Was Nuclear Energy Sabotaged?

The public deserves to know of the phenomenal risk to which they have been put. Conventional nuclear reactors are perhaps the most poorly engineered and most dangerous things ever constructed. Something as simple as a tidal wave defeated billions of dollars worth of engineered safeguards built into the Fukishima reactors. However, the greatest fallacy of these reactors is that if they are bombed, they will release 1000 times more contamination than the Fukishima reactors. America has 99 of these Achille's heels. We worry about Iran getting a nuclear weapon. But what is much more worrisome is that a bombed reactor would produce 1000 times more fallout than any bomb. Which means that not only do we have to worry about Iran getting the bomb, we have to worry about Iran getting one or several cruise missiles. If only the public knew the numbers. A bomb has 7 kg of Plutonium and may or may not have 100 Kg of Uranium. If it's sophisticated, it could have nominal amounts of Tritium o

Although many believe the Climate Change narrative, it is clearly a narrative. However, in all fairness, it's advocates are not completely off base. They are advocating for movement away from a finite and unsustainable energy base and even though they are claiming a false urgency, they are still correct in their advocacy.The problem anti-alarmist have is that their justification is not honest and therefore invalid. However, I contend that anti-alarmist remember the adage, never let an emergency go to waste. The climate alarmism argument is the perfect opportunity for rational people to steer future energy policy towards nuclear energy and away from solar and wind.On a positive note, both sides know that moving away from fossil fuels is simply a necessity. We just don't agree on which direction to go. If we go to solar and wind, costs will be ridiculous and performance horrible. If we pursue an ideal nuclear plant, costs will be as low as possible and reliability as high as poss

In that we live in a world full of humans, only a fool would bet that we have outgrown war. It may be impossible to calculate, with any factual basis, what the odds are for a future cataclysmic war, but my bet is that a credible number is between 99 and 100%. With this in mind, consider conventional nuclear power plants. They contain over 100 metric tones of fuel and at least a ton of high-level nuclear waste. In a future war, the 99 plants in the U.S. could be targeted as weapons against our own population. Now this may seem insignificant compared to the threat of a hydrogen bomb evaporating a city. However, a single nuclear plant would produce the fallout of a thousand bombs. And although the immediate casualties might outweigh the long-term environmental consequences, they actually may not outweigh them. Having said this, the important questions remain, "Is there any point in being concerned?" "If the threat of nuclear war exists independent of nuclear power plants,

1st white board:   Voice and text (V/T) Heading: This proposal seeks to create the greatest infrastructure in history (Drawn on white board  (DOWB) showing person building a pyramid)  for the lowest possible cost ( (IMAGE: a person with his pocket pulled out)  to earn the greatest possible profit (IMAGE: a wheelbarrow of gold, acquire global acclaim (draw person holding a statue and wearing a medal), and   build the greatest engineering enterprise on the planet (person in hard hat with crane behind them. P.S. I want the line drawings of the pyramid builder etc. to be a graphic bullet and to progress (appear on the white board) simultaneously as the statements are spelled out to the right of the image. I want the white board to be a self launching video file as opposed to a PDF that must be read page by page. ************************************************************ 2nd white board: (put this IMAGE: top left http://wboc.images.worldnow.com/images/11102271_G.jp

An Ideal Nuclear Reactor (INR) could produce the power of over 1000 of the largest wind turbines for at least 10 times lower costs without any environmental risk, like a silent spring. Admittedly, Conventional Nuclear Reactors (CNRs) do pose an existential threat to humanity, are prohibitively expensive, and are only 1% fuel efficient. But past performance is not an indicator of future performance. Rather, it is just prima facie, irrefutable evidence that nuclear energy was intentionally derailed, and not just that it was derailed, but that it was derailed in such a negligent fashion, that billions of people are at grave risk were a large scale war to break out. An INR is nothing more than a tank of Lead salted with Uranium and Thorium powder. This design has no natural failure modes and cannot be used as a weapon against the population. If this design were to be bombed, the hazardous material would simply be encapsulated within the congealing Lead. In contrast, all CNRs are one bomb

The simple answer to this question is that there is no profit in cheap electricity. The people who run this show aren't interested in cheap or efficient. Rather, they are seriously interested in maintaining or escalating profits from either conventional or more expensive alternatives. 75 years ago, nuclear energy promised electricity too cheap to meter, and it still does to this day. However, if it were allowed to be developed the way it should have been developed, it would destroy trillions in market value of fossil fuel resources owned by the uber wealthy. Accordingly, the powers that be pulled the strings necessary to derail the true potential of nuclear energy. Now, three generations later, the same game is being played where a climate warming narrative is being used to impose three times more expensive 'green' energy. To support this assertion, it is necessary to explain how it is nuclear energy was sabotaged such that the laymen can understand it. If a person we