Alexander DeVolpi, Ph.D. Physicist: Attending graduate school under the GI Bill, I became a PhD physicist, entering the esoteric domains of nuclear reactors and weapons — and later arms control and treaty verification. With pockets of famine, civil injustice, wars of liberation, suicidal ideologies, natural disasters, other global instabilities — who needs a return to Cold War brinkmanship? Decisionmakers, be cautious! Maybe these recollections will demonstrate how difficult it was to contain the nuclear-arms race as it grew more alarming, more expensive, and more consequential.
Charles Sanders, Ph.D. radiobiologist: Dr. Sanders’ book deals primarily with health issues: leukemia as well as cancer of the breast, lung, liver, and central nervous system; birth defects; the immune system; inflammatory diseases; and longevity (one of several studies that he cites shows an increased average lifespan of 10.4 years among Americans). But he also touches on other matters of immense importance, such as the cost to society of dealing with perverse regulations — a cost that could amount to trillions of dollars — and the politicization of science. The LNT camp has been trying to discredit hormesis by stifling debate, rather than by conducting peer-reviewed counter studies.
Rainer Klute, Chairman Nuklearia: Vorsicht, Strahlung! Wie gefaehrlich ist Radioaktivitaet? Strahlung und Kernenergie haben untrennbar miteinander zu tun. Menschen haben Angst vor Strahlung. Also haben Menschen Angst vor Kernenergie. Infomationen gegen die Angst: .. .. .. This is an excellent presentation in German about low dose radiation, the Linear No-Threshold Model, hormesis and nuclear energy. NOTE: Please check the source website for updates to this and other articles: http://nuklearia.de/
James Smith, Professor of Engineering, West Virginia University, Alex Hatch, Mechanical Engineer graduate student WVU: During the next few decades, even marginal efficiency improvements could greatly offset growing overall global energy use. Such improvements could largely eliminate the need to add any new overall energy production capacity. That would allow us to focus on the important development of new energy technologies. By using these efficiency increases, we can expand research and development into next generation high-efficiency systems – including wind, solar, oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear. Using these newly developed technologies could, in turn, lead to more a reliable, lower cost, more sustainable energy future for the USA and world.
John Hinderaker, POWERLINE blog: Minnesota is a poor place for solar power, so its renewable policies have focused on wind. Minnesota has gone whole hog for wind energy, to the tune of approximately $15 billion. It is noteworthy that demand for electricity in Minnesota has been flat for quite a few years, so that $15 billion wasn’t spent to meet demand. Rather, it replaced electricity that already was being produced by coal, nuclear and natural gas plants. Wind energy is intermittent and unreliable; it can only be produced when the wind is blowing within certain parameters, and cannot be stored at scale. It is expensive and inefficient, and therefore patently inferior to nuclear, coal and natural gas-powered electricity, except in one respect–its “greenness.”