What about TMI/Fukushima/Chernobyl?
The missionaries in the choir have requested help in responding to the nuclear power whatabouts? We are not dealing here with cultural ideologues or misanthropic Malthusians. We are talking about well-adjusted, sensible human beings who have been fed the Two Lies. As a result, they have long held, honest concerns about nuclear power; but for one reason or another are willing to discuss those concerns. In many cases, we are talking about your friends.
The five big whatabouts are:
1) Whatabout the waste?
2) Whatabout Three Mile Island?
3) Whatabout Fukushima?
4) Whatabout Chernobyl?
5) Whatabout the cost?
The Spent Fuel (aka nuclear waste) issue is the easy one. If possible take that one on first. Version 6 of the Spent Fuel slide deck is in pretty good shape. If you are dealing with a small group of people, a slide show won't be appropriate. But you can pass around a tablet, or print out the deck, and pass around the key figures. If you are going to use the GKG decks in an actual presentation, you will need to ask me for separate slides and notes files.1 The key point that you are trying to get across is the distinction between penetrating and non-penetrating radiation. The penetrating radiation is gone in about 500 years. After that, Spent Nuclear Fuel is just another poison. In order for it to do you any harm, you would have to swallow it. That would require eating rocks.
Whatabout-the-releases is addressed in a new deck which you can download from here. This is a bit of an experiment. It is as gentle an introduction as I could come up with. There are no Two Lies, no ALARA, no LNT, no SNT. No real discussion of radiation repair. No nuclear establishment bashing. This approach has some obvious drawbacks. But we are trying for just two takeaways:
1) Since radiation is natural and everywhere, it is all about the numbers. The only meaningful questions are: how much and how quickly? Radiation must be addressed quantitatively.
2) The possible harm associated with a release must be balanced against the manifold benefits of nuclear electricity. From that point of view, an occasional release is tolerable.
I'd be interested in comments on how well the deck makes these two points, and suggestions for improvements. One thing is for sure. You must have a dosimeter. I'm not interested in hearing that it didn't work; and then finding out you tried to make the case without a dosimeter to pass around.
That leaves whatabout-the-cost. Aye, there's the rub. The answer to that one will require really shaking the tree. But if you get that far, you will have made some progress.
I’m told recent versions of Adobe Acrobat do a surprisingly good job of converting the PDF to Powerpoint. If you go this route and alter the slides in any way, please check with me before crediting the slides to the Gordian Knot Group.
I think the following does a lot to explain: "What about the cost?" in a very few words.
In 1966, 20 reactors were ordered, average construction time was 6 years, and 16 of these are still operating. The four that shutdown did so after on average 45 years of operation. These produced electricity cheaper than coal when coal was cheap (so far, the only reference I have for this is you). This good experience led to 28 reactor orders in 1974. None of these ever operated, they were all cancelled. What changed? Between 1970 and 1974 there were 200 new regulatory documents released. Interestingly this is before the NRC. Again the only reference I have so far for this is you.