Tourist Information
Response to Harvey Wasserman
student liability insurance
Harvey Wasserman’s come out with a new video in support of the NukeFree.org movement. Unfortunately, it was just as misleading or uninformed as the first one. Here’s another point-by-point rebuttal. I tried to keep as much of Mr. Wasserman’s original video as I could to be fair, but I was already not able to fit in as much information as I wanted to and still stay under 10 minutes. There are a few sections clipped out, but you can compare mine to his and see if you think any of my editing was malicious. Something that I hadn’t found before I made the rebuttal video… www.amnucins.com Contrary to Mr. Wasserman’s claim in his video, the nuclear industry can and in fact does get private liability insurance. This is one of the private insurance organizations providing it. As always, I don’t work for the nuclear industry. The closest industry tie I have is an uncle who works for General Electric’s nuclear energy division. I’m just a student with a few opinions and some facts to back them up.
This entry was posted by admin on September 28, 2010 at 2:12 pm, and is filed under Special Interest Travel. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
-
#5 written by pixman83 1 year ago
For a lawyer you sure don’t do a very good job researching before trying to make your case.
Nuclear energy is the best chance we have to reduce fossil fuel dependence. Renewables are great for supporting this endeavor, but they still can’t create handle the large demand and growth of the energy market.
-
#6 written by pixman83 1 year ago
Since nothing actually happened, this should be considered a success of the security.
On 9/11 all 4 planes flew over, or close to, several nuclear plants and didn’t hit them. The locations are online (with some really great overhead pics) and they had surprise on their side. Yet they didn’t hit these plants because they new it wouldn’t do anything significant.
-
#7 written by 1obamaman 1 year ago
With the extensive use of coal power around the world due to its cheap cost, a few expensive nuclear power plants, even if safe and not a threat to the environment in any way, will not make a dent in the global warming problem.
We need to invest enough money in new technologies to come up with a variety of cost-effective alternatives to coal in ten years. We need to approach it like the Manhattan Project.
-
#8 written by pixman83 1 year ago
I just want to know where Wasserman keeps getting this “millions” number from:
According to the WHO Chernobyl will only end up killing less than 4,000 people. 10 times that number of people die in the US from car accidents each year.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined killed less than 250,000 people. Outdoor urban air pollution kills over 800000 people yearly.
With over 11,000 reactor years, nuclear energy looks pretty safe to me.
-
#9 written by 1obamaman 1 year ago
They had other more newsworthy targets: the Pentagon, the Capitol, and the World Trade Center. There is no certainty that future terrorists won’t aim for one or more of our nuclear plants. Maybe you do, but the Bush administration doesn’t inspire me to have the confidence that they are properly protected.
-
#11 written by 1obamaman 1 year ago
I make no claim to understand the workings of the minds of the leaders of Al Qaeda. From what I have read, they felt that those sites would be the most devastating to our morale. I think they were right as we know what the impact of hitting just two of those three sites has done to our nation. Nonetheless, their past choices do not provide insurance against an attack on one or more nuclear plants in the future.
-
#12 written by pixman83 1 year ago
-
#13 written by pixman83 1 year ago
You are correct that the 439 nuclear power plants are a drop in the bucket. But that drop is 3-5 times larger than the amount produced by renewable sources.
I agree that there needs to be a Manhattan Project size effort, but why bother searching for new technology when we already have a viable solution with nuclear power? Getting all of the politicians to agree on anything will be hard enough.
-
#14 written by pixman83 1 year ago
-
#15 written by Cr8Joi 1 year ago
While the nuclear reactors themselves release few greenhouse gases, the nuclear fuel cycle is a significant contributor. In 2001, 93% of the nation’s reported emissions of CFC-114, a potent greenhouse gas, were released from the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, where uranium is enriched to make nuclear reactor fuel. These facilities are so energy intensive that some of the nation’s dirty, old coal plants exist just to power the nuclear fuel facilities.
-
#16 written by kuronekoyama 1 year ago
That would be great, except that: A) According to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, page 141, only 0.009 W/m^2 of radiative forcing is caused in total by CFC-13, CFC-114, CFC-115, and the halons put together. This is compared to 1.66 W/m^2 for CO2 and 0.48 for methane. B) USEC has been in the process of phasing out CFC-114 since 1995, sealing leaking pipes, and building new centrifuge designs that don’t require halocarbons for cooling.
-
#20 written by Bleezz 1 year ago
“These facilities are so energy intensive that some of the nation’s dirty, old coal plants exist just to power the nuclear fuel facilities.”
Isn’t that what were proposing to solve? or is their some reason that those “old dirty coal plants” can’t be replaced with nuclear plants? I wasn’t aware that only coal plants provided energy… Sorry, but I hear this excuse so often that its literally making me sick.
-
#21 written by feelytouchy67 1 year ago
kuronekoyama, why would ANY business that was profitable (especially for 50 years!) need ANY type of FEDERAL support OF ANY TYPE?
You also leave out the fact the PRICE-ANDERSON act,which has always greatly reduced the liability of the nuclear reactor owners. ONLY with such massive federal guarantees will private insurers cover nukes. The reprocessing of spent fuel rods, decommissioning of plants, storing of waste, nuclear research – you name it – have always been paid for by the taxpayers.
they did have a choice and saw nuclear energy as a clean and efficient source of power.if it works for them whos to say nuclear power cant atleast contribute here?