We know better now.

Those of us who were around at the start of nuclear power know that just about everyone believed the "energy to cheap to measure" mantra. It sounded like the natural progression of things at the time.

Today we clearly know better, and nuclear is being phased out world wide, in some places faster than others. There will always be some research and scientific reactors, but the nuclear age is over.

Einstein was not speaking out against nuclear power.


http://www.turnthetide.info/id54.htm

But....

If one studies the issue, one comes to realize that the coupling of the nuke bombers with the nuke power plants is like one big happy family. But that is only if one is not blind as a bat.

The “stated purposes” of the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists were:

1. To advance the use of atomic energy in ways beneficial to mankind.


2. To diffuse knowledge and information about atomic energy and to promote the general understanding of its consequences in society and to the people of the United States of America in order that an informed citizenry may intelligently determine its policy and shape its action to serve its own and mankind’s best interests.

Last edited Fri Jun 29, 2012, 01:30 PM - Edit history (1)

That it is our mode of thinking that hasn't changed.

Humans took hold of the power, while using the same thinking which has put at us war with each other. That's what pissed off Albert.

And should concern everyone.

Why would you expect it to? The basic drivers of our apparently rational thoughts about such matters as power and survival are buried much deeper in the brain than our neocortex. The function of the neocortex is as much about dressing up those instinctual, unconscious drives in rationalistic clothing as it is about "de novo" rational thought. In a very real sense we don't control our thoughts, they control us.

Our behaviour with respect to nuclear power in both the military and civilian spheres is a product of these instinctual drives. Those drives are very hard to overcome, especially in groupthink situations like the military, governments and corporations. We see exactly the same patterns around trying to prevent climate change or the concept of reducing economic growth.

It's one of the key reasons humanity has painted ourselves into this corner.

65 years ago, one of the smartest men alive said that we humans were trapped in a dangerous way of thinking that would lead.... well, to here.

NPP's weren't part of Al's life in '46. But I think most of us can rest assured that he would have a very dim view of the Fukushima's.

Albert Einstein spoke out against weapons. He thought it was vitally important to educate people that “the atomic bomb” was not just a big bomb. He warned about future wars where nuclear weapons would be used by both sides.

He is said to have written to Harry Truman:

[font face=serif size=3]“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”[/font]

The atom is not "out of control."

It is, by far, the world's largest climate change gas free source of primary energy, and has been for several decades.

The only thing that is "out of control" is the fear, superstition and ignorance of the anti-nuke cults, who do things like develop fetishes for instance that a nuclear power plant is not risk free in a 9.0 earthquake and 15 meter tsunami - even though the nuclear event killed no one whereas the non-nuclear event killed 20,000 people - and further give not a rat's ass about climate change and the fact that dangerous fossil fuel waste, commonly referred to as "air pollution," kills 3.3 million people per year continuously without a peep out of the anti-nuke cults.

Ignorance, fear and superstition are killing our planet, and the anti-nuke cults, with their irrational hatred of the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free primary energy, with their "nuclear exceptionalism" are the problem, not the solution.

"Nuclear exceptionalism" is the ridiculous and absurd claim that issues of environmental impact, cost, sustainability, and social costs are only relevant to the nuclear case - which anti-nukes view is splendid isolation from the alternatives - and that somehow, in spite of well demonstrated reality derived from more than 5 decades of commercial operations of nuclear power plants, nuclear is worse than its alternatives, because apparently, it's spelled with an "N."

Nuclear power need not be risk free to be vastly superior to all of its alternatives. It need not be perfect to be vastly superior to all of its alternatives.

It only needs to be vastly superior to all of its alternatives, which it is.

Have a nice weekend.

Fukushima, we have been told time and again, wouldn't have gone bonkers if the generators hadn't been so poorly placed.

That is the problem. Sure, we can control the atom. Duh!!

We just can't control all the other stuff that has to operate to keep the atom from going bonkers all over the landscape.

It is inherent in our lack of proper modality to NOT do all the other necessary things around a nuke plant to keep the nuke power contained. Profit or just stupidity?

It is what Einstein was thinking: That with such a powerful thing, our way of operating and thinking would eventually cause the great idea to go bonkers. And if you can't see it has gone bonkers, then you must be blinded by your mode of thinking.

