Why do people fear nuclear power?

Mr Chips,

My comment about PWR was in response to the statement that there was nothing about fission mentioned. The fact that you apparently didn't know that PWR means Pressurized Water Reactor and that the only PWR's around are fission was inferred.

ANS: No agenda here. I am no longer in the business but I spent many years in it and have handled spent fuel as well as new fuel.

BTW You can hold new fuel bundles in your hot little bare hands but you normally don't since we don't want to cantaminate the fuel bundle with our dirty hands.

And yes in comparision most rad-waste is basically safe. Most radiation from cleaning materials, clothes, etc can be stopped by one sheet of typing paper.You wouldn't want to sleep in it or ingest it (that is where damages can be done is where the decay particles reach internal organs).

Let me ask just how much do you actually know about decay schemes of radioactive elements. I have a Handbook which is about 1 1/2 inches thick 8 1/2 by 11, that shows all decay schemes. Are some dangerous certainly are most? No. Could we operate nuclear power safely and without substantial dangerous rad-waste? Yes. Do we? No. That is unfortunate.

I am all for solar power. I am only responding to the misconceptions about nuclear power.

This statement makes unwarranted assumptions, invalid correlations and in general makes no sense.

The following is an article from the New York Times regarding Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. It is difficult to read so I will quote the last statement I made.

http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/groupphotos.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=51

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1 1/2 by 8 1/2 by 11, LOL, that hardly compares to my CRC book.

Did I say there was nothing about fission mentioned? Gee, that is news to me. Maybe I did. Perhaps you feel this is so important to your arguing about the safety of nuclear power that you can go back and refer me directly to my boo boo. Would of been rather communicative of you to do that to begin with but still you are just going on about something with no particulars. Gee, maybe you don't have an agenda here. Maybe its like you don't have much of anything.

Hmmm, I have it from the data Stoked posted that handling DU with the bare hands is not something you want to do but then that is just the safe stuff left from making the fuel rods and not the spent stuff so we can take your word on it that it is perfectly safe.

Hey man, like uh, do you know the difference between an article and an editorial? Not even any pretense at peer review there buddy. You did get it printed so I'm sure it's gospel.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I just looked through my CRC book. The table of the radioisotopes and associated data takes up only about a half inch of paper and it uses about a 6 pt font (with smaller sub and super scripts). Maybe you do know more than me. Well, then, if reference materials are what makes for wisdom then lets level the playing field. http://ie.lbl.gov/toipdf/toi20.pdf or http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ (considered to be one of the very best) and then I liked the interface of http://www.webelements.com/webelements/index.html where after picking your target element you can then choose "radioisotopes" from the menu at the left. Gee, now, does that make me as wise as you?

If you want to do some real discussing here, I suggest you get off the subject of the size of your reference materials or whether or not someone at some time referred to the beginning post correctly (although I do feel that you are patently wrong in this stupid detail chasing of yours, maybe you feel it is worth chasing down exactly what you are trying to refer to in this regard, knock yourself out).

Instead of trying to assasinate my character by showing how dysfunctional I am (boy, you sure have given me plenty of ammo to use this approach with you) I suggest you address the points. For example, do you think that democratic governing systems with free speech and freedom of information act, etc. get in the way of the safe generation of power using your kind of non-solar nuclear energy? Would it be better for the public to not have as much say and just leave it all up to the experts and keep the data of any developments or construction private?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mr Chips,

Posted by Mr Chips: I just looked through my CRC book. The table of the radioisotopes and associated data takes up only about a half inch of paper and it uses about a 6 pt font (with smaller sub and super scripts). Maybe you do know more than me. Well, then, if reference materials are what makes for wisdom then lets level the playing field. http://ie.lbl.gov/toipdf/toi20.pdf or http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ (considered to be one of the very best) and then I liked the interface of http://www.webelements.com/webelements/index.html where after picking your target element you can then choose "radioisotopes" from the menu at the left. Gee, now, does that make me as wise as you?

ANS: Being able to read and being able to follow instructions is entirely different than understanding the signifigance of what you read and has nothing to do with being wise. Unless you have truely studied nuclear physics and have been involved with detecting radiation and shielding yourself from radiation, I suggest you should take a back seat to those that have.

For example, how do you convert the radioactive decay from your CRC book into RADS and REMS.? What is the difference in the terms and the amount of exposure that various organs are sensative to? No there is a big difference in being able to read and knowing what you read means.

Posted by Mr Chips: If you want to do some real discussing here, I suggest you get off the subject of the size of your reference materials or whether or not someone at some time referred to the beginning post correctly (although I do feel that you are patently wrong in this stupid detail chasing of yours, maybe you feel it is worth chasing down exactly what you are trying to refer to in this regard, knock yourself out).

ANS: Now this sort of exchange suggested to me that "Mr Chips" doesn't even know what PWR means and is talking through his hat, as is the case in unknowledgeable protestors dialog.

Posted by Mr Chips: Instead of trying to assasinate my character by showing how dysfunctional I am (boy, you sure have given me plenty of ammo to use this approach with you) I suggest you address the points.

ANS: Sensative aren't we! I in no way was "trying" to show you dysfunctional or to assasinate your character. I was simply correcting mis-information you were spreading about the safety of nuclear power. By the way have you ever had a "Whole Body Count"? Can you tell us what it is? I notice you haven't addressed any of the points I made regarding actual safety hazard of hypothetical causes of major spills in nuclear plants (No Salt, Coleman Wicks or Household Smoke Detectors) due to the stupidity of government over regulation; which generated this paranoia in the public in the first place.

Posted by Mr Chips: For example, do you think that democratic governing systems with free speech and freedom of information act, etc. get in the way of the safe generation of power using your kind of non-solar nuclear energy?

ANS: That is easy. I think "Free Speech" means you can make your points. But I also think you are required to speak the truth and not make speeches that are either just ignorant or deliberately distorted BS from the truth with an agenda trying to sway an unknowing public. Besides I have already said I am all for solar power. But this was not a political debate.

This was a discussion about the real dangers of nuclear power vs the wrongfully claimed dangers by unknowing persons and their followers.

Posted by Mr Chips:"Would it be better for the public to not have as much say and just leave it all up to the experts and keep the data of any developments or construction private?"

ANS: Certainly there should be public input and discussion. But it would be nice if the unknowing public would raise real issues and not repeat "What I've been told" or "I have heard" or "What this protestor sign says", BS of the unknowing with an agenda. Do you really believe the coal industry and/or the oil and gas industry is for nuclear power? Do you not think they are putting out propaganda to try and supress a technology which would make them obsolete? It takes more knowledge to make rational decisions than to just read from a protestors sign.

 

Mr Chips,

ANS: Covered in my prior post.

ANS: And then again maybe I just did point out your "boo boo" in my prior post. If you get lost over 1/4 of a page of posts and don't remember what you have said. Just how serious should we take your statements?

ANS: I made my point. I have indeed handled new fuel bundles with my hands. I only wore rubber gloves so as to not contaminate the fuel bundle. Gee I have lived to be 63 and am kicking around better than most 63 year olds. I still hop fences and climb trees and generally keep up with my workers. Can't say my exposure to nuclear fuel has had any detrimental affect now can I?

ANS: Hey man, the New York Times quoted me because I was in a position to know the BS being spread by the unknowing was false. BTW I haven't seen you published in the NY Times on these issues.!

Now you are unfortunately free to call me a liar but that doesn't make it so.

Let me suggest it is your lack of knowledge here that is at issue and not my veracity about something for which I have considerable education and experience.

PS: Please show us your credentials to make statements about these things.

Have you been a consultant to (not for) the nuclear industry?

You may have seen the "Editor's note at the bottom. Yes I was a "Rent-a-Tech", but I quickly became Team Leader, then Foreman and within two years was in charge of the Startup of the plant. I can proudly suggest that didn't happen because I was a "Know Nothing". I was also a consultant at Palo Verde and TMI.

 

TO READERS:

To make my point I would like to draw your attention to the topic available at the top of your screen on this page, entitled "Nuclear Plant Locations" which has the following URL:

http://www.nukepills.com/contentbui...content/00/01/08/65/98/userdirectory6.content

1 - They present a theoretical hazard of radioactive iodine for Americans and US power plants based on Chernobyl!

2 - Chernobyl was a graphite moderated plant, not a PWR. Chernobyl did not have a radioactive containment vessel as part of their design. Had Chernobyl had a containment vessel, as do the US designed PWR's then there would have been "NO"" release of radioactivity.

Why should they not have referred to TMI and the fact that other than the paranoia generated in the public, TMI had no substantial release and there was (and is) no substantial hazard to the public by our nuke plants.

The only hazard is the one we have created for ourselves by not re-processing the spent fuel rods. The spent fuel bundles I personally have handled generated Cerenkov Radiation 2 feet out into the spent fuel storage tank after passing through 3/4 inches of steel.!

They are extremely hot and can kill. A 100msec exposure would be a "Mean Lethal Dose". (Does Mr Chips know what that term means?) . We should not be storing them in bulk anywhere.

We should be re-processing them and reducing the volume of any actual hazardous waste and reduce the cost of fuel also.

3 - Radioactive iodine posioning is absorbed in the thyroid and is a long term hazard for which we have treatment. Its hazard is not much more dangerous than catching the flu, which BTW can also be fatal.

It is this distortion of facts and hazards that has generated the public fear of nuclear power. It is deliberate by those industries opposed to being replaced by nuclear power and it is deliberate by government agencies which seek to expand their power and budgets.

It is a no-win situation for the American public and nuclear power industry.

This is the false and misleading information and practice of anti-nuke idiots.

I am infact disappointed that SciForums even allows this site to be linked here. I just took a quick look.

1 - They put up a computer simulation for Reactor Control. Which there really aren't any controls and for which the speed at which problems progress are not realistic, nor does the simulation include all the back up and redundant automatic safety controls of a real plant, which when you lose manual control of the plant process it explodes.

They make uneducated and untrained as operators of real plants persons believe this whole process is so touchy and delicate that it is uncontrollable and unsafe. I mean if they can't control it how can anybody? Shsssh.

2 - They include links to sites which shows a map of "Deadly Radioactive Sites" across the US. The map is saturated (and full of shit as to actual risk).

3 - They link to a site that shows the devastation and death of dropping nuclear bombs in your neighborhood. Nuclear bombs have absolutely nothing to do with the dangers of nuclear power plants.

This is all exaggerated BS to scare the public and to make them anti-nuke crazy. This link should be pulled by site management as a responsible scientific representative.

 

This is all exaggeraed BS to scare the public and to make them anti-nuke crazy. This link should be pulled by site management as a responsible scientific representative.
*gag* Did MACM just say that?

 

Persol,

AND does Mr Persol disagree? Or are you one of the ill-informed, unknowledgeable, anti-nukes? Or are you just pissed that you lost the bet on the "Inverse Square and M-G-R " issue in the Physics and Math forum?.

You just might take time out and consider you are on my turf here.

 

Good show.

As my experience stems solely from naval PWR plants, it's nice to have somebody in the thread with experience from the civilian side of things. Bonus points for having hands-on experience with TMI.

 

So lets see. If someone doesn't agree with you, they must be ill-informed and unknowledgeable?

You probably don't see the irony in this at all... ::sigh:: Exactly how many of your links in other posts should be "pulled by site management as a responsible scientific representative."

 

Persol,

ANS: Unless you can contribute something that indicates I have mis-stated the nature of the issue and you disagree then I would have to conclude the odds are you are mis-informed.

ANS: Oh, I see the irony. I see you have slipped so far down the slope attacking me and getting your foot shoved in your mouth, you now choose to not commit to making specific statements and continue to merely make self congratulatory remarks and do a lot of hand waving.

ANS: Now the answer to that just might depend on if my work which you have attempted in vain to ridicule becomes published now.

 

Stokes Pennwald,

ANS: Thanks. You did quite well yourself.

ANS: Actually I got my start in nuclear in the US Army. It was a Tri-Service program (Army, Navy and Air Force) established by a special act of Congress. The Army guys upon retirement formed a corporation called "Nuclear Support Services, Inc. (NSS)" which became publically traded on NASDAQ.

ANS: I don't want to over state my link to TMI. I wasn't there all that long. I had my own Research Corporation at the time and just signed on as a consultant after the accident and went and spent my two weeks paid vacation there. Guys couldn't believe I choose TMI for my vacation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So "anything radiological" means only PWR? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, MAN?

I believe that without too much difficulty a person with little knowledge or a lot of knowledge in this field can look at this thread and determine that the overall evidence being presented gives more weight to a virtual opposite hypothesis than presented in the first thread. In order to be a staunch supporter of terrestrial nuclear reactors you have to have some fundamental screws loose somewhere. An inability to admit being wrong seems to be a common characteristic of these individuals. It also appears that starting with a military background in the subject area helps to formulate this unthinking mind set. Perhaps those who support nuclear reactors on the planet for energy need to be of a tendency to not question authority, to be a good soldier, a grunt, someone who is willing to go out there and kill someone just because someone else told them it should be done.

Approaching the Linear No Threshold hypothesis with thresholds that are magnitudes higher than those established by main stream scientists and governing organizations requires having less value for life. Yes, it is those who are alienated from what is most valuable, people who are caught up in a web of deception and allegiance to symbols and labels rather than to what is here and now who not only do not question the self-serving (only seemingly, not realistically) arrogance and accepted ignorance of those with the greatest power but also dedicate great amounts of their lives to the furtherance of the royal scams. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Wow. Who first made those statements? Now, there was some wisdom for which I never cease to find evidence.

You guys think you've done such a good job and pat each other on the back. HA, incredible, amazing, I wont be dumbfounded or stupefied by the insanity that presents itself in an online forum and around this subject. I've seen it all too often. All I know is that human beings better figure out a way to bring some real governing to bear or we are really liable to lose it what with such criminal negligence and sociopathic dysfunction in evidence.

Hey, I can believe you chose TMI for your vacation, MacM. From what you've shared here, I put little faith in your intellect or heart. I feel pity for you and the other grunts, the followers and defenders of the oligarchy. It is a thorough waste of my time to converse with you and other lackeys. Ardent true believers only get more riled and potentially more violent when their cartoons are challenged. Better to not tempt those who live by the sword.

Oh, you know, when you put a lot of line spaces in your posts, you are cutting down on your semantic content as well as that of the whole thread. I suggest you attempt to put some more effort into at least some semblance of truly wanting to communicate rather than just dominate or you will just continue to add to the idea that you rely more on force than intelligence for your reckoning. Also, the red color makes you look kind of mean, guy, but then is that not just par for one who depends more on intimidation than information?

 

Mr Chips,

ANS: Considering that I have said nothing what-so-ever in regard to "anything radiological", it seems it isn't I that HAS SOMETHING WRONG".

ANS: Based on your comments here I think it is obvious where the loose screws are.

ANS: I have yet to see you post your education and experience in this field to be qualified to make any comments what-so-ever.

ANS: It is a matter of your uninformed opinion and unthinking mind that others appear to you to not be thinking just because they happen to disagree with your uninformed opinion. It would not have anything to do with the military but having at least a rudimentary knowledge and actual understanding of the issues.

ANS: I think it is obvious why you have failed to actually address the issue. Why have you side stepped the number of deaths caused by conventional power plants compared to those killed by nuclear power? Or why have you side stepped the fact that nuclear power plants effluent is cleaner than the air and water they take in from the enviornment.? Let me suggest it is because:

1 - You don't really know anything about the issue other than what you have been told or read in your anti-nuke sources.

2 - The facts don't support your arguement, so why talk facts. Lets just talk BS instead.

ANS: Let me suggest you actually do some home work. Come back and talk once you can give comparisons as to death and illness between conventional forms of power and nuclear power. Choosing the cleaner, safer nuclear power is not arrogance. It is a deliberate choice of the better of the two. Rejecting fact in favor of rehetoric is just stupidity.

ANS: Since you like to talk big and know it all, please inform us as to your actual qualifications. While you are at it don't side step the issue justify killing thousands by your conventional power when only a few dozen have died due to nuclear power. And before you pop off to much let me just make clear to you that the three killed in Idaho were from our group.

The US has lost several times as many astronauts. I suppose we should stop our efforts in space. 50,000 per year are killed in automobile accidents. I suppose we should outlaw cars. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.

ANS: Sure when you lack the ability to address the issue head on with facts and knowledge, resort to name calling. That really bears a lot of weight for your cause. Your opinion about my intellect is about as valuable as your opinion on nuclear safety.

ANS: "followers" LOL, fool, we were leaders. The Idaho crew lost their lives operating an experimental design. If it weren't for us you twits would still be riding horses.

ANS: Sorry to disappoint you but it takes a lot more than your BS to rile me. While I could most likely clean your clock in an actual fight, I don't have to fight, I use my head, unlike some people. That comes from actually knowing what I'm talking about and letting the BS just flow on by.

ANS: And you should concentrate on a bit of learning so that when you open your mouth what comes out is more than just bad breath.

ANS: Funny. Really funny. But pathetic.

 

And you should concentrate on a bit of learning so that when you open your mouth what comes out is more than just bad breath.
It's even funny that his insults are so poorly formulated that he just makes himself look worse. Really funny. But pathetic.

 

Persol,

ANS: I only return the favor. Which in your case comes damn easy. I notice you too have nothing to contribute to the facts. That seems to be the way with all talk types.

I do have a bit of advice for you. If you really don't like the taste of shoe leather then don't open your mouth so wide.

 

Pathetic in the extreme.

 

Mr Chips,

ANS: Yea, I would have to agree. To make such absolute statements without any apparent education, experience or real knowledge is extremely pathetic.

You do realise you haven't responded to even ONE actual fact. All you have done is run your mouth.

 

Every time you put "ANS:" in front of a statement I see a pathetic factious demagogic attitude that does not seek to share opinion but who believes that their word is sacrosanct. Why try to communicate with someone who has all the answers? So, you are an example of someone who had high authority at nuclear power plants. I do believe that how you say things destroys any credibility the main thesis of this thread may have had. Please continue.

 

"The nuclear knowledgeable here seem to have this covered and I need not add much in that regard. As ususal the unknowledgeable exaggerate the risks."

Spoken just as a true believer. Do you know of Eric Hoffer's tome on the subject? have you explored the characteristics of faith sufferers? They profess that their beliefs are correct because they know them to be so and that those who do not agree are just not aware. This is a totalitarian, dicatatorial approach. It is a put down of any one who may disagree on the basis of their own understandings. this is a confusion of the concepts of knowledge and belief.

"1 - The PWR at the beginning did refer to fission plants in that there are no other type of nuclear powered PWR's in existance."

So, my bringing up of solar energy as nuclear and in need of full embracing, as instance of fusion that we can and have used in a sustained manner, as evidence that many so-called proponents of terrestrial reactors are not in tune with a scientific perspective is not appropriate for this thread? Solar energy is brought to us in a radiological form. The first post here expressed the opinion (again the disparity of knowledge verses belief) that protesters were ill informed. I am pointing out that proponents are ill-informed and using non-factual data. The first post spoke of "anything radiological" not just PWR plants and yet you must continue to harp on this? You are not exhibiting the characteristics of a rational approach to this subject or to the parameters of sound and mutually respectful communication. MacM, you are being rude in the extreme, ignoring that which does not fit in with your beliefs! This is not science. You have worked as a head-priest in the nuclear industries so obviously you have the mumbo jumbo of the special indoctrination rites and protocol down pat but they are obfuscation, not clarifciation. They are excuse for noncommunication not valid argument. Solar energy also comes from a huge fission component, according to my research, much more than all of the reactors on earth combined.

"2 - The only radioactive waste that is actually dangerous is the spent fuel which until the Carter Presidency and TMI was not so much of a problem in that we re processed it."

Superlatives are usually false and this one has so many claiming otherwise, so much hard core peer-reviewed experimental evidence contrary to your extreme statement that after your so-called first point, this one only brings further disgust as to your ability to reason. I and many others don't want to soil our integrity by dealing with such narrow-minded anti-factual religious fervor.

"3 - Shutting down the re-processing plants in-of-itself made nuclear power only 3% as cost effective as it once was because nuke plants run on typically a 3% over critical mass initial fuel load. Once that 3% is gone you have to shut down and refuel. By not reprocessing that fuel you are throwing away 30 times the fuel you consumed producing power."

To what are you referring? This seems to float out there as if you are discussing things with someone else in another thread, perhaps in another forum and cross posting here by accident. Again, this makes any ne who might want to engage in conversation with you, unless they be fellow adherents to this virtual religious stance, to not want to sully their thoughts with your waving about and foaming at the mouth. Yuck!

"4 - I was a member of the TMI Recovery Team. We lost no lives there or even caused serious illness. I have forgotten the exact number but I believe there were 2-3 dozen lives lost at Chernobyl. We also lost three lives in 1961 in a plant that belongd to our organization. It was the SL-1 in Idaho."

Again, another superlative. How do you know "we" lost no lives there? Obviously you are referring to a small subset of the population, just your team but why? Why can't your "we" include the general population? Did you look at the book by Sternglass that I posted earlier that Westinghouse destroyed to keep people ignorant of the fact that TMI killed many, most likely lead to many still borns and possibly cancers and abnormalities. Only two to three dozen lives lost via Chernobyl? When will the deaths from Chernobyl stop happening? Do you disagree with the physics that many thousands of lives have stopped due to the radiation release there and that many thousands if not millions will continue to arise from that accident all across the Northern hemisphere. Who wants to try to communicate with this blindly subservient hate speech of yours?

"5 - If you carry in a packet of "No Salt" that you can by at your health food store, you can set off the radiation alarms in a nuke plant. If you spill it on the floor you would create a major clean up and investigation for a nuclear spill. The same would be true if you took in mantels from Coleman Lanterns, which you buy in your local hardware store. Same as if you open most smoke detctor and removed the radioactive source that is used in them."

Big deal. You can set off an air bag with a fender bender. A fire truck may arrive to deal with a fire that has already been quenched. Do you claim that safety factors need not be considered because there can be false alarms? There is no reason, no logic, no intelligence, no respect for science, for shared understandings, for life with this stupidity.

"The hazard of radiation is grossly overblown."

Sometimes and sometimes not. Sometimes it is not appreciated fully and I find that some approach this stuff with a zealousness, an inability to consider reality or seek mutual understanding that makes it quite specious to believe anything such as yourself may utter.

"6 - The radioactive decays with longer time (many zero's) is actually less dangerous than shorter ones in most cases. Why because the longer the decay the lower the magnitude of radiation."

That is only true to a point. Water can be considered non-toxic but you can drown in it. Many short lived highly radioactive nuclides come from parent isotopes with long half-lives. Again, you are not claiming anything of any real significance to this debate and Stokey has already attempted this reasoning. One can see that there is a religious, a zealous desire for some to ignore any potential threat of radiological phenomenon to favor their desires over factual evidence.

"I was Startup Coordinator of the Shoreham Nuclear Plant on Long Island, Ny. Lilco spent $4B building the plant. We got it up and running and tested but could never go online at full power due to never ending legal challenges by the unknowing protestors. The plant was ultimately sold to the state of NY for $1.00 and written off. Stupid, really stupid."

Again, you confuse knowledge with belief. Apparently if the courts and the public do not agree with your beliefs you find them stupid. Yes the results were stupid, a huge loss of investment, man-power and resources, but was this an after project malady or because the project was inherently stupid in the first place? I am not making any pronouncement here as to what is fact as a zealot. i am only pointing out possibilities that may escape your callous consideration of the actual circumstances, if the way you approach things here is of any testimony to your thought processes and ability to reason. If this is the intellect that was the Startup Coordinator at that plant, then I can see why it failed.

"As has been pointed out here, coal plants release tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere, as well as many other detrimental materials. Then there is the affect of the acid rain killing our forests, black lung desease of the miners, ete, etc. Conventional power has killed thousands world wide. Nuclear power has killed a few dozen."

Again, the superlatives and a need to bring in comparisons. Maybe the reason why terrestrial reactors are still considered viable is for the same reasons why our society, or lack of one, also embraces these other inanities. Maybe you should be pointing out that in general us humans seem to go the way of expediency rather than intelligence only this would not support your total faith based acceptance of non-solar nuclear power as this is found to be expedient by corporations that want the population to remain dependent and ignorant of their energy sources to keep power withing the hands of the oligarchy, the select aristocracy, the big bosses of this gang-warfare world.

"No nuclear power was a good thing until the unknowing and the politically correct screwed it up for everybody."

Nuclear power is still a good thing only not if it is for those who want the police state, the control of resources for many by the few. Nuclear power is good, necessary, has been our main stay for all of our lives and we should embrace it fully, try to get it as directly and not removed from its initial source processes as much as possible. We need to get rational. You have a far way to go my friend.