Skip to main content

Anyone Listening to Dr. Caldicott Anymore?

Doesn’t look like it. Apparently she’s trying to create controversy with many in the environmental community over nuclear. Maybe nuclear really isn’t as bad as she believes . . .

Comments

DV8 2XL said…
Caldicott has become irrelevant, her particular brand of hyperbole is now passe. Even in antinuclear circles she no longer commands the respect she once did.
Anonymous said…
Never underestimate the power of zealots, especially when the mainstream media is on their side.

If an energy bill with strong nuclear provisions approaches passage, she and her ilk may come roaring back.
Anonymous said…
especially when the mainstream media is on their side.

this inaccurate cliche is getting tired. maybe this was true right after TMI, but most nuclear power stories in the MSM today are quite balanced, pointing out that many support a "nuclear renaissance" to help address global warming. Patrick Moore and James Lovelock quoted everywhere, NEI quoted everywhere. So where's this supposed media bias?

Unless by "on their side" you mean that not every MSM outlet (except possibly Fox) is not rabidly and exclusively PRO-nuclear.
gmax137 said…
I just read the comments on the linked piece. If you want yet more examples of what the anti-nukes are saying, go read them yourself. They are basically closed minds repeating the same old stuff over & over again, with a sprinkling of back-to-nature decentralizers & doomers. So while Dr Caldicott may be on the marginalizing slope, she still has followers ("Helen is a genius...")
Bozena said…
Dr. Caldicott is not only right, but should be considered the SAINT of this Earth. I just can not believe how many people are ignorant on the subject of nuclear energy..., not knowing that nuclear power plants produce deadly radioactive wastes, that will be active for thousands of years!!! and if we will not stop nuclear industry right now we'll destroy Life on Earth completely !!! and our duty is to protect it!!!

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…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

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.

Huh?

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…