Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!meccts!mvs From: mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci Subject: Re: Nuclear power: Ehrlich Message-ID: <492@meccts.UUCP> Date: Thu, 21-Aug-86 21:35:51 EDT Article-I.D.: meccts.492 Posted: Thu Aug 21 21:35:51 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 28-Aug-86 02:26:17 EDT References: <546@gargoyle.UUCP> <521@dg_rtp.UUCP> <551@gargoyle.UUCP> Reply-To: mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) Organization: MECC Technical Services Lines: 158 Xref: watmath net.politics:18557 net.sci:1538 In article <551@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >I have also pointed out that people who make their >livings directly or indirectly from nuclear power may be biased in >its favor (which is apparently inconceivable to Michael Stein). It isn't inconceivable, it is just that it would be nice if you had something to back up attacks on not only nuclear engineers, but also all health physicists (whether or not they work in industry). Nuclear engineering has numerous sub-disaplines so a direct conflict of interest doesn't exist. As far as the entire field having no professional ethics, remember the American Nuclear Society waited until 1975 before they endorsed nuclear power. For *21* years they refused to endorse it. Only in 1975 were they satisfied it was the safest form of power generation. The supposed conflict of interest between health physics and nuclear power is even more stretched. The International Commission of Radiological Protection (ICRP) was formed in 1928. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) was formed in the United States in 1929. I'm sure such groups were only started because of the massive nuclear power industry we had back in the 1920's. If there is *any* group of people who might have a conflict of interest it would be the professional anti-nukes. In some cases, their income, their prestige and entire career come from their ideological position against nuclear energy. The District Court's decision in the case of Johnson vs US govt, best illustrates this point (page 92): ...Dr. Morgan claims that the recognized authorities such as UNSCEAR, BEIR, NCRP and ICRP are all wrong because the scientists serving on these committees have some vague connection with government grants. Dr. Morgan claims that he alone is "completely independent" and objective. Yet Dr. Morgan is working on about 50 radiation cases, and in each he is the plaintiffs expert witness. Indeed, given his $500.00 per day expert witness fee, one must wonder who is partisan! The use of such sources as Sternglass, Gofman or Morgan does your case no credit. >...some of the pro-nukes >foolishly base their case on the writings of the strident >propagandists Petr Beckmann and Bernard Cohen. Two very important points must be made here: 1. One of the characteristics of scientific debate is that the debate is not one of personalities. Such groups as NCRP, etc. have spent many hours studying papers that reflect many more hours of scientific research on the effects of ionizing radiation on human health. In fields where experimentation can be directly applied to hypothesises, a consensus eventually emerges from the researchers in the field. Such knowledge eventually emerges written up in technical reports. This is precisely the reason that Kenneth Ng, suggested that people should only use actual sources and technical reports. This avoids the problems associated with biased interpetations, etc. I have seen *NOBODY* who has "based their case" on the writings of Dr. Beckman or Dr. Cohen. Show me one person who has. Instead people have argued from OTA reports, studies from the NRC, studies from Brookhaven, the TMI commission, etc, etc. Speaking for myself, the only physicist I remember personally quoting as a source has been Dr. A. David Rossin, of the Public Policy Committee of the American Nuclear Society. Although Dr. Cohen has written numerous papers in the technical journals, the only paper referenced by people on the net was his work on plutonium toxicity. Dr. Beckman's major work on energy policy is "The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear" which is a good introduction that I would recommend to anyone interersted in energy issues. (The bibliographic notes list around a hundred other sources for those interested in the questions of energy policy.) 2. While neither individual is central to the debate, I, and others, dislike continual ad homien attacks direced against people who cannot defend themselves. For this reason, people have wasted a lot of time and effort refutting the charges of Ehrlich. And we are not talking about Ehrlich having slight misunderstandings. He is obviously confused about the health risks and waste products from coal and formally removed himself from scientific opinion in the areas of health physics. Even after all of this, you still persist... Describing either Beckman or Cohen as "strident propagandists" is a cheap shot and uncalled for. >...The response was ill-judged attacks on Ehrlich. Ehrlich obviously doesn't mind saying things in the popular press that he wouldn't dare say in a peer reviewed format. (His absurd claim that nuclear wastes caused oysters to glow is a good example of this sort of creative imagination.) If someone wants to quote one source as an expert, one first has to prove his source has some expertise in the field. [What follows next are a bunch of quotes from Carnes, starting out with statements actually made over the net and ending with several that I'm sure he read somewhere. I suspect his inclusion of the extra quotes is to associate people on the net with them. A few are worthy of comment.] >It is when the lay public reads such claims as "plutonium is only ten >times as toxic as caffeine, and less so than botulin toxin", It is when scaremongers say that "plutonium is one of the most dangerous substances known to man" that the public begins to fear. It isn't surprising when you consider how some activists are so free with the truth. >"Ralph Nader says nuclear reactors can blow up in a >nuclear explosion" (Nader merely echoes the views of nuclear experts >such as Brian Flowers who assert that fast breeders can undergo a >nuclear explosion, although such an event ["Hypothetical Core >Disruptive Accident"] is highly unlikely),... Completely wrong. If Nader was actually aware of Flower's work then he was engaging in deception. If he was unaware of his work (the most likely scenario), then he was simply ignorant. Energy scholar Nader made the following quote back in 1974: How many atomic explosions in our cities would you accept before deciding that nuclear power is not safe - no complexities, just a number! This was long before breeder reactors were in our cities, since breeder reactors aren't in US cities today. >... In the >last few weeks you have seen, in the microcosm of the net, a >demonstration of of why the public distrusts nuclear power to such a >degree. Poeple have always been concerned about energy supply, high utility bills and clean air and water. This is why nuclear power has always had to pass the environmental impact statements and public hearings. For the same sorts of reasons, the nuclear industry has been regulated by the federal government. Even with the strident anti-nuclear propaganda from professional activists, the American public hasn't been very deceived. Although I haven't kept up with legal happenings for the last few years, nuclear power has always been supported by the American public. Never had the public voted against nuclear power in any sort of moratorium vote until that point. Obviously, is only the minority of activists that want to subvert the political process to acheive their own goals. (I know that I am personally glad that those with no responsibilities to the people are so willing to speak for the people.) -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs