Chuck,
Thanks. (by the way I thought the line was "nuclear power will become too cheap to meter" and was said in support of building more plants)
So you would consider these all advocacy groups, then? I guess that's probably right, I was just hoping there might be some groups that would be more reliable than others. I was asking because, for someone like me doing bits of research and reading on their own, having a sort of "clearing house" for information would make it so much easier.
Some years back I did received a free copy of a video put out by a fossil fuels industry group touting the benefits of global warming (larger areas of land will be cultivable, etc.). It was interesting to view. It also struck me that no one seems to be talking publicly about the possible benefits of global warming. At least if they are, they aren't getting much air time.
Kamilla
----- Original Message -----
From: Vandergraaf, Chuck
To: 'Kamilla ludwig'
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 6:57 PM
Subject: RE: Organizations
Kamilla,
Good question! My understanding is that one does not have to be a scientist to belong to the Union of Concerned Scientists; one only has to exhibit a certain degree of concern and fork over some cash. In general, advocacy groups tend to distort the truth by omitting data that does not agree with their position and/or recycling statements that have shown to be incorrect.(now where have we seen this before?) By their nature, advocacy groups want to make a point and, to do that, they have to catch the attention of the media and the public and that is best done by making outrageous statements and claims and hope that the general public is dumb enough to fall for it (we know that media is, by and large, scientifically illiterate)
Let me give you a few examples from my area of expertise:
"highly radioactive plutonium" [most Pu isotopes have a long half life and are therefore not very radioactive]
"plutonium, the most toxic material on earth" [one nuclear scientist had a standing offer to eat 1 gram of Pu if a nuclear critic would eat 1 gram of nicotine; never had any takers]
"nobody has shown a way to deal with radioactive waste." [the US and Finland are disposing of low-level radioactive wastes and many countries (e.g., Canada, Sweden, Finland) have shown that high-level radioactive waste can be disposed of with negligible risk to the population]
"Chornobyl caused many deaths and many cancers" [there were less than 50 deaths attributable to the Chornobyl accident]
Very often, these advocacy groups trot out statements like these without backing them up. A good test is to look at some of the literature that these groups put out and ask where they got the data, and then follow the trail back to the source. In many cases, these groups will cite statements made by other, like-minded groups. Try it sometime. For example, the statement is often bandied about that "at one time, nuclear energy was considered too cheap to meter" or words to that effect. My understanding is that ONE person ONCE made this statement, yet it is trotted out again and again. Another scare tactic to to make connections between something that is opposed and something nasty: linking nuclear bombs to nuclear power (we don't link gasoline to napalm] or Western nuclear power plants to Chornobyl [we don't link the Goodyear blimp to the Hindenburg, or a plastics plants to Bhopal].
It may be difficult to believe this but, IMHO, sources of "good information" are the experts, who work in a given industry. I would much rather get information on the safety of nuclear power plants from nuclear physicists and nuclear engineers who know what makes these things tick than from some activist who wants to make a point.
You may also want to question people in these advocacy groups very closely and tenaciously. For example, if they say that wind power is cheaper than nuclear, let them provide the evidence. If they say that the US could abide by the Kyoto Protocol by replacing the fossil fuel plants with solar and wind, let them show you. At least, let them provide an independent analysis of there comparisons.
You may think that these advocacy groups can do no wrong and that it is always better the err on the side of caution. I don't agree: if these advocacy groups have a skewed vision of risks and benefits, they made well force a decision on society that is based on a flawed analysis. Let me give you a simple example: it has been argued that chlorination of drinking water produces chlorinated hydrocarbons that are potentially harmful. Yet the risk of having micro organisms such as E. coli in the water (which led to seven deaths in a small town in Ontario a year ago) is greater than a postulated and extrapolated risk of contracting cancer as a results of the chlorinated hydrocarbons.
Hope this is of some help.
Chuck Vandergraaf
-----Original Message-----
From: Kamilla ludwig [mailto:kamillal@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Wednesday May 30, 2001 4:47 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Organizations
I am wondering which organizations and advocacy groups are the most reliable sources of good information.
What can any of the listmembers tell me about, for instance:
Union of Concerned Scientists
Center for Science in the Public Interest
WorldWatch Institute
I am particularly interested in those organizations that are active in public health. Are there any other organizations that might be better sources for information and for possible involvement?
Also, before I forget again, I have looked around a bit for some of the answers about our earlier discussion in GM foods, particularly the claim about Monarch butterfly toxicity. It seems that those claims were wildly exaggerated. Just goes to show you can't trust someone just because they have a tenured position and a PhD after their name!
Thanks,
Kamilla
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 30 2001 - 22:25:25 EDT