Opposition to Nuclear Power linked to low levels of Education

[Nederland]

Recent Gallup poll shows that opposition to nuclear power is strongest among those whose education level is high school or less:



The more education a person receives, the more likely they are to support nuclear power.

[laconicsax]

1. Hold on...

:popcorn:

Ok, please continue.

[kristopher]

16. Read this while munching, education doesn't predict support, traditional values do.

This is drawn from published, peer reviewed research on the beliefs of the public and how those beliefs flow from values held. The basic paper it is drawn from was funded by and done for the fission boiler industry. Notice how the fission industry has used the study to craft polling that obscures their true basis of support and to promote polling questions that attempt to paint opponents as stupid.


1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived risk

2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions.



Here is the abstract and full list of references for this paper:
Abstract and references are intended for public use and distribution

The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception
Stephen C. Whitfield,1 Eugene A. Rosa,2 Amy Dan,3 and Thomas Dietz3;

Abstract
Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy.

Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.


1. Colvin J. Dawn of a new era. Nuclear Plant Journal, 2005;
23:42-44.

2. Moore T. License renewal revitalizes the nuclear industry.
EPRI Journal, 2000; 25:8-17.

3. International Atomic Energy Agency. Operational and Under
Construction Reactors by Country. Vienna, Austria: Interna-
tional Atomic Energy Agency, 2005.

4. Uranium Information Center. Nuclear Issue Briefing Pa-
per #16. Melbourne, Australia: Uranium Information Center,
2002.

5. Bisconti AS. Why public opinion about nuclear en-
ergy is changing. Nuclear Energy Review December:
70-72, 2006. Available at: http://www.business-briefings.
com/cdps/cditem.cfm?NID=2402#Public%20Understanding.

6. Rosa EA, Dunlap RE. The polls-poll trends: Nuclear energy:
Three decades of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly,
1994; 58:295-325.

7. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Nuclear energy industry
poised for growth based on excellent performance of today’s
plants. NEI News Release, 2006.

8. Ansolabehere S, Deutch J, Driscoll M, Gray PE, Holdren JP,
Joskow PL, Lester RK, Moniz EJ, Todreas NE. The future
of nuclear power. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 2003.

9. Sailor WC, Bodansky D, Braun C, Fetter S, Van Der Zwaan B.
Nuclear power: A nuclear solution to climate change? Science,
2005; 288:1177.

10. Bennhold K. Nuclear energy is making a global comeback.
New York Times, October 17, 2004.

11. Wald M. Hopes of building nation’s first new nuclear plant in
decades. New York Times, January 27, 2005.

12. The Economist. A new dawn for nuclear power? Economist,
May, 2001; 19-25.

13. Marshall E. Is the friendly atom poised for a comeback? Sci-
ence, 2005; 309:1168-1169.

14. Rhodes R. Nuclear power’s new day. New York Times, May
7, 2001.

15. Starr C. Societal benefit versus technological risk. Science,
1969; 236:280-285.

16. Freudenburg WF, Rosa EA. Public Reactions to Nuclear
Power: Are There Critical Masses? Boulder, CO: Westview
Press/ American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1984.

17. Wald M. Mississippi extends hospitality to nuclear power. New
York Times, January 27, 2005.
The Future of Nuclear Power 437

18. Morgan D. Restarting reactor could boost nuclear power in-
dustry. Washington Post, May 16, 2002.

19. Rosa EA. The future acceptability of nuclear power in the
United States. Paris: Institute Francais des Relations Interna-
tionales, 2004.

20. Rosa EA. The public climate for nuclear power: The changing
of seasons. In The Role of Nuclear Power in Global and Do-
mestic Energy Policy: Recent Developments and Future Ex-
pectations. Washington, DC: H.H. Baker, Jr. Center for Public
Policy Conference, 2007.

21. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. A So-
cial Psychological theory of support for social movements:
The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 1999;
6:81-97.

22. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L. Value orientations, gender and
environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 1993;
25:322-348.

23. Schwartz SH. Are there universal aspects in the structure
and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 1994;
50:19-45.

24. Schwartz, SH, Bilsky W. Toward a universal psychological
structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1987; 53:550-562.

25. Schwartz SH, Bilsky W. Toward a theory of the universal
content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural
replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1990; 58:878-891.

26. Dietz T. “What should we do?” Human ecology and collective
decision making. Human Ecology Review, 1994; 1:301-309.

27. Dietz T, Stern PC. Toward realistic models of individual
choice. Journal of Socio-Economics, 1995; 24:261-279.

28. Jaeger C, Renn O, Rosa EA, Webler T. Risk, Uncertainty and
Rational Action. London: Earthscan, 2001.

29. Rokeach M. Understanding Human Values: Individual and
Societal. New York: Free Press, 1979.

30. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R. Environmental values. An-
nual Review of Environment and Resources, 2005; 30:335-372.

31. Slimak MW, Dietz T. Personal values, beliefs and ecological
risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2006; 26:1689-1705.

32. Frewer LJ, Scholderer J, Bredahl H. Communicating about
the risks and benefits of genetically modified food: The me-
diating role of trust. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23:1117-1133.

33. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M,
Mayer H. Nuclear waste and public worries: Public percep-
tions of the United States’ major nuclear weapons legacy sites.
Human Ecology Review, 2007; 14:1-12.

34. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M,
Mayer H. Preferences for alternative risk management poli-
cies at the United States major nuclear weapons legacy sites.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2007;
50:187-209.

35. Kasperson RE, Golding D, Kasperson JX. Risk, trust and
democratic theory. In Cvetkovich G, L ̈ofstedt RE (eds). Social
Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan,1999.

36. L ̈ofstedt RE, Rosa EA. The strength of trust in Sweden, UK
and the U.S.: Some hypotheses. Report of the 4th Seminar of
TRUSTNET, Paris, France, 2000.

37. Metlay D. Institutional trust and confidence: A journey into
a conceptual quagmire. In Cvetkovich G, L ̈ofstedt RE (eds).
Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan,
1999.

38. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Exploring the dimensionality of
trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23:961-972.

39. Renn O, Levine D. Credibility and trust in risk communica-
tion. In Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM (eds). Communicating
Risks to the Public. The Hague: Kluwer, 1991.

40. Rosa EA, Clark DL, Jr. Historical routes to technologi-
cal gridlock: Nuclear technology as prototypical vehicle. Re-
search in Social Problems and Public Policy, 1999; 7:21-
57.

41. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perceptions of hazards: The role of
social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20:713-719.

42. Seigrist M, Cvetkovich G, Gutscher H. Shared values, social
trust, and the perception of geographic cancer clusters. Risk
Analysis, 2001; 21:1047-1053.

43. Seigrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C. Salient value similarity,
social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 2000;
20:353-362.

44. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Survey-
ing the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 1999; 19:689-
701.

45. Slovic P, Layman M, Clary BB. Perceived risk, trust and nu-
clear waste: Lessons from Yucca Mountain. In Dunlap RE,
Kraft ME, Rosa EA (eds). Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste:
Citizens’ Views of Repository Siting. Durham, NC: Duke Uni-
versity Press, 1993.

46. Earle TC, Siegrist M, Gutscher H. Trust, risk perception,
and the TCC model of cooperation. In Siegrist M, Earle
TC, Gutscher H (eds). Trust in Cooperative Risk Manage-
ment: Uncertainty and Skepticism in the Public Mind. London:
Earthscan, 2007.

47. Dillman D. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design
Method. New York: Wiley, 1978.

48. U.S. Census Bureau. Table DP-2 (Profile of Selected So-
cial Characteristics: 2000), Geographical Area: United States,
2000. Available at: http://factfinder.census.gov/.

49. Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of val-
ues: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1992; 25:1-65.

50. Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA. A brief inventory of values.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1998; 58:884-
1001.

51. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AD, Jones RE. Measuring
endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP
scale. Social Science Quarterly, 2002; 56:425-442.

52. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD. The “new environmental
paradigm:” A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary
results. Journal of Environmental Education, 1978; 9:10-19.

53. Peters E, Slovic P. The role of affect and worldviews as orient-
ing dispositions in the perception of nuclear power. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 1996; 26:1427-1453.

