Nuclear is Our Future Pro-nuclear activist group

The author of this article posted to Know_Nukes admits that their conspiracy theories about depleted uranium are probably wrong.

But what if they weren’t?

That boils down to an extremely conservative attitude. It is formally known as the Precautionary Principle: don’t do anything unless all the possible problems to future generations are known and solved. Since humans aren’t infalliable and can’t predict everything, don’t do anything–even if you know the problems you’ll cause are less severe than what you’re currently experiencing.

How can you know that it’s a net gain if you can’t know everything that will happen in the future? Easy. Today’s problems, if unsolved, will continue unabated into the future, indefinitely. Thus, whatever problem is eliminated, whatever net gain is made, will be projected into the future from this day forward.
I’m all for precaution–eliminating, reducing, and optimizing risks; establishing a coherent system by taking problems that will always be there and letting them work against each other. Given two two-by-fours, I’ll lean them against each other instead of trying to balance them on their ends and complaining that doing so requires perfection and is inherently unstable, and mere humans cannot be trusted with two-by-fours as a result. However, I am not in favor of swinging in trees.

The Precautionary Principle has nothing to do with precaution. It is simply a reactionary philosophy that has been with humanity since our first consciousness, and is keeping humans who have the bad luck to be born in the Third World barefoot and sick when solutions are well-known and available.

Give me the real left wing. Not the left wing of Amory Lovins, but the left wing of FDR. Give every person everywhere an American standard of living, and watch their environmental impact go down as they rely less on nature for their needs. Telling a man who is up to his waist in a rice paddy in Bangladesh that he needs to use less energy is not the answer. A radical overhaul of the poverty lifestyle forced upon him by reactionaries is the answer, and doing so is our moral obligation.

Filed under Applications, Sustainability

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

George Bush has proposed a series of international meetings on how to replace the Kyoto Protocol with something that works. At this point, I think it’s fairly evident that:
1. The Kyoto Protocol doesn’t go far enough and has set up a system which has been manipulated to obstruct real progress.
2. Global warming as a result of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere beyond the capability of natural systems to absorb it is a fact of physics.
3. We need a concrete procedure in place for an orderly, face-saving transition from the combustion era instead of more meetings and non-binding agreements.

Count me skeptical. I don’t see anything here that satisfies the third point, but perhaps George Bush knows by now that any proposal of his will be rejected simply because it came from him (which is wrong, even though I don’t agree with him on much), and is trying to set up an international conference where Obama or Hillary will present something nearly identical to what he would have.
Let’s just hope that successor doesn’t drop the ball.

Link.

Filed under Environment, International, Politics and Regulation

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 2 Comments »

I recently got my hands on an anti-nuclear activist’s comment submitted to the Department of Energy on GNEP’s environmental impact statement. It serves as an example of a few things to do when writing public comments, as well as some things not to do.

First, don’t talk about morals and ethics; talk about the legal and public relations implications of the proposed action. Morals and ethics are nice, but being immoral or unethical doesn’t have an immediate negative effect on the decision-makers. Being sued or inciting a riot does, and a comment must make clear that the proposed action is either illegal or will result in negative political consequences.
If the proposed action is legal and you still don’t like it, you have two options. If you have enough money, lawyers are extremely creative and can concoct an admissible contention from almost anything, and trials/settlements cost the opponents money even if you lose. If you have no money and a lot of people, get about 1,000-1,500 of them to submit near-identical comments threatening protests and media activity. And above all, be prepared to follow through if they go ahead with the proposed action; you can’t be caught bluffing. If you are, that’s the end of your credibility.

Do not assume that they have received “expert analyses” and that you only have to second them. Know the most important points of those analyses and echo them as though you didn’t know about the expert analyses–it’s much more impressive to whatever bureaucrat reads the comment if they think that there’s a huge groundswell of opposition for diverse, original reasons instead of three guys and their 1,500 foot soldiers.

