Sidney Bernsen, Ph.D., Former Chief Nuclear Engineer for Bechtel Power Corporation: I read the presentation Ted Rockwell gave at the 33 Annual WNA Conference in London and commend him for a clear and rational argument for promoting Nuclear Power as the preeminent solution to our energy future - not CO2 sequestration, not Solar, not windmills. However, as has been the case time and time again we keep finding ways to shoot ourselves in the foot whenever great opportunities emerge. There clearly is a high risk that the unreasonably high projected costs of current nuclear power plant designs could prevent them from obtaining the financing needed to license and build them. While most successful industries continue to provide products at continually reduced cost or products with significantly more useful features at similar costs, the nuclear power industry is moving in reverse.
Ed Berry, Physicist and Patric Moore, Environmentalist: They both consider that CO2 from human emissions is not causing serious man-made global warming, serious other climate change effects, nor serious rise in ocean levels. In this discussion, they debate which view, logic, reasons are correct for the conclusion that they share about CO2 from human emissions.
Barry Brook, Faculty of Science, Engineering & Technology, U. of Tasmania, Australia & Staffan Qvist, Dept. of Physics and Astrophysics, Uppsala University, Sweden: This documents the excellent French and Swedish nuclear power plant construction programs in the 1960s to 1990s. It then extrapolates to a prediction that the whole world could be on 100 % nuclear power within 25 - 34 years. This must assume that the rest of the world has similar government support and cooperation, similar stable, honest leadership, sound economies, industrial capabilities, education systems, etc. and that the construction companies and nuclear fuel demands for France and Sweden can be quickly increased to those of the whole world. It assumes that the world will use the same nuclear technology as the Swedish and French programs of the 1970s to 90s. In reality, it may take several hundred years to replace 50% of fossil fuels with advanced nuclear technologies that still need development and testing.
Jay Lehr, Ph.D. Science Director at The Heartland Institute: New research shows people exposed to low-doses of radiation, contrary to the assumptions behind the regulatory standards of U.S. agencies, are not at increased risk of developing cancer. Scientific and regulatory bodies currently estimate the risk of low doses by extrapolating directly (linearly) from the risk known to exist from high doses. They assume there is no threshold of exposure to radiation below which cancer might not be caused and that a low dose of radiation might have a protective effect called hormesis.