You seem to have made up your mind. I suppose that's not a disqualifier; you seem informed and polite, but still I prefer to discuss matters with people who generously point out the weak points in their own positions. That's where progress lies.
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. Almost everything I've seen on nuclear power comes from its advocates or its detractors. Since I'm cast in the role of devil's advocate until someone better comes along, I'll reply, but before I do, let me set an example by pointing out the weakest link in pro-nuclear advocacy as I see it. 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. WIth nuclear technology this is compounded by the security and weapons implications of the technology. There is something to be said for keeping the cat firmly in the bag. This means that curious and serious people like ourselves have difficulty weighing the evidence on this very important question, pro and con. So, in reply to Jim's points, On 6/23/06, Jim Torson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > So, I began to intensively the nuclear issue. (This was similar > to the intensive study of climate change that I've done over recent > years.) I ended up concluding that the problems were indeed as > bad (or worse) than had been described. I also ended up becoming > the Vice President of the group opposing the local nuclear plant. > This included attending court hearings in Washington, DC, which > gave me additional insight into the workings of the nuclear industry > and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is encouraging. How does one go about such a study? Is there a sober, informed weighing of the evidence by an independent, qualified panel, to which one may refer? The trouble is that all the contrary evidence that is easy to find also has an advocacy approach. For every industry pamphlet there is an equal and opposite anti-industry pamphlet. I realize the same accusation is hurled at climate science, but we have the luxury of deferring to IPCC WGI reposrts which in turn are extensively linked to the primary literature. Our detractors are reduced to the rather absurd exercise of critiquing the IPCC which quickly resolves to dismissing all the earth sciences and many neighboring disciplines. > Concerning nuclear waste, one time I took a tour of the local > nuclear plant while it was under construction. The tour guide > explained that if you started walking towards an unshielded > bundle of spent fuel rods in a field, you wouldn't make it to the > spent fuel. 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. > Clearly, the problem of dealing with nuclear waste > is not due its volume. Well, true. But the expense of burying it is greatly mitigated by its small volume per unit of energy. > After decades, the nuclear waste problem > has still not been solved. True, but I still question is whether this problem is technical or political. If the latter, it is not an argument against nuclear power. > I would suggest that > you first take a look at Gofman's Curriculum Vitae: > > http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/JWGcv.html > > Gofman wrote a brief summary of Chernobyl health effects > on its 10th anniversary: > > Chernobyl's 10th: Cancer and Nuclear-Age Peace > Don't be Deceived > http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/Chernys10th.html > > Bottom line: Nearly a million cancers from Chernobyl, about > half of them fatal. 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. It's not as relevant as you make out, though. Nobody wants to risk more Chernobyls. The question reduces to whether better practices could make Chernobyl-like events sufficiently unlikely as to not weigh into future decisions. A fair-minded consideration would not just wave at Chernobyl. > Of course, you might be inclined to think, oh well, that was > thirty years ago. Nothing like that could happen now. > However, I doubt that human error has been eliminated > from the nuclear industry (or anywhere else). Thirty years is a very long time in technology these days. Human error can be compensated in well-designed systems. The airlines operate on a shoestring these days, but losing a plane is extremely rare. This is because of rigorous testing at every step of the process. > If the U.S. Department of Energy has problems like this, I > doubt that we can depend upon a revived commercial nuclear > power industry to do much better. I don't know whether the public or private sector is ready for this kind of responsibility these days in the US or any other specific country. This is a legitimate question in my opinion. As far as I know the Canadians, Japanese and Western Europeans have not encountered similar problems. So, again, the argument is not decisive. > Of course there is much more that could be said about the > problems with nuclear power. I would encourage people to > seriously study the nuclear issue rather than just accept the > articles by nuclear proponents that contain the same sort of > misrepresentations as the articles by climate change skeptics. Junk science cuts both ways. Climate science has organized its evidence in a remarkable process culminating in the IPCC WGI reports. It would be nice if other issues where science and governance meet could provide comparable studies. John McCarthy calls it "lawyers' science". A legal firm's job is to collect and present evidence that is in favor of their client's interests, and to collect rebuttals against the likely arguments of their opponents. I see you committed anti-nuclear advocates doing the same thing, much as corporate interests may be expected to do. The public interest lies much closer to what can be achieved by the scientific method than by the legal method. When energy was cheap and externalities due to climate change were hypothetical, the anti-nuclear arguments, based on risk and development costs, were decisive. Both of those aspects of the energy situation are rapidly changing, and the decision needs to be revisited. Is there any current or recent effort at an impartial study of these questions? mt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
