----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: Earth on Edge
> 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".
But, there is a third side, as Zimmy has pointed out, the side of the
scientist. Radiation measurements were made during all of this time. The
radiation levels were not heightened. The people who got the cancer weren't
the workers, it was their children. People who suffered high acute doses
from nuclear weapons did not have children who had higher incidents of
cancer.
As I mentioned before, the dose from nuclear plants is a fraction of the
natural variation in background doses. If the nuclear plant were to cause
the cancer, then it would have been a case where an increase from 300
mrem/year to 300.1 mrem/year would cause a tripling of cancer, but an
increase from 300 to 600 would have no effect.
Nonetheless, a study was done, and it was found to be a spurious report.
>
>
> 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.
So, the article I cited is sufficient.
>
>
> >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... :)
>
Yes.
> 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.
>
Chernobyl is a reasonable worst case scenerio for a power reactor accident.
IIRC, I stated that between a third and a half of key radioactive isotopes
were vented. Yet, known deaths are significantly less than 1 plane crash.
Two things that could not possibly be wrong with western reactors were wrong
there (antiquated design and no containment building), and one thing that I
couldn't imagine (dangerous tests) happening. Yet, IIRC, the UN commission
only found about 100 people who died from this accident. 100 is, indeed,
100 too many. But what about the thousands that die in coal mines. Aren't
their lives just as valuable?
> 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...
>
Right, and the emotional impact is bigger. But, if you want to make a
decision with your heart, is it better to chose a mode of transportation
that is safer, or one in which the deaths don't make the papers. Is it
better to chose a safer, cleaner means of generating power, or one in which
the problems can be ignored.
BTW, this brings in one unique feature of nuclear power. With many types of
contamination, it is very hard to determine what is contaminated. With a
simple cheap hand held device (a couple of hundred dollars) you can spot
radiation of 0.1 mrem/hour. (Normal background is in the 300/year range).
With a more expensive meter, you can regester the raditation from the salt
on pretzels.
Thus, any small amount of radiation sticks out like a sore thumb, while
toxic chemicals are unseen.
Dan M.
