tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19138363454275908732024-03-14T05:37:59.430+00:00Nukes pretty pleaseA blog about nuclear power. Also debunking false claims about radiation, and nuclear power.Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-31290166619534596282021-10-14T10:02:00.002+00:002021-10-14T10:04:12.504+00:00Why do the Left Oppose Nuclear Power?<p>After the Civil Rights and Anti-Vietnam War protests of the 1960s a 'New Left' appeared. The New Left, like the Old Left were anti-Capitalist. They wanted to end capitalism to replace it with communism. But the old anti-capitalist arguments: exploitation, tendencies to capitalist crisis and worker immiseration were no longer convincing. The arguments were too abstract and conflicted with reality: Western workers, compared to Soviet workers, were not 'immiserated'.</p>
<p>So the New Left gave up on the proletariat, or working class. The New Left based their revolutionary movement on a new alliance of: “<i>the new political subjects — women, national, racial and sexual minorities, anti-nuclear and anti-institutional movements, etc.</i>” [citation: “<b>Socialist Strategy, Where Next?</b>”, Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, 1981 <a href="http://banmarchive.org.uk/collections/mt/pdf/81_01_17.pdf">http://banmarchive.org.uk/collections/mt/pdf/81_01_17.pdf</a> {PDF}]</p>
<p>STOP: Did I write: "<b>anti-nuclear movements</b>". Yes I did. In 1970s, Friends of the Earth, from 1970 to 1975, set out to convince every green organization of the importance of being anti-nuclear. An important argument they employed against nuclear power was that: "it's not needed". They believed a combination of renewable energy and fossil fuel was better. They believed nuclear power was too expensive and that its costs were hidden; that the main purpose of nuclear power was to provide plutonium for the military. That, at least, was the argument they used in the UK; and it was pretty effective. The greens became the anti-nuclear movements in the early 1970s. Prior to that, in the 1960s, anti-nuclear movement meant anti-Nuclear War. After 1975 it meant anti-nuclear power and anti-War.</p>
<p>Today: the far left have somewhat reframed their argument against nuclear power. There are, in fact, 3 arguments:</p>
<ul>
<li>'too expensive': This is their external argument - given to non-lefties.</li>
<li>'not decentralised': This is an internal argument - they argue that nuclear plants are big technology - only possible with massive, state supported, companies. Today's far left present themselves are anarco - in favour of community run business. Nuke are far too big for that. Solar and Wind power can be community run; nukes can't be.</li>
<li>'military industrial complex': This is a general argument. We see it from neo-Conservatives too. It was first invented, in the late 1960s, as a neo-conservative answer to Eisenhower's `Atoms for Peace` program. It stresses the links between nuclear power an nuclear weapons. It was copied by the greens in the 1970s</li>
</ul>
<p>The far left and the actual anti-nuke campaigners are NOT the same people. The Far Left aren't going to come out and try to blockade a nuke plant to shut down nuke plants directly. That's what the anti-nuke campaigners do. The far left political strategy is to 'march through the institutions'. Get themselves appointed to positions of influence. Use their influence to promote the technologies they agreed are best: renewables. Anti-nuke campaigners are different. They are the nutters we meet on the web. They are activists and, often, pretty single issue orientated.</p>
Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-20554816224724722032018-10-03T13:41:00.000+00:002018-10-03T13:41:06.959+00:00No mostly. Sometimes maybe but not really.<a href="https://twitter.com/BNW_Ben/status/934201866270814208">No</a>
<p>We visited the forest occupiers. Interviewed. Explained the lignite is 10 GW, and 10 GW of nuclear has been forced closed in Germany.</p>
<p>Would they support #nuclear to preserve the forest?</p>
<p>‘No’.</p>Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-21632591518447657382018-07-15T17:14:00.004+00:002018-07-15T17:14:34.352+00:00Simple Molten Salt Reactor, by Moltex LLP<p>Reblog. Copied from Energy Knot blog. <a href="http://energyknot.blogspot.com/2014/10/simple-molten-salt-reactor-by-moltex-llp.html">Moltex SSR</a></p>
<p>Moltex LLP is a small UK engineering design company based in London. On 20 Oct Ian Scott of Moltex presented his SMSR, lasting 15 minutes, at a House of Lords meeting.</p>
<p>Ian was influenced by the very first Molten salt design from 1950, which placed molten fuel inside narrow cylinders. Ian's design has several such cylinders full of fuel inside a tank of coolant. Both coolant and fuel are molten salts. The fuel circulates in these cylinders by convection, as does the coolant in the tank. A 1 GWe reactor will have a tank about 8 metres in diameter. There are no pumps moving molten salts - circulation is all done by convection. The tank will be a nickel alloy, probably Hastelloy. No moderator either, so it's a fast reactor. Ian reckons the reactor will last many decades.</p>
<p>Stated advantages of the SMSR</p><ul>
<li>unpressurized</li>
<li>the reaction is barely critical</li>
<li>no volatile fissile materials will be left in the reactor (gases will bubble out)</li>
<li>safe coolant</li>
<li>no pumps</li>
<li>materials are all standard industrial parts</li>
<li>cheap</li>
<li>fuel will be made from spent nuclear fuel, SNF, extracted by a <i>"simple single-stage process"</i>.</li></ul>
<p>Potential Issues:</p><ul>
<li>The primary coolant is sodium chloride. Natural chlorine is a mixture of isotopes: mainly Cl-35, Cl-37. Cl-36 is present as a trace, and is radioactive, half-life = 300k years, undergoing mainly beta decay to Ar-36, S-36. The <a href="http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/crosssection.html">thermal neutron cross-section of chlorine-35</a> = 35.5 σ<sub>a</sub>/barns [can't find the fast version, but the thermal spectrum is worryingly high]. It looks like quite a lot of neutrons may be lost to chlorine-35 absorption, producing chlorine-36 which is radioactive. Ian does not believe enough neutrons will be lost to make the reactor too inefficient, but the coolant will become radioactive. A way around this is to use isotopically separated chlorine-37 in the coolant salt. Using chlorine-37 alone, will prevent chlorine-36 forming and Cl-37 is stable against neutron bombardment. Several quite inexpensive routes are available for the separation of Cl-35 / Cl-37. The cost estimate has been done, still giving a very viable project.</li>
<li>The fuel tubes are a consumable item with an anticipated 5 year life, functioning in a similar manner to fuel rods and needing periodic replacement.</li>
</ul><p></p>
<h4>A thorium breeder?</h4>
<p>Ian believes that a converter makes economic sense now. A breeder will have to wait till the future:
</p><blockquote>There would then be an economic case for developing a nuclear breeder version of the reactor (this exists now in outline), which would operate on the thorium fuel cycle. That outline design is far simpler, safer and cheaper than current designs for sodium cooled fast breeder reactors.</blockquote>- <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/science-technology/Resilienceofelectricityinfrasrtucture/Resilienceofelectricityinfrastructureevidence.pdf">[Moltex Energy LLP – Written evidence, section 29]</a><p></p>
<p>The best introduction to the SMSR may be references: 6, 4 [translated via Google], 2, 1, in that order. Refs. 2, 1, 3 contain all the detail.</p>
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.icheme.org/events/conferences/past-conferences/2014/sustainable-nuclear-energy-conference-2014/~/media/06221500C09344B8AB4694AB78DE65FB.pdf">Slides</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/science-technology/Resilienceofelectricityinfrasrtucture/Resilienceofelectricityinfrastructureevidence.pdf">Evidence to House of Lords, pages: "Moltex Energy LLP – Written evidence"</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014128457A1">Patent Application WO-2014128457-A1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://energieduthorium.fr/tag/moltex-energy/">Blog on Moltex (in French)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.moltexenergy.com/">Moltex LLP</a></li>
<li><a href="http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/molten-salt-reactor-projects-in-uk.html">Next Big Future - UK MSRs</a></li>
</ol>
Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-40033620978271384872017-07-08T15:20:00.003+00:002017-07-08T15:24:40.105+00:00Pumped Hydro.<p>Consider the new Swiss <a href="http://www.gereports.com/how-the-swiss-turned-an-alpine-peak-into-a-battery-the-size-of-a-nuclear-plant/">Lake Mutt pumped hydro plant</a>. Should we be building more of them? Can we?</p>
<p>In UK, pumped hydro has never been used as an energy storage feature. I mean it's purpose is not to <u>store energy</u>. Energy storage is just something it does in order to work. UK pumped hydro is used to meet <u>peak demand</u>. Because hydro "switches" electricity onto the grid faster than anything else can. We face peak demand every day so the capital is always in use and the plant provides the grid with electricity every day (so gets revenue daily).</p>
<p>RE advocates don't seem to get this. UK pumped hydro was very expensive to build but eventually pays for itself because it's constantly used. RE advocates talk of pumped hydro as an energy store mechanism to alleviate unreliables. If so, capital plant will not be constantly in use. Unless pumped hydro is regularly making money by selling electricity to the grid, it won't make economic sense.</p>
<p>That's probably the reason RE advocates want the grid itself to pay for storage. If the grid has to pay, existing fossil plant like gas will be paying to put its competitor (peaking provider) in place!</p>
<p>Technically speaking - I'm not sure that UK pumped hydro ever did <u>pay for itself</u>. It was built when the UK grid was one nationalized company. Their accounting systems were bizarre to most outsiders. Indeed - bad accounts - is the reason nuclear became unpopular with UK politicians in the 1990s as the grid was privatised and many of the nuclear plants (Magnox reactors) were impossible to privatise. The effect of impossible accounting on politicians is revealed in Simon Taylor's "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Rise-Nuclear-Power-Britain-ebook/dp/B019WT0M16/">Fall and Rise of Nuclear Power in Britain</a>".</p>Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-54083636815249817582017-04-23T09:05:00.001+00:002017-04-23T09:13:36.946+00:00Decommissioning - facts and fallacies.<p>I wrote this after listening to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqZTsy3Dav8">The Nuclear Humanist</a> (Thies Beckers') response to Robert Llewellyn's (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyhGOLzMRSM">Fully Charged</a>) snipes against nuclear power. Thies is right but there's an outstanding question he should address to Robert Llewellyn, Mark Z. Jacobson and their ilk. <i>Do you support early decommissioning of German nuclear power reactors?</i>
<h3>UK situation.</h3>
<p>In UK, all the DECC decommissioning costs (to UK government) are for weapons sites (including submarines) and shut Magnox reactors (which are now <u>all</u> shut). Costs of decommissioning other power reactors: PWR and AGR, is solely the responsibility of the owners. EDF own all remaining power reactors. EDF have a fund growing annually for this mandated by UK government. It's a kind of tax. ~ 5% of their revenue. This is how decommissioning is handled in all Western democracies I know of.</p>
<p>Magnox spent fuel is all being reprocessed to remove plutonium. UK has a PUREX plant called THORP to do this. This extracts plutonium from spent fuel. That plutonium is not quite weapons grade but could provide very useful fuel for fast reactors. Alternatively - if anti-nukes have their way this plutonium will have to be disposed of too so that is cannot be used to make even substandard nuclear weapons. Only Magnox reactors will bear this extra reprocessing cost because Magnox reactors were special. The design was dual purpose. The spent fuel can be used to make nuclear weapons. Magnox are also far more expensive to decommission than PWRs because decommissioning was not considered in advance of their design. A flaw never to be repeated by other power reactor designs.</p>
<h3>Europe and Sweden</h3>
<p>Sweden has no Magnox reactors. Their PWR reactor decommissioning will be entirely the responsibility of the owners (via the decommissioning fund). Provided they are not shut prematurely, their decommissioning fund will bear the cost. The same kind of fund as per UK EDF reactors.</p>
<p>In Germany, plants are being shut too soon. So German decommissioning funds are not yet big enough to bear the cost. I wonder what Llewellyn and Jacobson think of that? Was early German shutdown a good idea?</p>Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-8100734844275866372016-12-21T06:23:00.003+00:002016-12-21T06:53:25.856+00:00Report by Congress says: Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans<p>I doubt Obama's media darlings will be reporting this</p>
<p>Dec 20, 2016: news report: <a href="http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-advance-climate-change-plans/">Congress: Obama Admin
Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans</a>, Investigation claims Obama admin retaliated against scientists, politicized DoE</p>
<p>Full report: <a href="http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2016-12-19-Final-Staff-Report-LDRR.pdf">U.S. Department of Energy Misconduct Related to the Low Dose Radiation Research Program (pdf)</a></p>
<p>Obama administration fired a top scientist who got out of line and wanted scientific research done into actual harms of banned substances.</p>
<p>Background: For decades now, the old ruling against carcinogenic substances: <b>No safe dose</b>, based on a linear, no-threshold, LNT, dose-response model has been disputed. No-safe dose is widely used by regulatory agencies, especially for carcinogenic substances. Some of the problems with no-safe dose are: at least one agency thinks everything is a carcinogen (such as the <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/un-cancer-agency-iarc-sees-risk-five-pesticides-182410720.html">UN IARC</a> who literally say 99.9% of everything (substance and activity) they investigated was carcinogenic. They sub-contracted NRDC researchers to <i>find</i> that. The no-safe dose model assumes there is no real protection against carcinogens, in that it considers every animal to be, more or less, equally susceptible. It believed genetic damage is carried down the lineage. That is absolutely not the case.
In recent decades, modern biology found several mechanisms, which work at the cellular level, by which animals protect themselves from cancer.
Some animals have high protection against cancer, such as: Elephants, blind mole rat, naked mole rat, water bears (tardigrades) to name but 4. These protective measures use a variety of mechanisms (proteins to protect DNA, widely different levels of cell lysis, mechanisms to prevent DNA insertion by alien creatures such as viruses, etc.). Different DNA repair mechanisms are present at a cellular level to repair damaged or broken DNA.
Humans are about mid-way. Not the most susceptible animal but certainly not the least.</p>
<p>The cost of no-safe dose to industry may be in the trillions. It is certainly at least tens of billions each year. I guess no one knows because we don't really study it. Regulatory agencies never bothered with cost-benefit before they enacted no-safe dose. They do not review cost-benefits. E.g. Notice how <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model">Wikipedia don't even discuss cost-benefit</a>. Presumably because there are not enough comprehensive studies; as academics and regulators are too cowed to write them. One might get sacked.</p>
<p>Scientists in the nuclear power, and radiation medicine (anti-cancer) industries have tried for years to establish a threshold dose instead. It looks like the Obama administration fired at least one scientist to make an example and establish who's in charge. To establish who has the right to decide <i>what science says</i>.</p>Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-50344310110847287912016-12-08T09:42:00.000+00:002016-12-08T09:55:49.156+00:00Sarcy sarcophagus<style>
blockquote { font-style: italic; }
</style>
Big song and dance over €1.5bn spent on a sarcophagus, or shield, above the exploded Chernobyl reactor. But what was the point of it? It protects no one from radiation. Radiation travels in straight lines. No one flies in the airspace above the reactor. A shield around the reactor could've been something as simple are a 4 metre wide earthwork about 5 metres high. The 3 neighboring reactors at Chernobyl continued operation for years after. They were shut in 1991, 1996, and 2000. For 14 years, when the radiation levels are much higher than now, workers continued to operate those reactors. The sarcophagus is a 1.5 billion Euro moral statement financed by <a href="http://www.ebrd.com/what-we-do/sectors/nuclear-safety/chernobyl-shelter-fund.html">Chernobyl Shelter Fund</a> saying : nuclear power is forever dangerous - be very afraid.
<blockquote>This sarcophagus is certainly an admirable engineering accomplishment : it is the largest movable object ever built by humanity, but <a href="http://atomicinsights.com/giant-new-cover-chernobyl-engineering-marvel-monumental-waste-money/">it is useless health wise.</a><br /><br />
The world is spending €1.5bn (one and a half billion euros) to protect itself from harmless levels of radiation.</blockquote>
For the same €1.5bn Ukraine could've built an advanced molten salt test reactor and prototype. They could've had cheaper, safer nuclear power instead of relying on Russian gas so much. €500 million of that money came from the <a href="http://www.ebrd.com/what-we-do/sectors/nuclear-safety/chernobyl-shelter-fund.html">European Bank for Reconstruction and Development</a> (EBRD). Rather construct and develop something useful to increase wealth. They chose to throw the money away.Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-1699691773020842372016-12-05T14:49:00.001+00:002016-12-06T10:21:46.724+00:00Brief history of radiation protection. What does it mean?<p>People are prone to jump on moral crusades. We see it today with global warming. Back in the day, radiation and cancer were a moral crusade.</p>
<p>In the early days of radiation it was the Wild West. No radiation limits. Marie Curie died of radiation induced cancer. <i title="who painted glowing dials and often licked their brushes">Radium girls</i> often caught mouth cancer. By the 1920s it was clear that high radiation doses presented a serious health risk. Dose limits were imposed in the early 1930s.
OMG! - how did humanity survive before we had environmentalists to protect us? Easy. Sensible folks noticed something was wrong and proposed regulation to stop bad things. Yet even back then I bet we had the equivalent of SJWs; crusaders who pushed regulation too far.</p>
<p>No widespread major illnesses developed among radiation workers after maximum dose limits were imposed in the early 1930s. Consider the following timeline. In response the development of the atomic bomb radiation protection standards were increased. Later in response to the <i title="a threat to the fossil fuel industry, but a promise to cheap energy to humanity">threat of nuclear power</i>, radiation protection standards were ratcheted tight. <ul>
<li><b>1931</b>: <i>National Council on Radiation Protection</i> establish first formal dose limit = 1 mGy/day</li>
<li><b>1934</b>: <i>International X-ray and Radium Protection Committee</i> (later to become <i>ICRP</i>) set limit = 2 mGy/day, ~ 730 mGy/year.</li>
<li><b>1945 Aug</b>: first atom bombs dropped.</li>
<li><b>1948</b>: Radiation protection group (US, Canada and UK) reduce permissible human radiation dose by half (to ½ mGy/day, ~ 183 mGy/year)</li>
<li><b>1950</b>: <i>ICRP</i> reduce recommended limit to 3 mGy/week, ~ 150 mGy/year.</li>
<li><b>1953 Dec</b>: Eisenhower's atoms for peace UN speech calls for civilian nuclear power</li>
<li><b>1954 Mar</b>: <i title="May be a non-tax paying foundation but all their money was made from fossil fuel.">Rockefeller foundation</i> meet to discuss radiation. Presumably in response to the threat of plentiful atomic power promised by Eisenhower just months earlier. Probably not in response to the Atomic bomb threat; although <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing">nuclear tests were increasing during the 1950s</a>, peaking, by number, in 1958 and 1961. In 1954 atomic bomb testing was not <i>huge</i>. 8 tests during the whole year.
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HAi7GiDPBVM/WEWCHykS6EI/AAAAAAAAAyQ/4yp26nizsSI26mCuhQHCaLBjbsnDxGVDACLcB/s1600/nuclear_testing-worldwide-563px-TINY.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HAi7GiDPBVM/WEWCHykS6EI/AAAAAAAAAyQ/4yp26nizsSI26mCuhQHCaLBjbsnDxGVDACLcB/s1600/nuclear_testing-worldwide-563px-TINY.png" /></a>
Rockefeller sponsor <a href="http://www.nasonline.org/">NAS</a> BEAR [<i title="later to become: BEIR: Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation">Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation</i>] committee, pick its membership. Help set its agenda.</li>
<li><b>1955 Apr</b>: NAS BEAR begin work.</li>
<li><b>1956 Jun</b>: NAS BEAR publish in NYT calling for no safe radiation dose. Excluding evidence by Ernst Caspari which contradicted <i>no safe dose</i>).
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B1BjApYQmqM/WEV3jSYbTnI/AAAAAAAAAyE/yKuf4Y3UiH0cp7E1BRA5uwq-Y-we9gk6ACLcB/s1600/radiation-NYT-1956.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B1BjApYQmqM/WEV3jSYbTnI/AAAAAAAAAyE/yKuf4Y3UiH0cp7E1BRA5uwq-Y-we9gk6ACLcB/s1600/radiation-NYT-1956.png" height="472" width="258" title="New York Times headline for 1956 BEAR report." /></a></li>
<li><b>1961</b>: AEC tighten dose limits for occupational exposure to an average of 50 mGy per year after the age of 18 while continuing to suggest that general population exposure levels be restricted to 10% of the occupational levels (5 mGy per year) for individuals. [average U.S. natural exposure from background radiation ~ 4 mGy per year]</li>
<li><b>1963 Aug</b>: Countries sign global atomic bomb test ban treaty. BEAR scientists congratulate themselves on a job well done: "<i>We made the world a safer place</i>".</li>
<li><b>1975</b>: I'm told in undergraduate physics class there is "<i>no safe dose</i>" for radiation. That scientists are <u>certain</u> of this. <u>All the evidence</u> tells us. <i>Ernst Caspari</i> is apparently a non person. <i>Real Science</i> says his research never happened. [ I remember so well because I questioned the lecturer on it immediately as it contradicted everything I knew about the response of biological systems to stress ]</li></ul></p>
<p><b>PS</b>: All radiation units above were converted to mGy (milli-Gray) to give approximate values for comparison. In reality some limits were set as REMs some as milli-Gray, most as roentgens.</p>
<h3>High/medium dose radiation causes cancer</h3>
<p><b>No safe dose</b>: Is not peculiar to radiation. It was decreed that there was "<i>no safe dose</i>" for all carcinogenic substances. From what I can gather, this was a theory first approach to regulation. <i>Better safe than sorry</i>. It is a bit of a nonsense because it cannot be enforced. E.g. Oxygen, which essential to human life. is a DNA mutagen. Some substances are thousands of times more carcinogenic than others. E.g. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aflatoxin">Aflotoxin</a> made by fungi growing on badly stored nuts or grain is about the most carcinogenic substance known. It may indeed have "no safe dose". Yet that does not mean you get cancer eating some. I loved nuts when I was a child. I must've accidentally eaten bad nuts at least 50 times. Mostly spitting it out but I'm sure some of the "no safe dose" deadliest carcinogen slipped by. I'm still alive and cancer free. DNA mutation and cancer is a complex thing. To cause cancer several mutations are needed and they must be the right ones: leading to a cell growing out-of-control, dividing into new cancerous cells, undetected by our body's immune system. Our body thinks it is still a normal body cell. The <i title="right one from our point of view!">wrong mutation</i> will lead to the immune system identifying a bad cell and killing it. Most mutations will be detected and destroyed by our immune system. Unfortunately we have a lot of cells (~ 70 trillion). Each undergoes up to 1 million DNA damage events per day. To start a cancer, it only takes one cell to slip by with the right set of DNA mutations which fool the body's immune system into thinking it's kosher. Most DNA damage events can be repaired by the cell itself, so do not lead to mutations. Single-strand DNA damage is basically repaired. Double-strand DNA damage is also repaired but may not be done so well.</p>
<h3>Hormesis to the rescue</h3>
<p>In addition there is a hormetic effect. A low dose of a carcinogen may stimulate the immune system to protect the body against cancer. E.g. by increasing <i title="The immune system causes a broken human cell to kill itself">autolysis</i> of suspect or damaged cells. This hormetic effect of radiation is thought to kick in at a dose much lower than the 1930s maximum limit. There are a lot of carcinogenic substances about. Oxygen is a DNA mutagen, as well being essential to animal life. We breath in about 500 gram per day of it. It's estimated that up to 3% goes astray in that it is not all used by the right metabolic pathway. That's about a third of a mole per day of wayward oxygen our body must deal with. 2 × 10²³ rogue molecules of oxygen for about 70 trillion human cells; about 3 billion rogue oxygen molecules per human cell. Every day. That must be causing some cancer, some of the time.
If the immune system can be stimulated by a hormetic effect, radiation can actually reduce the effect of cancer. Perhaps protecting against harm done by more common / chronic carcinogens as well. It's difficult for me to imagine how oxygen could induce such a (hormetic) effect!, since oxygen is so common. Yet:
<blockquote>Hyperbaric oxygen therapy of humans (100% O<sub>2</sub> at 2.5 atm), for instance, induces significant oxidative DNA damage to peripheral blood cells on the first day of therapy but fails to cause damage on subsequent days</blockquote>-- <a href="http://www.jbc.org/content/272/32/19633.long">Oxidative Decay of DNA</a>, by Kenneth B. Beckman and Bruce N. Ames</p>
<p>At moderate to low radiation doses (below 730 mGy/year) the harmful effect of radiation is increased cancer risk. It is a carcinogen. Yet no major illnesses developed among workers after maximum dose limits were imposed in the early 1930s. Because at this level < 2 mGy/day, the hormetic effect of radiation protecting us out-weights the additional harm done by mild radiation exposure. In 1948 / 1950 this exposure level was cut to just a quarter of the 1930s. Then it was cut again to "no safe dose". No scientific studies conclusively show either the lower limit (~ 150 mGy/year) or the zero limit are safer. Scientific studies are inconclusive. Some show barely perceptible increased risk. Some show a clear hormetic effect of less cancer risk.</p>
<h3>More Readings</h3>
<ul>
<li>Evidence against "<a href="https://nukespp.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/linear-no-threshold-model-and-standards.html">Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation</a>", by Mohan Doss</li>
<li><a href="https://nukespp.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-dose-response-relationship-and.html">LNT</a> by Maurice TUBIANA et André AURENGO</li>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23TfizmmeYs">Hormesis: Its Scientific Foundations and Biochemical Regulatory Applications</a> by Dr Edward Calabrese</li>
<li><a href="https://nukespp.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-lnt-fraud.html">The LNT fraud</a>: interview with Dr Edward Calabrese</li>
</ul>
<h3>Reference:</h3>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://atomicinsights.com/shaping-public-perceptions-radiation-risk/">Shaping public perceptions of radiation risk</a></li>
<li><a href="http://atomicinsights.com/rockefeller-foundations-influence-education-health-effect-low-dose-radiation/">Rockefeller Foundation’s hefty influence on education. Propagating fears about health effect of low dose radiation</a></li>
<li><a href="http://atomicinsights.com/science-falsified-no-safe-dose-hypothesis-radiation-now/">Science has falsified the “no safe dose” hypothesis about radiation. Now what?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/00326631.pdf">A Brief History of Radiation</a></li>
<li><a href="http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/baumer2/docs/ML102980443.pdf">US NRC: A Short History of Nuclear Regulation, 1946–2009</a></li>
</ul>
Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-8328240698996616552016-11-28T19:35:00.001+00:002016-11-28T19:49:29.732+00:00Bias leads to cherry picking.<blockquote cite="Nicholas Thompson">
<cite><a href="https://thompson.energy/2016/11/28/response-from-lawrence-sovacool-and-stirling-and-statement-of-article-withdrawal/">Nicholas Thompson</a></cite>
<p>... The authors don’t seem to deny that they have a bias against nuclear energy. I completely believe that any mistakes that were made in this paper were honest mistakes. But in this response, they state that their, “<i>…contribution was intended to challenge a widespread assumption about the supposed climate benefits of nuclear power.</i>”<br /><br />
In this sentence, the authors seem to be saying that it is their belief that nuclear does not have climate benefits, or at least that was what they were trying to prove ...</p>
</blockquote>Said more diplomatically than me.
<p>It's clear the authors were engaged in advocacy not analysis. Hardly surprising they got it wrong. They do not follow any clear cut method [They were comparing index values that began = 100 in 1990. Yet they take too small a slice: 7 years, 2005 - 2012]. The indices only have meaning when followed per country from 1990. So that <i>progress</i> can be clearly seen, countrywise. Some countries are large, others small. Some used energy far more inefficiently (the ex-communist countries) in 1990 than today. Some are very highly populated (Malta), some sparsely (Northern Baltic region) Some were more badly affected by the GFC during that time than others. I can go on all day like this ...</p>
<p>A cross-country comparison of indices never made sense. Their data selection has no clear rules to select time periods. Their choice of index (a derivative indicator), rather than GHG emissions per capita (a more primary indicator) made no sense. <blockquote><i>They can cherry pick to their hearts content until they find the right combination of data and method that just so happens to imply what they want to show.</i></blockquote> Their peers and journal editors are clearly happy with that state of affairs because they allowed the original article to be published.</p>
<p>This is bias right through the academic process. Even the critics and gatekeepers at Retraction Watch are biased. They censored my criticisms.</p>Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-26615101933183427322016-11-26T06:57:00.002+00:002016-11-26T07:07:17.660+00:00Pyrrhic Victory Speech<p>We hear the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14693062.2016.1179616">controversial paper</a> by Andrew Lawrence, Benjamin Sovacool & Andrew Stirling <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2016.1260249">was retracted</a>. <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2016.1260249">Andrew Lawrence takes full blame for the arithmetic errors</a>. I suppose we should all be happy with this, and put our metaphorical daggers to rest? Not me.</p>
<h3>Are we unfair, or bitter?</h3>
<p>No we're not unfair. Pro-nukes should not be too forgiving. <ol>
<li>The paper was launched with great fanfare. Their press release was <a href="http://nukespp.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/lawrence-sovacool-and-stirling-timeline.html#media">echoed by at least <b>10 green media websites</b></a>, including <i>The Ecologist</i>. I bet the authors were aiming for a bigger splash. Yet no major media outlet ran with it. Not even the ever so reliably anti-nuclear Guardian newspaper in the UK.</li>
<li>The article should never have been published. So the retraction does not exonerate any of the parties involved. They should've checked their numbers against other sources. For example: their political allies like Climate Action Network (Europe), CAN show no advantage to pro- nor nuclear phase out countries. E.g. In the CAN approved Climate Change Performance Index (<a href="https://germanwatch.org/en/download/13626.pdf">CCPI, see this link</a>), Or see my summary comparing the pro-nuke and nuke-phaseout countries. We can clearly see <a href="http://nukespp.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/climate-policy-gone-bad-climate.html#ccpi">there is no advantage to one nor the other</a>. CAN include some organizations with explicit anti-nuclear power policies (such as Greenpeace UK, WWF UK, ...); not exactly <i>nuclear industry shills</i> as anti-nuke campaigners would say.
The article relied on only one data set to back their view. Other data sets are available, which they should've checked their results against before publication. The journal editors should've used better peers. For example, I saw the data was wrong straight away (<a href="http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2016/08/26/being-pro-nuclear-does-not-undermine-climate-and-energy-goals/">as others did</a>). What kind or <i>peer</i> is unfamiliar with greenhouse gas reductions in Europe? None. Everyone has these reductions thrust into our eyes several times a year. </li></ol>
</p>
<p>Another blog of mine has <a href="http://nukespp.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/lawrence-sovacool-and-stirling-timeline.html">a timeline of events, with all links</a>. Many thanks to <a href="https://thompson.energy/2016/10/12/a-response-to-lawrence-sovacool-and-stirling/">Nicholas Thompson</a>, <a href="http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2016/08/26/being-pro-nuclear-does-not-undermine-climate-and-energy-goals/">Suzanna Hinson, and Stephen Tindale</a>. Unlike other people I know, they are probably more forgiving. So my view is not necessarily theirs'.</p>Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-65639576072584087252016-11-13T13:07:00.000+00:002016-11-14T15:27:28.814+00:00My advice to Trump on nuclear power<p>At the start of his first term, Obama appointed Gregory Jaczko, who was basically an anti-nuclear power activist, to run U.S. nuclear power regulation: <i>The Nuclear Regulatory Commission</i>, NRC. This activist proceeded to do as much damage as he could to the cause to reducing green house gas emissions.</p>
<p>I doubt Trump will be able to match that feat, no matter how many coal mines and gas pipelines he allows to operate.</p>
<p>Trump should do the opposite of what Obama did. Instead of spiking nuclear power, Trump should reform the NRC with a few strategic deregulations, and re-regulations. Eventually the USA will see the fruits of such deregulation in several years time. There's very little, perhaps nothing, Trump can do immediately to jump start cheap nuclear power. That's why he must begin by reforming regulation.
<ol>
<li>Change exposure limits for radiation from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model">no-safe dose</a> to a <i>threshold dose</i>. Even a threshold as low as 50 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert">mSv/a</a> looks like a real improvement. It will positively impact two things:<ol>
<li>It will undermine the rationale for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALARP" title="As Low As Reasonably Achievable">ALARA</a>. If tiny emissions are not harmful then why obsess over them? A great deal of time and money is wasted obsessing over small, but harmless, amounts of radiation.</li>
<li>It will undercut <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia" title="fear of radiation">radiophobia</a>. Radiophobes will not longer be able to legitimately claim that 0.1 mSv, of say tritium, is a catastrophe. Radiophobes will not be able to use these arguments to lobby for a nuclear power shutdown as they have in the past.</li></ol></li>
<li>Change the NRC mandate. From a mandate that only tries to make nuclear power as safe as possible. To one that promotes safe, cheap nuclear power. Return to something like the old <a href="#aec" title="Atomic Energy Commission">AEC</a> mandate. Nuclear power plants of each type have already been made as safe as can possibly be. These advances will not be lost, no matter what.</li>
<li>Force NRC to explicitly justify current and new safety measures by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost%E2%80%93benefit_analysis">cost benefit analysis</a> and assessment. Ensure that cost-benefits are measured in numerical units like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability-adjusted_life_year" title="Disability-adjusted life year">DALY</a>. IMO: only when you pin them down to numbers, will <span title="'anti-nuclear power activist'">antis</span> use proper cost-benefit.</li>
<li>Look through all U.S. laws for anything quoting a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle">precautionary principle</a> and rescind that law. Republicans need to stop using precautionary arguments too.</li>
<li>Clarify the position of U.S. government on issues like reprocessing and proliferation. If there are agencies out to stop reprocessing, please let us know what their rules are. If there are going to be reprocessing bans against nuclear used fuel, let the NRC oversee them. Likewise for other proliferation risks imagined and real. Please make technology bans explicit. This may involve clarifying exactly what the law is and which agencies have been directed to enforce or dictate rules and laws. I warn Mr T. that continued bans and heavy restrictions on reprocessing will result is continued expensive nuclear power. By enforcing the current 'de facto' monopolies. By preventing newer, better, technology.</li>
</ol></p>
<h3 id="aec">Atomic Energy Commission - AEC</h3>
<p>The AEC regulated nuclear power before the NRC was created:
<blockquote><p>In ... 1954, when Congress revised the law and, by allowing nuclear technology to enter the mainstream of American industrial life, it broadened the AEC's mandate. Congress declared that the widespread use of nuclear energy was a national goal and that it was the AEC's task to promote that growth.</p>
<p>But the AEC was created with a dual mission. Congress directed the AEC not only to promote nuclear power's peaceful uses, but also "to protect the health and safety of the public."</p></blockquote>
--<i>Hostages of Each Other: The Transformation of Nuclear Safety since Three Mile Island</i>, by Joseph V. Rees</p>
<p>Due to lobbying by coal power interests: the AEC was abolished in 1974/'75. It's regulatory functions were given to the <i>Nuclear Regulatory Commission</i>, NRC. The NRC was given only one single goal: <i>to make nuclear power as safe as possible</i>. Consequently, applications to build new nuclear plants fell to nothing, almost overnight. For those nuclear plants already with planning permission : a large number were never built, or completed largely over-due, over-budget. <a href="http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html#2" title="Chapter 9 of book: 'The Nuclear Energy Option', by Bernard L. Cohen, 1990">Costs of complying with extreme regulation</a> practically doubled the cost of building nuclear power plants.
