Skip to main content

Introducing Left Atomics

For a long time now, we've contended that nuclear energy shouldn't be a left/right issue. Thanks to folks like N. Nadir, we've found that there are folks who agree.

Make room for one more: Left Atomics:
Left Atomics is a group of left activists: socialists, progressives, Marxists, etc., who believe that nuclear energy can be a positive force for humanity. We propose that the Left, broadly speaking, should support, not oppose, nuclear energy.

We will be posting here a Manifesto for Nuclear Energy that we hope can be the basis of a discussion on the left among pro- and anti-nuclear activists. We feel that by and large there has been only knee-jerk opposition to nuclear energy by the left. Few have re-examined the technology of nuclear power production, the enormous changes that have been made in operating safely old plants since 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl and the newer Generation III plants currently under construction or being proposed.
Count us as another party ready to engage in some meaningful dialogue. Welcome to the debate.

Thanks to Rod Adams for the pointer.

CORRECTION: The link to N. Nadir's diary on DailyKos has been corrected.


Anonymous said…
Is this group funded by the industry, a la CASEnergy?
Anonymous said…
Eric: You have the wrong link for me. My diaries at Kos - most of which are about nuclear power but also discuss other subjects - embrace the perspectives shared by many Democrats, can be found here:

I am advising Democrats that many of their goals depend upon having clean safe energy and that the cleanest and safest energy available in nuclear energy.

I certainly hope I'm not being included among the Marxists or Socialists, since I am neither and have explicitly stated as much over at DKos. Frankly I don't have much patience in any case for arguments about social systems and whether nuclear power alone among energy systems must solve structural social problems.

Generally I am suspicious of labels, since almost all of them generate knee-jerk reactions. Some words of this type are "progressive," "liberatarian," "free marketeer" even words like "Democrat," "Republican," etc, even words like "environmentalist." Now, I will not tell you that I am above such reactions myself - I'm not - but it's sometimes less than useful.

I think that no matter how one identifies oneself, one must above all think critically. To think critically, among other things, one must examine the case itself rather than who is stating the case and how he or she is identified.

But your point is well taken. No part of the political or economic spectrum can ignore the benefits of nuclear energy. They are, or should be obvious at this point, obvious.

This is a time of dramatic change, I think, and we're going to see quite a bit of flux with the old labels and some surprising attitudes coming from some surprising people. There is really nothing wrong with that. If a formula doesn't fit a problem, it follows that the problem doesn't go away. Thus the formula, not the problem, needs to be changed. Put another way, more familiar to those with a scientific bent, if experiment doesn't fit theory, it is time to discard - or at least refine - the theory, not the experiment.

gunter said…
Should we expect to start seeing groups like "Atomic Power Enthusiast" (APE) or "Cocker Spaniel Owners for More Radioactive Waste"... what's your point?
Gunter, NIRS

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…