The 4 Myths The Nuclear Industry Wants You to Believe

This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Politics / World News, Science / Technology. Bookmark the permalink.
  • jadan

    When Arnie says: “I’ll keep you informed” you can believe it. He’s got the credibility. Stand your ground, Arnie!

  • TJF

    Myth one is a strawman. Nobody in the nuclear industry would say there is zero risk. That is not something that makes any sense and is not something I’ve ever heard from the industry. I stopped watching during myth number two.

    • jadan

      Nuclear power proponents pitch zero risk to the public. They lie, in other words; but insiders are as vigilant as they can be because they know the risk is enormous. They fail to live up to their own expectations. The lies they tell themselves threaten the quality of life on the planet for all creatures.The risk/benefit calculation proponents introduced during Three Mile Island is the logic of sociopathy. In the end, there is NO benefit from the risk posed by nuclear power plants.

    • Jimmy Cogsdil

      The problem with nuclear power (not counting thorium) is there is no advantage to it except for huge power companies supported by Federal Government subsidizes. The fuel cycle is not a closed loop.

  • gozounlimited

    Not A Myth…… our government killing our rain clouds over Cali……. Keep vinegar and fan going…….

    • gozounlimited

      After posting our government behavior above…..they stop….. Thanks for Your Patience. My NSA Geek and I may have a HER thing going on.

      • gozounlimited

        So. Cal just got hit with HAARP Elf Waves……. The band coming from West going East. This map will change over time, I can’t freeze the frame….. unfortunately. They don’t like that your fans are working, blowing off chemtrailed high pressure systems designed to burn you out on the Santa Ana’s…….. too bad!!!!! So. Cal is winning……

  • james

    Arnie has some sort of mystery task here: If he really wants you to believe nuclear is to be avoided why does he say some of the things he does:

    Why does he qualify the danger in the US only to the “old BWR1 reactors without the Fukushima updates”?

    Why does he lump Coal and Oil power plants in with Nuclear and pit them against renewables?

    Why does he point out the biggest flaw with renewables and leave it as a “future engineering question”, while at the same time saying there are ways to solve the problem?

    Why does he set the stage for “new, smaller, local” power plants, if his agenda is renewables?

    Why does he not ever, ever mention MOX fuel, plutonium and the associated dangers from it – which is one of the largest problems with nuclear?

    Why does he refer to the 5 failures as “meltdowns”, while 4 of them were clearly “explosions and meltdowns”.

    These seem to coincide with talking points of the nuclear industry – is that a coincidence?

    I must admit that Arnie’s presentation here was more aggressively non-nuclear than I’m accustomed to hearing from him , however the above inconsistencies indicates he is still has something else going on.

    Somebody with his knowledge that skirts around the truth is someone to be listened to with a very skeptical ear.

    • jadan

      Skepticism indicates an adult mind is at work. Seems to me that he’s just the right man for the moment, an authority sympathetic to all parties. Could Harvey Wasserman fill the roll?

    • Jimmy Cogsdil

      Because he wants to be balanced, telling only one side is not a good idea