54. Arbuckle JL. Amos 5. Chicago, IL: Smallwater Corporation,
2003.

55. Gallup Poll. Expanding the Use of Nuclear Energy. Princeton,
NJ: Gallup Organization, 2007.

56. Dunlap RE, Kraft ME, Rosa EA. The Public and Nuclear
Waste: Citizen’s Views of Repository Siting. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press, 1993.

57. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Gender, race and perception of
environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14:1101-1108.

58. Kalof L, Dietz T, Guagnano GA, Stern PC. Race, gender
and environmentalism: the atypical values and beliefs of white
men. Race, Gender & Class, 2002; 9:1-19.

59. Mander J. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.
New York: William Morrow, 1978.

60. ABC/Time/Stanford University. Concern soars about global
warming as world’s top environmental threat. Department of
Political Science. Stanford, CA: Department of Political Sci-
ence, Stanford University, 2007.

61. Slovic P, Flynn JH, Layman M. Perceived risk, trust and the
politics of nuclear waste. Science, 1993; 254:1603-1607.

62. York R, Rosa E, Dietz T. Bridging environmental science with
environmental policy: Plasticity of population, affluence and
technology. Social Science Quarterly, 2002; 83:18-34.

63. Grewal D, Salovey P. Feeling smart: The science of emotional
intelligence. American Scientist, 2005; 93:330-339.

[Nederland]

20. That paper has been thoroughly debunked many times

But I think you knew that.

[kristopher]

21. Atomic fission "debunking" of atomic fission's own research?

No, that paper has not been "debunked". The research findings are valid; traditional values predict support for nuclear fission power. Although not a part of that study, traditional values ALSO predict support for the expanded use of coal and petroleum.

Coal and nuclear are two sides of the same entrenched energy structure coin.

[Nederland]

30. Yes it really has been debunked

And you posting it hundreds of times will not change that fact.

[kristopher]

33. Then it should be easy to show that "debunking" right?

In the hyperbolic "hundreds of times" you claim it has been posted a valid challenge hasn't yet been presented. There is a lot of hot air like the claim you are putting out, but substance is totally lacking.

See post 26 for an example of how the data in the poll and the study are compatible,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=287106&mesg_id=287156

[Nederland]

45. Yes

And it has been shown many times already, in many difference places. You just refuse to admit it.

[ingac70]

2. Apparently people lose their common sense the longer they are in school.

:-)

Seriously.... whose neighborhood do you think that shit ends up in?

[Big Blue Marble]

3. Strange we just talked to my stepson today,

the one with the Phd, who lives 7 miles from a nuclear plant, and he was not the least
supportive of nuclear power. I only have a master's degree and my husband a professional degree,
and we do not support it either.:shrug: Who knew?

[Nederland]

5. Yes, very strange

You have a Master Degree? Did you by chance take any classes in statistics? Are you familiar with the concept of an outlier?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier

[godai]

8. Not strange...You're in the 33% minority.

If you believe the poll results.

[Poll_Blind]

4. Ah, Hah hah hah hah! Next Up: Only college graduates affected by radiation!

:rofl:

PB

[hulka38]

6. How many nuclear power plants are in high income areas?

[wtmusic]

37. The average home price in San Clemente, CA is $549,000

less than a mile from San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

[kristopher]

39. Hmmm

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Volume 2, Number 2, 2009 © Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/env.2008.0544
Environmental Injustice in Siting Nuclear Plants
Mary Alldred and Kristin Shrader-Frechette

ABSTRACT
The mining, fuel enrichment-fabrication, and waste-management stages of the US commercial nuclear-fuel cycle have been documented as involving environmental injustices affecting, respectively, indigenous uranium miners, nuclear workers, and minorities and poor people living near radioactive-waste storage facilities. After surveying these three environmental-injustice problems, the article asks whether US nuclear-reactor siting also involves environmental injustice. For instance, because high percentages of minorities and poor people live near the proposed Vogtle reactors in Georgia, would siting new reactors at the Vogtle facility involve environmental injustice? If so, would this case be an isolated instance of environmental injustice, or is the apparent Georgia inequity generally representative of environmental injustice associated with nuclear-reactor siting throughout the US? Providing a preliminary answer to these questions, the article uses census data, paired t-tests, and z-tests to compare each state’s percentages of minorities and poor people to the percentages living in zip codes and census tracts having commercial reactors. Although further studies are needed to fully evaluate apparent environmental injustices, preliminary results indicate that, while reactor-siting-related environmental injustice is not obvious at the census-tract level (perhaps because census tracts are designed to be demographically homogeneous), zip- code-scale data suggest reactor-related environmental injustice may threaten poor people (p <0.001), at least in the southeastern United States.

Download full paper here: http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/final-pdf-ej-nuke-siting-wi-Alldred_08-0544.pdf

[zeemike]

7. I guess it shows that educated and stupid are two separate things.

And if you have a lot of education it could lead to you thinking you know it all....and that is a stupid thing.

[Nederland]

18. Yeah

I guess that explains why the vast majority of people with advanced degrees vote Democratic... :eyes:

[zeemike]

25. No stupid can be highly educated or not.

Education and stupidity are two separate things and not exclusive to one or the other.

[frebrd]

9. There seems to be a full court press......

currently being employed by the pro-nuke contingent.

[ingac70]

10. +1

[doublethink]

11. Link?

Please provide a link to poll with relevant info. Thanks.

[madokie]

12. My bet is there is no link showing what the poster posted

[doublethink]

13. Yeah ..... or there is more to the story .... OP doesn't want to share. ;)

Okay going to go look for link myself ..... hang on.

[Nederland]

29. And what will you bet now? (nt)

[doublethink]

14. Okay waited long enough ..... here is the link to your poll ......

Disaster in Japan Raises Nuclear Concerns in U.S.
PRINCETON, NJ -- Seven in 10 Americans say they are more concerned about a nuclear disaster occurring in the United States after the recent events in Japan, including 39% who say they are "a lot more concerned."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146660/Disaster-Japan-Raises-Nuclear-Concerns.aspx

I am always suspect when OP doesn't link their findings .... and subjectively picks and chooses one element out of a the total picture rather then presenting the complete argument for all to see ...... anyway guess that's your thing. Whatever.

[Nederland]

19. What is your point?

Yes, 39% percent of Americans are "a lot more concerned" about a nuclear disaster in the US than Japan. My point is that the 7 in 10 Americans that are more concerned also happen to be the people with the least amount of education. What is your point?

[doublethink]

23. Just to get you to post links to your OP's....

For 'Educational Purposes' for now .... :eyes:

[Nederland]

28. My apologies then

You are right, I should have included it in the OP.

[kristopher]

26. Here is a possiblity for you to consider...

A full understanding of the poll results can be gained by interpreting them in light of the study posted below: the degree of education corresponds to a predilection to having trust in academic institutions.

The question then becomes, is that trust warranted. Many highly educated people who have made a detailed study of the topic as opposed to "trusting the experts" have concluded that such trust is unwarranted when it comes to the use of fissioning radioactive material to boil water.

The Primary Purpose for creating what is now the Dept of Energy was to promote the business of fission power.
The Primary Purpose for creating the International Atomic Energy Agency was to promote the business of fission power.
The output of several departments in some of our best academic institutions has been shown to be compromised by this governmental/industrial cabal; for example, the fact that MIT is producing "special interest science" that manipulates data to promote fission business interests is no longer in doubt.
There is a 50 year history of falsification and suppression of data that goes with this industry, so while some people with a good education can be bamboozled because they don't expect that such a lack of ethics could actually be allowed to exist within a system they trust, that doesn't mean that their cursory conclusion based on trust in the fission industry is valid.




The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception
Stephen C. Whitfield,1 Eugene A. Rosa,2 Amy Dan,3 and Thomas Dietz3;

Abstract
Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy.

Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.

[Systematic Chaos]

15. And the rest just wallow in BULLShIT!

Keep swimming, boys!!

:D

[RC]

17. Opposition to Nuclear Power linked to high levels of Education

And there would be at least 20 recommendations.

My subject line is not true either. It depends on what kind of education you have, age, beliefs of parents, etc. Too often it's like a religion. No real proof, but that's what you were taught and that is what you believe, so it must be true, provable facts be damned.
It also depends on whether you actually understand anything about the subject of nuclear power in the first place. Reading through the posts on this subject on DU, most people don't have much of a clue.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[caraher]

22. Could we please permanently retire these kinds of threads?

And I mean from both sides.

Yes, pro-nukes and anti-nukes on DU are both adept at flinging poo at one another. Yawn.

This includes every variant of, if you disagree with me, ...

"you love fossil fuels"
"you don't understand science"
"you are a shill for industry x"

A lot of worthwhile information passes through the E/E forum, but much is buried under mounds of garbage threads

[Dead_Parrot]

27. Pretty unlikley, sad to say.

The great nuclear pie fight is an integral part of the Energy side of E/E, and that energy and environment are fundamentaly entwined is the reason we have E/E in the first place.

Still, you could open a thread on it and see what people think - we could ask to have some sort of split in DUv3 if it looks popular. I would expect anything before then, though. :)

[txlibdem]

31. EE forum buried under mounds of garbage threads

You mean like the 832 "Fukushima = Nookz iz bad" posts? I totally agree.

I love that none of the anti-nukes ever mentions that the Fukushima reactors were designed in the 1960s.

If anything, Fukushima proves that we need to build hundreds of new nuclear power plants -- and shut down these older power plants as soon as possible.

[kristopher]

32. He says as they prepare to upgrade Fukushima to level 7

And we are still months away from a solution. Do you have any idea how increasingly detached from reality your rapid response "truth squad" is becoming?

Man did Sununu ever screw the pooch in 2002.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x287284

ETA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=869033&mesg_id=869033

What started as less serious than Three Mile Island has just become as serious as Chernobyl, with the Fukushima disaster assessment having been raised to the highest, Level 7. From NHK: "For a series of accidents happening at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency of the Ministry of Economy, which released large amounts of radioactive substances that affect human health and the environment in a wide range As an assessment based on international standards of the accident, the worst "level seven" decided to raise. "Level 7" is the same as the evaluation occurred in the Soviet Chernobyl disaster. Nuclear Safety Agency, 12, held a press conference with the Nuclear Safety Commission has decided to publish the contents of the evaluation." Of course, due to the much greater concentration of people, and the far smaller land territory, should Japan continue to persist with "controlling" the crisis with the same success as it has over the past month, very soon a Level of 8 and/or higher may be required. In the meantime, we are getting unconfirmed reports that radiation content in Hawaii milk is orders of magnitude greater than Federal Drinking water limits. While one can bicker over the exact number, it is certain that as long as Fukushima continues to billow radioactive smoke, steam and/or water, cumulative radiation levels, both domestically and globally, can only go in one direction.

[txlibdem]

34. LOL! RayDEEaySHUN iz BAD... bad bad bad... no mommy, don't let it get me!

Oh, and your post nicely fails to admit that failures of a 1960s reactor means nothing but the immediate and urgent need to replace all of our reactors with new nuclear power plants that are 1) mass produced to reduce costs, 2) passively safe, and 3) not built on fault zones.

[kristopher]

38. Glad you think that's funny; few others see massive radiation leaks from multiple meldowns as fun.

You make the claim that the lesson of the ongoing crisis at Fukushima Daiichi is that we should build *more* plants rather than seek to phase out fission technology altogether. Here is why that is poor judgment which, should we respect it, would really serve only to enhance the power of the established and moneyed interests behind fission and coal; a goal it would certainly accomplish with the same BANG as Wall Street deregulation.

You wrote,"Oh, and your post nicely fails to admit that failures of a 1960s reactor means nothing but the immediate and urgent need to replace all of our reactors with new nuclear power plants that are 1) mass produced to reduce costs, 2) passively safe, and 3) not built on fault zones."

I'm afraid I can't agree with you on any part of this statement. Here is where I disagree:
Your statement says that the disaster at Fukushima Complex "means nothing but the immediate and urgent need to replace all of our reactors". (And you accuse others of over-reacting!)

It is good that you are aware of the dangers posed by our uncertainty regarding our current fleet of fission pot-boilers, but no, we don't want to close them all down immediately. We should, however, do a strict safety review and immediately close those plants like El Diablo that are in obvious danger zones AND those that are past their original planned retirement date. If done in a orderly manner we could absorb that loss of generation with little trouble.
- The remainder of the nuclear fleet should be subject to a reorganized and heavily augmented NRC that practices harsh and highly critical oversight until they reach the planned termination date.
- Up-rates, permit renewals, and new build should be banned by federal legislation.

