At 01:04 PM 6/25/2006, Michael Tobis wrote: >I only poked this wasps' nest because I find it odd that nuclear isn't >even mentioned by Gore. >I would like to see this topic discussed more competently than it is. >Of course, in climate we have set a very high standard with IPCC WGI. >Despite the rather clueleass attacks on that body by some in the >climate change denial camp, WGI reposts really do weigh all the >evidence competently and dispassionately.
No, there is nothing like IPCC for nuclear issues, and I don't expect that there will be. There is an important difference between the climate change issue and the nuclear issue. If scientists study climate change and conclude there is a problem and that humans are an important cause of it, it's not a problem that they specifically created - at least not any more than it was created by everybody else. It's quite different with nuclear power. If those working in the nuclear industry were to weigh all the evidence competently and dispassionately and conclude there are problems, then it would be problems that they themselves specifically created. They would be saying, oops, nuclear electricity didn't turn out to be "too cheap to meter," the radiation emissions from the nuclear industry really aren't harmless after all, etc. Would they then all resign from their positions and find a new career? It just isn't going to happen. However, if you do just a little digging, you can indeed find abundant reliable information on the nuclear issue. (I will include some links below to get you started.) Some of this comes from people who were involved in the nuclear industry and began to speak honestly about the problems they saw. Gofman is an example of such a person and there are others. E.g., down through the years there have been nuclear engineers who have resigned their positions to speak out about the problems. >Jerry Mander (a romantic-green author, in the category of James >Kunstler, Bill McKibben, Neil Postman) points out that the people who >know the most about a technology are those who developed it and >advocate it. People who are suspicious of a technology invariably >start out with less information. The playing field is therefore tilted >in favor of advocates of a technology, who have a head start. To some extent I would disagree with Jerry Mander on this. When I first started actively opposing nuclear power, I thought that it would be hopeless trying to debate with the nuclear proponents due to their much greater knowledge of the subject. However, I soon found that that was not the case. They have the sound bites and talking points, and they might have some extensive knowledge in their particular area of work. However, many of them are actually quite ill-informed on the bigger overall issues. Of course the playing field is tilted in their favor due to the almost total ignorance of the nuclear issue on the part of most people in the media. >Sure, and if you found yourself the same distance from the equivalent >amount of coal, you would be crushed under a mountain of filthy black >rock. So? This is a silly romantic argument appealing to emotions and >not logic. The describned event is no more likely than that you would >find yourself in the steam chamber of a coal plant. It should be obvious that my point was that nuclear waste cannot simply be buried like you send off your household garbage to go to the landfill. And, it is silly for you to imply that my opposition to nuclear power is based simply on romantic emotional fear and not logic. I doubt that it would be worthwhile to have a continuing debate about nuclear power on this list. I'm sure I'm not going to change anybody's mind about it. But, I encourage you to be discerning and not accept the statements of the nuclear proponents at face value. The only way you will determine what is really going on is to do your own investigation and make your own conclusions based on the evidence you find. >This looks legitimate but unproven at the time of the study: > >http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/NEJM.html > >No reference to follow-ups is given that I could see. The article at the link you referenced is discussing the 1990 BEIR V report. A year ago BEIR VII was released. (BEIR VI was on the subject of radon exposure.) Here's the BEIR VII news release: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11340 Here's the Report in Brief: http://www.nap.edu/reportbrief/11340/11340rb.pdf Here's the Executive Summary: http://newton.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11340 As noted in the article you referenced, in general each new "official" estimate of the radiation risk has included an increase in the risk. I could not find any clear statement of how the risk estimates changed from BEIR V to BEIR VII. There was just a vague statement that "In general the magnitude of estimated risks for total cancer mortality or leukemia has not changed greatly from estimates in past reports such as BEIR V and recent reports of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation and the International Commission on Radiological Protection." I found one article on the web that mentioned that BEIR VII has increased risk estimates by about a third, but I'm not sure about the credibility of that source. Also, recall that Gofman's 1996 Chernobyl article says that the United Nations and British radiation committees had at that time reached conclusions nearly identical with his. However, I did notice what appears to be one significant change. BEIR V apparently suggests that there might be a threshold dose below which there is no harmful effect. BEIR VII clearly states there is no evidence for a threshold. If we use the BEIR V risk figures and the BEIR VII "no threshold," then rather than Gofman's estimate of 400-500,000 deaths from Chernobyl we would have an estimate of about 100,000. This is much greater than the "less than a hundred" figure that is claimed by many nuclear proponents, which I consider to be a gross misrepresentation. Also, note that both BEIR V and BEIR VII say that there is no evidence for hormesis, the hypothesis that a little radiation is good for you (sounds a lot like "CO2 is good for you"). Despite these statement from BEIR V and VII, many nuclear proponents continue to claim there is a safe threshold and that hormesis is valid. These are additional common misrepresentations from nuclear proponents. It would be useful for people to learn more about how these radiation risk estimate studies have operated. Here's one discusion: Controversial History of Radiation Epidemiology and Risk Estimation http://www.nirs.org/mononline/appendixhisbeirletter1.htm Here's another one, which is from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Lowering the Bar http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj02moore Of course, I suppose all this is irrelevant if you believe that the nuclear industry will now start containing all the radiation from all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle. Based on past experience, I doubt that they will do that. Here's some references to get you started on your own investigation of the nuclear issue. First is information on a relatively recent book: Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Changehttp://www.ieer.org/reports/insurmountablerisks/ I haven't read the book, but the 32-page executive summary is available at a link on this page. This includes a reasonably good discussion of safety issues, including the nuclear waste problem. Of course, this is from one of those pesky anti-nuclear advocates. However, it includes references to a number of "official" sources that you can consult. The above report makes a number of comments on the 2003 MIT study. You might like this better because they agree with your view that nuclear power should be used: The Future of Nuclear Power - An Interdisciplinary MIT Study http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-full.pdf This also includes a discussion of the nuclear waste problem and says, "Today, more than forty years after the first commercial nuclear power plant entered service, no country has yet succeeded in disposing of high-level nuclear waste." However, they say that a solution is imminent, which is what the nuclear industry has been telling us for more than thirty years. I'll believe it when it happens. You might also want to look at the website for Physicians for Social Responsibility (1985 Nobel Peace Prize). I consider them to be a credible organization: http://www.psr.org/ Click on "Resources," then "Nuclear/Security," then "Nuclear Legacy: Health & Environment." Another source of reliable information is Helen Caldicott: http://www.helencaldicott.com/ Her latest book (available in August or September?) is Nuclear Power is Not the Answer. Good luck on your road to becoming well-informed on the nuclear issue! Jim --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
