Electric Sonex

"
"For years, environmentalists have attacked nuclear power. However, one of the
co-founders of Greenpeace believes times have changed. "

"Patrick Moore, Ph.D., environmentalist: "Nuclear is one of the safest
industries in this country, and it's time that environmental activists recognize
the facts around the fact that much nuclear energy is not only safe, but it's
also clean." "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm ex-Navy, worked for Bechtel's nuclear power division for a while.
If you're bright enough to pour **** out of a boot you knew the tree-
huggers had their facts all wrong when it came to nukes, which are
mother's milk compared to coal. The nuclear power industry hired a
firm to do a survey to try and learn where all the bum dope was coming
in order to formulate a strategy to counteract it.

Turns out over 90% of those intelligent, college-educated tree-
huggers, got their nuclear 'education' from a television cartoon show
called 'The Simpsons.'

Network television didn't come along until I was in my teens and I
never caught the habit, had never heard of 'The Simpsons' until I saw
the report. Indeed, most didn't believe it... until a second firm
came up with similar results.

Given enough money a properly conducted propaganda campaign can
convince people of literally ANYTHING. But the estimated cost of
altering the public's cartoon-based misconceptions about nuclear power
was on the order of several BILLION 1980-era dollars and the nuclear
power industry budget for PR was less than a million. Ergo, no more
nuke plants in the USA.

Newton Minow was right :-)

-R.S.Hoover

wrote:
Turns out over 90% of those intelligent, college-educated tree-
huggers, got their nuclear 'education' from a television cartoon show
called 'The Simpsons.'

Network television didn't come along until I was in my teens and I
never caught the habit, had never heard of 'The Simpsons' until I saw
the report. Indeed, most didn't believe it... until a second firm
came up with similar results.

Given enough money a properly conducted propaganda campaign can
convince people of literally ANYTHING. But the estimated cost of
altering the public's cartoon-based misconceptions about nuclear power
was on the order of several BILLION 1980-era dollars and the nuclear
power industry budget for PR was less than a million. Ergo, no more
nuke plants in the USA.

Newton Minow was right :-)

-R.S.Hoover

The first episode of The Simpsons didn't air until 12/17/89. A quick look
shows the last increase in the number of operating reactors happened between
before 1990. I think there was some bad info out there before The Simpsons.

The first episode of The Simpsons didn't air until 12/17/89. A quick look
shows the last increase in the number of operating reactors happened between
before 1990. I think there was some bad info out there before The Simpsons.
------------------------------------------------------------------

So it must of been Palo Verde instead of San Onofre. Like I said, I
don't watch TV. But the same message applies: the bulk of American
'intelligence' regarding nuclear power is based on a cartoon.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Another point folks fail to appreciate is that civilian tea-kettles
are operated 'way down the curve compared to Navy reactors. Plus,
being shore-based they are hardened to an extent that's difficult to
understand. Up on the turbine deck of SONGS-2 Japanese and Korean
engineers would actually giggle and take pictures of each other
standing beside a 10x10 I-beam stanchion supporting a 1" high-pressure
instrument line, which is what it takes to guarantee Richter 9
survivability. (As a point of interest, the Japanese have recently
learned what happens when they fail to build to worse-case standards.)

-R.S.Hoover

On Jul 26, 3:22 pm, " wrote:
The first episode of The Simpsons didn't air until 12/17/89. A quick look
shows the last increase in the number of operating reactors happened between
before 1990. I think there was some bad info out there before The Simpsons.

------------------------------------------------------------------

So it must of been Palo Verde instead of San Onofre. Like I said, I
don't watch TV. But the same message applies: the bulk of American
'intelligence' regarding nuclear power is based on a cartoon.

Meaning no offense to you personally, but I just don't believe it.

If you show me a survey in which 90% of the respndents said they
got their nuclear power information from the Simpsons I'll show
you a survey in which 90% of the respondents decided to play on
joke on the survey takers.

Or maybe the survey was multiple choice. For instance:

From what source did you learn most of what you know about
nuclear power?

a) International Journal of Modern Physics E (IJMPE)

b) World NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS 2005-06, 15/08/2006,
Australian Uranium Information Centre

c) ^ NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS INFORMATION, by IAEA, 15/06/2005

d) The Simpsons.

I used to work in Radwaste. Well, not literally.

--

FF

Meaning no offense to you personally, but I just don't believe it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither did we :-)

At that time licenses had been issued for about thirty nuke plants in
addition to those already under construction. I don't think a single
one of them was ever funded. I'm sure there were other factors
besides being brain-washed by a cartoon but when I heard about it at a
weekly status meeting I recall the odd looks I got when I asked what
he meant by 'the Simpsons.'

During that same period I recall the tree-huggers getting in a tizzie
over a coal fired plant in the midwest when the utility erected
hyperbolic cooling towers. (All that radioactive steam, you know.)

Turns out, the typical American isn't quite as bright as most people
think. Just look at the people we elect to high office :-)

I recently heard a fellow touting the glories of solar & wind over the
horrors of those terrible old tea-kettles. It took only a moment to
figure out his numbers were based on a photo-voltaic array that was
100% efficient. ( His wind turbines were equally efficient. And the
wind apparently blew all the time :-) Trying to interject a whiff of
reality into such discussions is treated with polite condescension at
best. After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
are evil.

What I find remarkable is that such massive ignorance is often the
product of a college education. Some recently published texts
continue to cite the Carrizo Plains PV project as the cutting edge of
solar technology despite the fact that facility was dismantled years
ago after its output fell so low it couldn't even power its own
tracking needs let alone feed anything into the grid. (A fact you can
confirm using satellite photos available on the internet. But of
course, that can't be right :-)

I hear Crystal Power is a good investment. That, and Electric
Aeroplanes :-)

-R.S.Hoover

wrote in message
ups.com...


Meaning no offense to you personally, but I just don't believe it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------

Neither did we :-)

At that time licenses had been issued for about thirty nuke plants in
addition to those already under construction. I don't think a single
one of them was ever funded. I'm sure there were other factors
besides being brain-washed by a cartoon but when I heard about it at a
weekly status meeting I recall the odd looks I got when I asked what
he meant by 'the Simpsons.'

During that same period I recall the tree-huggers getting in a tizzie
over a coal fired plant in the midwest when the utility erected
hyperbolic cooling towers. (All that radioactive steam, you know.)

Turns out, the typical American isn't quite as bright as most people
think. Just look at the people we elect to high office :-)

I recently heard a fellow touting the glories of solar & wind over the
horrors of those terrible old tea-kettles. It took only a moment to
figure out his numbers were based on a photo-voltaic array that was
100% efficient. ( His wind turbines were equally efficient. And the
wind apparently blew all the time :-) Trying to interject a whiff of
reality into such discussions is treated with polite condescension at
best. After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
are evil.

What I find remarkable is that such massive ignorance is often the
product of a college education. Some recently published texts
continue to cite the Carrizo Plains PV project as the cutting edge of
solar technology despite the fact that facility was dismantled years
ago after its output fell so low it couldn't even power its own
tracking needs let alone feed anything into the grid. (A fact you can
confirm using satellite photos available on the internet. But of
course, that can't be right :-)

I hear Crystal Power is a good investment. That, and Electric
Aeroplanes :-)

-R.S.Hoover

What really annoys me about the college gang, much more than the 100%
efficiency foolishness, is their 100% acceptance of statements from their
trusted sources--even when it clearly contradicts their own personal
observations.

Peter

On Jul 27, 6:54 am, " wrote:

...

I recently heard a fellow touting the glories of solar & wind over the
horrors of those terrible old tea-kettles. It took only a moment to
figure out his numbers were based on a photo-voltaic array that was
100% efficient. ( His wind turbines were equally efficient. And the
wind apparently blew all the time :-) Trying to interject a whiff of
reality into such discussions is treated with polite condescension at
best. After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
are evil.


I've read that a similar approach is used to 'prove' that ethanol
production consumes more energy than is recovered by burning
it. Sunlight is included in the input side of the budget.

Of course that's perfectly correct, but don't forget to do the
same for fossil fuels...

--

FF

wrote in message
ups.com...
(snip)
After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
are evil.

Lately I hear the bird huggers are ****ed at the tree huggers who want wind
power.

Turns out the wind turbines make efficient bird slicers & dicers.

Rich S.

wrote:
The first episode of The Simpsons didn't air until 12/17/89. A quick
look shows the last increase in the number of operating reactors
happened between before 1990. I think there was some bad info out
there before The Simpsons.
------------------------------------------------------------------

So it must of been Palo Verde instead of San Onofre. Like I said, I
don't watch TV. But the same message applies: the bulk of American
'intelligence' regarding nuclear power is based on a cartoon.


The point is that the Simpsons were not that well known when the last
reactors were going online. It's taken almost 20 years for the Simpsons to
become such a well known show and there is probably no legit statistical
group that could 90% of it even EVER watched the Simpsons. T0 my knowledge
the Simpsons never even made it into the top 20 shows in any sweeps period.

Somebody either yanked the polster's leg or they yanked yours.

I'd be willing to bet that you are just mis-remembering something from 20
years ago.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:46:53 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

wrote:
the same message applies: the bulk of American
'intelligence' regarding nuclear power is based on a cartoon.


The point is that the Simpsons were not that well known when the last
reactors were going online. It's taken almost 20 years for the Simpsons to
become such a well known show and there is probably no legit statistical
group that could 90% of it even EVER watched the Simpsons. T0 my knowledge
the Simpsons never even made it into the top 20 shows in any sweeps period.

Somebody either yanked the polster's leg or they yanked yours.

I'd be willing to bet that you are just mis-remembering something from 20
years ago.

Regardless, the underlying theory that additional plants aren't built
because of negative public opinion, is hooey. They aren't built
because investors don't like taking risks that have the potential to
go monstrously wrong.
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb138.htm

As for the those who claim that the public is irrationally timid, most
of *them* probably haven't heard of the debacle at Davis-Besse.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...190340/-1/NEWS
The root causes of that - aging equipment, profit motive,
industry-friendly regulation, and complacency, are probably lurking
industry-wide. Every plant owner, operator, and regulator will deny
that, but so did First Energy and the NRC before the sh*t hit the fan.
You'd think that at least the one company getting all the attention
would have learned their lesson. Instead they're still telling their
insurance company one thing, and regulators another.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaind...560.xml&coll=2
The Simpson's three-eyed fish thing is off the wall, but the Monte
Burns characterization might not be too far off. :-)

Wayne