2007 January - Nuclear is Our Future

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“[Cancer deaths are dropping because of a] New government program designed to educate public about dangers of eating uranium”

-The Onion

Yes, I know it’s a joke, but that’s how a lot of urban myths get started.

Ingesting uranium in high doses causes kidney failure, not cancer. But the quote is actually pretty illustrative of the practical problems involved in studies of the health effects of depleted uranium (especially compared to “clean” alternative bullet materials like lead).

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Environment, Health, Physics

Posted on January 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Discussion Board Overhaul

I first launched the discussion board over eighteen months ago. After about a month, nobody used it any more; I’ve been scratching my head since, and I think I might have figured it out:

There wasn’t a space to actually discuss issues.

Duh.

So I completely overhauled it, with a Nuclear Issues category containing the forums Access to Energy, Alternatives, Economics, Environment, Fuel Cycle (with Fuel Recycling, Source Material, and Dual-Use Facilities sub-forums), How Nukes Work (with a Scientific Method sub-forum), Industry Performance, New Build and Decommissioning, Politics and Regulation, Proliferation (with a redirect to the Dual-Use Facilities sub-forum), Radiation and Health, Safety (with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island sub-forums), Security and Terrorism, and Waste. The Activism&Politics category has been renamed the Activism category, the Questions forum has been moved into its own category (Nuclear Glasnost–at the top of the board), the Studies forum has been moved into the Technical category, the Anecdotes forum has been folded into the Their Actions forum (which has been renamed the Anti-Nuclear Actions forum), and the Tactics forum has been folded into the Our Actions forum (which has been renamed the Pro-Nuclear Actions forum), leaving only the News forum in the News category. The forum descriptions have had some slight edits, and I’ve moved some topics around to fit the new structure. The categories have been moved around; it’s now (top to bottom) Nuclear Glasnost, Nuclear Issues, Activism, Technical, News, and Off-Topic (also with a new Nuclear Humor forum). I can’t figure out how to moderate topics and not posts added to those topics, so I can’t try this millionth different way to keep the Off-Topic forum’s obscene spam under control (this is why registration is required and also why you can’t post images). At least the spammers are getting a bit more considerate; they used to put it in the Fission Reactors forum.

If any of the original posters disagree about how their topics were moved, please comment here or on the board and I will move them back.

I’ve also updated the Board Guidelines:

-Try to keep discussions reasonably on topic. If requested, I (niof) will move them.
-Try to keep discussions in the correct forums. If requested, I will move them.
-I do not delete posts unless they are obviously spam or criminal in nature. My opinions are my opinions and are not reflected on the board. I am not the grammar police, the on-topic police, or your mother. However, if you do spam the board (defined as a post devoid of content but containing only links to non-nuclear-related external sites), I will delete the post and your account. If you don’t spam the board (defined as posting actual content, pro-nuclear, anti-nuclear, or anywhere in between), you will be part of an informed discussion of the issues free of censorship.
-If a forum doesn’t exist that fits your topic, post in the Site Maintenance forum requesting a new forum (e.g., Questions) or category (e.g., Nuclear Glasnost), give a reason that makes sense, and I will make a new one. I’m human; I’m sure there are things I overlooked.
-This board, as well as blog.niof.org, www.cafepress.com/niof, www.niof.org, and other sites that I admin, reflect the best of my ability. As I am not God, they do not reflect perfection. I cannot do everything right all the time; don’t sue me for it.
-All posts are the property of their respective owners, and they are solely responsible for any content.
-If you have any questions or comments about these guidelines, please email me, PM me, or post in the Site Maintenance forum.

Please feel free to use your best judgment about what to post; I’m a strong opponent of zero-tolerance policies of any sort and see my job as a board moderator to be interpreting the guidelines as situations come up. I hope this gives people some “regulatory certainty” and makes it clear that you’re free to post what nuclear-related content you wish to share with the online pro-nuclear community.

I would really like feedback on this. Is it useful and/or helpful to you? Are there other things that I should change? Should I shift more blog content into the discussion board a la Kirk Sorensen?

Filed under Site

Posted on January 30, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 6 Comments »

Site Reorganization Progress Report

Recently, I’ve been combing the archives, labeling all of the (currently) 1,362 posts so that they can be indexed topically when I switch from template to layout mode (readers shouldn’t notice a difference, except there will be two new sections–Recent Comments and Labels–and the Previous section will be down to five posts and will not appear on post pages). I should really also condense the sidebar contents; I’ve gotten emails from people asking me to link to their site when I already do, and that’s a pretty good indication that it’s hard to find things.

I’m continuing the topical reorganization although it may not look like it; I’m going through the archives in chronological order, and I’m almost through December 2005 although I haven’t done November 2005 yet (sounds like nuclear management, doesn’t it?). I’ve covered most of the things I want to write about (although I obviously haven’t written about them yet); most of the rest is FAQs.
As for the navigation of the main site, I was thinking of using the wikipedia-type method where approximately every third word is a link to an article, with the home page broken down into sections, each with a couple of drop-down menus on subtopics (Waste–>Repositories, for example). I would really like feedback on this.

I’m trying to post as much as possible, but I get the idea that topically organizing and indexing the content that I’ve already posted would better help readers find information. It’s supposed to be an informational site with a blog and news services attached, not a blog with an informational site attached and a half-baked news service that doesn’t even keep up with NRC press releases. I’m also looking ahead to 2009–the 30th anniversary of Three Mile Island–and how we’re going to handle it; I’ve registered the domains www.tmi30.org/.com/.net/.info and www.tmiplus30.org/.com/.net/.info and hope to launch www.tmi30.org (with redirects for the others) in January 2009, using content from the main site. If we can get our act together, this could be a major PR opportunity–explaining how a reactor works, why defense-in-depth poses problems, the difference between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, etc.

Other things:
1. The Energy Toolbar–a Google-Toolbar-like service for energy geeks–is currently on hold, but it will eventually be available (I’ve signed up for the service and arranged most of the buttons, but I haven’t collected all the necessary energy information links yet).
2. Somebody should do a website on Whole Ecology; I can’t right now, but being able to give a name to the environmental philosophy held by most scientists and some open-minded environmentalists could give us a boost. I suppose that could be the step after TMI+30 awareness, which is the step after writing a book and starting to organize campuses, which is the step after getting this incredibly disorganized site into a reasonably navigable form. So I guess I’ve got my work cut out for me for the next 5-10 years :).
3. Let’s go nuclear!

Comments?

Filed under Activism, Site