In contrast: coal power never had its own draconian safety regime. The nuclear power industry, such that it was, did not lobby to spike coal power.</p>
<p>It was argued that this dual mandate created a problem - a paradox at the heart of the AEC - making it impossible for AEC to properly consider safety. This <i>critique</i> never had any legitimate foundation. It is a false critique. During its time, AEC made cheap, safe, nuclear power possible in the USA. The myth of unsafe nuclear power is just that. A myth created by phobics and Luddites either foolishly or recklessly. U.S. nuclear power has always been safe. Chernobyl happened in the Soviet Union, a communist dictatorship, where there were no checks and balances. Nothing like the AEC nor NRC. An unsafe nuclear power plant design such as the Russian <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK" title="Russian plant design at Chernobyl">RBMK</a> was, in 1986, would never have been allowed in the USA. Not by the AEC, not even by the most fervent pro-nuclear power supporter.</p>
<h3>Barriers to nuclear power</h3>
<p>Some of the things U.S. government is holding back:</p>
<ul>
<li>Lithium isotope separation: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdQMQqx4cxM#t=570">Dr. Stephen Boyd: MSRs - What are We Waiting For?</a> Contrary to what Stephen Boyd says - <b>there are no U.S. national security interests</b>. Russia and China currently separate lithium-7 from lithium-6, and USA buys all the lithium-7, or lithium-6 it needs from Russia or China. Sure: lithium-6 can be used to make tritium. Sure: in theory, tritium could make a fusion bomb. But as Russia and China already make loads to lithium-6, and USA makes none: I don't see the national, nor international, security issue.<br /></li>
<li><i>... Canada that's ... a realistic scenario ... except I don't want to go to prison. I was told in no uncertain terms by the department of energy that if I bring any of my intellectual property off of the United States soil, that represents a national security threat, I will get thrown into prison. They told me over the phone and I know who they are. I'm not going to name them.</i><br />-- <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdQMQqx4cxM#t=1580">Dr. Stephen Boyd</a></li>
<li>U.S. government invented the lie that breeder reactors and reprocessing are A-bomb proliferation threats. The opposite is true. At the moment U.S. makes about 2,700 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel each year. Any of that spent fuel can be easily chemically reprocessed to make, rather impure, plutonium. That plutonium could be used to make inferior A-bombs. In contrast: a properly working breeder reactor, with full reprocessing, will leave no useful waste for A-bomb proliferation. A breeder will leave only fission products.</li>
<li>Rare Earths - Thorium - the alternative, more abundant nuclear fuel - is often found in conjunction with rare earths. In mining, thorium is left behind as tailings. But the thorium can't simply be dumped because it is slightly radioactive. It's half-life is 14.5 billion years. It's classified by the EPA as naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). Currently, this must be disposed of under state rules. The radioactivity is too low to cause harm, but just significant enough for the EPA to rule on. In practice, it means USA has no rare earth industry to speak of. USA is totally dependent upon, and at the mercy of Chinese imports. An EPA rule change could stop all that, and give USA a rare earth mining industry bigger than it used to have.</li>
<li>Thorium fuel. Could actually power current reactor technology as well. It will not be considered because it requires reprocessing and US government has always opposed that.</li>
</ul>
<p>PS: <b>Also read</b>: <a href="https://nukespp.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/who-killed-nuclear-power-and-why.html">Who killed nuclear power and why?</a></p>Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-35762185634375376252016-11-09T12:40:00.002+00:002016-11-09T13:55:00.761+00:00Nuclear waste, "constipation", and Jim Green.<p>Jim Green came out of his, hopefully, 'environmentally friendly' Batcave again. The SuperAussie leading Friends of the Earth, Oz, <a href="http://energypost.eu/slow-death-fast-reactors/">argues against fast reactors once again</a>. For an anti-nuclear activist who claims to be protecting the environment, Jim surely has an obsession with fast reactors. Reactors which don't really exist anywhere, so can't be causing any environmental harm. Jim previously, wrongly, said that fast reactors were used by France to make lots of plutonium for their weapons programme ("<i>340 kg of plutonium for WMD</i>"). <a href="http://nukespp.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/case-study-in-anti-nuclear-power-fud.html">I debunked that long ago here</a>.</p>
<p>Let me look at some of his points. The Japanese Monju fast reactor now closing was a loop-style reactor. Liquid metal fast breeders (LMFBR) favoured by Gen IV fans (like me) are basically pool-style reactors. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor#/media/File:LMFBR_schematics2.svg">Loop and pool</a>, chalk and cheese, work in very different ways when used as fast breeders. The GE-Hitachi PRISM and Russian BN-XXX reactors (e.g. BN-800) are pool types. The GE-PRISM is based on the Integral Fast Reactor, IFR, research from 1984 – 1994, in the USA which had an excellent safety record with estimable clean energy and environmental goals.</p>
<p>A fast reactor with a cheap, easy way to recycle fuel, can leave only <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>200</sub> part, or 0.5% of the waste of conventional light water reactors (LWR), which run on low enriched uranium (LEU). USA developed such cheap, easy recycling technology over 2 decades ago during IFR research. It’s called “pyroprocessing”, but the idea depends upon separating waste using electricity. Like a battery in reverse. Something called electro-deposition.</p>
<p>Fast reactors which leave hardly any waste are bad news for anti-nuclear power activists like Jim Green. Because one of their core strategies is to “<b>constipate nuclear power</b>”, by preventing waste disposal. Far harder when future waste is only 0.5% current waste. Hence the effort anti-nukes put in to spread alternative lies. For example the lie that fast breeder reactors lead to A-bomb proliferation. This is another point <a href="http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/Tas-Uni-academic-less-than-abundantly-clear-about-G/">Jim Green previously made elsewhere</a>.</p>
<p>There are good reasons fast breeders, like PRISM, can leave only 0.5% the waste of a conventional reactor, for the same electricity made.</p>
<ol>
<li>Nearly 90% of the radioactive waste from nuclear power begins in fuel manufacture. The depleted uranium (DU), from enrichment, can’t be used by conventional light water reactors (LWR). A fast breeder reactor can use DU for its fuel. To be fair to Jim - he basically ignores the <i>issue</i> of DU.</li>
<li>Anything from 95% to 96% of the fuel going into a LWR is unused when it exits. Cheap pyroprocessing makes it economical to put this fuel back in; leaving only radioactive fission products as waste.</li>
<li>If the fission products are stored for 50 years, half of it is deactivated, by decay. Only the longer decaying, still radioactive material need be disposed of as waste. So we could, actually, get the nuclear waste down to below 0.25%, or <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>400</sub> part of what it currently is. But only if we build breeder reactors.</li>
<li>A PRISM reactor is more efficient in using heat generated than a LWR. That's because a PRISM runs at a higher temperature (> 500ºC) compared with a LWR (maximum ~ 330ºC). This leads to a greater temperature difference between source and sink. In the case of a PRISM, it might mean up to 10% - 20% efficiency gain. E.g. For the same electricity output, a PRISM may make over 10% less fission products than a PWR.</li>
</ol>
<p>That’s one reason why real environmentalists favour nuclear power, but fake environmentalists like Jim Green oppose it. Disagree with me? You could always try asking Jim Green why he opposes nuclear power. Supposing you can take the torrent of censorship, abuse and personal attacks his supporters will direct at you.</p>
<h4>Reference</h4>
<ul>
<li>See <a href="http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/PlentifulEnergy.pdf">Plentiful Energy</a>, for a description of the IFR, and pyroprocessing. Especially chapters 5 and 13 covering "Choosing the Technology", and "Economics".</li>
<li>Watch Dr. Roger Blomquist, of U.S. Argonne National Laboratory, describe the <a href="https://youtu.be/vuunX3Oc4n4?t=775">cost of pyroprocessing</a> as only <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>7</sub> that of current nuclear fuel reprocessing such as PUREX.</li>
<li>'<b>constipate nuclear power</b>'! Why is there no link to environmental propaganda here? Because this is supposedly a secret policy of theirs they don't admit to. Greens who've actually constipated nuclear power use this phrase among themselves to describe what they do. We know that from ex-greens who did it.</li>
</ul>Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-27307768516579744612016-11-02T08:28:00.001+00:002016-11-02T09:07:00.029+00:00"100% renewable energy", what does that mean?<style type="text/css">
li.header { list-style: none; }
</style>
<p>100% renewable energy is a myth concocted by anti-energy greens, to justify shutting nuclear power. Media outlets pushing 100% renewable are also hard-line anti-nuclear power sites. Their news stories on some supposed renewable energy “breakthrough” sometimes say: “Will XXX renewable breakthrough finally kill nuclear power”. Bit of a Freudian slip there by them. Some of the most <a href="http://thesolutionsproject.org/">avid and hard-line 100%-RE activists</a> are <a href="http://atomicinsights.com/following-the-money-whos-funding-stanfords-natural-gas-initative/">funded by natural gas interests</a>.</p>
<h3>Shutting nuclear plants means more fossil fuel</h3>
<p>The argument against nuclear power, and for 100% renewables basically says: keeping nuclear power slows the transition to 100% renewables. Evidence contradicts this. There is no transition to 100% renewables. The U.S. Energy Information Administration, EIA, show that: <i>shuttered nuclear power plants are replaced by fossil fuel, not “green” energy</i>.</p>
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xbY7DIpiQN4/WBmOkvOyFiI/AAAAAAAAAuY/_Qrk5tD37PMIQh4LY5x0gyhlJV2HdwsUACLcB/s1600/nuclear-replaced-by-fossil-2.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xbY7DIpiQN4/WBmOkvOyFiI/AAAAAAAAAuY/_Qrk5tD37PMIQh4LY5x0gyhlJV2HdwsUACLcB/s1600/nuclear-replaced-by-fossil-2.png" /></a>
<ul>
<li class="header"><b>Mathijs Beckers</b> debunks 100% RE:</li>
<li><a href="http://thecloudedhead.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/precourts-anti-nuclear-activism-all-or.html">Precourt's anti-nuclear activism - the all or nothing fallacy...</a>, and his other blogs and books.</li>
<li class="header"><b>Fossil fuel replaces shut nuclear power</b>:</li>
<li>EIA report: <a href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=28572">Fort Calhoun becomes fifth U.S. nuclear plant to retire in past five years</a></li>
<li><a href="http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/01/shuttered-nuclear-plants-arent-being-replaced-by-green-energy/">Shuttered Nuclear Plants Aren’t Being Replaced By Green Energy</a>, Daily Caller media report</li>
<li class="header"><b>Barry Brook</b> (EROI requirements show 100% RE is impossible) :</li>
<li><a href="http://www.theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/471651/catch-22-energy-storage">The Catch-22 of Energy Storage</a></li>
<li class="header"><b>Blair King</b> (a chemist on 100% RE) :</li>
<li>Deconstructing the 100% Fossil Fuel Free Wind, Water and Sunlight USA paper – <a href="https://achemistinlangley.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/deconstructing-the-100-fossil-fuel-free-wind-water-and-sunlight-usa-paper-part-i-why-no-nuclear-power/">Part I Why no nuclear power?</a></li>
<li>Deconstructing the 100% Fossil Fuel Free Wind, Water and Sunlight USA paper – <a href="https://achemistinlangley.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/deconstructing-the-100-fossil-fuel-free-wind-water-and-sunlight-usa-paper-part-ii-what-about-those-pesky-rare-earth-metals/">Part II What about those pesky rare earth metals?</a></li>
<li>Deconstructing the 100% Wind, Water and Sunlight scenarios – <a href="https://achemistinlangley.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/deconstructing-the-100-wind-water-and-sunlight-scenarios-part-iii-issues-with-energy-storage/comment-page-1/">Part III Issues with energy storage</a></li>
<li class="header"><b>Just some of the other reasons 100% RE is daft</b>:</li>
<li><a href="https://www.masterresource.org/renewable-energy-and-jobs/stanfords-jacobson-spins-misinformation-in-the-energy-debate-100-renewables-fantasy/">Stanford’s Jacobson Spins Energy Misinformation</a> (100% renewables fantasy)</li>
<li><a href="https://energyindepth.org/national/climate-activists-study-millions-lost-jobs-renewables/">Climate Activists Push Study Showing 3.8 Million Lost Jobs from Renewable Energy Transition</a></li>
</ul>Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-17075404747361794912016-10-29T15:28:00.001+00:002019-09-02T09:49:32.847+00:00Lawrence, Sovacool, and Stirling paper controversy : timeline<style>
table#sovacool {
width:100%;
border-collapse:collapse;
}
table#sovacool td:first-child { width: 12%; }
table#sovacool td:last-child { width: 12%; }
table#sovacool th { width: 7%; }
table#sovacool td { width: 7%; }
</style>
<p>I blogged this twice already. Once here and once at the sister blog.</p>
<p>Here is an exciting timeline for a paper published in July but, hopefully, withdrawn by October. So far, there is no official retraction or withdrawal. Someone should write to the journal's editor to confirm it.</p>
<p><b>Summary</b>: The paper was published, got fair publicity in the anti-nuclear / 100%-renewables press (they are the same thing). It claimed that <i>Pro-nuclear [European] countries [are] making slower progress on climate targets</i>. It drew its data from open sources, but copied just about every value wrongly. So any conclusions it came to based on data would have to be revised. Several people took issue with it. Within 2 months the authors admitted their data had been transcribed wrongly. Despite the journal editor saying all that was needed were corrections to data and bits of the text. The day after I was told that, a blog by Nicholas Thompson demolished the paper with another refutation showing the conclusions could not be derived from the corrected data either. Finally, one of the authors admitted they may need to withdraw it. Better that than have it retracted lads. I'd withdraw it ASAP if I were them.</p>
<h4>Timeline</h4>
<p>The timeline is for the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14693062.2016.1179616">Lawrence, Sovacool, and Stirling (LSS), paper</a> controversy claiming nuclear power supporting countries do worse at reducing GHG emissions.</p>
<ol>
<li><b>July</b>: <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14693062.2016.1179616">The article</a> is published in Climate Policy - a "peer reviewed journal".</li>
<li><b>22-Aug</b>: James Hakner at Sussex Univ. finishes a press release and posts it to media outlets.</li>
<li>On the same day, media reports begin rewriting the press release as a story dissing nuclear power.</li>
<li>23-Aug: I complain to the editor of Climate Policy by email (who is on leave anyway!)</li>
<li>24-Aug: One report in The Ecologist is by the press release's author!</li>
<li>25-Aug: I send out 10 emails to nuclear power supporting academics complaining about the paper. At least 3 of them reply to me: Jessica L, Ben H, and Nicholas T</li>
<li><b>26-Aug</b>: Stephen Tindale and Suzanna Hinson at the Weinberg Foundation refute LSS paper.</li>
<li>More media reports reprinting/rewriting their press release.</li>
<li><b>2-Sep</b>: My blog outlining the article's faults. I notify the journal editor too by email.</li>
<li>LSS notice my blog. Climate Policy editor discusses issues with authors and peer reviewers.</li>
<li>LSS authors admit errors in their data, but refute my other 17 complaints about their paper.</li>
<li>11-Oct: I get an email from the journal editor saying the paper has been cleared as OK apart from the data which will be corrected and a few bits of the text. I tweet my annoyances.</li>
<li><b>12-Oct</b>: Nicholas Thompson's blog refuting the conclusions they draw from their corrected data. Refuting the journal editor, the peer reviewers and the 3 authors.</li>
<li>27-Oct: Malcolm Grimston reports that Andy Stirling admitted the paper was rubbish and LSS have withdrawn it.</li>
<li>25-Nov: I hear the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2016.1260249">authors have retracted their article</a>.</li>
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-pro-nuclear-countries-slower-climate.html
</ol>
<h4>Article:</h4>
<ul>
<li>Lawrence, Sovacool, and Stirling (Climate Policy) "<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14693062.2016.1179616">Nuclear energy and path dependence in Europe’s ‘Energy union’: coherence or continued divergence?</a>"</li>
</ul>
<h4>Press Release:</h4>
<ul>
<li>James Hakner, for Sussex Univ. 22-Aug: "<a href="http://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/36547">Pro-nuclear countries making slower progress on climate targets</a>"</li>
</ul>
<h4 id="media">Green Media and science reports:</h4>
<p>In most cases these were edited, sometimes whole republications of the Univ. of Sussex press release written by James Hakner.</p>
<h4>As originally published:</h4>
<ul>
<li>https://phys.org, 22-Aug, <a href="https://phys.org/news/2016-08-pro-nuclear-countries-slower-climate.html">Pro-nuclear countries making slower progress on climate targets</a></li>
<li>STRN for STEM, 22-Aug: "<a href="http://www.scienceandtechnologyresearchnews.com/pro-nuclear-countries-making-slower-progress-climate-targets/">Pro-nuclear Countries Making Slower Progress on Climate Targets</a>"</li>
<li>Andrea Germanos for Common Dreams, 22-Aug: "<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/22/new-study-shows-how-clinging-nuclear-power-means-climate-failure">New Study Shows How Clinging to Nuclear Power Means Climate Failure</a>"</li>
<li>Energize Weekly 24-Aug: <a href="https://www.euci.com/study-shows-pro-nuclear-countries-make-slower-progress-on-climate-change-goals/">Study shows pro-nuclear countries make slower progress on climate change goals</a></li>
<li>James Hakner, 24-Aug, in The Ecologist: "<a href="http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2988056/new_study_suggests_pronuclear_countries_are_making_much_slower_progress_on_climate_targets.html">New study suggests pro-nuclear countries are making much slower progress on climate targets</a>"</li>
</ul>
<h4>Acknowledged the retraction (2):</h4>
<ul>
<li>Madeleine Cuff for Business Green, 23-Aug: "<a href="http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2468561/study-countries-that-support-nuclear-energy-lag-on-climate-targets">
Study: Countries that support nuclear energy lag on climate targets</a>"</li>
<li>Joshua Hill, CleanTechnica, 29-Aug: <a href="https://cleantechnica.com/2016/08/29/countries-pro-nuclear-agenda-making-slower-progress-climate-change/">Countries With Pro-Nuclear Agenda Making Slower Progress On Climate Change</a></li>
</ul>
<h4>Article Vanished (6):</h4>
<ul>
<li>Jacqueline Echevarria, 24-Aug "<a href="http://www.energylivenews.com/2016/08/24/pro-nuclear-countries-making-slower-progress-on-climate-targets/">Pro-nuclear countries ‘making slower progress on climate targets’</a>" (DELETED SINCE)</li>
<li>Joshua Hill republished in RenewEconomy, 30-Aug: <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/countries-pro-nuclear-agenda-making-slower-progress-climate-change-39432/">Countries With Pro-Nuclear Agenda Making Slower Progress On Climate Change</a></li>
<li>Science Daily, 22-Aug (edited press release?), "<a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822111807.htm">Pro-nuclear countries making slower progress on climate targets</a>"</li>
<li>Press release republished in ScienceNewsLine, 22-Aug: <a href="http://www.sciencenewsline.com/news/2016082215490089.html">Pro-nuclear Countries Making Slower Progress on Climate Targets</a></li>
<li>Press release republished by Gordon Taylor in EnergyPolicy (UK): <a href="http://cms.energypolicy.co.uk/284">Pro-nuclear countries making slower progress on climate targets</a></li>
<li>Press release republished by British Utilities (UK): <a href="https://british-utilities.co.uk/2016/pro-nuclear-countries-making-slower-progress-on-climate-targets/">Pro-nuclear countries making slower progress on climate targets</a> (DELETED SINCE)</li>
</ul>
<h4>Blogs & such:</h4>
<ul>
<li>Weinberg Foundation (blog by Stephen Tindale and Suzanna Hinson), 26-Aug: "<a href="http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2016/08/26/being-pro-nuclear-does-not-undermine-climate-and-energy-goals/">Being pro-nuclear does not undermine climate and energy goals</a>"</li>
<li>WUWT: <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/30/claim-countries-which-favour-nuclear-power-are-not-making-enough-effort-to-install-renewables/">Claim: Countries which favour Nuclear Power are Not Making Enough Effort to Install Renewables</a>, by Eric Worrall / August 30</li>
<li>Mark Pawelek (blog), 2-Sep: "<a href="http://nukespp.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/refutation-of-recent-climate-policy.html">Refutation of recent Climate Policy paper written by Lawrence, Sovacool & Stirling</a>"</li>
<li>Lawrence, Sovacool, and Stirling (prior to 11-Oct): "<a href="http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sussexenergygroup/newsandevents/commentaries/cppaperresponse">Response to Refutation of recent Climate Policy paper written by Lawrence, Sovacool & Stirling</a>"</li>
<li>Nicholas Thompson (blog), 12-Oct: "<a href="https://thompson.energy/2016/10/12/a-response-to-lawrence-sovacool-and-stirling/">A Response to Lawrence, Sovacool, and Stirling</a>"</li>
<li>Malcolm Grimston, 17-Oct: "<a href="https://thompson.energy/2016/10/12/a-response-to-lawrence-sovacool-and-stirling/#comment-42">Another response to LSS</a>"</li>
<li>Malcolm Grimston, 27-Oct: <a href="https://thompson.energy/2016/10/12/a-response-to-lawrence-sovacool-and-stirling/#comment-45">Comment</a>: "I spoke to Andy Stirling about this last Saturday and he said ‘<i>the paper was rubbish and we’ve withdrawn it</i>’ (though the press release is still on the SPRU website)."</li>
<li>Me (again). 10 Nov: <a href="http://nukespp.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/climate-policy-gone-bad-climate.html">Summary of this saga</a>, from my point of view, with explanation why this article should never have been published</li>
<li>The <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2016.1260249">authors withdraw their article from publication</a>.</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<h3 id="corrected">Appendix - Corrected Data</h3>
<p>In their original data (<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/figure/10.1080/14693062.2016.1179616?scroll=top&needAccess=true">Table 2</a>), emission reductions were shown as negative numbers. Emission increases as positive numbers. When presenting <a href="http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sussexenergygroup/newsandevents/commentaries/cppaperresponse">their corrected data</a> LSS, reversed the number sign. They also made two arithmetic errors. I wanted to present LSS's corrected figure with the table the numbers were derived from: <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/PocketBook_ENERGY_2015%20PDF%20final.pdf">page 30 of Eurostat handbook</a> (pdf). I calculated what the figures should be from the Eurostat data (heading: <b>2005-2012</b>). My figures have same sign as the journal article, but opposite to LSS corrected numbers.</p>
<table id="sovacool">
<tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th colspan="3"><a href="http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sussexenergygroup/newsandevents/commentaries/cppaperresponse">LSS correction</a></th><th></th></tr>
<tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th colspan="3">Group averages in parentheses<br />Emissions reductions</th><th></th></tr>
<tr><th>Index 100=1990</th><th>1990</th><th>1995</th><th>2000</th><th>2005</th><th>2010</th><th>2011</th><th>2012</th><th>2005-2012</th><th>country</th><th>OLD DATA</th><th>CORRECT-ION</th><th></th></tr>
<tr><td>Group I</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-11.8</td><td>GI</td><td>(-6)</td><td>-11.9</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Austria</td><td>100</td><td>102.6</td><td>103.6</td><td>120</td><td>110.2</td><td>107.6</td><td>104</td><td>-16.0</td><td>AT</td><td>-16</td><td>16</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Cyprus</td><td>100</td><td>121.2</td><td>137.8</td><td>149.6</td><td>150.6</td><td>147.5</td><td>147.7</td><td>-1.9</td><td>CY</td><td>-5</td><td>1.9</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Denmark</td><td>100</td><td>110.7</td><td>100.2</td><td>94.4</td><td>90.3</td><td>83.4</td><td>76.9</td><td>-17.5</td><td>DK</td><td>-20</td><td>17.5</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Estonia</td><td>100</td><td>49.4</td><td>42.3</td><td>45.8</td><td>49.5</td><td>51.8</td><td>47.4</td><td>1.6</td><td>EE</td><td>11</td><td>-1.6</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Greece</td><td>100</td><td>104.5</td><td>120.3</td><td>128.3</td><td>111.5</td><td>109.6</td><td>105.7</td><td>-22.6</td><td>EL</td><td>-4</td><td>22.6</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Ireland</td><td>100</td><td>106.8</td><td>124.3</td><td>127.8</td><td>113.3</td><td>105.8</td><td>107</td><td>-20.8</td><td>IE</td><td>-20</td><td>20.8</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Italy</td><td>100</td><td>102.4</td><td>106.9</td><td>111.6</td><td>97.5</td><td>95.3</td><td>89.7</td><td>-21.9</td><td>IT</td><td>-13</td><td>21.9</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Latvia</td><td>100</td><td>47.7</td><td>38.2</td><td>42.5</td><td>46.7</td><td>44.7</td><td>42.9</td><td>0.4</td><td>LV</td><td>17</td><td>0.4</td><td>LSS should be negative</td></tr>
<tr><td>Luxembourg</td><td>100</td><td>80.8</td><td>80.7</td><td>108.3</td><td>101.9</td><td>100.2</td><td>97.5</td><td>-10.8</td><td>LU</td><td>-20</td><td>10.8</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Malta</td><td>100</td><td>122.8</td><td>130.2</td><td>147.4</td><td>149.7</td><td>151.3</td><td>156.9</td><td>9.5</td><td>MT</td><td>5</td><td>-9.5</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Portugal</td><td>100</td><td>117.3</td><td>138.2</td><td>144.7</td><td>118.6</td><td>116.5</td><td>114.9</td><td>-29.8</td><td>PT</td><td>1</td><td>29.8</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Group II</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-13.8</td><td>GII</td><td>-11</td><td>-12.9</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Belgium</td><td>100</td><td>104.9</td><td>103.1</td><td>100.4</td><td>93</td><td>85.1</td><td>82.6</td><td>-17.8</td><td>BE</td><td>-15</td><td>17.8</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Germany</td><td>100</td><td>89.8</td><td>84</td><td>80.9</td><td>76.7</td><td>74.5</td><td>76.6</td><td>-4.3</td><td>DE</td><td>-14</td><td>4.3</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>100</td><td>106.7</td><td>103</td><td>101.8</td><td>101.4</td><td>94.7</td><td>93.3</td><td>-8.5</td><td>NL</td><td>-16</td><td>8.5</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>100</td><td>100.5</td><td>102.7</td><td>110.2</td><td>105.8</td><td>105.9</td><td>102.6</td><td>-7.6</td><td>SI</td><td>4</td><td>7.6</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Spain</td><td>100</td><td>110.9</td><td>134.8</td><td>154.2</td><td>125.4</td><td>126.4</td><td>122.5</td><td>-31.7</td><td>ES</td><td>-10</td><td>31.7</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Sweden</td><td>100</td><td>102.3</td><td>95.6</td><td>93.4</td><td>91.3</td><td>86</td><td>80.7</td><td>-12.7</td><td>SE</td><td>-17</td><td>7.3</td><td>Should be 12.7</td></tr>
<tr><td>Group III</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-10.2</td><td>GIII</td><td>-3</td><td>-10.2</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Bulgaria</td><td>100</td><td>69.6</td><td>54.2</td><td>58.3</td><td>55.2</td><td>60.5</td><td>56</td><td>-2.3</td><td>BG</td><td>20</td><td>2.3</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Czech Republic</td><td>100</td><td>77</td><td>74.5</td><td>74.4</td><td>70.4</td><td>68.4</td><td>67.3</td><td>-7.1</td><td>CZ</td><td>9</td><td>7.1</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Finland</td><td>100</td><td>100.5</td><td>98.5</td><td>98</td><td>106.7</td><td>96.6</td><td>88.1</td><td>-9.9</td><td>FI</td><td>-16</td><td>9.9</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>France</td><td>100</td><td>99.5</td><td>101.5</td><td>101.6</td><td>93.9</td><td>88.9</td><td>89.5</td><td>-12.1</td><td>FR</td><td>-14</td><td>12.1</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Hungary</td><td>100</td><td>81.3</td><td>79.5</td><td>80.6</td><td>69</td><td>67.2</td><td>63.7</td><td>-16.9</td><td>HU</td><td>10</td><td>16.9</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Romania</td><td>100</td><td>70.7</td><td>54.6</td><td>57.9</td><td>47.8</td><td>50.5</td><td>48</td><td>-9.9</td><td>RO</td><td>19</td><td>9.9</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Slovakia</td><td>100</td><td>74.1</td><td>68.7</td><td>70.6</td><td>64</td><td>63.2</td><td>58.4</td><td>-12.2</td><td>SK</td><td>13</td><td>12.2</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>100</td><td>93.1</td><td>89.9</td><td>88.6</td><td>79.9</td><td>74.8</td><td>77.5</td><td>-11.1</td><td>UK</td><td>-16</td><td>11.1</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Group IV</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-1.5</td><td>GIV</td><td>-15</td><td>-1.5</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Lithuania</td><td>100</td><td>45.1</td><td>40.1</td><td>47.8</td><td>43.3</td><td>44.3</td><td>44.4</td><td>-3.4</td><td>LT</td><td>15</td><td>3.4</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Poland</td><td>100</td><td>94.7</td><td>84.4</td><td>85.5</td><td>88.1</td><td>87.6</td><td>85.9</td><td>0.4</td><td>PL</td><td>14</td><td>-0.4</td><td></td></tr>
</table>
Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-22680780307306532962016-10-17T14:29:00.001+00:002016-10-22T10:42:22.872+00:00Irish EPA grossly overestimate fatal cancer risk from radiation.<style type="text/css">
table.smaller { font-size: 90%; }
table.smaller td:nth-child(2) { background-color: #ffff9f; }
table.smaller td:nth-child(3) { background-color: #ffff9f; }
table.smaller td:nth-child(4) { background-color: #ffff9f; }
table.smaller td:nth-child(5) { background-color: #ffff9f; }
table.smaller td:nth-child(6) { background-color: #9fff9f; }
table.smaller td:nth-child(7) { background-color: #9fff9f; }
table.smaller td:nth-child(8) { background-color: #ff9f9f; }
table.smaller td:nth-child(9) { background-color: #ff9f9f; }
table.smaller td:nth-child(10) { background-color: #ff9f9f; }
table.model { font-size: 90%; }
</style>
<h4>Introduction</h4>
<p>The Irish EPA grossly overestimate fatal cancer risk caused by radiation. By up to 6000-fold for age cohort 20-24. For example, if you are aged between 20 and 24, the Irish EPA overestimate your risk of dying of a fatal cancer due to radiation by 6000 times too much. The real risk is about 1 in a million. Irish EPA estimate it at 1 in 178.</p>
<p>In their <a href="http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/radiation/RPII_Fact_Sheet_Rad_Risk_13.pdf">fact sheet on radiation</a><a href="#rpii" class="sup">[1]</a>, The Irish Environment Protection Agency say:<ol>
<li>"<i>we can estimate that a dose of 10 µSv may increase the lifetime risk of fatal cancer by about one in 2,000,000</i>"</li>
<li>Their estimate is based on real world risk assessments using:<ul>
<li>Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb survivor data</li>
<li>Patients exposed to external radiation for the treatment or diagnosis of certain diseases</li>
<li>Marshall Islanders exposed to severe fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests</li>
<li>Miners exposed to radon and its decay products</li>
<li>Residents exposed to radon in the home</li>
<li>Workers exposed to radium-226 in luminous paint</li>
<li>Patients exposed to radium-224 for bone disease</li></ul>
</li></ol></p>
<p>This EPA leaflet looks convincing. What could be more believable than a risk assessment derived from real world cancer mortalities? Produced by a government agency called the Environment Protection Agency. You would have to take that seriously, or should you?<p>
<p>For a risk assessment to make any sense it should give some estimate of risk within reasonable error bounds. A risk assessment which is out by an order of magnitude (ten times too high or too low) is of little help. Surely an Environmental Protection Agency should be able to get their guesses right within an order of magnitude?</p>
<h4>Reasonable explanation proposed for the Irish EPA statement</h4>
<p><b>Joris van Dorp</b>: If 10 muSv/yr gives 1 in 2 million chance of cancer, then assuming 70 years average life, dose is 2.7mSv × 70 yrs ~ 200.000 muSv, means chance of death is 20 thousand in 2 million ~ 1%.</p>
<p>1% is 1/40 of normal cancer incidence of 40%.</p>
<hr />
<p>Joris' explanation looks good to me. But there's still a problem with this EPA handout. Taken literally it implies a far greater risk than the evidence shows. Irish EPA can should say each '10 µSv per year' if that's what they mean.</p>
<h4>My model</h4>
<p>I took what I know of regulations and cancer to make a model, which I compared to real world cancer data. Because I live in UK and have real world UK cancer mortality data, it was easiest to model this for the UK. However I can assure you, there's nothing special about UK with regard to cancer risk. If anything UK has a bad rep for stopping deaths from cancer.
This is my final model compared to the real world.</p>
<table class="smaller">
<thead>
<caption>Table 1: UK cancer mortalities. Real world compared to projected data</caption>
<tr><th colspan="3"></th><th colspan="6" style="text-align: center;">per 100,000</th><th></th></tr>
<tr><th></th><th colspan="4">real numbers</th><th>derived</th><th colspan="4">projections</th></tr>
<tr><th>Age Range</th><th>Male Deaths</th><th>Female Deaths</th><th>Male Rates</th><th>Female Rates</th><th>Average (MF) rates</th><th>Average (MF) rates - radiation</th><th>inception</th><th>deaths</th><th>Overestimate</th></tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>0 to 04</td><td>47</td><td>39</td><td>2.3</td><td>2</td><td>2.15</td><td>0.1</td><td>203</td><td>3.6</td><td>67 ×</td></tr>
<tr><td>05 to 09</td><td>47</td><td>40</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.2</td><td>2.3</td><td>0.1</td><td>540</td><td>28.3</td><td>493 ×</td></tr>
<tr><td>10 to 14</td><td>38</td><td>33</td><td>2.1</td><td>1.9</td><td>2</td><td>0.1</td><td>878</td><td>117.5</td><td>2349 ×</td></tr>
<tr><td>15 to 19</td><td>64</td><td>47</td><td>3.2</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.85</td><td>0.1</td><td>1,215</td><td>299.5</td><td>4204 ×</td></tr>
<tr><td>20 to 24</td><td>87</td><td>75</td><td>4</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.75</td><td>0.1</td><td>1,553</td><td>562.3</td><td>5998 ×</td></tr>
<tr><td>25 to 29</td><td>131</td><td>151</td><td>6</td><td>6.9</td><td>6.45</td><td>0.2</td><td>1,890</td><td>870.3</td><td>5397 ×</td></tr>
<tr><td>30 to 34</td><td>210</td><td>294</td><td>9.8</td><td>13.6</td><td>11.7</td><td>0.3</td><td>2,228</td><td>1,197.7</td><td>4095 ×</td></tr>
<tr><td>35 to 39</td><td>319</td><td>460</td><td>16</td><td>22.9</td><td>19.45</td><td>0.5</td><td>2,565</td><td>1,531.8</td><td>3150 ×</td></tr>
<tr><td>40 to 44</td><td>678</td><td>984</td><td>30.6</td><td>43.4</td><td>37</td><td>0.9</td><td>2,903</td><td>1,867.7</td><td>2019 ×</td></tr>
<tr><td>45 to 49</td><td>1428</td><td>1769</td><td>61.9</td><td>74.6</td><td>68.25</td><td>1.7</td><td>3,240</td><td>2,204.7</td><td>1292 ×</td></tr>
<tr><td>50 to 54</td><td>2557</td><td>2853</td><td>118.9</td><td>129.9</td><td>124.4</td><td>3.1</td><td>3,578</td><td>2,542.2</td><td>817 ×</td></tr>
<tr><td>55 to 59</td><td>4360</td><td>4076</td><td>234.7</td><td>214.1</td><td>224.4</td><td>5.6</td><td>3,915</td><td>2,879.7</td><td>513 ×</td></tr>
<tr><td>60 to 64</td><td>7358</td><td>6070</td><td>422.1</td><td>334.3</td><td>378.2</td><td>9.5</td><td>4,253</td><td>3,217.2</td><td>340 ×</td></tr>
<tr><td>65 to 69</td><td>11089</td><td>8696</td><td>658.1</td><td>488.2</td><td>573.15</td><td>14.3</td><td>4,590</td><td>3,554.7</td><td>248 ×</td></tr>
<tr><td>70 to 74</td><td>12599</td><td>9729</td><td>1043.6</td><td>724.8</td><td>884.2</td><td>22.1</td><td>4,928</td><td>3,892.2</td><td>176 ×</td></tr>
<tr><td>75 to 79</td><td>14330</td><td>11292</td><td>1501.6</td><td>991.6</td><td>1246.6</td><td>31.2</td><td>5,265</td><td>4,229.7</td><td>136 ×</td></tr>
<tr><td>80 to 84</td><td>14127</td><td>12194</td><td>2169.5</td><td>1355.9</td><td>1762.7</td><td>44.1</td><td>5,603</td><td>4,567.2</td><td>104 ×</td></tr>
<tr><td>85 to 89</td><td>10455</td><td>10253</td><td>3031</td><td>1732.4</td><td>2381.7</td><td>59.5</td><td>5,940</td><td>4,904.7</td><td>82 ×</td></tr>
<tr><td>90+</td><td>5742</td><td>7589</td><td>3853.3</td><td>1989.5</td><td>2921.4</td><td>73.0</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>All Ages</td><td>85667</td><td>76644</td><td>271.6</td><td>235.2</td><td>253.4</td><td>6.3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
</tbody>
</table><br />
<h4>Explanation</h4>
<p>Table 1 shows cancers grouped by age cohort give by <a href="http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/mortality/age#heading-Zero">UK Cancer Research</a><a href="#UKCR" class="sup">[2]</a> (yellow).
Two columns are derived from real world data (green). The first simply averages male and female fatal cancer rates per 100k. The second derived column divides this by 40 on the assumption that 1 in 40 cancers are caused by radiation and that there's nothing exceptional about radiation cancers compared to others.
Next we move to derived data (salmon). The inception column shows the number of cancers which are expected to eventually result in fatalities. The 'deaths' column applies a calculation based on the chart below which accounts for the time taken for a cancer to kill. This shows the number of fatalities expected in that age cohort. The final column (Overestimate) shows the ratio of column 9 (deaths) to column 7 (Average (MF) rates - radiation).
Rates in the table are all give as per 100,000</p>
<h5>Chart 1 : Cancer induction time distribution<a href="#induction" class="sup">[3]</a></h5>
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TX6bgxtoyQs/WATXT-YHrWI/AAAAAAAAAts/NujWG26GoKM5SCfCM3ZPPdjAsZI4Ia1RACLcB/s1600/cancer-induction-time-distribution-smaller-TINY.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TX6bgxtoyQs/WATXT-YHrWI/AAAAAAAAAts/NujWG26GoKM5SCfCM3ZPPdjAsZI4Ia1RACLcB/s1600/cancer-induction-time-distribution-smaller-TINY.png" /></a>
<h4>Derivation</h4>
<p>This part of the blog gives a detailed derivation of the previous model.</p>
<p>The Irish EPA say: "we can estimate that a dose of 10 µSv may increase the lifetime risk of fatal cancer by about one in 2,000,000".
Nearly all regulatory agencies in the world assume a linear no-threshold effect due to radiation. [ I think the French<a href="#french" class="sup">[4]</a> alone are different ]. So 10 µSv = 0.01 mSv. 1 in 2 million is 0.05 in 100,000. We will compare fatal cancers per 100,000 of the population. If we expect 0.01mSv to give a rate of 0.05, we can project 2.7mSv to cause a rate of 13.5. By simply scaling.
<table style="width: 40%;">
<caption>Table 2: </caption>
<tr><td>dose (mSv)</td><td>Projected fatalities per 100k</td></tr>
<tr><td>0.01</td><td>0.05</td></tr>
<tr><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr>
<tr><td>2.7</td><td>13.5</td></tr>
</table><br />
<p>2.7mSv is the average annual radiation exposure found in UK. Our real world cancer data comes from <a href="#UKCR">UK Cancer Research</a> is also refers to the UK.
I use this Irish EPA risk assessment to project the inception time of fatal cancers. I get the table below. It increases on a linear scale. Each extra year of life, adds an extra risk of contracting a fatal cancer from background radiation.
A risk corresponding to an extra 13.5 per 100,000, per year.
<table style="width: 40%;">
<caption>Table 3: Project of fatal cancer inception times.</caption>
<tr><td>Year of life</td><td>Fatal cancer inception / 100k</td></tr>
<tr><td>0</td><td>13.5</td></tr>
<tr><td>1</td><td>27</td></tr>
<tr><td>2</td><td>40.5</td></tr>
<tr><td>3</td><td>54</td></tr>
<tr><td>4</td><td>67.5</td></tr>
<tr><td>5</td><td>81</td></tr>
<tr><td>6</td><td>94.5</td></tr>
<tr><td>7</td><td>108</td></tr>
<tr><td>8</td><td>121.5</td></tr>
<tr><td>9</td><td>135</td></tr>
</table>
<p>etcetera</p>
<h5>Table 3 Notes</h5>
<ul>
<li>the table continues, ending at 89</li>
<li>Each 5 year period will be summed to make 5-year cohorts. The first cohort has 5 years labelled 0 - 4.</li>
</ul>
<p>How very simple. I think this is one of the reasons why Linear No-threshold, LNT, is beloved of regulators. It is so very easy to math. Ref <a href="#french" class="sup">[4]</a>, has a good explanation of LNT.
We can not just go from cancer inception to predict fatalities. There is a delay between inception and mortality which can be quite long (see Chart 1 above).
At this point I simplified. I have real world data in 5 year cohorts, and inception-to-mortality data in 5 year cohorts. I grouped my inception data into 5 year cohorts too. By summing the 1-year cohort projections.
Because I compare this with fatalities grouped into 5 year cohorts, I sum each 5 year band.
The inception time for a fatal cancer differs from the time of death, according to a distribution shown in Chart 1:
This chart was used to make a table. (Table 4). The distribution for the last 2 age ranges was smoothed. ( So 1 + 1, rather than 0 + 2). 281 is the estimated sample size. The estimated fatal cancer inceptions for each 5 year cohort were now multiplied to get the estimated time of death. These are the numbers seen under the age ranges (horizontally)
These numbers were summed for each age range to arrive at final estimates of actual deaths per cohort.
<table class="model">
<thead>
<caption>Table 4: Cancer induction time distribution</caption>
<tr><th></th><th></th><th>total</th><th>0 to 04</th><th>05 to 09</th><th>10 to 14</th><th>15 to 19</th><th>20 to 24</th><th>25 to 29</th><th>30 to 34</th><th>35 to 39</th><th>40 to 44</th><th>45 to 49</th></tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td>281</td><td>5</td><td>26</td><td>72</td><td>81</td><td>58</td><td>24</td><td>11</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr>
</tbody>
<tbody>
<tr><th colspan="13" style="text-align:center;">Table 5: How induction time was added</th></tr>
<tr><th>Per 5 years</th><th>cancer inception</th><th>deaths</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr>
<tr><td>0 to 04</td><td>203</td><td>4</td><td>3.603</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>05 to 09</td><td>540</td><td>28</td><td>9.609</td><td>18.737</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>10 to 14</td><td>878</td><td>117</td><td>15.614</td><td>49.964</td><td>51.886</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>15 to 19</td><td>1,215</td><td>300</td><td>21.619</td><td>81.192</td><td>138.363</td><td>58.372</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>20 to 24</td><td>1,553</td><td>562</td><td>27.625</td><td>112.420</td><td>224.840</td><td>155.658</td><td>41.797</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>25 to 29</td><td>1,890</td><td>870</td><td>33.630</td><td>143.648</td><td>311.317</td><td>252.945</td><td>111.459</td><td>17.295</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>30 to 34</td><td>2,228</td><td>1,198</td><td>39.635</td><td>174.875</td><td>397.794</td><td>350.231</td><td>181.121</td><td>46.121</td><td>7.927</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>35 to 39</td><td>2,565</td><td>1,532</td><td>45.641</td><td>206.103</td><td>484.270</td><td>447.518</td><td>250.783</td><td>74.947</td><td>21.139</td><td>1.441</td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>40 to 44</td><td>2,903</td><td>1,868</td><td>51.646</td><td>237.331</td><td>570.747</td><td>544.804</td><td>320.445</td><td>103.772</td><td>34.351</td><td>3.843</td><td>0.721</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>45 to 49</td><td>3,240</td><td>2,205</td><td>57.651</td><td>268.559</td><td>657.224</td><td>642.091</td><td>390.107</td><td>132.598</td><td>47.562</td><td>6.246</td><td>1.922</td><td>0.721</td></tr>
<tr><td>50 to 54</td><td>3,578</td><td>2,542</td><td>63.657</td><td>299.786</td><td>743.701</td><td>739.377</td><td>459.769</td><td>161.423</td><td>60.774</td><td>8.648</td><td>3.123</td><td>1.922</td></tr>
<tr><td>55 to 59</td><td>3,915</td><td>2,880</td><td>69.662</td><td>331.014</td><td>830.178</td><td>836.664</td><td>529.431</td><td>190.249</td><td>73.986</td><td>11.050</td><td>4.324</td><td>3.123</td></tr>
<tr><td>60 to 64</td><td>4,253</td><td>3,217</td><td>75.667</td><td>362.242</td><td>916.655</td><td>933.950</td><td>599.093</td><td>219.075</td><td>87.198</td><td>13.452</td><td>5.525</td><td>4.324</td></tr>
<tr><td>65 to 69</td><td>4,590</td><td>3,555</td><td>81.673</td><td>393.470</td><td>1003.132</td><td>1031.237</td><td>668.754</td><td>247.900</td><td>100.409</td><td>15.854</td><td>6.726</td><td>5.525</td></tr>
<tr><td>70 to 74</td><td>4,928</td><td>3,892</td><td>87.678</td><td>424.698</td><td>1089.609</td><td>1128.523</td><td>738.416</td><td>276.726</td><td>113.621</td><td>18.256</td><td>7.927</td><td>6.726</td></tr>
<tr><td>75 to 79</td><td>5,265</td><td>4,230</td><td>93.683</td><td>455.925</td><td>1176.085</td><td>1225.810</td><td>808.078</td><td>305.552</td><td>126.833</td><td>20.658</td><td>9.128</td><td>7.927</td></tr>
<tr><td>80 to 84</td><td>5,603</td><td>4,567</td><td>99.689</td><td>487.153</td><td>1262.562</td><td>1323.096</td><td>877.740</td><td>334.377</td><td>140.044</td><td>23.060</td><td>10.329</td><td>9.128</td></tr>
<tr><td>85 to 89</td><td>5,940</td><td>4,905</td><td>105.694</td><td>518.381</td><td>1349.039</td><td>1420.383</td><td>947.402</td><td>363.203</td><td>153.256</td><td>25.463</td><td>11.530</td><td>10.329</td></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>549.609</td><td>1435.516</td><td>1517.669</td><td>1017.064</td><td>392.028</td><td>166.468</td><td>27.865</td><td>12.731</td><td>11.530</td></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1521.993</td><td>1614.956</td><td>1086.726</td><td>420.854</td><td>179.680</td><td>30.267</td><td>13.932</td><td>12.731</td></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1712.242</td><td>1156.388</td><td>449.680</td><td>192.891</td><td>32.669</td><td>15.133</td><td>13.932</td></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1226.050</td><td>478.505</td><td>206.103</td><td>35.071</td><td>16.335</td><td>15.133</td></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>507.331</td><td>219.315</td><td>37.473</td><td>17.536</td><td>16.335</td></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>232.527</td><td>39.875</td><td>18.737</td><td>17.536</td></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>42.278</td><td>19.938</td><td>18.737</td></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>21.139</td><td>19.938</td></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>21.139</td></tr>
</tbody>
</table><br />
<h4>Model derivation explained</h4>
<ul>
<li>The cancer inception column in table 5 is derived by summing each consecutive 5 years from Table 3.<br />
E.g. 203 = 13.5 + 27 + 40.5 + 54 + 67.5</li>
<li>This inception data (e.g. 203) is distributed according to the frequency shown in Chart 1 (same as Table 4).<br />
E.g. 203 = 3.603 + 18.737 + 51.886 + 58.372 + 41.797 + 17.295 + 7.927 + 1.441 + 0.721 + 0.721</li>
<li>The 3rd column: <b>deaths</b>, is got by summing the delayed mortalities to the right of it</li>
<li>Data after the <b>85 to 89</b> column is ignored. It's just displayed to show the model.</li>
<li>Columns 2 and 3 of Table 5 go to make columns 8 and 9 of Table 1</li>
</ul>
<h4>References</h4>
<ol>
<li id="rpii">The <a href="http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/radiation/RPII_Fact_Sheet_Rad_Risk_13.pdf">document</a> claiming 10 µSv exposure implies 1 in 2 million mortalies was authored by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, RPII, which was established in 1992 and merged with the EPA in 2014. The EPA still use RPII fact sheets when dealing with radiation.</li>
<li id="UKCR"><a href="http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/mortality/age#heading-Zero">UK Cancer Research</a>. Download the spreadsheet data.</li>
<li id="induction">Source: <a href="http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/gerstman/hs161/Ch2-EKS-2ed.pdf">Chapter 2</a> - "Epidemiology Kept Simple: An Introduction to Traditional and Modern Epidemiology", by B. Burt Gerstman, Wiley, 2013, page 36</li>
<li id="french"><a href="http://www.groenerekenkamer.nl/grkfiles/images/dub011-ok.pdf">Dose-effect relationship and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low-doses of ionizing radiation</a>, by Maurice Tubiana, André Aurengo, 2005</li>
</ol>Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-5402617007985624392016-10-13T09:14:00.000+00:002016-10-22T06:29:18.004+00:00All Change in Switzerland?<p>Switzerland has four nuclear plants supplying over a third of its electricity.</p>
<p>On the surface, it looks bad for nuclear power in Switzerland. In May 2011, following the accident at Fukushima Daiichi, the Swiss government passed "Energy Strategy 2050" programme, promoting renewables, but banning new nuclear power. Recently Swiss utilities Axpo, Alpiq and BKW <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/swiss-nuclearpower-idUKL8N1CI3PU">withdrew their joint request to build nuclear plants</a>. The Swiss Green Party, supported by Greenpeace, are behind a <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-nuclearpower-idUKKCN12B0LU">referendum on Nov 27 to close reactors early</a>: Beznau I & II, and Muehleberg in 2017, with two remaining stations to follow in 2024 and 2029.</p>
<p>One the other hand: When put to a referendum the Swiss people consistently support nuclear power (apart from one 1990 vote). A <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Swiss-want-say-on-nuclear-phase-out-2301144.html">2014 poll</a> showed the Swiss strongly in favour of keeping existing nuclear power plants, with 64% saying existing reactors are essential.
The largest political party: Swiss People's Party (SVP), who are out of office, <a href="https://www.thelocal.ch/20161007/svp-to-challenge-governments-energy-strategy">will push for a referendum</a> via the Swiss system of direct democracy to dump the "Energy Strategy 2050". They delayed their referendum demand because they sought support from business which was not forthcoming. Despite this setback, the right-wing party says it is launching the referendum with the support of associations and businesses, including Swissmem who represent the machine, electrical and metal industries.</p>
<style type="text/css">
table.st { width: 90%; }
table.st > tbody:first-of-type > tr > td:first-child { width: 5%;}
table.st > tbody:first-of-type > tr > th { text-align: left; }
table.st > tbody:first-of-type > tr > td { text-align: left; }
</style>
<table class="st">
<caption>History of Swiss nuclear power referendums</caption>
<tr><td>1979</td><td>A citizens' initiative for nuclear safety</td><td>rejected</td></tr>
<tr><td>1984</td><td>"for a future without further nuclear power stations"</td><td>55% to 45% against.</td></tr>
<tr><td>1990</td><td>"stop the construction of nuclear power stations," proposing a 10-year moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants</td><td>passed with 54.5% to 45.5%</td></tr>
<tr><td>1990</td><td>The initiative for a phase-out</td><td>rejected by 53% to 47.1%</td></tr>
<tr><td>2000</td><td>Green Tax for support of solar energy</td><td>rejected by 67% to 31%.</td></tr>
<tr><td>2003</td><td>"Electricity without Nuclear," asking for a decision on a nuclear power phase-out</td><td>rejected 33.7% Yes, 66.3% No</td></tr>
<tr><td>2003</td><td>"Moratorium Plus," for an extension of the earlier decided moratorium (in 1990) on the construction of new nuclear power plants</td><td>rejected 41.6% Yes, 58.4%</td></tr>
</table><br />
<table class="st">
<caption>Swiss federal election, 2015</caption>
<tr><th>% vote</th><th></th></tr>
<tr><td>29.4%</td><td>Swiss People's</td></tr>
<tr><td>18.8%</td><td>Social Democrats</td></tr>
<tr><td>16.4%</td><td>FDP (Liberals)</td></tr>
<tr><td>11.6%</td><td>Christian Democrats</td></tr>
<tr><td>7.1%</td><td>Greens</td></tr>
<tr><td>4.6%</td><td>Green Liberals</td></tr>
</table><br />
<h4>Opinion Poll</h4>
<p><a href="http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/november-27-vote_poll-finds-support-for-nuclear-phase-out/42529278">Telephone interviews of 1,200 Swiss citizens</a>, from Oct 3 to Oct 14, found the Swiss overwhelmingly in favour of the Greenpeace / Green Party proposal for a quick nuclear power phase out. 57% to 36%. With 7% undecided and a margin of error of 3%. Despite this, many analysts think the Swiss may reject Green Party proposals for an early nuclear power phase out on Nov 27! That's because participation in the national referendum isn't expected to be about 45%.</p>
<h4>Notes, links</h4>
<ol>
<li id="1"><a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/swiss-nuclearpower-idUKL8N1CI3PU">Swiss utilities throw in towel over new nuclear plants</a></li>
<li id="2"><a href="https://www.thelocal.ch/20161007/svp-to-challenge-governments-energy-strategy">SVP launch challenge to energy strategy</a></li>
<li id="3"><a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-nuclearpower-idUKKCN12B0LU">Swiss government opposes campaign for quick nuclear exit</a></li>
<li id="4"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Switzerland">Nuclear power in Switzerland (Wikipedia)</a></li>
<li id="4"><a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Swiss-want-say-on-nuclear-phase-out-2301144.html">'Swiss want say on nuclear phase out'</a></li>
<li id="4"><a href="http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/november-27-vote_poll-finds-support-for-nuclear-phase-out/42529278">Telephone poll shows Swiss favour phase out by big majority.</a></li>
</ol>Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-34378008417557701102016-09-22T09:18:00.001+00:002016-09-25T11:00:34.756+00:00Gerri Thomas - on real risks of radiation<p>Good arguments and data at youtube from Youtube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOvHxX5wMa8">Gerri Thomas on radiation</a>. Why Fukushima, and low radiation doses, are not such a big deal.
e.g. that chart below counts radiation during a visit of French students to Fukushima. Notice 4 radiation peaks here:</p>
<ol>
<li>Going through security at Paris airport</li>
<li>Flight to Japan (goes right off the scale)</li>
<li>Going through security at French embassy (in Japan)</li>
<li>Actual visit to Fukushima - town in south of exclusion zone (Tomioka)</li>
</ol>
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5IDldcK5V14/V-euH3-3bWI/AAAAAAAAAso/UPOdwXCT2VYl05eOqEIPmkBg84DMRTmAwCLcB/s1600/radiation-French-students-visit-Fukushima-SML.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5IDldcK5V14/V-euH3-3bWI/AAAAAAAAAso/UPOdwXCT2VYl05eOqEIPmkBg84DMRTmAwCLcB/s1600/radiation-French-students-visit-Fukushima-SML.jpg" /></a>
Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-23539086105780309512016-09-16T10:28:00.000+00:002016-09-16T10:28:12.506+00:00The EPR™ Reactor : Overly Complex or a Testament to Technology?<p>The dialogue below was found at this live video chat: <a href="http://areva.live.brainsonic.com/20100621_Live/en/live.php">The EPR™ Reactor : Overly Complex Or A Testament To Technology?</a> by:
<ul>
<li>Philippe Knoche, Senior Executive Vice-president Reactors and Services Business Group</li>
<li>Gaëlle Copienne, Journalist</li>
</ul>
The original presentation and questions seem to be lost, but there was a post-discussion chat I copied below:</p>
<ul id="chatHistory" style="overflow: hidden;">
<li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">User : </span><span class="message">what is the difference between generation 2, 3 and 4?</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">michel123 : </span><span class="message">Why fine-tune the EPR which has a lifespan of 60 years, when there are 40 years of uranium reserves? It would have been more logical to continue producing with the old reactors, with a few improvements, and bank on supergenerators without sodium if it's possible.</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">User : </span><span class="message">what is the EPR and what is the origin of its conception? </span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">John Doe : </span><span class="message">Shouldn't the definition of "nuclear power plant" mean more than just the reactor itself? In terms of new markets located to a certain extent in emerging countries, aren't they doomed to fail (or encounter difficulties) if we do not expand are way of thinking? Meaning including such ideas as the establishment of an appropriate regulatory and institutional environment, supply chain and local capacities, and the availability of qualified personnel. But in this case, an equipment manufacturer like AREVA cannot provide this complex product. So, who can? Do (international) bodies really exist who are capable of providing this "intangibles" of a nuclear power plant? Finally, should we be focusing solely on the technology when "selling" an EPR?</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">User : </span><span class="message">Hi everyone</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">JK69 : </span><span class="message">The investment in an EPR and its operating costs over 30 years represent an expenditure that is higher than the same sum allocated to the renovation of old dwellings, which would cut power consumption on a scale that is roughly equivalent to the quantity of electricity generated by the EPR. But there would be no dismantling, no management of hazardous waste and no risks to be controlled. The gains are immediate. This would take less than 5 years. So why is priority given to the EPR, when renovation projects would create many more jobs?</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">user : </span><span class="message">how many are currently under construction? </span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">Martin : </span><span class="message">What is the status of the Chinese plants. Are there any additional Chinese plants in the planning stage?</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">Gustavo : </span><span class="message">What is the cost of the average EPR reactor?</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">User : </span><span class="message">Do you think that you will develop a low-cost reactor to meet the needs of an emerging market that may not necessarily have the funds to invest in generation 3?</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">user : </span><span class="message">in what way is EPR safer than previous reactors and reactors developed by your competitors? </span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">lion : </span><span class="message">The EPR must meet the security demands of the ASN and, above all, the demands voiced by the German Green politician, Jürgen Trittin, who made the restrictions applying to the design and build so severe that it is almost unfeasible. So I wonder whether the EPR is not “over secure” in terms of design and build, a fact that would not even mean that it is optimally secure when it comes to operations.</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">RadioactiveMan1000 : </span><span class="message">Is Areva developing Generation IV reactors like fast breeder reactors?</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">User : </span><span class="message">We hear that the reactor at Flamanville will be three years late and will be operational only in 2015. In Finland you are also reporting considerable delays... are we waiting for Godot? </span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">sylvainm : </span><span class="message">Hello, AREVA has considerably improved EPR safety (double barrier, corium collector, hydrogen absorbers, etc.) in comparison to other 1,450 MW reactors. However, I think that its 1,650 MW power capacity is still weak in relation to these new improvements. The EPR is considered an innovative reactor even though it uses water pressure technology. Certainly, innovation means taking a risk, but why didn’t you construct this reactor with a power capacity of 2,000 MW? I think that the power capacity of this reactor is inappropriate vis-à-vis the major safety improvements. Currently, aren’t 1,450 MW reactors more secure and competitive than the EPR? The safety standards are certainly lower, but they have a power capacity very close to that of the EPR (Chooz B has a power capacity of 1,500 MW). In addition, confidence in these reactors is higher thanks to the experience gained through their operation. Finally, they have a lower cost. Another question. EPR safety has improved through the redundancy of electrical systems, the 4 independent security layers… but this requires a more complex installation. Why didn’t AREVA opt for passive safety devices (gravity, convection, etc.) as for the AP-1000? AREVA has developed the safest and most powerful reactors. However, when I’m at the supermarket, I don’t necessarily buy the most expensive package of Kellogg’s cereal. I might buy a product from a less expensive brand. Why have you designed this reactor with such specifications? The best products are not necessarily the ones that will sell the best. In addition, ASN is impeding AREVA a bit, because they can no longer sell the second generation of reactors (900, 1,300 and 1,450). Best regards.</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">slama : </span><span class="message">Will continue to sell Geneartion 2 rectors? Will they draw on technological advances?</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">Ecologue : </span><span class="message">The concrete in the EPR is wrought with difficulties and probably one of the causes for the delay. Could we envision reducing costs by partially or completely burying the reactor building, with basic safety protection in the pit, without anti-air constraints?</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">User : </span><span class="message">Inside AREVA were you ready and prepared for the construction launch of an EPR series?</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">normandie : </span><span class="message">I don't know whether a EPR is too complex a technological gem but I observe that the building of EPRs today is registring major delays which is causing AREVA to revue its construction costs.Moreover, EPR doesn't seem to strike a consessus within the French nuclear industry. Some people refer to a smaller size generator built in partnership with GDF Suez. Can you clarify that point for me ?</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">ludigad : </span><span class="message">In vue of EPR capital expenditure and construction lead times what is AREVA position on extending its range of reactors in emerging countries and with what safety standards. Will the range be available in European union ?</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">User : </span><span class="message">We have read in the press that the design of the EPR was too complex and therefore difficult to construct. Have you not been too ambitious by designing this "Formula 1" model?</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">User : </span><span class="message">We remember issues raised by the safety authorities with regards to the instrumentation & control systems... could you tell us what the nature of these issues was and if anything has changed since then? </span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">Tom_85 : </span><span class="message">Do you really think you will finish your project in Finland? Are you afraid that EDF will finish before you?</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">RealWheel : </span><span class="message">Why are there instrumentation & control systems safety issues? What safety function was overlooked in the programming stage and was subsequently discovered by EDF? Why is this safety measure, which exists on plants that generate less power, not present on the EPR?</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">Laurence : </span><span class="message">Dear Phillipe. I am a nuclear professional from Koeberg SA. I am currently busy with my PhD research work on human-technology interface and will appreciate your reply to the following question: what are the biggest challenges facing the future operation of the new 3rd generation EPR reactor design, by the next generation of people, and yet ensuring safe operations. Merci Beaucoup.</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">User : </span><span class="message">You build reactors with the Chinese through joint ventures, which must involve transfers of technological knowledge... aren't you afraid of losing your lead? </span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">zelhar : </span><span class="message">How do you protect your intelectual property and trade secretes ?</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">zelhar : </span><span class="message">Since you market the EPR in China, Don't you fear your design is going to be copied by the Chinese ?</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">blair : </span><span class="message">With a coming wave of smaller ecological distributed power sources, what is the chance that the EPR's future use is outmoded before operational?</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">kellermfk : </span><span class="message">The cost of new nuclear power plants is exceptionally high relative to alternatives, at least in the US which is blessed with natural gas as well as coal fuel resources. Construction of nuclear facilities will inevitably lead to massive rate increases. Further, the need for new power plants is not that great due to the severe recession in the US. Why should an EPR or any reactor be constructed in the US?</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">babar : </span><span class="message">Why have you decided to abandon generation 2?</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">ULTRASTAR : </span><span class="message">Don't you think that EDF let the industrial fabric come undone after shelving nuclear in France, and that today, mostly inexperienced people are constructing or modifying our power plants? </span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">L. Dupin : </span><span class="message">Could the future Atmea reactor be described as a small-scaled EPR ?</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">BBMAN : </span><span class="message">With EDF buying out Constellation in the U.S., when can we reasonably expect them to ramp up the detailed design engineering for the Calvert Cliffs plant?</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">RadioactiveMan1000 : </span><span class="message">Will Areva develop a smaller, modular reactor like Babcox & Wilcox has in the USA. Do you think they are viable?</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">zelhar : </span><span class="message">Is it possible to build EPR away from big natural water source ?</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">MrNeutron : </span><span class="message">With all the effort put into the design of this new reactor, why did you go for a breeder? So now, not only do you have to spend energy on isotope separation, but you only get to use 1/200th of the available energy from the uranium.</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">Lorito : </span><span class="message">How much is the cost of an average reactor ?</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">zel : </span><span class="message">Is the design complex enough so it is protected from being copied by competitors?</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">Nanogigas : </span><span class="message">Is the EPR the missing link in the chain between the GR reactors and the future generations of reactors, commercially speaking. </span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">Lucia : </span><span class="message">Do you think that licensing and construction of EPR in Italy (if one) could have same problems of US EPR? </span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">User : </span><span class="message">Hi, could you please substantiate your claims of EPR being the world's safest Gen III reactor? By what standards is this claim based on? I thought that core damage frequency was the industry standard for measuring reactor safety (WNA, U.S. NRC)?</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">sarazin : </span><span class="message">Is the shutdown of the superphenix justified?</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">AMON23 : </span><span class="message">The request is still very pragmatic. AECL pursues its development through CANDU by participating in a variety of calls for tender: Energy treatment with water or Energy Tourism or even Energy on industrial development: could we not keep the EPR for European applications and develop PWR 1,000s for export to where cost consciousness is as important as safety? Can we do all this while emphasizing the value of our fuel-cycle competency, or while promoting the market exchanges: Energy versus Uranium.</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">Gym75 : </span><span class="message">What are the evidence indicating that EPR reactors can function safely?</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">ENG / Taymour alseed khalil : </span><span class="message">Egypt will tendering new nuclear power plant end of this year what about AREVA plan in this important tender in arab region ? are you have local partner in Egypt ? </span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">Lorito : </span><span class="message">Are you going to install a reactor in Venezuela?</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">Nanogigas : </span><span class="message">If the EPR proves not profitable enough, could speeding up the development of generation 4 be a financially viable solution?</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">UweEichler : </span><span class="message">AREVA also designs and manufactures electrical systems and instrumentation and controls for EPR. Where are the location of the center of design and manufacture.</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">User : </span><span class="message">The way the EPR reactor works is generally the same as for current REPs: could we not have moved on to the 4th generation of reactors (super reactors), which have been studied for a long time, and have already been tested (Phenix, Superphenix for instance)?</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">tassiedevil : </span><span class="message">what temperature is the reactor running at please?</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">Estelle Gauquelin : </span><span class="message">What is the control rods' response time?</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">UweEichler : </span><span class="message">AREVA also designs and manufactures electrical systems and instrumentation and controls for EPR. Where are the location of the center of design and manufacture.</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">pfblclb : </span><span class="message">If we ask the right question now in terms of the EPR, might the Gen4 reactors give more satisfactory results? </span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">sometime : </span><span class="message">How can the cleanness of electricity be measured? Where does nuclear energy stand in comparison with other forms of energy?</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">DStellfox : </span><span class="message">Is it a coincidence that you are doing this live chat now at the same time and day as the release of a report critical of the EPR by University of Greenwich Professor of Energy Studies Stephen Thomas?
</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">User : </span><span class="message">I suppose that the technological difficulties encountered in the construction of the EPR were known from the outset. On the other hand, I can understand that no-one knew how long it would take to solve them. So shouldn’t the EPR be considered as an experimental project to test in situ the technological solutions, so that they can be replicated later on? The same targets cannot be set for an experimental project and for a tried and tested project.</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">CYril : </span><span class="message">Bonjour</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">Cyril : </span><span class="message">pour Vincent et Yann</span></li><li class="even"><span class="pseudo">Cyril : </span><span class="message">Re-test pour Vincent et Yann</span></li><li class="odd"><span class="pseudo">Cyril : </span><span class="message">TEST</span></li></ul>Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-83506807142100724052016-09-08T01:38:00.000+00:002016-09-08T01:50:30.953+00:00Fukushima contaminates the Pacific with 150 tonnes of toxic waste a day? No.<p>Today I read in a discussion thread that 150 tonnes of toxic waste per day was dumped into the Pacific at Fukushima. The storyteller got his <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/12189613/Fukushima-nuclear-plant-will-leak-radioactive-water-for-four-more-years.html">150 tonnes from here</a>, from which he changed '<i>contaminated water</i>' into '<i>toxic waste</i>' with typical poetic flourish. Deliberately misrepresenting the article.</p>
<h3>Is there a risk posed by contaminated water at Fukushima?</h3>
<p>In fact, the water is contaminated mainly with a little bit of tritium. The same tritium already present in all water. Tritium is perhaps the mildest radioactive substance I know of. It undergoes beta decay to helium-3. No gamma is emitted. The electron emitted has an average energy = 5.7 keV.</p>
<p>Compare that to 89% of potassium-40 decays, which are beta decays with maximum energy = 1330 keV. The ratio 5.7 : 1330 = 1:233. Potassium-40 radioactivity is up to 233 times more energetic than tritium. The cell damage inflicted by radiation is directly proportional to the energy. A typical human body internally experiences about 500 million radioactive decays per day, about half of them potassium-40.</p>
<p>Water contaminated with tritium is only harmful (in theory) if you drink it, and we drink sea water all the time don't we? Not quite. Unless eaten or drunk, tritium radiation will not penetrate into your body. If you were swimming in the sea you'd find water an excellent radioactive shield. Beta radiation does not penetrate air either very far, only about 2 metres. Externally all beta radiation will be stopped by your skin. So the effect of tritium beta radiation is something like strong UV sunlight, but much less intense. Because there's masses of sunlight and tiny amounts of tritium to worry about. Ooop, there's not actually any tritium to worry about.</p>Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-4637339612372042252016-09-02T10:47:00.002+00:002016-11-01T19:49:58.193+00:00Refutation of recent Climate Policy paper written by Lawrence, Sovacool & Stirling<meta name="description" content="Refutation of: Andrew Lawrence, Benjamin Sovacool, Andrew Stirling article called 'Nuclear energy and path dependence in Europe’s ‘Energy union’: coherence or continued divergence?', published in Climate Policy 2016, citation: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1179616" />
<p>A <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14693062.2016.1179616" target="_blank">recent Climate Policy paper</a>, written by Andrew Lawrence, Benjamin Sovacool & Andrew Stirling, claimed nuclear power supporting countries do worse at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The paper is rubbish. It has many flaws enumerated below.</p>
<h3>Some abbreviations and terms.</h3>
<ul>
<li><b>AGW</b>: anthropic global warming, or man-made climate change.</li>
<li><b>CO<sub>2</sub></b>: Carbon dioxide - a gas made by burning wood, oil, coal, natural gas and carbon-based fuels. Just about all fuels are carbon-based.</li>
<li><b>GHG</b>: Greenhouse gas. A gas causing AGW, generally by means of radiative forcing. Usually measured in CO<sub>2</sub> equivalents.</li>
<li><b>EU</b>: European Union</li>
<li><b>Eurostat</b>: Primary source of data for EU countries</li>
<li><b>bioXXX</b>: biomass (usually wood), bio-gas, and biofuel</li>
<li><b>RE</b>: renewable energy</li>
<li><b>Sovacool</b>: A report author</li>
<li><b>GFC</b>: Global Financial Crash</li>
<li id="NPP"><b>NPP</b>: Nuclear power plant</li>
</ul>
<h3>Flaws in this paper:</h3>
<ol>
<li>The data they use for European emissions (% GHG emission reductions in table 2 of their paper) is not found in the reference they give page 27 of (<a href="https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/PocketBook_ENERGY_2015%20PDF%20final.pdf" target="_blank">pdf</a>). Their reference has no data since 2012 but is based on Eurostat numbers. Eurostat themselves have emissions data for 2013 and 2014. So does <a href="http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts_pc1990-2014" target="_blank">EDGAR</a>. I looked for data similar to theirs in other Eurostat data feeds but found nothing.</li>
<li>The term renewable energy is arbitrary; a political construct. Biofuel is not renewable. Corn grown to make ethanol biofuel requires phosphate fertilizer which must be mined. Biofuels are often not even 'carbon neutral', let alone a cause of GHG emission reductions. <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/" target="_blank">Nuclear power is at least as 'renewable'</a> as biofuel.</li>
<li>Renewable energy does not always have low emissions. In many cases biofuels have higher emissions than the fossil fuel they replace. Biomass does not reduce GHG emissions. The opposite. BioXXX is also highly constrained by limited land availability. It uses land intensively and inefficiently.</li>
<li>Most EU RE is still bioXXX and waste, which, according to Eurostat, was over 62% of all EU RE in 2014 and 71% of German RE in 2013:<br/><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H2zIV-vJfzw/V8lNZplOjKI/AAAAAAAAAq4/0km2kGGZem0RKTFbCsj83k4fru22ZXI5gCLcB/s1600/RE-by-source-EU-1990-to-2014.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><figure><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H2zIV-vJfzw/V8lNZplOjKI/AAAAAAAAAq4/0km2kGGZem0RKTFbCsj83k4fru22ZXI5gCLcB/s1600/RE-by-source-EU-1990-to-2014.jpg" width="489" height="309" /><figcaption>EU renewable energies by source (Eurostat)</figcaption></figure></a> </li>
<li>The report authors uncritically associate more RE with GHG emission reductions. This is not necessarily the case, for 2 reasons:
<ol>
<li>BioXXX only came to be seen as renewable by political decree</li>
<li>Intermittent renewables, such as: solar, wind, tidal, and wave require fossil fuel support to cover for their unreliability</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li id="Germany">Their core notion that '<i>nuclear power phase out</i>' countries like Germany do better at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is nonsense. Germany does worse at reducing GHG emissions. It had no GHG emission reductions from 2009 to 2015. <a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AGXeADroqA4/V8lTKEvtNmI/AAAAAAAAArI/780jVNLTB9oQgHW4rZBtirtaQQBzKvxlwCLcB/s1600/CO2-emissions-Germany-1990-2015-sector-2016-new-uba-figures-tiny.png" imageanchor="1" ><figure><img border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AGXeADroqA4/V8lTKEvtNmI/AAAAAAAAArI/780jVNLTB9oQgHW4rZBtirtaQQBzKvxlwCLcB/s1600/CO2-emissions-Germany-1990-2015-sector-2016-new-uba-figures-tiny.png" width="600" height="314" /><figcaption>German GHG emissions, CO<sub>2</sub> eq.</figcaption></figure></a></li>
<li>Germany's nuclear power phase out caused it to build masses of new coal power. <a href="https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/why-germanys-nuclear-phaseout-is-leading-to-more-coal-burning/" target="_blank">At least 10.7GWe of it since 2010</a>. Of all fossil fuel, coal produces the most CO<sub>2</sub> per unit of energy made. It is worst for GHG emissions.</li>
<li>For data, they reference fellow antinuclear power campaigners who wrote '<i>The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2015</i>'. They should use data from unbiased authorities instead.</li>
<li>They split European countries into 4 groups, but their split is arbitrary. For example: Slovenia could be in their group II or III because Slovenia plans a second nuclear reactor. Group II are nuclear power phase-out countries (according to the authors).</li>
<li>They excluded Croatia from their European countries for no clear reason. They don't even say why. Yet this is crucial because Slovenia (which is included) shares ownership of a nuclear power plant with Croatia!</li>
<li><p>They give no reason, nor evidence, why their group II countries are 'nuclear phase out'. All their group II countries apart from Germany are very ambivalent, to say the least, about a nuclear phase out. The other six in this '<i>nuclear phase out</i>' group are:
<ul>
<li><b>Slovenia</b>: Has not shut the reactor it jointly owns with Croatia, but instead, they intend to add more nuclear power</li>
<li><b>Switzerland</b>: Public voted to continue with nuclear power</li>
<li><b>Sweden</b>: Will phase out its nuclear tax in 2019. It has not banned new reactors</li>
<li><b>Spain</b>: In 2011, the government lifted the 40-year limit on all reactors, allowing owners to apply for license extensions in 10-year increments</li>
<li><b>Belgium</b>: When Germany tried to bully them into closing a reactor they refused</li>
<li><b>Netherlands</b>: In 1994 voted to phase out their 2 NPPs. In 1997 one <a href="#NPP">NPP</a> shut. In 2003: shutdown of others was postponed till 2013. In 2006 shutdown was postponed till 2034. <i>Seriously Holland!</i> it's only one reactor. If you're committed to the anti-nuke cause shut it down like our report authors want you to!</li></ul></p>
<p>Six out of seven countries show less than 100% commitment to phaseouts and some of them had only very minor commitments to nuclear power start with (Slovenia, Netherlands). Strange how the authors made these 7 countries into a "group". I keep thinking <i>There must be <b>something else</b> they have in common too!</i></p>
<p>The French parliament recently voted to install 50% renewable energy sometime in the future. Perhaps the authors should move France from a Group III (pro nuclear) to their Group II (anti-nukes)?</p>
</li>
<li>They ignore, or elide, history and time, for example:<ul>
<li><b>France</b> is nuclear powered because in the 1970s the economy was badly hurt in the oil crisis, caused by a huge oil price rise after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. France had a lot of diesel powered electricity back then. France began building nuclear power plants when GHG and global warming were not issues.</li>
<li><b>Sweden</b> had plenty of renewable energy (hydro) for decades. Well before AGW became an issue. Because it's cheaper there where they have lots of land, water, and hills.</li></ul></li>
<li>They ignore geography. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and the 3 former Soviet Baltic countries have much lower population densities and/or access to RE energies like hydro, geothermal, and or land for biomass. Unsurprisingly these countries generally have the highest renewable energy, RE, proportions in Europe. Lots of spare land and water make RE easier.</li>
<li>They never factored in the effect of the Global Financial Crash, GFC in reducing GHG emissions in Southern Europe: Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy. Southern European countries were heavily affected by the GFC, and many still are. This caused their economies to contract, and economic contraction is a big cause of GHG emission reductions.</li>
<li>This report has an odd list of other works cited. Many of the cited works have no link to the report, in terms of ideas or data. It looks like they are citing papers of their friends and political allies just because they are anti-nuclear. Gaming the academic system to make their anti-nuclear friends look good with cross-citations.</li>
<li>It has not been peer reviewed. Nothing this bad could've been peer reviewed. It's not been well edited either.</li>
<li>One author (Sovacool) references himself 10 times within his own paper!</li>
<li>They use flowery language to make renewables sound good and nuclear power bad. That shows their clear bias from the start.</li>
</ol>
<hr />
<p id="ghg-emission-reductions">The source Lawrence, Sovacool & Stirling claimed for their data does not contain the data they said they extracted from it (issue 1). Yet I'm still curious to know what effect different base years have on GHG emissions. So I took CAIT data and selected 4 different base years 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005. This is shown right at the end of this blog in the (<a href="#appendix">Appendix</a>):</p>
<style type="text/css" media="screen">
table {
border-collapse:collapse;
border:1px solid #333;
}
table caption { font-weight: bold; }
table th { border:1px solid #ccc; }
table td { border:1px solid #ccc; text-align: right; width:17%; padding-right: 4px; }
table td:nth-child(1) { border:1px solid #ccc; text-align: left; width:32%; }
td.red { color: red; }
span.red { color: red; }
</style>
<p>The last 5 columns (in the appendix) show GHG emissions reductions. 4 were calculated by me and one copied from the Sovacool paper. Nearly every country has been reducing emissions since 2005. Yet the EU uses 1990 as a base year for emissions reductions. A negative value shows an emission fall (good) but a <span class="red">red</span> number shows a rise (bad).</p>
<p id="ghg-emission-reductions-grp-3">Let's look at how Lawrence, Sovacool & Stirling Group III (nuclear friendly countries) do. The data below is just copied from the previous calculation already shown in the <a href="#appendix">Appendix</a>.</p>
<table>
<tr><th>Group III</th><th colspan="5">% GHG emissions reduction</th></tr>
<tr><th></th><th>1990-2012</th><th>1995-2012</th><th>2000-2012</th><th>2005-2012</th><th>Lawrence, Sovacool & Stirling</th></tr>
<tr><td>Bulgaria</td><td>-40.8</td><td>-15.8</td><td class="red">5.3</td><td>-4.9</td><td class="red">20</td></tr>
<tr><td>Czech Republic</td><td>-27.9</td><td>-13.9</td><td>-11.9</td><td>-10.2</td><td class="red">9</td></tr>
<tr><td>Finland</td><td>-9.5</td><td>-11.5</td><td>-10.7</td><td>-10.5</td><td>-16</td></tr>
<tr><td>France</td><td>-6.1</td><td>-5.6</td><td>-11.6</td><td>-13.8</td><td>-14</td></tr>
<tr><td>Hungary</td><td>-34.0</td><td>-23.1</td><td>-19.2</td><td>-22.3</td><td class="red">10</td></tr>
<tr><td>Romania</td><td>-52.1</td><td>-31.8</td><td>-8.4</td><td>-15.8</td><td class="red">19</td></tr>
<tr><td>Slovakia</td><td>-43.0</td><td>-21.1</td><td>-14.3</td><td>-16.3</td><td class="red">13</td></tr>
<tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>-16.7</td><td>-12.0</td><td>-13.2</td><td>-14.4</td><td>-16</td></tr>
</table>
<p>Group III countries do very well indeed for nearly every range upon which emission reductions are calculated. They do best for the longest range 1990-2012, which is the one that counts in the EU w.r.t. climate policy, and targets. <u>Except</u> for those mysterious values provided by Lawrence, Sovacool & Stirling (the last column) for which no one has been able to trace the source of. I hope this gives the reader a valuable lesson in the art of cherry-picking and obfuscation. Well done to misters: Lawrence, Sovacool & Stirling.</p>
<hr />
<h3 id="appendix">Appendix</h3>
<table>
<caption>Total CO<sub>2</sub> Emissions Excluding Land-Use Change + Forestry (MtCO<sub>2</sub>). Source: <a href="http://cait.wri.org/">CAIT</a></caption>
<tr><th colspan="6"></th><th colspan="5">% GHG emissions reduction</th></tr>
<tr><th>Country</th><th>1990</th><th>1995</th><th>2000</th><th>2005</th><th>2012</th><th>1990-2012</th><th>1995-2012</th><th>2000-2012</th><th>2005-2012</th><th>Lawrence, Sovacool & Stirling</th><th>LSS Revised (2012 - 2005)</th></tr>
<tr><td>Austria</td><td>58.9</td><td>61.3</td><td>63.5</td><td>76.9</td><td>66.9</td><td class="red">13.7</td><td class="red">9.3</td><td class="red">5.3</td><td>-13.0</td><td>-16</td><td>-16</td></tr>
<tr><td>Belgium</td><td>111.4</td><td>119.3</td><td>122.4</td><td>117.0</td><td>108.9</td><td>-2.3</td><td>-8.7</td><td>-11.0</td><td>-6.9</td><td>-15</td><td>-17.8</td></tr>
<tr><td>Bulgaria</td><td>77.3</td><td>54.3</td><td>43.5</td><td>48.1</td><td>45.7</td><td>-40.8</td><td>-15.8</td><td class="red">5.3</td><td>-4.9</td><td>20</td><td>-2.3</td></tr>
<tr><td>Croatia</td><td>22.9</td><td>16.7</td><td>19.1</td><td>22.5</td><td>17.2</td><td>-25.0</td><td class="red">3.2</td><td>-9.9</td><td>-23.5</td><td>--</td><td>--</td></tr>
<tr><td>Cyprus</td><td>4.4</td><td>5.5</td><td>7.0</td><td>7.9</td><td>6.5</td><td class="red">46.0</td><td class="red">16.6</td><td>-7.3</td><td>-18.1</td><td>-5</td><td>-1.9</td></tr>
<tr><td>Czech Rep</td><td>152.1</td><td>127.4</td><td>124.5</td><td>122.1</td><td>109.7</td><td>-27.9</td><td>-13.9</td><td>-11.9</td><td>-10.2</td><td class="red">9</td><td>-7.1</td></tr>
<tr><td>Denmark</td><td>51.7</td><td>59.7</td><td>52.3</td><td>49.8</td><td>38.2</td><td>-26.1</td><td>-36.1</td><td>-26.9</td><td>-23.4</td><td>-20</td><td>-17.5</td></tr>
<tr><td>Estonia</td><td>36.2</td><td>16.2</td><td>14.8</td><td>17.2</td><td>16.4</td><td>-54.9</td><td class="red">0.6</td><td class="red">10.5</td><td>-5.1</td><td class="red">11</td><td class="red">1.6</td></tr>
<tr><td>EU (15)</td><td>3178.7</td><td>3154.2</td><td>3248.6</td><td>3363.5</td><td>2913.4</td><td>-8.3</td><td>-7.6</td><td>-10.3</td><td>-13.4</td><td>--</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>EU (28)</td><td>4188.4</td><td>3974.6</td><td>3975.7</td><td>4116.9</td><td>3610.5</td><td>-13.8</td><td>-9.2</td><td>-9.2</td><td>-12.3</td><td>--</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Finland</td><td>55.2</td><td>56.4</td><td>55.9</td><td>55.8</td><td>49.9</td><td>-9.5</td><td>-11.5</td><td>-10.7</td><td>-10.5</td><td>-16</td><td>-9.9</td></tr>
<tr><td>France</td><td>366.0</td><td>364.1</td><td>388.7</td><td>398.8</td><td>343.7</td><td>-6.1</td><td>-5.6</td><td>-11.6</td><td>-13.8</td><td>-14</td><td>-12.1</td></tr>
<tr><td>Germany</td><td>968.5</td><td>885.4</td><td>845.2</td><td>817.2</td><td>774.0</td><td>-20.1</td><td>-12.6</td><td>-8.4</td><td>-5.3</td><td>-14</td><td>-4.3</td></tr>
<tr><td>Greece</td><td>76.9</td><td>83.0</td><td>95.1</td><td>102.6</td><td>84.5</td><td class="red">9.9</td><td class="red">1.7</td><td>-11.2</td><td>-17.7</td><td>-4</td><td>-22.6</td></tr>
<tr><td>Hungary</td><td>68.4</td><td>58.7</td><td>55.9</td><td>58.1</td><td>45.1</td><td>-34.0</td><td>-23.1</td><td>-19.2</td><td>-22.3</td><td class="red">10</td><td>-16.9</td></tr>
<tr><td>Iceland</td><td>1.9</td><td>2.0</td><td>2.2</td><td>2.3</td><td>1.8</td><td>-5.6</td><td>-7.6</td><td>-17.2</td><td>-18.4</td><td>--</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Ireland</td><td>31.4</td><td>33.9</td><td>42.4</td><td>46.5</td><td>36.8</td><td class="red">17.4</td><td class="red">8.8</td><td>-13.2</td><td>-20.7</td><td>-20</td><td>-20.8</td></tr>
<tr><td>Italy</td><td>417.3</td><td>426.2</td><td>445.4</td><td>480.9</td><td>391.6</td><td>-6.2</td><td>-8.1</td><td>-12.1</td><td>-18.6</td><td>-13</td><td>-21.9</td></tr>
<tr><td>Latvia</td><td>18.9</td><td>9.0</td><td>6.8</td><td>7.7</td><td>7.0</td><td>-63.0</td><td>-21.7</td><td class="red">2.8</td><td>-9.1</td><td class="red">17</td><td class="red">0.4</td></tr>
<tr><td>Lithuania</td><td>34.0</td><td>14.5</td><td>11.5</td><td>13.9</td><td>13.7</td><td>-59.6</td><td>-5.2</td><td class="red">19.8</td><td>-1.1</td><td class="red">15</td><td>-3.4</td></tr>
