The anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all

[The Vegan Marxist]

The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all
by George Monbiot
April 5, 2011

Over the last fortnight I've made a deeply troubling discovery. The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health. The claims we have made are ungrounded in science (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/apr/04/fear-nuclear-power-fukushima-risks), unsupportable when challenged, and wildly wrong. We have done other people, and ourselves, a terrible disservice.

I began to see the extent of the problem after a debate last week (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/30/prescription_for_survival_a_debate_on) with Helen Caldicott (http://www.helencaldicott.com/). Dr Caldicott is the world's foremost anti-nuclear campaigner. She has received 21 honorary degrees and scores of awards, and was nominated for a Nobel peace prize. Like other greens, I was in awe of her. In the debate she made some striking statements about the dangers of radiation. So I did what anyone faced with questionable scientific claims should do: I asked for the sources. Caldicott's response has profoundly shaken me.

First she sent me nine documents: newspaper articles, press releases and an advertisement. None were scientific publications; none contained sources for the claims she had made. But one of the press releases referred to a report by the US National Academy of Sciences (http://www.nationalacademies.org/), which she urged me to read. I have now done so – all 423 pages. It supports none of the statements I questioned; in fact it strongly contradicts her claims about the health effects of radiation.

I pressed her further and she gave me a series of answers that made my heart sink – in most cases they referred to publications which had little or no scientific standing, which did not support her claims or which contradicted them. (I have posted our correspondence, and my sources, on my website. (http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/correspondence-with-helen-caldicott/)) I have just read her book Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer (http://calitreview.com/19). The scarcity of references to scientific papers and the abundance of unsourced claims it contains amaze me.

For the last 25 years anti-nuclear campaigners have been racking up the figures for deaths and diseases caused by the Chernobyl disaster, and parading deformed babies like a medieval circus. They now claim 985,000 people have been killed by Chernobyl, and that it will continue to slaughter people for generations to come. These claims are false.

The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/media.html) (Unscear) is the equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/). Like the IPCC, it calls on the world's leading scientists to assess thousands of papers and produce an overview. Here is what it says about the impacts of Chernobyl.

Of the workers who tried to contain the emergency at Chernobyl, 134 suffered acute radiation syndrome; 28 died soon afterwards. Nineteen others died later, but generally not from diseases associated with radiation. The remaining 87 have suffered other complications, including four cases of solid cancer and two of leukaemia.

In the rest of the population there have been 6,848 cases of thyroid cancer among young children – arising "almost entirely" from the Soviet Union's failure to prevent people from drinking milk contaminated with iodine 131. Otherwise "there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health effect in the general population that can be attributed to radiation exposure". People living in the countries affected today "need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident".

Caldicott told me that Unscear's work on Chernobyl is "a total cover-up". Though I have pressed her to explain, she has yet to produce a shred of evidence for this contention.

In a column last week, the Guardian's environment editor, John Vidal, angrily denounced my position (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/01/fukushima-chernobyl-risks-radiation) on nuclear power. On a visit to Ukraine in 2006, he saw "deformed and genetically mutated babies in the wards … adolescents with stunted growth and dwarf torsos; foetuses without thighs or fingers". What he did not see was evidence that these were linked to the Chernobyl disaster.

Professor Gerry Thomas (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zf4j5), who worked on the health effects of Chernobyl for Unscear, tells me there is "absolutely no evidence" for an increase in birth defects. The National Academy paper Dr Caldicott urged me to read came to similar conclusions. It found that radiation-induced mutation in sperm and eggs is such a small risk "that it has not been detected in humans, even in thoroughly studied irradiated populations such as those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki".

Like Vidal and many others, Caldicott pointed me to a book which claims that 985,000 people have died as a result of the disaster. Translated from Russian and published by the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/default.aspx), this is the only document that looks scientific and appears to support the wild claims made by greens about Chernobyl.

A devastating review in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry (http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/) points out that the book achieves this figure by the remarkable method of assuming that all increased deaths from a wide range of diseases – including many which have no known association with radiation – were caused by the Chernobyl accident. There is no basis for this assumption, not least because screening in many countries improved dramatically after the disaster and, since 1986, there have been massive changes in the former eastern bloc. The study makes no attempt to correlate exposure to radiation with the incidence of disease.

Its publication seems to have arisen from a confusion about whether Annals was a book publisher or a scientific journal. The academy has given me this statement: "In no sense did Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences or the New York Academy of Sciences commission this work; nor by its publication do we intend to independently validate the claims made in the translation or in the original publications cited in the work. The translated volume has not been peer reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences, or by anyone else."

Failing to provide sources, refuting data with anecdote, cherry-picking studies, scorning the scientific consensus, invoking a cover-up to explain it: all this is horribly familiar. These are the habits of climate-change deniers, against which the green movement has struggled valiantly, calling science to its aid. It is distressing to discover that when the facts don't suit them, members of this movement resort to the follies they have denounced.

We have a duty to base our judgments on the best available information. This is not only because we owe it to other people to represent the issues fairly, but also because we owe it to ourselves not to squander our lives on fairytales. A great wrong has been done by this movement. We must put it right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

[RED DAVE]

I assume, VG, that having posted this piece of crap without comment that you agree with its contents.

If this is true, get ready to mix it, Comrade. Monbiot's craven bullshit has already been dealt with.

If it's not true, a little comment would be appropriate.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't have to answer to you, nor your anti-nuclear pseudo-science. It's pieces of shit like you who'll stand firmly clear against anything that could bring safe and clean energy to our planet.

[RED DAVE]

I don't have to answer to youOf course not, sweetheart.


[N]or your anti-nuclear pseudo-science.Tell that to the Japanese workers who are, as we post, absorbing doses of radiation that will surely kill many of them within a few years


It's pieces of shit like you who'll stand firmly clear against anything that could bring safe and clean energy to our planet.You need to concretize a revolutionary alliance with the Japanese Government and TEPCO and form a new democracy. Why don't you have a meeting to discuss this in Fukushima?

I was wondering when the Maoist bullshit on nukes would come out.

RED DAVE

[Per Levy]

It's pieces of shit like you who'll stand firmly clear against anything that could bring safe and clean energy to our planet.

so we all should now move to the tschernobyl and fukushima regions because its so safe and clean there? also what is with the nuclear waste? where are we going to store that toxic stuff?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

umm... I just wonder one thing. Since nuclear power tend to create some waste (many, many tons/plant too be be more exact) and this waste is very, very toxic and dangerous and need to be stored for a very, very long time how can it be called clean?

Also, minign uranium is quite dangerous (like all mining) but here the miners tend to be exposed to High levels of radon, radium, cesium and radioactivity. It tend to pollute the nearby enviorment too, which is funny since we have some uranium here in Sweden but nowbody, not even the pro-nuke, want someone to digg for it because of the risks.

[Salyut]

Also, minign uranium is quite dangerous (like all mining) but here the miners tend to be exposed to High levels of radon, radium, cesium and radioactivity. It tend to pollute the nearby enviorment too, which is funny since we have some uranium here in Sweden but nowbody, not even the pro-nuke, want someone to digg for it because of the risks.

I did a work placement at a uranium mine/mill. The real safety issues came from working in the acid plant (you wore splash suits in certain areas). The radiation really wasn't that much of an issue compared to other hazards you find in an industrial plant. You showered before going into, and coming out of, the plant so contamination wasn't that big of a deal.

It was a pretty neat experiance. I've never seen so many union stickers in my life (they HATED management). The mill was also a source of employment for the local First Nations; and since this was 700 km north of the major urban area in the province - thats kind of important.

Running the waste through reprocessing would cut down the time needed to decay away. The 'waste' left behind at the Oklo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor) natural reactor hasn't moved around for thousands of years. Sticking the stuff in a continental I have no idea why that stuff is highlighted and I don't mean anything by it fyishield would keep it secure over the long term and prevent contamination of the water supply.

I've seen a coal power station up close. I was training to run the SAGD equipment in the oil sands. The minesite that supplied the mill was way, way, way less harmful to the environment then the other two. Hell, the coal station would have been shut down if it had been across the border in North Dakota (apparently the US has more stringent emission standards then Canada or something). The run off from the oil sands development is killing First Nations down river and ruining the watersheds eco-system; the fish are mutating and the water will give you chemical burns. The tailings pond at the mill was actually built to properly contain the waste water products - as opposed to letting it seep into god knows what.


If this is true, get ready to mix it, Comrade. Monbiot's craven bullshit has already been dealt with.

I think the real issue here is the lack of legitimate, peer reviewed, sources. If folks want a serious discussion on nuclear power - then it'd be a good idea to hit up JSTOR/whatever. Otherwise disscussions just descend into an irrational mess which benefits noone in the end.

[Kotze]

:( Revleft doesn't do science well.
Monbiot's craven bullshit has already been dealt with.Do you mean the thread Japan issues atomic energy emergency after earthquake? Wasn't the article mentioned there a different one, and wasn't the only way it was "dealt with" saying HURR DURR MOVE THERE, repeatedly?

It's like saying this: Do you like hydropower? Okay, get this. There was once a dam and it failed, and if you like hydro so much, then why not move there and live in a house underwater and marry a dolphin you
cryptomalthusianfabianostatecapitalist
*breathes*
coordinatorclasselitist :rolleyes:

[Foreigner]

:( Revleft doesn't do science well.Do you mean the thread Japan issues atomic energy emergency after earthquake? Wasn't the article mentioned there a different one, and wasn't the only way it was "dealt with" saying HURR DURR MOVE THERE, repeatedly?

It's like saying this: Do you like hydropower? Okay, get this. There was once a dam and it failed, and if you like hydro so much, then why not move there and live in a house underwater and marry a dolphin you
cryptomalthusianfabianostatecapitalist
*breathes*
coordinatorclasselitist :rolleyes:

Excellent point, because the consequences of a nuclear energy plant failure are commensurable with those of a dam failure. And because it's only scientific illiterates (http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/ucs-position-on-nuclear-power.html?utm_source=SP&utm_medium=link4&utm_campaign=SP-japan-nuke-link4-3-14-11) who dare speak against such a safe and clean way of generating heat.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The crisis in Japan proves (once again) the case against private ownership of the means of production in modern society. It doesn't prove any case against nuclear power... at least for thinking people.

[Foreigner]

Interesting. I decided to read the hack piece carefully, then check out the actual correspondence between them, or whatever parts of it he decided to post. A different picture emerges from that correspondence.

In fact, it's pretty plain that Monbiot is arguing like a hack lawyer -- albeit one skilled at twisting the situation persuasively -- by taking her inability to respond within his "I need this all by tonight, okay tomorrow" two-day time crunch, while she's on a trip, with extensive information supporting even basic radiological/epidemiological general knowledge such as the claim that radiation causes birth defects and cancer, and thus that exposure to nuclear waste will increase that incidence -- by taking that and running with it as a major revelation of the bankruptcy of the "anti-nuclear lobby."


GM: 5. And over time, nuclear waste will induce epidemics of cancer, leukemia and genetic disease, and random compulsory genetic engineering.

HC: This is basic radiobiology that I learned in 1st year medical school and was initially derived from the classic experiment of Mueller of the effects of radiation on drosophila fruit fly for which he won the Nobel Prize and the radiobiology is explained in my book. I don’t see how you can derive all the basic medical information you need George in 8 hours to write and article for tonight!It is fair to ask for more specific information, but we all know there are basics that we move on past and don't keep the page numbers for. He's basically implying a challenge to the very concept that radiation causes cancer, which has been taken for standard knowledge for a long time.

He insists on this time crunch, glibly implying she is a waffling fool or a hack (oh, irony) because she cannot match his schedule. "If I can [read the 472-page report] while I’m on tour, why can’t Helen do something 100 times quicker and easier?"

What a cocky, arrogant approach, young man. Not a little presumptuous.

So, basically, there's a little tiny thing he neglects to mention in her colossal failure to produce. That is that he first gave her a "please get it done today" time crunch, then later, after he got her answer, gave her another day.

In other words, that she didn't produce to his satisfaction within two days. I think he really does believe they're a well-funded, powerful "lobby" -- that word he likes to throw at them, as if they rub elbows with cigarette manufacturers at White House dinners.

Frankly, having listened to that interview, it struck me that Caldicott, who's getting a bit on, after all, was really not prepared for his hostile approach. We can blame her for being too collegial and not a good debater, unprepared for genuine political debate, but certainly we're reaching when we cheer on his matchless victory over her by the equivalent of a courtroom technicality default.

Personally, I find it rather interesting that leftists would cheer along such a fellow so unreservedly. What a glib hack.

[Foreigner]

The crisis in Japan proves (once again) the case against private ownership of the means of production in modern society. It doesn't prove any case against nuclear power... at least for thinking people.

Smug. Probably more of the 'nonthinkers' than you are implying would agree that it could possibly be a viable question for a genuine socialist society to address, but that for our current purposes, it is not a solution. Even if it's run by a government. (Your statement here leaves room for bourgeois governments in the current order to be considered responsible enough to run nuclear reactors.)

Is it just me, or do the pro-nuclear crowd just love waving their superior intelligence around (or lobbing smug accusations of stupidity or effeminacy at their opponents)?

Comes off really shitty. At least to intelligent people.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Is it just me, or do the pro-nuclear crowd just love waving their superior intelligence around (or lobbing smug accusations of stupidity or effeminacy at their opponents)?

Comes off really shitty. At least to intelligent people.

I'm proudly effeminate and I support nuclear power. Take your lazy stereotyping elsewhere.

[Jazzratt]

Is it just me, or do the pro-nuclear crowd just love waving their superior intelligence around (or lobbing smug accusations of stupidity or effeminacy at their opponents)?

Comes off really shitty. At least to intelligent people.Irony is such a lovely thing, don't you think.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I don't get nuclear power at all. Is there anything worth reading for someone who doesn't have a clue about it? It divides so many opinions, I feel like I should get some knowledge on it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't get nuclear power at all. Is there anything worth reading for someone who doesn't have a clue about it? It divides so many opinions, I feel like I should get some knowledge on it.

Well, what is it precisely that you want to know?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Well, what is it precisely that you want to know?
How it generally works, what the benefits are, what the dangers are, how it compares to other energy sources etc.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How it generally works,

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_technology) is a good start.


what the benefits are,

Potentially billions of years worth of fuel (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html), including abundant (http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/03/abundance-of-thorium.html) amounts (http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2193) of thorium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Occurrence), and recyclable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing) fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Twincyclefuelcycle.png


what the dangers are,

Nuclear compares favourably (http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawatt-hour-for.html) with the alternatives. Which is not to say alternatives shouldn't be used; it means that nuclear should not be ruled out.


how it compares to other energy sources etc.

Start-up costs can be high in areas lacking appropriate infrastructure or education - renewables might be a better choice in such situations. However, there are reactor designs that do not encourage proliferation (http://energyfromthorium.com/lftradsrisks.html), so if those see mass production then costs would drop significantly.

[Foreigner]

I'm proudly effeminate and I support nuclear power. Take your lazy stereotyping elsewhere.

You're the one who bursts in on the Fukushima discussion telling everyone they're being emotional and hysterical, as I recall. Nice to meet you.


Irony is such a lovely thing, don't you think.

Oh, good. You caught that. Very good! And I didn't even have to put an eyeroll emote.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You're the one who bursts in on the Fukushima discussion telling everyone they're being emotional and hysterical, as I recall. Nice to meet you.

You're the one who obviously can't read. What else explains why people are calling for the end of nuclear power over a few burnt feet while thousands suffer and die in the larger catastrophe?

[RED DAVE]

... a few burnt feet ...Says it all. I have rearely in my life read a most insensitive remark.

And remember this is a so-called leftist writing about workers.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Back to the first turd dropped.


I don't have to answer to you, nor your anti-nuclear pseudo-science. It's pieces of shit like you who'll stand firmly clear against anything that could bring safe and clean energy to our planet.What is being asserted here is:

(1) Opposition to nuclear power is pseudo-science. This is a lie. Ask Michio Kaku.

(2) Nuclear energy is clean and safe. This is a lie. Nuclear energy produces nuclear waste which is extremely dangerous and must be stored for extremely long periods of time. And, as we are seeing in the current crisis, it is not safe at all.

(3) Somehow, somewhere, the bourgeoisie, the architect of world war, cold war, genocide, global warming and all the rest of its bag of tricks is going to produce something safe and clean. This is political naivite of the worst kind. What it means is that we can trust to bourgeoisie to solve the problems it willfully creates as part of its existence as a class.

RED DAVE

[Foreigner]

You're the one who obviously can't read. What else explains why people are calling for the end of nuclear power over a few burnt feet while thousands suffer and die in the larger catastrophe?

Irony is indeed lovely. Burnt feet, is it? Astonishing.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Says it all. I have rearely in my life read a most insensitive remark.

And remember this is a so-called leftist writing about workers.

RED DAVE

Yes, I'm saying that many more people (most of them workers, mind you) are suffering from the after-effects of the earthquake and tsunami rather than the reactor problems. But in your partisan antics you seek to twist such factual statements into something they aren't. That is the tactic of somebody with little to hand.


Irony is indeed lovely. Burnt feet, is it? Astonishing.

So tell me, how many people have suffered and died as a result of the goings on at the Fukushima complex, and how many have suffered and died due to the earthquake and subsequent tsunami trashing everything?

[Foreigner]

That's right, Nox. You keep it superficial, baby. And more power to you.

Clearly, likewise, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire was a far more horrible result for humanity as a whole than, say, the Deepwater Horizon spill, or, well, nuclear waste and pollution in general.

I think, in fact, I'll follow your lead and wax mightily indignant and sanctimonious over the fact that people dare even pay a moment's notice to the matter of nuclear meltdowns and radioactive waste, and in fact every other issue of pollution, when the obesity epidemic, smoking, car accidents and conventional workplace accidents kill more people in the aggregate. Who cares about long-term consequences?

I mean, of course you're not making the same mistake as one-issue liberal environmentalists, who focus on one issue and spurn others as irrelevant. Of course.

(One might also add that it is not the duty of Leftists to fight natural disasters. We mourn for that, we consider it horrible. But, you know, we do tend to focus our political and theoretical activity on the problems of social nature -- the man-made disasters --, over which there is much more area of genuine disagreement. So, you know, in case you mistake this political focus for callous lack of concern, no one is pooh-poohing the earthquake. We're dealing with a very specific question of something that lies, for the moment, in its shadow but will eclipse that earthquake in significance for our children. An issue of policy, not mere armchair quarterbacking and moral grandstanding. But nice introduction of passionate, sanctimonious irrelevancies to the discussion at hand.)


Yes, I'm saying that many more people (most of them workers, mind you) are suffering from the after-effects of the earthquake and tsunami rather than the reactor problems. But in your partisan antics you seek to twist such factual statements into something they aren't. That is the tactic of somebody with little to hand.



So tell me, how many people have suffered and died as a result of the goings on at the Fukushima complex, and how many have suffered and died due to the earthquake and subsequent tsunami trashing everything?

[Paul Cockshott]

umm... I just wonder one thing. Since nuclear power tend to create some waste (many, many tons/plant too be be more exact) and this waste is very, very toxic and dangerous and need to be stored for a very, very long time how can it be called clean?

Also, minign uranium is quite dangerous (like all mining) but here the miners tend to be exposed to High levels of radon, radium, cesium and radioactivity. It tend to pollute the nearby enviorment too, which is funny since we have some uranium here in Sweden but nowbody, not even the pro-nuke, want someone to digg for it because of the risks.

And coal mining by contrast is such a safe and healthy job.

[Paul Cockshott]

I assume, VG, that having posted this piece of crap without comment that you agree with its contents.

If this is true, get ready to mix it, Comrade. Monbiot's craven bullshit has already been dealt with.



RED DAVE

Where is it dealt with?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's right, Nox. You keep it superficial, baby. And more power to you.

Erm, go fuck yourself?


Clearly, likewise, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire was a far more horrible result for humanity as a whole than, say, the Deepwater Horizon spill, or, well, nuclear waste and pollution in general.

Is it now? I'm not even sure what your point is here, your insufferable attempts at being clever notwithstanding.


I think, in fact, I'll follow your lead and wax mightily indignant and sanctimonious over the fact that people dare even pay a moment's notice to the matter of nuclear meltdowns and radioactive waste, and in fact every other issue of pollution, when the obesity epidemic, smoking, car accidents and conventional workplace accidents kill more people in the aggregate. Who cares about long-term consequences?

Right, this is what I get when I say that people are lacking perspective? It's one thing to voice concerns over the practices of a company like TEPCO, it's quite another to conclude that nuclear technology should be banned.


I mean, of course you're not making the same mistake as one-issue liberal environmentalists, who focus on one issue and spurn others as irrelevant. Of course.

(One might also add that it is not the duty of Leftists to fight natural disasters. We mourn for that, we consider it horrible. But, you know, we do tend to focus our political and theoretical activity on the problems of social nature -- the man-made disasters --, over which there is much more area of genuine disagreement. So, you know, in case you mistake this political focus for callous lack of concern, no one is pooh-poohing the earthquake. We're dealing with a very specific question of something that lies, for the moment, in its shadow but will eclipse that earthquake in significance for our children.

You can do something about a slightly elevated risk of cancer. You can't bring back people killed by natural disasters. More can also be done to prevent nuclear accidents in the first place.

[Foreigner]

Is it now? I'm not even sure what your point is here, your insufferable attempts at being clever notwithstanding.

Just using your logic of comparing a one-time accident resulting in a substantial number of immediate fatalities to one that induces a long-term degradation of environment and increased trend in human ill health and mortality due to cancer, birth defects, and sub-cancer degradation (immunodeficiency, disruption of thyroid function, etc.).


Right, this is what I get when I say that people are lacking perspective? It's one thing to voice concerns over the practices of a company like TEPCO, it's quite another to conclude that nuclear technology should be banned.

No. This is what you get when you, with a stunning amount of willful ignorance, discount the entire field of consequences of radiological pollution and contamination, which will affect hundreds of thousands of people, then get on the bully pulpit about people's lack of concern for thousands of earthquake victims.

No, this is not about enlightening the ignorant who lack perspective. This is about refusing to even address the real concern, instead dismissing it as irrelevant and focusing on some other tragedy in order to cover the distraction.


You can do something about a slightly elevated risk of cancer. You can't bring back people killed by natural disasters. More can also be done to prevent nuclear accidents in the first place.

Objection: relevance.

(However, it supports my point. The job of the Left, I dare say, is certainly not to debate the irremediable.)

We don't need to compare earthquake tragedies and nuclear meltdowns and fires, and it is slightly less useful than discussing aggregate automobile accident fatalities in order to minimize the perceived relevance of war casualties.

Beyond that, 'slightly elevated risk of cancer' is an understatement, and potentially a rather egregious one the closer we get to ground zero, though you can always dodge this like a clever corporate attorney by simply saying, "you don't have irrefutable evidence of that in any particular case." Well, sure, this is something in the law classified as "capable of repetition but evading review" because, as far as I have ever heard, there can never be absolute, 100% certainty in any given case about the original source of a cancer. And so the apologists, hacks, and misinformed continue to discount long-term epidemiological trends.

Moreover, note that the working class does not have access to the medical niceties of the privileged classes. Maybe, for people of class and privilege, there are ways to deal with that -- frequent testing in order to catch it early, radiation treatment (itself a possible source of secondary cancers), etc. But not for the masses of people in the impact areas.

So, will you now come back with a castigation for my failure to compare this to the earthquake's economic disruption, and the suffering that will cause for the working classes, as well? Might be a clever distraction of the argument.

[Delirium]

Though i dont think that nuclear power is safe, it could be made much safer. As with many safety, environmental, and pollution issues it is a matter of profit for the companies that run the operations. Risk of catastrophic accidents could be lowered significantly if we were willing to invest the resources to make them safe.

A democratically run economy with a focus on long term human planning in this circumstance would undoubtably choose safety over profit.

[RED DAVE]

Let's be clear about this: NoXion and his ilk are supporting the continuous use and development of nuclear power by the bourgeoisie. The same class that brought us Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima would be permitted to continue on their erry way.

Meanwhile, the continued, principled opponent to nukes on the Left, that goes back to the late 60s, is somehow wrongheaded.

RED DAVE

[Jazzratt]

Let's be clear about this: NoXion and his ilk are supporting the continuous use and development of nuclear power by the bourgeoisie. The same class that brought us Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima would be permitted to continue on their erry way. Compared to the alternatives nuclear power is quite safe, as you would have seen if youy'd followed NoXion's link earlier in this thread. As for the examples of nuclear "tragedies" you've put before us Three Mile Island weighed in at precisly fuck all deaths and raised the radition levels in local milk to just 0.75 Bananna Equivlent Doses and Fukushima's complications were largely due to the environmental factors of a sodding earthquake and tsunami rather than any inherent problems with nuclear power. I'd rather see the bourgeoisie expanding on that, frankly, then (for example) coal which kills people in its extraction (look up blacklung if you've the stomach for it) and spews out far more deadly amounts of radition in the form of radon gas, an enivtable biproduct even in "clean" coal. I've seen your lot offer nothing but fear, how about some safe, clean and efficient alternatives fuckface?


Meanwhile, the continued, principled opponent to nukes on the Left, that goes back to the late 60s, is somehow wrongheaded.

RED DAVE It is wrongheaded. It could have been advocated since zero bloody BC and would still be wrongheaded. Indeed the age of a wrongheaded idea doesn't magically grant it any more legitimnacy, after all the divine right of kings has been a concept for centuries before even you were imposed on the world.

[RED DAVE]

Compared to the alternatives nuclear power is quite safe, as you would have seen if youy'd followed NoXion's link earlier in this thread.I have followed the thread, and I believe that the arguments there are fundamentally flawed. It doesn't help that NoXion and company engineered the banning of Rose, who was the most knowledgeable opponent to nukes on this board.


As for the examples of nuclear "tragedies" you've put before us Three Mile Island weighed in at precisly fuck all deaths and raised the radition levels in local milk to just 0.75 Bananna Equivlent DosesAnd the nuke came within an ace of melting down and causing immense tragedy. I find your rageful scorn of your opposition, which I've been giggling about for months, to be evident here. However, it's far from a rational discourse.


and Fukushima's complications were largely due to the environmental factors of a sodding earthquake and tsunami rather than any inherent problems with nuclear power.That's like saying that when a badly-built house collpases as a result of a tornado, the fault is the tornado rather than the builder's. What we are dealing with is the fact that the bourgeoisie, which perched a nuke on top of cliff in an earthquake zone, rather than the inherent trustworthiness of nuclear power.

You trust the bourgeoisie to do right by this issue in the face of all previous evidence. The fact that they have been poisoning the world with coal for centuries is a very good argument against nukes.


I'd rather see the bourgeoisie expanding on that, frankly, then (for example) coal which kills people in its extraction (look up blacklung if you've the stomach for it) and spews out far more deadly amounts of radition in the form of radon gas, an enivtable biproduct even in "clean" coal. I've seen your lot offer nothing but fear, how about some safe, clean and efficient alternatives fuckface?(1) Grow up, adolescent; cursing is no substitute for politics.

(2) The horrors of coal, coal mining, etc., are well known. the solution to them is not nuclear, anymore than strychnine is a cure for cyanide.


It is wrongheaded.Because you say so.


It could have been advocated since zero bloody BC and would still be wrongheaded.Because you say so.


Indeed the age of a wrongheaded idea doesn't magically grant it any more legitimnacyTrue.


after all the divine right of kings has been a concept for centuries before even you were imposed on the world.Are you comparing the researches and actions of the Left to the divine right of kings?

What is comes down to is the bizarre combination of your adolescent rage and trust of the bourgeoisie.

RED DAVE

[Jazzratt]

I have followed the thread, and I believe that the arguments there are fundamentally flawed. So you have a response to his link, the one I was reffering to, that illustrated that nuclear power caused fewer deaths per terrawatt hour than the alternatives. Or are you just asserting the arguments are fundamentally flawed because they contradict the worldview you've dogmatically been entrentchiong yourself in for decades?

It doesn't help that NoXion and company engineered the banning of Rose, who was the most knowledgeable opponent to nukes on this board. What Rosa knew about nuclear power could be written on a rizla with a fucking marker pen. Her inadequecies in the subject manifested much as yours do, by arguing pointlessly from abberations and by making spurious dismissals.


And the nuke came within an ace of melting down and causing immense tragedy. I find your rageful scorn of your opposition, which I've been giggling about for months, to be evident here. However, it's far from a rational discourse. It was quite far from causing "immense" tragedy and the whole thing was averted basically because it was a textbook example of how a meltdown is dealt with. As for what you have and haven't been giggling about as you slouch ever onward to senility it's no concern of mine and likely of minimal interest to the rest of the board.


That's like saying that when a badly-built house collpases as a result of a tornado, the fault is the tornado rather than the builder's. What we are dealing with is the fact that the bourgeoisie, which perched a nuke on top of cliff in an earthquake zone, rather than the inherent trustworthiness of nuclear power. In that case I agree with you, I don't trust the bourgeoisie with nuclear power any more than I trust them with hydroelectric power or simple city planning. I don't think that nuclear power should be singled out for special criticism though especially as the well documented lack of foresight and technical werewithal on the part of the bourgeoisie extends to nearly every aspect of modern life. It's this same woefull inefficiency which lead to multitudes more people dying thanks housing being built on flood plains throughout the world (for example) and yet you seem perfectly happy not to kick up a fuss about the idea of living in houses.

You trust the bourgeoisie to do right by this issue in the face of all previous evidence. Bollocks I do. It would simply be more convienient for your argument if I did. You need to differentiate between reality and what you desperately wish were the case you bloviating moron.

The fact that they have been poisoning the world with coal for centuries is a very good argument against nukes. How? You're just saying the first thing that pops into your addled mind now.

(1) Grow up, adolescent; cursing is no substitute for politics. Piss off you ancient, senile windbag; attacks on the style in which an argument is presented are no substitute for valid counterarguments.

(2) The horrors of coal, coal mining, etc., are well known. the solution to them is not nuclear, anymore than strychnine is a cure for cyanide. Your analogy fails basically because whilst styrchinine and cynanide are comprable in effect the same does not hold for nuclear and coal no matter what metric you use to judge them.

Are you comparing the researches and actions of the Left to the divine right of kings? No of course I'm not. I'm simply illustrating why your boast as to the age of the feeble-minded arguments you're bringing to bear are, at best, irrelevant.

What is comes down to is the bizarre combination of your adolescent rage and trust of the bourgeoisie. Says you. The flaws, as I see them are on your part and are largely your willfull scientific illiteracy and the insurmountable ossification of thinking that comes from your proximity to the grave. If you think this has anything to do with me "trusting the bourgeosie" you've got another think coming you puffed-up windbag.

[RED DAVE]

The flaws, as I see them are on your part and are largely your willfull scientific illiteracy and the insurmountable ossification of thinking that comes from your proximity to the grave. If you think this has anything to do with me "trusting the bourgeosie" you've got another think coming you puffed-up windbag.Take a flying fuck at the Moon. Make sure you have your diaper changed first.

RED DAVE

[pranabjyoti]

Fission based nuclear power plants can not be made safer than the present level. Fusion can be, but I personally don't like DT fusion, but rather totally safe fusions like Boron-Hydrogen.
Nuclear energy is safe in just one sense that it doesn't produce any kind of greenhouse gas during the production. But, advocates of nuclear energy can not answer the radioactive waste problem. At present, the only way dealing with nuclear waste is burying it in a "very safe" place like a layer of salt underground. But, such safe places worldwide is limited.

[Salyut]

Fusion can be, but I personally don't like DT fusion, but rather totally safe fusions like Boron-Hydrogen.


B-H is a loooooooooooooong way off and it isn't totally aneutronic.

[Jimmie Higgins]

One of the main problems with the "it's better than coal" argument (other than it's a false set of options: coal or nuclear) is that in capitalism we are going to have both. Nuclear power has historically been primarily a justification and PR stunt for nuclear weapons for the bourgeois. It also allows some non-petrol generated power in an energy system built mostly on petrol. But even nuclear lobbyists don't argue that nuclear can replace oil or other energy sources, they always argue for it as a supplement. So with the cost of oil production making it maybe less-favored by the ruling class in the future, we are not going to get nuclear instead, we are going to get biofuel, coal, petrol and nuclear in combination:


MIT RELEASES INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY ON "THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY"
Professors John Deutch and Ernest Moniz Chaired Effort to Identify Barriers and Solutions for Nuclear Option in Reducing Greenhouse Gases
July 29, 2003
Washington, D.C. — A distinguished team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard released today what co-chair Dr. John Deutch calls "the most comprehensive, interdisciplinary study ever conducted on the future of nuclear energy."
The report maintains that "The nuclear option should be retained precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of power."So an establishment pro-nuclear power study...


But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes.
So pro-nuclear scientists argue that they don't know what to do with nuclear waste as it is let alone if it became more central to domestic energy production and that it is not cost-effective enough that the capitalist system will favor it on an economic level (despite some support for political reasons).


"There is no question that the up-front costs associated with making nuclear power competitive, are higher than those associated with fossil fuels," said Dr. Moniz. "But as our study shows, there are many ways to mitigate these costs and, over time, the societal and environmental price of carbon emissions could dramatically improve the competitiveness of nuclear power"So once we are already fucked and oil is too expensive to extract, then nuclear will become market-viable. So for us, that means a pro-nuke leftist strategy (that could viably make a positive impact on reducing carbon emissions from energy production) would have to be demanding that the government make and run nuclear plants now or offers tax breaks to entice energy companies to do it...:rolleyes: Not really the struggle I want to be a part of personally.


The study offers a number of recommendations for making the nuclear energy option viable, including:


Placing increased emphasis on the once-through fuel cycle as best meeting the criteria of low costs and proliferation resistance;
Offering a limited production tax-credit to 'first movers' - private sector investors who successfully build new nuclear plants. This tax credit is extendable to other carbon-free electricity technologies and is not paid unless the plant operates;
Having government more fully develop the capabilities to analyze life-cycle health and safety impacts of fuel cycle facilities;
Advancing a U.S. Department of Energy balanced long-term waste management R&D program.
Urging DOE to establish a Nuclear System Modeling project that would collect the engineering data and perform the analysis necessary to evaluate alternative reactor concepts and fuel cycles using the criteria of cost, safety, waste, and proliferation resistance. Expensive development projects should be delayed pending the outcome of this multi-year effort.
Giving countries that forego proliferation- risky enrichment and reprocessing activities a preferred position to receive nuclear fuel and waste management services from nations that operate the entire fuel cycle.

In other words nuclear power in neither economically (for the capitalists) or environmentally (for everyone else who has to live) a solution.

In fact they don't know how to deal with the waste, they don't know how to even test for safety for a large scale nuclear power system. In fact their answer to this problem is for the US government to "figure out" some solution somehow through research!


The authors of the study emphasized that nuclear power is not the only non-carbon option and stated that they believe it should be pursued as a long term option along with other options such as the use of renewable energy sources, increased efficiency, and carbon sequestration..
So again, even if they tripple nuclear power plants world-wide, it doesn't do the trick by itself. This is taking for granted that carbon emissions data from 2003 in a government supported study are even accurate after 7 more years of unchecked carbon emissions.

The energy crisis for the capitalists is how to produce cheap and trade-able energy and how to control their own supply and hopefully their competitors supplies. These considerations along with nuclear weapons production is the context of nuclear power's development and implementation, not safety for workers, our communities, or the environment.

[Pretty Flaco]

Isn't it possible that nuclear power could be made far safer in the future? In regulation and safety, hasn't nuclear power come a long way even in just a few decades of use?

[RED DAVE]

Isn't it possible that nuclear power could be made far safer in the future? In regulation and safety, hasn't nuclear power come a long way even in just a few decades of use?It's come all the way to Fukushima.

No, Comrade, there is no way for nuclear power to become safe under capitalism. For this to happen, the capitalist class would have to regulate itself in a manner that is has never done in history. At the heart of capitalism is the anarchy of the market, and this precludes the level of regulation necessary to make nuclear energy safe (if, in fact, it can be made safe).

RED DAVE

[Lord Testicles]

It's come all the way to Fukushima.


Except that it has surpassed Fukushima because construction on Fukushima Dai Ichi started in 1967 making it an old reactor.

[RED DAVE]

This is what the pro-nuke crowd around here is pimping for.

The truth behind India's nuclear renaissance
Jaitapur's French-built nuclear plant is a disaster in waiting, jeopardising biodiversity and local livelihoods


The global "nuclear renaissance" touted a decade ago has not materialised. The US's nuclear industry remains starved of new reactor orders since 1973, and western Europe's first reactor after Chernobyl (1986) is in serious trouble in Finland – 42 months behind schedule, 90% over budget, and in bitter litigation. But India is forging ahead to create an artificial nuclear renaissance by quadrupling its nuclear capacity by 2020 and then tripling it by 2030 by pumping billions into reactor imports from France, Russia and America, and further subsidising the domestic Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL).

The first victim of this will be an extraordinarily precious ecosystem in the Konkan region of the mountain range that runs along India's west coast. This is one of the world's biodiversity "hotspots" and home to 6,000 species of flowering plants, mammals, birds and amphibians, including 325 threatened ones. It is the source of two major rivers. Botanists say it's India's richest area for endemic plants. With its magical combination of virgin rainforests, mountains and sea, it puts Goa in the shade.

NPCIL is planning to install six 1,650-MW reactors here, at Jaitapur in Maharashtra's Ratnagiri district, based on the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) design of the French company Areva – the very same that's in trouble in Finland. The government has forcibly acquired 2,300 acres under a colonial law, ignoring protests. As construction begins, mountains will be flattened, trees uprooted, harbours razed, and a flourishing farming, horticultural and fisheries economy destroyed, jeopardising 40,000 people's survival.

To rationalise this ecocide, the government declared the area "barren". This is a horrendous lie, says India's best-known ecologist Madhav Gadgil, who heads the environment ministry's expert panel on its ecology. As I discovered during a visit to Jaitapur, there's hardly a patch of land that's not green with paddy, legumes, cashew, pineapple and coconut. So rich are its fisheries that they pay workers three times the statutory minimum wage, a rarity in India.

Jaitapur's villagers are literate. They know about Chernobyl, radiation, and the nuclear waste problem. They have seen films on injuries inflicted on villagers like them by Indian uranium mines and reactors – including cancers, congenital deformities and involuntary abortions. They don't want the Jaitapur plant. Of the 2,275 families whose land was forcibly acquired, 95% have refused to collect compensation, including one job per family. The offer provokes derision, as does Indo-French "co-operation". When Nicolas Sarkozy visited India to sell EPRs, Jaitapur saw the biggest demonstration against him.

The EPR safety design hasn't been approved by nuclear regulators anywhere. Finnish, British and French regulators have raised 3,000 safety issues including control, emergency-cooling and safe shutdown systems. A French government-appointed expert has recommended modifications to overcome the EPR's problems. Modifications will raise its cost beyond €5.7bn. Its unit generation costs will be three times higher than those for wind or coal. India had a nightmarish experience with Enron, which built a white elephant power plant near Jaitapur, nearly bankrupting Maharashtra's electricity board.

Jaitapur's people are more concerned about being treated as sub-humans by the state, which has unleashed savage repression, including hundreds of arrests, illegal detentions and orders prohibiting peaceful assemblies. Eminent citizens keen to express solidarity with protesters were banned, including a former supreme court judge, the Communist party's secretary and a former Navy chief. Gadgil too was prevented. A former high court judge was detained illegally for five days. Worse, a Maharashtra minister recently threatened that "outsiders" who visit Jaitapur wouldn't be "allowed to come out" (alive).
This hasn't broken the people's resolve or resistance. They have launched their own forms of Gandhian non-cooperation and civil disobedience. Elected councillors from 10 villages have resigned. People boycotted a 18 January public hearing in Mumbai convened to clear "misconceptions" about nuclear power. They refused to hoist the national flag, as is traditionally done, on Republic Day (26 January). They have decided not to sell food to officials. When teachers were ordered to teach pupils about the safety of nuclear reactors, parents withdrew children from school for a week.

The peaceful campaign, with all its moral courage, hasn't moved the government. It accepted an extraordinarily sloppy environmental assessment report on Jaitapur, which doesn't consider biodiversity and nuclear safety, or even mention radioactive waste. It subverted the law on environment-related public hearings. It cleared the project six days before Sarkozy's visit.

Why the haste? India's nuclear establishment has persistently missed targets and delivered a fraction of the promised electricity – under 3% – with dubious safety. It was in dire straits till it conducted nuclear explosions in 1998, which raised its status within India's national-chauvinist elite – and its budget. The major powers have "normalised" India's nuclear weapons through special exceptions in global nuclear commerce rules. France used these to drive a bargain for cash-strapped Areva. Its counterpart is the disaster-in-waiting called Jaitapur.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/08/india-jaitapur-nuclear-disaster-biodiversity

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Then of course, there's that little problem of nuclear waste. The capitalist solution, which is what the pro-nuke people are in support of (there is no socialist solution), is to bury the stuff underground.


The safety of long term storage requires the maintenance of the indus-
trial, regulatory and security infrastructure as described in previous sections.
Long term safety also requires that future societies will be in a position to exer-
cise active control over these materials and maintain effective transfer of
responsibility,knowledge and information from generation to generation.Long
term storage is only sustainable if future societies can maintain these
responsibilities.

Active controls cannot be guaranteed in perpetuity because there is no
guarantee that the necessary societal infrastructure can be maintained in per-
petuity. Therefore,for the types of radioactive wastes considered here — wastes
that remain hazardous for thousands of years — perpetual storage is not con-
sidered to be either feasible or acceptable.

The safety of geological disposal is widely accepted amongst the technical
community and a number of countries have now decided to move forward with
this option. Storage and disposal are complementary rather than competing
activities and both are needed.However,the timing and duration of the process
of moving from storage to disposal is influenced by many factors,not only the
sustainability of long term storage. Strategies for storage and disposal need
careful consideration in light of the many issues involved.These include trans-
port of radioactive wastes from storage sites to disposal sites, security of the
waste,retrievability of the waste from storage,safe packaging and conditioning
of waste for long term storage and disposal, availability of suitable disposal
sites, confidence that adequate levels of safety can be achieved, and the avail-
ability of finances.(emph added)

pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/LTS-RW_web.pdf

RED DAVE

[Paul Cockshott]

Let's be clear about this: NoXion and his ilk are supporting the continuous use and development of nuclear power by the bourgeoisie. The same class that brought us Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima would be permitted to continue on their erry way.

Meanwhile, the continued, principled opponent to nukes on the Left, that goes back to the late 60s, is somehow wrongheaded.

RED DAVE
I dont see the point of this objection. In the west nuclear power was introduced by the capitalist state, and thus under the regime of the capitalist class, but the same applies to gas turbines, steam turbines, wind turbines, hydro turbines, photo voltaic conversion etc.
The fact that all power technologies have been pioneered under capitalism makes it senseless to single out nuclear power. If we debate power technologies in a capitalist country we are debating technologies that will be developed under the dominance of the capitalist class.

Note that in most countries which had their indigenous reactor technologiees, for a large part of the development of nuclear power the development has been primariy by the state not private industry. This may not have applied so much in the US but it was certainly true in Europe Canada and India. In this case the motivation was not private profit, but the long term strategic supply of energy. Private industrry has been reluctant to invest in nuclear power because of the relatively high capital costs it involves. Left to themselves, without government regulation, they go for cheap short term solutions like gas powered or coal powered plants.

[Paul Cockshott]

Then of course, there's that little problem of nuclear waste. The capitalist solution, which is what the pro-nuke people are in support of (there is no socialist solution), is to bury the stuff underground.

(emph added)

pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/LTS-RW_web.pdf

RED DAVE

Why do you regard this as unsafe?
Evidence from the ancient natural nuclear reactor in Gabon indicates that the fission products migrated only a very short distance of the order of meters, before decaying.

[Paul Cockshott]

I would agree with what Dave forwarded about the hazards of pressurised water reactors.

[black magick hustla]

i think its dumb to be completely anti-nuclear/pro-nuclear or whatever. shit wont change at all if like green bosses banned nuclear reactors or whatever. i dont know why is it such an issue in socialist millieus. im more interested in workers pushing for better wages in those areas and if they feel the need to dismantle those places they will. its like being pro walmart or anti walmart. who gives a fuick nobody of us owns that shit

[black magick hustla]

i am biased. i guess i like the idea of nuclear energy. but nuclear/particle physics is kindof my specialty. i think the discussion of nuclear/antinuclear is better left after we smashed capital or whatever, this discussions are overall meaningless. are we factory, pro factory. will cars exist in the future? are we against cars? so fucking dumb

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I think it matters only because so many leftists are glad to line up behind the interests of this or that capitalist industry (eg. oil, coal, etc.) all the while thinking (or pretending) that they're fighting the good fight for the natural environment. I agree that it's ridiculous to pick and choose which technology you're "for" or "against" all the while ignoring the main question, which is who owns and controls all the technology!

[RED DAVE]

I dont see the point of this objection.Of course you don't. I wouldn't expect you to.


In the west nuclear power was introduced by the capitalist state, and thus under the regime of the capitalist class, but the same applies to gas turbines, steam turbines, wind turbines, hydro turbines, photo voltaic conversion etc.Absolutely.


The fact that all power technologies have been pioneered under capitalism makes it senseless to single out nuclear power.Maybe to you it does.

Capitalism invented modern war. Why then during the 1950s did all factions of the Left, and a large crop of liberals, build a massive campaign against one class of weapons specifically: nuclear weapons? We did this because we recognized that in its zeal for profits and power, the bourgeoisie had developed a weapon so horrible that it endangered the future of the human race.


If we debate power technologies in a capitalist country we are debating technologies that will be developed under the dominance of the capitalist class.This is my point. And you and your ilk seem quite content about this. Does the presence of nuclear weapons in the hands of the bourgeoisie also leave you so calm?


Note that in most countries which had their indigenous reactor technologiees, for a large part of the development of nuclear power the development has been primariy by the state not private industry.Are you saying that under capitalism there's a qualitative difference between state-owned and private-owned business?


This may not have applied so much in the US but it was certainly true in Europe Canada and India. In this case the motivation was not private profit, but the long term strategic supply of energy.Actually, this was a perfect example of state capitalism, where the state develops and industry so that private capital can benefit.


Private industrry has been reluctant to invest in nuclear power because of the relatively high capital costs it involves. Left to themselves, without government regulation, they go for cheap short term solutions like gas powered or coal powered plants.So what is your point?

RED DAVE

[Paul Cockshott]

My point is that if you object to nuclear power because it is owned and operated by capitalist firms, then you should object to all other forms of energy generation. If you only object to nuclear power, then you are in effect acting as a lobbyist for the competing capitalist firms that produce conventional power plants, wind turbines and photo-voltaics.

The anti-nuclear campaigns have been quite effective lobbyists for these sections of capital.

[Salyut]

The anti-nuclear campaigns have been quite effective lobbyists for these sections of capital.

Didn't the German coal industry help fund the antinuclear movement there in the early 1990's? I've heard something to that effect.

[Foreigner]

My point is that if you object to nuclear power because it is owned and operated by capitalist firms, then you should object to all other forms of energy generation. If you only object to nuclear power, then you are in effect acting as a lobbyist for the competing capitalist firms that produce conventional power plants, wind turbines and photo-voltaics.

The anti-nuclear campaigns have been quite effective lobbyists for these sections of capital.

You missed the boat. Just a quick heads-up -- the objection to nuclear isn't because it's owned by capital. There are some other considerations that people find dispositive. Just so you know.

[RED DAVE]

My point is that if you object to nuclear power because it is owned and operated by capitalist firmsThat is an objection given the extreme danger of nukes and the relentless drive of capitalism for profits.


then you should object to all other forms of energy generation.Rhetorical nonsense. Wwe know that coal-, oil- and gas-fired plants are dirty and dangerous, but they are not dirty and dangerous in the way that a nuke it.


If you only object to nuclear power, then you are in effect acting as a lobbyist for the competing capitalist firms that produce conventional power plants, wind turbines and photo-voltaics.Stop being stupid. If I object to nuclear weapons, especially, it's not because I love drones, aircraft carriers and Stinger missiles. There is plenty of precedent on the Left for singling out nuclear weapons. This is the same principle.


The anti-nuclear campaigns have been quite effective lobbyists for these sections of capital.Fuck you. You might as well say that the ban the bomb movement (unless you oppose that) was a lobbyist for hand grenades.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Since the disaster at Fukushima has now been upgraded to a disaster equivalent to Chernobyl, is there anyone on the pro-nuke side who has the guts to admit they were wrong?

RED DAVE

[Salyut]

Since the disaster at Fukushima has now been upgraded to a disaster equivalent to Chernobyl, is there anyone on the pro-nuke side who has the guts to admit they were wrong?

RED DAVE

I'm not wrong.

[Rowan Duffy]

Rhetorical nonsense. Wwe know that coal-, oil- and gas-fired plants are dirty and dangerous, but they are not dirty and dangerous in the way that a nuke it.

But what criteria are we using to assess "dirty and dangerous"?

In terms of dangerous, by even rather extreme estimates on the impact of Chernobyl, nuclear power comes out looking very good as compares coal, oil and even gas in deaths per TWh and that is even while leaving the entire question of global warming out of the discussion.

As for dirty, the waste from current reactors is not really a big problem with a combination of reprocessing and vitrification and then burial. In the future we could develop comercialised versions of MSR or other reactors with very short lived waste and high burnup and the waste problem would become very minor and managable indeed.

[Zederbaum]

Does the presence of nuclear weapons in the hands of the bourgeoisie also leave you so calm?
RED DAVE
It doesn't make us hysterical anyway.

Nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons are very different things. While they are based on the same scientific knowledge, there is no reason to throw the power generation overboard because of the horrorific consequences if the weapons are used.

In any case, the fundamental scientific knowledge cannot be undone. The issue is whether it can be directed in a more fruitful direction. There are potential methods of power generation, e.g. liquid fluoride thorium reactor which produces considerably less waste and is not suitable for use in weapon production.

[Psy]

Since the disaster at Fukushima has now been upgraded to a disaster equivalent to Chernobyl, is there anyone on the pro-nuke side who has the guts to admit they were wrong?

RED DAVE

For me it is more of amazement that the Japanese bourgeoisie lacks the iron fist to protect property of Japanese capitalists from TEPCO's incompetence. In comparison the US bourgeoisie state didn't care about stepping on the toes of General Public Utilities during Three Mile Island, and General Public Utilities wanted the US bourgeoisie state to fix their mess as they knew that meant the bourgeoisie state was taking full responsibility for solving the crisis, if the reactor fully melted down it would have been on the governments watch not theirs.

Yet in Japan we have TEPCO still calling the shots when it is clear they lack the resources to handle the crisis while the Japanese bourgeoisie state just lets the situation get worse even though it is a critical threat to their security.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The anti-nuclear campaigns have been quite effective lobbyists for these sections of capital.


Didn't the German coal industry help fund the antinuclear movement there in the early 1990's? I've heard something to that effect.:rolleyes:

Didn't Republicans give money to Nader - better vote for the Democrats then! If we are against fracking for natural gas are we also shills for petrol or coal? No, it doesn't work that way.

There is no Nuclear vs. Coal or Nuclear vs. Petrol in the larger picture. Sure industries always try and use public opinion in their favor or to the disfavor of their competitors, but the reality is that it is not Nuclear on the one hand and "clean coal" or petrol or renewable on the other, it's all of them together. That's why rather than pushing for alternatives that could also have catastrophic effects, any alternatives we should favor are the ones that will not potentially destroy a sea somewhere, make our drinking water flammable, or cause a meltdown or waste that might destroy staple crops or fisheries or water supplies.

Bush and Obama argue for nuclear ALONG WITH "clean coal" and bio-fuels, more oil drilling, more shale etc. So argueing FOR nuclear power is not the same as demanding an end to the harmful production of energy under capitalism - even setting aside the idea that nuclear could be a better alternative.

There are two energy crises: the one for the capitalism and the one for the planet (and those who live on it obviously). The primary problem for the ruling class is not that fossil fuel production is bad for the environment and could cause climate instability that can not easily be reversed (if at all), the problem is that the capitalist economy is built on cheap fuel and the imperialist division of the world is also build around control of the major resources for energy production. If petrol becomes too expensive, then the economy will be fucked and the wold world order will go out the window. That's their problem. Our problem is that the way capitalism runs production is altering the world in ways that we may not be able to cope with.

[Quail]

Nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons are very different things. While they are based on the same scientific knowledge, there is no reason to throw the power generation overboard because of the horrorific consequences if the weapons are used.

There is the issue that materials needed for nuclear power can be traded and used for nuclear weapons. Widespread use of nuclear power makes that easier.


In any case, the fundamental scientific knowledge cannot be undone. The issue is whether it can be directed in a more fruitful direction. There are potential methods of power generation, e.g. liquid fluoride thorium reactor which produces considerably less waste and is not suitable for use in weapon production.
I agree that we need to look at nuclear power and the research that we've already done, and instead of abandoning it due to health and safety concerns, we should be looking at how we can develop the technology to get around these problems. Alongside renewable energy production, I think that nuclear energy could be a valuable resource.

However, I do think that we should support nuclear power critically, and very critically under the current economic system. In a communist society, nuclear power may be useful and perhaps a good option for some of our power, however, under capitalism, there will always be more problems, since the profit motive tends to lead to cutting corners with safety (for example). I also think it's important to differentiate between problems inherent to the technology and problems due to the socio-economic system.

Apologies if I don't make as much sense as I think I do. I've been drinking. :o

[Paul Cockshott]

That is an objection given the extreme danger of nukes and the relentless drive of capitalism for profits.

Rhetorical nonsense. Wwe know that coal-, oil- and gas-fired plants are dirty and dangerous, but they are not dirty and dangerous in the way that a nuke is.
clearly not in same way as nuclear, but my view is that on balance they are much worse:
1. Many more deaths in coal mining than uranium mining.
2. Local air pollution ( local in the sense of anything from a city to a region, or continent.) Look at the deaths in the great Smog of 1952 caused by coal smoke -- some 12000 in London alone over a a couple of weeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog
Then consider the state of health in Silesia as a result of decades of burning of brown coal.
Then conside the Ethiopian famine and famines in the Sahel during the 70s and 80s as a result of a shift in the monsoon pattern brought about by the increased cloud cover over Europe due to smoke from power stations.
3. Global air pollution and global warming, these threaten future food supplies and if continued will result in mass starvation. Large parts of the currently fertile grain growing areas of the USA could become to hot and dry for agriculture, and parts of the tropics will have a wet bulb temperature above 35c. At this temperature people die of heat stress.

[pranabjyoti]

clearly not in same way as nuclear, but my view is that on balance they are much worse:
1. Many more deaths in coal mining than uranium mining.
2. Local air pollution ( local in the sense of anything from a city to a region, or continent.) Look at the deaths in the great Smog of 1952 caused by coal smoke -- some 12000 in London alone over a a couple of weeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog
Then consider the state of health in Silesia as a result of decades of burning of brown coal.
Then conside the Ethiopian famine and famines in the Sahel during the 70s and 80s as a result of a shift in the monsoon pattern brought about by the increased cloud cover over Europe due to smoke from power stations.
3. Global air pollution and global warming, these threaten future food supplies and if continued will result in mass starvation. Large parts of the currently fertile grain growing areas of the USA could become to hot and dry for agriculture, and parts of the tropics will have a wet bulb temperature above 35c. At this temperature people die of heat stress.
Well, do you think nuclear fuel is the only alternative to coal? There are no other fuels to replace coal?

[Rowan Duffy]

There is the issue that materials needed for nuclear power can be traded and used for nuclear weapons. Widespread use of nuclear power makes that easier.

Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors (AHR) projects were shut down more than once by the AEC because of their inability to produce sufficient quantities of nuclear material for use in bombs. [Kirschenbaum 1944]. MSR could be run on fuel and in regimes that would also make them poor producers. BWR without reprocessing/fast rector would also make poor bomb material producers.

Thorium reactors would be similarly poor for the generation of bomb material. The Thorium cycle produces U233 which is inevitably co-mixed with U232 due to a side-reaction. This U232 makes U233 dangerous to work with as a bomb material and the bomb gives off what is essentially a radiation beacon making it very hard to use it without detection.

[Rowan Duffy]

Well, do you think nuclear fuel is the only alternative to coal? There are no other fuels to replace coal?

The point is obviously that when assessing various different energy production methods they have to be compared on a fair playing field where the benefits and demerits of each are contrasted without hysteria.

Nuclear fares better than coal and natural gas on most reasonable measure and with greater use of trains could replace a lot of oil as well. It's better as a base load with current technologies than wind or solar. It's poor at load following but with overcapacity it can do that as well. Geothermal and tidal are promising technologies and should be invested in to bring them into use. Hydro power is mostly saturated in Europe so it's not so useful there, and in the third world it has a much much worse track record than nuclear so advocates should be careful.

Solar and wind are not feasible replacements without a massive infrastructure project to create a hugely wide-spread grid over massive land areas combined with enormous pumped water storage. Advocating them without understanding that is dangerous. It presents them as alternatives without looking seriously at the disadvantages.

[MortyMingledon]

I am as of yet undecided about nuclear power, but I think it should definitely be avoided when run by profit-driven capitalists who are likely to cut costly safety measures. Apparently (if this article is to be believed) Tokyo Electric avoided upgrading their Seismic Qualification (the minimum seismic activity needed to drive the plant into meltdown) at their Fukushima reactor to save on time and money:

http://www.zcommunications.org/tokyo-electric-to-build-us-nuclear-plants-by-greg-palast

Please ignore the america-centric rhetoric of the article :)

[Dr Mindbender]

Assuming he is responsible environmentalist he does not support the continued indefinite use of non renwable sources, I'd like to know how RED DAVE would counter the problem of regional innappropriateness of certain renewable energies... Solar not working in colder or rainier climates, wind power or hydro not working in landlocked or isolated places.

Speaking as an asthmatic, I have a personal beef with coal burning.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There is the issue that materials needed for nuclear power can be traded and used for nuclear weapons. Widespread use of nuclear power makes that easier.

It depends on what reactor technology/fuel cycle sees widespread deployment. CANDU reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor) using the thorium fuel cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle) results in no weaponisable materials.

[Paul Cockshott]

But what criteria are we using to assess "dirty and dangerous"?


As for dirty, the waste from current reactors is not really a big problem with a combination of reprocessing and vitrification and then burial. In the future we could develop comercialised versions of MSR or other reactors with very short lived waste and high burnup and the waste problem would become very minor and managable indeed.
What is MSR an abreviation for

[Paul Cockshott]

Well, do you think nuclear fuel is the only alternative to coal? There are no other fuels to replace coal?
Well all available alternative fuels also contain carbon, though not in the same quantity as coal. Natural gas is significantly cleaner, but reserves of natural gas will last for less time than coal reserves. If one is serious about preventing climate change, one has to aim to stop using all fossil fuels. That leaves biofuels, and these compete with food for land use.

[Zeus the Moose]

What is MSR an abreviation for

Molten Salt Reactor, I believe.

[Rowan Duffy]

What is MSR an abreviation for

A Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) such as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). AHR (Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors) and MSR both enable continuous reprocessing and effectively arbitrarily high burnup. Tuned appropriately they yield wastes with only short half-lives requiring storage of only 200-300 years. For this reason I think they are good candidates for next generation reactors.

[Paul Cockshott]

A Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) such as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). AHR (Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors) and MSR both enable continuous reprocessing and effectively arbitrarily high burnup. Tuned appropriately they yield wastes with only short half-lives requiring storage of only 200-300 years. For this reason I think they are good candidates for next generation reactors.
I remember reading about heavy water aqueous slurry reactors experimented with in the 50s and 60s, are they the same as aqueous homogenous reactors. I will go look them up.

[Rowan Duffy]

I remember reading about heavy water aqueous slurry reactors experimented with in the 50s and 60s, are they the same as aqueous homogenous reactors. I will go look them up.

Yeah, slurry reactors are considered a type of AHR. A good overview is given in the following Oak Ridge report:

http://moltensalt.org/references/static/downloads/pdf/FFR_chap01.pdf

[W1N5T0N]

Nuclear energy is not good for humanity.

[S.Artesian]

Deception... someone's accusing the anti-nuclear power groups of deliberate deception? The deliberate deception is practiced deliberately by those "responsible" for nuclear power generation-- or perhaps our technocrats haven't been keeping up on current events.


Here's just a small example of deliberate distortion:

Financial Times, 5/18/11
Doubt over meltdown dispelled

By Jonathan Soble in Tokyo
Published: May 18 2011 17:18 | Last updated: May 18 2011 17:18

In the first days after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station began spewing radiation in mid-March, the plant’s operator and Japanese safety regulators studiously avoided the word “meltdown”.
Yes, they said, uranium fuel rods in the tsunami-hit facility’s reactors might have been damaged after cooling systems failed. But the official view was that the rods were still mostly intact (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7feb0aaa-4d3d-11e0-85e4-00144feab49a.html#axzz1MVFfAnm2) – and radioactive material was safely contained inside their zirconium sheaths.
Now, a little over two months later, new information on the state of Fukushima Daiichi’s three overheated reactors is making the m-word impossible to avoid. Fuel inside the cores, it is now understood, melted far more quickly and extensively than was initially believed – disintegrating just a few hours after the tsunami knocked out the plants electricity and cooling systems.
Tokyo Electric Power, Fukushima’s operator, says there may be little left of the rods at all – just clumps of uranium at the bottom of the reactors’ innermost steel containers. Some of the melted fuel may have leaked into the concrete vessels that form the next layer of protective containment, making for a meltdown by even the narrowest industry standards.
On Wednesday Naoto Kan, prime minister, said Tepco was working on the assumption that some fuel from Fukushima Daiichi’s No 1 reactor core had leaked out. On Monday Haruki Madarame, chairman of the Nuclear Safety Commission, said: “Our understanding is that the No 2 reactor melted down. We surmise that the No 3 reactor is in the same situation.” The darkening picture of conditions inside the cores – which has emerged since Tepco began sending workers into the reactor buildings for the first time last week – has added to doubts about whether Tepco and the government disclosed all they knew in the early days of the crisis.
“Why did it take two months to get to this point?” the Nikkei newspaper asked in an editorial on Wednesday. “Even a rough calculation of conditions inside the reactors would have helped in choosing the best response in the shortest time.” One person close to the government’s response effort said Tepco and bureaucrats who oversaw nuclear safety used the fact such calculations were inherently speculative as an excuse to withhold bad news. “Everyone was trying to avoid responsibility.”
Tepco says it was able to reach its new conclusions only after engineers managed to get close enough to the cores to read water-level gauges and other instruments. But independent experts in Japan and abroad had reached similar conclusions much earlier, using computer models and contamination readings from around the plant.


So keep raising the diversion, the false flag about how the anti-nuclear groups are setting humanity up for catastrophe bye deceiving people when it is exactly the nuclear group that is deceiving people while it manufactures catastrophes.

[Johnny Kerosene]

What about, nuclear rockets. Not the bomb kind, but some sort of rocket for space travel fueled by a nuclear engine. That would be a pretty cool use for nuclear energy, assuming it's plausible, and I don't know shit about space travel so don't expect me to defend this idea if you disagree.

[Paul Cockshott]

What about, nuclear rockets. Not the bomb kind, but some sort of rocket for space travel fueled by a nuclear engine. That would be a pretty cool use for nuclear energy, assuming it's plausible, and I don't know shit about space travel so don't expect me to defend this idea if you disagree.
The idea is quite feasible and was worked on in considerable detail in the 50s under Freeman Dyson at General Atomics. It would have created prohibitive amounts of radioactivity during launching however. In those days they were setting off atmospheric tests every month and did not worry about such things. The test ban treaty banning atmospheric tests killed the project.

[S.Artesian]

You're the one who obviously can't read. What else explains why people are calling for the end of nuclear power over a few burnt feet while thousands suffer and die in the larger catastrophe?


This is priceless. If ever there was a post that deserved universal condemnation this is it, but apparently you can't neg rep an administrator, even when he or she acts like a total jackass.

Listen to our technocrat who wants to reduce the meltdown at Fukushiima to some "burnt feet" when in fact several employees have died from the explosions, numbers of others have had their health compromised, and we are no way near having this mess resolved, much less cleaned up. There is, after all, that little matter of what to do, and how to do it, with all those tons of irradiated water sitting in the reactor buildings.

Fact of the matter is we don't have an honest assessment of the total damage, the expected duration of the contamination, the extent of the contamination-- almost anything yet.

What an endorsement for the benefits technocracy holds for human beings from the lips of a technocrat.

[twenty percent tip]

If yourmom went to a carwash and got burnt but hotwax because the carwash waqs built by greedy shitheads would you sayall carwashes should bebanned and not good for human?

get the fuckj out of here/ frogs on the lilly[pad dont hope about the desertsands

[Zav]

Is it not general knowledge that radiation is harmful? Does it not corrupt DNA, possibly causing cancer? Perhaps nuclear plants do not generally leak radiation (except when there's an earthquake, like in Japan), but nuclear power IS NOT green. Nuclear waste is radioactive for longer than homo sapiens will be around on the planet, and cannot be easily gotten rid of.

[Princess Luna]

NP is a hell of a lot greener then coal

[pranabjyoti]

NP is a hell of a lot greener then coal
If green means poisonous, then it certainly is. Afterall, green is the color of Devil too.

[chegitz guevara]

NP is only cleaner than coal if you don't live down river from a uranium mine, and only if your reactor doesn't have problems, and you figure out what to do with the waste.

Of course, under socialism, we'll be getting rid of fossil AND nuke plants AND dams as well, and moving to much more sustainable fuel sources, like algae grown petroleum, wind, waves, solar, etc. I especially like the algae grown oil idea, because we can use it to remove excess carbon from the atmosphere.

[Foreigner]

Is it not general knowledge that radiation is harmful? Does it not corrupt DNA, possibly causing cancer? Perhaps nuclear plants do not generally leak radiation (except when there's an earthquake, like in Japan), but nuclear power IS NOT green. Nuclear waste is radioactive for longer than homo sapiens will be around on the planet, and cannot be easily gotten rid of.

Actually, apparently, there is some considerable effort on the part of the nuclear lobby, both explicitly and via shills (do we have a new term for the scientific community's version of "astroturfing"?), to deny even this.

Much of it is the usual minimization, but they do sometimes trumpet the argument that low-intensity elevated radiation levels are "good for you." Hell, give them enough time and they'll market nukie snacks as the next superfood.

Either way, though, yeah, they either flub by saying "there's radiation anyway" and so "a little more" won't hurt (sometimes while they make a smug display of eating a banana), or they flat out say it's healthy (!).

I know there's one study, done by a guy named Petkau, that found that chronic low-intensity radiation was actually significantly more harmful than one would expect by linear extrapolation from the harm caused by greater amounts, but I'm not totally up to speed on it. If someone could explain the Petkau effect in plain language, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would appreciate it.

[Jose Gracchus]

NP is only cleaner than coal if you don't live down river from a uranium mine, and only if your reactor doesn't have problems, and you figure out what to do with the waste.

Of course, under socialism, we'll be getting rid of fossil AND nuke plants AND dams as well, and moving to much more sustainable fuel sources, like algae grown petroleum, wind, waves, solar, etc. I especially like the algae grown oil idea, because we can use it to remove excess carbon from the atmosphere.

This is deluded. Capitalists don't open certain types of electrical plants just to deliberately externalize costs onto the workers, and capitalist owners are not the only decision-makers who would ever have to make difficult trade-off decisions about reinvestment of societal surpluses.

[S.Artesian]

This is deluded. Capitalists don't open certain types of electrical plants just to deliberately externalize costs onto the workers, and capitalist owners are not the only decision-makers who would ever have to make difficult trade-off decisions about reinvestment of societal surpluses.


But they do purposely locate plants where those costs will be imposed on those with less political power than others... see for example the history of locating petrochemical plants in Louisiana. They do purposely arrange for indemnification by local governments from the health and welfare damages done by their plants.

Yeah, should the working class ever be so fortunate to take power, it will face tough decisions, but it will be able to make those decisions free of the commerical pressure to maximize profit on investment. It will be able to make decisions by assessing real need, rather than rate of return.

[Jose Gracchus]

I totally agree. This is how socialism is in fact the solution to "environmental justice". I just don't think we should determine in advance that nuclear power cannot be conducted in a fashion limiting those costs externalized onto innocent people, just as much as would have to be with socialized coal-fired plants or other 'dirty' but nonetheless necessary industry.

[S.Artesian]

OK. But I think we can determine that any nuclear power under bourgeois rule will not be conducted to limiting those externalized costs.

And I'm pretty sure we can determine that boiling water reactors pose unacceptable risks, now, and in the foreseeable future.

[Jose Gracchus]

I should say "dirty" industries like coal, socialized in the interim, because clearly the workers will need electricity on Day 2, but will make conscious efforts to supersede and move beyond it. I think eventually we'll be able to work off of efficiency, conservation, renewables, smart grids and decentralization, combined with a few core provisions, like hopefully nuclear fusion and maybe orbital solar.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

NP is only cleaner than coal if you don't live down river from a uranium mine,

People who say this always forget about the negative effects of their own pet energy generation system, whether it's the corrosive and caustic chemicals used to etch solar panels, the rare earth metals required to make them efficient, or the industrial quantities of steel and aluminium required for windfarms.

Do you really want to go there?


and only if your reactor doesn't have problems, and you figure out what to do with the waste.

Have you ever done any basic research into nuclear energy generation? The vast majority of the time nuclear reactors operate completely without incident (even under the corrupt capitalist regime, which should damn well tell you something), and there are many options as to what to do with used nuclear fuel.

Can you name any?


Of course, under socialism, we'll be getting rid of fossil AND nuke plants AND dams as well, and moving to much more sustainable fuel sources, like algae grown petroleum, wind, waves, solar, etc. I especially like the algae grown oil idea, because we can use it to remove excess carbon from the atmosphere.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. A communist society needs energy abundance to be sustainable, and if you're crossing out nuclear and hydroelectric as options, then you quite simply won't achieve energy abundance, and your idealised communist society will either collapse, tear itself apart or regress back to scarcity-based systems, IE capitalism.

The reason for this is simple; the energy generation methods you advocate - wind, waves and solar - are highly dispersed methods of generating energy - you would need significantly more land area for any of those plants to match the capacity of a nuclear, coal or even hydroelectric plant.

Pound for pound, you simply cannot beat fissionables such as uranium in terms of available energy density.

[chegitz guevara]

That's what algae grown oil is for, as well as many other sustainable technologies. Nukes, at least on Earth, are a permanent solution for a temporary problem. Maybe in deep space and on lifeless worlds like the moon, nukes are an option, but here, we're getting rid of those fuckers ... dams too.

In addition, we can greatly diminish the amount of electricity we need by building more sustainable infrastructure, including buildings, power lines, etc.

[RED DAVE]

Pound for pound, you simply cannot beat fissionables such as uranium in terms of available energy density.And you can't beat them for potential disasters. I love the way you're bullshitting about this.

ÑóẊîöʼn, do you really trust the capitalist class to run nukes safely? Right now, there is a nuclear plant 38 miles from New York City that is running two nukes that are 36 and 37 years old. There have been numerous incidents, including a generator explosion last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center#Units_2_and_3

RED DAVE

[Tenka]

Maybe in deep space and on lifeless worlds like the moon, nukes are an option, but here, we're getting rid of those fuckers ... dams too.

Are we anticipating a great Beaver Massacre during the revolution? Anyway, I'm pretty sure dams have uses other than power generation....

[S.Artesian]

Nah... I don't think we're getting rid of dams, not unless and until we've figured out new methods for agriculture and flood control. Now we may not need to build many dams for hydroelectric power generation... but then again we may need to build some.

[chegitz guevara]

If profitability isn't a consideration, desalinization can take the place of reservoirs. As far as flood control goes, we should be moving people and farms off of flood plains as much as we can. Obviously we're going to need to keep some flood control measures in place, but power can be generated through other means, and there's so much of it available that we don't need hydro-electric dams.

[S.Artesian]

If profitability isn't a consideration, desalinization can take the place of reservoirs. As far as flood control goes, we should be moving people and farms off of flood plains as much as we can. Obviously we're going to need to keep some flood control measures in place, but power can be generated through other means, and there's so much of it available that we don't need hydro-electric dams.


Well, comrade, I think it's going to be very hard to move farming off flood plains without fucking things up a million times worse then they are now, because.....it takes lots and lots of water to conduct agriculture efficient enough and productive enough to support billions of people... not to mention it is the periodic flooding that actually helps restore the fertility to the land.

And for the record, I'm all for billions and billions of people on this earth.

[tbasherizer]

I've been reading up on Thorium, and though the stuff is mostly by one guy, it looks promising. This one guy, mind you, is a doctor of nuclearism, and to my very mildly nuclearly educated mind, the science makes total sense. Thorium is a naturally toxic element, sure, but its waste is better than that of uranium-reactors, and you can't weaponize it. It's brilliant! I mean, I'd certainly prefer nuclear fusion to any kind of fission, but in the meantime, this can hold us over.

My utopian mind sees us eventually setting up off-planet nuclear reactors that would beam the power down via microwaves to stations on the ground. This part of my mind, though, is called the 'communism cortex', and we all know how immediate its fantasy is to being realised.

[The Vegan Marxist]

And you can't beat them for potential disasters. I love the way you're bullshitting about this.

Are you seriously this fucking stupid? Coal beats nuclear energy on fatal disasters by a long shot! And what do you think will replace these nuclear energy plants as a long-range means of energy if we were to take them all down? Coal!

[S.Artesian]

Are you seriously this fucking stupid? Coal beats nuclear energy on fatal disasters by a long shot! And what do you think will replace these nuclear energy plants as a long-range means of energy if we were to take them all down? Coal!


Well, we're gonna find out since Germany says it will shutdown all its reactors by 2022 and wants to substitute 35% renewables by that time. My estimate is that actually, given the incredible reserves of natural gas recently developed in the US, the development of LNG shipping, they're counting on natural gas fired turbines to provide electricity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, we're gonna find out since Germany says it will shutdown all its reactors by 2022 and wants to substitute 35% renewables by that time. My estimate is that actually, given the incredible reserves of natural gas recently developed in the US, the development of LNG shipping, they're counting on natural gas fired turbines to provide electricity.

That would be an incredibly bone-headed move by Germany, moving to shale gas. Not only is it more expensive to extract, you have to transport it by sea which is more expensive than by pipe, the more intensive nature of the mineral extraction process means more CO2 released (in addition to the CO2 released when the damn gas is actually burnt), and then there's "non-renewable/non-recyclable" problem.

In the future, they may turn out to regret going for gas and becoming the energy thralls of Russia and/or the US.

Oh, and regarding safety - doesn't gas readily form explosive mixtures with air? and Germany's bright idea is to use this as a baseline power source?

[RED DAVE]

In the future, they may turn out to regret going for gas and becoming the energy thralls of Russia and/or the US.Oh no! Not energy thralls of the evil Bear and Eagle!

Are you reading what you're writing, Comrade?

RED DAVE

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Oh no! Not energy thralls of the evil Bear and Eagle!

Are you reading what you're writing, Comrade?

RED DAVE

So you have no problems with energy dependance? You're quite happy to see the environment fucked over, and Germany fucked over by whatever geopolitical whims take the fancy of whoever they decide to become dependant on for energy?

Do you read what you write?

[RED DAVE]

So you have no problems with energy dependance?No. If the sovereign capitalist country Germany becomes energy dependent on the sovereign capitalist countries Russia and the USA, I will lose no sleep.


You're quite happy to see the environment fucked over, and Germany fucked over by whatever geopolitical whims take the fancy of whoever they decide to become dependant on for energy?Capitalism is fucking over the environment daily. That is nothing new. I do not want to put in their hands radioactive dildos.


Do you read what you write?Very carefully.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

Capitalism is fucking over the environment daily. That is nothing new. I do not want to put in their hands radioactive dildos.

No, only hydroelectric, coal, and oily dildos. Which are a lot more dangerous than that of nuclear energy. Where we have one separate incident that led to a good amount of deaths through nuclear energy, we have several among the other varying energy sources. Which is what makes your words quite illogical.

[S.Artesian]

Look, are trying to argue that boiling water reactors owned, operated and managed by the bourgeoisie are safe? Are you trying to argue that boiling water reactors operated by anybody are safe, or safe enough to be the primary source of power in any society?

[chegitz guevara]

Well, comrade, I think it's going to be very hard to move farming off flood plains without fucking things up a million times worse then they are now, because.....it takes lots and lots of water to conduct agriculture efficient enough and productive enough to support billions of people... not to mention it is the periodic flooding that actually helps restore the fertility to the land.

And for the record, I'm all for billions and billions of people on this earth.

Farming on flood plains in the U.S. and most other developed economies is not fertilized by flooding. Rivers are walled off with dikes, to prevent that sort of thing. Heck, the Nile doesn't even flood anymore, thanks to the Aswan High Dam.

There are far more efficient ways to water crops than are done now, since water is so cheap. Most water in agricultural use is wasted. Furthermore, we could switch from a corn/soy based farming economy back to growing crops that are suited for their climates.

Also, most of that corn and soy goes for secondary use, not feeding the billions of humans. We could do away with most of it, and still have enough to feed the world from the U.S. alone, let alone all of the other agricultural regions.

[S.Artesian]

Farming on flood plains in the U.S. and most other developed economies is not fertilized by flooding. Rivers are walled off with dikes, to prevent that sort of thing. Heck, the Nile doesn't even flood anymore, thanks to the Aswan High Dam.

Yes, exactly. Rivers are dammed, lakes are formed, levees are built. I don't doubt that there are more efficient ways of farming; better use of water resources. And we certainly will switch from farming for exchange to farming for need and use, but I don't think we are going to do that by getting rid of dams.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No. If the sovereign capitalist country Germany becomes energy dependent on the sovereign capitalist countries Russia and the USA, I will lose no sleep.

So you're not bothered by the prospect of the US or a resurgent Russia gaining more leverage over Europe. Fair enough, I can hardly demand that a fine upstanding American citizen such as yourself to give a damn about a continent an entire ocean away. But as an inhabitant of the place in question I feel somewhat of a responsibility to actually give a damn, especially when it comes to the energy policies of close neighbours.

This is of course leaving aside the cementing effects that such events would have on US/Russian imperial hegemony.


Capitalism is fucking over the environment daily. That is nothing new. I do not want to put in their hands radioactive dildos.

Your position as I understand it - no nukes period - would actually serve to make matters worse.


Look, are trying to argue that boiling water reactors owned, operated and managed by the bourgeoisie are safe? Are you trying to argue that boiling water reactors operated by anybody are safe, or safe enough to be the primary source of power in any society?

Speaking as an advocate of nuclear energy, I have never endorsed 40-year-old BWR designs, and I doubt that any other fission advocates on this forum endorse the design either.

[S.Artesian]

Speaking as an advocate of nuclear energy, I have never endorsed 40-year-old BWR designs, and I doubt that any other fission advocates on this forum endorse the design either.

But have you opposed them? Because when you have the opportunity-- you trivialize the actual damage continuing to occur by references to a few people with burned feet.

See, it's exactly that reconfirms how much bullshit is wrapped up in the advocates of "technocracy."

As for the Europe stuff, and your posturing on behalf of poor little independent Europe... give us a break, do us a fucking favor. Next thing you know you'll be out there defending poor little Belgium and Luxemburg from the Nazis, poor little Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland from the big bad Germans. Get a grip.

[S.Artesian]

That would be an incredibly bone-headed move by Germany, moving to shale gas. Not only is it more expensive to extract, you have to transport it by sea which is more expensive than by pipe, the more intensive nature of the mineral extraction process means more CO2 released (in addition to the CO2 released when the damn gas is actually burnt), and then there's "non-renewable/non-recyclable" problem.

In the future, they may turn out to regret going for gas and becoming the energy thralls of Russia and/or the US.

Oh, and regarding safety - doesn't gas readily form explosive mixtures with air? and Germany's bright idea is to use this as a baseline power source?

Except there's a glut, an overproduction of natural gas. From the Financial Times
June 3, 2011:


Gas export move to ship US glut to rest of the world

Trader in natural gas were jolted by a sudden leap in gas prices on a quiet Friday two weeks ago. The reason? The US had just authorized its first big exports of liquefied natural gas.

The export project, led by Cheniere energy, marks a big step toward the globalization of gas markets and will put the US in competition with exporters in Russian and Qatar.

If successful, the Cheniere project and others that follow could give consumers such as utilities more negotiating power. It also promises to shake up range-bound gas trading.....


Very interesting article that argues that this will bring down the cost of gas in the EU as NG gas prices in the US, set at the Henry Hub in La. are $5 per million BTU, is well below the price set at the UK hub, $9/mill BTU, and in Asia where the price is figured as a percentage of crude prices and is now $13 per million BTU. Almost 70% of the NG sold in continental Europe is linked to the price of oil.

The article states that Cheniere already has a deal to supply LNG to Endesa in Spain and Sumitomo in Japan, which is expected to move heavily toward using NG as a substitute for nuclear.

The US is the cheapest NG producer in the world, and that includes the additional fixed costs of extracting shale gas.