the smartest man in the world!!! jk, he may or may not be, but he's been one of my biggest heroes since I was old enough to first read about him. I just wish our gov't would listen.

on him and Bill Nye in the 80's smart is so COOL!!!

and all these years of watching him, I don't think I've ever seen him insult, demean or put anyone down. He states facts and consequences, so kindly and calmly - like your favourite teacher in school or college you haven't forgotten a word from. I had a major crush on him way back then, too - he was yummy!!!

As a scientist, I really wasn't that impressed with either David Suziki or Bill Nye.

There's a LOT of science that those two just plain got WRONG!!!

There's a lot in science that is really very counter-intuitive.

They gave people what may be the popular answer; but was scientifically incorrect.

Don Herbert, aka "Mr. Wizard" was much, much better since he was almost totally experimentally based.

PamW

(and others) helped make science cool for many kids... science and scientists think critically, research and help explain existing realities and help predict future possibilities... scientists do get things wrong sometimes (part of the process) but for the layman and for kids beginning to think for themselves I think David Suzuki and Bill Nye are great role models... the important thing is to help kids (and adults) think critically (just like you have) and figure out for themselves what may be wrong with theories presented... and continue the process

At least, that is essentially the meme that pro nuclear-industry voices have been pushing to create since his coverage of Fukushima. Their attempts at professional assassination for scientists who are critical of nuclear are both vicious and unrelenting.

kristopher,

The problem with Suzuki is that he puts his political views ahead of his scientific views.

When Suzuki's politics disagree with the science; then, in his mind, the politics wins.

If you want to be a good scientist in my book, and the books of other good scientists; you have to put science and truth ahead of politics.

For example, good scientists know that coal puts out more radioactivity into the environment than does nuclear.

http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Now that may not sit well with a scientist who has anti-nuclear views; but it is the truth.

A scientist can not lie and tell a scientific falsehood just because it fits better with his politics if he wants to claim to be a good scientist.

You have to make you political opinions conform to the scientific truth; and not the other way around.

That's one area where Suzuki fails.

PamW

kristopher,

Even THEN!!

First, there have been EXTREMELY few occurrences in which the malfunction of a nuclear power plant has resulted in the release of radioactivity or any harmful effects to the public. The number of such occurrences is far fewer than the number of airliner crashes, for example.

Even then; the amounts of radioactivity that has been released has been rather TRIVIAL except for Chernobyl and Fukushima. The amounts released by Three Mile Island accident were TRIVIAL which is why the judge in the lawsuit following the recommendations of the scientists that wrote the Kemeny report and the Rogovin report; the judge DISMISSED the lawsuits against the owners of Three Mile Island without trial. Even after a decade and a half of study, plaintiffs just didn't have any evidence of harm:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html

As is clear from the preceding discussion, the discrepancies between Defendants, proffer of evidence and that put forth by Plaintiffs in both volume and complexity are vast. The paucity of proof alleged in support of Plaintiffs, case is manifest. The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain.

Chernobyl and Fukushima certainly had greater effects. However, in BOTH of those cases, we had power plants that had significant known design defects that could NEVER have been licensed in the USA. Chernobyl had an unstable, over-moderated reactor design. Fukushima had backup generators and fuel tanks that were vulnerable to tsunami and flooding. Neither plant could have been licensed in the USA.

While Fukushima got "splashed" by the tsunami, the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant in the USA on the banks of the Mississippi got flooded with water when the river overflowed; a more challenging event than the splash of the tsunami in Fukushima:

Nebraska Residents in No Danger After Floods Hit Nuke Plant

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nebraska-residents-danger-floods-hit-nuke-plant-waters/story?id=13932406

As a scientist, I treat the accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima the way I do the crash / burn of the airship Hindenburg. We know why the Hindenburg exploded and crashed in New Jersey 75 years ago; it was filled with combustible hydrogen. Would I be afraid to travel on a modern day airship fearing that it would explode and crash like the Hindenburg? Of course not! I know that modern day airships don't use hydrogen gas for lift; so the defect that caused the Hindenburg accident isn't there.

The SAME is true with Chernobyl and Fukushima. As a scientist, I know EXACTLY the design defects that led to both the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents. I also know that those defects are not there in nuclear power plants licensed in the USA. Therefore, why would I be afraid of a US nuclear power plant having a Chernobyl or Fukushima style accident when the design defects that allowed those accidents to occur are not present in a US nuclear power plant?

It would be as illogical as flying on a modern day helium-filled airship and fretting about a potential hydrogen explosion ala' the Hindenburg. It doesn't make any sense, whatsoever.

Of course that is the difference between a scientist that knows he difference between a modern airship and the Hindenburg, and a US nuclear power plant and either Chernobyl and Fukushima; vis-a-vis the average person that doesn't know one airship from another, or one nuclear power plant from another.

Hopefully, we can get more people educated in the sciences.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

You aren't a scientist. You may be a techie, but you have no regard for the pursuit of truth which underpins the philosophy of science; therefore you are no scientist.

Second, your denials regarding the consequences of Chernobyl and Fukushima, as well as your remarks on the future safety of the nuclear fleet are absurd on their face. They don't even require a specific refutation.

kristopher,

WRONG again.

I have a doctorate from MIT, and I'm am employed as scientist at a national laboratory, I'm a member in good standing with a number of scientific societies....

In other words, I have ALL the credentials to be legitimately called a scientist.

I'm also am pursuing scientific truth, and as a scientist, I understand what is scientific truth. The problem is what YOU think is "scientific truth". The fact of the matter is that what you think is "scientific truth" is NOT. How many times have I tried to teach you the effects of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; but to no avail? You just won't accept it as a Law of Physics.

It's akin to someone graduating from medical school with an M.D., passing his medical boards and being licensed to practice medicine, being on staff at a nationally recognized hospital, being a member in good standing of the American Medical Association (AMA); and you disagree with calling him a "doctor" because you disagree with him on some political topic involving medicine.

Sorry, kristopher; where are your scientific credentials? If you have NONE; then who are you to say I'm not a scientist when numerous other scientists agree that I am a scientist?

If you had any refutation to my claims, you would give them. What you offer is not called a "refutation", it is called an "assertion".

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

The litany of false claims is nearly endless and I doubt seriously anyone wants to scroll through all that tripe again.

kristopher,

The litany of claims are false to YOU; the non-scientist.

However, EVERY single claim that I've made that you called "scientific nonsense" or "false"; is actually TRUE.

The problem is totally that you won't admit when you are WRONG!

I've demonstrated that you were in ERROR with claims of heat engines of 100% efficiency and no waste heat; and I've given links to the websites of University Physics Departments to validate my claims.

The whole problem is YOUR FAULTY understanding of science. Science isn't what YOU think it is; it is actually what I think it is.

Bring on your litany of FALSE "false claims"; and any scientists here can have a good laugh at them.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

No truer words were spoken by Neil deGrasse Tyson when it comes to the false claims of kristopher.

PamW

As I mentioned above, many here at DU who are rightfully concerned about GHG emissions on one hand; but will then say they would rather have, or rather live next to, a coal power plant than a nuclear power plant. That is, even though they are concerned about GHG emissions from the coal plant, the fact that a power plant is a nuclear power plant TRUMPS the GHG concern. I'd be interested in WHY people feel that way. Over the years, I've run into a number of people online that are against nuclear power. I've come away with some of their reasons and concerns; and I'd like to know which are the most prevalent among those on DU. Here's a partial list:

1) "The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the ultimate evil, and I'm against anything even remotely associated with those bombings".

2) "The existence of stockpiles of nuclear weapons by the USA and Russia are the ultimate evil and threat to world peace, and I'm against anything even remotely associated with that."

3) "I believe that nuclear power plants are actually harming people, killing people, giving them cancer, whatever...and I want to stop that."

4) "I know nuclear power plants aren't harming people; but they have the potential to do so, and I want to stop that."

5) "Nuclear power plants are complex high-tech and will always be built / operated by big corporations, and I'm against big corporations in every way."

6) "I'm a progressive, and progressives are against nuclear power."

Do any of the above particularly resonate with the members here?

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

Nuclear plants are a terrible way to address climate change. They have problems with safety, cost, weapons proliferation and waste that eliminate them as a viable low-carbon technology. The alternative renewable sources are safer and less expensive without the waste issue. Plus they provide a more secure and dependable energy supply where, because they are largely owned and operated at the local level, the economic benefits flow mostly to the local owners.

NNuclear is a bad choice.

kristopher,

That's just a recital of the old scientifically disproven propaganda of the anti-nukes.

More than once I've referred you to the interview by Frontline with Dr. Charles Till of Argonne National Lab:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

I know kristopher doubts that I'm a scientist; but can we all agree that Dr. Till IS a scientist? Dr. Till was after all an Associate Director of Argonne National Laboratory. That makes him a LEADER among scientists; one of the best and brightest. So with the credentials taken care of, we commence.

Dr. Till explains how the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) is inherently safe:

...That's what happened at TMI. That's what happened at Chernobyl. And if it does stop, then what happens? And in the IFR what happens is, the reactor just shuts itself down. There's no mechanical devices needed to do that. There's no operator interaction. There isn't anything. It's just in the nature of materials. When the coolant flow stops, the reaction stops. That's remarkable.
Q: So it's inherently safe.
A: So it's inherently safe. It's a remarkable feature.

So much for kristopher's ill-founded excuse of a "safety problem".

Dr. Till explains that the IFR doesn't make weapons usable material:

Q: So it would be very difficult to handle for weapons, would it?
A: It's impossible to handle for weapons, as it stands.
It's highly radioactive. It's highly heat producing. It has all of the characteristics that make it extremely, well, make it impossible for someone to make a weapon.

I explained this to kristopher in detail in this response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112755232#post33

But kristopher wasn't able to understand the explaination back then.
However, so much for the weapons proliferation "problem"; that doesn't exist either.

Dr. Till explains that the IFR doesn't create long-term waste:

Q: And you repeat the process.
A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.

Again, so much for kristopher's non-scientific nonsense that nuclear waste has to be a long term problem. Dr. Till explains above the lifetimes for nuclear wastes in a recycling nuclear fuel cycle. This is what other countries are doing. Only the USA decided to forego a recycling nuclear fuel cycle at the behest of the anti-nukes.

Again, kristopher is parroting a bunch of non-scientific nonsense from the anti-nuclear groups. The anti-nuclear groups have been spouting this propaganda for years. Scientists and people who know their science, can readily recognize these falsehoods as propaganda and discount them. Non-scientists that don't know their science, of which kristopher is a prime example; don't have the scientific knowledge to recognize this propaganda as scientific nonsense, and they believe it. They then spout this crap on other websites as if it were scientific truth, when it isn't; and that is, of course, exactly what the anti-nuclear groups want. They want people to parrot what they say without understanding it.

And so it goes.

I've also posted here the conclusions from the energy studies of the last 20 years by the National Academy of Science that tells us that an "all renewable" energy supply is a non-realistic fantasy. The best we can count on from renewables is about 20%.

I've explained this to kristopher also, and he tells me the studies by the National Academy of Science don't exist. Or he tells me that the National Academy of Science doesn't know what it is talking about; we can trust them. Or he tells me that the reports from the National Academy of Science don't say what I say they are saying. Who are you going to believe about what the reports from the National Academy mean? Are you going to listen to a scientist; me. Or are you going to listen to a non-scientist; kristopher. You would listen to your medical doctor for the best interpretation of what the American Medical Association says. Why would you listen to a non-physician over a physician for an interpretation of what the AMA says?

No matter what type of ill-considered, unrealistic "greenie wet-dream" that kristopher proposes for our energy future; Mother Nature is going to be there to ensure that it doesn't come true.

That's what that quotation from Neil deGrasse Tyson that I now sign all my posts with is about.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

...responsible for putting "scientifically disproven propaganda of the anti-nukes" in their reports on the status of nuclear power?

That's where the list of problems (safety, proliferation, waste and cost) comes from - and trying to obscure their conclusions with propaganda about a fuel cycle we are not prepared for nor are likely to spend money developing is nothing more than a diversion from the reality of the nuclear program the world has committed to.

While a low level, not too bright, politically rightwing technician with no dedication to the pursuit of truth in their work might would pervert a study like you have here, such an act of deception would be considered beyond the pale for anyone within the elite science circles where professional reputation is everything.

You write yet again, "No less than the National Academy of Science states that we can count on renewables for no more than about 20% of our electric production."

As you well know, that is simply untrue. The (now outdated) NAS study states that there are no recognized barriers to a penetration of up to about 20% renewables, but to move beyond and up to penetrations of about 50% would probably require specific policies that are friendlier to renewables than is currently the general norm.
ABOVE 50% they predict a need to restructure the grid in a fashion that places pre-emimence on the way variable generation is managed - ie, more storage and deployment of 'smart grid' technologies.

At no point do they EVER state we can "count on renewables for no more than 20% of our electric production".

No ethical person would make that statement about that report.

and you are not going to get thirty years and thirty billion public dollars to develop them.

Kolesar,

The USA HAD a working Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) prototype at Argonne-West on the site of the Idaho National Laboratory.

We don't need 30 years or 30 billion to develop it; Argonne already did it during the 1980s and early 1990s. See:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: And you in fact ran an experiment that was comparable to what happened at Chernobyl?

A: Yes, yes. Let me go on a little bit about that, because it is a rather dramatic characteristic. The Chernobyl accident happened in April 26 of 1986. Earlier that month, the first week in April, with our test reactor in Idaho, in fact the same reactor control room where we're now sitting, we performed a demonstration of that characteristic, where if you cut off the coolant from the reactor, what would happen? And there are two ways to cut off the coolant. One is that simply the pumps that are pumping the reactor stop. The reactor just shut itself down.

The IFR was an operating reactor at Idaho National Laboratory, that Argonne was running actual tests on; as per Dr. Till's description above.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

some people immediately fear they are about to open an obituary. Please spare people this sort of unnecessary, however fleeting, fright.

And yes, he's a very cool scientist. Does interesting editorials occasionally.

I never thought of that, I will not do it again