At 11:28 5-7-01 -0500, Dan Minette 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.
Most reports were TV documentaries, not newspaper articles. And no, I don't
remember if those documentaries made any references to articles in
scientific papers.
>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.
That's because both sides have a different approach. Assume someone reports
a significant increase in the number of cancer cases near a nuclear power
plant. The pro-side will say "there is no evidence that it is caused by the
power plant". The con-side however reasons: "radiation (like from a nuclear
plant) can cause cancer; if there aren't any other likely suspects that
might have caused this high number of cases, then logically it must have
been caused by the power plant".
>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?
I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that the nuclear lobby had
something to do with it. If the research was done by an independent
organization, I'd consider the outcome scientifically sound. If however the
research was done by an organization that has close relations with the
nuclear lobby, or by the nuclear power company itself, I wouldn't be so
trusting.
>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.
By 2020, not by 2000. Typo, I presume... :)
If part of that 90% is nuclear, it will have to be imported electricity. We
have two nuclear power plants in The Netherlands: Dodewaard en Borssele.
The plant at Dodewaard was permanently shut down in March 1997. Once the
plant in Borssele is shut down, it will be the end of nuclear energy in The
Netherlands; there are no plans to build another nuclear power plant here.
>So, what would it take to convince you that nuclear is a better
>environmental option than coal, oil, and natural gas.
Maybe production of nuclear energy is better for the environment than using
coal, oil and natural gas -- or maybe it isn't. However, when it goes
wrong, it can go wrong bigtime (as Chernobyl showed). For me, the potential
risks (or rather, the potential damage when things go wrong) outweigh
possible environmental benefits.
It's like the risks of travelling by car and travelling by airplane.
Statistically, your chance of dying in a car accident is much higher than
the chance of you dying in a plane crash. However, in a car accident the
number of casualties is limited to at most a few people. When a plane
crashes, you'll get a 3-digit death toll...
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
