(True, the point is debatable in the case of coffee makers. But still.)
I don't think people necessarily want access to technical papers.
My guess is what they want is reassurance that the industry is being run by reliable professionals, that accidents will be minimal and that procedures are in place to handle them, and that dangerous waste is contained safely and is unlikely to leak or be stolen.
Corporate openness, technical openness and security transparency are all separate issues.
If the industry is going to be trusted it has to have a solid record on all three counts. So far that doesn't seem to have been the pattern the industry aspires to, never mind operates by.
Fertilizer. Cars. Knives (including your bread knife, but that won't matter as there won't be any bread anyway (no fertilizer)). And so on.
Ban this, ban that.
What is needed is proper cost benefit analysis. And with that both bread knives and nuclear reactors come off looking good. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
won't be any bread anyway (no fertilizer)
As usual I'm not going to make suggestions here, but I can think a few delivery methods which would do the job quite effectively.
It's a question of scale and accessibility, not just a theoretical binary 'might be.'
But I'll say again - there are different kinds of secrecy and security being discussed here as if they're identical.
They're not. There's no paradox between industry-wide openness and industry-wide security - or at least there shouldn't be. The information needed to reassure everyone that the industry is being run in a sane way is completely different to the information that terrorists might want to use.
One is about clarity of practice and professional emergency response. The other is very much about plant specifics.
So it's a useful data point that the two are being conflated by the industry itself, for its own benefit. There's no reason why they should be, and the fact that they are suggests that the industry is either not being run competently, or isn't used to be being completely truthful - or both.
The difference is that nuke waste could be used to kill a lot of people quite easily, with much more of an impact than a fertiliser bomb would.
Furthermore, the chemical explosives in your dirty bomb is bound to kill more people than the spent fuel itself.
Spread it into the water mains? Use ricin instead, or botulinium, dioxines, lead, or just the ordinary damn flu.
Bound to kill thousand of pensioners.
Spent fuel is hard to get, hard to deal with and strictly supervised. You can du much more damage with toxic chemicals or just plain fertiliser. Much easier to get and make too. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
your intellectual position on this seems clear to my perception, you are quick to jump on projections.
terrorism is being used as a bogeyman by forces you recognise as malign, do you really believe de and dodo are modelling on them?
de is anti nukes, so jerome paints her as a pastoralist (his projection, rebutted as inaccurate), and you affect indecision and rational enquiry, while using the same kind of logic-twist as the right do to attack de and dodo more than you do those advocating nukes, like starvid.
thank pasta your sniping looks pretty ineffectual against facts, laid out so generously by de anander in this case, and many others.
do you like to be contrary for kicks, perhaps?
or do you really think the arguments raised by de and dodo don't deserve better than straw man talking points?
of course anti nuke activists will use the terrorism angle to help make their point, but it's not because they want to...it's to reflect that the same authoritarian structures are whipping the public's fear levels and then trying to push nukes.
it's the contradiction in the latter's logic that's startling, and should be a tip-off.
very similar to how iran shouldn't have nuke power plants, but others in the area can have them and n-weapons too..
either they're safe (enough) or they're going to cause more problems, and playing 'fair and balanced' trying to shoot holes in the arguments of those who have, imo, a deep commitment to doing better with respect to the earth, society, and its relationship to energy, seems a waste of such a keen intellect as yours.
another twisting strawman argument to bring in franco and hitler, btw. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
