All I have to say is that should all watch this, then the debate can begin:-

Why have you posted this twice?

I've removed the duplicate thread.

HB

I had hoped this was going to be a sensible discussion about the use of nuclear power.

That hope seems forlorn with that video as the starting point.

Its like starting a discussion on the future of the royal family with a david icke rant claiming they are shape shifting alien lizards!

and thats relevant because david ickes ramblings and this video are promoted on the same sort of sites

In the words of a famous nuclear physicist - 'You cannot be serious'

I had hoped this was going to be a sensible discussion about the use of nuclear power.

That hope seems forlorn with that video as the starting point.

 

Its like starting a discussion on the future of the royal family with a david icke rant claiming they are shape shifting alien lizards!

 

and thats relevant because david ickes ramblings and this video are promoted on the same sort of sites

 

In the words of a famous nuclear physicist - 'You cannot be serious'

My whole point is to find out if it should be taken seriously or not. It's easy to dismiss him as a lunatic, but some of what he is saying is so specific that it seems to be a case of at least lets hear him out and then see if there is any truth in what he is saying. I am pretty sure if you listen to David Icke, then you will see that he suckers people in with halve truths, mixed with fiction, fantasy and a good tale. This is a little different to Icke simply because Icke can be seen as trying to make a buck.

This guy does seem sane and does not seem to be involved in what he is doing for the money. I am only after the truth, if this guy is an idiot or a liar etc then great at least I will have seen enough possible debate to consider what he is saying as absolute nonsense, but to totally dismiss him, without any debate is to my mind, no different to saying hey Edison's DC is best and Tesla's AC is bad because the authority of the day tells us its that way, because ultimately Edison was defending his business, reputation and income based on bias rather than fact.

Think of it like science, I am only after the truth, if he turns out be a nutter then great, if he turns out to be telling the truth, then he is one of the biggest whistle blowers of all time, either way, I wanna know.

Also as CAG is all about us vs the MAN and how the MAN is always screwing us, I thought this was a good place to at least open it up for debate.

 

 

In the words of a famous nuclear physicist - 'You cannot be serious'

And i thought that was John McEnroe, The Tennis player

My whole point is to find out if it should be taken seriously or not. It's easy to dismiss him as a lunatic,

I'm no nuclear physicist (just like most tennis players) but I think

Hiroshima

Nagasaki

and the issues with depleted uranium shells used in Iraq answer any doubts quite adequately for me.

and if they didn't, then Chernobyl certainly would.

Now I am completely in favour of nuclear energy as the only real option available for our growing energy needs, even if I have no faith in the commercial and political rather than best scientific decision processes in how, let alone whether nuclear energy is or is not used.

Sadly, I also don't think spreading nuclear waste on our toast in the morning would resolve the disposal issue effectively despite the claims in the video.

Never on toast

I am no nuclear physicist either but I do think what he is saying holds some validity:-

He actually describes the above dramatized version of the event in his talk, what get's me is that they are all in the room without much in the way of protection, which is how I have heard and seen this event re-told many many times over. If it's that lethal then wouldn't going near the thing without wearing full hazard suits etc be considered at least prudent.

It's called tickling the dragons tail as shown above and described here :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core

Keep in mind the above shown material is weapons grade, which is considered way beyond low or high level waist.

I am a scientist at heart - so truth and understanding is my goal, not outlandish conjecture or wild conspiracy, but if he is right, then God almighty this raises so many questions.

I am no nuclear physicist either but I do think what he is saying holds some validity:-

 

 

It's called tickling the dragons tail as shown above and described here :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core

Keep in mind the above shown material is weapons grade, which is considered way beyond low or high level waist.

 

I am a scientist at heart - so truth and understanding is my goal, not outlandish conjecture or wild conspiracy, but if he is right, then God almighty this raises so many questions.

and from the wiki link you give :

"The demon core was a 6.2-kilogram (14 lb), 3.5-inch-diameter (89 mm) subcritical mass of plutonium which went briefly super-critical in two separate accidents at the Los Alamos laboratory in 1945 and 1946. Each incident resulted in the acute radiation poisoning and subsequent death of a scientist. After these incidents the spherical plutonium pit was referred to as the "demon core."

They died.

there is also the consideration that if this guy is right, then it would lead to pretty much all of high energy physics and most of chemistry being wrong.

They work far to well for that to be likely.

Although we clearly don't know all there is to know, and there are some real discrepancies in our understanding (the great walls and the structure of Galaxies for starters) I don't think we could possibly be as far wrong currently as would be needed for this guy to be right.

My point

" If it's that lethal then wouldn't going near the thing without wearing full hazard suits etc be considered at least prudent."

Why are they all standing around weapons grade stuff dressed as if its an average day at the office!

What the guy is saying in the first video basically means that nobody should be anywhere near this thing and according to the regulatory authorities, all of them in the room would be contaminated including the room itself just by taking it out the box!

Much lower grade waste material just being in the room with them would according to the authorities, be considered a hazard zone that would need a fortune spent on cleaning it up - A FORTUNE.

My logic is only based on observation, if you have hard empirical data then let me know.

My logic is only based on observation, if you have hard empirical data then let me know.

Observation of what though?

That is what you need to ask yourself.

Don't forget that there were nuclear artillery where the nuclear shells were shielded enough for them to be carted around in wombat sized vehicles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48

Like cooling pools - which? Power stations and reactors have a number.

Bubbling steaming pits full of super-hot cooling rods really belong in James Bond movies (and are very enjoyable there)

LOL Wombat vehicles, not the marsupial,

The point of his video that he seems to want to make clear is that WE are all paying a fortune for something that WE may not need to be paying a fortune for - the regulations have hiked the price of the nuclear option, for so many dubious reasons, seems to be his message. So should we all be asking deeper questions or maybe we should all just accept everything we are told without question!

I am curious enough to ask

I am curious enough to ask

I understand, I did the same on many occasions (as you might realise) and almost exclusively came out disappointing once examined. But it was something I had to prove to myself.

If you really want real mysteries which cast questions on current scientific mainstream beliefs, then look up

The great Wall

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf067/sf067a08.htm

M.J. Geller, codiscoverer of the Great Wall with J.P. Huchra, remarked:

or the issue that our understanding of Gravity despite enabling us to get to pluto cannot explain why Galaxies spin as they do without flying apart.

Good Hunting

I feel like someone who has been told to look over there and forget this, nothing to see here.

Stay on target or at least on thread topic, dark flow and dark energy debates please leave at the door.

I feel like someone who has been told to look over there and forget this, nothing to see here.

Stay on target or at least on thread topic, dark flow and dark energy debates please leave at the door.

Ok then perhaps investigate the issue with subcritical masses going super-critical as can happen, hence the safety precautions and immense cost with something that might otherwise be considered only a relatively mild health hazard (in significant but far lesser shielding).

(Let alone ensuring that nobody could just nick some in passing)

I do take your points on-board, but I think his underlying message is this, we could be doing it all a hell of a lot cheaper and potentially even safer than we are currently doing it, but the industry is using scare tactics to hike the price way higher than it has to be, profit is the goal of almost every business as most CAG viewers will attest to.

The scientist who was killed in the above video, did the math after the flash to see who in the room would be OK or not as the case maybe, suggesting that even back then we knew the risks and the math etc. So if these experts are willing to be in a room with weapons grade stuff and they knew the risks involved, then it seems at least to me that some of Galen's points are valid.

It is my believe that the nuclear industry has been ripping of the consumer for decades and also the way we currently produce power in big processing plants like he describes may also be the wrong approach, see:-

Galen even said in the video we haven't built a nuclear reactor right yet and smaller local reactors etc are the way to go - watch the above link for more on this train of thought. It seems he may have been a man ahead of his time in some respects. I think he was also a man with a message and he should've been listened to a whole lot more.

I do take your points on-board, but I think his underlying message is this, we could be doing it all a hell of a lot cheaper and potentially even safer than we are currently doing it,

I think Chernobyl should convince otherwise even if nothing else does.

I see and can find absolutely NO facts whatsoever supporting the position presented in that video. There is lots of innuendo and obtuse illogic.

That there are now better ways to build reactors than there were 20 years ago, and that politics and economics have always defined how, when and whether nuclear reactors are built is pretty much unquestionable, yet even that isn't presented in any way realistically.

It's conspiracy nut stuff which actually clouds not clears the realities of the situation. That is my honest opinion which to me it is supported by all real-world facts, knowledge and events.

Let me end with a question:

Given 3 mile island and Chernobyl, would you want a garden shed nuclear reactor, hacked together from a nuclear artillery shell and the remains of a still at the bottom of your garden, or even in the same county as you and your family?

... Even if it could give out enough energy to do more than boil a kettle as a reactor, despite the shell being able to destroy a reasonably sized Town?

I think every thread should be taken seriously, because one day someone will start this war and the world we know will end. There are many people who scaring other countries with nuclear weapons. Even is it **** next time can be a real thing.

Why does every debate on nuclear "issues" always bring weapons and power generation into the same room? They're two entirely different things!!!!!!

My option on power generation?

Chernobyl is the worst nuclear disaster in human history, but the remaining 3 reactors were kept running for decades after the incident and the whole place is now a tourist destination. Guess what my opinion is.....

Why are you so nervous about nuclear energy? As i remember France get about 70-80% of electricity from nuclear power plants. I rather believe in nuclear war nowdays.