Einstein was a pacifist. At Szilard's prompting, he famously composed a letter to FDR encouraging research into atomic energy, because he feared the Nazi’s might develop an atomic bomb.
http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/18-chain-reaction-from-einstein-to-the-atomic-bomb

Once it was clear that the Nazis and Japanese would not develop atomic bombs themselves, Szilard, Einstein (and others) opposed their use by the US, and again wrote to Roosevelt to tell him so.




http://www.dannen.com/decision/45-07-03.html

Thank you.

He was banned from smirkingchimp and has been repeatedly suspended from du and dailykos.
And don't pretend you don't know this.

He hardly ever comes around any more, so let's not worry too much about him, k?

It shows that we use much more coal than nuclear power, it also appears to show a rather sharp increase in the consumption of coal over the past decade (although, the coal line looks to me like we could fit a polynomial to it pretty well.)

However, the graph does not show the relative risks of coal and nuclear power (although, in principle, I agree with you, coal is the more immediate threat.)

I'm not sure how that works.

I’m simply saying that the graph doesn’t tell us much about the relative risks, only about relative usage.

Let’s say (just for purposes of argument) that (on a watt-per-watt basis) coal power is one tenth as hazardous as nuclear power (how would we say that? I don’t know.) Then, looking at the graph, we would see, that overall, coal is almost as big a danger as nuclear, and looks like it will become the bigger threat in a few years.

On the other hand, let’s say that (on a watt-per-watt basis) coal and nuclear power are equally hazardous (or that coal is more hazardous.) In that case, the graph’s implication would be clear. Coal is by far the bigger threat, and rapidly growing worse.


However, since we don’t really have a watt-per-watt basis for comparison, the graph, by itself, is somewhat irrelevant. All we can say is that the threat (world wide) due to coal usage is (apparently) increasing, while the threat (world wide) due to nuclear power is (apparently) holding steady, or perhaps decreasing slightly (although, given that the nuclear power is being generated in aging plants, I suspect the risk is increasing somewhat.)


That being said, we have a problem, right now, with greenhouse gases, which in my estimation is a more serious threat (especially in the short term) than the problems of nuclear waste and the threat of meltdowns. (So, coal, in my estimation is the more immediate threat.)

Once the concept of risk is raised, the conversation immediately becomes dominated by pencil-necked geeks with slide rules but no heart.

Risk is a concept we calculate, threat is a concept that we feel. It's much harder to obscure feelings with sophistry, so that's why I prefer to talk about threats.

So, you place more stock in feelings, rather than objective analysis? (See truthiness.)


If that’s the case, then the graph is entirely irrelevant. I can simply say that nuclear power “feels” like it’s more of a problem, and you can say that coal power “feels” like it’s more of a threat, and we will both be correct, knowing that the other is wrong.

Or, we can both say that coal is more of a threat, and point to the graph as if it somehow proves our point (but, in reality, it doesn’t.)

My issue is more with the use of the concept of risk. In risk assessments, an underlying feeling of threat is dressed up with the language of objectivity in order to validate the feeling of threat and expand the self-image of the person doing the dressing-up.

I think "objectivity" in these cases is largely an illusion, trotted out to create post-hoc validation for unconscious, emotionally-based decisions. Whenever someone claims that objective analysis "proves" some concept that has obvious moral baggage, their objectivity is questionable at best.

It really doesn’t support your case, but, since it has lines and numbers, it appears to.

Here's a list of coal protests: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nonviolent_direct_actions_against_coal

Daryl Hannah and Jim Hansen are among those who were arrested protesting coal.

And here's an article about the Keystone XL protests: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4983490

You threw up a red herring when you wrote: "focusing all our fear on nuclear power is ultimately counter-productive".

The fact is, we aren't "focusing all our fear on nuclear power", the nuclear rennaissance ( nuclear regurgitation is more accurate) was canceled by pro-nukes like the CEO's of Exelon and Entergy and Constellation because nuclear is not economically viable.

Environmentalists have long pointed out that nuclear is one of the worst options for trying to stop global warming, and we are seeing ever more clearly how nuclear has cost us time and money that could have been much better spent.

is continuing to use fossil fuels. Because of that I think we should be discussing a voluntary global economic slowdown at least as hard as we're discussing windmills and solar panels.

I do love the choice of nuclear -vs- fossil fuels!

Take it as a given that there will be no voluntary global economic slowdown. Even if the “developed” world went along with it, the “developing” world is already going quite slowly, and they represent the majority.

But to paraphrase your point, "Take it as a given that there will be no voluntary global reduction in the use of fossil fuels."

The point is we need to stop doing so much energy-dependent stuff, no matter where the energy comes from.