Consumer Homes.

Question:

>=Since we’re on the subject, what do you advocate that we do, near and far >=term, for our energy needs, Victor? >What needs?  From Victor’s point of view, there seem to be no such needs.  We >just do without, with no ill effects whatsoever.

Having Carl "explain" my views is an honor I could gladly do without. —

Response:

=>=Since we’re on the subject, what do you advocate that we do, near and far =>=term, for our energy needs, Victor? => =>What needs?  From Victor’s point of view, there seem to be no such needs.  We =>just do without, with no ill effects whatsoever. = =Having Carl "explain" my views is an honor I could gladly do without. But apparently necessary one, since Victor doesn’t deign to answer the question.  The truth hurts, eh Victor? Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That’s what I get paid for.  My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So unless what I’m saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don’t hold me or my organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.

Response:

When I took a guess at the number of reactor years post, I didn’t count the number of nuclear subs/ships.  Anyone have any idea of how many nuke ships & subs there are?  (world total, not just U.S.). Seems like including these vessels will increase the total number of "reactor years of experience" considerably.  Also seems like they’d be more prone to problems than land-based stationary power plants, so would have to be made more robust. How many nuke ships/subs have sunk? (I remember something about 2 U.S. subs. The radiation levels near them have been monitored since they went down, levels haven’t changed, if I remember right). Interesting to note that the discussions here generally deal with *commercial* reactors – perhaps because most of the data for the military reactors is classified… Perhaps if we engineers/scientists/mathematicians had had the foresight to realize that there’d be so many objections to nuclear fission, we would have just said "magic" when the lay-person asks "how does it work". Would that restore Jon’s faith in us? Mike Jamison "Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but thinking what no one else has thought"                                                 -A. Szent-Gyorgyi

Response:

>Perhaps if we engineers/scientists/mathematicians had had the foresight to >realize that there’d be so many objections to nuclear fission, we would have >just said "magic" when the lay-person asks "how does it work".

Y’all would have been much better off if the engineers and scientists working on nuclear power had not been so arrogant, so condescending, so prone to overestimating their own abilities,  so reluctant to admit to limitations and drawbacks, and so contemptuous of the public and its right to know. The lay-persons pay your salary, a little respect would be in order.  It might also help if the pathetic attempt to identify "scientific" with "pro-nuclear" were abandoned. Look over the list of whose on the board of directors of the UCS sometime. —

Response:

>Y’all would have been much better off if the engineers and scientists working >on nuclear power had not been so arrogant, so condescending, so prone to >overestimating their own abilities,  so reluctant to admit to >limitations and drawbacks, and so contemptuous of the public and its right >to know. The lay-persons pay your salary, a little respect would be in order. > It might also help if the pathetic attempt to identify "scientific" with >"pro-nuclear" were abandoned. Look over the list of whose on the board of >directors of the UCS sometime.

The question that continues to be unanswered is,   If the arguments against the continued development and use of nuclear   power are so good, why do are we exposed to such poor ones? The health-scare ones come first to mind.   The survivors of the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombings have experienced (through 1978) about an 8% excess of cancer; a real effect of exposure to high-dose radiation. The patients treated for cervical cancer and ankylosing spondylitis (in the past) experienced an increased cancer rate. The residents along the Techa River in the FSU appear to have been placed at elevated cancer risk by the pollution from the Mayak facility. But, despite the countless alarms, none of the claims of amazing increases in cancer rates around nuclear facilities stands any kind of close scrutiny.  While many appear, in all sincerity, to believe them, the evidence to support them is missing.  Most appear to the product of silly science. Richard Feynmann’s license plate parable should be required reading for all doom-cryers. Simeon Denis Poisson is probably spinning in his grave.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->When I took a guess at the number of reactor years post, I didn’t count the >number of nuclear subs/ships.  Anyone have any idea of how many nuke ships >& subs there are?  (world total, not just U.S.). >Seems like including these vessels will increase the total number of "reactor >years of experience" considerably.  Also seems like they’d be more prone to >problems than land-based stationary power plants, so would have to be made >more robust. >How many nuke ships/subs have sunk? (I remember something about 2 U.S. subs. >The radiation levels near them have been monitored since they went down, >levels haven’t changed, if I remember right). >Interesting to note that the discussions here generally deal with *commercial* >reactors – perhaps because most of the data for the military reactors is >classified… >Perhaps if we engineers/scientists/mathematicians had had the foresight to >realize that there’d be so many objections to nuclear fission, we would have >just said "magic" when the lay-person asks "how does it work". >Would that restore Jon’s faith in us? >Mike Jamison >"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but >thinking what no one else has thought" >                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi

The number of reactor years from the nuclear navy in the United Staes is on the order of over a 1000 reactor years if I am not mistaken (scales about right  30 years maximum and order 100 sub active etc).  During this time there has never been a reactor accident on the subs.  Two subs have sunk, at least one of which was due to nonnuclear piping failing if I am not mistaken. IN short, Rickover showed that if you are a hard nosed SOB who demands quality performance then reactors are approximatley as safe as oil fired furnaces in homes (perhpas better?!).  the problem appears to be that our vaunted private industry is incaable in many cases of enforcing the discipline which is requried for high quality reactor management.

Response:

>>Perhaps if we engineers/scientists/mathematicians had had the foresight to >realize that there’d be so many objections to nuclear fission, we would have >just said "magic" when the lay-person asks "how does it work". >Y’all would have been much better off if the engineers and scientists working >on nuclear power had not been so arrogant, so condescending, so prone to >overestimating their own abilities,  so reluctant to admit to >limitations and drawbacks, and so contemptuous of the public and its right >to know. The lay-persons pay your salary, a little respect would be in order.

Victor, No disrespect toward the lay-person was intended.  You’re reading into what I said. Also, the lay-person *doesn’t* pay my salary.  I happen to work for a NASA contractor, not NASA itself.  Indirectly, we all support each other… > It might also help if the pathetic attempt to identify "scientific" with >"pro-nuclear" were abandoned. Look over the list of whose on the board of >directors of the UCS sometime.

Obviously, "scientific" doesn’t equal "pro-nuclear".  It also doesn’t equal "anti-nuclear".  However, looking at something with a "scientific" mindset does equal:  rational.  As you say, "both" or perhaps "all" aspects of nuclear power, or any power generation scheme, should be looked at.  The benefits vs. harm (real and potential) should be looked at.  Both the anti and pro nukers say they’ve looked at both sides of the issue. the anti-nuke people don’t believe nuclear power should be used, perhaps ever, no matter how much safety is built into a plant. The pro-nuke people say there’s more safety built into the worst U.S. plant than was built into Chernobyl, and Chernobyl *wouldn’t* have happened if the safety devices built into it hadn’t been defeated (on purpose). We can argue these points until our fingers hurt from typing so much.  However arguing won’t change anything. I remember seeing something about Perry being one of the worst-designed? or worst-built? U.S. nuclear plants.  If Perry is the Perry I’m thinking of, it’s about an hour’s drive from me.  If it’s one of the worst-built plants, I think I’ll go check it out, when I have the time.  I would like to know what’s supposed to be bad about it (besides the fact that it’s nuclear). Since we’re on the subject, what do you advocate that we do, near and far term, for our energy needs, Victor? I already said I’m in favor of fission for short-term, and probably fusion and renewables for the long term.  Geothermal may hold more promise than most of the other renewables, from what I’ve read. >–

Mike Jamison "Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but thinking what no one else has thought"                                                 -A. Szent-Gyorgyi

Response:

> It might also help if the pathetic attempt to identify "scientific" with >"pro-nuclear" were abandoned. Look over the list of whose on the board of >directors of the UCS sometime.

I’d guess that the majority of the physical science community is pro-nuclear. The UCS themselves sent an anti-nuclear petition to Pres. Ford in 1975 with signatures of 2300 scientists, but this was all they could get from mailing the petition to 15,000 members of the American Federation of Scientists and subscribers to the (misnamed) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which is anti-nuclear. Has anyone seen a more recent polling of scientific opinion? — Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac’s" Dept. Engineering Physics McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada  

Response:

>> It might also help if the pathetic attempt to identify "scientific" with >"pro-nuclear" were abandoned. Look over the list of whose on the board of >directors of the UCS sometime. >I’d guess that the majority of the physical science community is pro-nuclear.

I’d guess otherwise, and I’d assign the same minimal value to both of our guesses. But, polling data tells us little here. What is important is that, contrary to the repeated claims of some in this forum, there are many respected and respectable scientists who are strongly anti-nuclear. If someone has a case to make for nuclear, let them try to make it on the merits, without attempting to claim their position as the "true" scientific position by definition. —

Response:

>No disrespect toward the lay-person was intended.  You’re reading into >what I said.

If you think that questions about how things work should be answered with obfuscation, you are not exhibting much respect. >Also, the lay-person *doesn’t* pay my salary.  I happen to work for a NASA >contractor, not NASA itself.  Indirectly, we all support each other…

Not much indirection, where do you think that NASA gets its money. >the anti-nuke people don’t believe nuclear power should be used, perhaps >ever, no matter how much safety is built into a plant. >The pro-nuke people say there’s more safety built into the worst U.S. plant >than was built into Chernobyl, and Chernobyl *wouldn’t* have happened if the >safety devices built into it hadn’t been defeated (on purpose). >We can argue these points until our fingers hurt from typing so much.  However >arguing won’t change anything.

Unfortunately, probably correct. >I remember seeing something about Perry being one of the worst-designed? >or worst-built? U.S. nuclear plants.  If Perry is the Perry I’m thinking

Read the UCS book "Safety Second". >Since we’re on the subject, what do you advocate that we do, near and far >term, for our energy needs, Victor?

See "America’s Energy Choices"  by UCS and others. —

Response:

>[...] What is important is >that, contrary to the repeated claims of some in this forum, there are >many respected and respectable scientists who are strongly anti-nuclear. >If someone has a case to make for nuclear, let them try to make it on the >merits, without attempting to claim their position as the "true" scientific >position by definition.

As everyone agrees (I hope) there is, by definition, no "true" scientific position on any issue.  There are, however, many ways to poll scientific opinion — some ways are better than others — and I’d be interested in any results that exist on the nuclear power question. Another barometer is to look at the number of professional societies and associations that have publicly endorsed or condemned nuclear power.  Groups like the IEEE, the Society of Professional Engineers, and WHO (World Health Organization) have endorsed it.  Who else has said what? — Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac’s" Dept. Engineering Physics McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada  

Response:

=Since we’re on the subject, what do you advocate that we do, near and far =term, for our energy needs, Victor? What needs?  From Victor’s point of view, there seem to be no such needs.  We just do without, with no ill effects whatsoever. Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That’s what I get paid for.  My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So unless what I’m saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don’t hold me or my organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.

Response:

check Janes for naval reactors check the American Nuclear Soicety (Chicago) for their publication on reactors of all types simply a matter of engineers researching a topic.

Response:

>check Janes for naval reactors

Make sure you have the latest edition, as this info is changing rapidly. I just found out that my old ship, _USS Virginia_ will be decomissioned instead of refueled next year.  Even worse than this is the _USS South Carolina_ will most likely be defueled and decomissioned immediately after her year-long refueling is done this year.  Meanwhile we are approach- ing the end of service life for numerous submarines and the original three nuclear cruisers.  The carrier numbers are growing, however, as we finish the refueling of _USS Enterprise_, and as construction continues on the _USS United States_ and _USS Stenis_. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->check the American Nuclear Soicety (Chicago) for their publication on >reactors of all types >simply a matter of engineers researching a topic.

Response:

>check Janes for naval reactors >check the American Nuclear Soicety (Chicago) for their publication on >reactors of all types >simply a matter of engineers researching a topic.

Yup,  one way is to check the literature, if you have easy access to it. Another way is to ask.  It’s our most devious way of finding information. We go ask someone who happens to know, and then claim we knew it all along The source are appreciated, thanks. Mike Jamison "Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but thinking what no one else has thought"                                                 -A. Szent-Gyorgyi

Response: