Skip to main content

Blogger Takes on Caldicott

Helen Caldicott is at it again, fortunately this time, we're not the only ones who are noticing. Here's The View from Benambra:
[T]he biggest problem with Caldicott's argument is that she doesn't examine the alternatives. And, even if we accept nuclear power is bad, the alternatives are far worse.

Sure, we have to store nuclear waste for an indefinite period. That's not unique. There is also considerable amounts of other toxic industrial waste that humanity is currently storing indefinitely - in countries with nuclear power programs nuclear waste represents only 1% of the stuff they have to store. And, as for spreading pollutants over its neighbours, I go back to it again; coal kills almost as many Yanks annually as car accidents do. Given the choice between nuclear and coal - and, whether Dr. Caldicott likes it or not, that's what the choice will likely be - I'll take nuclear any day.
Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Matthew66 said…
Dr. Caldicott is a pediatrician by profession, unfortunately she seems to have forgotten her scientific training when it comes to the effects of radiation. Whilst not particularly noticeable in this Age article, Dr. Caldicott frequently refers to "anecdotal evidence" to support her arguments against nuclear energy. Unfortunately for Dr. Caldicott, scientific studies on the effects of radiation, including the UNSCEAR report in 2000 on Chernobyl, its 2001 report to the General Assembly and the June 2005 report on the incidence of childhood cancer around nuclear installations by the British Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, do not support the "anecdotal evidence". This suggests to me that Dr. Caldicott wants to find someone to blame for certain illnesses, and the nuclear industry is a convenient scapegoat that fits within her ideological belief system. Really, it is a bit like blaming a butterfly in Africa for a hurricane in Florida.
Robert Merkel said…
As an Aussie, we've been hearing from Helen Caldicott for many years - she's been a professional activist for over two decades. Given her commitment to the anti-nuclear cause, there's no way in the world she'd ever change her mind.

You may have noticed that there's been a considerable resurgence of interest in nuclear power in Australia. Most of Australia has recently suffered a very severe drought which, while not directly attributable to global warming, is the kind of thing that the climate models predict will occur more frequently if the climate heats up. Therefore, given the choice of nuclear or frying ourselves, nuclear starts to sound more attractive.

Vigorous discussion has been going on in the quality media about the issue for months now, and is starting to filter out more broadly, mainly due to Bob Carr's (Premier of New South Wales, the most populous state) advocacy of the issue. The debate splits both major parties.

In the Labor Party (akin to British Labour) the left of the party has a very strong anti-nuclear streak, but the right is starting to worry about global warming; a third factor is the influence of the coal miners' unions on the party. In the conservative ranks, you've got the economic rationalist global warming sceptics who like the very cheap power Australia's major cities get from conveniently located coal reserves, a lot of NIMBYists who know what the likely reaction of their electorates will be if a nuclear plant or waste dump was built there, and a few, like the Labor right, who are starting to worry about global warming and have identified the limitations of the alternatives.

A Parliamentary enquiry on the issue is just about to begin; it'll be interesting to see what comes out of it.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…