Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci
Subject: Re: Nuclear power: Petr Beckmann
Message-ID: <546@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Aug-86 23:29:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.546
Posted: Tue Aug 12 23:29:21 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Aug-86 02:46:54 EDT
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Distribution: net
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 108
Xref: watmath net.politics:18211 net.sci:1504

Wayne Throop writes:

>>[My quote from Petr Beckmann:]
>>"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."
>
>How about the billions of tons of (let us say) carbon dioxide, which
>may be damaging the thermal ballance of the whole planet?   And a
>billion tons annually doesn't have to be very toxic to be dangerous.

Beckmann speaks of "an annual billion tons (in the US) of coal wastes
with an infinite lifetime...".  CO2 has a quite limited lifetime,
since roughly 1/7 of the atmospheric pool is annually used up in
photosynthesis.  To be sure, CO2 accumulation may pose a severe
threat to the environment, but that is due to the "greenhouse
effect", not to any toxicity of CO2.  CO2 is indeed not very toxic,
because it is not toxic at all, at least anywhere near the ~500 ppm
concentration of it that we breathe.  And sulfur compounds have an
average residence time in the atmosphere of only a few days.  So I am
still looking for the "annual billion tons of coal wastes with an
infinite lifetime".  

>The point that nuclear wastes, while highly toxic, are small in
>quantity compared to those from chemically powered processes is still
>valid.

Beckmann's point in the quoted sentence seems to be not merely that
nuclear wastes are small in quantity in comparison to coal wastes,
but that they are comparatively *insignificant* in terms of their
hazards to the public.  He fails to support this assertion with any
argument, at least in the article under discussion (which I have
before me).  If Wayne would like to provide such an argument, I'd be
happy to read it.

>I note that I personally don't find nuclear power a panacea, nor to I
>agree with Beckmann in all things.  But some of what he has to say is
>quite valid, and weak attacks on valid points, such as these, don't
>do much to increase the credibility or perceived competence of his
>detractors.

Beckmann's point here is invalid.  In a previous article I quoted
some of the other criticisms of Beckmann's two articles made by the
Ehrlichs.  They were not trying to write a complete rebuttal to
Beckmann; rather, they were reviewing the book in which his articles
appear (*The Resourceful Earth*, eds. Julian Simon and Herman Kahn).
They judged his contributions to be "embarrassingly incompetent" and
cited a few points to illustrate.  (I'll send Wayne a copy of the
Beckmann articles, if he wants.)  

>> [quoting the Ehrlichs]
>>  Responsible analyses of the numbers of deaths attributable to
>>  coal-fired and nuclear electricity generation -- some of which Cohen
>>  cited but apparently did not understand -- indicate that the range of
>>  possibilities for both sources extends from one or two deaths per
>>  plant-year to several tens of deaths per plant-year, depending on
>>  mining practices, power-plant location, pollution-control technology,
>>  and highly uncertain assumptions about dose-response relations and
>>  effects (of both sources) extending millennia into the future.
>
>Right.  Safety of burning coal or fissioning uranium is questionable,
>and, in reality, nobody knows the ultimate dangers of either path,
>though it seems on the surface that they are comparable in terms of
>predictable deaths.  (Isn't that how you read this paragraph?)

No.  The studies are talking about the health risks from the *routine
operation* of nuclear power plants, not the *total* health risks from
nuclear power, which should take into account the possibilities of
catastrophes, sabotage, reactors being struck by bombs, proliferation
of nuclear weapons, etc.  In addition, health risks should not be the
only consideration for energy policy.

>And yet, anti-nukes (in essence) use these facts to "prove" that
>nuclear power is too unsafe to use, and at the same time squawk when
>pro-nukes say that the same data shows that chemical power is too
>unsafe to use.  Lunacy.

That is not what they say.  And many anti-nukes advocate the "soft
energy paths", by which our use of fossil fuels will be reduced while
renewable energy sources are increasingly developed and utilized.

>>[Beckmann] also says that deforestation in the Third World could play
>>a significant role in reducing the "absorption" of carbon dioxide
>>produced by coal burning ("absorption" into what?), and that "high
>>labor intensity and troublesome handling" will be "far more decisive"
>>in affecting coal use than will be all its environmental problems
>>combined.  [Ehrlichs]
>
>OK.  I give up.  Why is *this* one confused?  More BS about
>nonstandard terminology, despite the use being quite clear and
>straightforward?

Since Wayne is quite knowledgeable about biology, I won't venture to
correct him if he asserts that CO2 is absorbed into plants through
the process of photosynthesis.  In a friendly spirit, however, I will
recommend to him an article which I think he would enjoy (Jan W.
could read it with profit):  P.M. Vitousek, P.R. Ehrlich, A.H.
Ehrlich, and P.A. Matson, "Human Appropriation of the Products of
Photosynthesis", *BioScience* 36: 368-373 (June 1986).  Abstract:
Nearly 40% of potential terrestrial net primary productivity is used
directly, co-opted, or foregone because of human activities.

Please send copies of replies by email, as otherwise I may not see
them.

Richard Carnes