Don’t ask them to follow the procedure. They either will follow the procedure or won’t, and the only thing you can do is threaten negative consequences if they don’t (or do, if you don’t want them to follow the procedure).

Don’t include conspiracy theories. Preferably, don’t originate them or subscribe to them, but don’t try to analyze people’s motives or do a power structure analysis, either. They don’t care about that. Again, they care only about negative consequences to them politically, legally, and financially if they proceed. If you don’t want them to do whatever they’re doing, make it clear that your organization will inflict those negative consequences.

There are more subtle ways to threaten the DOE with legal action than to say “if you proceed with this program, we will be forced to pursue legal action.” State what exactly is not legal about what they are proposing–they’ll fill in the rather obvious blank if you identify yourself as a member of an organization explicitly formed to oppose the proposal. Likewise with publicity campaigns. This is only credible, however, if a large number of people from that organization write in and identify themselves as such, and it really works when that organization has an ongoing publicity campaign that has reached the decision-makers.
This is also different from the standard protest letter or letter to the editor in that the decision-makers actually receive the letter or a summary and are obligated to at least publish it. As such, speak as a negotiator and use negotiating tactics; this is not a place to do general-public-type PR.
Likewise, don’t use personal attacks and don’t try to tell them about what they’ve done. They know what they’ve done and using personal attacks lessens the probability that they’ll accept a face-saving compromise. I’m not advocating for the further wussification of society, just differentiating between the approach needed for PR and the approach needed for negotiation. It is in fact fatal to weasel out, or to suggest solutions that don’t involve the agency you’re complaining about (like legislation).

Oh, and don’t make grammatical and spelling errors, or do anything else that undermines your credibility. Do not feed the ‘allegators’.

Filed under Activism, Environment, Politics and Regulation

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

“Nuclear or Geothermal power plants? Neither.”

-’amazngdrx‘

Geothermal energy comes from the heat given off when radiation from natural radioactive materials inside the Earth is absorbed by nearby rock or other materials. So it is actually a kind of nuclear power.

It is more commonly grouped with wind and solar under the banner of “renewable energy,” but this quote goes to show that “renewable” actually means “unfeasible.” When they realize that geothermal energy might in fact work, it becomes scum, the enemy of the environment. Energy allows us to do things, so if the objective is to starve polluting processes so that they can’t operate (a perfectly reasonable and understandable tactic), any functional energy source must be opposed, existing ones must be made as expensive as possible, and the depletion of reserves must be sped up–with a ban on exploration for new supplies–until there is no alternative but to revert to the solar-powered 1600-vintage “happy peasant lifestyle.” A lifestyle, I might add, which would have killed me at birth.
Thus, I ain’t too happy about proposals like this. I can put two and two together, and I like my energy. To quote one of the store designs (itself a quote):

Filed under Alternatives, Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Energy, Sustainability, Their Actions

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

A completely bogus study from Sweden purporting to demonstrate that people are more likely to get cancer if exposed to pre-industrial levels of radiation than if they were exposed to atomic bomb detonations once again raises a question about anti-nuclear groups’ unwavering support of the politically-motivated Linear-No-Threshold radiation impact hypothesis (LNT):

Why on Earth do they support it?

The LNT is, at its core, an assumption. A graph is constructed, with radiation exposure on the horizontal axis and cancer deaths on the vertical axis. The Japanese atomic bombing survivors’ exposure and cancer data is then plotted, and a line is drawn from there to zero radiation and zero cancer.
Seriously.
No low-dose data is included–not from pre-industrial cancer rates, which involved basically the same radiation exposure as today yet were practically nonexistent, and not from the definitive study on the matter, which tracked all the radiation ever received by maintenance crews in Navy nuclear shipyards–and found a mortality rate over 20% lower than their coworkers in non-nuclear shipyards.

But if anti-nuclear groups want a scientific investigation of the health effects of radiation, as they so often claim to do, why do they support an assumption?

Pro-nuclear, anti-nuclear, and in-between organizations all should recognize the fallacy of relying on assumptions, and insist on a well-funded NAS investigation of the health effects of ionizing radiation, with the objective of identifying whether or not there is a threshold, and if there is one, upper and lower bounds.
I call on anti-nuclear groups to show that they have confidence in their claims by submitting them for rigorous peer review.

Filed under Fun With Statistics, Health, Radiation, Research, Their Actions

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

An Australian indigenous group has volunteered a part of their land as a low- and intermediate-level waste repository (read: for rubber gloves and used reactor parts, respectively).

Do you think they’ll stop using the “environmental racism” argument? Don’t hold your breath.

Link.

Filed under Environment, International, Perception, Sustainability, Waste

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

A species of fungus has been found to grow faster while being irradiated by Cesium-137. No, it didn’t mutate and eat Tokyo.

Yes, it’s a preliminary study; yes, it will have to be replicated; yes, it needs to be studied instead of ignored.

Link.

Filed under Health, Radiation, Research

Posted on May 26, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

They’re proceeding with an 8% uprate to their four Soviet-era reactors, and are looking for up to six gigawatts of new capacity beyond that. Nuclear power is under consideration for at least some of that; the rest will probably be coal.

Will they burn lignite, walking the fine line between coal and combustible dirt? Perhaps.

Either way, coal kills. It is an ethical imperative to keep coal fumes out of our air, coal ash out of our water, and coal dust out of the lungs of miners. I hope they build six nice, big, new nukes.

Link.

Filed under Alternatives, Environment, Health, International, New Build

Posted on May 26, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

It is “being studied.”

This is in addition to and in cooperation with the Chinese project from a while back. It is also made significantly easier by the dirty brown coal burned in many places in Europe, which contains more uranium (as well as other radioactive material) that would otherwise end up in the environment.

Link.

Filed under Alternatives, Environment, Fuel Cycle

Posted on May 26, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

I didn’t know it was this easy to get press. Maybe we should pour orange juice into a vacuum breaker and get the NRC’s response on video, or make an inflatable of a polar bear hugging a containment structure, or something like that.

How to turn a five-minute calculation into a “major, startling new report”:

1. Figure out how much nuclear waste was produced by nuclear power plants in each state from publicly-available numbers. Inflate this figure by a factor of 20-30 by ignoring the unused fuel still left in the fuel rods that are in storage.
2. Get population data.
3. Divide.
4. Give it to your state groups to make a hullabaloo, even if the number is all of two pounds.

That’s right. The most nuclear waste that anyone has accumulated per capita around the country is 2.15 pounds. That’s something to be proud of–how much carbon dioxide has accumulated in the atmosphere from coal burning, per capita, and how much particulate matter is in people’s lungs from coal burning, per capita? And how much of that nuclear waste is in the environment?

Zero.

Perversely, this is being used to justify a subsidy for fossil fuels, paid for by the operators of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. In Anti-Nuke World, climate scientists have it all wrong: carbon dioxide doesn’t cause global warming; nuclear power plants do. Sure.

Talk about social responsibility. Yes, nuclear waste is going to be around for a while; a lot longer if we don’t reuse the half-used fuel that poses the biggest part of the waste problem. But so are the Pyramids; the Pyramids have no conceivable use to the generations that have had to live alongside them. Like the Pyramids, there’s no way for it to magically disperse itself into the environment. Like the Pyramids, it doesn’t require any nannying. Like the Pyramids–and unlike chemical toxins from coal burners–it has a finite lifetime. Like the Pyramids, people regard it as magical and not the physical entity that it is.

Let’s cite this study in the future. It looks very useful, not just from the data, but from the source.

More from We Support Lee (plus background on the subsidy here).

Link.

Filed under Activism, Environment, Fun With Statistics, Sustainability, Their Actions, Waste

Posted on May 26, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »