a very sophisticated and dangerous way to boil water—analogous to cutting a pound of butter with a chain saw.”
…Actually, a dangerous way to boil water would be to set your hair on fire and then place the pot of water on top of your head. Which brings me to my next point… which weighs more, a pound of butter… or a pound of chainsaws?

“Tragically, more and more people are believing the myths propagated by the nuclear industry about nuclear power—that it is emission free, produces no greenhouse gases, and is therefore the answer to global warming.”
…What IS tragic, is that people believe statements about atomic energy without checking the facts (Physicists, Nuclear Engineers, even Wikipedia :). Also, nuclear energy is not THE answer to global warming… it is one of many solutions that can be simultaniously employed. And don’t get me started on ‘global warming’…
Should we pollute… NO! Are we responsible for the climate changes on our planet… NO! Should we be more responsible for taking care of our planet… YES! Is the sun the main cause of changes to our climate… YES!

Beware of arguments that take away your hope and stir up anger. And remember that Mark Twain said there are three kinds of lies… 1) lies 2) damn lies 3) and statistics.

P.S. I can see the MANY faults, bad decisions, and stupidities in President Bush… can you see the many faults and lies in this book?

Fact 1: The alternatives (renewables) are more expensive. Joe Schmoe is very sensitive in the hip pocket

Fact 2: renewables by their nature do not result in stable power supplies because the wind don’t always blow, the sun don’t always shine and hey, you can have drought. So your base-load electricity needs a stable, predictable supply for at least 70-80% of peak demand or you’ll be living in brown-out city. You all should remember what a power grid crash is like.

Fact 3: I don’t know where she got the “uranium is a finite resource” from, sure- it’s finite but if you use fast breeder reactors you can use a whole host of products including thorium which would give something like 10,000 years worth of present global power consumption.

Oh, and I don’t work in the nuclear industry. I work in the oil industry. I’d be only too happy for Joe public to loose some of the irrational fear of nuclear energy that people like the good doctor like to bandy about. Dr, you can live in the Utopia you create in your mind, but the fact is that in countries like China you have to use every resource available to you to meet demand. At the present rate, China will run out of their vast reserves of coal a lot faster than the US will and we’re all breathing the same air.

Energy conservation? Absolutely! Knee-jerk reactionism, Dr. Caldicott you can do better I’m sure.