morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison) (09/18/85)
The inconsistency in the attitudes of the pro-industrialists with respect to acid rain and nuclear power is the following. Let us agree that the connection between dead lakes and SO2 emissions (largely from coal combustion) is at least as well established as the connection between cancer and the injestion of excessive quantities (whatever that is) of radioactive isotopes found in nuclear waste. It is probably true that the SO2 connection is far better established - perhaps even verging on the status of facthood which Henry Spencer so loves to bandy about. So, what is the result of cleaning up coal combustion?? High costs. And if we were wrong (i.e. there is little connection between lake death and SO2 emissions)?? We have spent an awful lot of money on cleaner air and reduced illness. What, on the other hand, is the result of pursuing the technology of nuclear power? WE DON'T KNOW. Why not? Because we have no way of knowing the concentrations of radioactive particulate which might be introduced into the food chain through a long term program of waste management. (Much as Mr. Spencer might wish otherwise, nuclear technology is in the domain of engineering not science. Engineering artifiacts fail.) Even if we knew these concentrations, we would be in much the same position as we are now wrt carcinogens such as sodium nitrite. There is no flaming gun - only an immense number of factors which we must sift through in order to establish the most tenuous connections. No one can tell you have many strips of bacon are "safe." YET, out of one side of their mouths, the pro-industrialists tell us further study of acid rain is needed before we go to all the expense of a clean-up, while out of the other side they tell us that our fears of long term environmental damage from radioctive contamination are unfounded. That is, no further study is needed. We have the technology, so let's use it. In adopting nuclear technology on a grand scale we are conducting a vast experiment - one that will go on for thousands of years (the time frame arising from the half-lives of the most virulent nuclear wastes). The experiment may be successful. If it is not, we may so contaminate the ecosystem that 30000 lives/year will look good. And because of the lifespans of the contaminants, it could take thousands of years to recover the damage - something even acid rain cannot match. (Note: these are not facts; they are conjectures - and that is about all we have at this stage.) The toxicity and the half-lives of nuclear waste are as close to facts as we are likely to come. The fallibility of engineering artifacts, while hardly a fact, is well established - bridges still fail, buildings still collapse, aircraft still crash. Most often, the failures are minor. Occasionally, they are not. I see no reason, other than blind faith in technology, to believe that the engineering of nuclear power will be different. Unfortunately, in the case of nuclear technology, the cummulative consequences of even repeated minor failures over hundreds of years could be horrendous. Henry Spencer states the "fact" that nuclear power is the safest available technology. The safety of a particular technology, however, is decided largely by its past performance - not by any sort of a priori argument. For the reasons I have outlined, applying this method to nuclear technology could be disastrous. It will certainly require more time than the scant years we have now been applying the technology. Indeed, we must not think in terms of the standard engineering design lives of 50 or 75 years, but in terms of thousands of years. Clearly, we have no experience in the engineering of such artifacts, and to apply current notions of safety analysis to nuclear technology would be folly. We choose to think of empirically well-established scientific theory as fact. Merely repeating TECHNICAL OPINION about the benefits of one form of technology or another, whether in technical journals or on the network news does not make it fact. Adopting it as such is what I consider INTELLECTUAL SLEAZE. My ONLY HARD CLAIM is that our lack of understanding of a technology which has the potential for extreme hazard calls for great caution - caution that is not now being exercised. To continue to promulgate TECHNICAL DOGMA in the guise of scientific fact does nothing for reasoned debate about technical issues.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/21/85)
Why does Rick Morrison assume that people in favour of nuclear power are opposed to doing anything about acid rain? It seems illogical on the face of it to make that assumption, because any closure of a power-plant generating sulphates would help to decrease acid rain. It is more illogical when you consider that we (in this discussion) who support nuclear power do so on the presumption that it is the cleanest power source we now have available. I note, however, that Rick opposes using technical data for discussing technical questions. Perhaps the logic of this is consistent with that of his thinking on the relation between support of nuclear power and unwillingness to do anything but study acid rain. >We choose to think of empirically well-established scientific theory >as fact. Merely repeating TECHNICAL OPINION about the benefits >of one form of technology or another, whether in technical >journals or on the network news does not make it fact. Adopting >it as such is what I consider INTELLECTUAL SLEAZE. > >My ONLY HARD CLAIM is that our lack of understanding of a >technology which has the potential for extreme hazard calls for >great caution - caution that is not now being exercised. >To continue to promulgate TECHNICAL DOGMA in the guise of >scientific fact does nothing for reasoned debate about technical >issues. Note: "Scientific fact" does not exist. TECHNICAL DOGMA is normally known as engineering experience, and is based on our best knowledge of how things really work in practice. Technical knowledge presumably becomes dogma when it disagrees with preconceived opinions. We all (I hope) know that there are no certainties in this problem. We all (I hope) know that we are in an extremely dangerous situation regardless of which course we follow. Some of us believe that the course of best hope is the nuclear course, because the alternatives are worse, not because nuclear power is ideal and perfectly safe. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
dennis@utecfc.UUCP (Dennis Ferguson) (09/21/85)
Sorry, I am weak and can't resist. In article <12@ubc-cs.UUCP> morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison) writes: >What, on the other hand, is the result of pursuing the technology >of nuclear power? WE DON'T KNOW. Why not? Because we have no way >of knowing the concentrations of radioactive particulate which might >be introduced into the food chain through a long term program of >waste management. This is not really true. The absolute maximum amount of leakage from any particular dump is easily calculable. The performance of several storage technologies over a shorter time is known from experiments, at Chalk River and by the Tennesee Valley Authority to cite examples that I know of, and these provide some data as to the rates of leakage that might be expected over a much longer time. Note that these rates are very low, and as the stuff was buried 30 years ago this was obtained with early storage technology. We can do better now, and better in the future. Are you sure anyone understands the future consequences of the alternatives to nuclear energy any better? >Even if we knew these concentrations, we would >be in much the same position as we are now wrt carcinogens such >as sodium nitrite. If this means that we don't know how much ingested radioactive material is dangerous, this is not quite true either. Try the USAEC Rules and Regulations for a listing of the maximum safe body concentrations by isotope, and the consequent permissible environmental concentrations. These numbers are derived from collected observations of the effects on both humans and lab animals, and all lie well below the concentrations of radioactivity found naturally *within* the body (mostly from carbon-14 and potassium-40, with a wide variety of other isotopes in smaller quantities). >And because of the lifespans of the contaminants, it >could take thousands of years to recover the damage - something >even acid rain cannot match. (Note: these are not facts; they >are conjectures - and that is about all we have at this stage.) I would conjecture differently. When the trees are dead, the topsoil which took tens of thousands of years to create has washed out to sea and the PH of what soil is left is 3.5, I suspect thousands of years would be the minimum recovery time. I hope we don't have to find out whether either of these conjectures is true. >Indeed, we must not think in terms of the standard engineering design >lives of 50 or 75 years, but in terms of thousands of years. >Clearly, we have no experience in the engineering of such artifacts, >and to apply current notions of safety analysis to nuclear technology would >be folly. When did 50 to 75 years become a "standard" engineering design life? For what is this the standard? My Ford is having problems after six years, while the Hagia Sophia [sp?] in Istanbul, quite a large building, is 1500 years old and still in use. You design to meet the requirements of your particular project as best you can. And why is even 75 years so unacceptable? If we can guarantee 75 years of leak-free storage, we will be handing the problem over to people with waste technologies 75 years more advanced than our own. And their technologies had better be advanced, because this won't be the only problem we'll be leaving for them to clean up, or even the most serious (my opinion). >We choose to think of empirically well-established scientific theory >as fact. Merely repeating TECHNICAL OPINION about the benefits >of one form of technology or another, whether in technical >journals or on the network news does not make it fact. Adopting >it as such is what I consider INTELLECTUAL SLEAZE. > >My ONLY HARD CLAIM is that our lack of understanding of a >technology which has the potential for extreme hazard calls for >great caution - caution that is not now being exercised. >To continue to promulgate TECHNICAL DOGMA in the guise of >scientific fact does nothing for reasoned debate about technical >issues. The discussion, as you pointed out in an earlier posting, is nuclear energy versus its alternatives. And like it or not, its main alternative is coal. Do you then have a complete understanding of the effect on our atmosphere and climate that another 30 or 50 years of massive carbon dioxide production by hydrocarbon combustion will cause? If not, how are you so sure that its effect will be any less dangerous then what you have suggested for nuclear waste? What about the damage caused by 30 more years of acid rain, are you sure that its effect will not be as permanent? Is it empirically well-established that the combustion byproducts from the furnace and the scrubbers are less dangerous than nuclear waste? We are bound to have some immunity to low level radioactivity due to our constant exposure naturally, but some of those compounds are utterly foreign. In failing to make clear why you prefer coal to nuclear power (*not* just why you think nuclear power is bad) you avoid the central issue (and perhaps a label of "intellectual sleaze" for yourself). It is a time for hard decisions. With nuclear energy, there is a possibility, maybe even a good probability, that we will never have to find out what it is like to live in an environment contaminanted by its waste. With coal we will have an equally difficult waste management problem and we *will* find out what it is like to live with an atmosphere containing too much carbon dioxide. And SO2, unless we move to clean that up quickly. I'd rather not find out any of this. "Intellectual sleaze" or not, I prefer to take my chances with nuclear. -- Dennis Ferguson ...!utcsri!utecfc!dennis