Letter to Greenpeace

soph · 2003-01-02 20:48:40

I watched your anti-nuclear video, and I did not agree with many of the views presented.

First of all, I will start by saying I am a 15 year old who is very interested in space development and exploration, and the increasing energy needs of humanity. My belief from my research is that nuclear power is the answer to both ends. Using modern designs and innovations, which were not mentioned in your video, smaller, more efficient nuclear plants can be built that produce more power. They also use less fuel, and destroy the vast majority of their own waste, including existing waste, which eliminates the need for high level wastes (which, by the greatest estimates I have seen, have a maximum of an 88.000 year decay time, which is a tiny fraction of the waste generated, and would be destroyed using new reactors anyway). The reactors you portrayed are 50 years old, and you are correct, they are dinosaurs. Why? New designs have not been allowed to be built by groups who are anti-nuclear for a number of reasons. The fossil fuel industry is among them, because they benefit from nuclear power not being implemented.

Furthermore, the dangers of meltdowns are also addressed in new designs. For example, the Westinghouse designs incorporate safeguards that include emergency coolant tanks that can keep an overheated reactor cooled indefinitely. The Chernobyl meltdown was the result of a risky Russian design that never should have been built. But nuclear engineers have learned from their mistakes and have designed new, better plants. Three Mile Island was an accident nearly 30 years ago. Automobile accidents kill more people than both of these accidents combined every year. Should we stop automobile construction?

Our submarines have operated for 50 years without a meltdown or explosion. That's a pretty good record. Our spacecraft that run on nuclear power have not melted down, or killed anybody. Even if they did, the radiation they emit would be mostly harmless, and on the grand scale, insignificant compared to the radiation we experience every day. Should we ban MRIs and X-Rays too?

Fossil fuel plants emit more radiation and kill more people each year than nuclear plants. In fact, a fossil fuel plant emits more radiation than a nuclear plant, because the coal and oil used contains radioatctive material. These plants send greenhouse gases and pollution into our air, while nuclear power releases steam. New designs also produce hydrogen for fuel cells, and water for irrigation, among other things. While reducing the output of greenhouse gases, we also reduce the output of smog and other nasty pollutants, and gain more power.

Now, onto solar and wind power. I am a strong supporter of everybody placing solar panels on their homes. For one thing, it reduces costs for electricity, heating, and cooling. It also reduces the power demand on a nuclear reactor, which lowers the already small chance for a meltdown. Power reserves are increased, which is a benefit in case of an emergency situation that requires greater power output. Wind power is also a very nice aid to nuclear power, but the sheer area needed to provide a significant amount of power is too great for it to be a viable primary power source. Solar and wind power would be great to augment nuclear power.

I mentioned that I was interested in space development. Nuclear power would allow us to travel faster, and with greater payloads. Obviously, this would allow a new era in the space industry. I don't know what the opinion of Greenpeace is on space travel, but I feel that the expansion of humanity is critical, if nothing else, to conserve the resources on Earth. A single asteroid can provide trillions of dollars worth of pricless materials if mined. Nuclear power will allow us to traverse interplanetary distances with manned missions. Our spacecraft that have left the solar system were powered by nuclear power. Chemical propulsion is completely insufficient for interplanetary travel, for many reasons I won't delve into. New "spaceplanes" are being proposed, for which nuclear power would be a great asset.

Nuclear power could be misused, as can anything else. Fire can be used to cook, or it can be used to kill. Pardon the analogy, but this is my feeling on the issue. Yes, nuclear weapons are a bad thing, but things are always manipulated, so why should we not also enjoy the good benefits? New reactors are designed to use all the material they contain, so weapons grade material would not result. I am, like any reasonable person, against nuclear weapons, but this should not be confused with being anti-nuclear power. I have said in the past to many people, who have agreed, that reactors could be built with monitoring equipment that ensures that no illegal weapons producing goes on at a nuclear plant. North Korea belied its intentions when it removed all monitoring equipment. It was not seeking power, it is seeking weapons. This is a tragic smearing of the nuclear industry.

I truly hope you consider what I have said. I would be receptive to any material that you could provide that would convince me that nuclear power is completely unsafe. However, if the data is based on old technology, I will repeat what I have said: we have advanced. I do not advocate nuclear power because I am anti-environment, I advocate it because I care about our environment.

Sincerely,
Peter Laumann

***Theres my letter to Greenpeace. any thoughts? a lot of it is my own research, a lot of it is based on stuff ive heard on these forums and at nuclearspace.

Palomar · 2003-01-03 09:27:42

*Excellent. Well thought out, to the point, strong analogies. The fact that you state your age is also great; overall, the chances are good that someone will sit up and take notice.

Mail it.

--Cindy

TJohn · 2003-01-03 12:48:58

I second Cindy's comment. MAIL IT!! I wonder if they will write back?

soph · 2003-01-03 15:13:45

Well, it's sent. Let's see if they write back. At nuclearspace.com, mauk2 suggested i send it to bill o'reilly. Hmmm, maybe I should

nirgal · 2003-01-03 19:25:46

Well done. But you should have explicitely stated that you expect them to answer you. I did this when I wrote them an e-mail concerning global warming and they actually replied within a few days. However, they didn't address the specific points I had raised but gave me some links to greenpeace websites which didn't offer anyting new...

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-03 23:12:26

Well, it's sent. Let's see if they write back. At nuclearspace.com, mauk2 suggested i send it to bill o'reilly. Hmmm, maybe I should

Definately send it to Bill O'Reilly. He probably wouldn't read it on the air (it's a bit too long) but I'm sure it would draw attention to Greenpeace's video.

I sent a letter to the Not In Our Name people I've seen having their rallies on FSTV. I wrote a long, nasty letter to the television station and the organization, and I haven't heard back yet !

Great letter. I hope you get a response that replies to your statements and not a bunch of links. Good Luck!

dicktice · 2003-01-06 10:42:30

Soph: Thank you for writing the letter I would have, had I the skill and intelligence you display.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-01-02 20:48:40

Re: Letter to Greenpeace

#2 2003-01-03 09:27:42

Re: Letter to Greenpeace

#3 2003-01-03 12:48:58

Re: Letter to Greenpeace

#4 2003-01-03 15:13:45

Re: Letter to Greenpeace

#5 2003-01-03 19:25:46

Re: Letter to Greenpeace

#6 2003-01-03 23:12:26

Re: Letter to Greenpeace

#7 2003-01-06 10:42:30

Re: Letter to Greenpeace

Board footer