To Advertise On Our Website Click Here

TOWNHALL Q&A: NUCLEAR’S DR. NO ON CHINA SYNDROME NRC, NEW BUILD

When the New York Times’ Bob Herbert wrote his column last week saying “We’re Not Ready for Nuclear,” he called upon David Lochbaum, director of the nuclear safety project at the Union of Concerned Scientists, as his principle witness. Lochbaum has long been one of the nation’s foremost critics of nuclear power.

A nuclear engineer trained at the University of Tennessee, Lochbaum worked for ten different reactors, from Brown’s Ferry to Connecticut Yankee, before leaving the industry in 1996 and joining UCS. He says it was his concerns about safety that drove his conversion.

Since then, Lochbaum has become a fountainhead of anti-nuclear information, including his 2006 study, “Walking a Nuclear Tightrope,” cited by Herbert. Yet some of Lochbaum’s opinions may surprise you. He appears to concede that "most" reactors are being run to his satisfaction — and extends some plaudits to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO).  He says that the pace of decision-making at the Nuclear Regulator Commission actually inhibits efforts to make American reactors safer. He also argues that Japan, Korea and China are doing well at building reactors because they’re “not afflicted by the NRC.”

There were more than a few surprises when we caught up with him for an interview at his home in Tennessee last week.

NTH: You began your career in nuclear right about the time of Three Mile Island.

LOCHBAUM: Don’t blame me, I was still in college.

NTH: Well, once and for all, is the Union of Concerned Scientists for or against nuclear power?

LOCHBAUM: We’re safety advocates. If I see a safety problem, I want to see it fixed. We were at the table in the restarting Millstone back in 1999 and we opposed it because we felt that, although the plant had made a lot of improvements, the oversight problem hadn’t been solved. It was the same with the D.C. Cook plant in Michigan, which was restarting after a multiyear outage. The NRC hadn’t fixed its oversight problems.

NTH: So you wouldn’t characterize yourself as anti-nuclear.

LOCHBAUM: I’m anti-nuclear disaster, not anti-nuclear power.

NTH: Are there any reactors anywhere being run to your satisfaction?

LOCHBAUM: Most of them are. Still, there are people who don’t get the message or don’t have the wherewithal to heed that message. We did a study ranking the plants on a safety scorecard we had developed and the safest plant in the country turned out to be the lowest-cost plant, the Surry plant in Virginia, run by Dominion. We found they were achieving very good economics and safety by very aggressively looking for problems and fixing them right the first time. We also found that the plants that the bottom of the list on safety also did poorly in terms of economics.

NTH: Are we doing better than we were in 1979 when Three Mile Island occurred?

LOCHBAUM: I think so. We learned a lot from that accident and would have learned a lot even if it hadn’t occurred. There’s a lot more information-sharing now. With the formation of INPO, everybody is in the same boat.

NTH: So overall, are we meeting the standards well enough so that we could go forward in building more reactors?

LOCHBAUM: I think that would be the stupidest thing mankind has ever done. In those years since Three Mile Island we’ve had 47 instances where a plant shut down for more than one year for safety reasons.  Billions of ratepayer’s dollars have been wasted. I think we have to stop that hemorrhaging before we can move forward.

NTH: So the reason for not building new plants is those 47 plants that have shut down for over a year?

LOCHBAUM:
Each of those outages was taking us down a road closer to nuclear disaster.

NTH: You’re referring to the “Walking a Nuclear Tightrope” paper you put out in 2006. I remember reading that and noting that of the 47 shutdowns, only one had occurred since 1997 – although that was not made clear in the report and only emerged in a bar chart The New York Times developed.

LOCHBAUM: That’s not quite true. The D.C. Cook plant was shut down for over a year. It started up sometime the spring of last year. And Crystal River in Florida has been shut down since last September. The last thing I saw said that it won’t be starting up until late September, which would be another yearlong outage.

NTH: But at the time of that report, the only shutdown that had occurred over the last eight years was Davis-Besse in 2002. So the most obvious trend was that we had come a long way from the 1970s and 1980s and yearlong shutdowns didn’t occur much anymore. 

LOCHBAUM:
Well, we’ve also done some studies that show that the conditions in some of plants like Salem are exactly the same as they were when it was shut down fifteen years ago. So the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is just much less effective than it was in the 1990s. After 1998, the regulators ran away. On June 4th of that year, Senator [Pete] Domenici [of New Mexico] threatened to cut the NRC budget by 40 percent. About 500 NRC employees would have lost their jobs. So the NRC reacted by going underground and, like Sergeant Schultz, saying they see no safety problems. They hear nothing, they know nothing.

NRH: So there hasn’t been any improved performance by the industry that would account for the fewer shutdowns?

LOCHBUAM:
Well, INPO and some of the plants have improved performance. In most of the plants we’re doing real well. But the plants that are not getting that message or heeding the message – the population of those plants is not zero. And INPO and the NRC both are unable to do much about it. We need to get right with the104 plants that provide 20 percent of our electricity, get them operating safely and reliably before we build more plants.

NTH: Most reactors seem to be making a lot of money right now. Does that reflect on their safety record?

LOCHBAUM: If those plants were operating safely and reliably, Wall Street wouldn’t require federal loan guarantees for new construction.  Wall Street must think there’s much uncertainty about their performance.

NTH: So you think Wall Street’s reluctance to invest because of the safety record?

LOCHBAUM: The industry has always had difficulty delivering on its promises. We started out building 130 plants and we ended up canceling half of them. So Wall Street wants some assurance that these companies are better managed.

NTH:
The rest of the world is going ahead with nuclear. The Koreans, Japanese and Chinese are all building reactors. Is it that Korean, Japanese and Chinese engineers are more capable of reducing the inherent risks in nuclear technology?

LOCHBAUM: They’re not afflicted by the NRC. They don’t have to worry about the incompetence of the NRC at their plants.

NTH: Are you saying that the NRC has a NEGATIVE effect on safety?

LOCHBAUM: I think if the NRC were accused of being an effective regulator, it could not be convicted. When I see these recent reports saying the offshore oil industry ought to be following the NRC’s template, well I don’t think I’m in that camp. The NRC is broken, not bent but badly broken.

NTH: So you’re saying the Koreans and Japanese and Chinese are able to proceed better BECAUSE they don’t have the NRC making things worse for them?

LOCHBAUM: I’d say that’s true. When the NRC takes years to make up its mind whether to do or not do something, that kind of regulatory uncertainty and instability makes it hard for companies and vendors to figure out what time it is.

NTH: Well, I’m sure a lot of people in the industry would agree with you.  They might also be surprised to hear this coming from you.  But does this mean it’s possible we’re going to end up importing this technology that we invented?  I don’t think it will be more than five years before the Koreans, Japanese and Chinese get so far ahead of us that they’ll be setting the world standard.

LOCHBAUM: I think we’re there now, aren’t we?  If you look at the reactor vessel head count from recent years, you’ll find that they’re all coming from overseas suppliers. If you look at the new ones that are being talked about, it’s Areva’s EPR and Toshiba’s Westinghouse designs. Those are all foreign companies.

NTH: Well, isn’t this going to have some consequence?  If the world goes ahead without us on nuclear, aren’t we going to suffer some economic deprivation if we can’t get out of this coal trap and move ahead with new technology?

LOCHBAUM: I think we’re behind on information technology already. But we’ve still got things like monster truck rallies and studio wrestling. The world has to come to us for that kind of stuff.

NTH: You sound like you’re being a little cynical. Is it just the NRC that you’re down on, or is it American culture in general?

LOCHBAUM: Well, if any country comes up with a better mousetrap, then they’ll capture the market. I can’t say whether that’s good, bad or indifferent for the United States.

NTH: So for you it’s not a matter of nuclear technology. It’s just the NRC that is the problem?

LOCHBAUM: I think if the NRC were more consistently effective regulator, I’d be out of a job. That would be fine, because in the long run we’d have better economic and safety performance. And more important, it would be better for the country because people wouldn’t fear plants if they were built in their backyard. Some of the basic concerns about nuclear power would be lessened if there were an effective nuclear cop on the beat.

NTH: What is it that makes nuclear so different? There’s general agreement with the EPA’s evaluation, for instance, that 24,000 people a year die of coal pollution. You also have a long history of deaths from other aspects of coal. Why aren’t you expressing the same kind of concern about that?

LOCHBAUM: We’re working to block construction of coal-fired plants.

NTH: Are you putting out daily bulletins or arguing that some of these plants should be shut down?

LOCHBAUM: No.

NTH: Well, in terms of the proportions, the number of deaths from nuclear power operations seems pretty slim. What is it about nuclear that attracts so much attention?

LOCHBAUM: I think it’s because two cities were wiped out by nuclear energy. Then there was the accident at Three Mile Island. You don’t see Hollywood making movies about the “Bowling Green Syndrome” or something like that. I’m trying to think of an example of a coal-fired plant.

NTH: So because Hollywood makes movies like “The China Syndrome” but they don’t make movies about coal . . . ?

LOCHBAUM: I don’t know. There may have been one. I also know that if there’s an earthquake anywhere in the world and if it’s within 25 miles of a nuclear plant there’s always a paragraph that says, “The effects were felt at the nuclear plant.”

NTH: Well, that may be true. But I remember a year ago CNN ran a headline on its website saying that a helicopter had made an emergency landing on a beach near the San Onofre reactor in California. Isn’t there a self-reinforcing syndrome here where anything associated with nuclear is assumed to be catastrophic?

NTH: I gave a talk at Brookings a couple of years ago and just before I did, there was a story that two people in Virginia Beach had been attacked by a shark. So I looked up the statistics and I found that since shark attacks were first recorded in 1924 there had been only 422 people killed by sharks. Every year about 500 people drown, in the ocean, in swimming pools, in their bathtubs. Yet if someone drowns it only makes the local news, whereas if someone is attacked by a shark, it makes the national news.

NTH: So are you saying that nuclear issues have more sex appeal, more press appeal?

LOCHBAUM: Yes. It’s similar to shark attacks. People are more scared.  I remember one of the last big airline crashes was down in Florida, a couple of hundred people were killed. And that same weekend the same number of people were killed in traffic accidents. But for better or for worse, the airplane crash gets more attention.

NTH: But when most people cite these figures, they do it for correcting purposes. They say we should be more concerned about coal and less concerned about nuclear. You seem to be saying that this disproportional response is a good reason for being disproportionately responsive.

LOCHBAUM: That’s just the way people are. People are afraid of being attacked by a shark. It’s the same way with nuclear power. It’s not like other forms of power generation. Most people’s first awareness of nuclear energy – their first impression – was the mushroom cloud. I don’t know what people’s first impression of a coal plant is, but it’s kind of difficult to get past that mushroom cloud.

NTH: Yes, that’s probably true. But shouldn’t it be the role of intelligent people to help the public find some relief from these anxieties?  You’re saying the public is fearful and it’s not your fault. That’s’ just the way people are. People think that nuclear power equals a mushroom cloud, that a reactor can blow up, and that it’s your job to help them exercise those fears.

LOCHBAUM: I don’t think so. I think the proper approach is to deal with the risk. If people had confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission then those fears would be greatly alleviated.

NTH: So when Bob Herbert draws the conclusion that we have to give up nuclear power because of these perceived risks, he’s not misinterpreting you?

LOCHBAUM: His conclusion was not that nuclear power could never, ever play a role in American’s nuclear future. What he said was that we’re not ready. I think I would agree with that. We can become ready. We’re just not ready now. And it’s up to the administration to act upon this and get us ready or get us out of the game.

NTH: Mr. Lochbaum, thanks very much for your time.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

44 Responses to “TOWNHALL Q&A: NUCLEAR’S DR. NO ON CHINA SYNDROME NRC, NEW BUILD”

  1. Frank-ly Says:

    A great read as well as a fascinating voyage into the mind of one of the chief antis The logic is illuminating.

    Sounds like “Dr. No” may be moving to “Dr. Maybe.” Outstanding performance by U.S. nuclear is hard to refute.

  2. Frank-ly Says:

    A great read as well as a fascinating voyage into the mind of one of the chief antis The logic is illuminating.

    Sounds like “Dr. No” may be moving to “Dr. Maybe.” Outstanding performance by U.S. nuclear is hard to refute.

  3. Frank-ly Says:

    A great read as well as a fascinating voyage into the mind of one of the chief antis The logic is illuminating.

    Sounds like “Dr. No” may be moving to “Dr. Maybe.” Outstanding performance by U.S. nuclear is hard to refute.

  4. grl Says:

    Apparently, the NRC has been worse for nuclear energy in this country than Three Mile Island or Jane Fonda.

  5. grl Says:

    Apparently, the NRC has been worse for nuclear energy in this country than Three Mile Island or Jane Fonda.

  6. grl Says:

    Apparently, the NRC has been worse for nuclear energy in this country than Three Mile Island or Jane Fonda.

  7. Elliott Negin Says:

    Thanks for running this interview. As a colleague of Dave Lochbaum’s at the Union of Concerned Scientists, I would only add that we aren’t stuck with choosing between coal and nuclear power. Yes, the United States has to dramatically reduce its reliance on coal-fired electricity as quickly as possible, but there is a faster, safer and more cost-effective way to address climate change than building a new fleet of nuclear reactors. UCS published a report last year that shows that we can meet the necessary targets to reduce the heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming by significantly ramping up our reliance on wind, biomass, solar and other renewable resources and better exploiting energy efficiency to cut demand. For that report, go to: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/climate-2030-blueprint.html. — Elliott Negin, UCS media director

  8. Elliott Negin Says:

    Thanks for running this interview. As a colleague of Dave Lochbaum’s at the Union of Concerned Scientists, I would only add that we aren’t stuck with choosing between coal and nuclear power. Yes, the United States has to dramatically reduce its reliance on coal-fired electricity as quickly as possible, but there is a faster, safer and more cost-effective way to address climate change than building a new fleet of nuclear reactors. UCS published a report last year that shows that we can meet the necessary targets to reduce the heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming by significantly ramping up our reliance on wind, biomass, solar and other renewable resources and better exploiting energy efficiency to cut demand. For that report, go to: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/climate-2030-blueprint.html. — Elliott Negin, UCS media director

  9. Elliott Negin Says:

    Thanks for running this interview. As a colleague of Dave Lochbaum’s at the Union of Concerned Scientists, I would only add that we aren’t stuck with choosing between coal and nuclear power. Yes, the United States has to dramatically reduce its reliance on coal-fired electricity as quickly as possible, but there is a faster, safer and more cost-effective way to address climate change than building a new fleet of nuclear reactors. UCS published a report last year that shows that we can meet the necessary targets to reduce the heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming by significantly ramping up our reliance on wind, biomass, solar and other renewable resources and better exploiting energy efficiency to cut demand. For that report, go to: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/climate-2030-blueprint.html. — Elliott Negin, UCS media director

  10. Meredith Angwin Says:

    It’s nice to see some power plants get good marks from Lochbaum, and also to see INPO get credit. I believe Lochbaum also came out in favor of keeping IP operating, because New York City would be in bad shape without it.

    On the other hand: people were fearful of railways at first. With education, they got over it. Lochbaum doesn’t seem to want people to get over their fear of nuclear power.

    By the way, cynical as I am, “we’re not ready now” is the oldest refrain in the book. I heard it first about the Geysers geothermal plant, from the Sierra Club leader in California, many many years ago. “It’s not that we’re against geothermal, we just need to have more research and be further along the learning curve and have more experience before we build more plants.” (Paraphrased) Ah yes. Ah no.

  11. Meredith Angwin Says:

    It’s nice to see some power plants get good marks from Lochbaum, and also to see INPO get credit. I believe Lochbaum also came out in favor of keeping IP operating, because New York City would be in bad shape without it.

    On the other hand: people were fearful of railways at first. With education, they got over it. Lochbaum doesn’t seem to want people to get over their fear of nuclear power.

    By the way, cynical as I am, “we’re not ready now” is the oldest refrain in the book. I heard it first about the Geysers geothermal plant, from the Sierra Club leader in California, many many years ago. “It’s not that we’re against geothermal, we just need to have more research and be further along the learning curve and have more experience before we build more plants.” (Paraphrased) Ah yes. Ah no.

  12. Meredith Angwin Says:

    It’s nice to see some power plants get good marks from Lochbaum, and also to see INPO get credit. I believe Lochbaum also came out in favor of keeping IP operating, because New York City would be in bad shape without it.

    On the other hand: people were fearful of railways at first. With education, they got over it. Lochbaum doesn’t seem to want people to get over their fear of nuclear power.

    By the way, cynical as I am, “we’re not ready now” is the oldest refrain in the book. I heard it first about the Geysers geothermal plant, from the Sierra Club leader in California, many many years ago. “It’s not that we’re against geothermal, we just need to have more research and be further along the learning curve and have more experience before we build more plants.” (Paraphrased) Ah yes. Ah no.

  13. OTB Says:

    Wow! The glass appears to be half full at the Union. However, it’s safe to say donkeys will be flying before Dr. No becomes Dr. Yes.

  14. OTB Says:

    Wow! The glass appears to be half full at the Union. However, it’s safe to say donkeys will be flying before Dr. No becomes Dr. Yes.

  15. OTB Says:

    Wow! The glass appears to be half full at the Union. However, it’s safe to say donkeys will be flying before Dr. No becomes Dr. Yes.

  16. Next Generation Says:

    Kudos for going the extra kilometer on this Q&A — and for the interesting posts. Tough medicine but there’s room for optimism in Mr. Lochbaum’s answers and there’s no sense in preaching to the choir every week. It’s good to have the opportunity for a cordial exchange of perspectives however
    disparate.

  17. Next Generation Says:

    Kudos for going the extra kilometer on this Q&A — and for the interesting posts. Tough medicine but there’s room for optimism in Mr. Lochbaum’s answers and there’s no sense in preaching to the choir every week. It’s good to have the opportunity for a cordial exchange of perspectives however
    disparate.

  18. Next Generation Says:

    Kudos for going the extra kilometer on this Q&A — and for the interesting posts. Tough medicine but there’s room for optimism in Mr. Lochbaum’s answers and there’s no sense in preaching to the choir every week. It’s good to have the opportunity for a cordial exchange of perspectives however
    disparate.

  19. White Flinter Says:

    Tough medicine indeed if you work at NRC. It’s telling that no one is coming to their defense. The U.S. safety record is not really debatable. Then again given the present regime at the top and the increasingly questionable corpus , it’s hard to be either enthusiastic or confident. This is especially in light of their handling of new reactor technology applications.

  20. White Flinter Says:

    Tough medicine indeed if you work at NRC. It’s telling that no one is coming to their defense. The U.S. safety record is not really debatable. Then again given the present regime at the top and the increasingly questionable corpus , it’s hard to be either enthusiastic or confident. This is especially in light of their handling of new reactor technology applications.

  21. White Flinter Says:

    Tough medicine indeed if you work at NRC. It’s telling that no one is coming to their defense. The U.S. safety record is not really debatable. Then again given the present regime at the top and the increasingly questionable corpus , it’s hard to be either enthusiastic or confident. This is especially in light of their handling of new reactor technology applications.

  22. Kirk Sorensen Says:

    Mr. Negin,

    The fact that you would tell us that solar and wind could replace coal and nuclear energy tells me that you have no idea how energy supply really works, and certainly undermines the credibility of the “Union of Concerned Scientists”. All the credible scientists I know run the numbers and let them tell the story. Run them for wind and solar.

  23. Kirk Sorensen Says:

    Mr. Negin,

    The fact that you would tell us that solar and wind could replace coal and nuclear energy tells me that you have no idea how energy supply really works, and certainly undermines the credibility of the “Union of Concerned Scientists”. All the credible scientists I know run the numbers and let them tell the story. Run them for wind and solar.

  24. Kirk Sorensen Says:

    Mr. Negin,

    The fact that you would tell us that solar and wind could replace coal and nuclear energy tells me that you have no idea how energy supply really works, and certainly undermines the credibility of the “Union of Concerned Scientists”. All the credible scientists I know run the numbers and let them tell the story. Run them for wind and solar.

  25. Isotope Says:

    Despite some of the positive aspects of this interview, it’s hard to get past several of his highly cynical remarks. A significant item that I did not see acknowledged in this article is that he recently worked for a year at the NRC as a reactor instructor. If he thinks the NRC is such a negative entity, why didn’t he take at least a stab at fixing it from the inside when he had a chance? Did he ever really intend to educate NRC staff in reactor safety which he stated as a goal? Or was it just a scheme to gather inside information to continue making a living as a “Dr. No”? While the NRC is not perfect (and will never be for the antinukes or industry lobbyists), Lochbaum statements fly in the face of the effort of many people at the NRC (as well as industry workers and honest advocacy groups) that do care about safety and have contributed towards it since TMI, independently of agenda-driven groups like the UCS. To say Wall Street is afraid of new reactors because of safety concerns while being forced to admit that (i) the safety record has not only improved but has always been miles away from the coal and oil industry and (ii) much of the opposition to nuclear power (to which he wily asserts he does not belong to) is due to a lack of public understanding and media-driven fearmongering is just pure hypocrisy. And as far as China goes, I would like to see how much tolerance they would have for a group like the UCS over there and whether any fair-minded individual would truly believe their regulatory style is indeed something we ought to emulate after the way the USSR managed Chernobyl . This interview makes me wonder how much of the cost of nuclear power is driven by entities like UCS, who make a living of disrupting the path towards a balanced, informed, and reasonable nuclear safety environment, while stoking public fears about nuclear power.

  26. Isotope Says:

    Despite some of the positive aspects of this interview, it’s hard to get past several of his highly cynical remarks. A significant item that I did not see acknowledged in this article is that he recently worked for a year at the NRC as a reactor instructor. If he thinks the NRC is such a negative entity, why didn’t he take at least a stab at fixing it from the inside when he had a chance? Did he ever really intend to educate NRC staff in reactor safety which he stated as a goal? Or was it just a scheme to gather inside information to continue making a living as a “Dr. No”? While the NRC is not perfect (and will never be for the antinukes or industry lobbyists), Lochbaum statements fly in the face of the effort of many people at the NRC (as well as industry workers and honest advocacy groups) that do care about safety and have contributed towards it since TMI, independently of agenda-driven groups like the UCS. To say Wall Street is afraid of new reactors because of safety concerns while being forced to admit that (i) the safety record has not only improved but has always been miles away from the coal and oil industry and (ii) much of the opposition to nuclear power (to which he wily asserts he does not belong to) is due to a lack of public understanding and media-driven fearmongering is just pure hypocrisy. And as far as China goes, I would like to see how much tolerance they would have for a group like the UCS over there and whether any fair-minded individual would truly believe their regulatory style is indeed something we ought to emulate after the way the USSR managed Chernobyl . This interview makes me wonder how much of the cost of nuclear power is driven by entities like UCS, who make a living of disrupting the path towards a balanced, informed, and reasonable nuclear safety environment, while stoking public fears about nuclear power.

  27. Isotope Says:

    Despite some of the positive aspects of this interview, it’s hard to get past several of his highly cynical remarks. A significant item that I did not see acknowledged in this article is that he recently worked for a year at the NRC as a reactor instructor. If he thinks the NRC is such a negative entity, why didn’t he take at least a stab at fixing it from the inside when he had a chance? Did he ever really intend to educate NRC staff in reactor safety which he stated as a goal? Or was it just a scheme to gather inside information to continue making a living as a “Dr. No”? While the NRC is not perfect (and will never be for the antinukes or industry lobbyists), Lochbaum statements fly in the face of the effort of many people at the NRC (as well as industry workers and honest advocacy groups) that do care about safety and have contributed towards it since TMI, independently of agenda-driven groups like the UCS. To say Wall Street is afraid of new reactors because of safety concerns while being forced to admit that (i) the safety record has not only improved but has always been miles away from the coal and oil industry and (ii) much of the opposition to nuclear power (to which he wily asserts he does not belong to) is due to a lack of public understanding and media-driven fearmongering is just pure hypocrisy. And as far as China goes, I would like to see how much tolerance they would have for a group like the UCS over there and whether any fair-minded individual would truly believe their regulatory style is indeed something we ought to emulate after the way the USSR managed Chernobyl . This interview makes me wonder how much of the cost of nuclear power is driven by entities like UCS, who make a living of disrupting the path towards a balanced, informed, and reasonable nuclear safety environment, while stoking public fears about nuclear power.

  28. Capitol Dome Says:

    Isotope

    Excellent and needed post on the NRC and UCS. You have artfully sprung so many leaks in Lochbaum’s NRC ramblings that they now appropriately resemble swiss cheese.

  29. Capitol Dome Says:

    Isotope

    Excellent and needed post on the NRC and UCS. You have artfully sprung so many leaks in Lochbaum’s NRC ramblings that they now appropriately resemble swiss cheese.

  30. Capitol Dome Says:

    Isotope

    Excellent and needed post on the NRC and UCS. You have artfully sprung so many leaks in Lochbaum’s NRC ramblings that they now appropriately resemble swiss cheese.

  31. Ray Gallucci Says:

    There are exaggerations in this (by UCS, not NTH). Exactly what city was lost by TMI? Harrisburg is still there. Chernobyl may have wiped out some towns, but that was in the Soviet Union. And, to my knowledge, the so-called “foreign NRC’s” are nothing like the USNRC. Both they and the foreign utilities are government agencies or at least government-supported, and are intended to work hand-in-hand. So, while one can debate whether the USNRC has been weak in its regulatory role, it at least is intended as an independent agency relative to the US nuclear utilities, and at least has the potential to redirect these utilities when deemed appropriate. UCS can contend that USNRC has not fulfilled this role to its satisfaction, but it is questionable whether we would be better off with the foreign paradigm. The inherently intended “co-operative” nature of the foreign regulators and utilities may be a major key to the presumed advancement of nuclear power overseas relative to the US, whether or not this be considered beneficial. And it may be that the economic effects of the cited “sensationalism” associated with US nuclear power may be more responsible for the financial concerns of Wall Street than the nuclear safety record, which is quite good.

  32. Ray Gallucci Says:

    There are exaggerations in this (by UCS, not NTH). Exactly what city was lost by TMI? Harrisburg is still there. Chernobyl may have wiped out some towns, but that was in the Soviet Union. And, to my knowledge, the so-called “foreign NRC’s” are nothing like the USNRC. Both they and the foreign utilities are government agencies or at least government-supported, and are intended to work hand-in-hand. So, while one can debate whether the USNRC has been weak in its regulatory role, it at least is intended as an independent agency relative to the US nuclear utilities, and at least has the potential to redirect these utilities when deemed appropriate. UCS can contend that USNRC has not fulfilled this role to its satisfaction, but it is questionable whether we would be better off with the foreign paradigm. The inherently intended “co-operative” nature of the foreign regulators and utilities may be a major key to the presumed advancement of nuclear power overseas relative to the US, whether or not this be considered beneficial. And it may be that the economic effects of the cited “sensationalism” associated with US nuclear power may be more responsible for the financial concerns of Wall Street than the nuclear safety record, which is quite good.

  33. Ray Gallucci Says:

    There are exaggerations in this (by UCS, not NTH). Exactly what city was lost by TMI? Harrisburg is still there. Chernobyl may have wiped out some towns, but that was in the Soviet Union. And, to my knowledge, the so-called “foreign NRC’s” are nothing like the USNRC. Both they and the foreign utilities are government agencies or at least government-supported, and are intended to work hand-in-hand. So, while one can debate whether the USNRC has been weak in its regulatory role, it at least is intended as an independent agency relative to the US nuclear utilities, and at least has the potential to redirect these utilities when deemed appropriate. UCS can contend that USNRC has not fulfilled this role to its satisfaction, but it is questionable whether we would be better off with the foreign paradigm. The inherently intended “co-operative” nature of the foreign regulators and utilities may be a major key to the presumed advancement of nuclear power overseas relative to the US, whether or not this be considered beneficial. And it may be that the economic effects of the cited “sensationalism” associated with US nuclear power may be more responsible for the financial concerns of Wall Street than the nuclear safety record, which is quite good.

  34. William Tucker Says:

    Mr. Gallucci:

    When Lochbaum said “two cities were wiped out by nuclear energy,” he was referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He makes that clear later when he talks about the “first impression of nuclear as a mushroom cloud.”

  35. William Tucker Says:

    Mr. Gallucci:

    When Lochbaum said “two cities were wiped out by nuclear energy,” he was referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He makes that clear later when he talks about the “first impression of nuclear as a mushroom cloud.”

  36. William Tucker Says:

    Mr. Gallucci:

    When Lochbaum said “two cities were wiped out by nuclear energy,” he was referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He makes that clear later when he talks about the “first impression of nuclear as a mushroom cloud.”

  37. Isotope Says:

    Yes, I wonder what Japan knows about nuclear power that we haven’t figured out yet. They had immense casualties, two cities wiped out, lingering health effects on survivors and, yet, they continue to support nuclear power development to the point where they are surpassing us in technology know-how. They must either have one hell of a regulatory body over there, according to the logic in this interview. Or maybe they just haven’t talked to Lochbaum yet, so he can truly scare them about nuclear power.

  38. Isotope Says:

    Yes, I wonder what Japan knows about nuclear power that we haven’t figured out yet. They had immense casualties, two cities wiped out, lingering health effects on survivors and, yet, they continue to support nuclear power development to the point where they are surpassing us in technology know-how. They must either have one hell of a regulatory body over there, according to the logic in this interview. Or maybe they just haven’t talked to Lochbaum yet, so he can truly scare them about nuclear power.

  39. Isotope Says:

    Yes, I wonder what Japan knows about nuclear power that we haven’t figured out yet. They had immense casualties, two cities wiped out, lingering health effects on survivors and, yet, they continue to support nuclear power development to the point where they are surpassing us in technology know-how. They must either have one hell of a regulatory body over there, according to the logic in this interview. Or maybe they just haven’t talked to Lochbaum yet, so he can truly scare them about nuclear power.

  40. Kirk Sorensen Says:

    Good points, Isotope.

    Maybe the Japanese have realized that their two cities were destroyed by nuclear WEAPONS, not nuclear ENERGY. Lochbaum knows exactly what he is doing by trying to conflate the two (very separate and distinct) subjects. I’m sure his fossil-fuel masters pay him well through the guise of their philanthropic foundations.

  41. Kirk Sorensen Says:

    Good points, Isotope.

    Maybe the Japanese have realized that their two cities were destroyed by nuclear WEAPONS, not nuclear ENERGY. Lochbaum knows exactly what he is doing by trying to conflate the two (very separate and distinct) subjects. I’m sure his fossil-fuel masters pay him well through the guise of their philanthropic foundations.

  42. Kirk Sorensen Says:

    Good points, Isotope.

    Maybe the Japanese have realized that their two cities were destroyed by nuclear WEAPONS, not nuclear ENERGY. Lochbaum knows exactly what he is doing by trying to conflate the two (very separate and distinct) subjects. I’m sure his fossil-fuel masters pay him well through the guise of their philanthropic foundations.

  43. internet marketing tools Says:

    First, it’s essential that you simply prepare yourself previous to unleashing your site. It is possible to prepare by making a vast amount of research. It’s wise to read a great deal of information, examine out numerous accomplishment stories, consider some practical advice, and investigate some case studies. Throughout this preparation method you will get a excellent thought of how to prepare yourself to your world wide web promotion world.Next, you need to produce your website and make it available to your visitors. If you’ve completed an correct amount of research then you ought to be quite in a position to unleash your site. You can find truly some web advertising and marketing tools that will help you with this step. Chris Cobb is an net promotion expert that offers some programs to support with introducing new websites. It is possible to choose to utilize these types of programs or it is possible to do it on your own.

  44. lose weight fast Says:

    I found this website extremely revealing. thankyou very much!