Hey Hey Ho Ho, the NRC Has Got to Go!

October 17th, 2009
submit to reddit Share

I’d just like to say a couple of things t0 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, from my own perspective and speaking from the heart (metaphorically, of course.) Sorry if this is not balanced and scientific sounding.

I hate the NRC. No, not just hate, I loath the NRC with a deep down passion so strong it’s almost primal. I feel that it is the ethical duty of every descent human being to do what they can to oppose the NRC’s very existence. I see nothing, absolutely nothing of any good at the NRC. The NRC is reprehensible in its actions and decisions. The policies and procedures of the NRC are not only generally unscientific, they are just plain wrong and go against the grain of basic human decency.

The world is a worse place because of the NRC. The US is a worse place because of the NRC. People have died because of the NRC’s existence and will continue to die. People choke on the fumes of coal plants and die preventable early deaths. Human beings suffer and die, no doubt most are honest, descent people and the NRC is to blame. Companies are destroyed and their losses are not intangible – the economic losses impact people, they make life worse.

Energy policy in the US is directly responsible for economic loss, enviornmental damage and human suffering. The NRC is always part of the problem and never part of the solution. The harm it causes directly and indirectly is vast and unacceptable. There is absolutely no excuse. To say that the NRC is trying to improve things or change how it functions is a worthless statement. This agency has never, in its entire history been anything more than a national disgrace and a bureaucratic disaster. It has never contributed anything positive to the world and certainly not to national energy policy.

I do not want to hear excuses or explanations. There is no excuse for such a pattern of consistently bad policy and regulatory action. There are not an infinite number of additional chances. The system is not one that needs to be repaired, reformed or adjusted, it is so corrupt and inept from top to bottom that it needs to be completely disbanded.

As for the commissioners of the NRC and the various bean counters, although they are not legally capable for the damage they have caused, I hold them in the same regard as the common criminal.

If you work for the NRC, then I consider you personally to be at about the bottom of the barrel when it comes to basic character and decency. Despite the fact that some have called it “the best place to work in the government,” the agency is so disgracefully poor at what it does, so harmful, so dishonorable and completely lacking of any redeeming qualities that anyone who works for the agency has either no concept of nuclear energy or is simply a spineless and gutless accomplice to the actions of the agency. If you work for the agency, you are helping and taking part in activities for which there is no excuse. Even being unemployed would be preferable to any good, descent, honest person. Working for the NRC is a half a step above working as a hitman.

As an American, I love my country. Every time I leave the US, no matter how much I like the destination, part of me always feels very good to come back. I appreciate the founding principles of this nation and the great opportunity it has given so many. I am inspired by the achievements made by the US. Yet these feelings are tempered by a deep sense of shame for my government’s continuing indefensible actions, the NRC’s very existence chief amongst them.

Look, everyone who knows the first thing about nuclear energy or politics in the US knows how bad the NRC is. I’m saying this because I’m independent. I’m not a company, I don’t build reactors and I don’t have billions at stake. The NEI, the companies that hope to build reactors, the various industry activist groups all know the NRC is a den of liars, thieves and scoundrels, but they can’t come out and say it. I can.

Via the Associated Press:

NRC raises concern about new reactor design

WASHINGTON — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission raised safety concerns Thursday with the design of a proposed next-generation reactor to be built by Westinghouse Electric Co., saying a key part of the reactor may not withstand a tornado, earthquake or even high winds.

The NRC staff directed Westinghouse to make changes in the reactor design so that its outer shell, which is supposed to protect the reactor’s concrete containment structure, is strengthened. The staff concluded the outer steel and composite structure does not meet the design requirements for safety.

The reactor, called the AP1000, is one of three next-generation reactor designs under NRC review. The others are being proposed by Areva Inc., the French nuclear company, and GE Hitachi Corp.

But the AP1000 is one of the most popular and has been widely viewed as likely to be the first of the new reactors to be built in the United States. At least seven utilities have selected the reactor design in preliminary applications filed with the NRC, anticipating the potential construction of 14 units.

Westinghouse spokesman Vaughn Gilbert said the company already has begun reviewing what changes might be needed.

“We’re comfortable we will be able to make the modifications to meet the (NRC) requirements,” said Gilbert in a telephone interview. He said he does not expect the issue to delay certification of the AP1000 and still expects the first of the plants operating by 2016.

The NRC had scheduled its safety review to be completed by 2011, followed by a formal certification process.

David Matthews, the NRC’s director for new reactor licensing, declined to say whether that schedule might be delayed, saying the timetable depends on how Westinghouse choses to resolve the problems raised by the agency.

If the issues aren’t resolved “the certification process couldn’t be concluded,” said Matthews in a conference call with reporters.

The NRC’s concern involves the cylindrical 10-story high so-called shield building that surrounds the reactor’s concrete containment dome. Inside the dome is the reactor pressure vessel that contains the highly radioactive fuel rods. The outer structure also is critical to AP1000′s passive emergency cooling system. Atop the structure is a huge tank of water that would be released, relying on gravity, into the reactor in case of an emergency.

The AP1000 is the most thoroughly tested, reviewed and examined reactor design in history. It is based on a larger version of the AP600, which itself took over a decade to develop and receive even initial certification on. The AP600/1000 family has been in the process of design and review since the late 1980′s. Westinghouse has spent many billions of dollars on the process.

The AP-1000 is also set to be the most popular new reactor for construction, although whether that will happen in the US is not clear. China is ahead of schedule on the construction of four AP-1000s, in various stages of completion. Despite a full commercial Ap-1000 never having been built before, China plans to begin operation around 2013, just five years after groundbreaking. In the US, a license for construction cannot be secured in five years. The Chinese reactors cost approximately two billion dollars each, the four reactors having been contracted for eight billion US dollars. The Chinese are optimistic that future AP-1000′s may only cost one billion dollars each. The expected price in the US is seven billion dollars per unit.

It should be noted that the AP-1000 received final approval from the NRC in 2005. The NRC has a long history of approving a design or a permit and then turning around to change the rules after having given their blessing. Thus, the approval of any reactor or power plant can never be assured, even if the physical construction is nearly complete. The NRC did this several times before. For example, the Shoreham nuclear plant was approved by the NRC and built. The plant was nearly complete when the NRC changed the rules to allow for any state or municipality in within ten miles of the plant or on a planned escape route from an emergency to effectively veto the plant’s permit. It does not matter whether its the same town, county or even state.

The actual mandate that the NRC retroactively imposed on Shoreham was that all the communities that might be involved in an evacuation must be consulted as part of emergency planning. However, as some towns made it an issue NOT to approve ANY plan for evacuation, the entire process was stalled. This became a political issue that was taken up by New York State politicians as well, some of whom vowed never to allow the multi-billion dollar plant to open. At this point, the NRC could have and should have asserted its federal status to claim jurisdiction and prevent the plant from being held hostage. They did not.

If that is not bad enough, the NRC finally required the entire plant to undergo a decommissioning process costing hundreds of millions more. The plant never produced a watt of electricity and the reactor went critical only very briefly in some tests. The amount of neutron irradiation of the reactor vessel was negligible and no significant residual radioactivity existed in the plant. Yet the NRC forced the reactor vessel to be cut up and burred as low level waste, despite being nothing more than simple stainless steel.

It is directly because of the actions of the rat bastards who run the NRC that local political interests were able to stop Shoreham. Because of this, there is not enough generating capacity in the Northeast and New York region to shut down the old filth factories that have been burning coal to fill in the gap for the past twenty years. As someone who lives in Connecticut, every time I inhale, I suck in some coal exhaust thanks to the NRC. Of course, others have it much worse.

This is not an isolated indent and unfortunately, the slime at the NRC has pulled this bullshit on many companies, investors and electric rate payers. The slime at the NRC pulled some stunts with Seabrook Nuclear. The plant began construction in 1976, but due to the NRC’s decision to allow anyone and their brother to stand in the way of opening a nuclear plant, politicians in Massachusetts were able to block the opening of Seabrook. Seabrook isn’t actually in Massachusetts, but it’s within a few miles of the border, thus allowing them to kill a nuclear plant that isn’t even located in their state. The plant finally managed to open in 1990, four years after physical completion (which itself was delayed badly). Billions of dollars over budget and years behind, the plant cried uncle on plans for a second reactor.

Of course, it goes even beyond this. Thanks to the scumbags at the NRC, you can’t even buy a glowing tritium keychain in the United States, despite the fact that it is completely harmless and pretty damn useful if you’re looking for your keys in the dark.

It seems that the lying scoundrels at the NRC will unfortunately be able to continue their schemes, despite efforts to help alleviate their tyrant. The US Senate is currently in a position to help stop these dastardly SOB’s. However, “Environmental” groups are pulling out all the stops to try to stop them.

Via Reuters:

11 Groups to Senate: Block Weakening of NRC Licensing for New Nuclear Reactors

Eleven Key Environmental and Energy Organizations Warn That Public Health and
Safety in Jeopardy if New Reactor Process is Rushed; Would Not Address Real
Cause of Delays

WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Leading U.S. environment and
energy groups call on the Senate to reject any additions to the climate bill
that would further “streamline” the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC)
licensing process for new reactors, because it could threaten public health
and safety. The groups explain in the letter that “the acceleration of those
review and hearing processes would not address the real cause of delays in the
NRC’s licensing process: premature submission of incomplete and poor-quality
applications by the industry.”

The full text of the letter submitted to all 100 U.S. Senators is as follows:

You can read the whole text of the letter at Reuters. Sadly, if history is any guide, there will be an uphill battle to take back some of the power from the NRC. It should be noted that the current application process is extremely extremely long and redundant. If we approved aircraft this way, we’d be lucky if there were a dozen aircraft in service. Yet somehow, we can manage to build complex mechanical systems and keep them extremely safe without the approval process being decades long!

The fact of the matter is that if a reactor design is safe, you don’t need to certify every place it is built. It’s been demonstrated before.

Just to assure that this is not misunderstood: There is some sarcasm in the pictures, but I’m not overstating how I feel about the NRC. I do hate it more than almost anything else I can think of. If you happen to be associated with the NRC, please don’t try to convince me that there’s something good about the agency. Just stay the hell away from me. I don’t like people like you and don’t associate with such people.


This entry was posted on Saturday, October 17th, 2009 at 7:58 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Enviornment, Nuclear, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions



28 Responses to “Hey Hey Ho Ho, the NRC Has Got to Go!”

  1. 1
    J Carlton Says:

    The NRC exists for only one reason. To make new nuclear power plants prohibitively expensive. The people who wrote that letter are the same self destructive fools who have been at this for 30 years now. I have been watching their irrational actions from the beginning. Their self conceited whines are getting to be pathetic. No how many facts you bring to the table, not matter how many times you attempt to reason with them the result is always the same, more whines. The result hasn’t been the green utopia they profess to want, but 400 millions tons or more of coal going right up chimneys, along with all the other stuff that goes with it. If coal fired power plants hat to meet the radiation standards of the NRC they would all be shut down. Yet we have had 40 years of uninterupted operation of nuclear facilities and power plants without a single death here in this country due to radiation. It’s time the no nukes had to present the same level of evidence that they force the nuclear industry to present.


    Quote Comment
  2. 2
    DV82XL Says:

    All I can say is this is not an just an issue with the U.S. nuclear regulator. There seems to be only two types in the world: those that see themselves as facilitators of nuclear technology, and those bent on keeping it at bay.

    The Canadian regulator has tied the industry in to so many knots that it is unlikely that we will ever build another reactor at home, and while they are not the only reason that AECL is going to be broken up, they contributed to an atmosphere there that paralyzed decision making, which did not help.

    So I feel your frustration keenly, and understand exactly where it is coming from.


    Quote Comment
  3. 3
    An Actual Scientist Says:

    I agree with you, the agency does more harm than good. I think I might use a bit more tempered words, just to be a little less confrontational.

    It’s not really an energy policy agency, because it was created politically and any attempt to lighten regulations is politically difficult. The NRC, from what I’ve seen, is one of those government agencies that gives the government a bad name. It’s cut from the same fabric as the DMV office where you can wait half a day to get a license renewal. There’s no mandate for it to work effectively.

    There are many who share your frustration. Anyone in the industry ends up feeling like tearing the hair out of their head every now and then because of how bad the regulations are.

    You will never hear any of it on the record. About the worst that anyone will say is that they respectfully disagree with the NRC on one matter or another. Privately, I can attest that industry insiders do occasionally make statements about the NRC in which every other word would not be permitted on primetime television.


    Quote Comment
  4. 4
    DV82XL Says:

    We have to keep in mind that these things are part of the bureaucratic apparatus and as such are a reflection of their political masters will. In other words: should there be a political demand to have them reformed it would happen. And don’t tell me that public pressure would stop them. We have a perfect example in the way intellectual property laws have been rewritten to favor the few, that are not supported by the majority of the public. Failure to act for that reason is just an excuse.

    The only types of political pressure that counts in the West is money, or organized masses. Nuclear energy needs a grassroots movement to generate the kind of political pressure that is needed to make things change. It’s the only way left.


    Quote Comment
  5. 5
    PBn Says:

    A mass civilian political movement is laughably improbable, those in support of nuclear are few and very far between. The NRC is like a mine field that you are forced to run across if you want to make a reactor. Once reactors become more common and socially acceptable these companies will go after the NRC, perhaps quoting the constitution “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”* That will redoubtably cause a big uproar that the nuclear industry wants to be unregulated and such.
    Steven Chu is reason to hope though, he likes nuclear power perhaps he will kick the NRC’s ass.

    * apply to legislative, the executive shouldn’t be making laws at all, this certainly isn’t regulation.


    Quote Comment
  6. 6
    DV82XL Says:

            PBn said:

    A mass civilian political movement is laughably improbable, those in support of nuclear are few and very far between.

    I don’t know. I’m a refugee from the Sixties, and you should look to see what a mass civilian political movement can accomplish – after all it was basically one that shut nuclear down. Why not one to start it up again?

    As for supporters being few and far between, that too is changing. Polls show that just about every other person in North America now supports nuclear energy, so there is a constituency out there.


    Quote Comment
  7. 7
    Finrod Says:

            PBn said:

    A mass civilian political movement is laughably improbable, those in support of nuclear are few and very far between.

    I’m staking my personal credibility on the incorrectness of that assertion.

    For those who know what I’m talking about, my apologies for the delay. Matters are being finalised now, and we should be able to commence operations shortly.


    Quote Comment
  8. 8
    Horatio Hornblower III Says:

    Effin’ hilarious.


    Quote Comment
  9. 9
    Joe Says:

    So let me get this straight.

    A company could decide to build a nuclear power plant, get approval, start construction and have all the towns and cities in the area agreed on it. Then a couple of years later, just before they’re ready to open it, a small town nine miles away and located across a state border, not even in the same state, could elect a new city council and the new city council decides that they don’t like nuclear power and so they change their mind and suddenly the plant can’t open? Billions invested and the plant is already to open, and only one single small town could get them by the balls and force it to never open or to hang in limbo until that town decides otherwise? That’s insane. That’s a good reason why no company would want to invest in something so risky.


    Quote Comment
  10. 10
    jcarlton Says:

            Joe said:

    So let me get this straight.

    A company could decide to build a nuclear power plant, get approval, start construction and have all the towns and cities in the area agreed on it. Then a couple of years later, just before they’re ready to open it, a small town nine miles away and located across a state border, not even in the same state, could elect a new city council and the new city council decides that they don’t like nuclear power and so they change their mind and suddenly the plant can’t open?

    Billions invested and the plant is already to open, and only one single small town could get them by the balls and force it to never open or to hang in limbo until that town decides otherwise?

    That’s insane.

    That’s a good reason why no company would want to invest in something so risky.

    I’ve thought that it was insane for thirty years now. But that’s how it works


    Quote Comment
  11. 11
    G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996 Says:

    But it applies only to nuclear power installations that displace highly taxed fossil fuels. When former VP Gore gets a ride on a nuclear submarine, there is of course no way the government can tax itself for the diesel fuel a diesel submarine might alternatively have burned, and no way Gore would have got on such a boat. Similarly for quasi-governmental agents like Lonnie Dupre and Eric Larsen when they used to routinely ride the Russian nuclear icebreaker Yamal.

    They know it’s safe, but they don’t say so because the continued unnecessary risk to citizens near power plants that are much less safe is lucrative for them.


    Quote Comment
  12. 12
    An Actual Scientist Says:

            Joe said:

    So let me get this straight.

    A company could decide to build a nuclear power plant, get approval, start construction and have all the towns and cities in the area agreed on it. Then a couple of years later, just before they’re ready to open it, a small town nine miles away and located across a state border, not even in the same state, could elect a new city council and the new city council decides that they don’t like nuclear power and so they change their mind and suddenly the plant can’t open?

    Billions invested and the plant is already to open, and only one single small town could get them by the balls and force it to never open or to hang in limbo until that town decides otherwise?

    That’s insane.

    That’s a good reason why no company would want to invest in something so risky.

    Yes, that is in effect how it works. The license requires that all the local governments (state, county, city and town) within ten miles of the plant approve the evacuation plan, and as a policy matter with the NRC that means that any one of them can stop the plant from opening at any time by refusing to approve it.

    The word insane does come to mind. There is a big risk here, since any county commissioner or town board can make stand in the way.

    That is exactly what happened to Seabrook Station, which is located in New Hampshire. The plant received full approval for construction and operation in the late 1970′s, but it was blocked by local governments that refused to approve evacuation plans. There are three towns in Massachusetts which are located within the ten mile radius (or have a small portion of the town located within the radius). The town governments (honestly I don’t know if it was one two or all three towns) decided to stand in the way and refuse to allow the plant to open. This is a small town that is just barely in the ten mile radius and it suddenly decides to not approve the plan, this caused the NRC to suspend the license to begin power production.

    This all started in the early 1980′s, and it very nearly lead to the construction of the plant stopping, but it was completed in 1986. It was not allowed to open because of the lack of all the cities and states approving. In Massachusetts the state law would have allowed for the state government to step in and allow it to open by approving evacuation plans, but it ended up becoming politically popular to bash nuclear energy. The Governor of Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis, pledged not to allow the plant to open. Because of this, the towns were able to block it.

    To make a long story short, Dukakis left office to run for president, they managed to get a truce of some kind with the towns and the plant opened in 1990. Once opened, the towns can’t force it closed or can’t do so as easily.

    This ended up driving the owning company of the plant, the electrical company of New Hampshire, which was part of Northeastern Utilities to go bankrupt. The plant cost 7 billion because of delays and by the time it finally started they were accumulating interest faster than they could pay it off, due to the delays. It was a huge loss. At the time, it was one of the largest bankruptcies in the history of the US. (I think it was the fourth or fifty, but I know it was in the top ten). Needless to say, many lost their shirt.

    It also lead to the second reactor at the unit being canceled and the parts that were already there were sold off to try to recoup some of the loss.

    If there is any bright side to it, at least the plant opened. For a long time, it seemed like it very well may never have opened. Also, it made it very easy for me to decide who to vote for in 1988 even before that goofey video of Dukakis on the tank came out.


    Quote Comment
  13. 13
    Joe Says:

    Okay, well then this feeling about the NRC then makes complete sense. I figured that they were not very good at what they do, but if that’s the way it works, then they really are horrible and worthless.

    It’s unbelievable.


    Quote Comment
  14. 14
    Gordon Says:

    This is

            DV82XL said:

    All I can say is this is not an just an issue with the U.S. nuclear regulator. There seems to be only two types in the world: those that see themselves as facilitators of nuclear technology, and those bent on keeping it at bay.

    The Canadian regulator has tied the industry in to so many knots that it is unlikely that we will ever build another reactor at home, and while they are not the only reason that AECL is going to be broken up, they contributed to an atmosphere there that paralyzed decision making, which did not help.

    So I feel your frustration keenly, and understand exactly where it is coming from.

    The current Canadian system is no better than the NRC and perhaps worse (if that’s possible) Seems that the countries are working on a race to the bottom.

    CNSC is the reason for the Maple debacle, they’ve flat out denied any chance of getting a nuclear replacement to Nanticoke, which means when it finally does close, it will be years behind and replaced with gas, which is going to come back and bite us, I swear.

    It’s also why Bruce is rebuilding unit A when what they really wanted was to add new modern reactors. They are trying to rebuild older reactors up to modern standards because they know CNSC is not going to allow replacements to be built.

    Nothing but a den of thieves, scoundrels and liars, if you ask me.


    Quote Comment
  15. 15
    DV82XL Says:

    ” PARIS, Oct 15 (Reuters) – The French nuclear safety watchdog ASN has suspended work dismantling a plutonium technology plant over worker safety fears, after almost three times as much plutonium was found at the site than expected.

    The watchdog said it was only told of the problem on Oct. 6, although the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), the state body that supervises the plant in Cadarache near the southern port of Marseille, had been aware of the problem since early June.”

    Going to prove that being a rational regulator doesn’t mean that you have to be a blind one.


    Quote Comment
  16. 16
    Bruce Says:

    The NRC is too [i]anti nuclear[/i]? You must be kidding me. This is an agency which starts with the idea that nuclear power is desirable. If it were truly impartial, it would start with a review of whether nuclear energy even makes any sense at all, perhaps it does, but it starts with this premise and as such is faulty.

    http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nrc/

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7252/full/460152b.html

    Given the precedents of the last nine months, I don’t think Obama will sign a bill that “streamlines” nuclear regulatory approvals if he can avoid it.


    Quote Comment
  17. 17
    The other side Says:

    I can tell that people want to vent here, and have some frustration with the NRC. But the Soviets provided us with a good example of what can happen without competent safety regulation in 1986.


    Quote Comment
  18. 18
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Bruce said:

    The NRC is too [i]anti nuclear[/i]? You must be kidding me. This is an agency which starts with the idea that nuclear power is desirable. If it were truly impartial, it would start with a review of whether nuclear energy even makes any sense at all, perhaps it does, but it starts with this premise and as such is faulty.

    http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nrc/

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7252/full/460152b.html

    Given the precedents of the last nine months, I don’t think Obama will sign a bill that “streamlines” nuclear regulatory approvals if he can avoid it.

    Wow. Yet another idiotic comment. Impartial?

    This is the equivalent of saying that the FAA is not impartial because they have not impartial because they start out with the presumption that it is okay to fly or that the USDA is not impartial because they start off with the assumption that it is okay to grow food.

    By the way: Beyond Nuclear is one of the most unimpartial sources you could possibly find. It’s also an oxymoron. There’s no such thing as “beyond nuclear” when it comes to energy. The only energy sources that you could even begin to make a case for qualifying as “Beyond nuclear” are hawking radiation and antimatter – both of what are not avaliable on earth.

    When it comes to energy, there’s nothing beyond nuclear. It’s the most fundamental form of energy and from where all energy arises. It’s the densest, most plentiful, most basic form of energy. You can’t do anything about that, because that’s just how the universe works.

            The other side said:

    I can tell that people want to vent here, and have some frustration with the NRC. But the Soviets provided us with a good example of what can happen without competent safety regulation in 1986.

    Are you suggesting the NRC is competent? I’ve never suggested that there shouldn’t be any regulation or safety requirements, only that the NRC does an amazingly bad job at what they do.


    Quote Comment
  19. 19
    Jason Ribeiro Says:

    When I heard that the AP1000′s design was called into question by the NRC, I was a bit shocked but after reading this, I need to remind myself that I shouldn’t be. I thought the AP1000 was all wrapped up and ready to go so it seems rather amazing that something so fundamental and conspicuous as the containment building would have been “overlooked” in the first place. It’s an excellent design and we ought to be building 50 of them simultaneously this very moment. What does it say about us now as a country if the Chinese can build the same design better, faster, and cheaper than we can?


    Quote Comment
  20. 20
    BMS Says:

    Heh … If you think that the NRC is bad, you should take a look at Germany’s regulator and what they publish on their website. They even publish a little brochure (PDF, in German) with pictures.

    Now there’s a regulator that Bruce can like. ;-)


    Quote Comment
  21. 21
    Jason Ribeiro Says:

            BMS said:

    … They even publish a little brochure (PDF, in German) with pictures.

    Now there’s a regulator that Bruce can like. ;-)

    Wow, I don’t even read German and this seems like a biased document. It has themes of warning, danger and protest with the nuclear pictures and fun green valleys with wind turbines and solar panels. What happened to the German heritage that had a deep respect for science?


    Quote Comment
  22. 22
    George Carty Says:

            Jason Ribeiro said:

    Wow, I don’t even read German and this seems like a biased document

    Now that’s an understatement! The title page reads “Atomic power: an expensive wrong turn – the myth of the atomic economy”.

    Anyone here who has a better knowledge of German than myself, who’d like to have a stab at preparing a counter-propaganda document?


    Quote Comment
  23. 23
    drbuzz0 Says:

            BMS said:

    Heh … If you think that the NRC is bad, you should take a look at Germany’s regulator and what they publish on their website. They even publish a little brochure (PDF, in German) with pictures.

    Now there’s a regulator that Bruce can like. ;-)

    Wow, that is clearly the worst example of government-sponsored misinformation and propaganda aimed at scapegoating ever to occur in modern German history….. uh….wait….ahem…. that is clearly the SECOND worst example of government-sponsored misinformation and propaganda aimed at scapegoating ever to occur in modern German history


    Quote Comment
  24. 24
    soylent Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Wow, that is clearly the worst example of government-sponsored misinformation and propaganda aimed at scapegoating ever to occur in modern German history….. uh….wait….ahem…. that is clearly the SECOND worst example of government-sponsored misinformation and propaganda aimed at scapegoating ever to occur in modern German history

    Oh, I don’t know. Just because it hasn’t killed more people than “the final solution” [i]yet[/i] doesn’t mean it’s not going to eventually.


    Quote Comment
  25. 25
    DV82XL Says:

    The bottom line is that the attitude of any given nation’s nuclear regulator is inversely proportional to the size and importance of the fossil fuel sector in that country.

    It that isn’t a smoking gun in and of itself, I don’t know what is.


    Quote Comment
  26. 26
    Jason Ribeiro Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Wow, that is clearly the worst example of government-sponsored misinformation and propaganda aimed at scapegoating ever to occur in modern German history….. uh….wait….ahem…. that is clearly the SECOND worst example of government-sponsored misinformation and propaganda aimed at scapegoating ever to occur in modern German history

    I think you found the material needed for another Depleted Cranium post with this document.


    Quote Comment
  27. 27
    BMS Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    …. that is clearly the SECOND worst example of government-sponsored misinformation and propaganda aimed at scapegoating ever to occur in modern German history

    Indeed. It’s so shameless, it would have made even Goebbels proud.

            DV82XL said:

    The bottom line is that the attitude of any given nation’s nuclear regulator is inversely proportional to the size and importance of the fossil fuel sector in that country. …

    Don’t forget that last March the head of this ministry, Sigmar Gabriel, emphatically explained to the press that Germany must build 8 to 10 new coal plants if they are going to phase out their nuclear fleet.


    Quote Comment
  28. 28
    George Carty Says:

            DV82XL said:

    The bottom line is that the attitude of any given nation’s nuclear regulator is inversely proportional to the size and importance of the fossil fuel sector in that country.

    It that isn’t a smoking gun in and of itself, I don’t know what is.

    I don’t think the “Arthur Scargill” motive is so significant in Germany – isn’t much of German coal mining done on an open-cast basis? (NOT very good for job creation…)

    I think it’s more likely that Germany had an extremely strong anti-nuclear-weapons movement (remember the old joke about “A tactical nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon which lands on Germany”) and that this subsequently fed into the anti-nuclear-power movement.


    Quote Comment

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string Hlekzs to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam