Politicians count heads for amount of influence (and potential donations) that might help or hinder their future prospects.
A letter from one knowledgeable but not widely know expert might not have the impact that it would with 500 to 1000 more names attached. There might be a situation where a dozen or so idiots [up to say 51?!] would go along with another idiot, but not 500 to 1000. I doubt there are more than 1000 technically knowledgeable people within the nuclear and biological domains who are really aware of these ideas, except for those of us finding Jack's Substack. [I hope I am wrong on that guesstimate and that reality is 10X higher.]
So the message becomes "there is a bureaucratic barrier to adopting nuclear power, a highly desirable goal, but Wright can be the hero that overcomes this resistance from LNT vs. the preferred SNT model, and the thinking that goes with it." Then nuclear power can be pursued in a logical, deliberate, methodical way, not held back by ignorance and not rushed to flawed implementations. It gives a legal and social baseline to move forward, using insurance as a method of allocating risks and costs, a well established business model and mode of thought. Couple this with the further technical and design advances to be expected as implementations move forward, and all forms of risk become lower. Plus considerations of things like long term storage or alternative uses for nuclear wastes is given time to mature.
With potential for SNR's in selected neighborhoods, perhaps sunk into a well landscaped and manicured "sunken garden", a well protected installation that is not an eyesore, more people can be confident their power will remain in place during storms and other natural events.
I'd sign if asked, but I'm the proverbial nobody, and not confident my signature would have any (positive) weight.
Jack, have you tried reaching out to Alex Epstein? He writes Energy Talking Points
(https://alexepstein.substack.com/), and his Energy Freedom Plan is exactly what we need. Almost; his ideas on LNT reform could be refined. His recently announced Energy Freedom Lobby may also provide a vector for change.
Jack, the point would be to do the letter several times. More signatures each time. Once a month or so. Build noise and awareness. People who sign the first time will get friends to help the next.
This builds controversy. We want people opposed to us to get frustrated and talk about how bad the idea is. That way others who listen to them complain go find out what they are complaining about.
I used to be a city councilor in a city in New Hampshire. I learned that congressmen and sometimes senators are quite accessible. It might help a lot to get one or more congressmen to escort the letter or to sign into it. I used to know my US Senator well but not anymore. Im willing to ask anyway.
We've had our heads in the sand at least since the 1970's about energy. Choosing one source of energy (i.e. coal, oil, wind, solar, nuclear) is simply choosing to return to the caves. The modern technological world we enjoy is dependent on affordable energy. Period. Fossil fuels may get us through the implementation phase to long term energy technology, but the costs will only continue to rise. Wind, solar and the like simply don't have the watt density to be more than a "feel good" joke. Nuclear power is the only presently known power source to continue human technological progress. And LNT puts a strangle hold on making that practictical or affordable. Besides being untrue and wrong.
Though, no one in their right mind would care what I think. I'm barely an informed observer.
You are a persuaded individual
Politicians count heads for amount of influence (and potential donations) that might help or hinder their future prospects.
A letter from one knowledgeable but not widely know expert might not have the impact that it would with 500 to 1000 more names attached. There might be a situation where a dozen or so idiots [up to say 51?!] would go along with another idiot, but not 500 to 1000. I doubt there are more than 1000 technically knowledgeable people within the nuclear and biological domains who are really aware of these ideas, except for those of us finding Jack's Substack. [I hope I am wrong on that guesstimate and that reality is 10X higher.]
So the message becomes "there is a bureaucratic barrier to adopting nuclear power, a highly desirable goal, but Wright can be the hero that overcomes this resistance from LNT vs. the preferred SNT model, and the thinking that goes with it." Then nuclear power can be pursued in a logical, deliberate, methodical way, not held back by ignorance and not rushed to flawed implementations. It gives a legal and social baseline to move forward, using insurance as a method of allocating risks and costs, a well established business model and mode of thought. Couple this with the further technical and design advances to be expected as implementations move forward, and all forms of risk become lower. Plus considerations of things like long term storage or alternative uses for nuclear wastes is given time to mature.
With potential for SNR's in selected neighborhoods, perhaps sunk into a well landscaped and manicured "sunken garden", a well protected installation that is not an eyesore, more people can be confident their power will remain in place during storms and other natural events.
Will be happy to add my name! 40 years of seeing nuclear be snuffed out due to junk science motivates me.
I'd sign if asked, but I'm the proverbial nobody, and not confident my signature would have any (positive) weight.
Jack, have you tried reaching out to Alex Epstein? He writes Energy Talking Points
(https://alexepstein.substack.com/), and his Energy Freedom Plan is exactly what we need. Almost; his ideas on LNT reform could be refined. His recently announced Energy Freedom Lobby may also provide a vector for change.
All of us who follow nuclear can begin to comment on the letter in other places.
Jack, the point would be to do the letter several times. More signatures each time. Once a month or so. Build noise and awareness. People who sign the first time will get friends to help the next.
This builds controversy. We want people opposed to us to get frustrated and talk about how bad the idea is. That way others who listen to them complain go find out what they are complaining about.
I used to be a city councilor in a city in New Hampshire. I learned that congressmen and sometimes senators are quite accessible. It might help a lot to get one or more congressmen to escort the letter or to sign into it. I used to know my US Senator well but not anymore. Im willing to ask anyway.
We've had our heads in the sand at least since the 1970's about energy. Choosing one source of energy (i.e. coal, oil, wind, solar, nuclear) is simply choosing to return to the caves. The modern technological world we enjoy is dependent on affordable energy. Period. Fossil fuels may get us through the implementation phase to long term energy technology, but the costs will only continue to rise. Wind, solar and the like simply don't have the watt density to be more than a "feel good" joke. Nuclear power is the only presently known power source to continue human technological progress. And LNT puts a strangle hold on making that practictical or affordable. Besides being untrue and wrong.