Jack, I'm so glad that you replied promptly to the misbegotten thoughts from Ted Nordhaus. I was going to make some of the same points that you did here but (a) it was a busy workday; (b) I was so irritated by his piece that any quick reply would probably have been unproductively rude!
His favoring "re-regulation" and nationalization alone made me annoyed. I also noticed his clearly false claim that neither LNT nor SNT are falsifiable, his failure to recognize that ALARA means future improvements in safety will never decrease costs, and his confusion of LNT vs. SNT with LNT vs. hormesis. I was less sure about his point concerning replacing the NRC with the EPA but you addressed that here.
"But perhaps I did paint with too broad a brush." No, your brush was exactly the right width.
Neither the LNT nor the SNT take into account the dose rate, and therefore cannot be used. The data after the atomic bombings were biased and insufficient. We have plenty of data from medical procedures (mainly X-rays). The main problem is pseudo-scientific censorship.
False. For SNT the daily dose rate is all important. You may not like SNT's assumed repair period of a day, but one more dumb falsehood like this and you are gone.
And how is that relevant for potential release from NPP- worst case release scenarios- "slow raise toward stability" even for potential workers of the plant. For general population everything is slowed down and only reduced (total dose, dose rate), and with simple precautions (staying indoors, short evacuation in extreme case)- can be significantly reduced. NPP is the safest method of creating reliable(deaths/TWh) power even with falsehood of LNT applied, isn't it?
Accelerating fission development, commercialization and deployment is aided by two functions among others. the technical change zeitgeist relies on news from both near term policy operation and critical horizon vision. BTI is an example of the more difficult function, near term policy contention and implementation. This helps squeeze every feasible drop out of the existing arrangement of institutions and helping them evolve as much as they can. It involves more patience and a thicker skin, maintaining donors, interacting with agencies and yes biting one's tongue to keep the trust needed to squeeze the system to its limit, no plaid suits. The ideological impact of organizations likeBTI is irreplaceable across agencies, practitioners, advocates and public opinion because they indefatigably investigate, analyze and publish across a range of items & paradigms pertinent to the ecomodern / software enabled frontier, helping set the zeitgeist. Radicals like Jack and Bret Kuglemass are down and in surveying the nuts and bolts of the experience of engineer practitioners contesting really existing nuclear design and construction (as opposed to really existing funding debate) and perform the synthetic critical function identifying key obstacles that are embedded in the agency complexes and require some external push, like a Doge or stronger, to overturn them. The need for radicalism is self evident in the concepts they publish, everyone admires them, and the y too influence the ultimate deciders, the last mile, the practitioners. It isnt knowable just what mix of agency reform and agency leap will emerge and drive fission deployment so we need to keep the pressure on both. we need a range of technical concepts in play that can adjust to different breaches that could open in the fission regulatory complex. we need to be able to compromise to get an item deployed now, and still have voice to criticize the compromise in favor broader action
We need action, not theorizing. The immediate action is obvious. Get rid of LNT.
SNT and the Trump administration offer us an opportunity to do just that. Explain to me why BTI et al should not try to take advantage of this opening.
Jack, I'm so glad that you replied promptly to the misbegotten thoughts from Ted Nordhaus. I was going to make some of the same points that you did here but (a) it was a busy workday; (b) I was so irritated by his piece that any quick reply would probably have been unproductively rude!
His favoring "re-regulation" and nationalization alone made me annoyed. I also noticed his clearly false claim that neither LNT nor SNT are falsifiable, his failure to recognize that ALARA means future improvements in safety will never decrease costs, and his confusion of LNT vs. SNT with LNT vs. hormesis. I was less sure about his point concerning replacing the NRC with the EPA but you addressed that here.
"But perhaps I did paint with too broad a brush." No, your brush was exactly the right width.
Keep up the great work.
Now you know why he won't allow comments to his posts on Substack.
Neither the LNT nor the SNT take into account the dose rate, and therefore cannot be used. The data after the atomic bombings were biased and insufficient. We have plenty of data from medical procedures (mainly X-rays). The main problem is pseudo-scientific censorship.
https://danielcorcos.substack.com/p/bca
False. For SNT the daily dose rate is all important. You may not like SNT's assumed repair period of a day, but one more dumb falsehood like this and you are gone.
The problem is not repairing DNA in a day, but buffering reactive oxygen species, which takes seconds.
And how is that relevant for potential release from NPP- worst case release scenarios- "slow raise toward stability" even for potential workers of the plant. For general population everything is slowed down and only reduced (total dose, dose rate), and with simple precautions (staying indoors, short evacuation in extreme case)- can be significantly reduced. NPP is the safest method of creating reliable(deaths/TWh) power even with falsehood of LNT applied, isn't it?
Accelerating fission development, commercialization and deployment is aided by two functions among others. the technical change zeitgeist relies on news from both near term policy operation and critical horizon vision. BTI is an example of the more difficult function, near term policy contention and implementation. This helps squeeze every feasible drop out of the existing arrangement of institutions and helping them evolve as much as they can. It involves more patience and a thicker skin, maintaining donors, interacting with agencies and yes biting one's tongue to keep the trust needed to squeeze the system to its limit, no plaid suits. The ideological impact of organizations likeBTI is irreplaceable across agencies, practitioners, advocates and public opinion because they indefatigably investigate, analyze and publish across a range of items & paradigms pertinent to the ecomodern / software enabled frontier, helping set the zeitgeist. Radicals like Jack and Bret Kuglemass are down and in surveying the nuts and bolts of the experience of engineer practitioners contesting really existing nuclear design and construction (as opposed to really existing funding debate) and perform the synthetic critical function identifying key obstacles that are embedded in the agency complexes and require some external push, like a Doge or stronger, to overturn them. The need for radicalism is self evident in the concepts they publish, everyone admires them, and the y too influence the ultimate deciders, the last mile, the practitioners. It isnt knowable just what mix of agency reform and agency leap will emerge and drive fission deployment so we need to keep the pressure on both. we need a range of technical concepts in play that can adjust to different breaches that could open in the fission regulatory complex. we need to be able to compromise to get an item deployed now, and still have voice to criticize the compromise in favor broader action
Seattle,
We need action, not theorizing. The immediate action is obvious. Get rid of LNT.
SNT and the Trump administration offer us an opportunity to do just that. Explain to me why BTI et al should not try to take advantage of this opening.
LNT should go and any possible opening to do so through the new administration or Doge should be taken
Great to see your work gaining recognition.
I think the most important emerging point is that China has figured out how to build affordable nuclear energy.
If we imagine ourselves in a global competition for influence on other countries, US nuclear energy regulations are helping us lose.