The Nuclear ‘Take Away’

I think we can all see what the anti-nuke want; they want to bastardize our scientific terminology.

As an analogy, let's consider the isotopes of Cobalt, instead of the isotopes of Hydrogen.

Scientifically, we have non-radioactive, stable Cobalt-59. There is also radioactive Cobalt-60. We make Cobalt-60 from Cobalt-59 by irradiating it in a reactor; so Cobalt-59 is the source material for Cobalt-60. However, it is NOT radioactive until we actually irradiate it in the reactor.

If we have 100% Cobalt-59; we call it "Cobalt-59" and say it is "non-radioactive.

If we have 100% Cobalt-60; we call it "Cobalt-60" and say it is "radioactive".

If we have a mixture of Cobalt-59 and Cobalt-60; we call it "a mixture of Cobalt-59 and Cobalt-60" and we consider it "radioactive" since it has a radioactive component of the mix; namely, the Cobalt-60.

With this terminology which all scientists use; the terminology tells us what we have, and what its radiological state is.

Not so with what the anti-nukes have in mind. Just as our ignorant pinhead wants to call everything "heavy water" whether it contains radioactive Tritium or not; we can call everything with any isotope of Cobalt in it as "Cobalt-59".

That way, any time we have Cobalt with any mix of isotopes we call it "Cobalt-59". That would mean that sometimes the material we call "Cobalt-59" will be radioactive. That is, sometimes "Cobalt-59" would be radioactive, and sometimes it wouldn't be radioactive. This would be just like our resident pinhead idiot telling us that sometimes heavy water is radioactive and sometimes it is not radioactive.

Under this bastardization of the terminology, one couldn't tell the radiological state of the material from its name. Sometimes "Cobalt-59" is radioactive, and sometimes it is not radioactive. Therefore, one would have to consider anything called "Cobalt-59" as radioactive, in order to be safe.

This confusing situation is EXACTLY what the anti-nukes want!! They don't want people to be able to distinguish what is radioactive or non-radioactive; or more to the point, what is dangerous and not dangerous; from the name. They want it all collapsed into a common name; both dangerous and not dangerous. Therefore, prudence would dictate that everything so named would be considered "dangerous".

This is the same standard procedure of the anti-nukes to EXAGGERATE everything. They would like anything called "Cobalt-59" to be considered dangerous. They want anything called "heavy water" to be considered dangerous by the public.

It's a well worn trait of the anti-nukes. We have Helen Caldicott telling us that a single kilogram of Plutonium dispersed into the environment will kill all life on the planet. However, as documented here, the amount of Plutonium actually in the environment from the years of atmospheric nuclear testing is 10 metric tonnes, or 10,000 times what Caldicott says is a fatal dose for all life on the planet. How much of our dose do we get as a result of the nuclear fallout from those atmospheric tests? The following chart courtesy of the Health Physics Society chapter at the University of Michigan:

http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm

shows fallout as being <0.03% of our background dose. In other words, Mother Nature irradiates us with over 3,000 times the amount of radiation that we get from the 10 metric tonnes of Plutonium, which is 10,000 times what Caldicott tells us will kill all life. So Caldicott is at least in error by a factor of 30 Million; all because she EXAGGERATES.

We have the same thing with Arnie Gundersen. It was bad enough that Fukushima had a bad hydrogen explosion in Unit 3; but, as per anti-nuke tradecraft; Gundersen EXAGGERATED this incident in claiming it was a "nuclear explosion" when all the science says it wasn't.

That's where our resident pinhead, whose knowledge of science isn't befitting for a child in elementary school; is so abjectly gullible as to believe Gundersen's EXAGGERATION. The idiot is so self-righteous that he / she can't believe that he / she has been DUPED by Gundersen's EXAGGERATION; witness his / her futile protestations when confronted with the scientific facts.

It's all a propaganda campaign to fear-monger and to get the public to be afraid of a technology that our fear-mongers don't have the brainpower to understand. The computer industry faced non-acceptance by people who were afraid of computers taking over the world, or, at least, taking over their jobs. Of course, this is nothing new. Back in the 19th century with the advent of the industrial revolution, and automatic looms; we had the Luddites that didn't have the brainpower to understand these new machines; and hence were threatened by the machines taking over the menial jobs that were the only jobs suited to these humans with limited brainpower.

Once again, those with limited brainpower are rebelling against a technology that was fostered by fellow humans with much more brainpower and intellect than they have.

I would suggest that they should be proud of their fellow humans; the scientists / engineers that are more mentally gifted that they are. They should take a lesson from the French. Courtesy of PBS Frontline:

Why the French Like Nuclear Energy

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

In France, unlike in America, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular. Everybody I spoke to in Civaux loves the fact their region was chosen. The nuclear plant has brought jobs and prosperity to the area. Nobody I spoke to, nobody, expressed any fear.

Part of their popularity comes from the fact that scientists and engineers have a much higher status in France than in America. Many high ranking civil servants and government officials trained as scientists and engineers (rather than lawyers, as in the United States), and, unlike in the U.S. where federal administrators are often looked down upon, these technocrats form a special elite. Many have graduated from a few elite schools such as the Ecole Polytechnic. According to Mandil, respect and trust in technocrats is widespread. "For a long time, in families, the good thing for a child to become was an engineer or a scientist, not a lawyer. We like our engineers and our scientists and we are confident in them."

The French have a sense of espirit de corps and are confident and proud of what their scientists and engineers have accomplished.

In the United States, people are more self-centered and jaded. They can't stand the fact that there are other humans with intelligence and cerebral skills that surpass anything the non-technical people could even dream of. Rather than embrace the accomplishments of those that are more mentally gifted; they rebel and attack those accomplishments, just as the ignorant Luddites attacked the technology of their day.

“I’ve found weapons-grade uranium in scrap.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-19/nuclear-risks-at-bed-bath-beyon... By Jonathan Tirone & Andrew MacAskill - Mar 20, 2012 1:23 AM CT

The discovery of radioactive tissue boxes at Bed, Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY) stores in January raised alarms among nuclear security officials and company executives over the growing global threat of contaminated scrap metal. The Department of Homeland Security declined to provide updated figures or comment on how the metal tissue boxes at Bed, Bath & Beyond, tainted with melted cobalt-60 used in medical instruments to diagnose and treat cancer, evaded detection.

“The major risk we face in our industry is radiation,” said Paul de Bruin, radiation-safety chief for Jewometaal Stainless Processing BV, one of the world’s biggest stainless- steel scrap yards. “You can talk about security all you want, but I’ve found weapons-grade uranium in scrap. Where was the security?”