Comments on: Reporter's Notes: Do We Need Nuclear? http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2009/08/21/reporters-notes-do-we-need-nuclear/ Science, Environment, and Nature in the SF Bay Area Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:52:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Craig Miller http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2009/08/21/reporters-notes-do-we-need-nuclear/comment-page-1/#comment-65054 Craig Miller Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:10:45 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/?p=3417#comment-65054 By the way... Bill Halsey, the nuclear engineer I interviewed at Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab, sent over a point of clarification for the companion radio story to this post. In juggling the half-dozen different families of Gen-IV technologies, I mixed up two of them. The reference I make to "GFR" should've been to "HTGR," a different approach to Gen-IV and the type that is currently being built at a DOE lab in Utah. We've made that correction in the version of the radio story for broadcast 9/4 on The California Report's weekly magazine. Halsey was nice enough to say that the distinction would be meaningless to anybody but a nuclear engineer but nonetheless, I regret the error and apologize for any confusion it may have caused. By the way…

Bill Halsey, the nuclear engineer I interviewed at Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab, sent over a point of clarification for the companion radio story to this post. In juggling the half-dozen different families of Gen-IV technologies, I mixed up two of them. The reference I make to "GFR" should've been to "HTGR," a different approach to Gen-IV and the type that is currently being built at a DOE lab in Utah.

We've made that correction in the version of the radio story for broadcast 9/4 on The California Report's weekly magazine.

Halsey was nice enough to say that the distinction would be meaningless to anybody but a nuclear engineer but nonetheless, I regret the error and apologize for any confusion it may have caused.

]]> By: Craig Miller http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2009/08/21/reporters-notes-do-we-need-nuclear/comment-page-1/#comment-65051 Craig Miller Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:46:27 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/?p=3417#comment-65051 Certainly a valid point, though beyond the scope of this particular piece, which was more technical in nature. One would like to think that moving forward, both government and industry would be far more attentive to safety issues than they were at the dawn of the "Atomic Age," when people were told, for example, that there was no danger from above-ground testing of nuclear weapons. Recent coverage of the legacy of uranium mining on Native American lands is equally disturbing, so your skepticism is understandable. And if I learned anything from doing this report, it's that the finer points of nuclear technology--including many that do have a bearing on safety--are not easily conveyed to a general audience. Certainly a valid point, though beyond the scope of this particular piece, which was more technical in nature.
One would like to think that moving forward, both government and industry would be far more attentive to safety issues than they were at the dawn of the "Atomic Age," when people were told, for example, that there was no danger from above-ground testing of nuclear weapons. Recent coverage of the legacy of uranium mining on Native American lands is equally disturbing, so your skepticism is understandable. And if I learned anything from doing this report, it's that the finer points of nuclear technology–including many that do have a bearing on safety–are not easily conveyed to a general audience.

]]> By: Robert Flannery http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2009/08/21/reporters-notes-do-we-need-nuclear/comment-page-1/#comment-64899 Robert Flannery Thu, 27 Aug 2009 03:37:00 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/?p=3417#comment-64899 http://home.comcast.net/~bobfflannery/wsb/pdf/NuclearPoweronQuest.pdf has the full response. The main highlight is: Sometime you may wish to count the dead and maimed left by this oh so clean technology. It is impossible to accurately calculate those who have yet to be conceived and born and yet will go through cancer or genetic disease, will suffer or die or both as a result of radiation from nuclear technology. The cost has been largely shoved into The Future for them to deal with. The scale is nearly impossible to imagine. It is difficult as well to imagine as well an animal eager to visit such pain and sorrow onto children, great grand children and generations for THOUSANDS OF YEARS! How is it possible? http://home.comcast.net/~bobfflannery/wsb/pdf/NuclearPoweronQuest.pdf

has the full response. The main highlight is:

Sometime you may wish to count the dead and maimed left by this oh so clean technology. It is impossible to accurately calculate those who have yet to be conceived and born and yet will go through cancer or genetic disease, will suffer or die or both as a result of radiation from nuclear technology. The cost has been largely shoved into The Future for them to deal with. The scale is nearly impossible to imagine. It is difficult as well to imagine as well an animal eager to visit such pain and sorrow onto children, great grand children and generations for THOUSANDS OF YEARS! How is it possible?

]]>