Reply #14: Here is the thing with that... [View All]

[kristopher]

We KNOW beyond any conceivable shadow of a doubt that the nuclear industry lies. And we know that van Leeuwen is a person to whom personal credibility is a central part of his life.

So on the face of it when you accuse him of "lying" about a nebulous statement I made that was drawn from my own observations and not his, you don't have much of a point. I was talking about the fact that the WNA site has nothing but numbers that they assert to be true and are suspect - such as claiming a 60 year life cycle as the norm.

What he DID say that I think you are referring to is the point that the data they gave for the observed energy used at the actual mining site lacks any sort of substantiation - just as the 60 claim lacks substantiation. Just because they make a claim and have some basis for the claim, doesn't mean it will be proven out over time.

Now if you really WANT to see the method and data that van Leeuwen used it is out there if you want to find it - it isn't hidden.

Finally, the ISA report was a reviewer of the original report and their review helped shape the final version now published (including the use of a 25-40 year life span range for reactors). Yet, you think that their collaboration is the equivalent of a Nuclear Energy Institute blogger's rebuttal...

Interesting.