When I expressed an opinion on the future benefit of nuclear energy, a year or so ago, some climbed on my case.
I hope they read this. (I read only about a third of the article)
quote<the time is not far off when fossil carbon-based fuels are too valuable to burn on the scale we have been doing.>
and
quote<In a 1999 OECD article, Long-term management of radioactive waste, ethics and the environment, Claudio Pescatore outlines some ethical dimensions of the question. He starts on a very broad canvas by quoting four fundamental principles proposed by the US National Academy of Public Administration. This proposal followed a request from the US Government to elucidate principles to guide decisions by public administration on the basis of the international Rio and UNESCO Declarations concerning responsibilities for future generations:
The Trustee Principle says that "Every generation has obligations as trustee to protect the interests of future generations".
The Sustainability Principle states that "No generation should deprive future generation of the opportunity for a quality of life comparable to its own."
The Chain of Obligation Principle says that "Each generation's primary obligation is to provide for the needs of the living and succeeding generations," the emphasis being that "near-term concrete hazards have priority over long-term hypothetical hazards."
The Precautionary Principle is expressed as "Actions that pose a realistic threat of irreversible harm or catastrophic consequences should not be pursued unless there is some countervailing need to benefit either current or future generations."
These are then applied to the question of nuclear wastes, and in particular to geological disposal of these which is noted as having intrinsic passive safety. In the light of the IAEA and the NEA 1995 publications on the matter, Dr Pescatore summarises the principles in this context as follows:
The generation producing the waste is responsible for its safe management and the associated costs.
There is an obligation to protect individuals and the environment both now and in the future.
No moral basis exists for discounting future health and risks of environmental damage.
In particular, our descendants should not knowingly be exposed to risks which we would not accept today. Individuals should be protected at least as well as they are today.
The safety and security of repositories should not be based on the presumption of a stable social structure for the indefinite future or on a presumption of technological progress.
Waste should be processed in such a way as not to be a burden for future generations. However, we should not unnecessarily limit the capacity of future generations to take over management control, including the ability to recover the waste.
We are responsible for passing on to future generations our knowledge concerning the risks related to waste.
There should be enough flexibility in the disposal procedures to allow alternative choices. In particular information should be given to the public to enable it to take part in the decision-making process which, in this case, will proceed in stages. >
John Sutherlands comments are interesting, but lack perspective in the opposite direction that environmentalists ignore reality. I would consider them inflammatory more than educational, even though I personally agree with most of what he says. Throwing mud at greenies is a good way to lose ground even faster.
Among numerous problems in his presentation, he quotes Thyroid Cancer incidence as 13,000 per 100,000 per year in the US (less in Canada) and 18 per 100,000 near Chernobyl. He points out 18 is vastly different than 13,000. Thats because he uses the wrong number. The actual incidence is 10 to 13 per 100,000, not 13% of the total population.
He bangs on Potassium Iodide treatment for acute radiation exposure. In fact KI is only useful for Iodine-131 exposure, has modest health effects in normal adults, and is totally useless for any other radiation exposure. Seems like KI is a non-issue.
Nuclear energy has a bad rap, but overstatement and obfuscation by pro-nukes simply polarizes reality. Rational attention to facts, including the hazards of nuclear power generation and nuclear waste, consistent education of reporters, politicians and the public, and the inevitable decline in availability of fossil fuels, esp. petroleum, will push nuclear back up in priority. Hopefully the energy crises don't cause implosion while we retool our nukes to keep the lights on.
I don't buy it, dspDad. The vehement anti nuclear power posture I see in the media has, if anything, gotten worse over the last couple of decades while people who knew better took your approach. An approach which, it occurs to me, is exactly what a financial opponent of nuclear power (as opposed to an irrational one) would like to see anyone who can discuss the issue from a basis of fact, take. Any bets how much of Sierra Club financing comes from petroleum producers? Or how much they care if we freeze in the dark after the natural gas runs out?
The numbers issue you point out in Dr. Sutherlands article actually wasn't from the article, but from a discussion forum post made long after. Obviously a typo but his intended statement is clear.
Dr. Sutherland in no case recommends KI to treat acute radiation exposure, and regardless whether you think it is a non-issue, I think I might prefer the advice of a Health Physicist.
"Overstatement and obfuscation" is pretty strong language. Let me say I vehemently disagree with your proposed approach. It's time persons concerned with the long-term sustainability of our civilization begin speaking up when articles such as were in Le Devoir and Toronto Sun this month (see links at end) continue to spread fear and confusion in the community over nuclear power. If these reporters and editors can somehow, presumeably out of loyalty to a higher good, bring themselves to ignore "depleted uranium" 0.5% radioactive 233 anti-armour projectiles sprayed by the ton over the (supposed) homeland of the worst terror organizations, then they shouldn't get their panties in knots over a comparable amount of CANDU fuel 0.7% radioactive 233 installed in sealed containments under the supervision of thousands of experts etc etc etc. If Iraq didn't have the basis for a nuclear weapons program before the war, it sure has the raw material now.
{And yes I know that the reactor burnup process does add some additional radioactive products but nothing we havn't the proven technology to handle.}
The leDevior article of October 17 was titled "Greenpeace activist Steven Guilbeault said that 10 000 to 30 000 died at Chernobyl" and carried on in that vein.
Being right for the wrong reason is a poor long-term strategy. Running down rabbit trails like the KI issues defocusses a message that needs to be heard. And countering the statistically and scientifically faulted charges of the tree huggers with pro-nuclear statistics that are also faulty drains credibility from a defensible position.
GreenPeace ( or your activist du jour) does not get attention with science, but with public relations stunts and special effects.
You might remember that driving an SUV was recently equated with subsiding al-quaida, and someone spent a fair amount of money pushing this absurd concept. What angers me is that there is no adequate response to something as blatantly one-sided as this. Actually rather brilliant from a PR perspective. Unfortunately you can't fight insanity with insanity, bad statistics with different bad statistics, or fanaticism with fanaticism. This simply fuels the fire and gives opposing views a place to continue hiding their disinformation.
But you CAN fight ignorance with brilliant public relations, scientific credibility, and tempered presentation of facts. There seems to be lots of engineering talent, but not much brilliance on the pro-nuclear circuit. I enjoyed Sutherlands article, read his post and the followup, and agree with his position, but I would then categorize it as technically correct, interesting, somewhat informational, and mostly ineffective at making changes that will actually promote nuclear energy as a power source in this country.
This approach is less 'newsworthy', where newsworthy is equated with inflammatory and adrenaline inducing, but carries more weight long-term than the sound-bite approach.
dspDad: I agree with the idea that driving an SUV is subsidizing (if not al-quaida, then certainly their homeland economies). How can it not be?
My wife and I live in a nice suburb and have for the last four years operated a single 1300cc Geo Metro between us (she no longer works, I commute by train). In the early 90's I went 3 years without a car at all while working a contract in a distant city. It took some getting use to, but a nice apartment downtown make up for much. My son drives a VW diesel of his own choice, mainly because his car doesn't define him. I realize not everyone can go that far but I have a definite distaste for the SUV, though my daughter and son-in-law each have one and we get along fine.
One other small environmental disadvantage of current generation of nukes compared to current generation of fossils: The nukes produce more thermal pollution of the heat sink per MW-hr generated because they have lower steam temperature and lower thermal efficiency (more heat rejected to condensor).
I have heard in the news some statistics about global warming that will be published at end of year show a definite worsening trend. That is definitely not a good thing, but should further enhance the environmental attractiveness of nuke power.
![[pipe]](/data/assets/smilies/pipe.gif "[pipe] [pipe]")