Skip to main content

I'm not all that wrapped up in terrorism.   A lot of things keep me awake at night, but terrorism isn't one of them.   I don't spend a lot of time thinking about what terrorists might do or whether they might do whatever it is they do when I'm around.    About the only time I ever thought about terrorism was when my wife - we live a relatively short distance from New York - was out when the Twin Towers were struck.   I didn't know if anything else was going to happen and I worried a little that she would be alright.  Ultimately she came home, and we held each other and then we wept.

Of course, I am upset with what has been done to the Constitution under which I was born because of other people's obsession with terrorism, but beyond that, I don't expect terrorism will ever affect me.   I could be wrong about that, but I look at the world in terms of probability.   Let's face it, I'm more likely to get lung cancer from breathing soot, or a heart attack from eating too much of the wrong type of food, than I am likely to be killed by a terrorist.   If you don't believe me, just look at the mortality statistics for the US.

In fact, if you look at the mortality statistics for almost any country - the unfortunate nation of Iraq not included - you will see that terrorism is not the threat to humanity that it cracked up to be.  

For instance this arbitrarily picked up abstract suggests that in the Andalusian region of Spain, just a small part of the country, more than 7000 people died from non-malignant respiratory disease in 1997.   If we assume that the rest of Spain is like Andalusia, we can estimate that 40,000 Spainards died from non-malignant respiratory diseases in 1997.   This fact generated no headlines anywhere other than in esoteric scientific journals like the one to which the link refers.   On the other hand, the Madrid train bombing in 2004, an act of terrorism that remains more or less unsolved, killed 191 people.   If 2004 was a lot like 1997 in terms of respiratory diseases, a particular Spaniard would be 200 times more likely to die of a non-malignant respiratory disease than to be killed by a bomb on a train.   If one normalized the matter over a decade, the probability of being killed by a terrorist on a train (or elsewhere) would be appreciably lower.

Nevertheless, I'm sure many people in Spain are upset by terrorism, just as many people in the US are upset by terrorism.

My failure to be impressed with the risk of terrorism came to bear on me yesterday, when I discussed the much ballyhooed risk of so called "nuclear terrorism".   In it, I ridiculed the notion that a "nuclear terrorist" might get a hold of spent commercial nuclear fuel and make a bomb with it.

"No!  No!  No!" many detractors cried.   "You have it all wrong!   You have the wrong kind of terrorism!   We're not talking about that!   Strawman!  Strawman!   We're talking about a plane!  A truck bomb!   The terrorists are going to attack the Indian Point Nuclear station outside of New York City.   The city will be wiped out!   Killed!  Scadoodled!  Death! Death! Death! Destruction!"

One writer even asked me to look at a link from an organization called The Committee to Bridge the Gap that comes with a cool animation of an airplane crashing into a nuclear power plant and going "Boom!"   It's narrated my Martin Sheen who must know a lot about nuclear energy, since he is a celebrity.  The cartoon comes from an organization that wants to build big cages around nuclear plants, big bird cages.   Of course, should someone build the bird cages, the people who demanded them in the first place will next insist that they won't work.

C'est la vie.  Sigh...

Of course, I have a big problem with a cartoon version of reality, and I am never going to advocate bird cages around nuclear plants because of a cartoon narrated by Martin Sheen.   I think that nuclear power plants are already the safest forms of energy on the planet.   They are not risk free, of course, but on a risk balanced level, environmental and health losses per kw-hr of energy, they are the lowest risk that humanity can afford.   In any case, humanity has much bigger problems than the one's that Sheen's bird cage might address.   I think humanity will almost certainly die in vast numbers unless coal plants are not replaced by nuclear plants soon.   Rather than build a bird cage around the Indian Point nuclear station, which might cost, let's say, 100 million dollars, I would rather spend thirty times as much money building another new nuclear plant right next to the ones at Indian Point.   I contend that doing so will have in units lives saved per dollar a much greater return on investment.

How can I possibly say that?   "New York!  New York!  Terror! Terror! Radioactive!  Nuclear!  Terror!  Terror!  Birdcage!"

Why am I so nasty and so mean?   Because I'm angry, that's why.   I have just watched my more than two hundred year old constitution, a constitution written by some of the greatest political thinkers in human history, a constitution that solved the question of Federalism, that solved of the rational division of powers, the solved the problem of checks on effective government that protects people both from government and from each other - the constitution left to me intact by my forbearers - trampled into the mud because of an imagined threat.

Now I am watching the atmosphere of my entire planet destroyed because Martin Sheen thinks Indian Point needs a birdcage around it, because a subset of people exists who believe that anything they can imagine must be real.  (This reminds me:  I fucking hate television sets.)

Gritting my teeth in clear anger, I am now going to contemplate - against my better judgment and with contempt for the notion that the discussion is even remotely connected, in probabilistic terms, with reality - a nuclear terrorist attack on the Indian Point Nuclear Station.

First let's review the Indian Point Nuclear Plant.   Three plants are on the site, two operate.   Unit 1, which has been shut, was a 250 MWe plant and in modern terms, would hardly even register as a commercial power plant.   It was really of demonstration scale.   The two remaining reactors are roughly each four times as large.   In 2003 Unit 2 and Unit 3 produced more than 16 million megawatt-hours of electrical energy, more than the output of the rest of the entire nation from solar PV - and for that matter solar thermal energy.   Unit 2 operated at 98.2% of rated capacity, and Unit 3 operated at 88.8% of capacity.   The number of people who died as a result of the generation of all this energy is zero.

According to the anti-nuclear group that calls themselves the Union of Concerned "Scientists"  (quotation marks mine) a terrorist attack on the nuclear station at Indian Point could result in 44,000 immediate deaths and 518,000 deaths from cancer.   Now why they choose 44,000 and not 45,000 and 518,000 deaths and not 519,000, I don't know.   Many scientists do error bars, but apparently "Concerned Scientists" do not.

Ed Lyman, who wrote the article, has a PhD. degree in Physics from Cornell University, and has a long career in professional opposition to nuclear power, beginning with the Nuclear Control Institute.   Of course, having a PhD. in Physics from Cornell is very impressive and this makes him a "scientist."   When I was a young man and was also, like Dr. Lyman,  opposed to nuclear power, I was a member of the "Union of Concerned Scientists."   Here's how I joined:   I sent them a check.   No one wrote to me to ask me whether I had ever thought about the second law of thermodynamics or spin orbital coupling in aromatic compounds, or the evolutionary genetics of chloroplasts or the relativistic implications of the precession of the planet Mercury.   I was a "concerned scientist" because I wrote a check.

Well, Dr. Lyman, I want some more details.   By what mechanism, exactly, do you come up with these figures?   How, exactly, is this all going to happen, involving 518,000 and not 517,892 cancers?

Here's what Dr. Lyman writes:

Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ordered modest security upgrades at Indian Point and other nuclear power plants in response to the 9/11 attacks, the plants remain vulnerable, both to air attacks and to ground assaults by large terrorist teams with paramilitary training and advanced weaponry. Many question whether the NRC’s security and emergency planning requirements at Indian Point are adequate, given its attractiveness as a terrorist target and the grave consequences for the region of a successful attack.  

Mmmmm.  That's frightening.  Bold is mine.

So Dr. Lyman wants us to close Indian Point because of the risk of a large armed band attacking the plant.    Well, that's become more likely than it was in 2004.   After all the New York National Guard is in Iraq and unquestionably there is a huge risk of Al Qaeda terrorists armed with sophisticated armor piercing missiles advancing a formation up the New York State Thruway in a formation designed to kill 518,000 people (and not 518,001) with "eventual" cancers.

I'm sure too, that a large band of highly trained terrorists would be absolutely certain to distribute the entire inventory inside the nuclear power plant as widely as is possible.    How would they do this?   Well, they could blow apart the containment building a distribute all of the fuel elements widely into the environment with maximal aerosolization, right?   That would kill 518,000 people right?

Well maybe.   I certainly wouldn't want to trouble this "Concerned Scientist" with something like data, but actually there is experimental evidence of what a prolonged fire at a nuclear station will involve.   Maybe both you and Dr. Lyman have heard of it.   It's a place called Chernobyl.   At Chernobyl, many, many, many megacuries of radioactivity boiled of out a hot molten mass surrounded by burning graphite raising a radioactive cloud that was detected around the world.    About 100 km away, a little further than the distance between Indian Point and midtown Manhattan was the City of Kiev with more than 2,000,000 residents.   That city was never evacuated after Chernobyl.   It is still there.  The population has grown since the 1986 destruction of the Chernobyl Nuclear Station, and the city is still occupied.

Here is the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation report on the effects of Chernobyl.   Unlike Dr. Lyman's webpage, the UNSCEAR report has over 500 scientific references, many of them from the primary scientific literature.

It contains exceedingly dry tidbits like this:

  1. When hormonal levels, biologically active metabolites and immunoglobulins in 132Russian recovery operation workers were stratified by absorbed doses, no differences related to ionizing radiation were seen except for so-called biomarkers of oxidative stress, e.g. conjugated dienes [S8]. These biomarkers are, however, not specific for radiation damage and can be seen in several pathological conditions.
  1. In an Estonian cohort of 4,833 recovery operation workers, 144 deaths were identified in the period  9861993, compared with 148 expected [R13, T6]. A relatively high number of deaths were due to accidents, violence and poisoning. In nearly 20%, the cause of death was suicide, and the relative risk of 1.52 (n = 28) was statistically significant [R13, T6].
  1. A Lithuanian cohort of 5,446 recovery operation workers was followed regularly at the Chernobyl Medical Centre during the years 19871995, and 251 deaths were observed [K3]. Themajor causes of death were injuries and accidents, and the overall mortality rate of the recovery operation workers was not higher than that of the total population.

A lot of people don't like what this report says, they tell me.   Not enough deaths.  

For the record, Chernobyl when it happened scared me more than any other event of which I'd heard since the Cuban Missile Crisis.    Had Chernobyl not happened, answering my questions, I would probably still be maintaining my membership in the Union of Concerned "Scientists."   However the question has been answered.   Nobody thinks Chernobyl was a happy event.   No one, not even me, wants it repeated.   Let me say too, that a similar event could happen through a mechanism I have not imagined, but if it does, it would never measure up to what climate change is doing right now.

I don't know how else Dr. Lyman expects Indian Point to kill 44,000 and not 44,233 people immediately.   I suspect that he and Martin Sheen have lots of scenarios involving rummaging around in the so called "nuclear waste" pools, and piercing the spent fuel casks with missiles and so on.   I'm sure it would all make for lots more cartoons.

Lots of people have worked for an outcome like the one that Dr. Lyman proposes.  He doesn't propose a bird cage around Indian Point.  He wants it to be shut.

Agitation to shut nuclear plants is always accompanied by grand discussions of windmills and solar plants and geothermal facilities and lots of biomass.   But every single nuclear plant that has been shut because of public stupidity has not been replaced by any of these things.  Every nuclear plant that has been shut by public stupidity has been replaced by fossil fuels.  I have no ambiguity at all about fossil fuels.  I want them banned.

Dr. Lyman and many of his supporters - some of whom are right here at DKos and who already hold a very low opinion of me and my rage - think that I impressed by the their imaginations but I am not.    There is no way in hell that I am going to elevate the lives of 44,000 people who could die - if Indian Point were attacked by a highly trained band of terrorists armed with sophisticated weapons - over the lives of the 40,000 people who are likely to die this year in New York City from air pollution without any terrorist events happening.

Yesterday, the island of Lochara in India disappeared below the seas.  Ten thousand people once lived on that island.   The low lying nation of Bangladesh, with hundreds of millions of people is nearby.   Those lives matter every bit as the 518,000 and not 518,411, people who Dr. Lyman is trying say that the terrorists will get when - and he doesn't want you to really weigh the word "if" - they attack Indian Point.

There is no such thing as risk free energy.   There is only risk minimized energy.   That energy is nuclear energy.

Originally posted to NNadir on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 02:04 PM PST.


How many people are going to die when terrorists attack Indian Point?

8%6 votes
4%3 votes
5%4 votes
5%4 votes
16%12 votes
2%2 votes
13%10 votes
13%10 votes
30%22 votes

| 73 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  and an instant Recommend. (0+ / 0-)

      Sacrificing one of our most important sources of climate-clean energy to the "climate of fear" generated by this administration, would be stupid beyond words.  

      Operational safety: Zero deaths in over twenty years.  Compare to coal.  

      Climate impact:  Zero CO2 output.  Compare to coal.  

      Waste disposal:  Recycling with 95% efficiency via new technologies (Scientific American, December 2005).  Compare to coal.  

      And last but not least, a nuclear baseload generating capacity is the best way aside from hydroelectric, to maximize the use of solar and wind on the grid.  The more we want to use renewables, the more we need nuclear in the mix.  Speaking here as someone who has done design engineering for large utility-scale wind projects.  

      But just in case, here's what people should do who want to shut down nuclear power: Go to the side of their house or their basement.  Look for the gray box with the big handle on the side.  Pull the handle all the way down.  Now go back inside and light a candle.  Better yet, put muscles where mouth is and join the military in a combat arms MOS and go for a couple of tours in Iraq.  

      •  unfortunately, (0+ / 0-)

        the climate of fear with respect to nuclear power long predates Dubya.  For a relatively brief period after WW II, "atomic" was a positive adjective and an indicator of an optimistic future.

        At some point, and I don't know whether it was associated with the arms race with the Soviets or otherwise, an irrational fear of things that "glow in the dark" began to permeate the popular press.

        After "The China Syndrome (1979)," Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl, you couldn't advocate nuclear power without being flamed.  And that was before 9/11.

        As NNadir pointed out in his earlier diary, the French have overcome this irrational fear (admittedly an industry site).  We need to do so as well.

        France has 59 nuclear reactors operated by Electricite de France (EdF) with total capacity of over 63 GWe, supplying over 426 billion kWh per year of electricity, 78% of the total generated there. In 2005 French electricity generation was 549 billion kWh net and consumption 482 billion kWh - 7700 kWh per person. Over the last decade France has exported 60-70 billion kWh net each year. See also EdF web site.

        The present situation is due to the French government deciding in 1974, just after the first oil shock, to expand rapidly the country's nuclear power capacity. This decision was taken in the context of France having substantial heavy engineering expertise but few indigenous energy resources. Nuclear energy, with the fuel cost being a relatively small part of the overall cost, made good sense in minimising imports and achieving greater energy security.

        As a result of the 1974 decision, France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe. Over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro.

    •  Thanks NNadir (0+ / 0-)

      I am too ignorant on the subject to comment intelligently but not nearly as much as I was before I read your diary.

      This is good though:

      large terrorist teams with paramilitary training and advanced weaponry.

      Sure they could make a mess of things at Indian Point but large terrorist teams with paramilitary training and advanced weaponry could screw up just about anyones day.

  •  Full disclosure? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peace voter, ovals49

    Where your paychecks come from?

    Meanwhile, it does not take a terrorist....there are plenty of examples of mishap and stupidity.

    The best emergency planners say Indian Point should never have been built where it is.

    If nuclear energy is so safe, why can't I buy insurance against its hazards? Why does the Federal Government protect the industry's $ but not ours?

    •  there's $$$ in promoting nuclear (0+ / 0-)

      C-SPAN recently aired a forum on the future of nuclear power.  Very interesting.  US nuclear power interests have invested millions of dollars in feasibility studies to build a new generation of nuclear power plants in this country.  The feasibility studies are required for the permit apllications which are the next step.

      "I do believe that we will see license applications in 2007 and we are looking – we have expressions of intent from a lot of the utilities indicating up – as I said, up to about 29 new nuclear plants. So I believe that there will be a [nuclear] renaissance in the United States."

      Dale Klein

      There was a candid discussion about the biggest obstacle to building new nuclear power plants in the US being the public's aversion to this form of energy generation.  They said that they believe that it will take about ten years of aggressive public relations campaigning to convince the American people to accept nuclear power.

      I don't think that anyone will dispute the fact that the nuclear energy industry has lots of money to fund such a public relations campaign.  Some of the money goes to fund the Nuclear Energy Institute:

      WASHINGTON, DC, April 24, 2006 (ENS) – The nuclear industry launched a new campaign on Monday to generate support for increased nuclear power, spearheaded by Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore and former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman.

      Environmental News Service

      Some of the money undoubtedly goes to create a positive perception about nuclear energy on blogs and in chat rooms. It would be naive to think that an industry with a huge budget and an even bigger public perception problem would not have employess, consultants and/or independent contrators in places like daily kos.


    •  I work for the Wind Manufacturers Association (0+ / 0-)

      but Greenpeace and BP solar pay me under the table.

      And you?

      Who pays your insurance protecting you against the particulate matter released by the coal industry.

  •  I don't know if you picked Andalusia (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    deliberately, but that's the part of Spain that the Islamists want back:

     Al-Andalus (Arabic: الأندلس) was the Arabic name given to those parts of the Iberian Peninsula governed by Muslims from 711 to 1492.[1] It refers to the Governorate, Emirate (ca 750-929) and Caliphate of Córdoba (929-1031) and its taifa successor kingdoms.

    •  I didn't know this, but it's interesting. (0+ / 0-)

      I picked Andalusia because this scientific reference is what came up when I googled "Spain, death rate," IRRC.   Recalling Madrid's terrorist attack, I wanted to see what the causes of death in Spain were and what the impact of the very tragic loss of life to terrorists in Spain represented.

      This perfectly appropriate hit is what came up and it seemed ideal for the point I wanted to make.

      Historically the civilization of otherwise barbaric Europe was only possible because of the interaction of the Moors in Spain with the far less educated European Christians.    The interaction provided two essential pieces of knowledge that made European Civilization possible, Arabic numerals which replaced the nearly useless roman numerals and, of course, Algebra.  

      "Algebra" is an Arabic word.

      In the Spanish conquest of the Moors under Ferdinand and Isabella gave the semi-literate conquerers access to ideas of which they would have been otherwise unaware.

  •  Please, the anti-nuclear types frothing about IP (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NNadir, NoMoJoe

    are too often people who moved near by AFTER the plants were built.  THEY benefit from low property taxes because IP pays so much in local taxes.

    This is more NIMBY.

    Close IP and watch electric rates go up even more.

    ConEd has been adding more and more natural gas powered units to meet peak demand - not a great strategy.  NY rates are obscene as is.

    Like it or not, if we're going to wean ourselves from oil and coal, we're going to have to build some nuclear plants.

    France went in that direction and reduced their oil needs substantially.  Iran is trying to do so BECAUSE their fields have peaked and they want to sell natural gas for foreign exchange.

    Like it or not there are going to be trade-offs and we'd be better off with new, well designed and well run nuclear plants than keeping old plants going beyond their expected life - be they nuclear OR coal.

    And if you crashed a plane into IP or any other plant built with a containment dome I doubt much is gonna happen.  This isn't Chernobyl.  VERY different designs.

  •  I'm still waiting. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Now that I have answered all of your questions, I am going to ask you a question and hopefully you will answer it:   Do you think the policy for the storage of dangerous fossil fuel wastes - dumping them into the atmosphere and seas without restriction - is working?

    That question stopped me in my tracks.  I am now seriously rethinking my own view of nuclear power as at best a necessary evil.  Placed in that context, nuclear power looks a lot more attractive.  If you ask me Are you in favor of nuclear power?  my anwer would be Not really.   If you ask me Would you rather have nukes with waste products that can be stored in controlled circumstances, or fossil fired plants dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere?  the answer is a no-brainer.  Bring on the nukes.

    What I really want is sustainable, renewable energy sources that don't force us to make such choices.  I think that is what we all want, ultimately.  But wanting and having are two different things, particularly in the time frame imposed by a climate crisis that grows more urgent by the day.

    NNadir, I'm not a convert yet, but you've got me thinking.

  •  The Executive Branch... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    of the United States Government has opted out of the U.S. Constitution's system of governmental checks and balances. The legislative and judicial branches have (by and large) allowed that to happen without serious challenge. The American voters also bear major responsibility for the Executive Branch becoming an undisciplined group of outlaws and de facto terrorists.

    The U.S. Executive Branch now terrorizes its own citizens. This is terrorism we did not experience before September 11, 2001. This is terrorism that evidences itself in the form of a palpable reduction in the civil rights of the average American. This is terrorism that makes ordinary air travel burdensome (at best) and soon will require natural-born American citizens to show U.S. passports before they are given permission to re-enter their own country.

    All three branches of the U.S. government are recent perpetrators of terrorism against their own citizens. Has not the Executive Branch advanced the ridiculous (and unconstitutional) theory of the so-called Unitary Executive to virtually strip the Bill of Rights out of our Constitution? Has not the Republican-controlled Congress terrorized us by completely abrogating its responsibility to oversee and properly restrain the activities of the rampant Executive Branch, not to mention the passing of abominations like the Military Commissions Act? Perhaps the most tragic terrorism of all is the abandonment of our Constitution and the rights it confers by members of the federal judiciary.

    "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by jayatRI on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 04:23:18 PM PST

  •  Excellent but unfortunately (0+ / 0-)

    the story of terror sells better than respiratory death.

    As Goerge Bernard Shaw said to the effect:People cannot distinguish the difference between a bicycle accident and a train wreck.

  •  Chernobyl (0+ / 0-)

    18 April 2006 – Some 5,000 people who were children and adolescents at the time of the world’s worst-ever civil nuclear accident at Chernobyl, Ukraine, have so far been diagnosed with thyroid cancer, and there may be up to 9,000 excess cancer deaths, according to a new United Nations study, the most comprehensive scientific report so far on the health impact of the disaster.

    United Nations News Centre


    •  Any idea of how many coal mining deaths have (0+ / 0-)

      taken place in the Ukraine in the last 5 years?


      You don't care about coal deaths?

      What a surprise.

      The only deaths you care about are deaths from radiation.

      Let me ask you this, not that you will answer, since you didn't answer any questions about the oxidation state of plutonium yesterday after informing me of your expert status on the subject:

      Do you think that particulate matter from coal plants causes cancer?  

      Let me ask you another question:

      Do you think that benzofurans released by coal burning causes cancer?

      Let me ask you another question.

      Does there have to be a coal accident in order for a coal fired plant to release these things or does the release take place during normal coal fired plant operations?

      Let me ask you another question:

      Is there some special reason that you wish to evoke deaths that may happen over a 20 year period after Chernobyl but give not the slightest nod to the millions of people who died last year from air pollution?

      What's the case, Chernobyl victims are more human than people who die from the continued operations of fossil fuel plants?

      You also avoided my question about whether or not you agree that the Greenpeace statement that the world "could" produce 30% of electricity from wind 43 years from now was acceptable to you.   I noted that producing 70% of our electricity from fossil fuels is not acceptable to me at any time, not only in 2050.   Climate change, in my view, is happening right now and is extremely dangerous right now.

      •  Why should I bother... (0+ / 0-)

        answering your questions?

        After all - your comment indicates that you think that can read my mind - you ask me questions & then assume what my answers are - and of course your assumptions are off the mark

        your comment reminds me of the Rumsfeld press conferences where he poses questions to himeself & answers them

        We've been round and round on the coal v nuclear power argument

        It would be oh so convenient for the sake of your argument if we had to choose between the coal or nuclear power.

        It would be oh so convenient if there were not clean, safe, sustainable alternatives to both coal and nuclear power

        No one said that Chernobyl victims were more human than anyone else - but there were victims - and they are or were human and according to the United Nations report cited above 5,000 of those humans who were children or adolescents at the time of the catastrophic accident at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor have now been diagnosed with thyroid cancer.  The same study reports up to 9,000 excess cancer deaths as a result of the accident.

        You seem to be arguing that because coal is bad (and I agree it is) we shouldn't be concerned about a potential catastrophic event at Indian Point


        •  You refuse to answer my questions because you (0+ / 0-)


          They are perfectly valid questions, not rhetorical questions.   Pretending that I'm Donald Rumsfeld will do no good.   I answered your questions in a straight forward way when you asked them.

          You say that there are alternatives to nuclear industry repeatedly, but you cannot prove it.

          You ignored for instance the Greenpeace link showing that at best wind could do in 43 years is to produce 30% of our electricity from wind.   Now I think even that is wishful thinking.   But if it were reasonable it still would be a clairon call for producing 70% of our energy from fossil fuels.   This is unacceptable to me.

          Again, no rhetoric, if you have alternatives to both fossil fuels and nuclearprove it, and not with platitudes.

          You are full of shit.


          •  wrong again (0+ / 0-)

            I haven't refused to answer your questions

            I've answered some and may get around to answering others

            I'm not pretending that you're Rumsfeld - I said you remind me of Rumsfeld with that device you employ of posing questions to me and then answering them for me - answering them in waus I never would.  It's a strawman technique - one of your favorite strawmen appears to be coal.


            •  Nuclear shut by public stupidity is replaced (0+ / 0-)

              by fossil fuels.

              Apparently your thinking is so bad, that you don't know what a "straw man" is

              A few months ago, as reported in the New York Times Germany which has announced an idiotic "nuclear phase out"  announced 8 huge coal plants, and one small window dressing IGCC coal plant so that people like you can lie to themselves.   Of course the IGCC plant is filthy as well, and will cost billions in extra environmental damage with repect to the nuclear baseline.

              When Maine closed Yankee Maine, the energy was replaced with natural gas, another dangerous fossil fuel.   In 1990 - when Yankee Maine operated - Maine depended on fossil fuels for just 22.5% of it's electricity.    Today, after the closure, it depends on fossil fuels for 60.5% of it's energy.   Reliance on renewable energy (wood fired plants mostly) fell from 21.4 to 20.5.

              Maine's Electrical Energy Production:   MORE FOSSIL FUELS.

              I can easily provide more examples of how fraudulent it is to claim that opposing nuclear energy kills people by forcing the use of dangerous fossil fuels, but I think you have an irrational fetish on the subject.

  •  3 times 5% = 15% (not a leprachaun) (0+ / 0-)

    "Ireland wants you to believe that multplying next to zero by three is the same as finding a leprachaun"

    — NNadir

    That's what you wrote in your October 3rd diary Ireland Plans to Triple Renewable Energy.  

    Are you angry because Ireland is expected to formally rule out nuclear energy as a possible option?


    The amount of electricity generated from renewable energy sources will triple by 2010, said Ireland's Marine and Natural Resources minister Noel Dempsey. His statement comes as his department's Green Paper on energy, [published Oct. 1st], is expected to formally rule out nuclear energy as a possible option.

    Mr. Dempsey said 15% of the country's energy needs would come from renewable energy sources by 2010, compared to a rate of 5% in 2004.

    "By the end of this year, we will have more than doubled the capacity of new clean green technologies connected to the electricity network. The projects I have announced today will bring us closer to the target to treble the contribution of renewable energy sourced electricity from 5% in 2004 to 15% by 2010 -- a significant growth rate by any comparison," said Mr. Dempsey last week.

    Cormac O'Keeffe,

    I went back & looked at some of your diaries & I read the diary about Ireland's renewable energy program  - tried to post a comment & realized that you may have disabled the comment feature, so I decided to post my comment here.  Many of the comments in that diary are well worth reading.  


    •  Here is the data for Ireland's electrical demand: (0+ / 0-)

      Energy In Ireland 1990-2005, see table 2 for data

      Ireland produces 96.4% of its energy from fossil fuels.  It produces 0.6% of its energy from wind.  It produces 0.3% of its energy from hydro.  Overall it produces 2.5% of its energy from all renewables.   The balance, not specified, must be wood and waste burning.

      Mostly Ireland burns peat, the equivalent of uncompressed coal.

      Any nation with an energy profile like Ireland's that does not build nuclear power plants is killing its own citizens and citizens of the rest of the world through moral indifference.  

      Nuclear power plants save lives and enrich humanity.

      I note that if Ireland managed to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources, you would pretend that the other 85% doesn't exist.

      You are indifferent to the use of fossil fuels and I refuse to accept that highly immoral position from anyone.   I regard such a view as a form of ignorance.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site