StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I've been having a few discussions with a friend on the subject of nuclear power. He's a Democrat who is very anti-Republican, and while we see eye-to-eye on many topics, he's firmly anti-nuclear.

Our latest talk was instigated by this story. He used it as an example of why nuclear isn't safe and said that John McCain is a fool for wanting to put it in widespread use. I said that McCain's stand on nuclear was the only thing I like about him (assuming that he would follow through, of course), and that nuclear was the only realistic possibility to replace fossil fuels. He replied that nuclear was out of the question until we have a way to safely dispose of the waste. I responded that use of breeder reactors would greatly reduce the amount of waste, and reiterated that there was no way that wind and solar could fully replace our current power needs (let alone be able to deal with the increased power demands of widespread use of plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles) thanks to the relatively low amount of power per acre they can produce and their inherent dependence on weather conditions that we have no control of.

At this point he changed the topic, but I know it will come up again, and I want to be more prepared. I currently have very little hard data, and I think I could be more convincing if I had some. He's a fairly scientifically minded individual, and I think I have a chance at changing his mind if I present some solid figures. Or at the very least he'll know not to bring it up around me anymore.

So, do you guys have any suggestions as to where I could go for trustworthy information about nuclear and how it compares to other energy sources in regards to things like safety, output, availability of fuel, waste management, realistic near-future developments (things like molten salt reactors, or thorium based designs), etc?

So tiny trace amounts of radioactivity leaked from a nuclear sub, and this proves that nuclear power plants are deadly?

What would he say if he heard "trace amounts of toxic chemicals leaked from a transport"? Would he say that the whole idea of industry is deadly? Does he have any idea how many toxic pollutants we throw into the environment every day of every year?

His idiotic belief system is based upon the notion that radiation stands head and shoulders above every other kind of industrial pollutant; it doesn't. Radiation is toxic and carcinogenic, but so are huge numbers of chemicals that we cheerfully store in our basements, add to our drinking water, use to clean our floors and dishes, pump into the atmosphere, or even deliberately inhale in order to change our moods. And of those, radioactive waste from nuclear power plants are present in by far the lowest quantities in our environment. Even if we include every nuclear disaster in history, and every nuclear weapons test.

Has this fool never read an MSDS for an industrial chemical? People like him triumphantly point out that nuclear power isn't perfect, and they're so ignorant that they fail to understand that nothing is absolutely perfect. Many things we take for granted are much, much worse than nuclear.

Link him to the Yucca mountain EIS summary and point out how low the actual radiation amounts are.

http://www.ymp.gov/documents/feis_2/sum ... tm#S.5.1.8

And if he claims that the EIS is inaccurate challenge him to show why France, which gets the vast majority from its power from nuclear, doesn't have massive cancer rates.

Also this is a nice graph:

http://gabe.web.psi.ch/research/ra/pics/ra_fn_OECD.jpg

Keep in mind that even with the data, it doesn't work unless you can disabuse him of the notion that even the tiniest bit of radiation is unacceptable, or the ignorant idea that not using nuclear power has no environmental effects of its own.

Darth Wong wrote:Keep in mind that even with the data, it doesn't work unless you can disabuse him of the notion that even the tiniest bit of radiation is unacceptable, or the ignorant idea that not using nuclear power has no environmental effects of its own.

You're quite right, and I'll definitely point that out to him. I suppose this view is unfortunately rather common, thanks to how much nuclear has been demonized in popular culture. Thank you for your input.

Also, thank you CaptainZoidberg for the information. Is that image your posted also part of a report?

Good luck. Remember, in a lot of debates like this, it's easy to get tricked into playing on his chosen battlefield. In this case, he wants you on a fantastically tilted playing field where he scores a touchdown if he can show that nuclear power is anything less than perfect. Whenever you sense this happening, you must not play the game until you can arrange for a level playing field.

I found this book really helpful in making nuclear power simple to understand, including the strengths and weaknesses of nuclear power: link; its in a PDF format. I had a class a few years ago where we had to give a persuasive speech and I chose to do mine on nuclear power. During the question period, the entire class and the TA jumped me but thanks to this handy book, among many others, I was able to hold my ground. It was an academic Thermopylae.

I think your best bet to winning a quick victory is to demonstrate that nuclear power is safe, has resulted in less deaths than other power generation methods, is clean and is supported by the scientific community.

Another important tip is to anticipate his attacks and turn them around to your advantage. One of the most common attacks against nuclear power is to list the number of "incidents" reported yearly at plants. Rather than try to minimize these incidents, embrace them. Point out that they indicate just how safety-conscious and paranoid the plant operators are, since they pounce on even the tiniest incident which causes no public damage, and report it in full.