northbranch’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  safety record

  "However, the backdrop for his nuclear-safety claim was less than ideal. The nuke plant McCain was touring has been the site of a number of nuclear accidents ...."

  It would be helpful if the writer of these lines would tell us how many people were killed or injured in these accidents.
  On McCain tours nuke plant, renews call for nuclear power expansion in U.S. posted 1 year, 3 months ago 19 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  good news from Italy

  This was the first news story I read this morning -- it's nice to wake up to good news for a change! Of course, it may not  actually pan out. It will be interesting to see which faction of the environmentalist movement carries the day, the pro-nukes or the anti-nukes.On Italy wants to reverse ban, move forward with nuclear power posted 1 year, 6 months ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  terror scare

  The Grist blurb on this article says one of the Achilles heels of nuclear power is "nuke plants' appeal as terrorist targets". Can someone remind us what percentage of terrorist attacks have targeted nuke plants?On Nuclear power plants in U.S. Southeast may face shutdowns due to drought posted 1 year, 10 months ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  first, decommission the auto-industrial complex

  It boggles the mind that an environmentalist can compare the risks of cars and nuclear power, and conclude that cars are less risky.

  Steven Cohen writes that "When we drive on an interstate highway, we face the risk of a crash. We accept the risk because it is relatively low, and because the effect of the risk is localized. A mistake in a nuclear power plant, however, can cause long-standing, widespread damage to people and ecosystems."

  Well, actually, in 60 years of the civilian nuclear industry, there has been one (1) accident that caused widespread damage. According to an intensive study by the World Health Organization, the Chernobyl accident might eventually result in as many as 4,000 premature deaths.

  Four thousand deaths in 60 years -- is that a lot? Well, not compared to the everyday carnage on the world's roads - about 4,000 people die in traffic accidents, on average, every 30 hours, for a total of 1.2 million people around the world every year.

  But if we really want to estimate the danger posed by cars and trucks, we need to add in the tens of thousands of premature deaths due to smog each year, in North America alone. About half of that smog comes from the smokestacks on our cars and trucks, while most of the rest comes from the smokestacks on non-nuclear power plants. Oh, and there's the inconvenient matter of global warming, which will have widespread and quite likely catastrophic impacts for many generations; in the US, 70 per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are due to transportation. Not to mention the fact that the oil consumed in the manufacture of a car generally equals the oil burned during the lifetime of the car. Not to mention that to make space for all these cars to drive and park, we've had to turn our cities and suburbs into concrete wastelands, which soak up heat while quickly flushing cooling rains down the sewers.

  The dangers posed by the auto-industrial complex are orders of magnitude greater than the dangers posed by nuclear power. The overwhelming environmental priority should be to decommission the auto-industrial complex. Once we've done that, if we've survived global warming, and if we've built a new car-free way of life, and if we've got enough renewable sources for our new, energy-reduced civilization, then we might want to look at phasing out nuclear power. On How to tell future generations about nuclear waste posted 3 years, 3 months ago 40 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  first, decommission the auto-industrial complex

  It boggles the mind that an environmentalist can compare the risks of cars and nuclear power, and conclude that cars are less risky.

  Steven Cohen writes that "When we drive on an interstate highway, we face the risk of a crash. We accept the risk because it is relatively low, and because the effect of the risk is localized. A mistake in a nuclear power plant, however, can cause long-standing, widespread damage to people and ecosystems."

  Well, actually, in 60 years of the civilian nuclear industry, there has been one (1) accident that caused widespread damage. According to an intensive study by the World Health Organization, the Chernobyl accident might eventually result in as many as 4,000 premature deaths.

  Four thousand deaths in 60 years -- is that a lot? Well, not compared to the everyday carnage on the world's roads - about 4,000 people die in traffic accidents, on average, every 30 hours, for a total of 1.2 million people around the world every year.

  But if we really want to estimate the danger posed by cars and trucks, we need to add in the tens of thousands of premature deaths due to smog each year, in North America alone. About half of that smog comes from the smokestacks on our cars and trucks, while most of the rest comes from the smokestacks on non-nuclear power plants. Oh, and there's the inconvenient matter of global warming, which will have widespread and quite likely catastrophic impacts for many generations; in the US, 70 per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are due to transportation. Not to mention the fact that the oil consumed in the manufacture of a car generally equals the oil burned during the lifetime of the car. Not to mention that to make space for all these cars to drive and park, we've had to turn our cities and suburbs into concrete wastelands, which soak up heat while quickly flushing cooling rains down the sewers.

  The dangers posed by the auto-industrial complex are orders of magnitude greater than the dangers posed by nuclear power. The overwhelming environmental priority should be to decommission the auto-industrial complex. Once we've done that, if we've survived global warming, and if we've built a new car-free way of life, and if we've got enough renewable sources for our new, energy-reduced civilization, then we might want to look at phasing out nuclear power. On Nuclear power is complicated, dangerous, and definitely not the answer posted 3 years, 3 months ago 40 Responses