Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!cbmvax!vu-vlsi!psuvax1!berman From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci Subject: Re: Nuclear power and risk Message-ID: <2205@psuvax1.UUCP> Date: Thu, 17-Jul-86 23:21:39 EDT Article-I.D.: psuvax1.2205 Posted: Thu Jul 17 23:21:39 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jul-86 02:34:00 EDT References: <445@meccts.UUCP> <522@gargoyle.UUCP> <452@meccts.UUCP> Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ. Lines: 129 Xref: watmath net.politics:17460 net.sci:1291 > 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. > Einstein did not express in that quote scientific views, but rather a moral truth. In particular, would the majority feel that nuclear power is damaging, it could be sufficient reason to abolish investments in nukes, even if the damages would be mostly psychological. On the other hand, vast majority clearly enjoys the large energy consumption of our society. We have plenty of matals, plastic, paper, refrigerated produce from irrigated fields spayed with chemicals etc. etc. We need large sources of energy to mantain our lifestyle, even assuming large conservation efforts. As I already wrote, any source of energy, if used in massive scale, is bound to be controversial. Hydropower is being objected by ecologists and people afraid of transmition lines. Wood is by no means so pure source of energy. Windmills are claimed to be ugly and noisy, many people would object against having them everywhere. Assuming photovoltaic cells would become economical, we could get serious ecological sideeffects of this power source as well. I would understand Einstein as follows. People should learn enough about nuclear power (and nuclear wepons) that they could accept it with knowledge, and because of the trust to some amiable politicians. Possibly, we should have more politicians with degrees in physics, engeneering, chemistry, biology, instead of the current predominance of law and divinity degrees. Piotr Berman > >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 *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***