Why is there irrational fear of radiation?

[wtmusic]

"The crisis at the Fukushima nuclear reactor complex in Japan, caused by a record earthquake and equally record shattering tsunami, has created a maelstrom of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) when it comes to radiation measurements.

For instance, the importance of distinctions between fast and slow decaying isotopes of iodine and cesium are sometimes lost on media and the public.

Worse, the differences between accounting for the sheer amount of radiation and giving an assessment of the potential health effects of uncontrolled releases takes place using different sets of measurement units. Is it any wonder that mainstream news media editors get headaches when their reporters file stories about radiation?"

http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/04/21/why-is-there-irrational-fear-of-radiation/

[cyberpj]

1. Child of the 50's - Duck and Cover drills in school.

Seeing photos of Hiroshima.
Watching docs on Chernobyl.
Wearing protection for Xrays while nurses leave the room.
ummmm... let me keep thinking.

on edit:
oh yeah, lying governments and media

ummm...

[virgogal]

6. One of my sons visited Hiroshima a couple of years ago and

he certainly wouldn't call the fears irrational.

[wtmusic]

15. "Studies found that, though the atomic bombs did raise cancer rates,

they didn't exactly unleash an epidemic of cancers among survivors in Japan. According to Brooks, the cancer risk in survivors is only a few percentage points higher than in similar populations who weren't anywhere near the bomb."

http://www.radonleaders.org/node/7965

[virgogal]

18. That's a small increase unless you're one of the people with cancer.

That said,thank for the link.

[Kablooie]

73. For those of you who haven't experienced "Duck and Cover" you can view it here. (video)

http://www.archive.org/details/gov.ntis.ava11109vnb1

[JuniperLea]

2. Are you 100% certain there should be no fear?

I'd rather be safe than sorry.

[wtmusic]

19. Nope.

There should be fear. But not irrational fear.

[JuniperLea]

44. Where do you draw the line?

What is irrational to you?

[wtmusic]

57. Fair question.

If nuclear was responsible for even 1/100th of the 2 million annual deaths due to fossil fuel pollution

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/index.html

it would be worth taking a hard look at.

IMO it's not even close. We need to learn lessons from Fukushima, then build out nuclear power as fast as possible to prevent truly catastophic environmental damage from global warming in the next 200 years.

It's really that bad. Recommended reading:

"Storms of My Grandchildren

Climatologist Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and an internationally renowned global-warming expert, became even more famous when he was censored by the Bush administration. After decades of studying the role fossil fuels play in global warming and witnessing the federal government’s failure to take action to lower carbon emissions, he felt compelled to write his first book out of concern about the potentially catastrophic future facing his grandchildren. Hansen condemns governmental “greenwashing” and the undue influence of more than 2,300 energy lobbyists, and attempts to close the gap “between public perception and scientific reality” by lucidly explaining the dynamics of global warming, its acceleration, and how a slight rise in temperature can lead to disastrous consequences. He then boldly declares that the way to solve the climate crisis is to “rapidly phase out coal emissions.” How will we meet our energy needs without coal? Hansen tells the “secret story” of the jettisoned “fast” nuclear reactor, a safer and more efficient reactor than those currently in use, and advocates for its resurrection. Rich in invaluable insights into the geopolitics as well as the geophysics of climate change, Hansen’s guaranteed-to-be-controversial manifesto is the most comprehensible, realistic, and courageous call to prevent climate change yet. It belongs in every library."

http://www.amazon.com/Storms-My-Grandchildren-Catastrophe-Humanity/dp/B004A14W0E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303540562&sr=8-1

[truedelphi]

58. If people would stay committed to

1) conserving
2) solar, wind and any other alternatives

We would be able to scrap both the nuclear power industry and also the coal/oil paradigm

But we live in a world where our Lords and Masters have done everything they can to keep us enslaved to the old paradigms. I mean, watch the movie: "Who Killed The Electric Car" if you don't think that some really nasty and lame stuff has gone on to keep the public away from cutting edge technologies.

[wtmusic]

72. Conservation is part of the picture

but millions die in Africa every year from respiratory ailments due to cooking over unventilated cookstoves. Are we to ask them to conserve? What if they had clean energy available that didn't create smoke or CO2?

This is about bringing clean energy to the rest of the world. It's happening now, but it's nearly all new coal plants (South Africa just began construction on what will be the biggest coal plant in the world, and the 8th biggest point source of CO2). If that trend continues, any semblance of the climate you and I grew up in will be gone in a century or two. Along with half of the species of animals.

Renewables aren't ready, and IMO will never be. No matter how you tweak the numbers there's not enough juice in the squeeze.

I'm a big fan of "Who Killed the Electric Car?". After I saw it I devoted a year and a half to building my own electric car. I still have it, along with a Nissan Leaf, which I'm ecstatic about. Suffice to say I'm a believer in electric transportation and nuclear energy to power it.

[truedelphi]

59. Also we really don't know the true tally of the uinjuries and deaths due to

The nuclear industry.

For instance, one example of why we don't know much:
<from an article in Counterpunch>
The government nuclear agencies have shied away from doing the long-term studies of the impacts of low-level radiation. Indeed, in the 1970s they de-funded a study under the guidance of University of Pittsburg scientist Dr. David Mancuso when it became apparent he would find that the “precautions” taken were insufficient, and that low-level radiation (at government levels) had deleterious affects on human health.

The government did no health follow-up after the numerous “little” leaks, fires and “mishaps” that occurred routinely at the Rocky Flats plutonium trigger and Hanford nuclear weapons installations. Oh, they did at least check the radiation badges of the employees.

In 1981, we made a Public Television documentary: “Paul Jacobs and the Nuclear Gang.” In it, we documented how government officials obfuscated their failure to provide, as they promised, “cheap, safe and clean” energy and safe work environments in and around nuclear weapons facilities.

Jacobs had earlier reported on how the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and its successor three-letter agencies lied about, distorted, and then classified (thereby withholding) reports on the health impact of low level radiation.
<end of Counterpunch citation>
Also there is a tremendous difference between what all the co-opted science and research puts together regarding the deaths from Chernobyl's nuclear impact and the studies, science and research by people in the field. While some people like George Monbiot claim fewer than fifteen people died from Chernobyl, people working in the field in the Ukraine and other research outposts have evidence pointing to as many as one million deaths.

[wtmusic]

70. "A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation

exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004."

Chernobyl: the True Scale of the Accident

This is the conclusion of the World Health Organization, probably the pre-eminent group of specialists with regard to health issues of global scope. They have no reason to under-report or over-report. You can say this is "co-opted science" and research but that's asking me to believe the members of their group, which is a Who's Who of the top radiation experts in the world, are all on the take.

I don't. And I don't believe Counterpunch is a credible source.

[truedelphi]

85. You are free to believe the industry sponsored

"international team" of scientists.

I choose to believe the researchers who are independent, who are reporting on the deaths that they witness first hand. And of course, some of those deaths include those people who have died within a very narrow window of time regarding Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

You might want to visit www.tinyrevolution.com for some indepth thinking and writing about Three Mile Island.

[wtmusic]

87. You choose to believe a grad student in electrical engineering

and an MBA. AKA, anyone with letters after their name who lends credence to your fears.

I choose to believe experts in the field.

[Nederland]

22. "I'd rather be safe than sorry"

Then you should stop driving, flying, riding bicycles, etc.

[JuniperLea]

43. Not even the same thing and you know it... eom

[NickB79]

51. Very true. Your risk of dying from any one of those incidents is MUCH higher

Than dying from a radiation-induced cancer.

[SpoonFed]

84. Valid statistics until... say...

some man-made occurrence of plutonium being exploded into the upper atmosphere and jet stream.
At that point I'm not sure I want to go for a ride on my bicycle and breath in all that lovely stuff.

[madokie]

3. I don't see irrational fear of radiation

I see rational fear of radiation and its based in fact. If you chose to be a supporter of nuclear energy go for it but quit trying to convert the rest of us. Its almost like I'm in church sometimes around here with the glorifying the virtues of fission energy when it can't be shown that its safe and still have that sticky problem with the waste created with it.

[flamingdem]

9. The arrogant reactions show the problem with nuclear energy

Humankind's hubris and tendency to sweep under the carpet shows we're not ready and never will be for the problems of nuclear power.

The egos involved are the kind that don't see the big picture and don't care about those small numbers who will die of cancer, it's just not on their glorious radar.

[bananas]

34. Yup, if anything, there's an irrational complacency about radiation

Doctors have a problem with so many patients asking for unnecessary radiolological tests that are more likely to cause cancer than provide any useful diagnosis. And the hypocratic oath says "first, do no harm" so it is an important ethical issue.

[PearliePoo2]

4. Your picture shows an intact, picture perfect plant...

how about showing the devastated mess that it now is. Gaping holes from roofs blown off and radiation readings that are off the fucking charts.

[Fledermaus]

5. What is a safe dose? If some one has the choice, why would you want any extra?

Why would you want to buy a lottery ticket in that jackpot?

[wtmusic]

20. There is no completely safe dose

but whenever the benefits of nuclear tech outweigh the risks, it's a good choice.

I would guess that the fact you're thousands of times more likely to die in a car accident than from radiation wouldn't make you think twice about driving.

[flamingdem]

29. That has nothing to do with the fact that nuclear is a deadly dinosaur

that we cannot bring along into the future. All this time and still no solution to storage and tons of fuel around in fuel pools ...we saw how that worked out in Fukushima.

The Nuke industry needs to get over itself and stop asking for taxpayer handouts to pay for its uninsurable death machines

[wtmusic]

31. Despite your hyperbole POTUS and SOE are riding that dinosaur

into the future, and are (thankfully) helping to provide financing for a new generation of "death machines".

And speaking of getting over onesself, maybe one day you'll be able to admit that every one is fully insured. Or maybe not. :D

[flamingdem]

33. Obama is wrong on this one and BP is starting to drill again, nature is the victim

and the generations to follow. It's never going to be safe and the evidence is the state of the plants in existence leaking, with shoddy back up safety plans and loaded with spent fuel that has no home

[enough]

7. Why is there an irrational denial of the dangers of radiation? (nt)

[golddigger]

8. Because it causes fucking cancer? Why don't you look up

pictures of children and adults who have been exposed to radiation. And get back to us.

[wtmusic]

16. Radiation saves hundreds of thousands more lives than it takes every year.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Bu0ALqlTi_QJ:www.hps.org/hpspublications/articles/Benefitsofmedradexposures.html+lives+saved+medical+radiation&hl=en&client=firefox-a&gl=us&strip=1

Facts are your friend.

[neverforget]

32. Difference between controlled radiation (medicine) and uncontrolled (Fukushima)

Huge difference.

[wtmusic]

38. There are uncontrolled radiation accidents in medicine too

and were we to replace the 20% of American generation from nuclear with coal, you could expect roughly 10,000 more deaths annually from airborne carcinogens (and, ironically, radiation from fly ash).

Extrapolating that to the world (and considering that an even larger percentage of foreign electricity is generated using fossil fuels) nuclear is saving about 50,000 lives annually. Deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima, as tragic as they are, pale by comparison.

[kristopher]

39. And if we were to replace it with renewables?

The choice isn't coal or nuclear; the choice is nuclear/coal (centralized grid) or renewables/efficiency (distributed grid).

Nuclear and coal are two sides of the same centralized thermal system - preserving coal's preeminent role is best accomplished by promoting nuclear power.

Coal/nuclear are as bad a fit in a renewable structure as renewables are in a coal/nuclear structure.

Now, about the plague...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=289763&mesg_id=289802

[liberal N proud]

10. It's not because it will make you glow in the dark

I am pretty sure that is a myth.

Must be the killing aspect of exposure that scares them.

[gateley]

11. Yeah, the difference between bast and slow decaying isotopes of iodine and cesium

are lost on me, but I simply think that anything they feel they have to "contain" for a zillion years and need to monitor lest it "get out" is something I don't want to deal with, and we shouldn't have to.

[madokie]

12. How better can it be put, thank you n/t

[gateley]

23. I don't understand your question to me -- ?? nt

[kristopher]

24. I think it was a compliment. nt

[gateley]

27. OH --

:blush:

[madokie]

50. A Compliment

You put in what was a perfect reply in a few powerful words

I see that quite often with you.
peace.
:hi:

[Confusious]

35. I see a lack of education is also a problem

If they have to contain it for a "zillion" years, it's not very radioactive at all. Natural uranium lasts a "zillion" years. We're not digging it all up to contain it.

If it is highly radioactive that "zillion" turns into around a hundred years.

[madokie]

42. you got my drift

didn't you? If you didn't then that puts you in that sub-education class you speak of

[Confusious]

46. Does madokie = gateley?

'cause otherwise I wasn't responding to you.

If you do have two logons, that's a little dishonest, don't you think?

[madokie]

47. But I was responding to you Confusious

With intent so what does that make anything. You posts something I reply, simple concept, huh

[Confusious]

52. you got my drift

It wasn't "you got his drift" it was "you got my drift." Bad English? Then my statement of lack of education stands

That being said, on the face of it, it's dishonest also. Saying something has to be put away for a zillion years is a twist on the loaded question.

[tavalon]

49. Five years here is long enough for you to figure out that anything you post

is open to being responded to by anyone. That's the way a discussion board works.

[Confusious]

53. That wasn't the point

The point was "Does madokie = gateley?"

He used the words "you got my drift" NOT "you got his drift"

[tavalon]

61. I got what you were trying to say

and I was pointing out that it's a public forum so the fact that these two people both interacted with you doesn't make them the same person. You weren't talking to me either, and yet, I jumped in. It's the nature of the public discussion forum.

[Confusious]

63. No, obviously you didn't understand what I was trying to say

I'll try AGAIN

he used the words "you got MY drift"

To make it PERFECTLY CLEAR, I was asking if he had two logons, since he used the word MY

DO you UNDERSTAND now?

Or are you going to tell me AGAIN how this is a public board, which has nothing to do with the question I was asking.

[AndyTiedye]

13. It is Perfectly Rational to Fear a Coverup of the Danger of Radiation

Radiation is a silent, invisible killer. Usually it is a slow killer as well. That means it usually gets away with murder.
The nuclear industry and the government agencies that promote (and pretend to regulate) nuclear power like it that way.

We fear that we are being lied to, and that the lies could cause us to die a horrible death.

The nuke-boosters say we are ignorant for not loving nuclear power the way they do. They don't think we deserve the truth.
So they lie to us. They lied to us about 3 Mile Island. They lied to us about Chernobyl. They have lied to us about Fukushima.

UNrecommended.

[FormerDittoHead]

14. What would be irrational is to have no fear of radiation. n/t

[wtmusic]

17. That would be irrational too. nt

[kristopher]

21. Why is there an irrational fear of plague?

After all, globally the long term risk to any given person of dying from infectious disease is only a few percentage points higher when plague deaths are factored in.

It is irrational therefore to want to avoid creating the conditions where a plague can occur if those conditions (and the consequent risk of plague) can profit a large number of corporate entities.

[DCKit]

25. No spellcheck in the subject line, dammit. It's spelled "rational".

To use it in context:

The rational fear of nuclear meltdowns and toxic chemical spills have both been hot topics on DU today.

[applegrove]

26. I have a brother in Japan. And though I was worried about radiation I was also

worried about the insidious stress that would accompany a bad outcome. Well the outcome now seems as bad as it could be and my brother is fine, philosophical and adamant that the only danger to him is the food he were to eat if there were not strong regulations on it...and he trusts the government in Japan to be right on that issue. So I worry much less. fear of the unknown is often the worst.

[SpoonFed]

28. I'd also be very worried about...

all the radioactive isotopes that the Japanese are now spreading throughout their country from the exclusion zone around this hellish nightmare. Although it's been on my radar for weeks, apparently only as of yesterday or the day before have the Japanese government finally issued orders to actually stop people from traversing into the exclusion zone(s) to collect belongings and things on the threat of arrest and fines.

This means that contaminated items of all kinds are now and have been for over a month being spread throughout the rest of the country. My good friend who is living in Japan was livid when he told me that all the Japanese were doing was posting paper signs around the area to warn people not to enter. Some of us actually remember Chornobyl then and now and so this was just shocking.

My conclusion is that you have very little control over your exposure to these substances as a result and simply not eating certain foods from certain areas is not enough. I note how there are few stories of people leaving Japan setting off detectors at international airports for example. I'm not sure I can believe that.

(I wouldn't want to be touching the escalator hand rail just after the guy from Fukushima Pref who just went to pick up his old B&W 10" television.)

So add this to the incredibly slow response of the Japanese government to the management and reduction of this crisis. It's also shocking to read about how the report that the government is only testing vegetables after extensive cleaning.

It's like a total state of denial. Double entendre, intended.

My Canadian friend who has lived there for more than 7 years and was married to a Japanese woman is the complete opposite of your brother and others in that he has a very rational fears of the Japanese government's reponse to this man-made crisis.

I remember (weeks ago now) that he was going to be buying his food from the Japanese equivalent of Costco for the forseable future since the food is imported from North America in large part.

The situation is beyond terrible and I wish your brother the best of luck.

[applegrove]

30. Thanks. I do admit that I think my brother is being too logical. A fault with our family I might add

Your greatest strength is you greatest weakness eh?

[Someguyinjapan]

37. I beg to differ

...my brother is fine, philisophical and adamant that the only danger to him is the food he were to eat if there were not strong regulations on it... and he trusts the government.

I happen to live in Japan, and in my time here one thing I have learned is to NOT trust the government when it comes to managing food safety. Just off the top of my head, scandals that have happened since I've been here:

Meat Hope processing scandal -
Fujiya candy scandal -
Akafuku candy scandal -
Hindadori processing scandal - all found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/world/asia/31iht-31japan.8123604.html

Not to mention the bird flu-infected chicken scandal - http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/international/news/040104/0405/ja_bird.shtml

It bears worth mentioning that while one may argue that exposure of these scandals suggests Japanese governmental oversight is indeed working, one should also note two things: that in some of these cases abuses were going on for decades, and God only knows how many other violaters are out there still waiting to be discovered.

[applegrove]

45. Okay he is too philosophical. I stand corrected. I'm now worried again.

[SpoonFed]

36. The picture book version for the literary impaired...

I think it's reasonable for the public to fear radiation since the people who advocate for nuclear fission power cannot prevent this:



from turning into this:



requiring this:



The guys in this last photo are just dressed up at work since it's the Japanese equivalent to Halloween in Fukushima Prefecture at this time of the year.

[petronius]

40. I would call an "irrational fear" a reaction that is disproportionate to the risk

In the case of Fukushima and fallout on the West Coast, I think disproportionate reactions arise because we really don't have a valid frame of reference for evaluating the risk in an emotional way, so we respond more strongly to numbers that are realistically very small.

Of course, that's not to say that there aren't rational reasons to fear radiation, or proportionate reactions to the current crisis - I don't take your question to mean that all fears are irrational...

[Terry in Austin]

41. Yeah, we should have to learn to cope with this crap

"Irrational fear of radiation?"

Geez, this is even an issue? We're that desperate for some nukie?

Sorry -- you might think it's worth it, but I don't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. So the rational reaction is putting head in sand?

Or perhaps what is rational is realizing that yes this crap IS DANGEROUS... and when wild in the environment it WILL increase cancer rates among higher chordates? That is why it needs to be contained...


Of course in the end NATURE will find a way... but that is another matter.

[txlibdem]

60. Needs to be CONTAINED - excellent point

I agree 100%. And the question I have asked many times (and received only silence in return) is:

1) Coal emissions contain radioactive materials -- Why does coal NOT have to do a thing to CONTAIN its radioactive emissions???

2) Coal ash (they cutely call it "fly ash") is dumped into open pits, most states have no rules for coal to follow, just dump it -- Why doesn't coal have to CONTAIN this ash, which has been shown to concentrate Uranium and Thorium between 10 and 100 times higher than the source coal???

3) The coal industry is allowed to mix "bottom ash" that has a very low toxicity with "fly ash" in such quantity as to bring the total radiation and toxic metal content below the limit for hazardous waste, then they sell it to be used as an additive for concrete -- Why can coal repackage its hazardous waste and sell it for profit when the nuclear industry has to tightly control its hazardous waste???

Just some questions that make me wonder what people are thinking.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. By your logic bananas are off my diet

and so should be Brazil nuts.

Show me exactly any ash from coal that has plutonium... please show me that one.

For that matter the particular enriched uranium...

[txlibdem]

80. It is a naturally occuring element

--------------------------------------------------
Some say that plutonium's an evil element created by man, but it's actually a natural element produced by a process known as nucleosynthesis, which takes place in supernova explosions, when dying stars blow themselves to pieces.

There isn't much of it on the earth naturally, because the majority of its isotopes have such short half-lives. And in the 4.6 billion years since our solar system began to form, most of them have decayed away to infinitesimally tiny amounts.
... from http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/podcast/Interactive_Periodic_Table_Transcripts/Plutonium.asp
... also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium
--------------------------------------------------

It is highly unlikely that it would be found in coal but since coal is totally unprocessed in any way from the ground to the coal power plant boiler, whatever is in the coal comes out the smokestack of the coal plant. Thus, there is a tiny chance that, yes, there could be small amounts of Plutonium coming out of a coal plant or be dumped into the open pits and slurry "fly ash" ponds.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. And the energy of a supernova that created the solar sytem

been around for what 12.5 BILLION years. The time frame for THAT plutonium to have gone away is a few thousand years. Try again sparky.

Any naturally occurring plutonium on the solar system has been LOOOOOONNNNNNNGGGGG GONE!

[txlibdem]

82. Are we really going to play that game? I've read enough of your posts to know you are very smart

So I'm not going to play the "down the rabbit hole" game with you. For my final act for your amusement, I'll just mention that supernovae are happening still, they did not stop at the beginning of the universe.

Here are some quotes that took all of 1 minute for me to find: (you didn't waste any of my valuable time if that was your intent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Crab Nebula is a pulsar wind nebula associated with the 1054 supernova. It is located about 6,500 light-years from the Earth.<1>
...snip...
On average, a supernova explosion occurs within 10 parsecs of the Earth every 240 million years.
...snip...
In 1996, astronomers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign theorized that traces of past supernovae might be detectable on Earth in the form of metal isotope signatures in rock strata. Subsequently, iron-60 enrichment has been reported in deep-sea rock of the Pacific Ocean by researchers from the Technical University of Munich.<11><12><13> This iron isotope (only 23 atoms) was found in the top 2 cm of crust and dates from the last 13 million years or so. It is estimated that the supernova must have occurred in the last 5 million years...

...from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_supernova
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now can we please go back to me believing you are an intelligent person and not a petulant child? I'm asking nicely... :hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. And I will stand by what I said

there is NO NATURALLY OCCURRING plutonium on Earth. Any that was on any ejecta from a star (even Proxima Centauri, which is no danger of going nova) travels at far less than the speed of light. Proxima is at 4.3 LIGHT YEARS from here.

Any plutonium on Earth is generated by a reactor.

That is not down the rabbit hole... that is astronomy 101.

Yes for the record at explosion point the wave does reach close to speed of light. It slows down significantly pretty dang fast.

[caraher]

54. When is fear "irrational?"

Suppose I've been told I've accidentally ingested a poison, and I'm told the chemical name (which means nothing to me) and that exposure to enough of it can be fatal. Changes are I'll be afraid to some degree, even if - perhaps especially if! - I have no idea exactly how to assess the risk (whether because I don't know how much I ingested, or I don't understand the biology of its toxicity, or the exact quantitative relationship between exposure and risk, or even which of several possible deleterious effects are likely at which doses).

Would my fear be "irrational?" It may be underinformed in important ways, but it seems to me that we naturally fear unfamiliar risks we don't know how to manage more than we do everyday risks (such as those associated with driving) even if they are objectively greater. There's a certain sense in which one could say fear is ALWAYS irrational (since it's an emotion), but that's clearly not what is meant when fear of radiation is called "irrational."

If we limit the discussion to thoughts and decisions rather than emotions, it makes sense to critique assessments of hazards. There are many elements to consider - understanding of the basic science behind the threat, having a science-based model of how risk relates to exposure, being quantitatively literate, access to data on the actual level of past, current and likely future exposures, and the level of confidence in the accuracy of the science and the data.

There are two main reasons the "unwashed masses" might assess the risks at a level the ANS would label "irrational." One is the inability of the vast majority of the population to make science-based quantitative assessments of risk. Given their understanding of science and mathematics, most people literally cannot form an accurate judgment regarding risk. This places them squarely in the position of having to rely on the judgments of others whom they trust for assessment of risk.

The other is also trust-related. Many others simply do not trust one or more elements required to piece the puzzle together in the way the ANS blogger would apply conventional radiation protection science. They might consider the entire field of radiation health physics to be built on lies, or they may not have enough data about radiation levels and releases, or they may have a lot of official numbers but not trust the agencies supplying the data.

In the first case, both fear and lack of concern are equally immune to rationality, except to the degree that rationality determines whose opinions they will trust. In the second case, one might deride rejection of the science or the data as paranoid or praise it as well-founded skepticism, but both judgments tend to be made mainly on the basis of whether the skeptic agrees or not with the position of the person praising or denouncing the rejection.

When I comment on threats from Fukushima I generally come from the perspective of assuming a linear no-threshold model with "conventional" estimates of radiation dose response. There are diverging views in both directions as to whether this is too optimistic or too pessimistic, and I don't have the expertise to go with either extreme so I just take the consensus view with the knowledge that it probably isn't exactly quantitatively correct. When I get some scraps of data, or evaluate some speculation, the biggest wild card for me is how trustworthy the information is. "IF such-and-such really is the amount of radiation present, THEN the risk is probably comparable to something-or-other." For me it's always implicit that if the input data are huge lies fed to us by TEPCO, all bets are off.

Most of what I read tends not to come from this kind of perspective. The camp that's overrepresented on DU tends to assume the worst and more in terms of damaging effects of radiation. I think much of it is ill-informed, but much of it is also born of a strong skepticism of the nuclear industry, government information sources, and other institutions and officials. I don't think there's anything "irrational" about being disinclined to trust these information sources, even though I frequently disagree with the levels of skepticism and the degree to which it's justified regarding the basic science. Of course, elsewhere on the internet the balance runs the other way, with complacent acceptance of official proclamations serving as the norm. That tendency is no more rational, of course, than the inclination to disbelieve assurances.

In the end, calling fears "irrational" or dismissing views that try to put risks in some perspective as a whitewash on behalf of the nuclear industry are both just cheap ways of declaring one's own allegiances, rather than efforts to engage in genuine dialogue and promote understanding. In my hypothetical, how I feel about my predicament does not depend merely on what I'm told about how much of the poison I ingested or what the risks are - it also depends on my ability to process that information AND whatever assurance I may have that the information is trustworthy. There is a kind of rationality in being quite cautious about risks one cannot effectively assess; fear may be inspired by ignorance, but ignorance is not reduced by denigrating the fearful.

[wtmusic]

55. Fears are irrational whenever personal assessment of risk is wildly divergent

from statistical risk.

It has nothing to do with allegiances, and it's not a cheap evaluation at all. Assessment of questions like, "What is the value of TEPCO/NRC/IAEA reports?", "What are the chances of a conspiracy/coverup?" are difficult to determine statistically so there's room for debate. Other subjects have a lot of solid data behind them, and if I can show a solid scientific basis for an assessment and someone comes back with insults and/or ignorance coupled with an unwillingness to learn, that's irrational, and they're going to get dismissed.

Don't have time.

[SpoonFed]

56. tl;dr / it's ok, it's just a little poison

I stopped reading after a couple of paragraphs because you're argumentation is nonsense.

If a person ingests some sort of poison (named or unnamed) and the experts say, "don't worry it's just a little poison, there is nothing to worry about", does the person have any right to be afraid and/or think these experts are full of shit and not to be trusted?

but it's fun to waste time on topics like this, instead of say:

a) determining who and what is exactly to blame for this catastrophe
b) understanding and communicating that this was an avoidable situation
c) understanding the complicity of industry and governments wrt the dangers of this technology

to follow the analogy,

A reasonable person would say, "ok, maybe this isn't going to kill me, I'm not sure" but "where did this poison come from?", "i need more reliable information about this", "who can i hold accountable?", "is there more coming?", "how can i stop this from happening again?"

these are the questions not being discussed or answered, instead there is plethora of technical jargon distraction and misinformation and general combativeness from the side that says there is nothing to fear.

[kristopher]

62. You should read the entire piece - there is no conflict with your point.

It is a well presented summary of the discussion that is taking place and it doesn't appear to me to be an endorsement for a particular position. The point you make is an excellent one that actually works better when it is merged with what caraher wrote.


ETA: IMO, in general caraher does seem to try and minimize the consequences of the event, but this particular post seems balanced to me.

[PamW]

92. Simplistic analysis - it's not that simple.

If a person ingests some sort of poison (named or unnamed) and the experts say, "don't worry it's just a little poison, there is nothing to worry about", does the person have any right to be afraid and/or think these experts are full of shit and not to be trusted?
=============================================

The above is an example of "binary thinking" - something is a poison or it is not a poison.
Single bit answer to a more complex question. Have you ever heard the expression:
"The dose makes the poison?

What do you think the emergency physicians at your local hospital would do if you presented
there and told them that you had just consumed the entire contents of a 200 pill bottle of
aspirin? They'd probably pump your stomach in order to get would could be a lethal dose
of aspirin from being absorbed by your system.

Aspirin is toxic. Enough aspirin and you can have real problems.

However, if you take just 2 tablets, which is "just a little poison", why would you question
someone who tells you not to worry?

Or you can substitute "sleeping pills" for aspirin in the above example.

Sleeping pills are also toxic, that is they are "poisons" in large enough doses.

So your point is what, other than being thoroughly demolished?

PamW

[PamW]

64. It seems to me that the solution is EDUCATION

Would my fear be "irrational?" It may be underinformed in important ways, but it seems to me that we naturally fear unfamiliar risks we don't know how to manage more than we do everyday risks (such as those associated with driving) even if they are objectively greater. There's a certain sense in which one could say fear is ALWAYS irrational (since it's an emotion), but that's clearly not what is meant when fear of radiation is called "irrational."
================================================================

It seems to me that the solution to the quandary posed above is education.

Suppose one is told that the deadly poison in the above example is chlorine. Chlorine can
be deadly. However, lets suppose that the person was told he had ingested a poison because
he ate some sodium chloride - a compound of deadly chlorine and caustic sodium.

If the person were educated, they would know that sodium chloride is also known
as common "table salt".

The thing to do is to get educated so that one can properly put the risks, if any, into perspective.
However, it seems that most of the uneducated want to go around crying like "chicken little" that
the sky is falling.

Many years ago at the start of the AIDS epidemic, it was revealed that AIDS virus or HIV virus can
be found in the sweat and tears of infected individuals. Because of this, a bunch of nitwits
went around warning about "casual contact" with people who were infected with HIV.

Parents were concerned about their children who might have a classmate that was infected with
HIV. Parents were concerned that their children would be sharing water fountains, and school
facilities with children who were HIV infected. These parents were concerned that the school
and its facilities would be "contaminated" with HIV virus.

In a sense, they were "contaminated", because if you went looking for the HIV virus, you could
certainly find it.

