Figure 1. Edward Teller before Congress It is probably time to shut this substack down. I’m running out of things to say about nuclear power. This piece delves into esoterica that even I find uninteresting. In 1959, the AEC and the nuclear power establishment made a momentous policy change. They abandoned the concept of a
I've always been perplexed by Edward Teller. He was revered by many, but Oppenheimer found him to be a nuisance non-contributor at Los Alamos. He was too fixated on developing fusion bombs to spend much time on the project of the [then] present. Additionally, his concert-level piano playing often involved loud practices at inconvenient hours of the day. Oppenheimer had to deal with the complaints.
I've also had a hard time understanding a man who could devote so much time and effort to developing thermonuclear weapons while creating a nuclear reactor safety culture that believed any accident was intolerable. After all, the creation of thermonuclear weapons included the need to test those weapons, vaporizing entire islands and turning the resulting lifted material into fallout. The fallout clouds had greater potential for uncontrolled spreading of radioactive materials than any kind of physically reasonable reactor accident.
"In June, 1947, before there was anything close to a power reactor, the AEC established a blue ribbon advisory group known as the Reactor Safeguards Committee."
One minor point of fact. The first power reactor design was the Daniels Pile. The project was started in 1945 under the Manhattan Project, even before the war was over. By early 1947, it had developed reasonably strong momentum and had attracted a large team of participants from both government and the private sector. It was on track for completing a simple power producing reactor by the end of 1949.
The "civilian" Atomic Energy Commission that took over from the Army's Manhattan Project in order to take control of atomic development out of military hands chose to kill the Daniels Pile as one of its first decisions. (spring of 1947.) Its leaders and its political overseers decided that they did not want to be distracted from the task of quickly building and testing military weapons.
The LNT model had the advantage of closing the discussion. If they had said, we have no data, they would have been embarrassed. If they had considered the valid low-dose data to be Gofman's, they would have been even more embarrassed. They considered the LNT model to be the best protection for them. Until the discovery of cancers caused by mammographic screening.
Please try to get on more podcasts to spread the (your) word. Doomberg has started listing recent podcasts they’ve been on at the end of some of their posts. You might consider doing the same. Sure would to see your analysis and policy suggestions before a wider audience.
Your analyses have clearly required hundreds of hours of work to generate. Thank you so much for providing encouragement to those of us who agree with you but are less articulate.
Will you leave your completed work here for others to access? You have made too valuable a contribution to let it disappear.
The out rage is real and may be a turn off to many, but the historical documentation of how LNT fraud came to be in the 10 Hour Youtube Ed Calabrese: The History of the Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) Model of Radiation | Tom Nelson Pod #85 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NnKVWzqVW8 Ed Calabrese: also did a Freedom of Information Emails Reveal: Bureaucrats censor radiation risk science fraud by cancelling whistleblowers; Huge implications for nuclear power and more Depending on the reader’s familiarity with the LNT and the recent exposure of it as science fraud by Ed Calabrese of UMass Amherst, it is recommended that readers first watch and have their minds blown by the amazing 22-part Health Physics Society (HPS) video series featuring the incomparable Calabrese’s unparalleled research on the origins and development of the LNT: HPS.org | YouTube.com . It is 10 hours of truly incredible content. No exaggeration. A written summary of the video series is here ( Web | PDF ).
So if you have been concerned or scared of anything associated with radiation — from medical diagnostics to TSA screening to radon in your basement to nuclear power plants — you have been an unwitting victim of the LNT. As explained in this recent article, the LNT has been responsible for producing crippling fear of low-level radiation exposures. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ytR1-o7dI
I echo others in that I find the information provided on this Substack highly valuable to the discussion. Your voice is respectful, highly informed and appreciated especially for a contrarian on many subjects.
When you have something interesting to say, it is generally very interesting! I wouldn’t feel pressured to just write anything to keep a schedule.
Fascinating. This does make sense. Of course we now know what happens after an accident. Relatively few people are killed by the radioactivity itself. The main harm results from fear of radioactivity.
This should force a recalibration of how we regulate nuclear power.
I've always been perplexed by Edward Teller. He was revered by many, but Oppenheimer found him to be a nuisance non-contributor at Los Alamos. He was too fixated on developing fusion bombs to spend much time on the project of the [then] present. Additionally, his concert-level piano playing often involved loud practices at inconvenient hours of the day. Oppenheimer had to deal with the complaints.
