Physicist: There was no Fukushima nuclear disaster

You are a liar and a clueless one.

Greenpeace receives its funding from individual supporters and foundations. Greenpeace screens all major donations in order to ensure it does not receive unwanted
donations. The organization does not accept money from governments, intergovernmental organizations, political
parties or corporations. (Wikipedia).

You have failed to substantiate your accusations with documented evidence. You invented the fabrication that GP has never turned down a donation. You are a liar.

Is Vindpust suffering from a chronic case of cognitive dissonance or did someone leave the cage door open as in galah?

Due to continually changing government regulations, cost to the builders and operators are exorbitant. This makes nuclear power expensive on purpose.

Just ask the citizens of Florida. Progress Energy was to build a new plant. They got approved costs to be paid by users (users who have no choice at all). The foundation work was done and it was found structurally a failure. That meant abandonment of the project.
Meanwhile the government allowed Progress Energy to continue its profits charging the entire cost fo the failed project to the consumer instead of the corporation and its shareholders.
I have a HUGE problem with this ethic. There must be accountability at all times. If the shareholders are not held accountable then the officers are NOT held accountable..this means that the citizens are defrauded.
Meanwhile the officers and engineers even get to say that they worked on a nuclear project making them more valuable to industry, instead of UNEMPLOYABLE as they should be.

The references people make to Chernobyl are uninformed at best and stupid at worst. Chernobyl was built by a nation with zero regard for safety or human life. It had no safety systems and not even a containment dome! It was built as a disaster waiting to happen which is the exact opposite of every other nuclear facility in the free world. No I don’t want a plant built by the old USSR in my back yard and maybe not today’s Russia, but was referring to ANY plant built by the US or most responsible nations. Those I would be happy to have. Silly comments by irrational people get tiresome.

You don’t have a clue. Our domestic nuclear power industry is, by far, the most regulated, most inspected industry in America. It is also one of the most secure. Furthermore, there has been not one death or illness domestically resulting from radiation or similar accidents. Not one. That is in spite of the numerous deaths and injuries in almost every other industry one can name. The safety record of our domestic nuclear power cannot be matched by ANY other industry, and that’s a simple fact. Using a gunman shooting at an electrical substation has nothing at all to do with nuclear power; meaning you have no logical argument. You are making untrue and unsubstantiated remarks that prove I’m arguing with someone without any knowledge of the subject matter. Too bad and good-bye.

In the mean time…How many died in traffic accidents and gang shootings?
I believe you will find that you are far better off working in the Nuclear Industry than driving a car or livin’ in “th’ hood”.

Hmm… So you are using 50 year old incidents to prove your ‘current day’ scenario? One death – how did he get exposed? You didn’t say.
Three other (separate ?) incidents and one facility three years before that; right? Non-nuclear, you said. So that means there was no, Zero, Zip, chances of a radiation leak. Right?
Three-Mile Island? A burp, and the Safety features built into the system worked exactly as they were supposed to – No radiation leakage. The power plant is still in operation. I can tell; because Philadelphia still has electricity flowing to it and through it.

Add to that, Chernobyl was super-hyped by the “green” crowd. THe actual death toll was in the double digits, not millions.

You jest. You are saying that the old Soviet Union with the millions of Russians murdered at the hands of some of the most brutal dictators in history built their nuclear facilities with all of the safety precautions that western governments design into ours? Chernobyl didn’t even have a containment dome! It was a disaster waiting to happen, and sadly it did. The old Soviet Union proved over and over a very high lack of regard for human life and those morons who keep using Chernobyl as an excuse to prevent the sensible use of nuclear power need to wise up. Nuclear power is cleaner, safer, and cheaper per megawatt of power produced than ANY other alternative today.

Quoting:
“Chernobyl’s containment vessel was also lacking by western standards.”
Commenting:
Chernobyl had no containment building to speak of.

I suggest you remember that we are all surrounded by radiation every minute of every day. It’s a natural thing that cannot be avoided and generally causes no harm. One domestic flight from New York to Los Angeles exposes the passenger to more radiation than a nuclear plant employee is exposed to in a year. There is a completely irrational fear of radiation caused by a lot of fear-mongering since the 1950s and promoted by the mainstream media for all these years. I rely on a perfectly reliable expert for my sources and am confident that the author of this article got it right. The only nuclear accident in history of any serious consequence was Chernobyl and that entire incident was the fault of a government with no concern at all for safety or life.

Tell that to the guy that just lost 30 of his 40 horses due to some strange?! unknown disease… tell that to the thousands of children coming up with thyroid cancer in the last months. Fish started dying massively from the beginning! and now washing up by the millions … but no, it has nothing to do with the radiation right? Chernobyl poison cloud, which was followed on the news by some, killed almost all of the sheep in Schotland at the time!!

I don’t know why you are living in denial about nuclear plants. But you definitely are.
You say that no one was hurt. HOW THE F**K CAN YOU SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT;? Are you paralyzed from the neck up?

What about the workers on the plant that sacrificed them selves, to stop the disaster from getting even worse?

If you have read the report from UNSCEAR, where it says: “The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), released a report on the Fukushima accident April 2, 2014. It stated that the scientists have found no evidence to support the idea that the nuclear meltdown in Japan in 2011 will lead to an
increase in cancer rates or birth defects”.

Well, then I have one thing to tell you: You can’t trust a single national committee in the USA. They are all corrupt. And they will tell the public exactly what the company who is paying them, want’s them to say. But if you check elsewhere you might find the truth. Like this:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-disaster-caused-at-least-1232-fatalities-in-2014-as-radiation-death-rate-accelerates/5441390 .

Where it says that there where 1232 fatalities caused by radiation from the accident (nuclear-related deaths).

The term “nuclear-related” means a death that does not result directly from radiation exposure but is caused by a disease later caused by that exposure. Indeed, it is radiation-related diseases — including
cancer, tumors and genetic damage — that often cause the bulk of health problems and fatalities in cases of radiation exposure.

One of the diseases particularly expected to show an uptick after the Fukushima disaster is thyroid cancer, because radioactive iodine from nuclear disasters tends to concentrate in the thyroid gland. An estimated 6,000 children contracted thyroid cancer following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

It typically takes four to five years for most nuclear-related
thyroid cancers to manifest, and as that window approaches many Fukushima parents believe that their children are already showing symptoms. Fukushima officials
have tested approximately 300,000 children and have turned up 100 cases of the disease, in contrast to the pre-disaster rate of one or two per million children.

And this article / report (with a 27 min. video):

http://yournewswire.com/shocking-report-million-cancer-deaths-from-fukushima-expected/

So will you still proclaim that there has been no deaths as a result of this accident?

It was no surprise to me when I saw the author of the report was Arnie Gundersen.

He describes himself as “chief engineer” at Fairewinds.

He neglects to tell you that the company consists of him and his wife.

Gosh….”chief engineer” starts to sound more like a fabrication.

Arnie Gundersen is a highschool teacher.

Gundersen inflates his resume.
The “reactor” he is licensed to operate is a 100 watt university demonstration reactor.
He touts himself as “chief scientist” at Fairewinds, which is just his own company consisting of him and his wife.
However appeals to authority aside…
What is worse than his exaggeration of his qualifications is that he makes claims that defy the laws of physics.
When these mistakes are pointed out, he simply continues on spouting his nonsense.
You can believe whomever you wish, but don’t expect anyone to take you seriously if you parrot Gundersen.

I am also one of the group he named, of course he has no proof of his false accusations. I know for a fact he is lying about me, I post under my real name, my posts are not private, my Facebook account is not private. I know for a fact I am NOT paid to post, not told to post yet this “Andre” posts his lies anyway. I am not part of some conspiracy, but I do have over 35 years of nuclear experience and I agree with almost all of Greenthinker2012’s posts. I have yet to read anything of substance from “Andre” his vitriol and accusations are without merit.

As you know, I post under my given name and have no alias. When you prove yourself to be a blatant liar with every post how do you expect anyone to take you seriously? I told you I am not a litigious person, I don’t have a lawyer, but if there is one reading this who would like to take the case, I am willing to listen, contact me. Thank you!

