SEE for yourself:CNN to broadcast "Pandora's Promise" on Thursday

[PamW]

CNN will be broadcasting the widely acclaimed Robert Stone documentary, "Pandora's Promise" which takes a look at the nuclear power issue through the eyes of some famous environmentalists:

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/30/cnn-films-announces-acquisition-of-pandoras-promise-for-fall-2013-broadcast/?SR=Pandora%27s_Promise

This is an opportunity to see for yourself if what you've read / heard about nuclear power is really true.

Many of the claims from the anti-nukes are just not true. For example, that old canard that there are no insurance companies that will insure a nuclear power plant. In actuality, the Price-Anderson Act REQUIRES the utilities that operate nuclear power plants to get insurance from commercial underwriters like American Nuclear Insurers:

American Nuclear Insurers

http://www.amnucins.com/

American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) is a joint underwriting association created by some of the largest insurance companies in the United States. Our purpose is to pool the financial assets pledged by our member companies to provide the significant amount of property and liability insurance required for nuclear power plants and related facilities throughout the world.

Why go around with a bunch of FALSE propaganda in your head, courtesy of the anti-nukes?

Check and see how "Pandora's Promise" squares with your own understanding, and resolve any discrepancies.

CNN is presenting "Pandora's Promise" on Thursday November 7 at 9 PM EST and 6 PM and 9 PM PST.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[BlueToTheBone]

1. Promote nuclear energy after they pull the hot rods

for the crippled plant in Japan. Oh, and maybe after they've managed to re-mediate the Pacific Ocean which has had waste pouring into it for over a year.

[PamW]

2. Perspective?

BlueToTheBone,

Do you know how all the radioactive waste that poured into the Pacific Ocean as a result of Fukushima compares in magnitude of radioactivity, to the amount of radioactivity that is already in the Pacific Ocean due to the action of Mother Nature?

Mother Nature is orders of magnitude the greater radioactive "polluter" of the Pacific Ocean vis-a-vis the Fukushima accident.

Suppose we had a coastal town in California, and it had a sewage treatment plant that basically took human excrement and pumped it offshore several miles and dumped it into the Pacific Ocean to have the Pacific Ocean deal with it.

It doesn't sound nice to have excrement, raw sewage, dumped into the Pacific Ocean; but excrement is getting dumped into the Pacific Ocean all the time. What do you think the fish and marine mammals do? Suppose the amount of "natural" excrement due to fish and marine mammals was a MILLION times the amount as released by the sewage plant.

Does the Pacific Ocean really need to be remediated? Would it be a worthwhile thing to do to close down that sewage plant and recapture all the excrement and its byproducts that it put out over the years? Of course NOT. If you did that, you'd be changing the amount of excrement and byproducts by less than one part in a MILLION; or 0.0001%. That's not meaningful.

It's EXACTLY the SAME with Fukushima. You have to realize that Mother Nature radioactively "polluted" the Pacific to a degree orders of magnitude greater than what Fukushima has done.

It would be meaningless to "remediate" the Pacific Ocean.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[BlueToTheBone]

3. You're right.

There's no problem. "Mother Nature" is doing it all and our little puny shitting in the pond is nothing to be concerned about.

[PamW]

4. The anti-nuke IQ Test

Perhaps I should take the opportunity to reiterate my "anti-nuke IQ test"; the one FBaggins found so amusing and appropriate.

We have some radioactive material that amounts to "X" Becquerels in radioactivity. We are going to do one of 4 things to dispose of the material denoted A, B, C, and D

A) Remove 1 gallon of water from the Pacific Ocean, dissolve the radioactive material in that 1 gallon, and then dump the 1 gallon mixture back into the Pacific Ocean.

B) Remove 100 gallons of water from the Pacific Ocean, dissolve the radioactive material in that 100 gallons, and then dump the 100 gallon mixture back into the Pacific Ocean.

C) Remove 10,000 gallons of water from the Pacific Ocean, dissolve the radioactive material in that 10,000 gallons, and then dump the 10,000 gallon mixture back into the Pacific Ocean.

D) Remove 1,000,000 gallons of water from the Pacific Ocean, dissolve the radioactive material in that 1,000,000 gallons, and then dump the 1,000,000 gallon mixture back into the Pacific Ocean.

Which of the above scenarios, A, B, C, or D does the most environmental damage to the Pacific Ocean, or are they all the same? ( Cue Final Jeopardy music )

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

5. What a wonderful demonstration of the content of this pro-industry film

You've made 3 posts in this thread (counting the OP) and already you've made 2 false arguments on behalf of the nuclear industry.

1) You say critics of nuclear power point out that " there are no insurance companies that will insure a nuclear power plant".

That's a 'red herring' DrGreg. The actual claim made by critics of nuclear power is that the nuclear industry couldn't operate if it were required to meet the same liability standards the rest of the energy industry is faced with.

Underwriting by the ANI provides a limit of $375 Million per plant, so using Fukushima as an example, where the losses are estimated to be between $250-500 Billion, we can see that at around 1/1000th of actual damages, this "commercial insurance" is totally inadequate from the view of both investors and the likely affected general public. Without the special treatment afforded under the Price Anderson Act, the nuclear plants cannot be built or operated.

The self-insurance fund ($12B) of the nuclear industry is little better from the public's point of view, since it not only has a maximum payout that is only equal to the approximate cost of one nuclear plant, but it also is structured in a way that makes it nearly useless as a fund for compensating off-site damages to the public around the plant. Again, using Fukushima as a baseline (and it avoided damage to heavily populated areas like Tokyo) this self insurance fund raises the level of industry funded liability protection from the approx. 1/1000th of damages afforded the ANI policy to perhaps 2% of actual damages from a Fukushima level accident. Again, without the special treatment afforded under the Price Anderson Act, which would make the government liable for the remaining 98% of damages, the nuclear plants cannot be built or operated.

2) Your second regards treating the toxic emissions into the Pacific as if they were uniformly distributed. They aren't.
Based on a large number of variables, areas of concentration in the food chain can be expected. It is a complete misframing of the science involved in the consequences of the emissions to gloss it over with the claims you are making.

See these links for more information:
http://japandailypress.com/japanese-researchers-find-radioactive-cesium-in-pacific-plankton-2329359/

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/radioactivity_in_the_ocean_diluted_but_far_from_harmless/2391/

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/how-is-fukushimas-fallout-affecting-marine-life

Yes, I'm betting you've provided the perfect preview to Pandora's Promise.

[PamW]

7. Kris's usual tactic of MISCHARACTERIZATION

kristopher,

The points above about "no insurance" are in regards to critics such as Robert Kennedy Jr who don't say that the insurance will be insufficient, or raise issues as you have with regard to Price-Anderson. No he flatly says that there is "no insurance" which is FALSE:

You also IGNORE the provision of Price-Anderson that allows Congress to INCREASE those limits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government

Contrary to kris' contention; it's not automatically on the taxpayer; it is up to Congress.

Besides, what would be the limits if there were no Price-Anderson Act?

Suppose in 1979, the accident at Three Mile Island, operated by Metropolitan Edison, was worse, and the Price-Anderson Act needed to be invoked. In that case, other nuclear utilities like Commonwealth Edison of Chicago, Consolidated Edison of New York, Detroit Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric of California.... would be on the hook to provide funds to cover the liability caused by the Three Mile Island accident. However, there is the Price-Anderson limit on what those utilities needed to kick in.

What if there were no Price-Anderson Act? What is the limit on how much the utilities like Commonwealth Edison, Consolidated Edison, Detroit Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric.... have to kick in? The answer is ZERO. The reason is Three Mile Island was NOT their reactor!!!.

The problem with the anti-nukes is that they think there is this amorphous entity called "the nuclear industry" that can be sued. There is no such legal entity; it's a bunch of individual companies.

Consider the crash of the Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 in San Francisco a few months ago that killed 2 young girls ( plus one other that was killed by the San Francisco Fire Department in their response - one of their trucks ran over her. ) Who can the families of the 2 young girls killed in the crash sue? Can they sue "the aviation industry"? NO - they can sue Asiana Airlines. They can't sue United Airlines, or American Airlines, or Delta Airlines..... They can only sue Asiana, the operator of the ill-fated 777.

Likewise, without Price-Anderson; the amount of money that can legally be extracted from all the utilities that didn't own the reactor that has the accident is ZERO. Price-Anderson puts those other utilities on the hook for damages too; but the anti-nukes aren't satisfied with the limit. They want Price-Anderson repealed, but not thinking far enough ahead to realize that the limits without Price-Anderson on these other utilities would be ZERO.

As to the levels of NATURAL radioactivity in seawater; that IS fairly uniformly distributed because the oceans have be mixing for billions of years. The effluent from Fukushima has been mixing for less than 3 years; but the monitoring by the Lab that I work for, which has been monitoring the accident since the beginning, is showing that the Fukushima effluent is mixing and diluting, as all the scientists expected.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.

PamW

[PamW]

9. Kennedy fails to understand science.

One of the more appalling statements by Robert Kennedy Jr. was when he claimed that 95% of the liquid metal-cooled / breeder reactors ( his figures ) didn't work, and then made the categorical statement that the technology just plain didn't work.

Robert Stone countered that EBR-II / IFR operated for over 3 decades without problem.

However, consider the following analogy. There were at least 19 other people that attempted heavier than air flight before the successful demonstration by the Wright Brothers. So let's apply the "logic" of Robert Kennedy Jr. to the science of heavier than air flight:

"95% of the airplanes didn't work. So stop the research; airplanes DON'T WORK.

Somebody needs to explain to Mr. Kennedy that you don't "average" all the attempts, and you don't abandon research. When you get something that works, then it works.

One has to be careful, since Kennedy's "logic" could back-fire on Demoncrats. Using his "logic" one could say immediately after the Obama Administration gets the Obamacare website working, that the website wasn't working for the 19 days previous. Therefore, since for 95% of the days in November, the Obamacare website didn't work; then one could say, "Stop the research, Obamacare doesn't work!".

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

10. Demoncrats?!? Really???

"Somebody needs to explain to Mr. Kennedy that you don't "average" all the attempts, and you don't abandon research. When you get something that works, then it works.

One has to be careful, since Kennedy's "logic" could back-fire on Demoncrats. Using his "logic" one could say immediately after the Obama Administration gets the Obamacare website working, that the website wasn't working for the 19 days previous..."

Interesting how our fingers develop their own memory when typing something often enough...

[PamW]

11. UNINTENTIONAL - of course

kristopher,

It's an unintentional typo.

However, if the shoe fits...

As a scientist, I found the "logic" quite appalling. Doesn't he know that's what one does as a scientist; you make mistakes and learn from them.

How did he "think" all the progress that science has made, especially in the past few decades; was made.

Did he "think" that everybody had good ideas; and every invention worked the first time anyone ever made an initial version of the invention?

Is THAT how we got airplanes, and helicopters, and computers ( software works the first time the programmer tries it, first time, everytime. ).

If something doesn't have a perfect record of everything working first time; then we abandon that research. If you fail once, you GIVE UP.

Is THAT how some people "think" science works?????

PamW

[kristopher]

12. Freudian slip of the fingers

Given your posting history, calling it a Freudian slip of the fingers would probably be a good bet.

...I've taken on the real anti-nuke and renewable powerhouses. We're beating back the ones at DOE. Thanks to the Solyndra scandal we got DOE's chief "greenie" Jonathan Silver to resign. If the Congress keeps the pressure on, then we have a shot at clearing out the "renewables rats" that have infested DOE.
If we can clear them out, we can shutdown the subsidies to the so-called "greenie" "solutions". We won't be wasting any more of the taxpayers money on "greenie" solutions that are going nowhere.
If we can kill their subsidies for a year or two, they'll die on the vine...

PamW

[NoOneMan]

6. So things I learned

We must have power. Lots of it. We need cities with flashy lights like Times Square. If not, we live in filth and squalor. Don't even debate it! We need more, more, more, more, more or we sleep in a shit bed.

The power can't come from renewables because there are pictures of windmills they showed that don't move. And hell, even solar panels dont move. They just sit there. So no, not enough action to get all the immense shit-avoiding power we need from those.

So nuclear is the only option. Unless you like Hurricane Katrina's. That's right. HURRICANES!!!! You scared yet?

Nuclear is only bad in the 50s because idiot Bush like business men fucked it up. We will do it right this time. Please. Just 1 chance! Please!

Oh yeah. Nader doesn't like nuclear. We all hate him. Right! So fuck you Nader. You made Greenie Gore lose. Im going nuclear.

Also, lots of irrational hippies don't like it. Lots of clips of them saying dumb shit and marching.

Afterall, a dreamie environmentalist promotes it (the whole movie), so yeah ladies, time to pony up on Nuclear.

Anything I missed?

(I thought the "documentary" was deceptive shit, irregardless of my view on nuclear energy BTW. From the imagery they picked to the selection of people they interviewed or chose not to. The entire thing was meant to push you rather than present a balanced argument or educate. I don't like that shit, coming from whatever political spectrum)

[PamW]

8. What I learned...

The film Pandora's Promise was enlightening to me; because it opened a window into the reasoning of the environmentalists that oppose nuclear power.

I've always wondered why various "environmentalists" don't respond appropriately to arguments that I've made that are solidly based in the Laws of Physics, logic, and reason.

The reason is that the anti-nuke environmentalists didn't come to their stances and opinion via a thorough mental process. The film explained that they basically conform to a "tribal response" or "groupthink". The converted environmentalists in the film stated that their initial anti-nuke views came from the view that if you wanted to be an environmentalist, you had to be anti-nuclear, because environmentalists were anti-nuclear.

Richard Rhodes explains that he was originally anti-nuclear until he talked to the scientists, especially the physicists. Richard Rhodes states that with the help from the physicists, he learned that nuclear power plants are NOT what the anti-nukes portray them to be. Gweneth Cravens was anti-nuke until she was tutored by a scientist from Sandia National Lab named Rip Anderson, and with Anderson, visits nuclear facilities and makes the same discovery that Richard Rhodes made that nuclear power isn't what the anti-nukes portray it to be. Cravens chronicles that voyage to enlightenment in her book Power To Save the World

According to Pandora's Promise, much, if not all, of the anti-nuclear opinion can really be blamed on shoddy scholarship.

As scientific professional societies have said; we really have to remediate the disgraceful level of teaching of science in our schools. Science shouldn't just be for professional scientists to study.

I particularly liked Stewart Brand's challenge as to what humanity could do, and how much benefit could be brought to the majority of humankind that doesn't enjoy a USA-style standard of living; if only we had a source of plentiful, environmentally friendly power. So many advocate that the USA lower our standard of living to that of the rest of humanity. Stewart Brand asks why we can't elevate the rest of humanity up to our standard of living.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW