Friday, August 26, 2011

DA Ryan, spiraling down

DA Ryan just sinks lower and lower. Here is one of his most recent posts. I do not believe that I need to repond.

in response to a comment by daryan12:

Once upon a time I used to be a fan of nuclear energy. As far as I saw it, nuclear energy was the silver bullet solution to all of our energy problems and more. However, the more I’ve learned about the industry the more critical I’ve become. Notably the fact that most of the economic [...]

Another rant / rave / character assassination can be found here:
Yet again “Rank Amateur” Charles Barton demonstrates all the standard methods employed by the LFTR cargo cult in dealing with opponents, i.e. quote mining, misrepresentation of their statements, deliberate straw man building and Gish Galloping galore.

Again my views are completely misrepresented and taken out of context by CB. As anyone who reads what I actually say in my link below and compares it to what he claims I say (by quote mining) you will see a distinct difference. For example I acknowledged the new evidence that has emerged from the investigations into Windscale (showing minimal core burning) and even post a link to it on my page, although I also give several other counter points, as anyone doing a balanced critique would do, of course a fanatic like CB doesn’t see it that way.

I would also note that CB asks where’s my evidence? I’ve pointed out to him much evidence in the link above, including several peer reviewed papers (both for and against) and the official NEA Chernobyl accident report, plus several more in comments exchanges. I have done these repeatedly, but he just doesn’t listen.

Furthermore, as even BH has noted, some degree of containment of a MSR reactor would be necessary. Be careful there sir, CB maybe about to call you a heretic against his “precious” too!

Consider the following, BH and CB have now devoted as best I can tell 11,000 odd words to they’re 3 “Gish Gallops” plus a further 3-4,000 odd words here (out of a total comments page length of 22,000, 90% of it run up by LFTR fans or the rebuttals to their points). All together they have written comments double the length of the original MSR article, and most of that has been directed at two small pieces (the fire risk sections) of at most 1,000 words length! The irony is, some LFTR fans have complained about my article being too long! Naturally such insane antics does much damage to their cause.

I think they doth protest too much!,_methinks


Anon said...

The question of whether it is worth engaging with people who are far out of touch with reality is one I'm not sure of.

On the one hand that kind of crap won't be taken seriously in the long term (or by the Chinese for that matter) and it uses up time which could be better spent as well as possibly giving the perception of legitimacy to the kook (just as debating creationists often gives them legitimacy they don't deserve).

But on the other hand if that kind of crap isn't shown for what it is the anti-nuclear movement is going to use it and a lot of people who don't have the background knowledge to figure out when they are being lied to are going to find it and believe it (and some of them may be politicians or regulators) and there is still a small possibility that an outsider has actually found a real problem in the idea which the experts missed (though I suspect that hasn't happened in the entire history of the nuclear industry).

Not to mention there is also the chance that a critic who is wrong might be able to change their mind (though it looks like we're dealing with a real zealot here).

Andrew Jaremko said...

Thanks for all your posts Charles. I had to check the definition of Gish Gallop, since I hadn't heard of it before. Interesting that he accuses you of it.

I still would like to know who this person is, what his bona fides or CV is, and why it's important to engage him at his level of rant? As they used to say of the Lone Ranger, "Who was that masked man?" I suspect that's how he sees himself, and his non-conversation with you seems to suggest he's still emotionally young.

Anonymous said...

Bill Hannahan wrote;

Anon, I see your point; it is a bit like mud wrestling a pig, turns out the pig enjoys it.

I want to know what the weaknesses are for MSR technology, so I pressure opponents to provide facts, logic and analysis to support their claims. I asked specific questions on 5 key issues, for example;

4…. I do not know of any way to make an MSR explode. Do you, if so explain the mechanism in detail?

5. It is interesting that out of hundreds of fission products, only a few of the most volatile constitute most of the risk in solid fuel reactors. Why is that?

Cesium is by far the most problematic long term fission product in an accident. It melts at 28 C, the boiling point is 671 C. When a cesium atom is produced in a MSR it immediately hooks up with a fluorine atom to make cesium fluoride, melting point 682 C, boiling point 1251 C, so it has much lower volatility resulting in greatly reduced emissions under accident conditions. Very little cesium will be released in a MSR accident. Provide detailed mechanism if you disagree?

Ryan dodged all of the issues by claiming he had already answered them, but a review of his comments shows clearly that he has not.

The fact that he holds comments in moderation until he has written a rebuttal tells us a lot about him. The last comment I submitted was in moderation for several days before it disappeared, apparently he could not come up with a good enough rebuttal.

Continued in following comment.

Anonymous said...

Bill Hannahan wrote;

Ryan and his followers are masters of the straw man argument, two examples;

On fluorine toxicity Ryan said; ““Fluorine gas is extremely toxic (several times more deadly than chlorine”

Bill Hannahan said; “By volume fluorine is less than twice as toxic as chlorine.”

Ryan said; “(sounds pretty deadly to me!) and Chlorine at 4 times higher, with him then claiming that in fact it’s the other way around”

Bill Hannahan said; “So lets do the math for R; 293/185 = 1.58 which is less than 2 by VOLUME as I specified.

R tries to prove me wrong by doing a MASS calculation, but he gets that wrong too. 879/300 = 2.9 which is less than 4 and less than “several times”.

Ryan said; “And here’s something on LC50 data that shows BH read this data ass backwards, i.e. he just proved Fluorine is worse than Chlorine, not the other way around as he claims”

Logan said; “Indeed it is curious to note that for several weeks now that schoolboy error you pointed out above ( regarding the toxic nature of Flourine against Chlorine) has hung for two weeks as best I can tell, here and on the Nucleargreen Blog, and not one of the LFTR fans on his site has corrected him or pointed the error out! This should indicate the poor level of scientific understanding of these individuals.”

The reason there has been no correction is that I never said chlorine is more toxic than fluorine. I said that fluorine is 58% more toxic than chlorine by volume, which is less than the “several times” claimed by Ryan. This is the third error Ryan has made on a very simple issue.

On proliferation Ryan said; “One final point about MSR’s is the proliferation risk. As they can be used to breed U-233 (a potential nuclear bomb making material) this raises the risk of them being used by certain states as nuclear bomb factories.”

I said; “There are two relatively easy, fast, cheap paths to nuclear explosives;

1... Extraction of U235 from natural or reactor grade uranium. (enrichment technology).

2... Plutonium production using a simple unpressurized water cooled graphite reactor with natural uranium fuel.

There is at least one difficult, time consuming, and expensive path to nuclear explosives; using a commercial nuclear power plant.

If a group or nation wants to build nuclear explosives, the optimum level of proliferation resistance is that which is just barely easy enough to convince them to take the most difficult, time consuming, and expensive path to nuclear explosives.

All proposed future reactor designs are far beyond this standard, so it makes no sense to add complexity and cost to a plant design in response to the proliferation issue. That just makes it harder to build new energy sources that are much cheaper than burning fossil fuel, and there in lies a real risk.

The solution to the proliferation issue is education.”

By education I meant explaining the last paragraph to the public so that people can understand that commercial nuclear power does not increase the probability that other nations will acquire nuclear weapons by using those plants.

Ryan said; “So, BH, you’re going to sit Gaddafi and ….whatever his name is (Pres of Iran) and the Israelis down and educate them about not wanting to have nukes? Or tell the Indians and Pakistani’s to just kiss and make up. Do you know anything about geopoltics? And what about the nutter’s (not you the guys in caves) looking for just one?”

Apparently Ryan had no rational response to my points about the optimal proliferation resistance of commercial nuclear power plants, so he reinterpreted my comment into a naive recommendation to educate dictators, so that he could then belittle the comment with his snide sophomoric remarks.

The increasing ratio of (attacks, insults and diversions)/(facts and logic) on Ryan’s blog reinforces my belief that we should support an all out R&D effort to advance all forms of MSR technology as fast as possible.

Charles Barton said...

DA Ryan has not offered anything like a rational response to my argument that the circumstances which can lead to graphite fire in a reactor preclude a MSR graphite fire. He has switched to personal attacks ib ne. I see no further point in arguing with him.


Blog Archive

Some neat videos

Nuclear Advocacy Webring
Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Get Your Free Web Ring
Dr. Joe Bonometti speaking on thorium/LFTR technology at Georgia Tech David LeBlanc on LFTR/MSR technology Robert Hargraves on AIM High