The R. E. Ginna nuclear power plant is the longest running in the USA with more actual hours or full power operation than any other. It has completed all of it’s Fukushima upgrades and has operated at a capacity factor over 95% for more than 10 years, it is ranked in the top quartile in almost every metric. My job is to calibrate and maintain the equipment which ensures it remains safe, I live within 3 miles of Ginna with my family. You care about money, I care about safety and the environment, I guess we each have our priorities,

I am not a spokesperson, I cannot divulge plant specific information without authorization. I did not get hired at Ginna until January 1988. The tube rupture at Ginna released minimal radioactive material because there was no fuel element failure, the relatively clean primary water went through a steam generator tube into the secondary when the tube was damaged from foreign material left in the system. Here is a pretty good account of the accidet “The Ginna Nuclear Power Plant was the site of a minor nuclear accident when, on January 25, 1982, a small amount of radioactive steam leaked into the air after a steam-generator tube ruptured. The leak which lasted 93 minutes led to the declaration of a site emergency. The rupture was caused by a small pie-pan-shaped object left in the steam generator during an outage. This was not the first time a tube rupture had occurred at an American reactor but following on so closely behind the Three Mile Island accident caused considerable attention to be focused on the incident at the Ginna plant. In total, 485.3 curies of noble gas and 1.15 millicuries of iodine-131 were released to the environment. ” http://nuclear-powerplants.blogspot.com/2011/01/robert-e-ginna-nuclear-power-plant.html

Yes, trying to capitalize on the fame of Three Mile Island to sell more advertising makes sense. If is a very big word, if the sun collapsed yesterday, we all would have died. It was cold and there was a heavy snow fall at the time and most of the contamination fell onsite, Surveys were taken in the surrounding areas.

Um, The tube rupture happened in 1982…. I know how safe my work environment is, what on Earth makes you think YOU know better? Please list your qualifications, I’ve asked you before and so far you don’t seem to have any… Where do you work? How is your OSHA record? It’s safer to work at a nuclear power plant than at a financial institution according to OSHA statistics. I know you can’t trust OSHA because it’s their job, they are part of the “safety industry” they are just “safety shills”

Is there a reason why you linked to a summary of the INWORKS radiation study in Counterpunch rather than a scientific journal? It’s just that the author – a mildly odd anti-nuclear activist called Iain Fairlie (who believes the reason mainstream scientists generally ignore his work is because it is so damned good) – rather overstates both the strength of the study and what its conclusions mean.

Let’s look instead at a proper summary in a scientific publication (with a fascinating discussion in the comments section where the editor responds):

http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-pin-down-risks-of-low-dose-radiation-1.17876

In this study of 308 297 nuclear workers, spending an average of 27 years in the industry, they discovered an extra 30 cases of leukaemia. That’s 0.0097% of the workforce studied. It represents a 6% increase in a very rare disease. (This is actually such a small increase that it is debatable whether it is actually significant, but let’s assume it is reflective of reality). To quote from Nature:

“It is a solid, unusually large study of individuals exposed to very low doses of ionizing radiation,” says epidemiologist Jørgen Olsen, director of the Danish Cancer Society Research Center in Copenhagen. The finding implies that some cases of leukaemia will even be caused by a high level of natural background radiation, he adds, “though the increased risk for an individual is going to be vanishingly small”.

ICRP recommendations, which most national radiation-protection agencies follow, already call for monitoring of individuals whose annual exposure is likely to exceed 6 mSv. They restrict exposure to 20 mSv annually over 5 years, with a maximum of 50 mSv in any one year. Researchers found that 531 of the workers died from leukaemia during the average 27 years they spent in the industry; the data suggest that 30 of those deaths could be attributed to the radiation. Even in this large study, there was no direct evidence that workers who had accumulated extremely low doses of radiation (below a total of 50 mSv) had an increased risk of leukaemia, says Olsen. But a mathematical extrapolation of the data suggests that each accumulation of 10 mSv of exposure raised a worker’s risk of leukaemia by around 3%, compared to the average risk of the group of workers in the study.

Let’s compare that to the death impact of fossil fuels without even considering climate change: a study by James Hansen, someone I understand you admire:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/kh05000e.html

Kharecha, P.A., and J.E. Hansen, 2013: Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. Environ. Sci. Technol., 47, 4889-4895, doi:10.1021/es3051197.

In the aftermath of the March 2011 accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the future contribution of nuclear power to the global energy supply has become somewhat uncertain. Because nuclear power is an abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, it could make a large contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution. Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000-7.04 million deaths and 80-240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of unconstrained natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power.

As I have pointed out to you before, the WHO suggests that there are already 150,000 deaths a year from climate change, with serious scientific opinion speculating on the role of climate change in exacerbating the current murderous conflict in the Middle East.

It’s all a matter of choices. Which approach causes fewer deaths and less damage to the biosphere?

