Nuclear Energy – Follow up

Many thanks to Dr. Kelly Moghul and Mr. Nobby Miura for the amazing presentation about nuclear safety.  Devon was kind enough to write this month’s follow up blog (helped by Ken on the technical side). Special thanks should also go out to our friends from the green party who brought up some great points about nuclear energy.


Our May 16 WSIC event dealt with the safety of nuclear power in Ontario. Our speakers were Nobuyoshi (Nobby) Miura and Dr. Kelly Moghul, both experts in the field, who came to share their expertise with all of us. Both speakers have spent their careers on making the reactors in Ontario as safe as they can.

The venue was quite full by the time I arrived. Many people had already broken off into groups: eating, discussing and of course, drinking (hey, it´s a pub). I found some friends, and a beer, and had a seat.

Miura and Moghul began their presentation by discussing different types of nuclear reactors, their fuels, types of waste, containment systems… and compared safety methods with those of Ontario´s CANDU reactors. They also explained various methods of storing hazardous waste, not only in Canada, but in Japan as well.

A lively discussion followed. Guests asked the speakers a variety of questions about safety, storage, innovation, and the intersection of science with politics and the economy. A representative of the Green Party asked several pointed questions, leading to an extended debate. The question period ended with a talk about the lifecycles of nuclear power plants and concerns about the seeming unwillingness of government to approve a disposal location for spent waste fuel.

Ken was kind enough to provide some technical information about the various kinds of reactors Dr. Moghul and Mr. Miura spoke about:

Boiling water reactor (BWR)

This post was written by

2 Comments on "Nuclear Energy – Follow up"

  • Taisuke says

    I can’t think of a worse one.To begin with, taking out those pnlats- if we decided to do it- wouldn’t require nukes. The “Daisy Cutter” we used in Tora Bora has since been replaced with even larger and more powerful conventional weapons which would do the job just as nicely as a nuke, were we so inclined- without either the fallout or the emotional ramifications of a nuclear attack. Moreover, using them would avoid letting the nuclear “genie,” so to speak, back out of the bottle.This is especially important because Iran- like Iraq- is a client state of Russia. China, too, is cozying up to the muhajamoonbats. Nuke Iran, and we’d have two ticked off big brothers with ICBMs as well as a much bigger store of much nastier nukes than Iran is likely to have this century already in stock.And again, there’s no need for the United States to do anything. Israel will take care of it, if the time comes. And as cold-blooded as this sounds, better them than us.Finally, we have other weapons at our disposal. I came across an article just today pointing out that a total economic boycott of Iran- combined with a boycott of any country doing business with Iran- would bring the muhajamoonbats to their knees in a hurry. It would essentially present them with the choice of nuclear weapons or food- together with the stark reality that they wouldn’t be able to have both.Even that would be distasteful, just as the sanctions against Iraq were. It’s never a good thing when the innocent suffer for the lunacy of their leaders. It would, in fact, be tantamount to war- which is famously not healthy for children and other living things. But the sanctions would be more effective this time, because they’d be more severe- and better an economic boycott than a nuclear attack!

  • Sahril says

    In his (rather passively titeld) , Mark Steyn writes:”To assume Tehran would never nuke Israel because a shift in wind direction would contaminate Ramallah is to be as ignorant of history as most Palestinians are: from Yasser Arafat’s uncle, the pro-Nazi Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during the British Mandate, to the insurgents in Iraq today, Islamists have never been shy about slaughtering Muslims in pursuit of their strategic goals….”Once again, we face a choice between bad and worse options. There can be no “surgical” strike in any meaningful sense: Iran’s clients on the ground will retaliate in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and Europe. Nor should we put much stock in the country’s allegedly “pro-American” youth. This shouldn’t be a touchy-feely nation-building exercise: rehabilitation may be a bonus, but the primary objective should be punishment and incarceration. It’s up to the Iranian people how nutty a government they want to live with, but extraterritorial nuttiness has to be shown not to pay. That means swift, massive, devastating force that decapitates the regime but no occupation.”Forget rehabilitation; there was never habilitation in the first place. With his requirement of “no occupation” Steyn should have replaced “punishment and incarceration” with “punishment and incineration”.

Leave Your Comment