HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Science » Science (Group) » A nice website put togeth...

Sun Jun 25, 2017, 01:01 AM

A nice website put together by young engineers.

I love young engineers, the last best hope of humanity.

This website was founded as a non-profit project, built entirely by a group of young engineers. Entire website is based on our own personal perspectives, and does not represent any views of any company in the energy industry.

Main purpose of this project is to help the public to learn some interesting and important information about the energy and about the nuclear energy. We realize that the basics in the nuclear physics do not belong to fundamental human knowledge and the term “nuclear” often evokes a feeling of something negative or even dangerous. We do not claim this or that opinion is the only opinion that is right. But it is noteworthy, that the vast majority of nuclear engineers, people who know what nuclear means, do not connect the term “nuclear” with anything negative or dangerous."

Nuclear Power for Everybody.

They have some very nice, nerdy quizzes.

15 replies, 3292 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to NNadir (Original post)

Sun Jun 25, 2017, 02:13 AM

1. So who is actually behind that site? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 25, 2017, 07:51 AM

3. What is behind your assumption that the engineers are lying?

I happen to have spent thirty years studying nuclear engineering issues. From a brief overview of what these fine young highly educated young people say, I don't see a single shred of dishonesty.

Not one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NNadir (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 25, 2017, 08:13 AM

4. I didn't assume anything. I asked a question that you avoided addressing. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 25, 2017, 09:13 AM

6. The engineers state directly who they are on their web page. I assume that you clearly assumed...

...something by asking that question at all. Either that, or you can't read or didn't bother to read the information in the link, which makes me wonder why or if you opened it at all. I am pointing that out out, despite some clear evidence that addressing your question may well be pointless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NNadir (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 25, 2017, 09:29 AM

7. "state directly who they are on their web page" - Apparently I missed that. Please point me to where

they state their names and specific qualifications.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 25, 2017, 11:46 AM

10. Please state for me your qualifications. Their quizzes obviate their qualifications, as does...

...what they have to say.

Their brief little tutorials about two phase flow for just one example demonstrates qualitatively that these are highly qualified highly educated people.

Nuclear Power: Two Phase Flow

In order to question the qualifications of the authors, one should have qualifications of his or her own. Regrettably, I have noticed in the last 30 years of studying nuclear energy and interacting with people who question it, is that the vast majority - not all but certainly the vast majority - of the people questioning it have no qualifications whatsoever, no familiarity with engineering, no interest or knowledge of science, nothing at all.

I would submit that anyone who is not qualified to understand the web authors qualifications is probably not worth addressing.

These fine young people are trying to educate those who are willing to be educated, but there is always a subset of people who not only refuse to be educated, but actually revel in their ignorance and lack of education..

Now, I could definitely point easily, since I am educated on nuclear issues, the total lack of qualifications of the vast numbers of people who hate nuclear energy because they know nothing at all about it. But it would be a waste of time.

This very unpleasant conversation with it's slightly CT edge - a claim that engineers must have "someone behind them" because dumb people don't agree with them - is concluded.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NNadir (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 25, 2017, 05:09 PM

11. I'd state for you my "qualifications" (I actually have an engineering degree) but...

I'm on your "ignore list" so you won't see this anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 25, 2017, 10:42 PM

13. I'll play if you like, from the "Some kind of Luddite" perspective.

Even as a radical environmentalist and left wing lunatic, I still find myself unable to understand anti-nuclear activism anymore, even though I used to be some kind of anti-nuclear activist myself, including naked people. Including naked me. And dumpster diving. I know the keywords that will bring up the full frontal pictures of me wearing only a hat I bought in Mexico and a smile. I will not lie, I was hot. And a mess too.

It probably has something to do with my misanthropy. Humans do more damage to the natural environment than nuclear waste. Chernobyl and Fukushima are like instant human exclusion zones. But for an unfortunate few radiation sensitive species, nature rebounds when humans are excluded from an environment by nuclear accidents.


I'm not going to go ConspiracyTheory on NNadir's linked site. The science and technology look legit. A crazy guy like me, who has been, and is currently the sole proprietor of various websites since the later 'nineties (some crazy artist shit more than others) isn't going to question a web site's origin, only its content.

ANYONE can create a website and it seems a very likely thing for young aspiring nuclear engineers to do.

I started college as an engineering major after quitting high school, but I switched to biology because 88% or more of the students in engineering classes were guys and they were boring. No, i do not want to talk about cars and babes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 25, 2017, 06:40 PM

12. IF it's "young engineers", and there is no evidence it is, ...

Last edited Sun Jun 25, 2017, 08:11 PM - Edit history (1)

...then it almost certainly a product of the American Nuclear Society's Young Engineers Group.

The ANS is the central hub for the nuclear proselytizing movement. They press their membership to act aggressively to influence public opinion at all levels - and at its conferences it also hosts and trains a large network of pronuclear bloggers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NNadir (Original post)

Sun Jun 25, 2017, 02:29 AM

2. Interesting site, and worth looking at. Here's an email I sent to their "Contact Us" tab:

Hello Nuclear Power,

I've been directed to your website, and I find it intriguing and interesting.

I have heard the proposal that renewable energy is a viable energy source, but it can't supply energy at the volumes needed on a world-scale. If this is the case, then nuclear power is the cleanest and most dependable way to supply our energy needs now.

I am aware that nuclear power plant design and safety is always improving and evolving. I keep reading that there are designs for the future that will be a vast improvement over what exists in the world today.

But there are two huge issues I see in the world of nuclear power.

1. Spent fuel and nuclear waste - If you look at Hanford, and other nuclear waste locations, you will see a history of leakage, mismanagement, and ineffective cleanup. Why should we add to the quantity of nuclear waste, when we haven't been able to safely deal with what's already been produced?

A. I am also apprehensive about people trying to find a solution to nuclear waste by developing commercial products from it, and using those products to introduce unsafe materials into our consumer and waste stream.

2. Fukushima - Fukushima is an ongoing disaster that shows no sign of abating. More nuclear reactors means more possibility of Fukushima - level events. As technologically advanced as Japan is, TEPCO was unable to prevent this disaster. What about places with more lax regulations or oversight?

These are the basic arguments, which I'm sure you hear all the time, against nuclear power. How do you answer them?

Thanks for your time,

San Francisco CA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NBachers (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 25, 2017, 08:48 AM

5. Actually the two "huge issues" you raise demonstrate the superiority of nuclear power.

Billions of dollars have been spent on the Hanford issue in particular, and so called "nuclear waste" associated with commercial used nuclear fuels, and billions more will be squandered on it.

How many lives have been saved as a result?

Very few, if any. Why is that? Because neither Hanford, a weapons plant, nor the storage of used nuclear fuel have killed very many people, if any. Now I grant you, if there is any leak at all at any nuclear facility anywhere on earth, it will be huge international news and millions of tons of coal and oil will be burned to talk about it on the internet, even if it kills no one. By contrast, the thousands upon thousands of people who die regularly from dangerous natural gas leaks will not be discussed at all, but is this rational or even ethical?

Suppose we spent the same amount of money as been spent on Hanford, the big boogey man raised by people who know very little about nuclear energy, on providing basic sewage handling services to the 2.3 billion people who lack any kind of sanitary treatment at all.

What proportion of the people who die each year from as WHO describes in the link being "280 000 diarrhoeal deaths annually and is a major factor in several neglected tropical diseases, including intestinal worms, schistosomiasis, and trachoma" would have been saved?

Which is more dangerous, used nuclear fuel, which has collected for more than half a century generating irrational fear but killing no one, or human fecal matter?

I consider, after decades of study, that every component of used nuclear fuel is extremely valuable. They are tremendous resources, even if the intellectually lazy general public doesn't get it.

You say that Fukushima is an ongoing disaster with no sign of abating. Are you therefore claiming that the seven million people who die each year from air pollution is not an "ongoing disaster with no sign of abating?"

What about climate change? It's not, um, a disaster? Which prevented more dangerous fossil fuel waste from being indiscriminately dumped into the atmosphere, all the solar and wind plants built on this planet after half a century of mindless cheering, or the 400+ nuclear plants built between 1965 and 1985 using mid 20th century technology?

Here is a comprehensive survey in the primary scientific literature of the 67 largest risks to human health and the death tolls associated with them, authored by a huge consortium of academic physicians, epidemiologists and health officials:

A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (Lancet 2012, 380, 2224–60: For air pollution mortality figures see Table 3, page 2238 and the text on page 2240.)

How many people exactly, died from Fukushima radiation?

How many people died from drowning in surging seawater in the same event as destroyed the reactors?

Which is more dangerous, given the drownings in the events in occupied coastal city in Japan in 2011 in the Sendai earthquake and the quarter of a million people killed by a similar event in 2004 in Indonesia and the Maldives, surging seawater from rising seas or nuclear power?

In Japan, which killed more people, the explosion at the Mitsubishi trichlorosilane plant or radiation from Fukushima? The solar industry is a trivial industry that has never, not once, produced 2 of the 574 exajoules of energy that humanity was using each year as of 2015, and already dangerous intermediates from it are killing people, and, as I pointed out in this forum last night, that's only the tip of the iceberg where the solar scam is concerned.

Fast, accurate determination of cadmium contamination without expensive instrumentation.

In the last ten years we spent over one trillion dollars - money that could have done a great deal of good elsewhere - on the solar scam with the result that climate change is getting worse, not better, and still the fantasy that it is "safe" and "sustainable" and "cheap" is bandied about mindlessly in spite of obvious data to the contrary.

The assumption made by people who lazily assume that by saying the word "Fukushima" they have established that it is the worst energy disaster of all time and proof that nuclear plants are not what I regard them to be, the last best hope of the human race, is frankly nothing more than selective attention.

The great climate scientist Jim Hansen and his colleague Pushker A. Kharecha published an irrefutable paper showing that nuclear energy saves lives even accounting for Fukushima, Chernobyl, Hanford (a weapons plant by the way) blah, blah, blah, blah.

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

These fine young engineers whose site I linked are highly educated. I invite you to view the curriculum of the nuclear engineering curriculum at MIT to see how educated, in fact, they are:

NSE curriculum

This is the undergraduate curriculum.

These highly educated young people are fighting ignorance, ignorance that I note, since nuclear power saves lives, kills people.

If we had spent the same trillion dollars that we squandered on the fashionable, but dangerous (since it hasn't worked, is not working and will not work) on the pop notion that solar energy can save the day on nuclear power plants, we would have saved millions of lives among the 70 million people who died in the last ten years from air pollution.

The problem with nuclear energy is that it is a highly sophisticated enterprise that involves deep concepts that don't fit well into the pop mentality, and of course, as mentioned, selective attention.

Enjoy your Sunday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NNadir (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 25, 2017, 10:17 AM

9. NNadir- I was asking honest questions based on my admittedly limited knowledge.

I'm interested and open to consideration, but your snide, superior attitude, and your application of words like "intellectually lazy" and "are you therefore claiming" and "selective attention" convey a sneering and scolding tone. Not appropriate.

Last time I'll ever consider participating in one of your threads.

"Enjoy your Sunday."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NBachers (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 26, 2017, 11:08 AM

14. Thanks for your comment.

My snide superior attitude, which is very real, is based on the fact that I regard people who engage in Pavlovian rote evocation of "waste" and "Fukushima" (and/or) "Chernobyl" as being people who are simply engaged in narrow minded selective attention.

In the last several decades, going back to Chernobyl around 1986, after which I slowly changed my mind about nuclear power, I've encountered this sort of arrogant shorthand repeatedly.

And I resent it.

You are perfectly free, of course, to not consider participating in my threads if you consider that my personality suggests that I have nothing useful to say.

I will, however, continue - most likely in a dismissive tone - whether you participate or not to insist that Jim Hansen is correct when he points out that even with Fukushima, etc, nuclear energy saves lives, and that it is the most effective way most likely the only way to address climate change, and that it therefore ridiculous to worry about nuclear wastes which don't kill people while ignoring fossil fuel wastes which do kill people.

Enjoy the rest of the week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NNadir (Original post)

Sun Jun 25, 2017, 09:50 AM

8. NNadir

Thanks for the analysis. When you factor in the thousands of premature deaths in the US due to emissions from coal plants - which can be proven in the aggregate but not on an individual basis - the case for a reasoned examination of nuclear power is strengthened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 26, 2017, 04:32 PM

15. Thank you for getting the point. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread