All it takes is a little critical thinking and a little knowledge of how the nuclear industry actually works to realize that Dr. Caldicott doesn't know what she's talking about.
Her information is historically anecdotal, based on fear, taken out of context [1,2,4], biased [5], and sometimes even made up [3].
I urge everyone who listens to her to listen very, very closely and with a critical ear. She uses tricks to persuade the listener.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as they say.
4) 1 in 10 chance of a meltdown in the next 10 years. Has it happened yet? No. Furthermore, if the probability of, say, a pressure tube rupture (trust me, this is bad) were 1 in 10, the CNSC would order the unit to be shut down. That's not even considering the 2 safety shutdown systems that would trip if a pressure tube broke.
5) Of course an "expert witness" from TMI would say this: he was traumatized. So her "expert witness" is also "expertly bias".
3) "The reactors are literally shaking with increased power"... really? You were there in the reactor vault watching this happen? Something that ridiculously dangerous would be contrary to regulation and the regulator would shut them down.
2) She cites numbers like 10-15 years and $12-$15 billion to build a plant. Consider scalability. If a unit is 1000-1500 MW, that's 100 MW per year that can be built. That's $10M per MW in capital cost only (operating costs are comparatively quite low). Solar/Wind might cost a little less per MW, but you can't build 100 MW per year in solar and wind. So in the end, they're really not that different.
1) Earthquake zone: if the probability of earthquakes is too high, the EA will not be passed and a reactor will not be built. If it is sufficiently low, there are procedures in place, as with every nuclear plant, to mitigate the consequences of an earthquake: shutdown safety systems, containment building, etc.
She used the same milkman joke when I saw her at U of T.
All it takes is a little critical thinking and a little knowledge of how the nuclear industry actually works to realize that Dr. Caldicott doesn't know what she's talking about.
Her information is historically anecdotal, based on fear, taken out of context [1,2,4], biased [5], and sometimes even made up [3].
I urge everyone who listens to her to listen very, very closely and with a critical ear. She uses tricks to persuade the listener.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as they say.
daves345 2 years ago
4) 1 in 10 chance of a meltdown in the next 10 years. Has it happened yet? No. Furthermore, if the probability of, say, a pressure tube rupture (trust me, this is bad) were 1 in 10, the CNSC would order the unit to be shut down. That's not even considering the 2 safety shutdown systems that would trip if a pressure tube broke.
5) Of course an "expert witness" from TMI would say this: he was traumatized. So her "expert witness" is also "expertly bias".
daves345 2 years ago
3) "The reactors are literally shaking with increased power"... really? You were there in the reactor vault watching this happen? Something that ridiculously dangerous would be contrary to regulation and the regulator would shut them down.
daves345 2 years ago
2) She cites numbers like 10-15 years and $12-$15 billion to build a plant. Consider scalability. If a unit is 1000-1500 MW, that's 100 MW per year that can be built. That's $10M per MW in capital cost only (operating costs are comparatively quite low). Solar/Wind might cost a little less per MW, but you can't build 100 MW per year in solar and wind. So in the end, they're really not that different.
daves345 2 years ago
1) Earthquake zone: if the probability of earthquakes is too high, the EA will not be passed and a reactor will not be built. If it is sufficiently low, there are procedures in place, as with every nuclear plant, to mitigate the consequences of an earthquake: shutdown safety systems, containment building, etc.
She used the same milkman joke when I saw her at U of T.
daves345 2 years ago