carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (07/18/86)
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. 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: The remaining three chapters on energy -- two by Petr Beckmann on solar energy and coal and one by Bernard Cohen on the hazards of nuclear power -- fall squarely into the embarrassingly incompetent or deliberately misleading category. Beckmann begins with a muddled discussion of what deserves to be called a "renewable" resource, then follows with a flat understatement of average insolation at moderate latitude by about a factor of two. He posits a collection efficiency of 0.00008 for biomass, which is about 30 times lower than the correct figure for all terrestrial plants, and 60 to 300 times lower than the efficiencies achieved by the types of plants used or under investigation for energy supply. The rest of his analysis of renewables is of similar quality. 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." ... 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] Richard Carnes
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (07/18/86)
> [Richard Carnes, (I think quoting from Paul and Anne 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." ... ----- Please, Richard, tell me why this assertion is "confused". If the fertility rate did drop below the ZPG rate (the rate that, if sustained, would eventually lead to a stable population), the total population would still continue to rise for years thereafter because of the initial age distribution of the population. This is even without taking into account immigration into the U. S., which is significant. Beckmann's assertion about the fertility rate may be true or false, but it is clear and consistent. It looks like the confusion is elsewhere. (I think that, in fact, the U. S. fertility rate did drop below the ZPG level sometime in the 1970's, but I am not sure.) -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (07/19/86)
> 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." ... (I don't have the figures.) It might possibly be a false assertion, but it is not a confused assertion. Last I heard, ZPG did not attempt to take immigration into account. David Hudson
mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (07/20/86)
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
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/22/86)
After reading the critical review of Petr Beckman's work on renewable
energy sources, I am not at all surprised that he would write a
tract in the Wall Street Journal about Meselson et al's article
on "Yellow Rain" (i.e. bee feces) which shows either that he never
read the article or that if he did, he chose to totally distort
what the Scientific American article actually said.
The suspicions that Petr Beckman is some sort of misinformed
hack seem confirmed.
tim sevener whuxn!orbcarnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (07/22/86)
I hope no one took seriously Michael Stein's attack on biologist Paul Ehrlich, but it should be answered in any case. >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. Paul Ehrlich is Professor of Biological Sciences and Bing Professor of Population Studies at Stanford University. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He is a trustee of the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, past president of Zero Population Growth, and the recipient of the Sierra Club's John Muir Award. His most recent book, *The Machinery of Nature*, is adorned on its cover with such review quotes as: "The complicated and swiftly moving science of ecology is here explained in lucid and entertaining style by one of its foremost practitioners. No one has contributed more broadly than Ehrlich to the many basic and applied issues..." ---Edward O. Wilson "Paul Ehrlich is both one of the world's great ecologists and men of action. No one else is so uniquely suited to discuss both the technical details and the larger implications of the science of ecology." --Stephen Jay Gould "Only a scientist with the credentials of Ehrlich could have written this magnificent book." --Robert Ornstein (Stanford psychologist) In three passages in *The Cold and the Dark*, the report of the conference on nuclear winter, Ehrlich is described as "distinguished" by Lewis Thomas, M.D., Thomas Malone, and Carl Sagan. I am not sure what else Ehrlich has to do to become a "respected biologist" -- perhaps being elected president of the National Academy of Sciences and two or three Nobel Prizes might suffice for Mr. Stein. "Far afield from the mainstream of science" ! >With the general lack of interest in his >doomsday theories, I notice he is now jumping on the nuclear winter >bandwagon. This snide remark epitomizes Stein's comments. Ehrlich did not "jump on the nuclear winter bandwagon"; he was invited by the original group of scientists investigating nuclear winter, presumably because of his reputation in the scientific community and his writings on the survival prospects of the human race, to chair the task force of twenty prominent biologists who investigated the consequences of nuclear war for the biosphere. >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." Sounds like a real Nazi, doesn't he. >(Admittely later editions of some of his books try to hide the most >Nazi-like statements.) What "Nazi-like statements"? If you have any serious criticisms of Ehrlich's views on population, Mr. Stein, by all means let us hear them, but this sort of cheap innuendo only serves to put you into discredit. Richard Carnes
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (07/22/86)
> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) > [quoting Paul & Anne 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." ... What is confused about this? Seems straightforward to me. In fact, it seems likely that the Ehrlichs are confused here. > "[...] 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] 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. The point that nuclear wastes, while highly toxic, are small in quantity compared to those from chemically powered processes is still valid. 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. -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (07/30/86)
