i just returned from dc where i attended the conference put on by the george washington university in conjunction with the washington post.

this post is not going to be the answer to a technophiles dream as i really heard nothing new; nothing that has not been addressed on this forum ad nauseum.

what i did notice and what i found particularly disheartening was the attitudes of the speakers for both the nrc and nei... with particular emphasis on the representative from the nrc.

the man, representing the nrc, sat, the entire time, with arms crossed tightly across his chest and maintained a perpetual scowl throughout the entire two hours. he, at one point during the question and answer period, referred to the other panelists, excluding, of course, the speaker from the nei, as ... the competition.

his entire presentation and delivery was executed in a most defensive fashion, he did not have good answers for the hard questions put forth by dr. gordon, and appeared, at times, to be visibly recalcitrant.

the other panelists, on the other hand, presented their positions, and the facts and logic they used to reach these conclusions, in a most civilized and positive fashion, harboring, at least ostensibly, no ill will towards the other participants.

the speaker representing the nei was more of a pr type than the gentleman from the nrc, his presentation, while offering nothing new, was more jocular and evenhanded... although, as the time wore on, his temperment seemed to be reaching the end of his tolerance and his more pleasant demeanor was decidedly slipping slowly from his grasp.

i learned more from watching this interaction, in a public forum, than i ever would have reading a transcript of same.

whereas, the *competition* that jose calvo[nrc] referred to were the other panelists representing the nirs and the ucs, it still struck me as odd that the nrc would view them in this light. theoretically the nrc is directly responsible for the 'safe' fuctioning of the nuclear plants, and should, as logic would dictate, be open to any and all information that would shed light on the inability of the nuclear plants to operate in a less than 100% safety mode... seems not to be the case.

it will take an 'incident' that cannot be swept under the rug, or explained away as something other than what it is, before the nrc or the nei will admit that the nukes should be turned off for the rollover.

i also find it odd that their stance that the grid must maintain its integrity in order for the nuclear plants to function in a safe and stable mode would have them allow the preponderance of nuclear facilities to be built in the northeastern quadrant of this country... such a preponderance, that, if the grid cannot maintain its stability, the nukes cannot be taken down as there would not be adequate generating capacity to pick up the slack.

it would appear the the nei and the nrc are 'joined at the hip.' i really feel that there is no one 'out there' looking over the nuclear industry that does not have a 'jaundiced' eye. this is truly a sad state of affairs. these are not popsicle stands we are talking about, these are large nuclear facilities capable of wreaking havoc on both the people, the environment, and the economy of our nation.

how we ever allowed it to get to this point... i will never understand.

*never in human history have so many humans blindly trusted that so many other humans won't screw up.*

dr.ed yardeni

-- Anonymous, August 02, 1999