sandersr@ecn-pc.UUCP (Robert C Sanders) (07/12/86)
[This is being forwarded from the net.politics newsgroup to get the input of the people in the net.sci newsgroup ] >From: mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) In article <516@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: Mr. Carnes article was far too long to respond to totally, but I will try to cover the more important aspects. >The >technology of nuclear power is closely related to that of nuclear >weapons, facilitating the production of weapons, and plutonium is >generated by certain types of reactors, which might be stolen by >terrorists who wished to have their own bomb. But since we can't >calculate the increased risk of nuclear war, it is simply ignored by >the risk-assessors. Trying to get weapons grade fuel from spent nuclear fuel rods is *very* difficult. I won't get into the physics of this now, but frankly, it is beyond the capabilities of any third-world nation. Instead a government will try and build a "research" reactor to produce Pu 239. This has no connection with nuclear power reactors. >Some basic facts about nuclear power: Each step of the nuclear fuel >cycle, from mining to waste disposal, including transport, is >intrinsically hazardous because of the materials involved. In the >opinion of many, the problem of waste disposal has not been solved, >imposing largely unknown hazards on future generations. Again - how does this compare with the risks of the alternatives? Do not twist the argument. The point is not that nuclear power is totally safe, it is just far safer then any of the alternatives. >In *Normal Accidents: Living With High-Risk Technologies*, >organization theorist Charles Perrow makes a compelling case that >nuclear power should be abandoned. The major thesis of the book is >as follows: ... > Above all, I will > argue, sensible living with risky systems means keeping the > controversies alive, listening to the public, and recognizing the > essentially political nature of risk assessment. Ultimately, the > issue is not risk, but power; the power to impose risks on the many > for the benefit of the few. No, the issue is indeed risk. If nuclear power is more dangerous then the alternatives then it should not be used. >Perrow proceeds to consider the field of risk-benefit assessment: > The assessors do not distinguish risks taken for private > profits from those taken for private pleasures or needs, though the > one is imposed, the other to some degree chosen; they ignore the > question of addiction, and the distinction between active risks, > where one has some control, and passive risks; they argue for the > importance of risk but limit their endorsement of the approved risks > to the corporate and military ones, ignoring risks in social and > political matters. No, the risk takers are showing the risks to human life. This is not a cost/benefit analysis and is not based on opinion. An individual can say "the benefits of nuclear power is worth the risk." This is an example of personal opinion based on personal values. The conclusions reached by this type of arguement are not quantifable and are debatable by those with different values. A risk taker will say "Per billion megawatt-hours of generated electricity, generated by the corresponding fuel, either 1036 coal miners, but only 20 uranium miners lose their lives." (R. Wilson, paper given at Energy Conference, Center for Technology and Political Thought). This is not an opinion nor a value judgement - it is a FACT. It can be either true or false. Either way it should not be ignored out of hand. >He then considers public opinion about nuclear power and whether it >should be respected or "corrected" by experts. >... Perrow >argues that "the public is uninformed in many respects, and certainly >can make errors in reasoning, but for matters of catastrophic risk >these errors seem less disabling than the alternative of neglecting >the rationality embedded in social and cultural values". How then can the average person decide? One way is by noting what the experts in the field feel about the matter. The Council of Scientific Affairs of the AMA has reported nuclear power the electric power with least risks in health effects. The eighteen thousand member Power Engineering Society also endorsed nuclear power as the safest form of power generation. So did the Energy Committee of the IEEE. So did the 69,000 member society of Professional Engineers. So did the National Council of the thirty-nine thousand member American Institute of Chemical Engineers. So did the Board of Directors of the thirty-four hundred member Health Physics Society. The American Nuclear Society has also endorsed nuclear power. (Hmm I can already hear the smug laughter about this last one. Yet remember the American Nuclear Society refused to endorse nuclear power for *21* years, because they are probably more concerned about reactor safety then anyone else. It was only in 1975 that they were satisfied at last that nuclear power was the safeest form of power generation.) Is the public aware of the above endorsements? The question of whether nuclear power is safer then the alternatives is not something that should be decided by opinion poll. Especially if you admit that the people polled are ignorant. -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs -- Continuing Engineering Education Telecommunications Purdue University ...!ihnp4!pur-ee!pc-ecn!sandersr Let's make like a BSD process, and go FORK-OFF !! -- bob (and "make" a few children while we're at it ...)
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (07/14/86)
[Michael Stein] >The question of whether nuclear power is safer then the alternatives >is not something that should be decided by opinion poll. But the question of whether we should increase our reliance on nuclear power should be decided by democratic processes. Albert Einstein, considered an expert on nuclear energy, said that "decisions about nuclear energy should be made in the village square". >Trying to get weapons grade fuel from spent nuclear fuel rods is >*very* difficult. I won't get into the physics of this now, but >frankly, it is beyond the capabilities of any third-world nation. It is no secret that nuclear warheads can be made from *reactor-grade* plutonium, using published information. It is risky but there are no doubt many terrorists and other desperate groups who would be willing to take such risks (the safe handling of strategic materials is public knowledge). Please see the section on nuclear power in *Brittle Power* by H. and A. Lovins, who discuss this in detail. Dozens of tons of Pu are generated annually by reactors around the world, and much of it is transported. How are you planning to keep this out of the "wrong hands" (and prevent sabotage all along the fuel cycle)? A police state might be sufficient. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute says: "Societies cannot effectively protect the nuclear fuel cycle against sabotage short of converting to a garrison state.... "Plutonium could be stolen and sold on a `black market', or it could be ransomed, or a group of criminals might steal plutonium for profit, or for use as a nuclear threat to deter police or otherwise further their activities. Or one of the more than 50 terrorist groups that are said to exist worldwide might see nuclear weapons as means of enhancing its capability to use, or threaten, violence. Or a revolutionary-minded political group within a country might acquire nuclear weapons to achieve its political objectives or to deter violence against it. And it should not be forgotten that the danger inherent in a crude nuclear device constructed by, for example, a terrorist group is not confined to a possible nuclear explosion. The contamination of a large area by high levels of plutonium would be an enormous threat in itself." >The point is not that nuclear power is >totally safe, it is just far safer then any of the alternatives. Safer than the "soft energy paths", which are mixes of solar, wind, water, biofuel, conservation and other renewable resources, and which have been extensively discussed in recent years? And what exactly do you mean by "safer"? By putting your argument in these crudely simplistic terms, you are simply parroting the nuclear industry's propaganda. I don't have to read the netnews for this sort of Orwellian horseshit; I can find it in any advertisement from the "U.S. Committee for Energy Awareness" (sic) or Chicago's own beloved Commonwealth Edison. Do you know why the nuclear industry is deluging us with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign (with federal subsidizing) to convince us that nuclear energy is "safe"? Because it really *is* as safe as they say it is, that's why, and the industry's overwhelming concern is the public good. Big business, you know, is rarely motivated by such concerns as profits, power, and job security. Advertising, you know, is designed to promote clear thinking, not to manipulate opinions and preferences. >How then can the average person decide? One way is by noting what >the experts in the field feel about the matter. The Council of >Scientific Affairs of the AMA has reported nuclear power the electric >power with least risks in health effects. The eighteen thousand >member Power Engineering Society also endorsed nuclear power as the >safest form of power generation. So did the Energy Committee of the >IEEE. So did the 69,000 member society of Professional Engineers. >So did the National Council of the thirty-nine thousand member >American Institute of Chemical Engineers. So did the Board of >Directors of the thirty-four hundred member Health Physics Society. 1. What exactly did these groups claim about nuclear power? I hope it was more specific than "nuclear power is the safest form of power generation", which is too vague for science, but not for propaganda. Did they take into account such factors as plutonium theft, proliferation of nuclear weapons, genetic damage which may be perpetuated for many generations, the unsolved problem of disposal of wastes, the possibilities of installing smokestack scrubbers and improved safety measures in coal mines (much room for improvement here)? How did they calculate the probability of catastrophic accidents in the future? You imply that the "experts" are in solid agreement, but what about the many physical scientists who disagree with your evaluation? 