Hi, Rick. No, by no means do I labor under any "misconceptions," least of which is that you are "required to provide a solution." It just follows that your own research into this topic would lead you to suggest some solutions or ideas as to what you would do, or even what your own research says would be solutions. I read the article you linked to, and watched both of your videos. And I'm not "blathering on." That is not being honest. And you have used strident and hyperbolic language that is at odds with facts.
My posts are probably infuriating, and I mean that seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. But they are painstakingly clear about facts.
The aftermath of Fukushima is, indeed, not as dire as has been stated. Tragic, yes, my Heavens, but I have never denied that the tsunami caused a true tragedy. But the situation as portrayed on the forum is simply not true.
And yes, Arnie Gundersen. I am well aware of him, have been for a long time. I don't want to go into details, but to hold him up as any authority is a great mistake in my opinion. Dispassionate research has made that clear to me, but again, that's my opinion. Well, not just my opinion, but some real research on your part will cause you to see that he is not impressive. That's all I will say about him.
And that is not a case of my scientist is better than your scientist.
And you keep mixing Fukushima and United States nuclear plants. I know it angers you very much to hear the word redundancy as it relates to the safety protocols and safety technology and equipment (and I don't mean radiation suits!) inherent in an American nuclear plant, but I have actually read about them, and they are impressive, despite your ridicule of them. And my son cannot be discounted as a reliable source of information with years of experience in nuclear and natural gas plants. Do you know how these safety protocols work? It is very fascinating.
And again, no requirement, but what has your own research come up with as to how American nuclear power plants should be shut down? I mean, I assume you want them all to stop operating right now. Or, am I wrong? If so, then what? These are legitimate questions, Rick, not meant to get you angry.
Also, global warming is an issue here, as I've stated before. The U.S. gets over 20% of its electricity/power from nuclear plants, one fourth from natural gas plants, about half from coal burning plants (chief emitters), and the rest from wind, solar, etc. And yes, I liked the article you linked to, and I hope that technology comes to fruition. But until it and a lot of other alternate sources come into play, what do you suggest based on your research be done in the interim? What about France, which gets nearly 80% of its energy from nuclear plants? And the UK? And little Belgium, which has a surprisingly high figure? I'll leave you to research other countries. So, what do you suggest?
I've really tried to write this in a way not to inflame you. I'm curious about your suggestions, but do I require them of you? No, I don't, of course. Kim
