Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!meccts!mvs From: mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci Subject: Re: Nuclear power and risk Message-ID: <452@meccts.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-Jul-86 23:02:58 EDT Article-I.D.: meccts.452 Posted: Tue Jul 15 23:02:58 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jul-86 07:14:41 EDT References: <445@meccts.UUCP> <522@gargoyle.UUCP> Reply-To: mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) Organization: MECC Technical Services Lines: 96 Xref: watmath net.politics:17387 net.sci:1263 In article <522@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >But the question of whether we should increase our reliance on >nuclear power should be decided by democratic processes. The public has always been concerned with energy supply, high utility bills and pollution. In each of these areas, nuclear power has proven itself better then its competition. Unfortunately the preferences of the public and the recommendations of those who have responsibilities to the public are often thwarted by those who seem to have an irrational hatred of nuclear power. >Albert Einstein, considered an expert on nuclear energy, said ... Einstein can not be considered an expert on nuclear power generation Quoting from him is a good example of a logical fallacy. >It is no secret that nuclear warheads can be made from >*reactor-grade* plutonium, using published information. This is simply wrong. By using the nuclear technology of the US military the Carter administration was able to get a Pu 240 device to explode. But the bomb also had to be called a "nuclear device" since it lacked the transportability of a bomb. So yes, it might be possible. It also is about 100 times harder then almost any other option open to a terrorist. I would be happy if terrorists wasted their time trying this. ... >planning to keep this out of the "wrong hands" (and prevent sabotage >all along the fuel cycle)? A police state might be sufficient. We have been doing it for 30 years without having to make a police state. >>The point is not that nuclear power is >>totally safe, it is just far safer then any of the alternatives. > >Safer than the "soft energy paths", which are mixes of solar, wind, >water, biofuel, conservation and other renewable resources, and which >have been extensively discussed in recent years? Prove they can produce the 2 billion or so megawatts of electricity that we use per year. The alternatives to nuclear are coal and oil. I am arguing that nuclear is safer. If you are saying there are other alternatives, that is a different argument. Remember: solar competes with *oil* not with nuclear. >By putting your >argument in these crudely simplistic terms, you are simply >parroting the nuclear industry's propaganda. I don't have >to read the netnews for this sort of Orwellian horseshit; Ad homien argument. One more fallacy. >3. Are these professional groups interested parties? Would the >abandonment of or gradual shift away from nuclear power affect their >careers adversely? This is a serious charge and one that I hope you don't make lightly. By calling doubts on the integrity of the members of an entire field, I wish you would first have some proof. I can't really see much of a conflict of interest... Nuclear engineering has a large number of subdisiplines, only one of which is power generation. If you wish to look into the motives of anyone, I might suggest the motives of some of the radical anti-nukes - all of their income/fame/reputation is contingent on "proving" that nuclear power is too dangerous. I quote from "Nuclear Power Politics" by A. David Rossin. (A. David Rossen is Chairman of the Public Policy Committee of the ANS. He holds an MS in Nuclear Engineering, MBA and a Ph.D. in metallurgy.) ...We knew that technical descriptions would be difficult, but believed that the public would trust professionalism, as has been the case in medicine, transportation and construction, especially when the whole nuclear enterprise was being carried out under strict government regulation. One thing we did not anticipate is that an adversarial conflict would arise in which those opposed would not accept experts or government and would be successful in convincing a significant fraction of the public that anyone experienced in nuclear power should not be trusted. ... What we counted on was that the contestants would play by the rules, that when the preponderence of scientific evidence, tested by peer review, came to a clear conclusion, that issue would be settled and we could move ahead. We were naive at the advocacy game in which logic and the rules of evidence could be ignored... -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs