----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Earth on Edge
> At 02:04 5-7-01 -0500, Ronn Blankenship wrote:
>
> >Are the reports you are referring to only in the media, or are they based
> >on research published in scientific journals?
>
> These were reports in the media. I am not a scientist, therefore I don't
> read scientific journals.
One of the clues to the reliability of a newspaper report is whether it
references an article in a scientific journal. One can also do internet
searches on the reports to see if there are any articles. I obtained the
data I published here in about 15 minutes.
>
> My memory tells me it was Sellafield (UK), but it might have
> >>been some other location. What I do remember is that it was blamed on
the
> >>nuclear power plant,
> >
> >
> >By whom?
>
> Er, by the people who made that report, perhaps?
>
>
Can you see how terribly frustrating this is to those of us who are trained
in the scientists. Someone makes a claim about the danger of nuclear power.
Numerous people, including you, take this as evidence of the danger of
nuclear power. You cite a media article. I do a search, find the study
that investigates this, and I document the fact that there is no evidence
for a link.
Yet, this rigorous scientific analysis didn't make the headlines and didn't
register with you. I'm not faulting you, I'm sure that the article refuting
the first one didn't even make your paper. Let me ask, though, would you
have considered it refuted or would you have suspected it was really the
nuclear lobby that was behind the refutation?
We have difficult decisions to be made in the area of energy. We need to
have them fact based. If there is actually a health risk posed by nuclear
power, we should be able to see it. Simply allowing people to shut down
nuclear power with unsubstantiated claims that they get in the media is not
helpful.
The reality is that the practical alternatives to nuclear power are coal and
natural gas. You argue that we need to conserve; I agree. But, even with
conservation, the world will use more energy in the future than it does now.
Emerging countries are on the part of the growth curve where increase in GDP
is strongly tied to increases in per capita energy consumption. Even if the
US and Europe find a way to cut their per capita consumption by 30%, we will
still use more energy in 2020 than in 2000.
As for renewables, your country's goal is to be 10% dependant on renewables
by 2000. That leaves 90% for coal, gas, oil, and nuclear. It seems clear
to me that the environment will be much better served if the fraction of
fossil fuels is 65% instead of 90%.
So, what would it take to convince you that nuclear is a better
environmental option than coal, oil, and natural gas. Remember, when you
think of biases, I make my living off coal, oil, and natural gas. :-)
Dan M.