<tr><td>Luxembourg</td><td>10.7</td><td>8.4</td><td>8.4</td><td>11.8</td><td>10.2</td><td>-4.3</td><td class="red">21.6</td><td class="red">22.0</td><td>-13.1</td><td>-20</td><td>-10.8</td></tr>
<tr><td>Malta</td><td>2.3</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.1</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.5</td><td class="red">10.0</td><td class="red">7.2</td><td class="red">19.4</td><td>-7.0</td><td class="red">5</td><td class="red">9.5</td></tr>
<tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>157.9</td><td>172.8</td><td>174.0</td><td>181.4</td><td>175.2</td><td class="red">11.0</td><td class="red">1.4</td><td class="red">0.7</td><td>-3.4</td><td>-16</td><td>-8.5</td></tr>
<tr><td>Norway</td><td>30.0</td><td>34.4</td><td>35.8</td><td>38.3</td><td>38.2</td><td class="red">27.5</td><td class="red">11.1</td><td class="red">6.9</td><td>-0.1</td><td>--</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Poland</td><td>348.4</td><td>338.1</td><td>298.4</td><td>299.3</td><td>302.9</td><td>-13.1</td><td>-10.4</td><td class="red">1.5</td><td class="red">1.2</td><td class="red">14</td><td class="red">0.4</td></tr>
<tr><td>Portugal</td><td>43.0</td><td>52.3</td><td>64.4</td><td>67.0</td><td>52.5</td><td class="red">22.0</td><td class="red">0.5</td><td>-18.4</td><td>-21.6</td><td class="red">1</td><td>-29.8</td></tr>
<tr><td>Romania</td><td>172.2</td><td>120.9</td><td>90.1</td><td>98.0</td><td>82.5</td><td>-52.1</td><td>-31.8</td><td>-8.4</td><td>-15.8</td><td class="red">19</td><td>-9.9</td></tr>
<tr><td>Slovakia</td><td>58.5</td><td>42.3</td><td>38.9</td><td>39.8</td><td>33.3</td><td>-43.0</td><td>-21.1</td><td>-14.3</td><td>-16.3</td><td class="red">13</td><td>-12.2</td></tr>
<tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>14.0</td><td>14.5</td><td>14.7</td><td>16.1</td><td>14.6</td><td class="red">4.2</td><td class="red">0.7</td><td>-0.7</td><td>-9.4</td><td class="red">4</td><td>-7.6</td></tr>
<tr><td>Spain</td><td>219.3</td><td>245.9</td><td>302.9</td><td>364.5</td><td>275.5</td><td class="red">25.6</td><td class="red">12.1</td><td>-9.0</td><td>-24.4</td><td>-10</td><td>-31.7</td></tr>
<tr><td>Sweden</td><td>54.0</td><td>58.9</td><td>54.0</td><td>51.7</td><td>41.9</td><td>-22.5</td><td>-28.9</td><td>-22.5</td><td>-19.0</td><td>-17</td><td>-7.3</td></tr>
<tr><td>Switzerland</td><td>44.2</td><td>43.8</td><td>44.3</td><td>46.6</td><td>43.2</td><td>-2.3</td><td>-1.6</td><td>-2.7</td><td>-7.4</td><td>--</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>UK</td><td>556.6</td><td>526.7</td><td>533.8</td><td>541.6</td><td>463.5</td><td>-16.7</td><td>-12.0</td><td>-13.2</td><td>-14.4</td><td>-16</td><td>-11.1</td></tr>
</table>
Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-13348377122520703662016-08-25T22:42:00.000+00:002016-08-26T07:01:05.238+00:00Nuclear power plants cause climate change by emitting Krypton-85, not<h3>"<a href="https://nuclear-news.net/">Nuclear news</a>"</h3>
<p>Is not a nuclear news site. It's a site full of junk written by keen antinuclear power activist Christina MacPherson / Noel Wanchope (They are the same person). Any lie or fabrication about nuclear power is repeated by nuclear news and sent out to her followers. The criteria for publication here is antinuclear good, pronuclear ignored. To some people nuclear news is a nutty site. To others it's a hero site. It's remarkable how similar it is in choice of story to mainstream newspapers like The Guardian: pronuclear all but banned, almost any antinuclear story published.</p>
<p>Let's look at one claim Christina makes on her site, for example the myth that <blockquote><i>krypton-85 is responsible for climate change</i></blockquote>Google gives 97 hits for this meme on Christina MacPherson's website:
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ihbQy36bLhk/V79yQbv5lOI/AAAAAAAAAqc/j5CHtoG2NEkTWbSFckw830EfKXrcD4I7gCLcB/s1600/krypton-85-climate-change-google-sml.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ihbQy36bLhk/V79yQbv5lOI/AAAAAAAAAqc/j5CHtoG2NEkTWbSFckw830EfKXrcD4I7gCLcB/s1600/krypton-85-climate-change-google-sml.png" height="258" width="466" /></a></p>
<p>Krypton-85 is a very rare radioactive gas found in earth's atmosphere and mostly originating from nuclear power. In particular it leaks out when spent fuel is reprocessed. Krypton is an inert gas, and does not react chemically with other atoms. It occurs in <i>mono-molecular</i> form, AKA: single atoms. Because it has made no bonds there is no polarization to speak of in the molecule and it has no radiative forcing effect.</p>
<p>The basis of this anti-nuke claim (Krypton-85 made by nuclear power causes climate change) originated decades ago from a speculative academic paper. The researchers said that if a lot more krypton-85 was made (tens, hundreds of times as much?), then it might have an effect. Krypton-85 decays with a ½-life = 10¾ years. When it decays it produces a positively charged ion and a negatively charged electron (beta-ray). The anti-nuke theory goes this atmospheric ionization causes climate change. Let's look at the numbers.</p>
<ol>
<li>There's a small amount of Kr-85. In 2009, the total amount of Kr-85 in the atmosphere was estimated at 5500 PBq due to human sources. This is 0.38 tonnes of Kr-85 in 5,140 trillion tonnes of air (making up all earth's atmosphere). 0.000000000074 ppm, or 0.000074 ppt (parts per trillion).</li>
<li>The atmosphere is positively charged (overall). Earth has an overall negative charge. This is why lightning happens.</li>
<li>An average bolt of lightning carries a negative electric current of 40 kiloamperes (kA) (although some bolts can be up to 120 kA), and transfers a charge of five coulombs and energy of 500 MJ, or enough energy to power a 100-watt lightbulb for just under two months. There are estimated to be around 2,000 lightning storms active around the globe at one time creating over 100 strikes per second. i.e. 500 coulombs discharged per second on earth.</li>
<li>5500 Pbq means, each second 5.5 × 10<sup>18</sup> positive ions are made by Kr-85, and the same number of electrons. This is the number of Kr-85 decays happening. About 5.5 ÷ 6.241 coulomb. = 0.88 coulomb. This assumes all the negative ions are lost. Negative charge is not lost. All beta-rays are captured in the atmosphere. So there is no net charge contribution to the atmosphere from krypton-85. A beta ray (electron) can travel about 2 metres in air before it collides with an air molecule.</li>
<li>Krypton-85 makes about 0.88 coulomb of positive and negative charge (per second). Each second, about 500 coulombs of charge in the atmosphere is neutralized by lightning.</li>
<li>There has to be far more Kr-85 in the atmosphere for it to affect climate in any measurable way. Even then climate scientists dispute the effect of ionization, which is said to cause cloud formation, which either cools or warms depending on whether these are in the upper or lower atmosphere.</li>
<li>I almost forgot. Significant buildup of Kr-85 will not happen because doubling the amount emitted (mostly by nuclear fuel reprocessing plants) will not double the amount in the atmosphere. This is because of its 10¾ year ½-life.</li></ol>
<p>Alert observers may notice <a href="https://nukespp.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/does-nuclear-power-cause-climate-change.html">I already covered this once</a>. I was completely baffled when I discovered this antinuclear power meme. It holds a kind of ghoulish fascination for me. As in: <i>just how daft can hard-core anti-nukes get?</i></p>
<h3>Note</h3>
<p>RationalWiki: <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Krypton-85_and_climate_change">Krypton-85 and climate change</a></p>
Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-31075745587732378132016-08-06T16:10:00.000+00:002016-08-06T16:10:09.577+00:00Concerns about National Academy of Sciences and Scientific Dissent<p>I found this. I can't resist posting it here.</p>
<hr />
<p>Concerns about National Academy of Sciences and Scientific Dissent<br />
Dec 15, 2015<br />
Peter Wood</p>
<p>Introductory note: NAS president Peter Wood sent the following letter by email on December 9, 2015 to California members of the National Academy of Sciences.</p>
<p>Dear Members of the National Academy of Sciences,</p>
<p>This is an NAS to NAS letter—which requires some “disambiguation.” I am president of the National Association of Scholars, founded in 1987, and whose organizers apparently didn’t give much thought to the space already occupied by those initials by the National Academy of Sciences, founded 124 years earlier. I’ll defer to the Academy’s seniority by reserving NAS in what follows for the body of scientists who incorporated during President Lincoln’s tenure. The National Association of Scholars is a broad-based group of academics that includes professors in the humanities and social sciences (I’m an anthropologist) as well as the natural sciences.</p>
<p>The occasion for this letter is Dr. Marcia K. McNutt, Editor-in-Chief of Science. We are concerned that she is the only official candidate to be the next NAS president. To be clear, the National Association of Scholars does not oppose Dr. McNutt’s candidacy. We simply believe that members of an important national organization like NAS should have at least two candidates to consider when voting for your next president. Indeed, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which publishes Science, always has two candidates for president and its other elected positions. Other scientific organizations also have two candidates for their elected positions.</p>
<p>Also, we want to bring to your attention our serious concerns about the current state of discourse in the sciences. Dr. McNutt has played a significant role in three active controversies involving national regulatory policy that deserve attention in themselves and that are also part of a larger problem. The larger problem is how the scientific establishment, particularly Science and NAS, should evaluate and respond to serious dissent from legitimate scientists. This is an especially important consideration for NAS, which was established to provide “independent, objective advice on issues that affect people's lives worldwide.”</p>
<p>The three controversies are:</p><ol>
<li>The status of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dose-response model for the biological effects of nuclear radiation. The prominence of the model stems from the June 29, 1956 Science paper, “Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation,” authored by the NAS Committee on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation. This paper is now widely questioned and has been seriously critiqued in many peer-reviewed publications, including two detailed 2015 papers. These criticisms are being taken seriously around the world, as summarized in a December 2, 2015 Wall Street Journal commentary. In August 2015 four distinguished critics of LNT made a formal request to Dr. McNutt to examine the evidence of fundamental flaws in the 1956 paper and retract it. However, on August 11, 2015 Dr. McNutt rejected this request without even reviewing the detailed evidence. Furthermore, Dr. McNutt did not even consider recusing herself and having independent reviewers examine evidence that challenges the validity of both a Science paper and an NAS Committee Report.</p>
<p>This is a consequential matter that bears on a great deal of national public policy, as the LNT model has served as the basis for risk assessment and risk management of radiation and chemical carcinogens for decades, but now needs to be seriously reassessed. This reassessment could profoundly alter many regulations from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, and other government agencies. The relevant documents regarding the 1956 Science paper and Dr. McNutt can be examined at <a href="http://www.nas.org/images/documents/LNT.pdf">www.nas.org/images/documents/LNT.pdf</a>.</p></li>
<li>Extensive evidence of scientific misconduct in the epidemiology of fine particulate air pollution (PM2.5) and its relationship to mortality. Since 1997 EPA has claimed that lifetime inhalation of about a teaspoon of particles with diameter less than 2.5 microns causes premature death in the United States and it established an national regulation based on this claim. Science has provided extensive news coverage of this issue and its regulatory significance, but has never published any scientific criticism of this questionable claim, which is largely based on nontransparent research.</p>
<p>Earlier this year, nine accomplished scientists and academics submitted to Science well-documented evidence of misconduct by several of the PM2.5 researchers relied upon by EPA. The evidence of misconduct was first submitted to Dr. McNutt in a detailed June 4, 2015 email letter, then in a detailed July 20, 2015 Policy Forum manuscript “Transparent Science is Necessary for EPA Regulations,” and finally in an August 17, 2015 Perspective manuscript “Particulate Matter Does Not Cause Premature Deaths.” Dr. McNutt and two Science editors immediately rejected the letter and the manuscripts and never conducted any internal or external review of the evidence. This a consequential matter because many multi-billion dollar EPA air pollution regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan, are primarily justified by the claim that PM2.5 is killing Americans. The relevant documents regarding this controversy can be examined at <a href="https://www.nas.org/images/documents/PM2.5.pdf">https://www.nas.org/images/documents/PM2.5.pdf</a>.</p></li>
<li>Science promotes the so-called consensus model of climate change and excludes any contrary views. This issue has become so polarized and polarizing that it is difficult to bring up, but at some point the scientific community will have to reckon with the dramatic discrepancies between current climate models and substantial parts of the empirical record. Recent evidence of Science bias on this issue is the June 26, 2015 article by Dr. Thomas R. Karl, “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus”; the July 3, 2015 McNutt editorial, “The beyond-two-degree inferno”; the November 13, 2015 McNutt editorial, “Climate warning, 50 years later”; and the November 25, 2015 AAAS News Release, “AAAS Leads Coalition to Protest Climate Science Inquiry.”</p>
<p>Dr. McNutt’s position is, of course, consistent with the official position of the AAAS. But the attempt to declare that the “pause” in global warming was an illusion has not been accepted by several respected and well-informed scientists. One would not know this, however, from reading Science, which has declined to publish any dissenting views. One can be a strong supporter of the consensus model and yet be disturbed by the role which Science has played in this controversy. Dr. McNutt and the journal have acted more like partisan activists than like responsible stewards of scientific standards confronted with contentious claims and ambiguous evidence. The relevant documents and commentary regarding the Karl paper and McNutt editorials can be examined at <a href="https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf">https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf</a>.</p></li></ol>
<p>All three of these controversies have arisen on issues in which a strong degree of scientific consensus became intertwined with public policy and institutional self-interest. That intertwining can create selective blindness.</p>
<p>Dr. McNutt has in her career found herself faced more than once with the challenge of what to do when an entrenched orthodoxy meets a substantial scientific challenge. The challenge in each case could itself prove to be mistaken, but it met what most scientists would concede to be the threshold criteria to deserve a serious hearing. Yet in each case Dr. McNutt chose to reinforce the orthodoxy by shutting the door on the challenge.</p>
<p>The three areas that I sketched above, however, seem to have such prominence in public policy that they would warrant an even greater investment in time, care, and attention than would be normally the case. In that light, Dr. McNutt’s dismissive treatment of scientific criticisms is disturbing.</p>
<p>I bring these matters to your attention in the hope of accomplishing two things: raise awareness that the three issues represent threats to the integrity of science arising from the all-too-human tendency to turn ideas into orthodoxies; and suggest that it might be wise for NAS to nominate as a second candidate for president someone who has a reputation for scientific objectivity and fairness and who does not enforce orthodoxy.</p>
<p>I welcome your responses. The National Association of Scholars will present an open forum on these matters with a section reserved specifically for NAS members. Furthermore, I will put you in contact with NAS members who are concerned about Dr. McNutt becoming the next NAS president.</p>
<p>Thank you for your consideration.</p>
<p>Yours sincerely,</p>
<p>Peter Wood<br />
President<br />
National Association of Scholars<br />
8 W. 38th Street, Suite 503<br />
New York, NY 10018<br />
www.nas.org<br />
(917) 551-6770<br />
</p>Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-34759968037678527582016-07-22T03:39:00.001+00:002016-07-26T11:21:40.108+00:00Who killed nuclear power and why?<ol>
<li><p>In trying to answer the question, we look at who is most opposed to it today: the Green movement. Look back to the period when the green movement moved against nuclear power (late 1960s/early 1970s). The 'Club of Rome' began in 1968. Friends of the Earth, FotE, in 1969. The term 'Renewable Energy' first appears in print in 1971 in Scientific American. FotE first employee was Amory Lovins who became the renewable energy guru. Before he was ever a renewable energy guru, he tried to become the anti-nuclear power guru. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amory_Lovins#Books">Five of his books have 'nuclear' in the title</a>. In Australia, FotE established CANE : The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_Against_Nuclear_Energy">Campaign Against Nuclear Energy, in 1976</a>. It went on to have a major effect in Australia - one of two countries in the world to ban nuclear power early on (the other was Austria, in 1978). Their motive is population control: by limiting energy use, they would stop population growth. Not necessarily an argument you'll often hear them make. Also a wrong argument. Promoting poverty, and energy poverty, has the exact opposite effect: poor people have more children because they can, and perhaps, because they view children as an economic resource.</p>
<p>This explanation is promoted by ecomodernists at Environmental Progress, The Breakthrough Institute, etc. Many are ex-greens. Other ex-greens also support this premise. PS: by 'ex-green' I mean ex- mainstream green. <a href="http://epillinois.org/news/2016/5/1/why-environmentalists-changed-their-mind-on-nuclear">The story is most convincingly told by Michael Shellenberger</a> (himself once an anti-nuclear activist working to 'constipate' nuclear power by promoting arguments against nuclear waste). The weakness of this argument is it does not give due credence to funds giving greens so much influence (see: <a href="http://www.city-journal.org/html/green-behind-california%E2%80%99s-greens-13716.html">Steve Malanga</a>, and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/1615775307/">Donald Gibson</a>), nor on other political factors at work (see <a href="http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/nuclear_power.html">Marsha Freeman</a>), nor Malthusian ideas already widespread in society, nor why the late 1960s/ early 1970s were pivotal. I agree the Green Movement became intellectual victims of Malthusian ideas (see Gibson, page 78). But why? What is the connection between greens and Malthus? Why is it so pronounced. Is something more fundamental at work here? Something more akin to a generalized anti-humanism, which finds its own expression within the green movement as environmentalism. There is certainly a huge schism between generally people loving green nukes, and anti-human green anti-nukes.</p></li>
<li><a href="http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/spring%202006/Special_Report.pdf">US neo-Cons under the influence of Albert Wohlstetter</a>. These were a small number, perhaps only a dozen, ex-liberals, who turned to conservatism in the late 1960s/early 1970s to later occupy influential positions in government. Their argument was anti-proliferation. Anti-proliferation was cited by Carter Democrats in 1977 for stopping breeder reactors, and Clinton Democrats in 1994 when they stopped all US government research into nuclear power. It became a major plank of US foreign policy. All nuclear vendors had to buy into the notion of the 'cradle to grave' nuclear fuel cycle which limited enrichment, breeder reactors, and reprocessing technologies. In politics, bomb proliferation was portrayed as the major threat to world peace and security.</li>
<li>Fossil fuel lobbyists. The Atomic Energy Commission, AEC, lost control of nuclear regulation in 1974 when the US created the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, in response to Fossil Fuel lobbying. The NRC had the sole responsibility to make nuclear power as safe as possible. Previously: the AEC had a dual mandate: to promote safe nuclear power. In response to NRC creation, investment in new US nuclear plants vanished overnight. The NRC licensed no new nuclear plants for decades. This argument is popularized by blogger Rod Adams, AKA atomic rod.</li>
</ol>
<p>But surely the reader objects: it was public fear in response to the 'disasters' of Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi? No. Public fear in response to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam">Banqiao Dam disaster of 1975</a>, which eventually killed 171,000 people, did not kill hydroelectricity. The 'disasters' above were responsible for less than 60 deaths caused by radiation.</p>
<p>A lot of people are very confused about what stopped nuclear power. In citing multiple points above it looks like I'm just adding to confusion. The failure of nuclear power had nothing at all to do with Three Mile Island, Chernobyl nor Fukushima. In 1978, an Austrian referendum on nuclear power saw 49.5% vote for and 50.5% against nuclear power in Austria. This stopped nuclear power in Austria before the Three Mile Island incident of 1979. What's so special about Austria? It was the Adolf Hitler's birthplace. His green political movement: the Nazis began the Second World War under the influence of Malthusian ideas. See <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/1101903457/">"Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning", 2015, by Timothy Snyder</a></p>
<p>What have all these anti-nuke ideas in common? Under whose banner do they rally? The common factor is Malthus. I use Malthus in the wide sense as an obsession with economic limits. None of these arguments above exclude others. The promotion of Malthus, beginning in earnest, in 1968 with the 'Club of Rome', does not exclude anti-nuke contributions from the fossil fuel industry, neo-cons, ex- peace-movement anti-nukes, and deep greens. It welcomes such efforts, and funds them. There were anti-nuclear power people before 1968 but FotE (1969) were the first to dedicate themselves to the task. Late 1960s was a pivotal point leading to an early 1970s tip, which got us where we are today.</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://epillinois.org/news/2016/5/1/why-environmentalists-changed-their-mind-on-nuclear">Why environmentalists changed their mind on nuclear, by Michael Shellenberger</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.city-journal.org/html/green-behind-california%E2%80%99s-greens-13716.html">The Green Behind California’s Greens, by Steven Malanga</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/spring%202006/Special_Report.pdf">Neo-Cons, Not Carter, Killed Nuclear Energy, by Marjorie Mazel Hecht</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/1101903457/">"Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning", 2015, by Timothy Snyder</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/nuclear_power.html">Who Killed U.S. Nuclear Power?, by Marsha Freeman</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/1615775307/">"Ecology, Ideology, and Power", by Donald Gibson, 2002, 2014</a></li>
</ul>Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-78467326211506822962016-05-19T13:24:00.002+00:002016-05-19T13:24:14.035+00:00Unreported massive release of radiation 36 years ago!<h3>Unreported Release</h3>
<p>by Karl Johanson</p>
<p>36 years ago today, a major release of radioactive material took place in Washington State. The explosive event which lead to the release, killed 61 people and was covered extensively by the news media. However, the release of radioactive material was never mentioned in this coverage. The amount of radioactive material released can only be roughly approximated, but the following is a fair estimate.</p>
<ul>
<li>Actinium-227 13 grams</li>
<li>Thorium-228 18 grams</li>
<li>Radium-228 60 grams</li>
<li>Lead-210 300 grams</li>
<li>Protactinium-231 20 kilograms</li>
<li>Radium-226 22 kilograms</li>
<li>Thorium-230 1,000 kilograms</li>
<li>Uranium-234 32,000 kilograms</li>
<li>Uranium-235 420,000 kilograms</li>
<li>Uranium-238 60,000,000 kilograms</li>
<li>Thorium-232 170,000,000 kilograms</li>
<li>Potassium-40 300,000,000 kilograms</li>
<li>Rubidium-87 337,000,000 kilograms</li>
</ul>
<p>In addition to the above, the following radioactive isotopes were released in trace amounts:</p>
<ul>
<li>Astatine 215, 216, 218 & 219</li>
<li>Bismuth 210, 211, 212, 214 & 215</li>
<li>Francium 223</li>
<li>Lead 211, 212 & 214</li>
<li>Plutonium 239 & 244</li>
<li>Polonium 210, 211, 212, 214, 215, 216 & 218</li>
<li>Radon 219, 220, & 222</li>
<li>Thallium 206, 2207, 208 & 210</li>
<li>Thorium 227</li>
</ul>
<p>Many of the listed isotopes are the daughter isotopes of Uranium 238, Uranium 235 and Thorium 232.</p>
<p>This amount of radioactive material is (very roughly) what one would expect to find in any 4 cubic kilometres of the Earth's crust. The event which expelled this material, involved a release of energy roughly 500 times that of the nuclear bomb used on Nagasaki. 500 hectares of land was devastated and shockwaves shook houses more than 30 kilometres away. Around 25% of the material was emitted as dust, which remained in the atmosphere for some time. The remainder precipitated out fairly rapidly over the nearby countryside.</p>
<p>To add some interesting perspectives on this amount of material, consider the following.</p>
<ul>
<li>420,000 kilograms of Uranium 235 is enough to make more than 100,000 nuclear weapons.</li>
<li>The US government is studying Yucca Mountain in Nevada with intent to store around 70,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel there.</li>
<li>Some claimed that roughly 40,000 kilograms of depleted uranium (almost pure Uranium 238) was used in the Gulf war and that it represented 500,000 "potential deaths". (I make no commentary here on the ethics of weapon use in general, nor of the ethics of the use of this specific weapon.) I'm curious what those people would estimate the number of "potential deaths" would be from the emission of around 1,000 times as much Uranium 238.</li>
<li>If you've heard and believed the mistaken claim that releasing 1 pound of plutonium would kill every human on Earth, consider the following. The 22 kilograms of Radium 226 (just one isotope from the above list) would have a specific level of alpha radiation equivalent to just over 350 kilograms (770 pounds) of Plutonium 239. Radium is also far more likely to form readily aspiratable particles and is more readily absorbed by the human body when ingested. Somehow, that powdered radium left more than 7 billion humans alive.</li>
</ul>
<p>If you're at all curious, the event which released somewhere around the above estimated amount of material, happened on May 18, 1980 and was, of course, the eruption of Mount Saint Helens. Eleven years later, on June 13, 1991, Mt. Pinatubo released roughly one and a quarter times as much material (radioactive and otherwise) as Mount Saint Helens.</p>
<p>I would never suggest that a natural event emitting any given material should be used as ‘justification’ of humans releasing large amounts of similar materials. Nor does Saint Helens’ and Pinatubo’s emission of Lead and Uranium ‘justify’ the use of such things as Lead or Uranium bullets in any given situation. I do suggest however, that the Saint Helens and the Pinatubo examples (and dozens of other recent eruptions) are useful data points on the road to understanding the complex issue of the possible effects of releases of radioactive material.</p>Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1913836345427590873.post-80657904043198611912016-05-12T09:03:00.003+00:002016-05-12T09:20:10.494+00:00Nuclear Winter?<p>The nuclear winter meme<a href="#3" class="ref">3</a> originated in 1982 as a development of the, then, climate models. Carl Sagan (an anti-nuclear war advocate, and science popularist) was an advocate and contributed to a book sub-titled: "Nuclear Winter and the End of the Arms Race".<a href="#1" class="ref">1</a>
I find it very interesting that there are two climate change <i>nuclear</i> criticisms:
<ol>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter">Nuclear winter</a> - resulting from atomic war</li>
<li><a href="http://nukespp.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/does-nuclear-power-cause-climate-change.html">Climate change caused by atomic power</a></li>
</ol></p>
<p>I already refuted the 2nd nuclear-caused climate change idea, but that's something most scientists and technically educated people can do at a glance. What about the first? Will a small nuclear war really exterminate humanity via climate change as the nuclear critics say? Obviously not. What about a massive nuclear war where every bomb is exploded and war is global: all over the planet? This, at least, is almost a scientific debate. British scientists considered nuclear winter scaremongering.<a href="#5" class="ref">5</a></p>
<p>The rest of this post below is an extract from "Nuclear War Survival Skills", by Cresson H. Kearny,<a href="#2" class="ref">2</a>
but the best available refutation of the meme is now 30 old: Nuclear Winter Reappraised in Foreign Affairs.<a href="#4" class="ref">4</a>. Which led to a debate with Carl Sagan.<a href="#6" class="ref">6</a></p>
<h3>Myth</h3>
<p>Unsurvivable "nuclear winter" surely will follow a nuclear war. The world will be frozen if only 100 megatons (less than one percent of all nuclear weapons) are used to ignite cities. World-enveloping smoke from fires and the dust from surface bursts will prevent almost all sunlight and solar heat from reaching the earth's surface. Universal darkness for weeks! Sub-zero temperatures, even in summertime! Frozen crops, even in the jungles of South America! Worldwide famine! Whole species of animals and plants exterminated! The survival of mankind in doubt!</p>
<h3>Facts</h3>
<p>Unsurvivable "nuclear winter" is a discredited theory that, since its conception in 1982, has been used to frighten additional millions into believing that trying to survive a nuclear war is a waste of effort and resources, and that only by ridding the world of almost all nuclear weapons do we have a chance of surviving.</p>
<p>Non-propagandizing scientists recently have calculated that the climatic and other environmental effects of even an all-out nuclear war would be much less severe than the catastrophic effects repeatedly publicized by popular astronomer Carl Sagan and his fellow activist scientists, and by all the involved Soviet scientists. Conclusions reached from these recent, realistic calculations are summarized in an article, "Nuclear Winter Reappraised", featured in the 1986 summer issue of Foreign Affairs, the prestigious quarterly of the Council on Foreign Relations. The authors, Starley L. Thompson and Stephen H. Schneider, are atmospheric scientists with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. They showed " that on scientific grounds the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishing low level of probability."</p>
<p>Their models indicate that in July (when the greatest temperature reductions would result) the average temperature in the United States would be reduced for a few days from about 70 degrees Fahrenheit to approximately 50 degrees. (In contrast, under the same conditions Carl Sagan, his associates, and the Russian scientists predicted a resulting average temperature of about 10 degrees below zero Fahrenheit, lasting for many weeks!)</p>
<p>Persons who want to learn more about possible post-attack climatic effects also should read the Fall 1986 issue of Foreign Affairs. This issue contains a long letter from Thompson and Schneider which further demolishes the theory of catastrophic "nuclear winter." Continuing studies indicate there will be even smaller reductions in temperature than those calculated by Thompson and Schneider.</p>
<p>Soviet propagandists promptly exploited belief in unsurvivable "nuclear winter" to increase fear of nuclear weapons and war, and to demoralize their enemies. Because raging city firestorms are needed to inject huge amounts of smoke into the stratosphere and thus, according to one discredited theory, prevent almost all solar heat from reaching the ground, the Soviets changed their descriptions of how a modern city will burn if blasted by a nuclear explosion.</p>
<p>Figure 1.6 pictures how Russian scientists and civil defense officials realistically described - before the invention of "nuclear winter" - the burning of a city hit by a nuclear weapon. Buildings in the blasted area for miles around ground zero will be reduced to scattered rubble - mostly of concrete, steel, and other nonflammable materials - that will not burn in blazing fires. Thus in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory translation (ORNL-TR-2793) of Civil Defense. Second Edition (500,000 copies), Moscow, 1970, by Egorov, Shlyakhov, and Alabin, we read: "Fires do not occur in zones of complete destruction . . . that are characterized by an overpressure exceeding 0.5 kg/cm2 [- 7 psi]., because rubble is scattered and covers the burning structures. As a result the rubble only smolders, and fires as such do not occur."</p>
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oxeOt_mS3Ew/VzREJtll_ZI/AAAAAAAAAlc/h8hT90UIQfEqNqv5mhUsk_5O0LxUWNghACLcB/s1600/nuclear-winter-Soviet.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oxeOt_mS3Ew/VzREJtll_ZI/AAAAAAAAAlc/h8hT90UIQfEqNqv5mhUsk_5O0LxUWNghACLcB/s1600/nuclear-winter-Soviet.jpg" width="400" height="300" /></a>
<p>Fig. 1.6. Drawing with Caption in a Russian Civil Defense Training Film Strip. The blazing fires ignited by a surface burst are shown in standing buildings outside the miles-wide "zone of complete destruction," where the blast-hurled "rubble only smolders."</p>
<p>Translation: [Radioactive] contamination occurs in the area of the explosion and also along the trajectory of the cloud which forms a radioactive track.</p>
<p>Firestorms destroyed the centers of Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo. The old-fashioned buildings of those cities contained large amounts of flammable materials, were ignited by many thousands of small incendiaries, and burned quickly as standing structures well supplied with air. No firestorm has ever injected smoke into the stratosphere, or caused appreciable cooling below its smoke cloud.</p>
<p>The theory that smoke from burning cities and forests and dust from nuclear explosions would cause worldwide freezing temperatures was conceived in 1982 by the German atmospheric chemist and environmentalist Paul Crutzen, and continues to be promoted by a worldwide propaganda campaign. This well funded campaign began in 1983 with televised scientific-political meetings in Cambridge and Washington featuring American and Russian scientists. A barrage of newspaper and magazine articles followed, including a scaremongering article by Carl Sagan in the October 30, 1983 issue of Parade, the Sunday tabloid read by millions. The most influential article was featured in the December 23,1983 issue of Science (the weekly magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science): "Nuclear winter, global consequences of multiple nuclear explosions," by five scientists, R. P. Turco, O. B. Toon, T. P. Ackerman, J. B. Pollack, and C. Sagan. Significantly, these activists listed their names to spell TTAPS, pronounced "taps," the bugle call proclaiming "lights out" or the end of a military funeral.</p>
<p>Until 1985, non-propagandizing scientists did not begin to effectively refute the numerous errors, unrealistic assumptions, and computer modeling weakness' of the TTAPS and related "nuclear winter" hypotheses. A principal reason is that government organizations, private corporations, and most scientists generally avoid getting involved in political controversies, or making statements likely to enable antinuclear activists to accuse them of minimizing nuclear war dangers, thus undermining hopes for peace. Stephen Schneider has been called a fascist by some disarmament supporters for having written "Nuclear Winter Reappraised," according to the Rocky Mountain News of July 6, 1986. Three days later, this paper, that until recently featured accounts of unsurvivable "nuclear winter," criticized Carl Sagan and defended Thompson and Schneider in its lead editorial, "In Study of Nuclear Winter, Let Scientists Be Scientists." In a free country, truth will out - although sometimes too late to effectively counter fast-hitting propaganda.</p>
<p>Effective refutation of "nuclear winter" also was delayed by the prestige of politicians and of politically motivated scientists and scientific organizations endorsing the TTAPS forecast of worldwide doom. Furthermore, the weakness' in the TTAPS hypothesis could not be effectively explored until adequate Government funding was made available to cover costs of lengthy, expensive studies, including improved computer modeling of interrelated, poorly understood meteorological phenomena.</p>
<p>Serious climatic effects from a Soviet-U.S. nuclear war cannot be completely ruled out. However, possible deaths from uncertain climatic effects are a small danger compared to the incalculable millions in many countries likely to die from starvation caused by disastrous shortages of essentials of modern agriculture sure to result from a Soviet-American nuclear war, and by the cessation of most international food shipments.</p>
<ol>
<li id="1"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Path-Where-No-Man-Thought/dp/0394583078">A Path Where No Man Thought: Nuclear Winter and the End of the Arms Race</a>, by Carl Sagan, Richard Turco; </li>
<li id="2"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Nuclear+War+Survival+Skills">Nuclear War Survival Skills</a>, by Cresson H. Kearny</li>
<li id="3"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter">Nuclear winter (wikipedia)</a></li>
<li id="4">Thompson, Starley L & Schneider, Stephen H Nuclear Winter Reappraised in Foreign Affairs, Vol. 64, No. 5 (Summer, 1986), pp. 981-10055. doi:10.2307/20042777.</li>
<li id="5">"<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/30/home-office-nuclear-winter-threat-scaremongering-war">Home Office dismissed nuclear winter threat as scaremongering, files show</a>", Guardian 30 Nov 2014.</li>
<li id="6"><a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/20042868">The Nuclear Winter Debate</a>, by Carl Sagan, Richard Turco, George W. Rathjens, Ronald H. Siegel, Starley L. Thompson and Stephen H. Schneider; Foreign Affairs, Vol. 65, No. 1 (Fall, 1986), pp. 163-178, DOI: 10.2307/20042868</li>
</ol>Jack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.com0