Comments on: Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer

By: Gerardo Alvarez de Benito

Gerardo Alvarez de Benito — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:50:41 +0000

Nuclear energy (fision,thorium,fast breeder reactors,storage of residues,dismantling,fusion,etc) is far too:
expensive,complicated,dangerous( specially terrorism),and
time consuming for: research,selecting ways,developing them,choosing solutions,designing,finding and acceptable location,construction.
I think basic reason for governments support is their unacceptable interest
in nuclear weapons.
Should this reason be rejected by citizens,the whole nuclear energy would
collapse.

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:44:31 +0000

“We read about all the different potential sources of energy for the future and yet there is no mention of the tremendous source of energy in the form of heat that lies a few kilometers down under the Earth’s crust. Live volcanoes give just a little indication of this source of energy which if harnessed can keep this earth fully supplied of energy for thousands of years to come. We can now send people to the moon, surely our scientists can come up with methods that can harness this supply of energy so we need not bother any further with nuclear, wind, tidal or any other sources.”

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.

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:28:14 +0000

I guess ANYONE can release a book today, no matter how unfounded their information is. e_e

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.

By: Tom Culver

Tom Culver — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:23:00 +0000

That was supposed to say “Band Aid” sorry. and the “but Australia” should be “put Australia” Brad and others, your points come across more credible without the foul language:)

By: Tom Culver

Tom Culver — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:13:49 +0000

Thanks Helen for the insightful read. I have never been one to use the “nukes saves oil” argument. I think Nuclear energy needs to be carefully looked at as a twenty or thirty year “bad aid” to help solve our global warming issue. Australia for example with its ample uranium resources could strictly control the mining, building, and maintenance for many emerging countries intent on building coal fired plants. In turn these profits could be mandated thru the government to but Australia on the forefront of solar, wind, and alternative cleaner energy sources. The new smaller reactors would serve some very poor nations very well as long as there were strict guide lines about the longetivity, building, maintenance, and shutdown of the facilities after a set goal in renewables is achieved. A big win for everybody with little danger of accident as the right controls from the stronger countries with the smarts to pull it off. I think if you add up real nuclear “accidents” (no the two Japanese bombs don’t count) you will find nuclear to be safer than coal and oil by far.

Thanks again for the great book.

Tom

By: Jor

Jor — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:27:45 +0000

Thank you soo much for this article! I am a homeschool highschol student and I take part in a debate club!! This year we are debateing the production of alternative fuels and my case is about doing away with nuclear power!! This is perfect because your credential are reliable and this article get the dirt on nuclear power!!
Thanks again!!

By: Michael Gariety

Michael Gariety — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:36:21 +0000

I am a physicist, and it is very sad to see lies and distortions on BOTH sides of this issue. First of all, the first photo that shows four cooling towers, each with a column of rising steam is misleading. It is juvenile to say that nuclear power pollutes into the air and show this picture. This is steam, the same kind that rises out of my saucepan when I cook mac and cheese, a very delightful dish I may add.

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?

By: Dr. Brian Moench

Dr. Brian Moench — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:30:46 +0000

Perhaps some of the previous nuclear industry cheerleaders should familiarize themselves with the epidemiologic data that has repeatedly shown for over 50 years the danger of the entire nuclear fuel cycle to public health. I’ve never read anything by even one of these proponents who could mount a credible challenge to the works of Ernest Sternglass, John Gofman, Alice Stewart, Arthur Tamplin, or Andrei Sakarov,just to name of few, all of whom were the world’s experts on the health effect of nuclear radiation and became adamantly opposed to all forms of nuclear power.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Tue, 27 May 2008 16:08:22 +0000

I take the advice of those that are employed by the nuclear industry with a grain of salt. You must remember that the engineers of the Titanic swore up and down that it was unsinkable. In fact, they probably would have ridiculed you had you tried to oppose them. (didn’t they set out on their journey without enough lifeboats because of how sure they were?) One unforeseen disaster at one of these plants would be catastrophic. That is what scares me about this technology, and I look forward to the day when we can decommission the current plants in favor of safer alternatives.

