[Peace-discuss] without the hot air / was RE: Sa. 4/23: Planet vs. Profit: Can the Earth Afford Business As Usual?

[Morton K. Brussel]

Dear Karen,

Thanks for your comments. 

I do not consider myself a spokesman for the nuclear industry, as I have often have been critical of them, their often cited lack of transparency, most particularly in past years, in an attempt to hide whatever defects are encountered in their plants. However, I have tried to be objective in considering the virtues and the dangers of nuclear energy, and I find the current atmosphere too laden with anti-nuclear emotion and not understanding what our situation really is. Thus, wild numbers have been thrown around on the health effects of radiation from nuclear reactors, without knowing that such numbers have little basis in reality. Scientific bodies (such as the World Health Organization) that have studied this question have been generally prudent, acknowledging that for low levels of radiation, say below around 10 millisieverts, there is essentially no epidemiological evidence for harm except in special circumstances where the radiation is ingested and is not well purged from the body. In view of the uncertainty at these radiation levels, these authorities have recommended a linear extrapolation to zero exposure from the health effects at much higher levels of radiation and have thus come up with large numbers of possible malign health problems, cancer, deformations, etc. Amazingly, studies of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, have shown (so far) no physically deleterious health effects over what would be expected from populations not exposed to the bombs' radiations for those who received estimated low doses of radiation. Remember that the bombs were dropped over 65 years ago, so that long term effects should by now have been established.  Similarly, the results from studies of Chernobyl and Three mile Island similarly have shown no particular deleterious health effects expressly attributable from those disasters. Moreover, parts of Europe indeed got increased levels of radioactivity from the Chernobyl disaster, but there is no indication that the incidence of cancers, deformations, etc. have been affected. This event also has by now happened many years ago. Finally, many people live in environments where the radiation levels are even higher than 10 mSv without observable problems attributed to those radiations. And of course, the health industry is dependent on radioactive substances and applied nuclear radiations for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. 

As to nuclear waste, this is another scarecrow. But in perspective, it is not as serious as too many people say, since the longest lived radiations have the least radioactivity per unit time, and the volume or mass of the waste is of the order of 10's of  thousands to one million times less than what exists for coal plants. Hence, it can be safely stored, and has been now for many years.  One should also realize that newer nuclear power plants are far better designed than they used to be, and, if research and development continues, the valid objections to nuclear power generation may well be obviated. Valid objections to nuclear plants concern the proliferation of nuclear weaponry from the products of nuclear reactors— especially Plutonium—but in breeder reactors, the Plutonium and the other actinides (very heavy fertile or fissionable and radioactive nuclei) can be burned up, and certain designs make it impossible to use the waste products for building nuclear weapons. The waste from such plants will be far less radioactive, shorter lived. So, that research and development  in my view should continue. It is being continued in Russia, France, and other countries but hardly in the United States. With breeder reactors, one does not have to worry about running out of the fuel. 

Obviously, a virtue of nuclear power is that it is clean with respect to CO2, hence good against global warming, its "footprint" is small, and it can provide huge amount of electrical power. It does require a lot of cooling, and that has disadvantages.

In the United States and Europe, the economics/costs of nuclear power will determine whether and how many more plants will be built. In the major developing countries—China, India, Russia, Brazil, …—, I predict that nuclear plants will be built to take the place of the noxious coal plants. 

Finally, for a sustainable clean society and environment, renewables such as wind, bio, and photovoltaics should clearly all be employed, and will be if the real costs are "reasonable". 

I am no expert in epidemiology, but it is an essential tool in the fight against disease…

Sorry to be so long winded. 

Mort

On Apr 25, 2011, at 1:00 AM, Karen Medina wrote:

> Dear Mort,
> 
> Both speakers went on to also speak highly of the book you
> recommended, Sustainable Energy -- without the hot air, as a very good
> technical book.
> 
> I am very sorry you have felt like you have to stand alone and defend
> the nuclear power industry. The situation in Japan has brought the
> conversation up much more often than it had been before.
> 
> One topic you brought up is of interest to me: long-term
> epidemiological studies. Namely, the design of such studies. We can
> keep white mice in cages for their lifetimes, but humans tend to be
> more nomadic and all the factors are fairly hard to hold constant
> while varying just one.
> 
> I did not hear giggling.
> 
> -karen medina
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss