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: Ehrlich
Message-ID: <489@meccts.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 17-Aug-86 23:45:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: meccts.489
Posted: Sun Aug 17 23:45:19 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Aug-86 07:39:23 EDT
Reply-To: mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein)
Organization: MECC Technical Services
Lines: 176
Xref: watmath net.politics:18383 net.sci:1519

Quote from Dr. 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."

Richard Carnes writes:

>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. 

Oh please!  Beckman is refering to coal wastes - not CO2 emmissions!!!
We have covered *all* of this before.  Oh well, we shall start again..
One 1000 megawatt coal plant will generate over 35,000 truckloads of
ash that must be disposed of in the environment.  This ash contains 
radioactive elements, and not in negligible amounts.  The radium 226 in 
coal is long lived with a half-life of over 1500 years. It is also
water soluble and chemically very active.  In total amount these 
wastes are greater in radioactivity then nuclear wastes.  Though
by the light of the Double Standard, coal wastes, unlike nuclear 
wastes, are dispersed without monitoring or control.  

There are no provisions to prevent the poisons in coal ash from
being leached out by rainwater and seeping into the water supply.
The poisonous metals in the sludge such as selenium and mercury 
may be even more of a hazard to the public's health then the 
radium and thorium.  Of course we can not forget the 
carcinogenic hydrocarbons also among the posions in the millions of tons
of sludge.  Will this be dangerous to our great grandchildren
in the coming centurys?  What are the long term effects to the
environment?   

Let future generations worry.  

>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

Oh yes, the enormous CO2 emmisions from coal plants are something to
be concerned about also.  It is well known that CO2 levels in the atmosphere
have always been increasing since they started measuring it 30 years ago.
It is just that the health hazards from the CO2 are dwarfed by the 
other health hazards from coal.  (Also noone really knows how much of the
extra CO2 is being caused by coal plants.)

Will we find out that in a hundred years, that the enormous emmissions
from coal have done irreparable damage to the environment?  

Let future generations worry.

>...So I am
>still looking for the "annual billion tons of coal wastes with an
>infinite lifetime".  

And so you have found them.

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

Absolutey true, in every sence of the word.  A 1000 megawatt nuclear
plant will annually produce 90 cubic *feet* of nuclear wastes that must
be stored.  A 1000 megawatt coal plant will produce thousands of 
truckloads of wastes.  They are not even close!

>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.)  

As noted here and before in other articles, Ehrlich clearly is 
confused about many basic points in the energy debate.  (I will be
happy to mail those articles to anyone.)  If more proof is needed
let us tyrn the clock back to 1974 and the Rasmussen study.
In 1974 the Rasmussen study gave its draft report.  This report
was directed by M.I.T. professor Norman Rasmussen, and involved over
70 man years of effort.  With a total cost of about four million, the
Rasmussen report still today provides about the best study of 
reactor safety.  For example, in order to compute health effects
of radiation accidents, over 140,000 combinations of accident
magnitude, weather type, and populations exposed were evaluated.
(The complete Rasmussen Report is several feet thick.)

Once published, Ehrlich immediately said in an interview that 
the report, know officially as WASH-1400 "should be called 
WHITE-WASH 1400"

Also he made the misleading statement 
	"Plutonium, one of the most dangerous substances known to
	man will be produced in prodigious amounts as the number
	of atomic plants increases."

(Once again, we see scaremongering being done about the toxicity of
plutonium.)

It was also energy scholar Ehrlich who once said that nuclear wastes 
dumped into a river caused oysters to glow in the dark.  

According to to the excerpt from the "Bulletin of the Atomic 
Scientists," it was Ehrlich who dismissed a poll of health 
physicists, done by Dr. Cohen, on the grounds that they are 
partisan and have a conflict of interest.  Most anti-nukes 
only try this baiting against nuclear engineers.   Even then,
without proof, it is as morally bankrupt as accusing doctors of having
a conflict of interest. (Since, of course, without disease 
they have no business.)  From what I could get out of the 
excerpt it appears that Ehrlich is willing to condemn the 
entire field of health physics.  This is all the more absurd 
when one remembers that a statute of the American Health Physics 
Society states that they are:

	...devoted to the protection of man and his environment from
	the harmful effects of radiation.

Oh certainly Ehrlich is better then some of the anti-nukes.  For
example, I doubt he would say that radiation caused AIDS such as 
professional anti-nuke Sister Bertel said at a disarmament
conference.  But the obvious point is that if Ehrlich is going
to distance himself from all of the world's authorities on the 
energy issue (which according to the excerpt is clearly what he has
done), he can't be considered a very credible source on this
issue.

[Wayne]
>>...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. ... 

Well from what we have learned so far, the risks are not 
close to being  comparable.  The routine burning of coal in the 
US kills upwards of 40,000 people a year.  This is 40,000 more deaths 
then the routine operation of nuclear power plants.  (Only the 
worst possible scenarios of the Rasmussen study could account 
for this many deaths.)  Coal mining is a more dangerous
occupation then uranium mining, coal mining is more damaging to
the environment than uranium mining,  the routine operation of 
coal plants kills thousands and the coal wastes are a great 
burden we are throwing onto our future decendents.  

>In addition, health risks should not be the
>only consideration for energy policy.

Certainly, I agree completely.  But let us remember that nuclear 
is less dependent on unsecure energy producers than either coal 
or oil.  Also, there is essentially an infinite supply of fuel
for nuclear power.  Coal and oil have the added disadvantage that we 
probably only have a few more centurys of use left available 
in this country.  (Thank God, we don't have an infinite supply 
of coal.  As an environmentalist, I can not even conceive of 
the damage to the environment that would come from burning coal 
for another 1000 years..)

>...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.

As I, and others, have said over and over:  most people who study the 
energy issue realize that solar and nuclear are a partner, not a rival.
-- 
Michael V. Stein
Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services

UUCP	ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs