Home | About | Donate

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Remembering the Power of Peace


Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Remembering the Power of Peace

Kumi Naidoo

More than most, Japan is a nation whose modern history is tragically linked to the quest to use and tame nuclear power. This nuclear history is not noteworthy for its successes, but for how it reflects humanity’s capacity for destruction – and peace.


Albert Einstien's "The World As I See It" is a great read. I think I'll reread it today in memory of this tragic point in time.


I just read for the first time recently "Cat's Cradle" by Kurt Vonnegut. The denouement in that fiction is reminiscent of the who knew? mentality of the earthquake/tsunami/reactor disaster.


Nuclear bombs and peaceful nuclear reactors for energy production have nothing to do with each other - as different at their chemical analogues firewood versus TNT used in conventional military bombs. Therefore, I find the brandishing of the horrors of the nuclear bomb to attack peaceful nuclear energy to be offensively cynical, or based on deep technological ignorance.

Can someone produce a credible report that solar and wind can completely replace all fossil energy plus nuclear? I have not seen any. However, have been following the most vigorous effort to do this to date - Germanys Energiewende program. With all their nuclear electricity production shut down and wind development everywhere and solar panels on practically every roof, Germany is burning more coal than ever - and also importing nuclear electricity from France as well.

Nuclear power, using the new intrinsically safe 3rd generation reactors, and crash development of future technologies including fusion, needs to be, along with wind/solar/hydro part of a carbon-free energy world.


Thank your for your moral courage and brave efforts, Mr. Naidoo.

The Pacific has been very active--cyclone wise--this year, and there currently is a monster storm that may turn and hit parts of Japan.

Engineers may be geniuses but too many get locked into the blueprint specifics and leave Mother Nature (and lately, She is angry!) out of the calculus.

That's why the already compromised Fukushima plant is still incredibly vulnerable to high winds and wave action. This is radioactive scar tissue to the entire world and all of the world's interconnected oceans: the marine sanctuaries that support life.


Forum engineer who just so happens to be STATIONED here on a daily basis... guess it's the Nuclear Regulatory Commission picking up your tab. Perhaps you might ask one of your bosses why it is that all of the detritus--in the form of exposed rods and such--from the Western world's 100+ nuclear power plants can be so efficiently "recycled" into weapons; and that these plants provide a repository for WASTE that no sane community wants to "host." Plant to weapons-weapons to nuke plants: a modern 21st century radioactive version of playing "Hot potato."

There is NOTHING safe about producing radioactive materials when earthquakes, droughts, tsunamis, sunspot activity and all sorts of climate/weather anomalies compromise the alleged safety of these ridiculous plants.

THAT is a National security issue... but it's much more profitable for imbeciles in uniform to practice YOY while they play "target practice" aiming at all those Middle Eastern Arabs conveniently branded "terrorists."


What sort of weapons are you referring to here?


You have more than twice the number of posts in this forum than I do. So who is the one camped out here?


All of them. Nuclear weapons put in people's water glasses and shortly they are dead. DU rounds contaminate countries. There's big nukes on ICBMs, in submarines, on board planes, cruise missiles, suitcases and probably pocket watches. There is even a dial-a-megaton one. It all makes a great weapon as it kills all life. That is after all why we created the nuclear killer. There is no containment in this technology.


Peaceful? Your problem is


Enriching uranium creates depleted uranium. They are two sides of the same process. Depleted uranium is natural uranium that has had some U-235 removed from it, and enriched uranium is natural uranium which has had some U-235 added to it. This is where depleted uranium rounds come from. The irradiated spent fuel which SR was talking about does have a lot of U-238, but also a lot of undesirable and highly radioactive contaminants, so it cannot be "efficiently recycled" into DU ammunition. It would be possible to do so in theory, but it would be costly and more technically challenging than obtaining DU from natural uranium. It would also be contaminated with some U-236, which would make it very obvious where it came from.

Likewise for making nuclear bombs from spent fuel. The amount of U-235 remaining in spent fuel is small, and it too would be contaminated with U-236, so again, natural uranium would be a far better source of U-235. Spent fuel also contains some Pu-239, but it too is heavily contaminated (with Pu-240), which makes it worthless for bombs. Out of the tens of thousands of nuclear bombs which have ever been made, zero have been made from spent fuel. The Brits tried to make an experimental bomb from reactor fuel by pulling it of their Magnox reactors early, long before it could actually become spent, and it did produce an explosion, but the cost involved and the poor performance of the device convinced them the standard approach of toasting U-238 in bomb-making reactors which were purpose built for that task was the far superior route.

So the question remains, what sort of weapons can be made efficiently from spent fuel? Or failing that, what weapons have ever been made from spent fuel?


Oh yeah. I really dislike to be a spoiler, but in my world the sky is blue. I don't know how Greenpeace can claim to be successful at promoting peace, ending nuclear plants disasters, forcing information and facts on spills and nuclear accidents, and talking about peace as the end of human self destruction? Before Greenpeace can talk about peace, it has to solve its own, huge, conflicts of interests. Too much corruption prevents true climate change from happening. The largest NGOs are a plain and simple industry, preying on the wish of gullible activists and their hopes for a better world. Activists, you are essentially a commodity. Argue with us that this is not true? There are 1.5million NGOs in the USA alone and the plain and simple message that the entire world wants renewables is not even being heard.