> https://againstthecurrent.org/atc210/nuclear-power-and-climate-change/
>
I’m attaching a reply to the above article that appeared on another listserv.
It’s from Martin H. Goodman, MD, who I don’t know. I’m not at all competent to
judge the merits of the opposing positions.
Glenn
____________________________________________________________________________________
This article's content is factually false with respect to near every point
made. Indeed, it's little more than hysteria-mongering regarding non-existent
"dangers of radiation" and of nuclear power. By all credible evidence collected
by science and medicine over the last 60 years. The article's content is
also in denial of all available evidence regarding solar and wind ("renewable")
power, which has proved in every case it's been tried on a large national or
provincial scale a fraud, con, scam, and massive dismal failure. It is sad to
see avowed socialists / revolutionaries printing such malignant, deadly
scientific and medical mis-information. I say this as one who has identified
as a socialist / revolutionary / Trotkyist all my adult life. I'm also trained
as a scientist, and am an MD as well.
I'd be curious what qualifications the author of this article has to understand
medical and scientific studies, and discriminate between ones that are junk or
even deliberately deceitful, vs those done intellectually honestly and well,
using proper scientific method and clinical study format, and thus likely to
provide valid and useful information? I've a lifetime of such experience,
professionally and personally.
As noted above, pretty much NOTHING asserted in this article is true. It is
merely regurgitation of myths and deliberate lies, often promulgated by the
fossil fuel industry, who know that ONLY nuclear power challenges ongoing sale
and consumption of their product, and that investing in (uselessly
intermittent) solar and wind guarantees dependence on their product. Note that
the "independent, environmentalist" organizations the Sierra Club and the NRDC,
during their campaign to prematurely close Diablo Canyon nuclaer power plant,
received tens of millions of dollars from the natural gas industry, to thank
them for their efforts (and tried hard to deny and hide this, until such was no
longer possible).
Yes, mining is deadly to the health of workers doing the mining... but this has
nothing to do with radiation, which is essentially entirely harmless. It's a
function of the silica dust breathed in (and inadequate means to protect
workers offered by owner of the mines trying to maximize profits). Indeed,
uranium mining is thousands of times less harmful to miners, if only because
uranium is a 1,000,000 fold more energy dense fuel for making electricity than
is coal or natural gas. So very much less of it needs to be mined to produce a
given amount of energy. This also has huge implications in terms of
environmental impact of mining the fuel for nuclear power plants... it's near
totally harmless to the environment, compared to the massive environmental
destruction entailed by coal mining. Nuclear power kills 1 person per peta
watt hour of electricity made, per year. Coal kills 5000, oil 1000, and
natural gas 500 per year per peta watt hour of electricity produced.
Between 200,000 and 1,000,000 workers die each year from the mining and burning
of coal. The figure is around a dozen or so per year, if that, for nuclaer
power.
The article repeatedly wails about the "dangers" of nuclear power, and infers
this is from exposure to radiation. This is total bunk. Deadly, misleading
falsehood. I've spend years examining all of the major studies on which all
our knowledge of biological effects of radiation are based, and they all show
radiation to be essentially entirely harmless in all but extraordinary large
dose exposure and only then when combined with that exposure being acquired
very rapidly. The issue of the biological effects of radiation is best
presented in Wade Allison's book "nuclear is for Life", which references and
discusses most of these key studies.
France went from no to near all nuclear power in 20 years. So much for the lie
that nuclear power takes too long to set up. Germany spent a half trillion
dollars on the fraud that is solar and wind power (and also prematurely closed
down its nuclear power plants). Neighboring France went near all (75% to 85%)
nuclear for electricity. Result: Electricity in France costs half as much as
that in Germany, and results in ONE TENTH as much CO2 released per kw-hr of
electricity made, compared to Germany. NO WHERE ON EARTH has investment in
"renewables" been other than the same sort of dismal failure to reduce CO2
output or produce economical electricity. Not in any major industrial country
or province. The only places on earth where CO2 output per kw hr of
electricity produced has been reduced to levels consistent with addressing
greenhouse gas accumulation / climate change has been where this has been
achieved by nuclear power. There is no other way to do this... and
fortunately nuclear is overwhelmingly safe, sustainable, economical, and
without any significant environmental impact compared to any of the
alternatives.
An honest and careful examination of the facts relating to the three major
nuclear power accidents (TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima) further prove how
overwhelmingly safe nuclear power is. Two of those involved zero harm of any
sort... short or long term... to the surrounding population from radiation,
given the insignificant levels released / how well the containment worked. At
Chernobyl an obsolete cold war reactor design, grossly mis-managed, without a
containment, was blown apart in a steam explosion, and literally tons of highly
radioactive core material blasted into the air. Yet even in this horrific
worst case, the death toll from radiation was about 35 immediate deaths, and
perhaps 20 to 100 delayed ones over the next 50 year... solely from thyroid
cancer, the only cancer which credible evidence showed resulted from the
accident. Compare that to the 100,000 to 240,000 who died acutely in the
worst of hydro disasters, or the 200,000 to 1,000,000 who die each year from
the normal, non-accidental mining and burning of coal to make power.
To learn why renewable power is a total fraud, scam, con, and proved dismal
failure, I suggest you read "Roadmap to Nowhere" by Conley and Maloney, a book
that is available free as a pdf file at thiis linke:
https://www.roadmaptonowhere.com/ <https://www.roadmaptonowhere.com/>
There are several books I'd recommend as a general introduction to the facts
regarding nuclear power, overall.
One of the very best of such is available free, as a pdf file, thanks to the
kindness of its (best selling, now generoud) author. This is "Unintended
Consequences / The Lie that Killed Millions and accelerated Climate Change" by
George Erickson, available at this site:
http://tundracub.com/htmls/unintendedconsequences.html
<http://tundracub.com/htmls/unintendedconsequences.html>
I also recommend "Climate Gamble / Is Anti Nuclear Activism Endangering our
Future" by Partenan and Korhonen, available for about $6.00 on Amazon and many
other sites.
And "A Bright Future" by Qvist and Goldstein.
If we socialists and revolutionaries are to be taken seriously, we must stop
spouting myths and lies and quack medicine, when addressing issues of science
and medicine, and stick to that which is supported by intellectually honestly
conducted scientific method. No revolutionary who claims MMR vaccine causes
autism or bowel disease, or that the earth is flat, not round, or that nuclear
power is dangerous, or that renewable power is other than a fraud, should be
trusted... for such a person's judgement and/or honesty can reasonably be held
in question for promoting such overwhelmingly demonstrated medical or
scientific falsehood. Revolutionaries have an obligation to speak truth to
the masses, and to get their facts right when they publicly address matters of
science, medicine, or engineering.
Promoting falsehood and hysteria regarding the non-existent dangers of nuclear
power and radiation is not merely intellectually wrong. It KILLS huge numbers
of workers.
In the aftermath of the Fukushima accident, radiation levels even very near the
plant were measured both by UN WHO teams and by a research that published in
Nature, within a week or two of the accident, as 20 to 100 fold or more below
those that could possibly entail any risk of any medical at all to humans.
Yet due to the same sort of hysteria and falsehood presented by the author of
this article, 60,000 were evacuated for many years. Result: 2000 died
acutely as a result of the hasty evaluation. Tens of thousands of lives were
hugely disrupted. indefinitely. Radiation in this case was basically entirely
totally harmless, but hysteria and ignorance and fear of radiation kills
thousands.
In the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident, between 10,000 and 100,000 pregnant
women in western Europe (number depends on whose study you want to accept)
elected to abort otherwise wanted pregnancies due to fear they would give birth
to deformed or genetically harmed babies due to their "exposure to the plume of
radiation" coming over from Chernobyl that ignorant and/or deliberately
deceitful hysteria mongers... like the author of this article... were screaming
about in the media. A "plume" that entailed added levels of radiation well
below background levels. Levels 1000 to 10,000 times LOWER than those
encountered by pregnant survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings... who
all gave birth to normal babies, with zero evidence of an iota of harm from
radiation. These babies...and their mothers... were followed for decades...
with never any indication of the slightest harm from radiation compared to
matched controls. [ref: the Hiroshima Nagasaki LSS study]. To be sure, I've
fought for the last half century for the right of women to control their own
reproductive function, including via education regarding birth control, freely
and widely available birth control means, and easy free access to abortion on
demand. But aborting an otherwise wanted pregnancy due to hysterical fear of
a non-existent threat is a horrible thing.
Please, comrades: Abandon the lies and myths promulgated regarding fear of
radiation and nuclear power, claiming such are "unsafe" or "dangerous".
Please also abandon the lies and myths regarding the utility of "renewable"
power (solar and wind), which in fact are beyond an iota of doubt proved dismal
failures in practice... frauds, cons, and scams. Support for junk science and
quack medicine only harms our credibility in all matters... including political
analysis.
Marxists when addressing matters of science or medicine should stick to what is
supported by intellectually honestly, properly collected (via appropriate
application of scientific method) evidence. Not promulgate
ideologically-driven, politically-correct falsehood, hysteria, and deceit, as
does the author of this article. Else we just repeat the mistakes of the past.
Remember Lysenko-ism.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#5034): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/5034
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/79359028/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