Our newsfeed has been having manic-depressive episodes lately, so I am reposting an article. Congrats to everyone who wrote to explain Paul Ehrlich's alleged "confusion" concerning an elementary fact about fertility that he has no doubt been teaching to undergraduates for 25 years in the first week of "Introduction to Population Biology" -- you have confirmed my estimate of the net's level of brilliance. Presumably the same people, when they read the end of this article, will write to explain that the eminent ecologist is unaware that CO2 is "absorbed" in photosynthesis; I assume they would not hesitate, in conversation with S. J. Gould, to explain to him that dinosaurs were not contemporaneous with cave men, or point out to Carl Sagan that there are many more stars than you can see with the naked eye, or explain to Richard Feynman that protons carry a positive charge. Sheesh. I will not have the time or stomach to read the netnews for a long while at least, so if you want to argue with me please send email. Following is the text of the reposted article: >>[Paul & Anne 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." ... > >What is confused about this? Seems straightforward to me. >In fact, it seems likely that the Ehrlichs are confused here. "ZPG fertility rate" is not an accepted synonym for "replacement reproduction", which is apparently what Beckmann is referring to: that level of the total fertility rate which, sustained for about one life expectancy, will result in the leveling off of population growth to ZPG, assuming no net immigration or changes in age-specific vital rates. "The TOTAL FERTILITY RATE is the average number of children each woman would bear during her lifetime if age-specific fertility remained constant, and a total fertility rate of 2.1 is roughly equal to an NRR [net reproductive rate] of 1 where typical developed country death rates prevail." [P. Ehrlich, A. Ehrlich, and J.P. Holdren, *Ecoscience*, 2nd ed., p. 218]. In the US, the total fertility rate has been under the replacement level of 2.1 since about 1972, at least until about 1983, the last year for which I have found data. Nit-picking? Perhaps, but the quote from Beckmann is found in a book (*The Resourceful Earth*) that brags about its sophisticated approach to projections of population and resource phenomena. Speaking as former president of ZPG, Paul Ehrlich writes: ...these organizations [ZPG and Friends of the Earth] feel that the U.S. population should be stabilized, and they rightly view current immigration practices as destabilizing. They believe that there should be a national population policy, spelled out and written down, and they realize that there can be no coherent population policy that does not include an immigration policy. Eventually, the number of people who enter the United States must be balanced by the number leaving or by a reduction in fertility. The sooner this is achieved, the better. The population of the United States has already exceeded the optimum if not the maximum for maintaining the kind of life Americans expect. [P. Ehrlich, A. Ehrlich, and L. Bilderback, *The Golden Door: International Migration, Mexico, and the United States*, pp. 344-45.] So it is not clear what "ZPG fertility rate" should mean, if anything, although it is clear what Beckmann intends by the phrase. In *Ecoscience*, Ehrlich et al. explain some basic concepts of demography: If age-specific vital rates (birth and death) remain constant, the age composition of a population eventually becomes STABLE, a situation in which the proportion of people in each age class does not change through time. A population with a stable age composition can be growing, shrinking, or constant in size.... When a population is constant in size, demographers refer to it as STATIONARY. Colloquially, one says that zero population growth has been achieved.... The NRR [net reproductive rate] of a human population is the ratio of the number of women in one generation to that in the next. It is calculated by applying the age-specific birth and death rates of the population at a given time to a hypothetical group of 1000 newborn female babies, determining how many live female babies those females would themselves produce, and dividing that number by 1000. ... The drop in American fertility to below replacement level between 1972 and 1975 was popularly interpreted to mean that ZPG had been achieved in the United States. But growth certainly had not stopped.... Demographer Thomas Frejka, using 1965 as a base year, showed what could happen to the United States population under a variety of assumption. For instance, instant ZPG could be achieved only by reducing the NRR to slightly below 0.6, with an average of about 1.2 children per family, between 1965 and 1985. ... After that, in order to hold the population size constant, the crude birth rate and NRR would have to oscillate wildly above and below the eventual equilibrium values for several centuries. The age composition would correspondingly change violently, undoubtedly having a variety of serious social consequences. [These problems] could be avoided by maintaining the 1975 level of fertility (slightly below replacement). This would produce further growth, but at a slackening rate. Disregarding immigration, growth would end in about fifty years with a peak population of about 252 million, and then there would be a slow decline. Accepting some further growth followed by a period of negative population growth, rather than attempting to hold the population precisely at ZPG, would seem to be much less disruptive. And ... there are powerful arguments for reducing the size of the United States population well below its *present* level.... [Ehrlich et al., *Ecoscience*, pp. 208-14] Now here are two more confused assertions of Beckmann, according to the Ehrlichs: [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. Richard Carnes
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (08/02/86)
> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) >> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) > Congrats to everyone who wrote to explain Paul Ehrlich's alleged > "confusion" [...] you have confirmed my > estimate of the net's level of brilliance. I assume that this estimate is low. Nevertheless, you have not shown that Beckmann was confused, merely that he uses "non-standard" terminology. Note further: >>What is confused about this? Seems straightforward to me. >>In fact, it seems likely that the Ehrlichs are confused here. This is supposed to support the conclusion that I'm "explaining" Ehrlich's confusion? I merely asserted that, from the snippet you posted alone, the Ehrlichs *seem* confused, and Beckmann's statement *seems* quite straightforward. Again, merely quoting what Beckmann says and calling it "confused" without providing the analysis is not very convincing. In this case, when you provided the analysis, it turned out that the "confusion" amounted to using a term involving ZPG where one involving NRR might be more appropriate. In fact, you yourself say: > So it is not clear what "ZPG fertility rate" should mean, if > anything, although it is clear what Beckmann intends by the phrase. which is just what I was asserting: Beckmann's intended meaning is clear, and not confused at all. In terming it "confused" when the meaning is clear, the Ehrlichs give the appearance of confusion themselves. > [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. OK. I give up. Why is *this* one confused? More BS about nonstandard terminology, despite the use being quite clear and straightforward? -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/13/86)
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
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (08/16/86)
> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP > 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 [some reading matter, omitted] Well, you don't need to "venture to correct" me since I didn't assert that CO2 is absorbed into plants through the process of photosynthesis. Nor did I claim to be "knowledgeable about biology", so the source of your knowlege of my knowlege is unclear to me. If your condescending attitude while misinterpreting what I post is supposed to be "friendly", I suppose I'd hate to see you irate. I suppose I'd better be explicit, since Richard seems to think I'm attempting to *support* Beckmann. Q. Do I trust Beckmann's analyses? A. No, he too obviously has an axe to grind. Q. Do I trust Ehrlich then? A. No, he's just grinding the other side of the same axe. Have a nice day. -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/18/86)
[Wayne Throop] > Q. Do I trust Beckmann's analyses? > A. No, he too obviously has an axe to grind. > > Q. Do I trust Ehrlich then? > A. No, he's just grinding the other side of the same axe. In my postings on nuclear power, I have tried to make the point that there are knowledgeable and highly intelligent people on both the pro and the con sides of the issue, and that it is not the case, as some of the pro-nukes have it, that informed opinion is all on one side while the lay public that fears nuclear power is uninformed and hysterical. 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). Instead of citing the views of scientists who command wide respect, (Bethe, Weinberg, Weisskopf, Flowers, etc.), some of the pro-nukes foolishly base their case on the writings of the strident propagandists Petr Beckmann and Bernard Cohen. I quoted a biologist who is highly regarded by his scientific colleagues, Paul Ehrlich, in a review of some of their work, to give some idea why Beckmann and Cohen may be regarded as propagandists in the invidious sense. The response was ill-judged attacks on Ehrlich. 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", "after 300 years of waste storage the nuclear industry will be cleaning up the earth", "there is absolutely no connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons", "hundreds of people are condemned to premature death every time a coal plant is built instead of a nuclear plant", "most opponents of nuclear power are Luddites who oppose technology and progress", "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), "Amory Lovins misrepresents his educational background" (he doesn't), "there is no danger worth worrying about from reactor sabotage or theft of plutonium", "[any of the AEC's notorious lies]", "the NRC is doing its job and has everything under control", "nuclear power is the `safest' energy technology", "Chicago must increase its electricity bills by 30% (with severe consequences for the city's economy) to pay for several new reactors, even though none of the existing nukes was used when the record for power output was set in July", or any of the propaganda generated by the US Committee for Energy Awareness -- when the public hears this sort of claim, which has been characteristic of the nuclear industry from the *beginning*, and discovers later that some of the claims are exaggerated or false, it is small wonder that the industry loses all credibility in the eyes of the public. 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. Richard Carnes
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (08/19/86)
>>>[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. [Richard Carnes quoting the Ehrlichs] >> >>OK. I give up. Why is *this* one confused? More BS about >>nonstandard terminology, despite the use being quite clear and >>straightforward? [Wayne Throop] > >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. [Richard Carnes] No great knowledge of biology is required, this is high-school stuff: CO2 diffuses into a leaf, photosynthesis consumes the CO2 producing O2, the O2 diffuses out. I can't see any other reason why the Ehrlichs would object to Beckman's words other than this, that "absorption" is a loose use of terminology. But if this is the nature of the Ehrlichs' objection, it's just a pointless nit-pick. Surely they could restrict themselves to ridiculing Beckman's *real* mistakes, no? -- David Canzi "We believe that all policemen and politicians can be rehabilitated. -- Simon Moon
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (08/20/86)
Re: Nuclear power and propaganda I turned on the TV a few weeks ago to see a debate between a representative for the Seabrook nuclear plant and someone sent by an anti-Seabrook group (I forget which.) I couldn't help but notice that the guy the nuke plant sent was under 30, had longish hair and was stylishly dressed. The guy from the anti-nuke group? You guessed it, 50ish, dowdy, looked like a chamber of commerce old-boy. Well, what could I do...I laughed. -Barry Shein, Boston University