2. Are engineers professionally qualified to evaluate how the *organizational setting*, the fact that risky systems are operated by organizations and exist in an environment of organizations, affects the operation of such systems? Are they qualified to understand the nature of risky systems in their social setting? Since engineers are not trained in sociology or organization theory, did these groups take into account the views of experts from such fields (such as Perrow)? 3. Are these professional groups interested parties? Would the abandonment of or gradual shift away from nuclear power affect their careers adversely? 4. Should our collective choice of energy policy be based on *one number*, a one-dimensional assessment of risk per unit of energy produced? Or should a variety of factors, including the distinction betweeen voluntary and involuntary risk and the way the public perceives and evaluates risk, be considered? Perrow puts it well, in *Complex Organizations* [pp. 153-154]: "...a systems analysis discloses that the infrastructure of risk analysis and risk assessment that guides the selection and design of risky systems -- an infrastructure housed in universities, government agencies, and industry trade groups -- reflects its elite origins and values. Experts, largely economists and engineers, help to guide the selection and design of risky systems. We are only beginning to understand their legitimization role. They declare that the public is grossly uninformed and irrational in its fear of risky technologies; the gap between the experts and the public on these policy issues is to be closed by educating the public to agree with the experts. But the experts have a far narrower view of risk and benefit than the public does, relying on body counts rather than the more social and cultural criteria that the public uses. Poll data indicate the public takes into account such questions as: Do those who bear no risk receive the benefits, while those at risk do not? Is there a catastrophic potential -- that is, even if no significant radiation has leaked from a nuclear plant accident, what would happen in a particularly bad accident? ... Is the technology new and poorly understood? Are the victims related (i.e., killing 50,000 a year on the highways is [arguably] not as bad as wiping out a whole community of 50,000, because a whole culture is lost in the latter case)? Will future generations be affected? "Careful polling has revealed that these social and cultural aspects of risk enter into the average citizen's evaluation but not those of the experts in the universities, industries, and government regulatory bodies. An organizational analysis of the setting, professional training, and organizational ties of these experts makes their narrow approach understandable." [Comment: In particular, it shows why "operator error" is so often the scapegoat, instead of faulty design or management. Finding that faulty designs were responsible would entail enormous shutdown and retrofitting costs; finding that management was responsible would threaten those in charge; finding that operators were responsible preserves the system, especially if the operators do not have a strong union. TMI was a typical case of blaming the operators unjustifiably: based on their instructions and available information, the operators COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN that they "should have" done otherwise than what they did. The Kemeny Commission reported that "the major cause of the accident was due to inappropriate actions by those who were operating the plant". But Perrow, a consultant to the Commission, shows (in *Normal Accidents*) that the major cause of TMI was the nature and design of the reactor system: interactive complexity in conjunction with tight coupling makes major accidents *inevitable*. Thus the industry's promised "improved operator training" will not significantly improve the safety of reactors.] "The problem of safe systems has generally been defined as an engineering one, with some attention by regulatory bodies. I have tried to show that this is a quite incomplete, and often a simply wrong, approach." Richard Carnes
ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (07/15/86)
In article <522@gargoyle.UUCP>, carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: > [Michael Stein] > >The question of whether nuclear power is safer then the alternatives > >is not something that should be decided by opinion poll. > > But the question of whether we should increase our reliance on > nuclear power should be decided by democratic processes. Albert > Einstein, considered an expert on nuclear energy, said that > "decisions about nuclear energy should be made in the village > square". But what will people think when all they read is the popular press instead of the technical articles? If I were to believe Popular Science there would be a new revolutionary technology every month that would solve all the problems on earth. But if I read the technical articles on the subject I see what is still to be done in the various fields. > It is no secret that nuclear warheads can be made from > *reactor-grade* plutonium, using published information. It is risky > but there are no doubt many terrorists and other desperate groups who > would be willing to take such risks (the safe handling of strategic > materials is public knowledge). Please see the section on nuclear > power in *Brittle Power* by H. and A. Lovins, who discuss this in > detail. Dozens of tons of Pu are generated annually by reactors > around the world, and much of it is transported. How are you > planning to keep this out of the "wrong hands" (and prevent sabotage > all along the fuel cycle)? A police state might be sufficient. The > Stockholm International Peace Research Institute says: When will you people stop reading the popular literature and start reading some real articles? One article that treated the subject rather well was "The Homemade Nuclear Bomb Syndrome", published in Nuclear Safety, between 6 and 8 years ago. It went into a detailed analysis of some of what is involved in making a nuclear bomb from reactor grade plutonium. It and other articles conclude that just the high percentage of plutonium 240 would not only make the bomb go off as it was being assembled, but would effectively snuff out any significant explosion. Also, please note that India, and I think South Africa, used RESEARCH reactors instead of POWER reactors to obtain weapons grade plutonium. To get weapon grade plutonium from power reactors is much more difficult than from research reactors. > "Societies cannot effectively protect the nuclear fuel cycle against > sabotage short of converting to a garrison state.... Gee, so where is this garrison state? We've had nuclear weapons moved about this country for forty odd years and I don't see that much of a garrison state. > "Plutonium could be stolen and sold on a `black market', or it could > be ransomed, or a group of criminals might steal plutonium for > profit, or for use as a nuclear threat to deter police or otherwise > further their activities. Or one of the more than 50 terrorist > groups that are said to exist worldwide might see nuclear weapons as > means of enhancing its capability to use, or threaten, violence. Or > a revolutionary-minded political group within a country might acquire > nuclear weapons to achieve its political objectives or to deter > violence against it. And it should not be forgotten that the danger > inherent in a crude nuclear device constructed by, for example, a > terrorist group is not confined to a possible nuclear explosion. The > contamination of a large area by high levels of plutonium would be an > enormous threat in itself." This brings up another point. Depending upon design, the manufacture of a nuclear bomb requires an enormous amount of material and manufacturing skills. Forget the movie "Manhatten Project", it isn't that easy. The June 1986 issue of Discover magazine concludes that terrorists almost universally use the crudest and simplest available weapons and bombs. Once again, please refer to "The Toxicity of Plutonium" and "High-Level Radioactive Waste from Light-Water Reactors", both by Bernard L. Cohen. They have various scenarios concerning purposeful dispersal of both plutonium and radioactive wastes via various dispersion methods, air, water, etc. The results indicate that the threat is not that much more than from other common terrorist materials. > > >The point is not that nuclear power is > >totally safe, it is just far safer then any of the alternatives. > > Safer than the "soft energy paths", which are mixes of solar, wind, > water, biofuel, conservation and other renewable resources, and which > have been extensively discussed in recent years? And what exactly do > you mean by "safer"? By putting your argument in these crudely > simplistic terms, you are simply parroting the nuclear industry's > propaganda. I don't have to read the netnews for this sort of > Orwellian horseshit; I can find it in any advertisement from the > "U.S. Committee for Energy Awareness" (sic) or Chicago's own beloved > Commonwealth Edison. Do you know why the nuclear industry is > deluging us with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign (with federal > subsidizing) to convince us that nuclear energy is "safe"? Because > it really *is* as safe as they say it is, that's why, and the > industry's overwhelming concern is the public good. Big business, > you know, is rarely motivated by such concerns as profits, power, and > job security. Advertising, you know, is designed to promote clear > thinking, not to manipulate opinions and preferences. Among the organizations I've got articles from is the University of Hirshoma, a place you would think would report any actual damage found from nuclear radiation. But instead, they concluded sometime in the 1970's that there were no measurable increase in genetic defects of people who where conceived after the two nuclear explosions at the end of World War II. > >How then can the average person decide? One way is by noting what > >the experts in the field feel about the matter. The Council of > >Scientific Affairs of the AMA has reported nuclear power the electric > >power with least risks in health effects. The eighteen thousand > >member Power Engineering Society also endorsed nuclear power as the > >safest form of power generation. So did the Energy Committee of the > >IEEE. So did the 69,000 member society of Professional Engineers. > >So did the National Council of the thirty-nine thousand member > >American Institute of Chemical Engineers. So did the Board of > >Directors of the thirty-four hundred member Health Physics Society. > > 1. What exactly did these groups claim about nuclear power? I hope > it was more specific than "nuclear power is the safest form of power > generation", which is too vague for science, but not for propaganda. > Did they take into account such factors as plutonium theft, > proliferation of nuclear weapons, genetic damage which may be > perpetuated for many generations, the unsolved problem of disposal of > wastes, the possibilities of installing smokestack scrubbers and > improved safety measures in coal mines (much room for improvement > here)? How did they calculate the probability of catastrophic > accidents in the future? You imply that the "experts" are in solid > agreement, but what about the many physical scientists who disagree > with your evaluation? The problem of nuclear waste disposal will be solved as soon as environmentalists will stop demanding that we repeat environmental impact studies which have already been completed. Other articles that I've written have shown the hazards of randomly disposing of nuclear waste at random locations around the country will kill 0.4 people over one million years. I think that a planned location can do at least as well. > > 2. Are engineers professionally qualified to evaluate how the > *organizational setting*, the fact that risky systems are operated by > organizations and exist in an environment of organizations, affects > the operation of such systems? Are they qualified to understand the > nature of risky systems in their social setting? Since engineers are > not trained in sociology or organization theory, did these groups > take into account the views of experts from such fields (such as > Perrow)? I've read the above paragraph over and over for about half and hour and still don't know what in the world you are talking about. The engineering assessments are plain and simple: to generate the same power, which has the fewer risks. To say that there are other reasons to consider is to acknowledge that the antinuclear debate cannot be won on technical grounds. > 3. Are these professional groups interested parties? Would the > abandonment of or gradual shift away from nuclear power affect their > careers adversely? Oh not this false arguement again. This is like saying a you should take a car to a plumber to figure out what is wrong with the car. Well, just in case, let me state for the record that I do not own any stock in the nuclear or affiliated industries, nor is my career going to be affected by either the decision to abandon or pursue nuclear power. This is the same kind of junk that often prevents government from working properly and efficiently. The Grace Commission, for example, complained that they couldn't use IBM personal to assess the efficiency of the government computer systems because IBM might have a conflict of interest. > > 4. Should our collective choice of energy policy be based on *one > number*, a one-dimensional assessment of risk per unit of energy > produced? Or should a variety of factors, including the distinction > betweeen voluntary and involuntary risk and the way the public > perceives and evaluates risk, be considered? Perrow puts it well, in > *Complex Organizations* [pp. 153-154]: You will have involuntary risks no matter where you go or what you do. > > "...a systems analysis discloses that the infrastructure of risk > analysis and risk assessment that guides the selection and design of > risky systems -- an infrastructure housed in universities, government > agencies, and industry trade groups -- reflects its elite origins and > values. Experts, largely economists and engineers, help to guide the > selection and design of risky systems. We are only beginning to > understand their legitimization role. They declare that the public > is grossly uninformed and irrational in its fear of risky > technologies; the gap between the experts and the public on these > policy issues is to be closed by educating the public to agree with > the experts. But the experts have a far narrower view of risk and > benefit than the public does, relying on body counts rather than the > more social and cultural criteria that the public uses. Poll data > indicate the public takes into account such questions as: Do those > who bear no risk receive the benefits, while those at risk do not? > Is there a catastrophic potential -- that is, even if no significant > radiation has leaked from a nuclear plant accident, what would happen > in a particularly bad accident? ... Is the technology new and poorly > understood? Are the victims related (i.e., killing 50,000 a year on > the highways is [arguably] not as bad as wiping out a whole community > of 50,000, because a whole culture is lost in the latter case)? Will > future generations be affected? Believe it or not, such models, while they are the harshest, are the most accurate, and are the only really usable statistics which are free from emotional ramblings. > "Careful polling has revealed that these social and cultural aspects > of risk enter into the average citizen's evaluation but not those of > the experts in the universities, industries, and government > regulatory bodies. An organizational analysis of the setting, > professional training, and organizational ties of these experts makes > their narrow approach understandable." > > [Comment: In particular, it shows why "operator error" is so often > the scapegoat, instead of faulty design or management. Finding that > faulty designs were responsible would entail enormous shutdown and > retrofitting costs; finding that management was responsible would > threaten those in charge; finding that operators were responsible > preserves the system, especially if the operators do not have a > strong union. TMI was a typical case of blaming the operators > unjustifiably: based on their instructions and available > information, the operators COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN that they "should > have" done otherwise than what they did. The Kemeny Commission > reported that "the major cause of the accident was due to > inappropriate actions by those who were operating the plant". But > Perrow, a consultant to the Commission, shows (in *Normal Accidents*) > that the major cause of TMI was the nature and design of the reactor > system: interactive complexity in conjunction with tight coupling > makes major accidents *inevitable*. Thus the industry's promised > "improved operator training" will not significantly improve the > safety of reactors.] Operator training will help prevent future accidents, just look at the Crystal River incident. It had the beginnings of TMI, but the incident was correctly handled, resulting in the abort of an accident. > Richard Carnes Well, I don't know how many more times I'll be able to do things like this posting. My productivity at work has dropped a bit since this arguement got started. Therefore I won't be posting as many articles, nor will they be as long, maybe. -- Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey 07102 uucp(for a while) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!argus!ken soon uucp:ken@argus.cccc.njit.edu bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet or ken@orion.bitnet soon bitnet: ken@orion.cccc.njit.edu (We are VERY slowly moving to RFC 920, kicking and screaming) Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical, that is the only planet in the federation that can make that claim" Savaak: "He's so....human" Spock: "No one is perfect"
mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (07/16/86)
In article <522@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >But the question of whether we should increase our reliance on >nuclear power should be decided by democratic processes. The public has always been concerned with energy supply, high utility bills and pollution. In each of these areas, nuclear power has proven itself better then its competition. Unfortunately the preferences of the public and the recommendations of those who have responsibilities to the public are often thwarted by those who seem to have an irrational hatred of nuclear power. >Albert Einstein, considered an expert on nuclear energy, said ... Einstein can not be considered an expert on nuclear power generation Quoting from him is a good example of a logical fallacy. >It is no secret that nuclear warheads can be made from >*reactor-grade* plutonium, using published information. This is simply wrong. By using the nuclear technology of the US military the Carter administration was able to get a Pu 240 device to explode. But the bomb also had to be called a "nuclear device" since it lacked the transportability of a bomb. So yes, it might be possible. It also is about 100 times harder then almost any other option open to a terrorist. I would be happy if terrorists wasted their time trying this. ... >planning to keep this out of the "wrong hands" (and prevent sabotage >all along the fuel cycle)? A police state might be sufficient. We have been doing it for 30 years without having to make a police state. >>The point is not that nuclear power is >>totally safe, it is just far safer then any of the alternatives. > >Safer than the "soft energy paths", which are mixes of solar, wind, >water, biofuel, conservation and other renewable resources, and which >have been extensively discussed in recent years? Prove they can produce the 2 billion or so megawatts of electricity that we use per year. The alternatives to nuclear are coal and oil. I am arguing that nuclear is safer. If you are saying there are other alternatives, that is a different argument. Remember: solar competes with *oil* not with nuclear. >By putting your >argument in these crudely simplistic terms, you are simply >parroting the nuclear industry's propaganda. I don't have >to read the netnews for this sort of Orwellian horseshit; Ad homien argument. One more fallacy. >3. Are these professional groups interested parties? Would the >abandonment of or gradual shift away from nuclear power affect their >careers adversely? This is a serious charge and one that I hope you don't make lightly. By calling doubts on the integrity of the members of an entire field, I wish you would first have some proof. I can't really see much of a conflict of interest... Nuclear engineering has a large number of subdisiplines, only one of which is power generation. If you wish to look into the motives of anyone, I might suggest the motives of some of the radical anti-nukes - all of their income/fame/reputation is contingent on "proving" that nuclear power is too dangerous. I quote from "Nuclear Power Politics" by A. David Rossin. (A. David Rossen is Chairman of the Public Policy Committee of the ANS. He holds an MS in Nuclear Engineering, MBA and a Ph.D. in metallurgy.) ...We knew that technical descriptions would be difficult, but believed that the public would trust professionalism, as has been the case in medicine, transportation and construction, especially when the whole nuclear enterprise was being carried out under strict government regulation. One thing we did not anticipate is that an adversarial conflict would arise in which those opposed would not accept experts or government and would be successful in convincing a significant fraction of the public that anyone experienced in nuclear power should not be trusted. ... What we counted on was that the contestants would play by the rules, that when the preponderence of scientific evidence, tested by peer review, came to a clear conclusion, that issue would be settled and we could move ahead. We were naive at the advocacy game in which logic and the rules of evidence could be ignored... -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (07/18/86)
> In article <522@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: > >But the question of whether we should increase our reliance on > >nuclear power should be decided by democratic processes. > > The public has always been concerned with energy supply, high utility > bills and pollution. In each of these areas, nuclear power has > proven itself better then its competition. Unfortunately the > preferences of the public and the recommendations of those who have > responsibilities to the public are often thwarted by those who seem > to have an irrational hatred of nuclear power. > > >Albert Einstein, considered an expert on nuclear energy, said ... > > Einstein can not be considered an expert on nuclear power generation > Quoting from him is a good example of a logical fallacy. > Einstein did not express in that quote scientific views, but rather a moral truth. In particular, would the majority feel that nuclear power is damaging, it could be sufficient reason to abolish investments in nukes, even if the damages would be mostly psychological. On the other hand, vast majority clearly enjoys the large energy consumption of our society. We have plenty of matals, plastic, paper, refrigerated produce from irrigated fields spayed with chemicals etc. etc. We need large sources of energy to mantain our lifestyle, even assuming large conservation efforts. As I already wrote, any source of energy, if used in massive scale, is bound to be controversial. Hydropower is being objected by ecologists and people afraid of transmition lines. Wood is by no means so pure source of energy. Windmills are claimed to be ugly and noisy, many people would object against having them everywhere. Assuming photovoltaic cells would become economical, we could get serious ecological sideeffects of this power source as well. I would understand Einstein as follows. People should learn enough about nuclear power (and nuclear wepons) that they could accept it with knowledge, and because of the trust to some amiable politicians. Possibly, we should have more politicians with degrees in physics, engeneering, chemistry, biology, instead of the current predominance of law and divinity degrees. Piotr Berman > >It is no secret that nuclear warheads can be made from > >*reactor-grade* plutonium, using published information. > > This is simply wrong. By using the nuclear technology of the > US military the Carter administration was able to get a Pu > 240 device to explode. But the bomb also had to be called a > "nuclear device" since it lacked the transportability of a bomb. > So yes, it might be possible. It also is about 100 times harder > then almost any other option open to a terrorist. I would be happy if > terrorists wasted their time trying this. > > ... > >planning to keep this out of the "wrong hands" (and prevent sabotage > >all along the fuel cycle)? A police state might be sufficient. > > We have been doing it for 30 years without having to make a police > state. > > >>The point is not that nuclear power is > >>totally safe, it is just far safer then any of the alternatives. > > > >Safer than the "soft energy paths", which are mixes of solar, wind, > >water, biofuel, conservation and other renewable resources, and which > >have been extensively discussed in recent years? > > Prove they can produce the 2 billion or so megawatts of electricity > that we use per year. The alternatives to nuclear are coal and oil. > I am arguing that nuclear is safer. If you are saying there are other > alternatives, that is a different argument. > Remember: solar competes with *oil* not with nuclear. > > >By putting your > >argument in these crudely simplistic terms, you are simply > >parroting the nuclear industry's propaganda. I don't have > >to read the netnews for this sort of Orwellian horseshit; > > Ad homien argument. One more fallacy. > > >3. Are these professional groups interested parties? Would the > >abandonment of or gradual shift away from nuclear power affect their > >careers adversely? > > This is a serious charge and one that I hope you don't make lightly. > By calling doubts on the integrity of the members of an entire field, > I wish you would first have some proof. I can't really see much of a > conflict of interest... Nuclear engineering has a large number > of subdisiplines, only one of which is power generation. If you > wish to look into the motives of anyone, I might suggest the > motives of some of the radical anti-nukes - all of their > income/fame/reputation is contingent on "proving" that nuclear > power is too dangerous. > > I quote from "Nuclear Power Politics" by A. David Rossin. (A. David > Rossen is Chairman of the Public Policy Committee of the ANS. He > holds an MS in Nuclear Engineering, MBA and a Ph.D. in metallurgy.) > > ...We knew that technical descriptions would be difficult, but > believed that the public would trust professionalism, as has > been the case in medicine, transportation and construction, > especially when the whole nuclear enterprise was being carried > out under strict government regulation. One thing we did not > anticipate is that an adversarial conflict would arise in > which those opposed would not accept experts or government and > would be successful in convincing a significant fraction of > the public that anyone experienced in nuclear power should not > be trusted. > > ... > What we counted on was that the contestants would play by the > rules, that when the preponderence of scientific evidence, > tested by peer review, came to a clear conclusion, that issue > would be settled and we could move ahead. We were naive at > the advocacy game in which logic and the rules of evidence > could be ignored... > > -- > Michael V. Stein > Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services > > UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (07/22/86)
In article <452@meccts.UUCP>, mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) writes: > >It is no secret that nuclear warheads can be made from > >*reactor-grade* plutonium, using published information. > > This is simply wrong. By using the nuclear technology of the > US military the Carter administration was able to get a Pu > 240 device to explode. But the bomb also had to be called a > "nuclear device" since it lacked the transportability of a bomb. > So yes, it might be possible. It also is about 100 times harder > then almost any other option open to a terrorist. I would be happy if > terrorists wasted their time trying this. Are you sure it wasn't plutonium 239, and not plutonium 240? -- Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey 07102 uucp(for a while) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!argus!ken soon uucp:ken@argus.cccc.njit.edu bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet or ken@orion.bitnet soon bitnet: ken@orion.cccc.njit.edu (We are VERY slowly moving to RFC 920, kicking and screaming) Spock: "Captain, you are an excellent Starship Captain, but as a taxi driver, you need much to be desired." Savaak: "He's so....human" Spock: "No one is perfect"
brian@sequent.UUCP (Brian Godfrey) (07/30/86)
But what do you do with the waste? You cause it, you store it. That's what I say. Don't send it out here in the Northwest. We don't even have a place for our own waste. But we'll keep ours here if everyone else will keep there's there. That's fair. "If you can't stand the heat, turn off the stove." --Brian