People were afraid because they thought that there was no "safe" level of HIV virus.
(Sound familiar?)

However, somehow the medical community was able to educate the public that you don't
catch AIDS through "casual contact". Just because you might get HIV virus on you from the
sweat or tears of an infected child, you don't get AIDS that way.

Somehow, the medical community was able to get the vast majority of the public educated about
HIV virus, because you don't hear much of this "casual contact" hysteria any more.

I wish the medical community could tell the scientific community how they did it.

The scientific community has a similar education job to do with the public when it comes
to radiation and radioactivity.

One scientist from MIT, Dr. Jacquelyn Yanch is doing her part. She has written the following
papers available at the MIT website:

http://web.mit.edu/nse/newsandmedia/news.html

Specifically:

http://web.mit.edu/nse/pdfs/Yanch_impact.pdf

http://web.mit.edu/nse/pdfs/Yanch_radiation.pdf

PamW

[kristopher]

65. Is that the nuclear sales department at MIT?

million live within 30 km of a nuclear reactor

Study outlines number of people at risk in case of serious accident
AFP April 23, 2011

About 90 million people worldwide live within 30 kilometres of a nuclear reactor, equivalent to the exclusion zone around Japan's crippled Fukushima plant, a study released Friday shows.
The United States alone has nearly 16 million people within this range, followed by more than 9 million each in China, Germany and Pakistan, and 5 to 6 million in India, Taiwan and France.
When the radius is expanded to 75 km, the number of people potentially at risk in case of a nuclear accident jumps to nearly half a billion, according to the analysis published by Nature.
More than 110 million are in the U.S., 73 million in China, 57 million in India, 39 million in Germany and 33 million in Japan...

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/million+live+within+nuclear+reactor/4663155/story.html#ixzz1KMyJO9YE



Japan to Enforce Exclusion Zone Near Nuclear Plant
Japanese officials have decided to legally enforce an exclusion zone within 20 kilometers of the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant starting at midnight Thursday.
Japan's Kyodo news agency reports that Prime Minister Naoto Kan will announce the new restrictions during a visit to the region on Thursday.
More than 60,000 people were evacuated from the zone shortly after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that knocked out cooling systems at the Fukushima plant. But Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said Wednesday that some residents and others have been venturing back in spite of a government advisory to stay away.
Engineers at the plant have been working since Tuesday to pump more than 10,000 tons of highly radioactive water out of the basement and utility tunnel at one of the six reactors. Officials said water levels in the tunnel - which had been rising about two centimeters a day - were down about one centimeter as of Wednesday morning...

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/east-pacific/Japan-Considers-Clampdown-on-Returnees-to-Nuclear-Zone-120264464.html

[PamW]

66. The reputation of MIT is secure...

Is that the nuclear sales department at MIT?
==============================================

The reputation of MIT as one the foremost universities specializing in science, engineering,
and technology, if not THE foremost, is secure and won't be besmirched by disparaging
remarks from the likes of you.

Why do you have such contempt and opprobrium for science and technology?

You know so little about it.

PamW

[kristopher]

68. So it doesn't bother you that there is a fission sales department at MIT?

Sci Eng Ethics DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y
Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract Merck suppressed data on harmful effects of its drug Vioxx, and Guidant suppressed data on electrical flaws in one of its heart-defibrillator models. Both cases reveal how financial conflicts of interest can skew biomedical research. Such conflicts also occur in electric-utility-related research. Attempting to show that increased atomic energy can help address climate change, some industry advocates claim nuclear power is an inexpensive way to generate low-carbon electricity. Surveying 30 recent nuclear analyses, this paper shows that industry-funded studies appear to fall into conflicts of interest and to illegitimately trim cost data in several main ways. They exclude costs of full-liability insurance, underestimate interest rates and construction times by using ‘‘overnight’’ costs, and overestimate load factors and reactor lifetimes. If these trimmed costs are included, nuclear-generated electricity can be shown roughly 6 times more expensive than most studies claim. After answering four objections, the paper concludes that, although there may be reasons to use reactors to address climate change, economics does not appear to be one of them.

<snip>

Regarding problem (b), excluding taxpayer-subsidy data from their nuclear-cost analyses, the 2009 MIT authors fail to take account of the many taxpayer subsidies that significantly reduce nuclear costs. They say (p. 9) their analysis ‘‘does not include any of the benefits from the production tax credits or loan guarantees...of 2005,’’ that is, a specific class of 2005 US taxpayer subsidies (Du and Parsons 2009). Yet, they ignore the fact that their analysis incorporates many other cost subsidies which artificially lower their calculated nuclear-electricity costs. If the late MIT physicist Henry Kendall is correct (p. 131), US nuclear-power subsidies amount to about $20 billion annually (Shrader-Frechette 2002)—all of which are ignored by the MIT authors in their cost analysis. For instance, they ignore the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies needed for nuclear-waste storage, perhaps because these are not market costs. Instead the 2009 MIT authors assume (p. 21) that the total costs of spent fuel and waste disposal will be only ‘‘the statutory fee of 1 mil/kWh currently charged’’ by government to the utility (Du and Parsons 2009), which, over the last 10 years, amounts to only $5 billion total (Shrader-Frechette 2002). Given the average, 22-year lifetime of nuclear plants (see above), this statutory fee means the total collected from current US nuclear plants amounts to roughly $11 billion. Yet this is only a tiny portion of permanent waste-storage costs, most of which will be borne by taxpayers, per government agreement (Shrader- Frechette 2002; Congress 1999). While the nuclear industry would pay this $11 billion (which MIT authors have assumed are total US nuclear-waste costs), government and US National Academy of Sciences studies in 1996 placed the real US nuclear-waste-management costs at roughly $350 billion (US National Research Council 1996), and these costs have now risen to $1 trillion (Shrader-Frechette 2002; Congress 1999), most of which will be paid by taxpayers. Thus the MIT authors may be counting, as total nuclear-waste costs, only between 1% (assuming $1 trillion is needed) and 3% (assuming $350 billion is needed) of the total monies needed for US nuclear-waste management, because they ignore taxpayer nuclear- waste-management subsidies. More generally, the MIT authors (Du and Parsons 2009) assume that nuclear electricity includes no taxpayer-subsidized costs, although ‘‘federal subsidies cover 60–90% of the generation cost for new nuclear plants’’ (Lovins et al. 2008). As already documented, US federal nuclear subsidies have already amounted to about $150 billion. The MIT failure to take account of nuclear subsidies in nuclear costs is especially troublesome because utility executives say (p. 17) that because nuclear plants are so uneconomical, ‘‘without loan guarantees, we will not build nuclear plants’’ (Madsen et al. 2009).

Regarding problem (c), the 2009 MIT authors also use mainly uncorrected nuclear-industry data, and they make many counterfactual nuclear-cost assump- tions, the effect of which is to lower nuclear-cost estimates. They assume, for instance, that ‘‘the total cost’’ of a nuclear plant does not include financing or interest charges on construction capital, although they admit that utilities are allowed to recover these costs from ratepayers (pp. 4–6), and although they and earlier paragraphs (of this paper) showed that financing costs at least double nuclear-construction costs (Du and Parsons 2009). They also assume (p. 4) that nuclear-plant construction takes only 5 years (Du and Parsons 2009), although earlier paragraphs show historical-average nuclear-plant-construction time is 10–23 years. Likewise, the MIT authors assume (p. 18) that a nuclear-load or ‘‘capacity factor of 85%’’ is reasonable (Du and Parsons 2009), although earlier paragraphs showed that historical-average capacity factors are 71%. Likewise, the 2009 MIT authors assume (pp. 16, 19) that the annual inflation rate for future nuclear construction will be 3%, although they admit that, over the last 5 years, annual nuclear costs have increased by 23% per year (Du and Parsons 2009). They also assume (p. 22) that for nuclear energy, ‘‘the costs of capital equal to those for coal.’’ Yet this assumption appears wholly unrealistic, given that market-interest rates for nuclear loans, as already mentioned, are 15%, whereas coal loans are only about 25% of that figure. Moreover, as already noted, nuclear interest can add 250% to overnight reactor costs whereas, on the admission of the 2009 MIT authors, coal- plant interest charges add only roughly 17–21% to coal-plant overnight costs (Du and Parsons 2009). The MIT authors likewise assume (p. iii) that it is rational for them to claim to ‘‘update the cost of nuclear power,’’ when their calculations of nuclear-electricity costs are only roughly half of those calculated by credit-rating firms like Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s (Du and Parsons 2009; Mariotte et al. 2008; Finance 2008). Moody’s says that, even from 2008 to 2009, it has taken ‘‘a more negative view for those issuers seeking to build new nuclear power plants’’ because of ‘‘the substantial execution risks involved’’ (Moody’s Corporate Finance 2009). The discrepancy between MIT and credit-rating-company figures arguably should have caused the 2009 MIT authors to question their industry-friendly economic assumptions that contributed to their low-nuclear-cost conclusions.