I've also had a hard time understanding a man who could devote so much time and effort to developing thermonuclear weapons while creating a nuclear reactor safety culture that believed any accident was intolerable. After all, the creation of thermonuclear weapons included the need to test those weapons, vaporizing entire islands and turning the resulting lifted material into fallout. The fallout clouds had greater potential for uncontrolled spreading of radioactive materials than any kind of physically reasonable reactor accident.
"In June, 1947, before there was anything close to a power reactor, the AEC established a blue ribbon advisory group known as the Reactor Safeguards Committee."
One minor point of fact. The first power reactor design was the Daniels Pile. The project was started in 1945 under the Manhattan Project, even before the war was over. By early 1947, it had developed reasonably strong momentum and had attracted a large team of participants from both government and the private sector. It was on track for completing a simple power producing reactor by the end of 1949.
The "civilian" Atomic Energy Commission that took over from the Army's Manhattan Project in order to take control of atomic development out of military hands chose to kill the Daniels Pile as one of its first decisions. (spring of 1947.) Its leaders and its political overseers decided that they did not want to be distracted from the task of quickly building and testing military weapons.
Excellent article.
Many have forgotten that we are standing on the shoulders of legends such as Teller and Oppenheimer.
Recently the Oppenheimer grandson rallied in favor of nuclear:
"New Manhattan Project for Carbon-free Energy"
https://tucoschild.substack.com/p/oppenheimer-nuclear-energys-moment
Also note the energy density of nuclear vs other energy containers:
Li abttery : 0.5 MJ/kg
Diesel/gas : 46 MJ/kg
Nuclear, U-235, E=mc^2 : 79,390,000 MJ/kg
Take a vacation if you like, but don't shut this down. Please. You are making valuable observations I find nowhere else.
The LNT model had the advantage of closing the discussion. If they had said, we have no data, they would have been embarrassed. If they had considered the valid low-dose data to be Gofman's, they would have been even more embarrassed. They considered the LNT model to be the best protection for them. Until the discovery of cancers caused by mammographic screening.
https://danielcorcos.substack.com/p/bca
Please try to get on more podcasts to spread the (your) word. Doomberg has started listing recent podcasts they’ve been on at the end of some of their posts. You might consider doing the same. Sure would to see your analysis and policy suggestions before a wider audience.
Your analyses have clearly required hundreds of hours of work to generate. Thank you so much for providing encouragement to those of us who agree with you but are less articulate.
Will you leave your completed work here for others to access? You have made too valuable a contribution to let it disappear.
The out rage is real and may be a turn off to many, but the historical documentation of how LNT fraud came to be in the 10 Hour Youtube Ed Calabrese: The History of the Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) Model of Radiation | Tom Nelson Pod #85 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NnKVWzqVW8 Ed Calabrese: also did a Freedom of Information Emails Reveal: Bureaucrats censor radiation risk science fraud by cancelling whistleblowers; Huge implications for nuclear power and more Depending on the reader’s familiarity with the LNT and the recent exposure of it as science fraud by Ed Calabrese of UMass Amherst, it is recommended that readers first watch and have their minds blown by the amazing 22-part Health Physics Society (HPS) video series featuring the incomparable Calabrese’s unparalleled research on the origins and development of the LNT: HPS.org | YouTube.com . It is 10 hours of truly incredible content. No exaggeration. A written summary of the video series is here ( Web | PDF ).
So if you have been concerned or scared of anything associated with radiation — from medical diagnostics to TSA screening to radon in your basement to nuclear power plants — you have been an unwitting victim of the LNT. As explained in this recent article, the LNT has been responsible for producing crippling fear of low-level radiation exposures. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ytR1-o7dI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GANStqWcZg4
I echo others in that I find the information provided on this Substack highly valuable to the discussion. Your voice is respectful, highly informed and appreciated especially for a contrarian on many subjects.
When you have something interesting to say, it is generally very interesting! I wouldn’t feel pressured to just write anything to keep a schedule.
I hope you don't stop. You're a great shot in the arm us pro nuclear folks.
Would be interested to hear more about doing business in Korea and building big ships if you need a break from nuclear.
Fascinating. This does make sense. Of course we now know what happens after an accident. Relatively few people are killed by the radioactivity itself. The main harm results from fear of radioactivity.
This should force a recalibration of how we regulate nuclear power.