7 ms·

Lately I've been reevaluating my predictable sci/techy pro-nuclear stance. I still roll my eyes at folks who don't really know what radiation is but think it's

Lately I've been reevaluating my predictable sci/techy pro-nuclear stance. I still roll my eyes at folks who don't really know what radiation is but think it's inherently bad, and I still think nuclear power is probably a lesser evil than fossil fuels. But two things I learned this week gave me pause: First, that Fukushima was not as benign as I believed if butterflys are mutating http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120809/srep00570/full/srep00570.html http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120809/srep00570/full/srep00... Second, and maybe everyone else knew this, but I never knew that we haven't been able to produce low-background steel since 1945 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel And maybe those are both insignificant. But I think they both serve as non-partisan evidence that we can and have semi-permanently altered the planet with each nuclear mistake we've made.

Natsu 14y ago
That first point is referenced in this story, actually. It's about half-way down.
tikhonj 14y ago
The low-background steel seems to be a factor of nuclear weapon testing rather than nuclear reactors. Even the most ardent of nuclear power supporters don't argue for detonating more nuclear weapons! Besides, essentially everything people do at any scale has altered the planet in permanent or semi-permanent ways. It is an issue, but it is not an issue unique to nuclear power.
- justatdotin 14y ago
  I am convinced that the nuclear power industry remains not only inextricably linked to nuclear WMD programs, but its expansion is in fact driven by the desire for the materials, technology and capability to develop nuclear weapons
  - tsotha 14y ago
    Perhaps in places like Iran and Pakistan. For the last few years we've been using old Russian warheads as fuel here in the US, which is the opposite situation.
    - justatdotin 14y ago
      sure, in the us(a) it may be an intrinsic (historical) link, but where nuclear power is expanding, I see weapons as a driver.
      - tsotha 14y ago
        Yeah, I think you're probably right about that. But there are already some 400 nuclear power plants around the world. As much as I'd rather the Iranians not have one, it's pretty difficult to say "Sure, we have 104 nuclear reactors in the US, but you guys aren't allowed to have any."

Natsu 14y ago

That first point is referenced in this story, actually. It's about half-way down.

tikhonj 14y ago

The low-background steel seems to be a factor of nuclear weapon testing rather than nuclear reactors. Even the most ardent of nuclear power supporters don't argue for detonating more nuclear weapons! Besides, essentially everything people do at any scale has altered the planet in permanent or semi-permanent ways. It is an issue, but it is not an issue unique to nuclear power.

justatdotin 14y ago
I am convinced that the nuclear power industry remains not only inextricably linked to nuclear WMD programs, but its expansion is in fact driven by the desire for the materials, technology and capability to develop nuclear weapons
- tsotha 14y ago
  Perhaps in places like Iran and Pakistan. For the last few years we've been using old Russian warheads as fuel here in the US, which is the opposite situation.
  - justatdotin 14y ago
    sure, in the us(a) it may be an intrinsic (historical) link, but where nuclear power is expanding, I see weapons as a driver.
    - tsotha 14y ago
      Yeah, I think you're probably right about that. But there are already some 400 nuclear power plants around the world. As much as I'd rather the Iranians not have one, it's pretty difficult to say "Sure, we have 104 nuclear reactors in the US, but you guys aren't allowed to have any."