Generation Nuclear

Nader-Shellenberger CNN Debate Showcases Generational Divide on Environment

{photo_credit}

The striking generational divide around nuclear within the environmental movement was on full display in last Thursday’s CNN Crossfire debate between Michael Shellenberger (above left) and Ralph Nader (above right). While Nader repeatedly raised safety concerns about nuclear energy, Shellenberger was quick to point out that fear mongering on the part of environmentalists has effectively slowed the growth of nuclear, which has saved 1.8 million lives otherwise lost to dirty fossil fuels. Against Nader’s view that energy efficiency can cut waste and emissions, Shellenberger challenged that strategies from the 1970s no longer hold up, particularly when global energy demand is expected to triple or quadruple by the end of the century. In his view, we will need enormous amounts of zero-carbon energy, not less, and that requires nuclear.

November 12, 2013 | Breakthrough Staff,

The generational divide around nuclear power within the environmental movement got wider last week when environmental leaders from two different generations clashed on CNN’s Crossfire.

Breakthrough Institute’s Michael Shellenberger, president of Oakland-based environmental think tank, Breakthrough Institute, debated legendary consumer and environmental advocate Ralph Nader on November 7.

“I respect Ralph Nader and have always admired him, especially his work in the 1960s for workplace safety, food safety, and car safety,” said Shellenberger in his opening statement. But Shellenberger quickly made it clear that he felt times had changed but the environmental movement hadn’t.

“When you look at what’s happening the world, this is not the early ‘70s anymore,” Shellenberger said. “Back then, nobody was very worried about global warming.”

Nader repeatedly raised safety concerns about nuclear, saying, “I don’t like to play Russian roulette with the American people.” Nader pointed to the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, a nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, as reason to close down today’s nuclear power stations. A nuclear accident could contaminate an area “half the size of Pennsylvania,” Nader said.

Responded Shellenberger: “This fear mongering which you have been doing for 40 years has been effective at halting nuclear to 20 percent of our electricity. That 20 percent saved 1.8 million lives and could have saved millions more,” Shellenberger added, citing a 2013 study by former NASA scientist James Hansen.

When Crossfire host Brian Schweitzer, former Governor of Montana, pressed Shellenberger about the claims made by nuclear boosters that there would be a meltdown, Shellenberger, 42, said, “I was eight years old when Three Mile Island happened,” adding, “I shouldn’t be held responsible for whatever claims were being made when I was a baby.”

The debate was a microcosm of a larger debate that’s been happening around the pro-nuclear documentary film Pandora’s Promise, which aired shortly after the Crossfire debate.

Shellenberger referenced an open letter that Hansen and three other prominent climate scientists had sent earlier in the week to environmental leaders, calling on them to reverse their opposition to nuclear energy. “You should consider yourself a recipient of that letter, too,” Shellenberger said while smiling to Nader.

Nader argued that nuclear was unnecessary. “The whole point is that we don’t need nuclear energy,” said Nader. And later, “Start with efficiency and put aside everything else. We are very wasteful.” It was a point Nader came back to throughout the night.

Shellenberger noted that solar provided one-tenth of one percent of America’s electricity last year. “Ralph’s been saying the same thing about solar energy and energy efficiency since the 1970s.” Shellenberger noted that the economy has become more energy efficient even as it has demanded more energy.

After Nader mentioned conservation and efficiency as obviating the need for nuclear, Shellenberger argued back, “What are you going to do, Ralph? Tell the 1.3 billion who burn wood and dung that they need to become more energy efficient? They need base load, grid electricity. And it’s either going to come from fossil fuels or nuclear.”

The comment underscored the generational divide. Nader came of age in a period of US hegemony and Cold War jitters; Shellenberger came of age in a time concerned about rapid energy growth and global warming.

Energy consumption is expected to “triple or quadruple by the end of the century,” said Shellenberger. To address the twin challenge of rising energy demand and global warming, we will need enormous amounts of zero-carbon energy, not less, and that requires nuclear.

Watch the full debate at the Crossfire blog.


Comments

  • Many (most) old people of the baby boom generation are fixed in their ways of seeing and thinking about the world.  To many of my generation nuclear power will always be tied to nuclear weapons.  The threat of radioactive contamination from bomb testing instilled distrust in government and industry.  Layer this with the anti-war movement of the Indochina War and the Earth Day movement of 1970 and it is no wonder that the baby boomers would hold a grudge against the nuclear power industry.  Nobody outside of the oil drilling industry thought about declining production rates for domestic oil or gas and fuel efficiency did not register on people’s radar screen until the O.P.E.C. oil embargoes of the 1970’s. At this time, the rise in atmospheric CO2 was barely written about in academic research papers.  Baby boomers were a generation born at a time without Overview which is the ability to think of the planet as a connected whole (best viewed from space)(Youtube this).  The younger generations have lived with Overview their whole lives.  I find this a trait that endears hopefulness in me for them. 
    The anti-nuke boomers have been very effective in holding down nuclear power growth with disinformation (million to die from cancer at Chernobyl and thousands to die because of Three Mile Island accident).  The worst forms of disinformation are writers like Harvey Wasserman (who claims to have co-cioned the chant “No-Nukes!” in the early 70’s) in recent articles he claimed that tuna caught off the coast of California is contaminated with Fukushima generated radioactive particles.  Fear sells. 
    The younger generations however are seeing through the disinformation and have a better grasp of the current world situation.  The emerging economies have an even better grasp of the current situation.  They also generate more engineers to build their new economies. This is good. Look at where new reactors are being built and look to where innovative new designs are getting ready for testing.  The young economies in the developing countries will be the leaders of the clean energy future.  They are starting their telecommunication networks with cell towers and smart phones.  They are going from dung fire cooking to parabolic solar cook stoves and LED light bulbs powered by solar cells they solder themselves so their kids can study at night. I have great hope.
    The anti-nuclear environmental groups have mislead the developed world.  They knew better but they had a point to prove.  I’m glad that countries like France and provinces like Ontario have pursued nuclear power, they are leaders in the developed world.  In the 1960’s Glen Seaborg, head of the old Atomic Energy Commission predicted the end of Coal burning for electrical generation by the year 2000.  Folks at that time never imagined that the advances reactors in development and testing at that time would not be built.  As Bill Gates said in a resent TED talk “Nuclear innovation stopped in the 1970’s”.  I’m happy to see a new generation dusting off some of the innovative drive of “The First Nuclear Era” and applying science and engineering to take us into the Second Nuclear Age.  I only wish Alvine Weinburg could have lived to see it.

    By Scott Medwid on 2013 11 12

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


    • Books to read:
      “The First Nuclear Era- the life and times of a technological fixer”
      by Alvin Weinberg
      “Thorium- energy cheaper than coal” Robert Hargraves
      Films:
      “Switch- the future of energy” a film by Dr. Scott Tinker. Nine ways we power the world. great web site too.
      “Thorium Remix 2011” on youtube and “TH Thorium” found at http://www.Thoriumremix2013/Th/ (a film in process)
      “The Good Reactor” coming out soon.

      By Scott Medwid on 2013 11 15

      Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • Ummm Fukushima?

    By nbs on 2013 11 12

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


    • Fukushima complex survived the earthquake as did all of Japan’s reactors.  Fukushima will be cleaned up from the tsunami damage and Tepco and other operators got a lesson on how it’s not prudent to ignore your engineers recommendations to improve safety margins.  Thousands die in the US from coal plant emissions each year and this is when the plants are running as per regulation.  Nuclear power is held to a much higher standard than fossil fuel burners on out of stack radioactive particles released.  If standards were the same I think coal and gas would be shut down on radiation released alone.

      By Scott Medwid on 2013 11 13

      Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


    • How many people did Fukushima kill?

      Hint: zero.

      Now, some people have attempted to estimate future cancer deaths from the accident.  One such estimate was 130 people (over a lifetime), assuming the linear no-threshold model for radiation-induced cancer.  In contrast, the earthquake and tsunami killed around 18,000 people.  Fukushima was at most a tiny part of the overall disaster.  Yes, 130 people isn’t nothing, but the earthquake itself was a major natural disaster, and these things happen in such disasters; anyway, way more people than that 130 die mining coal.

      By cs30109 on 2013 11 15

      Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


    • Fear and paranoia are the two most common forms of radiation sickness.

      You need to study what actually resulted from the meltdowns, rather than buy into the fear-mongering of Harvey Wasserman, Helen Caldicott, et al.

      No one died from the radiation release, and UNSCEAR has determined that it’s likely no one ever will.

      (By the way, no one died from Three Mile Island, either.)

      The people who died from the Fuku meltdowns were 56 sick, elderly, and disabled who perished from the panicked and largely unnecessary evacuation. And subsequently, the 1,000 suicides among the long-term evacuees—most of whom should have never been evacuated, or should have been allowed to return home shortly after the meltdowns. Japan way, WAY overdid the evac thing.

      The Über-hyped Fuku radioactive contamination washing up on CA shores is a big nothing sandwich.

      The radioactive spill from the damaged reactors is strictly a local contamination event. A few thousand gallons of contaminated Fuku water isn’t going to make the 25 quadrillion gallons of Pacific seawater glow in the dark. Take a breath.

      Babies in the Northwest US did NOT succumb to Fuku radioactive clouds.

      The debunk list goes on and on.

      And on.

      By Mike Conley on 2015 01 17

      Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • The mean point should be that Nader has effectively poisoned the United State, as his obsession about nuclear resulted in him not giving a damn about the dozens of times more damaging coal plants that were installed as a result of his fight against nuclear.

    He’s talking about a nuclear accident contaminating half the size of Pennsylvania, but he has contaminated much more than that by helping coal prosper. After the massive Kingston coal ash spill a few years ago, we know have a new coal slurry spill in the Athabasca River :
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Massive+coal+mine+leak+damaged+fisheries+habitat/9145680/story.html

    Water contaminated by coal ash violates federal drinking water or health standards at at least 197 sites in 37 states :
    http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-14/national/35499874_1_coal-ash-ash-ponds-hazardous-waste

    How long do we have to stand people pontificate about purely theoretical damage from nuclear plant, ignoring all science establishing that at low doses the risk is very low, and may well be actually inexistent, whilst turning a blind eye to the fact their position results in direct damage elsewhere.

    By jmdesp on 2013 11 13

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • This is spot-on, even in the UK. Something about growing up under the fear of the bomb made the older generation fearful of nuclear, while climate change has made many people under 30 pro-nuclear.

    By Janet Strickland on 2013 11 13

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • What is the evidence that there is a ‘generational divide’ about nuclear power?  Is there survey data, for example, that shows convincingly that young people and/or young environmentalists are more supportive of nuclear power than old people and/or old environmentalists? If not, ‘generational divide’ and ‘Generation Nuclear,’ as used here, come across as PR only.

    By Jon Isham on 2013 11 13

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


    • Jon, I’m 52. I’ve been around the environmental movement as an activist volunteer since the 70’s.  I have witnessed this generational divide personally.  My old comrades in the Toxics/Environmental Justice Movement (late 80’s, early 90’s) as well as non activist baby boomer Joe and Janes have a long reenforced bias against nuclear power.  Most people my age have not done any homework on the nuts and bolts basic facts on nuclear electric generation.  I find it easier to talk with younger folks because the under 30 crowd did not grow up with the Cold War hanging over their lives.  Younger folks have also grown up with an Idea that climate change and fossil fuel use maybe connected.  Younger folks have also grown up with greater access to information sources.  The ‘generational divide’ is not PR it is my personal observation of many people over several decades.  you don’t need a survey, read some history or better yet quiz people young and old on their attitudes to nuclear. Older dogs can learn new tricks but many older environmentalists I now are more like stubborn old beagles, hard to pull them off of an old trail, possible but hard.

      By Scott Medwid on 2013 11 13

      Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


      • Scott, I’m 53 and I am not averse to nuclear. But I think that evidence trumps personal experience. Where I think Breakthrough errs is to make grandiose claims about what they believe - I give them credit, they stay on message! - without data that back them up. So I beg to differ: surveys do matter. (And yes, I “read history and quiz people, young and old, on their attitudes. In fact, it’s what I do for a living ...  http://sites.middlebury.edu/jisham/

        By Jon Isham on 2013 11 13

        Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


    • According to this gallup poll from 2012, 61% of Americans 50+ are in favor of nuclear power, but only 53% of Americans 18-49 support nuclear. Would be useful to see more age categories and how this compares to other countries.

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/153452/americans-favor-nuclear-power-year-fukushima.aspx

      By Jessica on 2014 08 12

      Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • Nuclear is often confused with renewable because it has zero carbon emissions. However, one of the reasons Cheney/Rumsfeld backed warlords in Somalia is because they knew it would backfire and create an al Qaeda presence that would later be used to justify occupation. Why? because Uranium is there. Another problem is the persistant efforts to find excuses to invest in anything other than solar, wind, and a network of microhydro grid connected generation. The power plant near where I live recently converted from coal to natural gas. This cost $600 million and the NG is transported in. There are companies who are lobbying for a pipeline to connect to the a network about 200 miles from here. That would cost another $600 million. Here we have 1.2 billion that could have been spent on off-shore wind turbines. Then factor in the continued long term cost of having to extract and tranport NG or for that matter uranium. Think of the cost of the wars that will also be fought over uranium. I think that’s a pretty solid point.

    By Keenen Altic on 2013 11 13

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


    • We have the technology and the space to windmills and solar.  They tell us it costs more but they also tell us the cost of building nuclear plants has gone way up.  We should be putting wind turbines atop many structures that support power lines.  That has to bring the cost down as you don’t need to lease land or dig trenches for the power lines.  Many highways could be lined with solar panels, once these generators would be in easy reach of existing power lines.

      By David Groh on 2013 11 15

      Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


      • Wind is getting more concentrated deployment. Ontario has been installing a lot of towers during the last few years.  Some folks living near the wind farms are not happy about the new neighbors. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJgYZfX4lLc
        it runs for about 25 minutes and has some beautiful shots of wind turbines and the Bruce nuclear reactor power station around 10 min.

        By Scott Medwid on 2013 11 15

        Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • This reads like one in the many new pro-nuclear propaganda pieces.

    By Bunny Zero on 2013 11 13

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • Yeah, and in the meantime let’s go fishing in beautiful Fukushima.

    Let the nuke companies get private insurance rather than the promise of government bailouts. Let them shell out the full costs of building, cleanup and disposal of spent fuel. That will do the trick.

    By Cole on 2013 11 14

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


    • Yep.

      By Lorin on 2013 11 14

      Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


    • Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars that private commercial nuclear power plant operators have already paid to the federal government for the sole purpose of building a waste repository?  We have the technology…just not the political will.  Perhaps a little research on your part?

      By djpowers on 2013 12 28

      Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


    • The nuclear power operators DO buy private insurance, they are required to by law. They also pay into a waste fund and have to keep their own private decommissioning fund which is audited and monitored by the NRC.

      By Jessica on 2014 08 12

      Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


      • Just because they are spending the money we pay them to address the issue of waste storage, doesn’t mean long-term waste storage actually exists. Money does not = safety. The NRC does not serve the public, they serve the Nuclear Industry (http://www.iecjournal.org/iec/2011/08/pogo-questions-nrc-revolving-door.html). Again spending money doesn’t equal safety. Spending money doesn’t make it safe. Insurance doesn’t make it safe. Another way to look at it would be: wow, we have spent how much money on something that doesn’t exist? Where the heck does all that money go?

        By Lorin on 2014 08 12

        Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • The nuclear risk will only grow with climate instability contributing to more and more severe disasters of nature (I refrain from using the term natural disaster here because I do believe in climate change). In the US our nuke plants are getting older, they are phenomenally expensive to fix and maintain, and WE STILL HAVE NO GOOD SOLUTION FOR DEALING WITH THE RESULTANT RADIOACTIVE WASTE. Right now we just leave it on-site, while continuing to mine uranium to the great detriment of ground and surface waters in the US and abroad. Then there is the whole part about needing an organized and fairly effective society around to manage the waste in perpetuity. In case you haven’t noticed our government is no longer capable of doing anything, and when they do miraculously do something it inevitably is too complicated where it should be simple and too simple where it should have complexity. We can’t take care of our own citizens, the environment or manage a fair economy, so it goes without saying that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is just as bad as the rest of our collapsing government. They have no answer to what we should do with the waste and yet they seem to be in the pocket of the industry, constantly promoting nuclear as a safe energy source, begging the question - WTF? I am 32 and think nukes are to big and complicated for us modern human beings, we can’t even get health care right, reduce the Dead Zone in the Gulf, stop a deepwater oil spill we caused, clean up the Kalamazoo River, get Fukishima to stop poisoning the ocean and the atmosphere, keep New Orleans from washing away (our fault), or get rid of poverty and hunger (despite having the tools and resources right in front of us). We aren’t grown up enough for nuclear, that is clear.

    By Lorin on 2013 11 14

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


    • Take some time and take a look at this even handed film on the major sources of energy generation:
      http://www.switchenergyproject.com/about/the-film#play-video

      The above should be a trailer but you can go to http://www.switch-energy.org and see the website.  Have your library request a copy and host a viewing.
      We all need answers to the questions you pose.  I’m going to leave it at this but I will tell I am very hopeful for a solution to world wide equitable energy production and distribution.  Pop some popcorn and watch Switch, then get a copy of Pandora’s Promise when it comes out in December and watch it again.  Cheers!

      By Scott Medwid on 2013 11 17

      Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • i am a young person and i oppose nuclear energy.

    also, i don’t appreciate breakthrough’s manipulation of data and blaming environmentalists for the poisoning of the fossil fuel industry.

    you don’t speak for me and my generation.

    By chris eaton on 2013 11 14

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • It’s easy to be against something but I have to ask Lorin and Chris, what are you for? Energy demand is projected to rise planet wide in the next few decades.  I you both get your wish and nuclear power is removed from the list of power generators, how do you see the deficit in capacity filled?  How do you make up the Megawatts?  Nuclear is 20% of the mix in the US, how do you both propose to fill the gap? In France, Nuclear produces 80% of electrical generation and the French I read are paying less Euros for their power than the rest of Europe.  Utility scale nuclear electric plants are big, as big as coal or gas plants of similar capacity.  They are complicated yes, however, building and running the machinery is a teachable and learnable skill just like building solar cell arrays or assembling wind turbine towers.  Reactors have been in use since the early 1950’s and the technology has evolved through trial and error sometimes but most often rethinking the problems and engineering solutions.  Read up on reactor operations, you will find that these plants have been run with great safety.  For waste, spent fuel rod assemblies are cooled in pools then put into dry casks, you should read up on how those casks are tested before they are used for storage. Remember this about the waste, we know where it is.  The waste from coal and gas goes up the stack and into the sky then oceans and lakes.  As for containment breaches like Fukushima where nuclear elements and compounds got loose, they tell you where they are.  The radiation they emit are always saying “WE’RE HERE, WE’RE HERE, WE’RE HEAR!”  We know how to find them and we we know how to shield ourselves from exposure and we know how to collect and store them.  They are being filtered and collected right now.  Let’s not forget Japan had a massive tsunami hit and wash out cities, towns, harbors airports and industrial zones.  Thousands of people we’re killed, thousands are still missing.  The world news media has concentrated on the reactor clean up.  I encourage you both to look over the IAEA.org site and check out the reports on what is being done and what the heath risks are. 
    Now Chris, what data is Breakthough.org manipulating?  What have you found that is not supported by a study of the source data?  I’m interested is seeing you produce supporting evidence of your claim what did they get wrong? Oh and show your math please.

    By Scott Medwid on 2013 11 14

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • When Brian Schwietzer was Gov. of Montana he was pushing for “clean coal” (very clean coal).  I wonder where he is with that Idea today?  If it is possible why don’t we do it?  My guess is that it costs too much.  Just like they tell us that wind and solar cost too much.  We do not price the cost of illness and environmental damage into the cost of fossil fuels.  We do not put a price on the 1.8million deaths caused by fossil fuels.  I say solar and wind and biogas and other renewables do NOT cost too much (pretty cheap actually).

    By David Groh on 2013 11 15

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • I’m glad you asked. I believe that we are approaching a number of limits in our finite environment. Number one of course is overpopulation, which something that I think will change out of necessity, especially if our food systems experience serious disruption and coastal populations are hit hard by climate change effects. Number two is sustainability of our water and air, which are both in big trouble from myriad impacts. Uranium mining is a part of the nuclear process and it poses nearly impossible mitigation challenges right now, in order to protect water resources. Our air can become seriously contaminated with radiation, and is, thanks in large part to radioactive emissions from coal plants. We have a standing problem with radioactive waste in the US and all of the other places with nuclear technology. It is insanely expensive to clean up and can have a massive human health impact that can span across generations. We can and have rendered portions of our plant uninhabitable thanks to disasters like Fukishima and Chernobyl and intentional efforts like testing at Bikini Atoll.    Now we see that two years after the Fukishima disaster the situation is still and possibly more out of control than ever. We create disasters we can’t handle and we pay dearly for it, time and again. Now I am sure that the manufacture of solar panels, tidal kites, wind turbines, insulation, energy efficient homes and appliances, sterling reflector field engines, etc… will have some impact on the environment, just as recycling does. But this is a better model, a model that does not mount up huge risks just over our heads waiting to crash down when we inevitably screw up, frequently with the help of a natural disaster. We need redundant systems combining a multitude of energy generation sources, high efficiency (the cheapest energy in the world), and reduced risks which are incredibly expensive.

    By Lorin Crandall on 2013 11 15

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • Anybody notice that Scott Medwid posted 8 of 24 comments.  Anybody wanna guess who pays him?

    By Anthony on 2013 11 15

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


    • OMG Anthony, I Just read your note to my wife and daughter, we are LOL!!!
      My wife just said “I wish someone would pay you for all the research and books and conferences you go to. 
      Dude, I’m a nerd that never had cable TV in my house.  I’m 52.  I was so against nuclear power 30 years ago. I did press for Greenpeace when they would bring their ships (Beluga and Moby Dick) into Cleveland on Lake Erie.  My wife and I did a SELF financed tour of U.K. Toxic Waste incinerators for Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace London (1990).  Greenpeace did swing some financing our way to build a bill board one time In Nova Ohio, they also sent an artist and carpenter from the old Jackson Street office in Chicago for that gig.  But no, I read technical reports for fun and pop into university libraries to research stuff that interests me.  I got into bio fuels a few years ago an have operated diesels with straight veggie oil two tank systems in summer and Ohio winters.  I’m getting ready to convert my 5th diesel mercedes this winter (yes they emit carbon but it’s not fossil carbon).  I ride a bike to the office most days.  I study widely on energy generation.  I post here and at other forums because nuclear power I have come to learn, is a lot safer than I was lead to believe years ago.  I also know people that have worked with reactors in existing power generation plants, research facilities and ship propulsion reactors for the US Navy.  People read Wikipedia articles and they think they’ve learned something (and they do don’t get me wrong). I read the article like a cliff notes booklet then dive into the links and sources at the bottom of the page.  I work at my job, spend time with my family who are all taking classes at college and I read tech books and reference books and post comments on blogs that interest me when I’m not cutting and splitting firewood for next winter or planning the next seasons garden.  If I am incorrect about a fact or data point I post, I like to know ASAP so I can modify my thinking.  No dogma here baby, no pay check either!  But energy and how we humans use it is the most important question of our era.  I do this because having nuclear power in the mix for energy generation is critical to having a good planet for my great great grand kid to raise their children in.  That Anthony will be my pay check, and I’m paying it forward.  Cheers to anyone board enough to be reading this! I’m logging off, think I’ll grab Wendy Northcutt’s “Darwin Awards” and read for a bit. Adios!

      By Scott Medwid on 2013 11 17

      Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • Google ‘Scott Medwid Nuclear’ and see how much he’s been spreading the gospel.

    By Anthony on 2013 11 15

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • By Lorin on 2013 11 16

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • 3d animation software can be used for compositing modeling complete attribute that is set in highly extensible production platform the program, mimic,. The software provides the effects toolset which increase the productivity for modeling, shader texturing and creation to high end character

    By celinarpinkston on 2017 02 17

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply

Submit a comment