Several claims from Robin don't hold up

Several claims from Robin don't hold up

Johan Rubin continues his series of unsubstantiated claims, which he calls “the problematic aspects of nuclear energy.” His colorful term “nuclear cream” or “lobbyist” is on rocky ground as it is It's easy to refuteBut it's his eerily casual handling of information that worries me.

Atomkremeriet: Nuclear power plant on the verge of?

I have already commented on his credibility before, but when it comes to my credibility, he once again shows a lack of understanding.

In Norway, there is an idea that nuclear energy equals nuclear physics. The truth is that the nuclear physics part of nuclear energy is small but important. It's my own field of study and it's one of the biggest – mechanical engineering, or mechanical engineering in Norwegian.

It includes, among others, thermodynamics, welding technology, materials technology, manufacturing, fluid mechanics, statistics and dynamics. Then we have some common areas across the other major 'engineering' disciplines in nuclear power (civil engineering, electrical and chemistry), such as project management, safety management and quality management.

As for the latter, it is the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) that sets the quality standard on which nuclear energy is based – NQA-1 (Nuclear Quality Assurance).

The first article from the NuProShip project I am leading will be published in August ASME 31st International Conference on Nuclear Engineeringand the other on IAEA Conference (SMR)..

In the project, we have a collaboration with the former chief scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory & Francesco Veneri – Dean and Professor of Nuclear Engineering at Berkeley Per Peterson, with more. Professor Peterson and I are both mechanical engineering majors. On June 3, they will come with many heavyweights to Ålesund to participate in the conference we are organizing.

The end of his streak is symptomatic as he mixes a number of relationships into the soup. First of all, plutonium is radioactive – not toxic. No human died Acute plutonium poisoning. In contrast, plutonium is highly radioactive and dangerous if handled incorrectly.

Warning from nuclear weapons dealers or sensationalist journalism?

What Rubin is probably thinking about is polonium, and this is one of them The most toxic substances to humanity Find out if you get it in your body. The only reactor technology that produces polonium is lead-bismuth reactors, and the idea of ​​building such reactors in Norway has not been proposed or included in the NuProShip project.

Plutonium is also difficult for the vast majority of countries to handle, but it is a very good fuel. However, the vast majority of what comes from nuclear energy is uranium, not uranium Putonium (about 1%). In the USA, 500 tons of nuclear weapons have been converted into enough nuclear power since the 1990s through the megaton to megawatt nuclear power generation program. 10% of US energy needs over 20 yearsAnd France Recycles used fuel Widely.

This is not discontent or opinion. They are just facts.

The nuclear club of gullible mayors

Nuclear lobbyists who are never wrong?

Participate in the discussion at Sunnmørsposten

See also  app, social media | The "All" app talks about: - Show my life spontaneously
Hanisi Anenih

Hanisi Anenih

"Web specialist. Lifelong zombie maven. Coffee ninja. Hipster-friendly analyst."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *