Ralph is joined by Tim Judson from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (N.I.R.S.) to discuss the growing support for nuclear power in Congress, and the persistent myths that fuel nuclear advocates' false hopes for a nuclear future. Then, Ralph pays tribute to Boeing whistleblower John Barnett, who died unexpectedly this week in the middle of giving his deposition for a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit against Boeing. Plus, Ralph answers some of your audience feedback from last week's interview with Barbara McQuade.
We can't even do simpler things anymore. How on earth could we possibly manage something as complex as nuclear power? Thanks for today's show (and all of them, actually!)
Can you comment about a type of power that was featured on 20/20 or 60 minutes back in the early 2000s. The company name was (ironically) BPS, and the segrnent showed companies who had a small car sized power generator that sat just outside the building and it was shown that a very small generator like this could power a house. It was a radical new technology. Nothing like we have had historically at all. Soon after this aired I couldn’t find reference to it anywhere online…
When you do have that episode on anonymity, one issue that always comes to mind is how sex and human trafficking (enslavement) around the globe have increased substantially because of the Internet—especially social media. I'm pretty sure predators are not using their real names, and pretty sure enslavement is not good for democracy.
Liked: "The U.S. is a lawless Empire bombing and invading where it wants, without Congressional declarations of war and in violation of federal and international laws." from Nader.org column last week.
There is no incentive (even if it were possible) for companies to build and operate complex nuclear power plants that are profitable when it is so much easier and less expensive to build and operate Congress with big money contributions.
It should be no surprise when the big money politicians pass legislation that gives the profits to the companies and assigns the risk to us as the politicians tell us that is what they will do when they take the big money.
There is no incentive for the big money politicians to do anything else as long as we keep voting for them anyway.
Just as it is easier and more effective for companies to build and operate Congress through big money contributions than it is to build and operate complex nuclear plants, it is easier and more effective for citizens to use their votes to demand small donor candidates than it is to navigate the complex and expensive route of voting for and trying to get positive results from politicians that have already told you they will not deliver the results you want when they took big money.
The process of getting positive results from big money politicians makes operating a profitable nuclear power plant seem like child's play.
Let's prove Susan wrong and do this simple thing of demanding small donor candidates in 2024 and enforcing that demand with a write in vote if there are no small donor candidates on our 2024 congressional primary and general election ballots.
Just 10% national participation in 2024 could inspire more citizens to participate in 2026 and some candidates to run in the primaries and general elections as small donor candidates to get those votes.
This could inspire more citizens and candidates to participate in 2028 making it possible to elect many small donor candidates in 2028.
Bishop Barber said we have to let politicians know we will unelect them if they do not do what we want.
Col. Wilkerson said politicians make their decisions based on money and not us.
Ralph has said politicians want our votes more than big money.
Isn't it time yet, Ralph, to test your theory by using our votes in 2024 to let big money politicians know we will unelect them if they do not do what we want so we can elect small donor politicians that will make their decisions based on us instead of money?
"And for today's show, there are three things that refuse to die; vampires, zombies, and our old friend, nuclear power. The only difference between the undead and nuclear power is that vampires and zombies have never gotten billions of taxpayer dollars to help raise them from the dead."
Thanks to Steve for returning to his roots, and beginning the hour with a real belly laugh, in these troubling and horrific times of genocide and fascist takeovers.
Just last year, the prestigious National Academy of Science, created to advise Congress, considered whether or not nuclear power should be part of the mix in achieving 100% renewable energy. It concludes it should be with one caveat:
No new nuclear plants should be built until technology comes up with a solution to the high risk. The Academy estimates this will not happen until the 2030s at the earliest.
The problem, as I understand it, is the House just passed the Atomic Energy Advancement Act and as such, it’s headed to the Senate. It will not only authorize new nuclear reactors, but will weaken the regulatory and licensing requirements for building them. So much for listening to the advice of the top scientists hired with taxpayer money.
I wish to correct Mr. Nader on one point. The Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 door plug fault was on a Boeing 737 MAX 9, not a 737 MAX 10. I believe this is important to point out because the general public may not realize that the 737 MAX 10 and 737 MAX 7 models have not been certified for commercial use even though Boeing flew the first 737 MAX 7 prototype in March 2018. Yes, here six years later, the 737 MAX 7 still has not met safety certification requirements and it may take another handful of years, if not longer, for the 737 MAX 7 and MAX 10 models to be certified. Given this, airlines cannot fly 737 MAX 7 and MAX 10 planes until they receive the necessary safety certifications like the 737 MAX 8 and 9 models did (though there are certainly questions about whether the MAX 8 and 9 should have been certified/re-certified as they were). This is a rather amazing failure on Boeing’s part. At some point, Boeing may end up having to cancel those programs if airlines end up taking alternate orders in terms of switching their orders to 737 MAX 8 or 9s or ordering aircraft from other companies instead.