The earlier 2003 MIT nuclear-cost analysis (Ansolabehere et al. 2003) likewise was at least partly funded by the nuclear industry and perhaps, as a consequence, fell into similar counterfactual assumptions about nuclear costs. This study claims (p. vii) to be funded by the "Alfred P. Sloan Foundation,...MITs Office of the Provost, and Laboratory for Energy and the Environment" (Ansolabehere et al. 2003). However, ‘‘funding for this work comes from a variety of sources, including DOE, EPRI....INEEL’’ (MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (LEE) 2003). Like the 2009 MIT studies, this one (a) appears to include no nuclear-cost data from credit-rating agencies, (b) appears to include no nuclear-cost data that include taxpayer-provided subsidies, and (c) appears to use uncorrected, nuclear-industry-supplied cost data. Regarding (b), this 2003 MIT report criticizes (p. 43) nuclear subsidies, yet proposes (p. 8) additional ‘‘modest’’ US subsidies for nuclear power, but then excludes (p. 82) the value of taxpayer subsidies from its cost accounting of nuclear power (Ansolabehere et al. 2003). Likewise, regarding (c), the MIT analysis assumes that nuclear-plant construction takes only 5 years (Ansolabehere et al. 2003), although earlier paragraphs showed historical-average nuclear-plant-construction time is 10–23 years. It assumes a nuclear-load-factor of 85% (Ansolabehere et al. 2003), although earlier paragraphs showed that historical-average load factors of 71%. Likewise, the 2003 MIT study assumes an 11.5 interest rate, although earlier paragraphs showed that 15% is the market rate. It assumes a 40-year lifetime for nuclear plants, although (as noted earlier) the historical-average lifetime is 22 years. Thus, these implausible and counterfactual nuclear-industry assumptions appear to have compromised the MIT nuclear-energy-cost analyses. What about the other 12 nuclear-cost studies, those not known to be performed/funded by nuclear interests?

Download entire 33 page paper with this link:
http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/ksf-2011-climate-change-econ-conflicts-interest-see.pdf

[PamW]

71. It's a question of credibility...

So it doesn't bother you that there is a fission sales department at MIT?
===================================

It's a question of credibility. MIT is one of the most esteemed universities
when it comes to science and technology.

So I would believe MIT over ANY other university that you cared to cite, and
certainly over the drivel that comes out of your activist group sources like
the Union of Concerned "Scientists".

Any real scientist knows that they aren't a bunch of scientists, they are
a bunch of anti-nuclear activists.

So give me MIT, University of Michigan, and University of California - Berkeley
over ANYTHING you come up with:

MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/nse/newsandmedia/news.html
http://mitnse.com/

University of Michigan:
http://www-ners.engin.umich.edu/

University of California - Berkeley:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling

I cite the scientific leaders, not warmed over activists.

PamW

[kristopher]

74. Your false appeal to authority ignores the compelling evidence just placed before you.

The behavior of MIT is reprehensible and well documented in their work. it doesn't require interpretation as it is self evidently skewed to illegitimately promote nuclear power.

Of course you want to pretend it doesn't exist but you do nothing but give lie to your claims of promoting "science" when you have nothing more than two logical fallacies as the basis of your post - shoot the messenger and false appeal to authority.

Would you like to pursue this? I'd be happy to post the cost predictions of the MIT papers reviewed by Shrader alongside the contemporaneous CBO report which we can then compare with the observed results over time.

Of would you like to go back a bit futher as this isn't the first instance of such behavior out of that dept.

[PamW]

75. As a scientist, I know good science when I see it.

Of course you want to pretend it doesn't exist but you do nothing but give lie to your claims of promoting "science" when you have nothing more than two logical fallacies as the basis of your post - shoot the messenger and false appeal to authority.
===========================================================

WRONG - because I AM a scientist, I can judge the scientific merits myself.

I don't have to appeal to authority - I know good science when I see it.

I see good science coming from MIT, University of Michigan, UC-Berkeley..

You don't know the science, so you really have no basis to judge the scientific merits
first hand.

I can think of nothing more BORING to me than "economics" and cost predictions.

Economics and cost predictions don't rigorously follow differential equations, and
the data that goes into the models are just guesses anyway.

In scientific circles, the MIT and its Nuclear Engineering Department are considered
"top notch". That's why they are the bane to the activists in any source you'd like
to cite.

You believe ill of MIT because it suits your purposes.

Scientists have an expression for people who think like you do; you are someone who
"thinks with his politics instead of his brain".]

What does your Notre Dame biologist know about nuclear power anyway?
You keep serving up "seconds" when I have the real acknowledged experts in the field.

Why do you think President Obama's most recent nomination to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission was a Nuclear Engineering Professor from MIT?

http://web.mit.edu/nse/people/faculty/apostolakis.html

So no - I don't wish to discuss it with you.

PamW

[kristopher]

76. The information is clear and you wish to ignore it.

Maybe you are a product of MIT after all...
I urge everyone to download and read the paper you are too frightened to address honestly.

Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract Merck suppressed data on harmful effects of its drug Vioxx, and Guidant suppressed data on electrical flaws in one of its heart-defibrillator models. Both cases reveal how financial conflicts of interest can skew biomedical research. Such conflicts also occur in electric-utility-related research. Attempting to show that increased atomic energy can help address climate change, some industry advocates claim nuclear power is an inexpensive way to generate low-carbon electricity. Surveying 30 recent nuclear analyses, this paper shows that industry-funded studies appear to fall into conflicts of interest and to illegitimately trim cost data in several main ways. They exclude costs of full-liability insurance, underestimate interest rates and construction times by using ‘‘overnight’’ costs, and overestimate load factors and reactor lifetimes. If these trimmed costs are included, nuclear-generated electricity can be shown roughly 6 times more expensive than most studies claim. After answering four objections, the paper concludes that, although there may be reasons to use reactors to address climate change, economics does not appear to be one of them.

<snip>

Regarding problem (b), excluding taxpayer-subsidy data from their nuclear-cost analyses, the 2009 MIT authors fail to take account of the many taxpayer subsidies that significantly reduce nuclear costs. They say (p. 9) their analysis ‘‘does not include any of the benefits from the production tax credits or loan guarantees...of 2005,’’ that is, a specific class of 2005 US taxpayer subsidies (Du and Parsons 2009). Yet, they ignore the fact that their analysis incorporates many other cost subsidies which artificially lower their calculated nuclear-electricity costs. If the late MIT physicist Henry Kendall is correct (p. 131), US nuclear-power subsidies amount to about $20 billion annually (Shrader-Frechette 2002)—all of which are ignored by the MIT authors in their cost analysis. For instance, they ignore the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies needed for nuclear-waste storage, perhaps because these are not market costs. Instead the 2009 MIT authors assume (p. 21) that the total costs of spent fuel and waste disposal will be only ‘‘the statutory fee of 1 mil/kWh currently charged’’ by government to the utility (Du and Parsons 2009), which, over the last 10 years, amounts to only $5 billion total (Shrader-Frechette 2002). Given the average, 22-year lifetime of nuclear plants (see above), this statutory fee means the total collected from current US nuclear plants amounts to roughly $11 billion. Yet this is only a tiny portion of permanent waste-storage costs, most of which will be borne by taxpayers, per government agreement (Shrader- Frechette 2002; Congress 1999). While the nuclear industry would pay this $11 billion (which MIT authors have assumed are total US nuclear-waste costs), government and US National Academy of Sciences studies in 1996 placed the real US nuclear-waste-management costs at roughly $350 billion (US National Research Council 1996), and these costs have now risen to $1 trillion (Shrader-Frechette 2002; Congress 1999), most of which will be paid by taxpayers. Thus the MIT authors may be counting, as total nuclear-waste costs, only between 1% (assuming $1 trillion is needed) and 3% (assuming $350 billion is needed) of the total monies needed for US nuclear-waste management, because they ignore taxpayer nuclear- waste-management subsidies. More generally, the MIT authors (Du and Parsons 2009) assume that nuclear electricity includes no taxpayer-subsidized costs, although ‘‘federal subsidies cover 60–90% of the generation cost for new nuclear plants’’ (Lovins et al. 2008). As already documented, US federal nuclear subsidies have already amounted to about $150 billion. The MIT failure to take account of nuclear subsidies in nuclear costs is especially troublesome because utility executives say (p. 17) that because nuclear plants are so uneconomical, ‘‘without loan guarantees, we will not build nuclear plants’’ (Madsen et al. 2009).

Regarding problem (c), the 2009 MIT authors also use mainly uncorrected nuclear-industry data, and they make many counterfactual nuclear-cost assump- tions, the effect of which is to lower nuclear-cost estimates. They assume, for instance, that ‘‘the total cost’’ of a nuclear plant does not include financing or interest charges on construction capital, although they admit that utilities are allowed to recover these costs from ratepayers (pp. 4–6), and although they and earlier paragraphs (of this paper) showed that financing costs at least double nuclear-construction costs (Du and Parsons 2009). They also assume (p. 4) that nuclear-plant construction takes only 5 years (Du and Parsons 2009), although earlier paragraphs show historical-average nuclear-plant-construction time is 10–23 years. Likewise, the MIT authors assume (p. 18) that a nuclear-load or ‘‘capacity factor of 85%’’ is reasonable (Du and Parsons 2009), although earlier paragraphs showed that historical-average capacity factors are 71%. Likewise, the 2009 MIT authors assume (pp. 16, 19) that the annual inflation rate for future nuclear construction will be 3%, although they admit that, over the last 5 years, annual nuclear costs have increased by 23% per year (Du and Parsons 2009). They also assume (p. 22) that for nuclear energy, ‘‘the costs of capital equal to those for coal.’’ Yet this assumption appears wholly unrealistic, given that market-interest rates for nuclear loans, as already mentioned, are 15%, whereas coal loans are only about 25% of that figure. Moreover, as already noted, nuclear interest can add 250% to overnight reactor costs whereas, on the admission of the 2009 MIT authors, coal- plant interest charges add only roughly 17–21% to coal-plant overnight costs (Du and Parsons 2009). The MIT authors likewise assume (p. iii) that it is rational for them to claim to ‘‘update the cost of nuclear power,’’ when their calculations of nuclear-electricity costs are only roughly half of those calculated by credit-rating firms like Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s (Du and Parsons 2009; Mariotte et al. 2008; Finance 2008). Moody’s says that, even from 2008 to 2009, it has taken ‘‘a more negative view for those issuers seeking to build new nuclear power plants’’ because of ‘‘the substantial execution risks involved’’ (Moody’s Corporate Finance 2009). The discrepancy between MIT and credit-rating-company figures arguably should have caused the 2009 MIT authors to question their industry-friendly economic assumptions that contributed to their low-nuclear-cost conclusions.

The earlier 2003 MIT nuclear-cost analysis (Ansolabehere et al. 2003) likewise was at least partly funded by the nuclear industry and perhaps, as a consequence, fell into similar counterfactual assumptions about nuclear costs. This study claims (p. vii) to be funded by the "Alfred P. Sloan Foundation,...MITs Office of the Provost, and Laboratory for Energy and the Environment" (Ansolabehere et al. 2003). However, ‘‘funding for this work comes from a variety of sources, including DOE, EPRI....INEEL’’ (MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (LEE) 2003). Like the 2009 MIT studies, this one (a) appears to include no nuclear-cost data from credit-rating agencies, (b) appears to include no nuclear-cost data that include taxpayer-provided subsidies, and (c) appears to use uncorrected, nuclear-industry-supplied cost data. Regarding (b), this 2003 MIT report criticizes (p. 43) nuclear subsidies, yet proposes (p. 8) additional ‘‘modest’’ US subsidies for nuclear power, but then excludes (p. 82) the value of taxpayer subsidies from its cost accounting of nuclear power (Ansolabehere et al. 2003). Likewise, regarding (c), the MIT analysis assumes that nuclear-plant construction takes only 5 years (Ansolabehere et al. 2003), although earlier paragraphs showed historical-average nuclear-plant-construction time is 10–23 years. It assumes a nuclear-load-factor of 85% (Ansolabehere et al. 2003), although earlier paragraphs showed that historical-average load factors of 71%. Likewise, the 2003 MIT study assumes an 11.5 interest rate, although earlier paragraphs showed that 15% is the market rate. It assumes a 40-year lifetime for nuclear plants, although (as noted earlier) the historical-average lifetime is 22 years. Thus, these implausible and counterfactual nuclear-industry assumptions appear to have compromised the MIT nuclear-energy-cost analyses. What about the other 12 nuclear-cost studies, those not known to be performed/funded by nuclear interests?

Download entire 33 page paper with this link:
http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/ksf-2011-climate-change-econ-conflicts-interest-see.pdf

[PamW]

77. There are lots of professors....

Maybe you are a product of MIT after all...
I urge everyone to download and read the paper you are too frightened to address honestly.
==========================================

There are lots of professors, and each one has their own beliefs, and writes about them.

You found one that believes what you believe. Congratulations - I hope you two will be
very happy.

But academic "cherry picking" is an abomination that I don't subscribe to.

You just found a Biology professor that is also an anti-nuke. So you elevate her
writings over every other scholarly work in the field. It's not like you haven't
done THAT before.

However, there are academic studies that go beyond the work of just one professor.
There are studies by the National Academy of Science and Engineering. There are
studies by the scientists of the national laboratories. There are studies by
scientific professional societies like the American Physical Society and the
American Institute of Physics.

These organizations don't have a stake in the results, and they have their scientific
reputation on the line too. I don't think that want to besmirch that.

But you don't want to listen to what they say!!!

So again, "Congratulations", you found an academic who is anti-nuclear and is a biologist.

If I may ask; how long did it take you to find an anti-nuclear biologist....?

PamW

[kristopher]

79. Actually she is a professor of philosophy and ethics

With a background that qualifies her to interpret both the physics and biological aspects of nuclear power's costs and benefits.

What you are doing now is at the heart of why people do not trust the nuclear industry - including many of its academic proponents.

Shrader shows an undeniable issue that you simply refuse to address, when you attack her personally instead of dealing with the obvious problem at MIT it is a demonstration of an ethical problem on your part.

[SpoonFed]

86. Your logical fallacies aside,

But academic "cherry picking" is an abomination that I don't subscribe to.

You mean ascribe, not subscribe. Unless the Journal of Appealing To Authority has some yearly fee.

[PamW]

88. NO - the word is "subscribe", NOT "ascribe"

You mean ascribe, not subscribe. Unless the Journal of Appealing To Authority has some yearly fee.
====================================

NOPE - the word "ascribe" means implying attribution. Courtesy of Merriam-Webster:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ascribe

: to refer to a supposed cause, source, or author

It was not my intent to suppose a cause.

Evidently you are not aware that many words in the English language
have multiple meanings and "subscribe" is one of them. Courtesy of Merriam-Webster:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subscribe

In addition to the meaning covered under topic 2, which would include the
subscription of a periodical; which appears to be the meaning to which you
are referring, there is also topic 3:

3 : to assent to : support

That is the meaning of "subscribe" that my previous post uses.

You are also incorrect in implying that I'm appealing to authority, as
I am not. As I stated, I am a scientist, a physicist in particular; and I know
good science when I see it. I'm recommending the MIT site, not because it is
MIT, but because I approve of the explanations and I am an expert in that field.

As a word to the wise ( it's an expression, don't read too much into it ), next
time I suggest you attempt to correct the wording by someone with an inferior
vocabulary and command of the English language than yourself.

PamW

[SpoonFed]

89. I realize that most if not all what you post is nonsense

But it is worth pointing out again the fact that you can't distinguish the simple fact that your unwavering support of MIT as a perfect institution is the most sophomoric exposition of the fallacy of appeal to authority that I have seen in a long time, I really shudder to think you have anything than an undergraduate degree in anything

then again my life experience also incudes the realization that graduate and postgraduates exhibit some of he most indoctrinated and close-minded behaviour of any segment of western society

[PamW]

91. That says LOADS - about YOU, not me....

I realize that most if not all what you post is nonsense
========================================

Really - then that tells me you don't know much about science and engineering
because what I post is accurate information.

I recommend the MIT site because I've read it and know that it is giving good
information and not the hyped blather that one gets from other sources.

Check out my other recent post as to how Professor Margot Gerritsen of Stanford
in writing for the SmartEnergyNow website also recommends the MIT NSE web page.

PamW

[PamW]

90. Professors make the same references that I do....

So it doesn't bother you that there is a fission sales department at MIT?
==============================================

Have you ever heard of Professor Margot Gerritsen of Stanford University?
She happens to be a colleague of your favorite Stanford Professor Jacobsen.
Professor Gerritsen is the is Director of Stanford University's Institute for
Computational and Mathematical Engineering as well as a professor of
Energy Resources Engineering. From the Stanford University website:

http://soe.stanford.edu/research/layout.php?sunetid=gerritsn

Professor Gerritsen also writes for the SmartEnergyNow website:

ttp://smartenergyshow.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/fukushima-radiation-a-grim-25th-anniversary-of-chernobyl/

Where does Professor Gerritsen refer the readers of the above for more information
on Fukushima. Quoting from the above link:

Excellent current information about radiation levels and other updates can be found
at MIT’s Nuclear Information Hub: http://mitnse.com/.


So does this mean that Stanford also has a nuclear sales department?

PamW

[SpoonFed]

93. Lame and still does not address your thorough indoctrination and...

Unwavering belief in an institution. Institutions are not infallible bastions of wisdom even if they have well known three letter acronyms for a name. The same goes for an individual researcher. They are only as credible as their work and how that stands up to time, reality, and the analysis of by their peers. The fact that you haven't acknowledged that you are an unwavering fanboy of all things MIT and have posted a follow up with another fallacious appeal to expertise in the form of another prof you like more than another is just a further indictment of your ability to think critically.

That said I don't have much of a problem with MIT notwithstanding the phalanx of arbitrary fandom.

Ps did it really take a week for you to find somebody agreeing with you on teh internets

[PamW]

94. I have more important things to do than always hang around here...

Ps did it really take a week for you to find somebody agreeing with you on teh internets
==============================================

I have more important things to do than always hang around here, like preparing for
and attending an out of town scientific conference.

Posting here is a side line that I do as time permits, so ascribing ( see this is how
the word is used properly ) any meaning to the length of time between posts is without
basis.

Evidently your interpretation of what I have said leaves something to be desired.

As I have said before, I am not recommending all things MIT because they are MIT.

I am recommending a particular MIT web site because I have read it, and the
subject is in my particular field of expertise, and I find the information posted by
the MIT students to be accurate. Therefore I recommend it. No doubt that's
why the Stanford professor also recommends it.

The only people I see that disapprove of the MIT website are those that are not
informed in the field and who are attempting to hype the story for their own parochial
reasons.

PamW

[SpoonFed]

95. I hope you're riding a fixed gear so

That your back pedaling has some effect, unlike the usual spinning of your wheels here. You're assuming a lot and incorrectly as per usual (and I wave at confused Confuscious here too) that those of us that disagree with your half assed illogical arguments are misinformed, neither educated, nor degree holding scientists in our own right. I couldn't care less what you pretend to do for your day job and it has zero impact as to whether your arguments hold water. It's full of shit academics that point at their credentials, and while that might work on high school students and C grade undergraduates, the rest of us require something other than your continued lame attempts at appealing to authority or in this case overinflated sense of superiority.

Wa wa wa

[Someguyinjapan]

67. Wrong

The problem for those of living on this irradiated rock called Honshu isn't education, Pam, it's honesty.

I'd love to be able to educate myself on what the relative contamination risks are over here, but in order to do so I would need access to trustworthy data. Something none of us really have since the main managers over most of the data-TEPCO-have shown the typical sort of obstinate Japanese secrecy when informing the public-and the rest of the world-just how bad it is up there.

It is kind of hard to educate myself about nuclear contamination risks here in Japan when the majority of the most reliable data comes from secondary, non-Japanese sources rather than the primary source itself. And since NONE of those secondary sources have complete, 100% access and control over the data like TEPCO does, everyone else is inherently hamstrung in trying to find out exactly what is going on.

Speaking as someone who is a few hundred kilometers away from the site, your pithy analogies provide zero reassurance and do absolutely nothing in mitigating the root cause of the problem post-tsunami: (deliberate) government and industry mismanagement of information in their incompetent handling of this
crisis.

[PamW]

69. This may be of assistance

I'd love to be able to educate myself on what the relative contamination risks are over here, but in order to do so I would need access to trustworthy data.
========================================================

Then I would suggest reading Dr. Yanch's papers.

Dr. Yanch is a research scientist at MIT. You can't get much better
than one of the USA's, if not the world's most esteemed universities
when it comes to science.

http://web.mit.edu/nse/pdfs/Yanch_impact.pdf

http://web.mit.edu/nse/pdfs/Yanch_radiation.pdf

Even if you got accurate information of the radiation release from TEPCO
and your government, would you know how to analyze it and put it into
perspective? That's what the papers by Dr. Yanch can help you do.

If someone told you truthfully that the radioactivity release from Fukushima
so far has been "X" Becquerels - what would that number mean to you?
The Fukushima accident has been "hyped" by so many people wanting to promote
their parochial view of the world, or wanting to sell a news story.

It's disgusting. I live thousands of miles away from the Fukushima reactors,
and a front page story in our local paper a few weeks ago detailed the problem
that the local 911 system was having because of people calling to get the latest
radioactivity readings. They finally instituted a "211" service that gave the
readings. So many people have been meaninglessly scared.

I can sympathize with not knowing, and not being told by the officials who really
should be more forthcoming. However, it's not like they can completely hide the
facts when you are dumping stuff into the environment.

The US Dept of Energy has a center called NARAC - the National Atmospheric Release
Advisory Center located at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:

https://narac.llnl.gov/

https://narac.llnl.gov/narac_overview.html

They have excellent weather and gas / particulate transport modeling capability. They
can calculate how "stuff" disperses in the atmosphere. The Japanese officials are not
being any more forthcoming with them, but that doesn't matter. NARAC can assume a rate
of release, and then calculate how much of it gets here to the USA. (LLNL is in California)
They can then check that prediction against what is actually being measured in California.
Then they can go back and recalibrate their assumed release and repeat until they get
a converged, self-consistent result.

It may not be accurate down to the last decimal point, but if the official Japanese assessments
are wrong by orders of magnitude, the US Government certainly knows the truth.

Do you think that President Obama would order a cover-up? If so, for what purpose?

Additionally, the students at University of California at Berkeley are monitoring the release:

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling

Again, if you are throwing "stuff" into the atmosphere, you can't hide what you are doing.

PamW