orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (08/29/86)
While Michael Stein continues his barrage of accusations that
Drs. Goffman and Tamplin, who *had* been members of the AEC
but left when their research demonstrating there was no
threshold effect to health effects of radioactivty was squelched
by the AEC, are simply
in it for the money, recent news is of relevance to the whole
debate.
The Lovins and many other advocates of the "soft" energy path
have long contended that the whole presumption that we should
simply increase our energy output indefinitely is not the best
solution. Whether the increase in energy production be from
coal, gas, nukes or whatever the whole need for exponentially
increasing energy production can be avoided by energy *conservation*.
We waste enormous amounts of energy through inefficient building
heating and cooling systems, inefficient transportation systems
and inefficient appliances.
In this regard Mr. Stein, Mr Carnes and everyone on the net should
cheer the recent agreement reached between the Natural Resources
Defense Council and the Appliance Industry in which the Appliance
Industry finally gave up fighting conservation and agreed to
support standards mandating that all appliances produced be
energy efficient. The groups estimated that the production of
energy efficient appliances would save the equivalent of 22
power plants. The report was on NPR a couple days ago.
It is ironic that some of the biggest customers for the Lovins
energy consulting work is now electrical utilities. They have
begun to realize that they can save more money by promoting
energy conservation measures than by building evermore expensive
power plants of whatever type.
We can do a lot more in terms of energy conservation which removes
the need for *either* nukes or coal plants.
tim sevener whuxn!orbtan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/02/86)
> [Tim Sevener] > It is ironic that some of the biggest customers for the Lovins > energy consulting work is now electrical utilities. They have > begun to realize that they can save more money by promoting > energy conservation measures than by building evermore expensive > power plants of whatever type. > We can do a lot more in terms of energy conservation which removes ^^^^^^^^ > the need for *either* nukes or coal plants. ------ Amen, (almost)! I don't think that even Amory Lovins thinks that we will NEVER have to build another electric power plant. If so, the debate of which is the lesser evil, nuclear or fossil fuel, must unfortunately continue for the forseeable future. (MY vote is that fossil fuel is the greater evil.) -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (09/04/86)
[Tim Sevener] >While Michael Stein continues his barrage of accusations that >Drs. Goffman and Tamplin, who *had* been members of the AEC >but left when their research demonstrating there was no >threshold effect to health effects of radioactivty was squelched >by the AEC, are simply >in it for the money, ... No, that is not what I have said. I have no idea of the psychological motivations of John Gofman. I certainly never claimed he was "in it for the money." Also as regards the "barrage of accusations", what I simply did was quote from the Court's decision in the case of Johnson vs U.S., where Gofman was an expert whitness. The District Court had this to say about Gofman: ...he is not a certified health physicist, and while a physician, he does not examine or treat patients. He enjoys emeritus status at the University of California at Berkely, but has no office, nor access to any laboratory or library, and he teaches no one! From what this Court can garner, it appears that his principal activities are writing books and testifying in the courtroom. Gofman has never served on either the international UNSCEAR committees, or the National Acadamy of Sciences BEIR committees. Indeed, besides having never served on any of the relevant committees, he also refuses to accept the consensus reports of these committees as reliable authorities. (See Gofman's, "Radiation and Human Health.") As the Courts decision later writes: ...It is not this Court which has chosen to separate Dr. Morgan and Dr. Gofman from the vast majority of respected radiation scientists. They have chosen to separate themselves by rejecting as reliable authorities the very documents which represent the scientific consensus in this particular field. But the point I want to make is that the AEC could not squelch new radiation research since it is not the organization that even studies the effects on radiation on human health. The scientists who specialize in this area are known as the radiation protection community. Depending on how you define it precisely, this group contains about 6,000 to 10,000 scientists. As the Court's decision relates: ...Dr. John Gofman has never been an active member of the group because he has never made any significant contributions to this field and because his writings on the subject have not been found to be scientifically credible by the radiation protection community. (My personal view is that if Gofman's views are correct and the rest of the world's radiation experts are wrong, he should only have to explain his views to them, to get the world recognition he deserves. Very few men are able to show that 60 years of research are wrong - Gofman would have a golden opportunity here if he was correct.) >...We waste enormous amounts of energy through inefficient building >heating and cooling systems, ... Careful here. Tightly sealing a building is one good way of increasing radon to dangerous levels. >In this regard Mr. Stein, Mr Carnes and everyone on the net should >cheer the recent agreement reached between the Natural Resources >Defense Council and the Appliance Industry in which the Appliance >Industry finally gave up fighting conservation and agreed to >support standards mandating that all appliances produced be >energy efficient. The groups estimated that the production of >energy efficient appliances would save the equivalent of 22 >power plants. It is a good sign and not unexpected if american manufacturers want to compete with imported appliances. Yet I would be interested in knowing how they computed that this measure could save the equivalent of 22 power plants. -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs