Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-pc!sandersr From: sandersr@ecn-pc.UUCP (Robert C Sanders) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci Subject: Re: Nuclear power and risk Message-ID: <560@ecn-pc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 12-Jul-86 02:04:50 EDT Article-I.D.: ecn-pc.560 Posted: Sat Jul 12 02:04:50 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 13-Jul-86 02:59:53 EDT References: <1970@brl-smoke.ARPA> <320@rtech.UUCP> <2064@brl-smoke.ARPA> <627@mhuxr.UUCP> <559@ecn-pc.UUCP> Reply-To: sandersr@ecn-pc.UUCP (Robert C Sanders) Organization: Electrical Engineering Department , Purdue University Lines: 116 Xref: watmath net.politics:17305 net.sci:1222 [This is being forwarded from the net.politics newsgroup to get the input of the people in the net.sci newsgroup ] >From: mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) In article <516@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: Mr. Carnes article was far too long to respond to totally, but I will try to cover the more important aspects. >The >technology of nuclear power is closely related to that of nuclear >weapons, facilitating the production of weapons, and plutonium is >generated by certain types of reactors, which might be stolen by >terrorists who wished to have their own bomb. But since we can't >calculate the increased risk of nuclear war, it is simply ignored by >the risk-assessors. Trying to get weapons grade fuel from spent nuclear fuel rods is *very* difficult. I won't get into the physics of this now, but frankly, it is beyond the capabilities of any third-world nation. Instead a government will try and build a "research" reactor to produce Pu 239. This has no connection with nuclear power reactors. >Some basic facts about nuclear power: Each step of the nuclear fuel >cycle, from mining to waste disposal, including transport, is >intrinsically hazardous because of the materials involved. In the >opinion of many, the problem of waste disposal has not been solved, >imposing largely unknown hazards on future generations. Again - how does this compare with the risks of the alternatives? Do not twist the argument. The point is not that nuclear power is totally safe, it is just far safer then any of the alternatives. >In *Normal Accidents: Living With High-Risk Technologies*, >organization theorist Charles Perrow makes a compelling case that >nuclear power should be abandoned. The major thesis of the book is >as follows: ... > Above all, I will > argue, sensible living with risky systems means keeping the > controversies alive, listening to the public, and recognizing the > essentially political nature of risk assessment. Ultimately, the > issue is not risk, but power; the power to impose risks on the many > for the benefit of the few. No, the issue is indeed risk. If nuclear power is more dangerous then the alternatives then it should not be used. >Perrow proceeds to consider the field of risk-benefit assessment: > The assessors do not distinguish risks taken for private > profits from those taken for private pleasures or needs, though the > one is imposed, the other to some degree chosen; they ignore the > question of addiction, and the distinction between active risks, > where one has some control, and passive risks; they argue for the > importance of risk but limit their endorsement of the approved risks > to the corporate and military ones, ignoring risks in social and > political matters. No, the risk takers are showing the risks to human life. This is not a cost/benefit analysis and is not based on opinion. An individual can say "the benefits of nuclear power is worth the risk." This is an example of personal opinion based on personal values. The conclusions reached by this type of arguement are not quantifable and are debatable by those with different values. A risk taker will say "Per billion megawatt-hours of generated electricity, generated by the corresponding fuel, either 1036 coal miners, but only 20 uranium miners lose their lives." (R. Wilson, paper given at Energy Conference, Center for Technology and Political Thought). This is not an opinion nor a value judgement - it is a FACT. It can be either true or false. Either way it should not be ignored out of hand. >He then considers public opinion about nuclear power and whether it >should be respected or "corrected" by experts. >... Perrow >argues that "the public is uninformed in many respects, and certainly >can make errors in reasoning, but for matters of catastrophic risk >these errors seem less disabling than the alternative of neglecting >the rationality embedded in social and cultural values". How then can the average person decide? One way is by noting what the experts in the field feel about the matter. The Council of Scientific Affairs of the AMA has reported nuclear power the electric power with least risks in health effects. The eighteen thousand member Power Engineering Society also endorsed nuclear power as the safest form of power generation. So did the Energy Committee of the IEEE. So did the 69,000 member society of Professional Engineers. So did the National Council of the thirty-nine thousand member American Institute of Chemical Engineers. So did the Board of Directors of the thirty-four hundred member Health Physics Society. The American Nuclear Society has also endorsed nuclear power. (Hmm I can already hear the smug laughter about this last one. Yet remember the American Nuclear Society refused to endorse nuclear power for *21* years, because they are probably more concerned about reactor safety then anyone else. It was only in 1975 that they were satisfied at last that nuclear power was the safeest form of power generation.) Is the public aware of the above endorsements? The question of whether nuclear power is safer then the alternatives is not something that should be decided by opinion poll. Especially if you admit that the people polled are ignorant. -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs -- Continuing Engineering Education Telecommunications Purdue University ...!ihnp4!pur-ee!pc-ecn!sandersr Let's make like a BSD process, and go FORK-OFF !! -- bob (and "make" a few children while we're at it ...)