Here is WHY I say that.
1) The system of data production that gives us the knowledge upon which our fission generation policy is based is irretrievably corrupted by the integration of the corporate profit motive into all levels of professional checks and balances.
-The Primary Purpose for creating what is now the Dept of Energy was, according to their mission statement, to promote the business of fission power.
-The Primary Purpose for creating the International Atomic Energy Agency was, according to their mission statement, to promote the business of fission power.
-The output of several departments in some of our best academic institutions has been shown to be compromised by this governmental/industrial cabal; for one example among many, the fact that MIT is producing "special interest science" that by design manipulates data to promote fission business interests can not be considered to be in doubt.
See: http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/ksf-2011-climate-change-econ-conflicts-interest-see.pdf

2) Fission power has unique and horrific consequences when failures occur. The illusion that this is not so is an artifact of reason 1) above.

3) The fundamental flaw with the technology rests in reason 3) and human nature; ie are fallible and we are cautious. The consequences of systemic failure such as accidents, loss of control of fissionable materials to bad actors and enabling the spread of fission weapons are all unacceptable unless there were a dire need that could not be met any other way. Both the profit motive (different designs/designers competing) and the cautious approach required when dealing with these problems will ALWAYS defeat efforts to reduce the exorbitant costs associated with using the fissioning of radioactive materials to boil water.

4)Current technology enables, and current non-fission industry generated knowledge tells us that nuclear power is a poor choice as a solution to climate change. Even using fission industry approved data shows it to be ranked well below all renewable sources of power generation.


Supporting document abstract: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

[txlibdem]

41. For the reading challenged: I wasn't using the Japan tragedy to further my agenda, anti-nukes are

I find it sickening that there have been up do a dozen or more anti-nuke posts every day since the crisis began, using the human tragedy still unfolding in Japan to further their own agenda. Hide it behind whatever charts and lofty words you like, the anti-nuke crowd has shown their single-minded purpose and their lack of humanity as well. And all in the name of ramping up the FEAR of people who may not have the time to research the truth.

Your post states, "but no, we don't want to close them all down immediately," and then continues to state that new nuclear plants should be banned by federal law. And, that any remaining nuclear plants should be under the boot heels of "harsh and highly critical oversight until they reach the planned termination date." We both know that most of our nuclear plants were built before 1980 and have a 40 to 60 year lifetime. For those nearing their 40 year or over it your edict would cause their immediate shutdown. And what power source will we replace it with? Coal? Natural Gas?

But nowhere in your post do I see a similar call for coal power plants to be better regulated, or even inspected, or even thought about. It's all about the nuclear boogie-man. Booh!! It's gonna getcha!

This is why I take none of your posts seriously. Coal spews its poisonous toxins unhindered with not a peep from the collection of anti-nukes on this board. The ash left over from coal burning contains between 10 and 100 times the Uranium, Thorium and Boron that the coal in the ground does. Again, not a peep from the anti-nukes that this coal ash (also called "fly ash") is just dumped into open pits and open ponds.

The EPA took a look at 35 of these fly ash ponds and found that 34 of them were polluting the groundwater with either Mercury (one drop of which will make all fish in a 25-acre lake unsafe to eat), Arsenic (deadly poison), Lead (causes brain development problems in kids and brain damage in adults), and a whole host of other deadly toxic substances.

My position is to replace all of the older reactors with Generation IV reactors that are 1) passively safe --you cannot argue with physics, they are passively safe: cannot melt down, and 2) mass produced to keep costs down, and 3) not built on fault lines or the path of a tsunami. This is the only sane way to keep safe and avoid the huge toll that greenhouse gases will cause (and is already causing).

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bill USA]

36. great post.

[kristopher]

40. Interesting.

Why, specifically do you consider it to be "great", if you don't mind my asking?

[txlibdem]

42. Thanks for posting, Bill, and welcome to DU!!

Try to take certain posters with a grain of salt. They have an agenda and will jump down your throat if you even hint at support for the truth about zero-carbon energy sources. It's not personal, it's just zealotry at work.

[LaurenG]

43. Really how recent was the Gallop poll? nt

[Turbineguy]

44. I don't like your data.

Therefore, I don't believe it.

[diane in sf]

46. Promoting Nuclear Power Linked to Nuclear Industry Payola