[Peace-discuss] Nuclear power?

[C. G. Estabrook]

I'd be glad to see a serious discussion on the subject by people who are not 
shilling for the interests of corporations, the military, or academic 
institutions. Physicists from the Manhattan Project through the Cold War and the 
first generation of nuclear power plants have shown themselves generally 
subservient to those interests -- from Oppenheimer and Teller to the 
contemporary Department of Energy, perhaps including Steven Chu.

Serious -- and successful -- criticisms of nuclear weapons and nuclear power 
have come from people outside of those institutions.  I'd like to hear more of 
that. Democracy should be skeptical of experts with interests.  --CGE


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> But the fact is, Carl, that you know nothing of the science that 
> convinced the author to change his mind, and in your ignorance of these 
> matters, you just pooh-pooh them, a not admirable knee-jerk reflex.   I 
> have been in contact with scientists at Argonne National Laboratory who 
> had been working/designing on the fourth generation reactors mentioned, 
> and they are justly receiving an increasing amount of attention because 
> of the advantages they potentially present. There are problems in 
> constructing such reactors, of course, and it won't be tomorrow that 
> they will be built, but they are very promising from various points of 
> view, especially if one looks a couple of decades ahead, when energy and 
> climate issues will probably be even more critical than they are now. --mkb
> 
> On Feb 12, 2009, at 1:16 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> The author spends most of his article complaining about how unpleasant 
>> Greens are to him, rather than presenting the argument that led to his 
>> "Damascene conversion ... a month ago."  He relegates that to a 
>> reference to "Prescription for the Planet, a new book by the American 
>> writer Tom Blees."
>>
>> Timeo hominem unius libri ("I fear the man of one book") said Thomas 
>> Aquinas. We've been hearing the science-has-made-nuclear-power-safe 
>> argument since the Eisenhower administration, but very little about 
>> the cui-bono argument.  The persecution should contest both points.  
>> --CGE
>>
>> PS -- I appreciate your paying attention to my letter, Wormwood, but I 
>> had less Lewis in mind than the bitter herb (parallel to Sage) that 
>> some say is the translation of Chernobyl...
>>
>>
>> John W. wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:28 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu 
>>> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
>>>    Did you read the article, Wormwood?
>>> Yes, I did.  It said that advances in technology have rendered 
>>> nuclear plants much safer than they used to be, even to the point of 
>>> being able to use "spent" nuclear fuel that up to now we haven't 
>>> known how to store or get rid of.
>>> Of course I have no independent scientific proof either for or 
>>> against the author's claims.  I figured that Mort, being a physicist, 
>>> might be a credible source.  But perhaps you have greater knowledge 
>>> of things scientific, Screwtape?
>>> Wormy
>>>     John W. wrote:
>>>        On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:54 AM, C. G. Estabrook
>>>        <galliher at uiuc.edu <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>
>>>        <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>>> wrote:
>>>        'Persecution' seems to be just what the guy deserves.  --CGE
>>>        Care to elaborate, O Sage One?
>>>        Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>>        For those on the list who are critics or distrustful of nuclear
>>>        power
>>>        generation, you might want to read this:
>>>        -- from the U.K. Sunday Times, last September.
>>>        
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4836556.ece
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>