mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (08/18/86)
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
mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (08/20/86)
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
mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (08/22/86)
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