[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Even CNN is noticing the PBMR developments
> There is a brief story at
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/24/nuclear.pbmr/ discussing the approved
> PBMR project in South Africa.
I emailed CNN with a response to the above story. My response was:
Dear Spark ....
Your story about "Rethinking the Nuclear Option" contained many
factual errors. Why?
1. 31 people died from short term injuries at Chernobyl in 1986. Why
can't you report it as 31 instead of "more than 30"?
2. Approximately 250 people were taken to hospital with observable
injuries at Chernobyl. They all recovered and are living out normal
3. No other injuries or health effects have been documented. You
state that "millions more were effected". That is wrong. There are
no local increases in leukemia, cancer, or birth defects.
4. Your story implies that the environmental lobby groups have a
meaningful role to play in this experiment with new technology. That
is completely wrong. They are totally irrelevant. If the PBMR plants
are cost effective they will be built. If not, they won't. The
disinformation dribbling out from these environmentalist groups has no
5. Your story implies that coal fired plants are inexpensive. They
achieve this by polluting the air with carbon dioxide that is killing
the planet by causing global warming. The people who are about to die
as a result of this global warming might not approve of this kind of
accounting that rates planet killing pollution as a zero cost item.
The cost of using coal can be dramatically increased by taxing carbon
based air pollution.
6. Why does every story about nuclear power have to mention
Chernobyl? It is not a significant factor for present day decisions.
If you want to make some meaningful comparisons you could point out
that 10,000 coal miners die annually, while uranium mining causes zero
deaths. This alone is enough of a reason to make this technology
switch. Taxing the deaths of coal miners would dramatically increase
the cost of using coal.
7. Your story states that the PBMR plants need to pass tests, i.e. "It
needs to be cost effective, it needs not to produce waste for tens of
thousands of years and it needs to insure against nuclear
proliferation, the misuse of nuclear facilities to make bombs or
terrorist weapons." By not commenting on this quote you imply that
these tests have not been passed, when in fact they have been passed.
Fission based power is inexpensive, reuses its fuel several times so
it does not produce waste, and makes no contribution to weapons as a
result of today's monitoring technology and procedures. You should
have noted this if you want your story to be accurate.
8. Your story states that oil shortages are causing people to
consider other alternatives. This is wrong. What we are running out
of is the cooling capacity of our planet. Even if we had excessive
amounts of oil we could not burn it. The global warming that would
result from this would kill us all. So the oil shortage, if there is
one, is not relevant. Carbon based air pollution is the problem. By
getting this basic fact wrong you are worsening the climate change
Randal Leavitt gnupg public key: bbbad04d
Registered User 267646 at http://counter.li.org/