David Suzuki

[PamW]

18. Scientifically WRONG!!!`

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