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: Petr Beckmann Message-ID: <457@meccts.UUCP> Date: Sun, 20-Jul-86 14:49:25 EDT Article-I.D.: meccts.457 Posted: Sun Jul 20 14:49:25 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 21-Jul-86 06:33:30 EDT References: <529@gargoyle.UUCP> Reply-To: mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) Distribution: net Organization: MECC Technical Services Lines: 132 Xref: watmath net.politics:17512 net.sci:1312 In article <529@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >My principal objections are aimed not at the view that we should >expand the use of nuclear power, but at the grossly simplistic way in >which the extremely complex issues of energy policy have been >presented by some of the nuclear advocates on the net. My principal objections are aimed at the greatly simplistic way that certain of the anti-nuclear advocates treat the issue of nuclear energy. I will get to the gist of the matter, but first things first. >A case in point of gross oversimplification of the issues is the >uncritical citation of the pro-nuclear views of Petr Beckmann and >Bernard L. Cohen as if their publications were uncontroversial and >widely accepted. Let us first consider Beckmann. >Beckmann is an electrical engineer who "went into early retirement in >1981 to devote himself fully to the defense of science, technology >and free enterprise through his monthly journal, *Access to Energy*." >He contributed an article on "Solar Energy and Other `Alternative' >Energy Sources" and one on "Coal" to *The Resourceful Earth: A >Response to Global 2000*, ed. Julian L. Simon and Herman Kahn (1984). >This volume was reviewed in the February 1985 *Bulletin of the Atomic >Scientists* by the respected biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich. Here >is what they said about Beckmann's contributions: > > Beckmann's chapter on coal contains a variety of confused assertions, > one of which is that "in the United States, for example, the > fertility rate has dropped below the `Zero Population Growth' level, > but its population is still expanding." ... Now, first lets examine how Mr. Carnes decides to prove that Dr. Beckman's views are controversial. I subscribed to the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" and am well aware of the partisan nature of its articles. Yet for those unfamiliar with the Bulletin deserves to be called a scientific jurnal, can take a look at the Feburary 1976 issue. There was an article by Frank Church, "Covert Action: Swampland of American Foreign Policy", "The Week We Almost Went to War" - (an article about the Cuban missle crisis claiming it was unnecessary and provoked by the US, etc.) I am told that this is also This is also the issue with the poem "National Anathema", Oh C.I.A. can you see By the Chile down light How profoundly you failed In your late great scheming.... ... While maybe it qualifies as interesting reading material, it doesn't really make it as a scientific journal and is certainly not in the class of say "The New England Journal of Medicine." Now the author of this criticism is Paul Ehrlich who Mr. Carnes added the title "respected biologist." Mr. Ehrlich's views are so far afield from the mainstream of science that the title "respected biologist" should simply be changed to "radical". This is easy to show for yourself. Simply read some of Mr. Ehrlich's numerous books, such as "Ecoscience", "Population Bomb" or "Population, Resources, Environment." His lack of understanding seems even more warped by his radical ideology. Ehrlich's writing includes such notable quotes as "Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people have the viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Consitiution mentions a right to reproduce." Another revealing quote is "Several coercive proposals deserve serious consideration, mainly because we may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means." (Admittely later editions of some of his books try to hide the most Nazi-like statements.) With the general lack of interest in his doomsday theories, I notice he is now jumping on the nuclear winter bandwagon. At any rate, to use your own phrase Mr. Carnes, I don't need this "Orwellian Horseshit." Let us proceed though to the comments made by Mr. Ehrlich. > Beckmann's chapter on coal contains a variety of confused assertions, > one of which is that "in the United States, for example, the > fertility rate has dropped below the `Zero Population Growth' level, > but its population is still expanding." ... While I am not surprised that Mr. Ehrlich couldn't understand this, I am a little surprised that you couldn't. It takes decades for a change in the fertility rate to affect the population. Also it is not only the birth rate that affects the population size. If the average life time increases, obviously the population increases. If memory serves, the fertility rate in the US is at something like 1.8, this is below the ZPG level of 2.1. Therefore as Dr. Beckman writes, now, the US population is increasing, and it will continue to increase for some decades yet. (I am not sure how much immigration is increasing the population either. It might be a noticeable variable increasing the population also.) > Beckmann also dashes off one of the least valid comparisons in the > annals of inept environmental commentary: "A political campaign has, > for example, succeeded in frightening the public over a minuscule > quantity of temporarily toxic nuclear wastes while glossing over an > annual billion tons (in the US) of coal wastes with an infinite > lifetime, a considerable part of which is diposed of into the > atmosphere." > > What billion tons could he be referring to? ... Only a tiny fraction > [of the overburden removed in surface mining] is either particularly > toxic or long-lived. If it is to be included in a coal-nuclear > comparison, so also must be the voluminous overburden from surface > mining of uranium and the bulky and toxic tailings from uranium > mills. [Paul and Anne Ehrlich] Again, Mr. Ehrlich shows his vast knowledge of energy production. A 1000 megawatt coal plant will generate about 36,500 truckloads of ash residue in a year. About 10% of this ash will go up into the atmosphere. Coal contains trace elements of radium and thorium which also is emitted into the atmosphere. Indeed if the NRC ran coal plants, they would all have to shut down as they emit far more radiation than the NRC regulations allow. The radium-226 in coal has a half-life of 1620 years and is water soluble and chemically active. There are no major provisions (that I know of) to prevent the poisons in coal ash from being leeched out by rainwater. The heavy metals in it are poisonous and are probably only surpassed in danger by the carcinogenic hydrocarbons among the poisons. As noted before, the radionuclides in coal waste are chemically active and water solubile. Will these become dangerous if we continue to use coal in the future? Let future generations worry - it certainly isn't our problem. Nuclear waste disposal seems trivial in comparison. (The clever net.reader will recognize the fact that the Ehrlich's missed the whole point of Beckman's statement. Is this supposed to be a valid criticism of Dr. Beckman's work? Do I have to go on?) -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs