[Peace-discuss] Nuclear power?

[Morton K. Brussel]

Conclusion: All who see beneficial aspects to nuclear power are  
shills. As are almost all the scientists and engineers who have  
studied the issue, i.e., experts. There's a kind of head-in-the sand  
phenonenon at work here, a legitimate distrust , but carried to  
extremes: Two  orthogonal cultures, where there should be a meeting of  
the two. .
--mkb

On Feb 12, 2009, at 7:01 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> 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