Er, no, the only copy-pasting I did was from the leading scientific journal Nature and the website of NASA. I’m not paid by anyone to comment, nor do I have any connection to any energy companies or lobby groups let alone access to some mysterious software they have that probably doesn’t exist. People are also free to go over my commenting history with a fine-tooth comb to look for the slightest scrap of racism.

What you’re doing, André, is failing (quite spectacularly) to face up to the flaws in your argument. Attacking me with fantasy accusations is meaningless: you need to attack James Hansen, you need to attack the editors at Nature, you need to attack the World Health Organisation and you need to attack the authors of the study you were just so favourably citing. Well, not so much attack all these people as address what they say in a calm and intelligent manner.

Would you like to have another go, and this time address the evidence I presented?

Replacing the Ginna nuclear power plant with decentralized renewables will generate thousands more jobs than the 500 “well paying jobs” that you mention. The town of Ontario will increase its tax base, all the local firms that you listed will see their client numbers and revenues increase and everybody will be better off with clean air, cheaper electricity and without any radiation accident risks. In any case, the Ginna nuclear plant will be shut down sooner or later (sorry to remind you, but nuclear reactors have a finite lifetime), so why not start planning for a local renewables electricity generation infrastructure right now?
And in your particular case, get some training in nuclear plant decommissioning, your days of spreading pro-nuclear propaganda for a living are numbered.
Just as a reminder, Exelon wanted to shutdown Ginna already, but managed to get an extension by blackmailing local politicians into authorizing them to charge millions of consumers for the extraordinary costs of keeping Ginna going. But sooner or later Exelon executives are going to come back, fire everybody and shutdown the plant for good. Blame them, not me when that happens. And hopefully no nuclear accident will happen at the plant before they shut it down. One really has to wonder how that relic from the 70’s (with technology from the 60’s!) is still working…

Let’s work out some rough numbers for the amount of plutonium on the Ginna power plant site. The plant has been operating for 45 years, let’s say at an average 80% capacity factor. A 1GWe reactor produces roughly 300kg of plutonium per year, so a very rough estimate for the minimal amount of plutonium on the site where you work is 300 x 0.8 x 0.6 x 45 = 6480 kg of plutonium, or roughly enough plutonium for 500 atomic bombs with the same yield as the Hiroshima bomb. In other words, just on the site where you work, there is enough fissile material to completely destroy the US and contaminate the entire northern hemisphere, killing half the Earth’s population in the following years.

Wrong again Lester, or you are trying to spread disinformation as usual. Spent nuclear fuel still contains 0.83% of U-235 and 0.80% of Pu-239, both of which can be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.
Actually, that you accept to work in close proximity of tonnes of U-235 and Pu-239, enough fissile material to destroy the U.S. and kill half the world’s population, and do not even think about it in critical terms, is a clear sign of your total lack of awareness of the seriousness of these issues.
It is clear that you are totally unqualified to comment on anything related to nuclear technology, be it safety, financial viability or anything else.

Who is Lester? So, in other words you have no qualifications, and no idea what you’re talking about? Why should anyone listen to you? Please be specific.

That is totally besides the point. Depleted uranium, plutonium and other heavy isotopes are extremely dense materials. The plutonium for a nuclear warhead fits in the palm of my hand.

I thought this article was about Fukushima and nuclear plant safety.

First off the Fukushima plants were boiling water reactors, which are a totally different design than Ginna which is a pressurized water reactor. Fukushima was built on the ocean in an earthquake zone, Ginna was built on lake Ontario in an area not considered an earthquake zone. There is no chance of a tsunami at Ginna, never the less Ginna used the Fukushima operating experience to upgrade equipment and procedures to deal with greater than design basis events. I am not a spokesperson, so I am not authorized to talk about plant specifics. I did however teach nuclear power fundamentals and Instrumentation and control for about 10 years, as well as being a reactor operator on US Navy submarines, so I do have a broad range of knowledge. What is your education/knowledge level so I know where to begin?

Hi Andre…

Yes Yes…more of your name calling…How original on the internet.

However one thing to note is that I have directly challenged you to refute a single thing I have said that is factually incorrect yet you have not taken me up on the challenge.
Why is that?
Does your argument style only work if you avoid examining facts and stick to personal attacks and unsupported assertions?
I challenge you again to speak about verifiable facts.
Will you be brave enough or will you continue as you have been?

I also note that you want to frame the conversation about nuclear power as a choice between different low carbon power sources. Mainstream science like the IPCC says that climate change is serious and that we should deploy all low carbon energy sources including nuclear power.

I figured you would avoid my challenge.
Yet more baseless claims by Andre Balsa.
If nothing I say is credible then it should be easy for you to point out something that I have said that is verifiably untrue.

Correction Arnie WAS a high school teacher, now he fleeces people with a scam to create fear and take donations based on that irrational fear.

How many Deaths are attributed to the Nuclear test explosions off the Bikini Islands?
Were you aware that the native population has returned to the Island, and lives there with no side-effects from radiation, even though there is higher levels of radiation than in the surrounding islands?

Not to worry Andre, I recognize industry shills and special interest propaganda. It’s just important to provide balance to their disinformation articles and posts.

But Cathie has her “”feelings” and and will not allow facts to interfere.

Fukushima showed 1960’s technology faced with record breaking earthquake and tsunami, 3 reactors lost cooling, melted the cores and still the expected health effects are expected to be too small to measure. Newer designs will not need power for cooling, and generation 4 reactors promise to be fueled from the poorly named “high level waste” of current reactors and “walk away safe” To ignore the benefits this technology could provide is just not prudent when we need to reduce fossil fuel use as quickly as possible. Check out this video about the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) the potential benefits are world changing. http://thoriumremix.com/th/

I don’t ignore anything, I like the other “renewable” clean power, but by any measure nuclear energy is just as “renewable” just as “green” and more reliable than wind and solar. There is no reason nuclear energy should be singled out. We need all our clean energy to replace fossil fuels and raise the standard of living of humanity. It is not possible without nuclear power, the clean energy production methods are NOT mutually exclusive. To exclude nuclear power because of lack of understanding and irrational fear is self defeating.

You may be interested in these very recent MSR developments:
today Southern Company announced it was partnering with DOE’s Oak Ridge National Lab, Bill Gates’ TerraPower startup, EPRI (the Electric Power Research Institute), and Vanderbilt University to explore development of a fast-spectrum molten chloride salt reactor. Maybe MSRs are finally about to go primetime!
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2016/01/15/southern-company-awarded-up-to-_2400_40m-from-doe-011501

I got some good advice from a friend. ” Think of it as a compliment. It means they have no reply to your sound reasoning. If they are calling you a shill they think you make such a strong case you have to be a paid professional!” So thank you for the compliment!

Thank you for the link, it was very entertaining and informative.

Cathie, if indeed you are not paid, then you have proven your hypothesis, you are a propagandist and you spread disinformation. I post the truth as I see it based on over 35 years of hands on experience and training. What experience and training do you have to judge the validity of your posts? When you do the research and find out that you’ve been fooled, will you be angry with those that misguided you in the first place and will you apologize for the part you played in spreading the misinformation? We both seem to be a reasonable, caring people you just seem a little confused on whom you should believe. I admit when I am wrong, I hope you have the same integrity.

Lester, the hypocrisy of that last post of yours is so obvious that it makes me want to puke. Stop attacking Cathie Reid and tell the rest of your vicious mob friends to lay off too, let’s go back to discussing how you’ll soon be out of work at the 45-year old Ginna nuclear power plant!

That’s weak, Lester. But hey, don’t you have work to do at the Ginna nuclear plant, as you claimed before? Or do you post on social media while in the office, and that hypocritical pro-nuclear propaganda and abuse spreading part of your job?

“Exelon has said it is losing tens of millions of dollars a year at Ginna, and has asked RG&E to pay a premium price for the plant’s electricity to return Ginna to profitability.”

Numbers don’t lie, Lester. Instead of trolling on social media you should be arguing with the guys in grey suits at Exelon, because they are going to fire you soon enough.

Who is the Nuclear Energy Institute? The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is a US-based propaganda and lobbying organization (obviously they are headquartered in Washington. D.C.) setup by the nuclear industry, with a budget of more than $50 million per year. The NEI not only finances the troll activities on social media such as the abuse and misinformation clearly seen here in this comments section, but also “lobbies” (i.e. pays) national and local politicians to get the approval for the construction of new nuclear reactors and life extensions for past-their-design-lifetime nuclear power plants such as the Ginna power plant.
Lester, the CEO of Exelon is the Chairman of the NEI, which basically means the NEI is your employer. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to expose who is behind you and your little mob of vicious trolls in this comments section.

Here is one of the dirty tactics used by the Nuclear Energy Institute to deny US citizens their basic rights to decide whether or not they want a nuclear plant built in their backyard:

“The NEI is also steamrolling the approval process for new nuclear plants. The original process required companies to obtain separate permits to construct and operate new nuclear plants. “At each of those two stages, the public or anybody could intervene, if they met standing requirements and had a valid technical contention, not just some rooted opposition to nuclear power,” explains Dave Lochbaum, the director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ nuclear safety program. NEI started pushing to change the new plant approval process in the 1980s.

The current process not only combines plant construction and operating permits, but also seems designed to stymie local opposition. Companies get permission to build a new nuclear plant at a particular site at any point over twenty years, while specific reactor designs are certified separately. “That process eliminates public participation, because the reactor design is being certified, but nobody knows where it will go. It’s hard to fight a reactor that may or may not be built in your backyard,” says Lochbaum. “The public can watch, but that’s about it.” Lochbaum adds that citizens have more rights to oppose a Wal-Mart in their neighborhood than they do a nuclear power plant.”

See more at: http://www.progressive.org/news/2008/03/158588/meet-nuclear-power-lobby#sthash.O17rwX63.dpuf

The Nuclear Energy Institute sure knows how to make sure taxpayers’ money ends up as subsidies for the nuclear industry:

“In 2006, NEI sponsored the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s softball team, took part in Congressional caucus golf outings, and funded literally hundreds of Congressional “fact-finding” trips to Las Vegas that included tours of Yucca Mountain.

“It’s hard to imagine an industry that’s more brazen in its quest for ever-larger federal subsidies,” says Environment America’s Anna Aurilio. “They already get their waste completely taken care of, they already get a guaranteed cap on liability in case of an accident…. Any problem that could happen with the nuclear industry, the U.S. taxpayer is ultimately going to have to pick up. And yet, they keep coming back to Congress for more and more and more.”

See more at: http://www.progressive.org/news/2008/03/158588/meet-nuclear-power-lobby#sthash.O17rwX63.dpuf

Come on Lester, you are a paid social media troll, you don’t work in the field, you work in front of a small screen regurgitating the pro-nuclear propaganda and misinformation that the guys in plush offices at the NEI headquarters in Washington DC emailed to you, just like the information about the Ginna power plant that you copy-pasted from a PDF on the NEI website.

I have blown your cover, Lester, better find another fake identity to post your propaganda and abuse from now on.

“NEI has ramped up its already-substantial lobbying operations. In addition to the sixteen NEI employees registered as federal lobbyists, the group currently retains fifteen outside lobbying firms and consultants. Last year, NEI lobbyists visited thirteen federal agencies, as well as both houses of Congress.” See more at: http://www.progressive.org/news/2008/03/158588/meet-nuclear-power-lobby#sthash.EWWVGLij.dpuf

Lester, did you know that these registered federal lobbyists working for NEI make more than $200,000 each per year? And that the US federal government subsidizes nuclear energy to the tune of $0.08 per kWh, more than twice the cost of wind or solar?

This is top-notch paranoia. You’re perfectly open about the fact that you work at a nuclear power station. In the normal world, someone who disagreed with you could simply say “ah, but you earn your money from the industry, of course you’re biased”. Which may or may not be fair, but it would not be irrational to say.

This isn’t good enough for our André. It’s not good enough that you’re a technician in the energy industry with opinions of your own about energy that he may or may not agree with. In his mind, you actually have to be part of a team specifically being paid to disagree with him on the Internet. That is the only possible explanation in his mind for someone expressing a different view to him.

(for full disclosure: he thinks I’m an operative for the American nuclear industry with access to special software he made up. No matter it’s plain from my Disqus feed I am neither American nor live there… Such details are for the birds.)

“7 easy ways to lose a debate” its #1 http://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/27/7-easy-ways-to-lose-a-debate/

LOL “Vicious trolls” Good one. First of all what’s your definition of a troll? Secondly what is vicious about these particular “trolls”?

Skip that thought. Perhaps it matters little what you think because well … of course! It’s so obvious now that you point it out “André”. It’s so easy to post something on the Internet under an alias. So you’re obviously a coal industry or oil industry shill …. oh hell, how did I miss it, you’re obviously a shill of both industries! Yes that’s it, Andre the super-shill! Damn you’re good!

Why not play cricket instead of watching it on TV?…now there’s a better diversionary discussion since you like to distract from the nuclear disaster at Fukushima. Cut the subsidies for huge nuclear/fossil fuel infrastructure and invest in clean technology solutions to augment the existing ample substitution alternatives.