Skip to main content

Blogger Takes on Caldicott

By Eric McErlain
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.
June 28, 2005 at 11:42 AM
Anonymous 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.
June 28, 2005 at 7:51 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more