Author Topic: How the environment movement sabotaged nuclear power  (Read 3440 times)

rukawa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
How the environment movement sabotaged nuclear power
« on: August 16, 2019, 01:22:32 PM »
Pretty good article on how the environmental movement sabotaged nuclear power:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/11/if-nuclear-power-is-so-safe-why-are-we-so-afraid-of-it/#3dd81bf66385

This part really shocked me:
Quote
Muller’s work, and that of others across the years, had explored the effects of high and medium doses of radiation. [Insect behaviorist Ernst] Caspari had extended that research into the low-dose range and had asked in particular whether the effect would be the same when the dose was spread out over a period of time (“chronic”) rather than delivered all at once (“acute”)...Caspari’s startling new finding was that fruit flies exposed to a [low] daily dose… showed no increase in their mutation rate.....However, as the main reviewer of the paper, Muller proceeded to oversee its publication — with two changes. “Muller’s name now appeared among the acknowledgments,” notes Rhodes, “and one crucial sentence had been deleted. The deleted sentence was the sentence that questioned Muller’s theory.”   

Muller’s status as a powerful scientist and Nobel Prize winner allowed him to establish his falsified theory as as the scientific basis for regulating nuclear plants for decades to come. 

The part that shocked me is the description of the experiment. Whenever opponents of Linear no-threadshold (LNT) have attacked it they always based it on the lack of evidence of increases in cancer among various groups exposed to increased doses of radiation. But I never even thought of directly testing the theory the way Caspari did. The fact that the theory has survived for decades now even though there was such an obvious test of it that it would have failed and the fact that the test was actually done and theory did fail is evidence to me of the corruption of science.

I don't get how anyone could trust scientific input to policy when its so easy to manipulate. I really wonder how many times any scientist has tried to reproduce Caspari's research. Its such an obvious thing to do.


meiroy

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 834
Re: How the environment movement sabotaged nuclear power
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2019, 02:14:04 AM »

One accident at a nuclear power plant and a whole country might go to waste.   Personally, I don't think it's worth it whatever the benefit

In the same context, though, the story about banning DDT based on pseudo-science and politics is quite interesting.  If DDT was still in use, malaria might have been eradicated by now. Not to mention that some of the newer pesticides that replaced DDT are far worse than DDT itself.

Castanza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 522
Re: How the environment movement sabotaged nuclear power
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2019, 06:27:16 AM »
One accident at a nuclear power plant and a whole country might go to waste.   Personally, I don't think it's worth it whatever the benefit

You've got to be kidding me LOL are you serious? More people die every year falling off roofs trying to install solar panels than total people killed by nuclear plants meltdowns in all of history. Nuclear is the best and safest option by far.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIOiGtO2UBA

meiroy

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 834
Re: How the environment movement sabotaged nuclear power
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2019, 12:46:40 AM »
One accident at a nuclear power plant and a whole country might go to waste.   Personally, I don't think it's worth it whatever the benefit

You've got to be kidding me LOL are you serious? More people die every year falling off roofs trying to install solar panels than total people killed by nuclear plants meltdowns in all of history. Nuclear is the best and safest option by far.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIOiGtO2UBA

Yes, you are right. I am talking about the risk. There were close calls that clearly show it is real. If next time it cannot be contained or is worse, I don't think it is worth the risk.  Unless the currently developed new reactors come to fruition and reduce the risk considerably.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-28/france-is-still-cleaning-up-marie-curie-s-nuclear-waste?utm_source=twitter&utm_content=business&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business

France Is Still Cleaning Up Marie Curie’s Nuclear Waste

Her lab outside Paris, dubbed Chernobyl on the Seine, is still radioactive nearly a century after her death.


https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-the-worlds-nuclear-power-plants
Mapped: The world’s nuclear power plants




« Last Edit: August 29, 2019, 12:48:20 AM by meiroy »

Castanza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 522