[PLUG-TALK] Risk of earthquake based nuclear problems in USA

Russell Johnson russ at dimstar.net
Sat Mar 19 21:54:10 PDT 2011

On Mar 19, 2011, at 9:24 PM, Keith Lofstrom wrote:

> Solar makes some sense, in the stratosphere or above.  I'm
> learning how to do that.  Most people expect someone else to do
> the work, and grouse if the reality does not match their fantasies.

Have you seen what they are doing with solar powered steam plants in SoCal? I read that Pacific Power or PG&E had a trial plant up and running east of LA. This was some time ago, so I have no idea if that changed. It looked promising.

> Realistic solar cells are more like 10% assuming some time
> between cleanings, resulting in some average opacity.

Yeah. Solar cells have not come through as promised. I remember reading about the wonderful ways things were going to work. Too bad. Kinda like we're all supposed to be driving flying cars by now. 

> Meanwhile, if you actually run numbers, rather than listen to
> innumerate media clowns, you will find that the risks of nuclear
> power have been way, way exaggerated.

As with anything.. The best story gets the most hype. 

> *DO THE NUMBERS*.  Don't trust other people.  Don't trust me.
> Trust what you can figure out on your own, from measurements
> you can repeat or track to primary data.  Empower yourself. 
> That is what open source is about - now move on to OPEN REALITY.

Well, if I had time to sit here and crunch numbers, I wouldn't have time to do what they pay me for. As much as I enjoy my job, like most people, I work so that I can live comfortably, and have a bit left over to play. I spend a bit of time crunching numbers now.

> Kill your TV and recycle it.  It is propagating lies and
> anxiety so you will eat the crap food advertised on it.

What if I only watch cartoons? :)

My TV is FAR from a source of anything except entertainment. On the rare occasion of an earthquake or tsunami, I will watch broadcast news, balanced with other sources. I love how I saw the footage airing on 8 and 12 a full 24 hours earlier on several web only sources. 

> If you are worried about cancer (and you should be), that
> is the quickest and most effective cancer reduction method
> available.

I'm worried about it, but I put it in perspective. There's a difference between being worried about it, and becoming catatonic because you can't handle the pressure. It's that cost/benefit analysis again. I worry about it when I'm talking with my doctor, and at other times that are appropriate. Then I put a plan in place and run with it. Further down the road, I re-evaluate and adjust, if needed. 

> Crouching in front of the TV, paralyzed by fear
> and gobbling twinkies, is not going to get the job done.

And that's exactly the catatonia I'm talking about. I think on that point, we are in agreement. 

Russell Johnson
russ at dimstar.net

More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list