On the latter point about ordering aircraft from other companies, Mr. Nader has correctly pointed out before that this is not all that viable of an option because Airbus is really the only other competitor for the majority of Boeing’s models. In part due to problems with Boeing’s products, Airbus’s order books are full and it’ll take years for someone ordering Airbus planes now to actually get them and so airlines are somewhat forced to order Boeing planes even if they don’t really want them. Even then, with the certification problems, airlines may not get the planes they desire even if they go with Boeing. China and Russia may offer some competition, but western airlines are not going to order airplanes from these countries.
The natural question here is why are there only two companies making the majority of the commercial airplanes. Due to neoliberal policies from the WTO, US, EU, and elsewhere, it is hard for countries to establish nationalized companies to make airplanes. Even public subsidies to private corporations are viewed negatively. Well, sort of, and here is where there are many policy contradictions. Remember, Boeing and their suppliers are heavily subsidized by the US government through military contracts. Boeing’s commercial division would not exist without the military subsidies. Airbus initially started out as a semi-nationalized government-organized consortium by various governments in Europe and was then privatized once it became successful, but they (and their suppliers, many of whom are also Boeing suppliers) also benefit from military subsidies. Embraer, a Brazilian company making regional jets, also started out as a public company before being privatized after becoming established, but they also benefit from military subsidization.
When all of these subsidized companies face new competition which have government backing, such as Bombardier Aerospace of Canada, they all throw a fit and complain to the WTO and to the national governments. The US’ price dumping sanctions against Bombardier’s Cseries jets, which would have competed against the 737 MAX 7 if the MAX 7 was actually certified, was part of this hypocrisy and Bombardier had to sell the Cseries jet project to an Airbus-backed group since Airbus has US manufacturing and since the US did not want to engage in a trade war with the EU even if they were willing to do so against Canada. It could be argued that the US’s actions against the Canadian Cseries jets was a faux pas which ended up benefiting Airbus more than Boeing!
So the point here is that we’re at a point where it is almost impossible for new competitors to enter the field. Any new plane manufacturing company would need to be government subsidized to a large degree to compete against subsidized Boeing and Airbus, if not be nationalized outright, but the US and other governments will do their best to block such things from happening. This is what helps guarantee that Boeing will continue to get orders from airlines even with their grand incompetence.
One idea is for US policy to drop this hypocrisy and embrace competition. Also, the question has to be asked if Boeing should just be nationalized outright. They already are heavily subsidized by the US government so this is hardly a radical idea and Boeing would have to be nationalized if we are to reduce the influence of the military industry in foreign policy. In some ways, running a nationalized commercial aircraft company is less than ideal, but if Boeing can’t get their act together, it might be the only option. After all, what happens if Airbus starts running into similar problems as Boeing, which is entirely possible given Airbus’s corporate structure, and airlines simply cannot get their hands on safe aircraft to fly?
On the topic of Mr. Nader’s retort about Internet anonymity, I believe I did state in my comment last week on the subject that there are drawbacks to anonymity on the Internet. Those who have been on a site like YouTube and have read the user comments will know there are drawbacks to anonymity, though it should be said there numerous inane and misleading statements from people who are posting under their own names or the names of real organizations. University of Miami law professor, and a Yale undergraduate and law school alum, Michael Froomkin (I reckon Froomkin and Steve Skrovan were probably undergraduates at Yale at around the same time, for what it is worth) has published many scholarly articles over the years discussing the pros and cons of Internet anonymity. However, like Froomkin, I believe the pros outweigh the cons.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, one of the better organizations, in my opinion, in fighting against corporatism and fighting for consumer rights in the electronic realm, is strongly in favor of Internet anonymity and I will post their website devoted to the subject: https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
The EFF recently filed an amicus brief related to the GSB Gold Standard v. Google trial in the New York State courts and it has a good overview of the case history on the subject and why it is important to support anonymity: https://www.eff.org/document/gsb-gold-standard-v-google-eff-amicus-brief
I’ve seen commentary from Robert Fellmeth before, perhaps here on the RNRH, and I’m sure he’ll make some good arguments about the power of the tech industry in shaping political thought, but I don’t think restricting anonymity is the answer to these problems. We must also remember that the Internet is a lot more than just Facebook and Google. There are many wonderful independent blogs, websites, discussion groups, and so forth where anonymity helps foster productive discussion. Any potential legislation needs to maintain the parts of the Internet which work well while remediating the parts which don’t work so well.
The likes of Froomkin and the EFF might be able to present a good image of healthy, pro-citizen Internet regulation which eschews needless authoritative positions which are likely unconstitutional anyway and unpopular with the general public while achieving the same end goals which Mr. Nader wishes to achieve. On the point of unpopularity, we’ve already seen from the comments last week that Mr. Nader’s commentary has not been well-received by what I would have to assume are some of the biggest fans of Mr. Nader’s work. While it is sometimes necessary to take an unpopular stance, I don’t believe this is one of those cases. Hopefully Mr. Nader, and everyone, views this as a challenge to see if there are better ways to achieve the shared goal of increasing the pro-citizen productivity of the Internet.
I agree with the commenter who talked about MSNBC and the Russiagate Hoax. A shameful exercise in attempting to excuse Clinton's defeat by Trump, and a precursor to the carnage in Ukraine. The Greyzone, and the Youtube Channel "Judging Freedom" have both covered this Hoax, but
mainstream media has not adequately corrected the record.
Watching RFKjr's presentations shortly after he announced his candidacy, he made interesting comments about nuclear energy, No insurance company will underwrite any project that could unleash damage that occurred in Japan or Russia.
Nuclear power is to sustainable power, as marching music is to music. Pretty remnarkable that the fairly windy area where i live has so few wind turbines. Solar is not reasonable in its ultimate cost for an individual home. Perhaps solar is good for people with the means, or a long period in which to finance its cost. The latter should not be the case. Scamming people by saying that the cost of solar panel installation will be covered, or underwritten, when the actual cost is substantial. Fusion nuclear reactors are the stuff of fantasy. The techology does not exist for fusion reactors, or is it likely to exist for a very long time, if ever. Nuclear power is inherently dangerous to all species.
Part of nuclear's false promise is that we won't have to change or even question fundamentally unsustainable energy and resource use rates in the global north.
Thank you for all the articles that I have read since my ten-years of age. I am now 94 .
Connie Bygdnes
We can't even do simpler things anymore. How on earth could we possibly manage something as complex as nuclear power? Thanks for today's show (and all of them, actually!)
Can you comment about a type of power that was featured on 20/20 or 60 minutes back in the early 2000s. The company name was (ironically) BPS, and the segrnent showed companies who had a small car sized power generator that sat just outside the building and it was shown that a very small generator like this could power a house. It was a radical new technology. Nothing like we have had historically at all. Soon after this aired I couldn’t find reference to it anywhere online…
When you do have that episode on anonymity, one issue that always comes to mind is how sex and human trafficking (enslavement) around the globe have increased substantially because of the Internet—especially social media. I'm pretty sure predators are not using their real names, and pretty sure enslavement is not good for democracy.
Liked: "The U.S. is a lawless Empire bombing and invading where it wants, without Congressional declarations of war and in violation of federal and international laws." from Nader.org column last week.
There is no incentive (even if it were possible) for companies to build and operate complex nuclear power plants that are profitable when it is so much easier and less expensive to build and operate Congress with big money contributions.
It should be no surprise when the big money politicians pass legislation that gives the profits to the companies and assigns the risk to us as the politicians tell us that is what they will do when they take the big money.
There is no incentive for the big money politicians to do anything else as long as we keep voting for them anyway.
Just as it is easier and more effective for companies to build and operate Congress through big money contributions than it is to build and operate complex nuclear plants, it is easier and more effective for citizens to use their votes to demand small donor candidates than it is to navigate the complex and expensive route of voting for and trying to get positive results from politicians that have already told you they will not deliver the results you want when they took big money.
The process of getting positive results from big money politicians makes operating a profitable nuclear power plant seem like child's play.
Let's prove Susan wrong and do this simple thing of demanding small donor candidates in 2024 and enforcing that demand with a write in vote if there are no small donor candidates on our 2024 congressional primary and general election ballots.
Just 10% national participation in 2024 could inspire more citizens to participate in 2026 and some candidates to run in the primaries and general elections as small donor candidates to get those votes.
This could inspire more citizens and candidates to participate in 2028 making it possible to elect many small donor candidates in 2028.
Bishop Barber said we have to let politicians know we will unelect them if they do not do what we want.
Col. Wilkerson said politicians make their decisions based on money and not us.
Ralph has said politicians want our votes more than big money.
Isn't it time yet, Ralph, to test your theory by using our votes in 2024 to let big money politicians know we will unelect them if they do not do what we want so we can elect small donor politicians that will make their decisions based on us instead of money?
"And for today's show, there are three things that refuse to die; vampires, zombies, and our old friend, nuclear power. The only difference between the undead and nuclear power is that vampires and zombies have never gotten billions of taxpayer dollars to help raise them from the dead."
Thanks to Steve for returning to his roots, and beginning the hour with a real belly laugh, in these troubling and horrific times of genocide and fascist takeovers.
Judson, as always, is spot on.
No nukes!
I remember Joanna Macy’s brilliant idea for “Guardian Sites” where we bury all the waste -
perhaps I can find a link..
Just last year, the prestigious National Academy of Science, created to advise Congress, considered whether or not nuclear power should be part of the mix in achieving 100% renewable energy. It concludes it should be with one caveat:
No new nuclear plants should be built until technology comes up with a solution to the high risk. The Academy estimates this will not happen until the 2030s at the earliest.
The problem, as I understand it, is the House just passed the Atomic Energy Advancement Act and as such, it’s headed to the Senate. It will not only authorize new nuclear reactors, but will weaken the regulatory and licensing requirements for building them. So much for listening to the advice of the top scientists hired with taxpayer money.
I wish to correct Mr. Nader on one point. The Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 door plug fault was on a Boeing 737 MAX 9, not a 737 MAX 10. I believe this is important to point out because the general public may not realize that the 737 MAX 10 and 737 MAX 7 models have not been certified for commercial use even though Boeing flew the first 737 MAX 7 prototype in March 2018. Yes, here six years later, the 737 MAX 7 still has not met safety certification requirements and it may take another handful of years, if not longer, for the 737 MAX 7 and MAX 10 models to be certified. Given this, airlines cannot fly 737 MAX 7 and MAX 10 planes until they receive the necessary safety certifications like the 737 MAX 8 and 9 models did (though there are certainly questions about whether the MAX 8 and 9 should have been certified/re-certified as they were). This is a rather amazing failure on Boeing’s part. At some point, Boeing may end up having to cancel those programs if airlines end up taking alternate orders in terms of switching their orders to 737 MAX 8 or 9s or ordering aircraft from other companies instead.
On the latter point about ordering aircraft from other companies, Mr. Nader has correctly pointed out before that this is not all that viable of an option because Airbus is really the only other competitor for the majority of Boeing’s models. In part due to problems with Boeing’s products, Airbus’s order books are full and it’ll take years for someone ordering Airbus planes now to actually get them and so airlines are somewhat forced to order Boeing planes even if they don’t really want them. Even then, with the certification problems, airlines may not get the planes they desire even if they go with Boeing. China and Russia may offer some competition, but western airlines are not going to order airplanes from these countries.
The natural question here is why are there only two companies making the majority of the commercial airplanes. Due to neoliberal policies from the WTO, US, EU, and elsewhere, it is hard for countries to establish nationalized companies to make airplanes. Even public subsidies to private corporations are viewed negatively. Well, sort of, and here is where there are many policy contradictions. Remember, Boeing and their suppliers are heavily subsidized by the US government through military contracts. Boeing’s commercial division would not exist without the military subsidies. Airbus initially started out as a semi-nationalized government-organized consortium by various governments in Europe and was then privatized once it became successful, but they (and their suppliers, many of whom are also Boeing suppliers) also benefit from military subsidies. Embraer, a Brazilian company making regional jets, also started out as a public company before being privatized after becoming established, but they also benefit from military subsidization.
When all of these subsidized companies face new competition which have government backing, such as Bombardier Aerospace of Canada, they all throw a fit and complain to the WTO and to the national governments. The US’ price dumping sanctions against Bombardier’s Cseries jets, which would have competed against the 737 MAX 7 if the MAX 7 was actually certified, was part of this hypocrisy and Bombardier had to sell the Cseries jet project to an Airbus-backed group since Airbus has US manufacturing and since the US did not want to engage in a trade war with the EU even if they were willing to do so against Canada. It could be argued that the US’s actions against the Canadian Cseries jets was a faux pas which ended up benefiting Airbus more than Boeing!
So the point here is that we’re at a point where it is almost impossible for new competitors to enter the field. Any new plane manufacturing company would need to be government subsidized to a large degree to compete against subsidized Boeing and Airbus, if not be nationalized outright, but the US and other governments will do their best to block such things from happening. This is what helps guarantee that Boeing will continue to get orders from airlines even with their grand incompetence.
One idea is for US policy to drop this hypocrisy and embrace competition. Also, the question has to be asked if Boeing should just be nationalized outright. They already are heavily subsidized by the US government so this is hardly a radical idea and Boeing would have to be nationalized if we are to reduce the influence of the military industry in foreign policy. In some ways, running a nationalized commercial aircraft company is less than ideal, but if Boeing can’t get their act together, it might be the only option. After all, what happens if Airbus starts running into similar problems as Boeing, which is entirely possible given Airbus’s corporate structure, and airlines simply cannot get their hands on safe aircraft to fly?
On the topic of Mr. Nader’s retort about Internet anonymity, I believe I did state in my comment last week on the subject that there are drawbacks to anonymity on the Internet. Those who have been on a site like YouTube and have read the user comments will know there are drawbacks to anonymity, though it should be said there numerous inane and misleading statements from people who are posting under their own names or the names of real organizations. University of Miami law professor, and a Yale undergraduate and law school alum, Michael Froomkin (I reckon Froomkin and Steve Skrovan were probably undergraduates at Yale at around the same time, for what it is worth) has published many scholarly articles over the years discussing the pros and cons of Internet anonymity. However, like Froomkin, I believe the pros outweigh the cons.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, one of the better organizations, in my opinion, in fighting against corporatism and fighting for consumer rights in the electronic realm, is strongly in favor of Internet anonymity and I will post their website devoted to the subject: https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
The EFF recently filed an amicus brief related to the GSB Gold Standard v. Google trial in the New York State courts and it has a good overview of the case history on the subject and why it is important to support anonymity: https://www.eff.org/document/gsb-gold-standard-v-google-eff-amicus-brief
I’ve seen commentary from Robert Fellmeth before, perhaps here on the RNRH, and I’m sure he’ll make some good arguments about the power of the tech industry in shaping political thought, but I don’t think restricting anonymity is the answer to these problems. We must also remember that the Internet is a lot more than just Facebook and Google. There are many wonderful independent blogs, websites, discussion groups, and so forth where anonymity helps foster productive discussion. Any potential legislation needs to maintain the parts of the Internet which work well while remediating the parts which don’t work so well.
The likes of Froomkin and the EFF might be able to present a good image of healthy, pro-citizen Internet regulation which eschews needless authoritative positions which are likely unconstitutional anyway and unpopular with the general public while achieving the same end goals which Mr. Nader wishes to achieve. On the point of unpopularity, we’ve already seen from the comments last week that Mr. Nader’s commentary has not been well-received by what I would have to assume are some of the biggest fans of Mr. Nader’s work. While it is sometimes necessary to take an unpopular stance, I don’t believe this is one of those cases. Hopefully Mr. Nader, and everyone, views this as a challenge to see if there are better ways to achieve the shared goal of increasing the pro-citizen productivity of the Internet.
Thanks AGAIN, Bill Gates 😡
I agree with the commenter who talked about MSNBC and the Russiagate Hoax. A shameful exercise in attempting to excuse Clinton's defeat by Trump, and a precursor to the carnage in Ukraine. The Greyzone, and the Youtube Channel "Judging Freedom" have both covered this Hoax, but
mainstream media has not adequately corrected the record.
Is it true that the half life or the spent fuel is 600000 years?
it its a 10th of that it seems that alone would make it infeasible...
Watching RFKjr's presentations shortly after he announced his candidacy, he made interesting comments about nuclear energy, No insurance company will underwrite any project that could unleash damage that occurred in Japan or Russia.
Nuclear power is to sustainable power, as marching music is to music. Pretty remnarkable that the fairly windy area where i live has so few wind turbines. Solar is not reasonable in its ultimate cost for an individual home. Perhaps solar is good for people with the means, or a long period in which to finance its cost. The latter should not be the case. Scamming people by saying that the cost of solar panel installation will be covered, or underwritten, when the actual cost is substantial. Fusion nuclear reactors are the stuff of fantasy. The techology does not exist for fusion reactors, or is it likely to exist for a very long time, if ever. Nuclear power is inherently dangerous to all species.
Part of nuclear's false promise is that we won't have to change or even question fundamentally unsustainable energy and resource use rates in the global north.