tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post2914899762002232616..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: The oh so slightly revised history of nuclear safetyCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-73455924855599074992011-07-26T12:05:20.137-05:002011-07-26T12:05:20.137-05:00Sione:
Whether or not Nader was bad (and I would ...<b>Sione:</b> <i><br />Whether or not Nader was bad (and I would contend that he was extremely dishonest) is not the point. His approach was no worse than that of the majority nuclear scientists and technocrats, indeed in some ways his was morally superior. Remember this, as far as is known, Nader's actions did not result in the death or injury or poisoning of other human beings.</i><br />Nader's actions promoted fossil fuels (what you get if you don't want nuclear) which are far more dangerous than even the most incompetently designed and operated nuclear reactors.<br /><br />I very much would have to dispute the idea that he didn't kill or injure anyone.<br /><br /><b>Sione:</b> <i>He did not create, develop or maintain inhuman weapons of mass destruction either. Not even one of them. Indeed, did the man even threaten anyone with destruction or harm at all?</i><br />If not for those weapons of mass destruction there would have been a third world war between the US and USSR (and their respective allies/puppet states) which probably would have killed far more even than WWII.<br /><br /><b>Sione:</b> <i>That what they were doing was dangerous and immoral did not enter into the minds of the scientists involved, just as it hadn't been seriously considered by the US based scientists during the Manhattan weapons program.</i><br />Much of the reason those scientists were willing to work on a nuclear weapon was because they realised that if the US wasn't the first country to get the bomb Hitler's Germany would have been (that's also why noted pacifist Albert Einstein signed a letter to president Roosevelt urging that nuclear weapons be developed).<br /><br /><b>Sione:</b> <i><br />There is significant public opposition to nuclear technology and it is well entrenched.</i><br />Why then is the majority of the US population pro-nuclear?<br /><br />Could it be that the public opposition to nuclear technology is massively exaggerated? That the anti-nuclear movement are falsely claiming to speak for the majority when they are just a vocal and wrong minority?<br /><br />I think the real problem is that a lot of people assume that nuclear is somehow inherently more dangerous than other technologies when it isn't (not that you should be reckless, just that being reckless with a nuclear reactor isn't actually any worse than being reckless with a chemical plant).Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-28798223050676619262011-07-26T06:06:56.293-05:002011-07-26T06:06:56.293-05:00Charles
I added context, not disagreement. That t...Charles<br /><br />I added context, not disagreement. That there was eventual realisation by some insiders that nuclear safety needed to be taken a lot more seriously than it was is not being contested by me here. <br /><br />Nader promptly responded to sentiments that were ascendant and becoming very powerful throughout the US population. He was politically sensitive, astute enough to understand he could not afford to be tainted by association with those whose political fortunes were ebbing away- spent. The tide was turning. <br /><br />A reading of Nader's opinions suggests that he didn't believe that completely safe reactors were possible at the time. <br /><br />SioneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-3526008067556629402011-07-26T05:50:15.420-05:002011-07-26T05:50:15.420-05:00DW
I wrote not of some supposed arrogance of some...DW<br /><br />I wrote not of some supposed arrogance of some fellow or other. I wrote about some of the reasons nuclear industry spokesmen and promoters etc were and are not trusted, why its "scientists" and technocrats were and are not trusted, and mentioned that Nader could not afford to be tainted by association with such (even when they started talking up "safety"). <br /><br />I do not regard Nader with much sympathy or respect, although his careful avoidance of the messages of nuclear promotion from the likes of Alvin Weinberg is logical. The nuclear lot were in the process of discrediting themselves politically, being involved in serious and on-going internal dispute, pursued by the consequences of serious technical and engineering and administrative and proceedural shortcomings (not to mention careless errors), all the while being beaten out for cash grants/funding/budgets by other welfare lobbiests who were well aware of their weaknesses and more than aggressive in exploiting them. They were on a hiding to nothing and few of them even realised. Nader sure did. He was politicaly tuned in to what people were prepared to support. In this regard he was a product "of the people".<br /><br />--<br />You write that this has nothing to do with the socialist mindset of governments while in the very next sentence concede that the nuclear activity of Britain and France were established by socialist regimes, ie. socialist governments. <br /><br />France was (and is) operated under a socialist model of govt. Britain also was (and is) operated under a socialist model, albeit a differing version of one. Hardly opposites, they share fundamentals and premise.<br /><br />SioneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-18318949624383497572011-07-25T17:02:00.812-05:002011-07-25T17:02:00.812-05:00Stone...this was about Nader during the specific p...Stone...this was about Nader during the specific period when people who were NOT arrogant could answered his questions. it was, after all, Weinberg who INFORMED Nader about the problems of global warming. alas..<br /><br />Secondly, it has nothing to do with a "socialist mindset". Both the British and French systems of nuclear energy were established under "socialist" regimes of a sort and the French was was just the opposite of the British one. How do you explain this?DWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03070034894266417461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-29235866571361572222011-07-25T15:37:47.438-05:002011-07-25T15:37:47.438-05:00Stone, One of the things that I have tried to do i...Stone, One of the things that I have tried to do is to suggest that there was a history of nuclear safety, and to suggest something about the course of that history. If you believe that my suggestions about the history of nuclear safety are mistaken, tell me what it is you disagree with. and why you disagree. <br /><br />As for why Nader disregarded Weinberg, Nader either did not believe that it was possible to build safer reactors, or he simply did not want to build safer reactors. In the 2000 election Nader proved himself to be arrogant and self-centered. Nader mad a lot of money by posing as a champion of the public interest, but in the end he cared about no ones interests but his own.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-49513240564175962352011-07-25T15:15:58.678-05:002011-07-25T15:15:58.678-05:00--Continuing--
The UK is not so different from th...--Continuing--<br /><br />The UK is not so different from the US. Govt weapon making programs have been more than successful in acquiring the morally deficient to create all sorts of atrocity and indecency. If you build such weapons can you really be taken seriously should you profess horror that such devices are employed and operated as you designed them to be? Or that their construction and preparation and possession produces deleterious effects? The resulting public oppobrium you generate, whether in the UK, USA or elsewhere, can hardly be a surprise.<br /><br />In the end, the public distrust for matters nuclear has been cemented in place by the wreckless behaviours of govts and the "scientist" peons they employed and owned- none of whom are trusted by the public. This is the historical legacy and it is what you experienced at the hands of your correspondent. It is why Nader ignored the opinions of Alvin Weinberg et al- they were tainted and he could not afford to have an association with them, besides which he clearly did not place much trust in them. <br /><br />There is significant public opposition to nuclear technology and it is well entrenched. It is understandable how this came to pass, even if some of the arguments of the anti-nuclear crowd appear somewhat unsound. Is there a way out? Is there remediation possible? If so, it will demand a lot of persuasion, a great deal of change within the nuclear industry as well as amongst academics and scientists. One thing it does necessitate is a humane morality to be applied and followed with absolute consistency. Of course this is part of what Alvin Weinberg came to consider by the time he was discussing his view of the nuclear "Faustian Bargain"! <br /><br />SioneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-81894736823459470132011-07-25T15:14:47.879-05:002011-07-25T15:14:47.879-05:00Charles
Whether or not Nader was bad (and I would...Charles<br /><br />Whether or not Nader was bad (and I would contend that he was extremely dishonest) is not the point. His approach was no worse than that of the majority nuclear scientists and technocrats, indeed in some ways his was morally superior. Remember this, as far as is known, Nader's actions did not result in the death or injury or poisoning of other human beings. Nor did his action result in the destruction of other people's private property. Nor was his objective the application of indescriminant terror for the purposes of expressing political power. He did not create, develop or maintain inhuman weapons of mass destruction either. Not even one of them. Indeed, did the man even threaten anyone with destruction or harm at all? <br /><br />As you alluded, the cavalier attitude to "nuclear safety" demonstrated by the British nuclear establishment was a by-product of the UK government's objectives and policies. It was also a product of the socialist mindset that was adopted throughout what are now the Western governments during the 1930s and 1040s. That what they were doing was dangerous and immoral did not enter into the minds of the scientists involved, just as it hadn't been seriously considered by the US based scientists during the Manhattan weapons program. All these morally deficient little guys were far more interested in the intellectual stimulus of the advanced "scientific" work they were engaged in, the priviledges and status they were awarded, the power and status of their position, the excellent employment conditions (pay, career advancement, welfare package, recognition, service grade, membership of an elite social group etc.) and the like than they were with considering the fundamental nature of that they were actually engaging in- what it was, what they were creating, what it would be used for, what the risks were, what outcomes were likely, who they were ultimately awarding their new weapons to (in other words the nature of those who were paying them off in order to get hold of weapons of indescriminant murder and destruction), who was in control of them and the inevitable costs to other people, most of whom were non-participants and not privvy to the details of what was going on. <br /><br />Is it any wonder that with this attitude, sequestered from the rest of society, elite, secret, unavailable to public scruitiny, they took careless and reckless risks? Outsiders, the general public, didn't count. The "scientists" hardly cared about the problems and troubles they were causing or about anyone else until things went wrong and then they were caught in the glare of public scruitiny- followed by harsh public judgement. <br /><br />ContdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com