Comments by "David Ford" (@davidford3115) on "Why No One Is Sanctioning ROSATOM" video.

Yeah, I think preventing the people repurposing Soviet bombs into reactor fuel is kind of counter-productive and undermines the non-proliferation agenda.
5
@krasserTerror First, Chernobyl and Fukushima are grossly overblown. The fact that the exclusion zone around Prypiat has become reclaimed by nature to the point that previously endangered species are now at populations levels not seen since prehistory speaks to the ignorance of man regarding radiation. Secondly, Man is NOT the cause of climate change. The Milankovitch cycles have a MUCH greater impact than anything man has done. The so-called science around climate change activism is as flimsy as the fears of nuclear winter. Michael Crichton debunked BOTH.
5
How long does it take to build a nuclear reactor for a US submarine or aircraft carrier? The biggest issue really isn't the construction time but all of the red tape and regulations surrounding the process.
3
That is ironically a result of the greenies. They were the same people holding up the "no nukes" peace sign in the 70s and gloating after the 3 miles Island accident. "Not in my backyard" they said. I say YES, build one in MY backyard!
3
@gargoyle7863 Indeed. And we are seeing the same thing today in Hollyweird. It is like they took a page from Stalin's "Ministry of Culture" circa 1932.
2
The big problems, and one they didn't touch on is that dismantled Soviet nuclear bombs are having their cores reprocessed into reactor fuel. If we want to shrink the number of nuclear weapons, we cannot sanction the companies that are engaged in that process.
2
Yeah, fearmongering around 3-mile Island and Chernobyl created hysteria over nuclear power. Fukushima gave that same anti-nuke crowd a booster shot. That stands in stark contrast to the history of the US Navy's nuclear power porgram.
2
@gargoyle7863 Indeed. German industrial innovation is second only to the US. It is sad that the leaders of Deutschland care more about pandering to globalist ideologues rather than encourage the people of the Rhine to do what they do best.
1
@gargoyle7863 I cannot say that I am surprised. The education system in the West has been infested by the ideology of the old Soviet Union, substituting reason and hard data in favor of feelings and emotions. "The cause" is more important than producing results.
1
@krasserTerror While Thyroid increased in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, the numbers in Germany did not. Anecdotes are NOT indicative of trends. You are using a sob story to make an appeal to emotions (logical fallacy). Yeah, most sources claiming man is the cause of climate change are sus. The data is circumstantial at best, and completely fabricated in others. Particularly when you claim, "consensus concludes". "Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths. " -Michael Crichton September 15, 2003 interview.
1
@PavorVenetor VOX has an article dated February of this year by Irina Wang detailing exactly what I am talking about.
1
@gregorymalchuk272 "10 years ago, we were turning nuclear bombs into nuclear energy. We can do it again." Vox article Feb 14, 2023 by Irnia Wang.
1
@gregorymalchuk272 Agreed. And of course, Saint Greta is now against wind farms. There is not satisfying these theologians pretending to be scientific. Michael Crichton very accurately called them out for their behaviors which emulate zealots and fanatics of yore.
1
Even the companies turning decommissioned Soviet bombs into reactor fuel? That kind of undermines non-proliferation.
1
Even the companies that are turning Soviet bomb cores into reactor fuel? Don't tell me that you would rather Russia sent those bombs to Iran or North Korea.
1
@Yeomen1986 Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, father of US Navy's nuclear program disagrees with you. There is a reason why even the IAEA takes their cues from his legacy.
1
@Yeomen1986 Wrong on ALL counts (sans Rickover's passing). Your claims show you know NOTHING at all about nuclear power. Don't try relying on the Gleman-Amnesia effect, because it is easy to debunk your claims.
1
Funny thing is, under Yeltson, Soviet bombs core were being reprocessed into reactor fuel. You CAN have weapons for war and still use them for peace once those bombs reach their "expiration date".
1
More sustainable? Have you not heard of US Navy's nuclear program? If it was not sustainable, then the US Navy would have abandoned it long ago. There is a reason why both the US Army and US Air Force abandoned their nuclear reactor programs. PS, Admiral Hyman G. Rickover set the exacting standards that even the IAEA follows. The man for all of his eccentricities (and rather abusive behaviors) was the foremost leader with regards to nuclear power.
1
@thomassecurename3152 Except, you said sustainable in your very first post. Don't try moving the goal posts or attempt to gaslight because you cannot argue against the points I made. Do keep in mind that Fukushima is grossly overblown. Chernobyl was almost 40 years ago and Prypiat's levels are only slightly greater than Fukushima. If you are following the rule of Seven, then that means that Chernobyl was several orders of magnitude worse (ie factors of ten).
1