russshackleford wrote:

Phildo wrote:What do you think of Decommissioning, Remediation and "Clean-up" such as it is as an industry?

I think that it is an expensive part of the current nuclear fuel cycle that usually isn't included by dickheads in the sales cost, similar to long term disposal.

I know it would be hard to believe that I am not "anti-nuclear".

Really I'm just anti dickhead.

The nuclear industry dickheads have been knowingly selling their technology with incomplete actuarial analysis and have been unfairly promoted by our government because of weaponization.

If an accurate Price-Anderson fund and the permenant storage conundrum were included in the up front costs, me and my company would have a different opinion of the current dickheads in the industry.

I LOVE the idea of decomissioning and remediation. The technology that was promoted in the infancy of the industry by dickheads with weaponization on their mind needs to go.

The waste needs a safe home.

Then I'd like to see what a new generation of less dickeaded technologies can do.

BTW I am anti Franklin Stove! If we all go back to wood burners we are just as kaput.

Phildo wrote:That is pretty reasonable. For my side of things, I guess I am probably Anti-Nuke BECAUSE of dickheads. Only a dickhead -- or even worse -- a whole collection of dickheads, would do what we have done.

Dickheads tend to be even harder to contain than radiation and waste, and since they tend to be persistent, it seems the only way to deal with them is condoms and cock-blocks so they cannot do the stupid stuff they love to do.

So for my too shallow analysis, it winds up if there are dickheads involved (and situation awareness says there are always dickheads), it leaves the only safe and clean nukes are ones never built.

So backwards I come to the conclusion that we should probably not build nukes -- sort of like we should not let elementary kids drive cars. Not saying I am right, but to me it seems the downsides and risk outweighs any benefit.