Skip to main content

Some Notes on Decorum

By Eric McErlain
I'd like to remind our readers that our comment strings are made available to debate facts and opinion, and not to make personal attacks on other participants in the forum.

Thanks for your time and attention.

Comments

Kelly L Taylor said…
Thanks for stepping up to the plate and enforcing some standards for responsible discourse, Eric. I imagine it's not fun to be in the position of being the bad guy, but I appreciate you doing it. We don't all have to agree, but I've found it to be a smoother ride when we do all decide to get along with each other, irrespective of differences of opinion. Anyhow, thank you!
January 23, 2006 at 10:02 PM
Anonymous said…
Editing posts for decorum is completely appropriate. However, I was very disappointed to see that this forum also censors comments that do not agree with the industry line. For instance, I added an additional quote the other day from Miss Nevada re: Yucca Mountain, where she commented that Nevadans will just have to "take one for the team" if any health risks result from the repository. That post was removed, and the option to comment on this item eliminated from the web page. That's unfortunate from the perspective of substantive dialogue. If you think it's so great that Miss Nevada supports Yucca Mountain, you should be willing to let people know exactly what's she saying, informed or not.
January 24, 2006 at 10:42 AM
Eric McErlain said…
This is incorrect. Commenting on that post was closed after five full days of debate because the entire discussion thread had devolved into name calling. And in fact, it was a personal attack on an individual with an anti-nuclear background that led me to do that.

The comment string was shut down for that reason and that reason alone.

As to obscuring what Miss Nevada actually said, like with all our posts, we included a link to the original source material so readers could decide for themselves. How we could prevent anyone from investigating that information is beyond me.

And as I went back and checked the original comments, I most certainly did not delete the comment directly quoting Miss Nevada.

Let me make this clear: If you leave a comment attacking an individual or their motives instead of their ideas, expect to get shut down. The fact of the matter is I've been very patient on this issue, but my patience has reached its end.
January 24, 2006 at 10:59 AM
Anonymous said…
Thanks for clarifying Eric. Sorry I jumped to conclusions. For the record, my post did not contain any personal attacks, but I completely understand why other such posts when they do appear would be deleted.
January 24, 2006 at 11:38 AM
Anonymous said…
Consider, for just a moment, the real substance of what Miss Neveda said. That consideration should involve her unprepared comments about spent fuel storage as they might be related to other common activities. For example:

1. Should we consider continuing to burn coal if it involves any health risk?

2. Should we consider continuing the sale of peanut butter if it involves any health risk?

3. Should we consider continuing the use of electricity if it involves any health risk?

4. Should we consider continuing the use of vaccinations if it involves any health risk?

5. Should we consider continuing the use of life-flight helicopters if it involves any health risk.

6. What is the major difference between questions 1 through 5 above and the question Miss Nevada was asked?
January 26, 2006 at 1:29 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more