By: jessica

jessica — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:48:14 +0000

i think nuclear poweris stupid and should be further investigated.

By: Clinton

Clinton — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 07:48:56 +0000

To hear her tell it, all the world’s problems are caused by the misogynistic men (i.e. ALL men) in charge being insecure about their penises. Women would spend money on milk for babies instead of phallic missiles. Good God almighty this biotch needs to get laid!

By: Brandon Theut

Brandon Theut — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:11:41 +0000

i beleive that research in the area of nuclear power should continue because of the fact that it is helpful for us in so many ways. They should also be holding it under higher security, and not do the experiments just any place they want to but in remote areas were no one or thing will be affected by it.

By: Hans Heyman

Hans Heyman — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:58:13 +0000

We read about all the different potential sources of energy for the future and yet there is no mention of the tremendous source of energy in the form of heat that lies a few kilometres down under the eath’s crust. Live volcanoes give just a little indication of this ssource of energy which if harnessed can keep this earth fully supplied of energy for thousands of years to come. We can now send people to the moon, surely our scientists can come up with methods that can harness this supply of energy so we need not bother any further with nuclear, wind, tidal or any other sources.

By: Suzanne Sherman

Suzanne Sherman — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:43:00 +0000

I read your book “Nuclear Power is not the Answer” and I have to say I whole heartedly agree with You. We have alternatives that are safe and longlasting. It’s time we use them and stop letting corporations and big government rule the safety of our planet and our childrens future. Thank you for your very clear and concise book.

By: Chris Sparling

Chris Sparling — Mon, 28 May 2007 03:27:28 +0000

I work in the nuclear industry and find it frustrating that we strive for transparency and honesty while others like Dr. Caldicott can toss out silly, emotionally charged prose and they are taken as being true by many people. They are desparate, emotional and either incorrect or outright ridiculous (we would get into trouble if we spoke about our industry and issued half or non-truths knowingly. We are all entitled to our opinion but we are not entitled to our own facts. I, like most of my co-workers, am an environmentalist. I am surprised that this story (and the current book tour), is the old Helen 1980’s stuff recycled, is still able to attract people and garner standing ovations.

By: plaasjaapie

plaasjaapie — Mon, 28 May 2007 03:26:32 +0000

While I’m not particularly in love with the prospect of a massive increase in nuclear-electric generating capacity this utterly ignorant sort of rubbishing of the technology does nothing but make the job of more thoughtful opponents to nuclear energy much more difficult.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Mon, 28 May 2007 03:25:53 +0000

Nuclear Power is the ONLY answer to our current energy crisis. Continuing to use fossil fuels at our current rate is folley, possibly leading to environmental disasters of a biblical proportion. Renewable energy sources are expensive, unreliable for base-load power, and in-capable of supplying our needs, even with conservation.
I do not work in the power industry, but I spent 30 years as a nuclear operator in the Navy and earned an Engineering Degree after I retired. My experience has convinced me that there is no safer, more reliable, more efficient or more environmentally friendly way to produce massive amounts of electricity than nuclear power plants.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Mon, 28 May 2007 03:25:19 +0000

I read your introduction and I’m afraid I don’t agree with you. I work in the nuclear industry and many of the things you are saying are false. The industry is not controlled by the government, in fact, most of the companies are openly traded on the stock market. I too am in support of renewables, but we do not have the technology right now to mass produce electricity by solar, wind, etc. From your comments about the security, it seems that you may have never visited a nuclear power plant. If you like, contact me and I will approach my superiors about giving you a tour of one of our well-taken care of power plants. I look forward to speaking with you more extensively about this.

By: Brad

Brad — Mon, 28 May 2007 03:24:14 +0000

What a complete load of sad and sorry horse@$$@.

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.