tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092016047044639779.post472655297085565728..comments2023-10-23T12:58:55.448-07:00Comments on Karl Grossman: Nuclear Power Can Never Be Made SafeKarl Grossmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15740689300440735323noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092016047044639779.post-77601303707043986272011-08-02T07:23:00.393-07:002011-08-02T07:23:00.393-07:00The article does little more than express a belief...The article does little more than express a belief based on what is clearly a visceral reaction to nuclear energy waste. There is no objective discussion of the benefits and costs (economics) of nuclear energy, but instead, a blanket statement is made and expects to be accepted with no statistical, mathematical, scientific or economic analysis. Without specifics the nuclear debate is completely inane. One can not say nuclear energy should be banned due to harmful waste products than any of the thousands of items we all use which produce deadly wastes. In a way the article reflects the extreme pacifist position towards war or killing: always wrong, no matter what. Any fool can see why this is an absurd philosophical dogma. Analogously, dogmatic opposition to every form of nuclear energy under all circumstances is equally absurd. The question is not whether or not to use nuclear energy, but to ask how to use it, just as we don't ban guns but debate fervently about how to use them.jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05642294583392732924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092016047044639779.post-13540922757826086402011-07-11T13:47:23.166-07:002011-07-11T13:47:23.166-07:00* I'd like to learn what Professor Grossman th...* I'd like to learn what Professor Grossman thinks about the "traveling wave reactor", per:<br /><br />> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/bill_gates.html<br /><br />--at about 13m-30s into the video.<br /><br />It seems a remarkable way to both use and get rid of a mountain of nuclear wastes --if it can work.<br /><br />* As to the Rickover quote, the main point is that the "father" of near flawlessly applied nuclear energy (the first Westinghouse PWR went into the Nautilus) --turned against it.<br /><br />CraigCraighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03443758677121846903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092016047044639779.post-47038190164836649272011-04-30T14:14:45.597-07:002011-04-30T14:14:45.597-07:00Rickover is not an authority on the evolution of l...Rickover is not an authority on the evolution of life. He is out by about 1.85 billion years. Earlier. In a radiation-bathed young planet, life got going by 3.85 billion years ago, or even earlier. How else could living cells be so good at repairing their DNA? Had Rickover even heard of the fact of DNA repair going on in every cell that exists? I doubt it. No good quoting someone who has not got the knowledge we have today about how cells operate and how long they have been around. In fact, the fact that you yourself have not investigated modern biological knowledge before writing this piece indicates that none of your work stands up to scrutiny. You are no scholar. Therefore everything is not to be relied upon in what you write.Carolinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00840924832697004069noreply@blogger.com