You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #8: You gotta be kidding.... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
DrGregory Donating Member (427 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-10 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. You gotta be kidding....
>I am so thankful for the brave folks in the scientific community, like Drs. Helen Caldicott

The scientific community doesn't consider Caldicott a scientist.

Her scientific ignorance is such that you can hoist her on her own petard.
I heard her recently on a radio program saying that if one took a single
kilogram of plutonium and dispersed it uniformly in the atmosphere, it
would kill all life on Earth.

As a result of atmospheric nuclear testing prior to the 1962 ban; there are
a few metric tons of plutonium in the atmosphere.

So the amount of plutonium actually in the atmosphere is a few thousand
times the amount that Caldicott claims would kill all life on the planet.

Don't say Caldicott and scientist in the same sentence.

Read what real scientists say - read the Rogovin Report - and you will see
that TMI was a very minor event in terms of public health Of course the
anti-nukes don't want to believe that - but it is the truth.

That's why the Courts dismissed the lawsuits over TMI:

Dr. Greg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -DOE explains why the nuclear industry collapsed in 1974 bananas  Sep-03-10 04:08 PM   #0 
  - Thanks good info to have!  maryf   Sep-03-10 04:17 PM   #1 
  - International comparison  zipplewrath   Sep-03-10 04:37 PM   #2 
  - Certain things are relative  jberryhill   Sep-03-10 05:08 PM   #4 
  - About the same  bananas   Sep-03-10 05:15 PM   #6 
  - those countries are primarily command and control economies  greenman3610   Sep-03-10 07:47 PM   #7 
     - Clean energy isn't currently competitive with dirty energy.  joshcryer   Oct-21-10 10:27 PM   #15 
        - That isn't true.  kristopher   Oct-21-10 11:19 PM   #17 
           - Got a date when this will happen?  joshcryer   Oct-22-10 02:06 AM   #25 
              - End coal subsidies and the date is tomorrow.  Radical Activist   Oct-24-10 06:20 PM   #45 
                 - With all the subsidies coal and oil receive each year  txlibdem   Oct-24-10 07:48 PM   #46 
                 - There are a lot of areas where the EIA can be criticized, but nuclear isn't one of them...  kristopher   Oct-24-10 10:19 PM   #47 
                    - The article you cited came to simplistic conclusions  txlibdem   Oct-25-10 07:58 AM   #48 
                       - The cost issue is what killed it.  kristopher   Oct-25-10 01:54 PM   #49 
                          - I have a hard time telling the two of you apart sometimes. Sorry about that.  txlibdem   Oct-26-10 07:46 AM   #51 
                             - History has already rendered a verdict - stop burying your head in the sand  kristopher   Oct-26-10 08:28 AM   #52 
                                - Opinion piece  txlibdem   Oct-26-10 12:05 PM   #54 
                                   - No, it isn't opinion, it is a straight accounting of the cost claims.  kristopher   Oct-26-10 01:03 PM   #55 
                                      - Yes it is an opinion  Nederland   Oct-26-10 02:29 PM   #57 
                                      - Luckily we don't need to wait for it to play out this time.  kristopher   Oct-26-10 02:49 PM   #58 
                                         - And that is a good thing  Nederland   Oct-26-10 02:56 PM   #59 
                                            - trial period is over as it was supposed to have helped by now - 2010  kristopher   Oct-26-10 03:04 PM   #61 
                                               - And Lovins predicted renewables would provide 30% of our energy by 2000  Nederland   Oct-26-10 05:26 PM   #62 
                                               - Thank your friend Reagan for the difference...  kristopher   Oct-26-10 05:45 PM   #63 
                                               - So who gave you a pointy hat...  Nederland   Oct-26-10 06:10 PM   #64 
                                               - It isn't about "cred" it is about values.  kristopher   Oct-26-10 06:21 PM   #65 
                                               - No Kristopher, it is about humility  Nederland   Oct-26-10 08:32 PM   #68 
                                      - It is an opinion, and not a very informed opinion for that matter  txlibdem   Oct-26-10 08:59 PM   #69 
                 - Nah, you need to build 190,000 turbines a year...  joshcryer   Oct-26-10 10:11 PM   #70 
  - Yeah, too cheap to meter  OutNow   Sep-03-10 05:02 PM   #3 
  - You gotta be kidding....  DrGregory   Sep-04-10 06:39 AM   #8 
     - Yet another wonderful example of your thinking; thank you so much.  kristopher   Oct-23-10 06:06 PM   #32 
  - Apparently the more-economic choices were coal and NG  phantom power   Sep-03-10 05:11 PM   #5 
  - The most economic choices were efficiency and demand reduction  bananas   Sep-12-10 03:02 AM   #10 
     - That does not refute that coal and NG are preferred solutions.  joshcryer   Oct-21-10 10:06 PM   #14 
        - Sure it does  kristopher   Oct-21-10 11:28 PM   #19 
           - "Renewables are already competitive with fossil fuels"  joshcryer   Oct-22-10 02:05 AM   #24 
  - kick. nt  bananas   Sep-12-10 02:53 AM   #9 
  - Chart of reactor orders per year - fell like a rock in 1974  bananas   Oct-13-10 05:07 PM   #11 
  - So what if nuclear only buys 5% the amount of carbon reduction as efficiency? Who cares?  kristopher   Oct-21-10 04:16 PM   #13 
  - kick. nt  bananas   Oct-21-10 11:45 AM   #12 
  - This report gets basic facts wrong  Nederland   Oct-21-10 10:59 PM   #16 
  - Standard and unsupportable nuclear industry propaganda  kristopher   Oct-21-10 11:22 PM   #18 
  - Unsupportable?  Nederland   Oct-21-10 11:35 PM   #20 
     - And the explanation for the negative learning curve also found in France's program?  kristopher   Oct-22-10 12:03 AM   #22 
        - Cherry picking is theoretically possible  Nederland   Oct-22-10 12:27 AM   #23 
           - The study I cited above conclusively disproves your thesis.  kristopher   Oct-22-10 11:41 AM   #26 
              - REALLY???  DrGregory   Oct-22-10 10:59 PM   #29 
              - When you don't have the truth on your side, create a strawman, eh?  kristopher   Oct-23-10 05:49 PM   #31 
                 - Evidently you don't understand "fault tolerant"  DrGregory   Oct-23-10 11:03 PM   #34 
              - There were no "improvements in safety"  Nederland   Oct-23-10 11:11 PM   #35 
                 - CONCUR!!!  DrGregory   Oct-23-10 11:50 PM   #36 
  - EXACTLY!!!  DrGregory   Oct-21-10 11:51 PM   #21 
     - LOL - you're blaming it on anti-war protestors!  bananas   Oct-24-10 07:05 AM   #38 
        - Ummmm...  Nederland   Oct-24-10 02:33 PM   #41 
           - They were right about both  bananas   Oct-26-10 06:48 PM   #66 
              - I doubt that very much  Nederland   Oct-27-10 04:40 PM   #76 
  - Nuclear collapsed from arrogant incompetence, ...  CRH   Oct-22-10 03:08 PM   #27 
  - REALLY????  DrGregory   Oct-22-10 10:39 PM   #28 
     - Other Articles support the Unit 2 reactor vessel at San Onofre,  CRH   Oct-23-10 12:46 PM   #30 
        - And what happens when you have circular symmetry....  DrGregory   Oct-23-10 10:41 PM   #33 
           - The vessel is installed inside a building  caraher   Oct-24-10 06:35 AM   #37 
              - When I read some of the posts like what you're replying too  madokie   Oct-24-10 08:20 AM   #39 
              - Evidently someone doesn't understand "symmetry"  DrGregory   Oct-24-10 03:41 PM   #44 
              - VACUOUS concerns  DrGregory   Oct-24-10 03:23 PM   #43 
                 - "WHERE did you get the idea that I am denying they goofed." from post 28  caraher   Oct-25-10 03:46 PM   #50 
  - But..but..but...what about hippies and Greenpeace? We were told they done it!  jpak   Oct-24-10 11:38 AM   #40 
  - Well, that's what Greenpeace likes to claim, isn't it? (nt)  Nederland   Oct-24-10 02:35 PM   #42 
  - I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that they were being litigated into bankruptcy...  PavePusher   Oct-26-10 11:40 AM   #53 
     - No, it didn't.  kristopher   Oct-26-10 01:04 PM   #56 
     - What was the cause then?  Nederland   Oct-26-10 02:57 PM   #60 
        - *Crickets* (nt)  Nederland   Oct-27-10 02:09 PM   #74 
     - Not in 1974  bananas   Oct-26-10 07:29 PM   #67 
     - Were there regulatory changes that may have slowed/stopped the construction of those plants?  PavePusher   Oct-27-10 12:16 AM   #71 
     - In 1974 the country was reeling from the first oil embargo...  kristopher   Oct-27-10 01:57 PM   #72 
     - Projected demand did not materialize  Nederland   Oct-27-10 02:24 PM   #75 
     - litigated into bankruptcy? Got any proof  Kolesar   Oct-27-10 02:00 PM   #73 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC