Kamilla and Chuck,
Though I claim no expertise in the area, let me note a related story and
put in a comment. An advocacy group investigated the cost of health care
and work absences between a group who received medical treatments only
when they became ill and those who had continuous health surveillance.
They reported that the latter was more effective and had lower costs. But
a critic pointed out that they got their cost figure by totally
neglecting the cost of continuous surveillance while factoring in the
cost of the on-need services.
Similar accounting is common in energy analyses. For example, the
production of solar batteries using silicon chips required a lot of
energy, so much that using the devices would, in their projected
lifetimes, leave a negative energy balance. I believe that the new
amorphous devices require much less energy for their production, but I do
not recall seeing any figures on the expected output relative to
manufacturing input. While wind power is essentially free once the
devices are in place, the copper, aluminum and steel that go into their
production are mainly produced by consuming fossil fuels. I have no data
on the ratio of energy output to "CO2" cost. I think that hydroelectric
production involves a net gain, as does nuclear power. But again, I have
not encountered the ratios. Advocates will ignore costs and extol gains.
Opponents will do the opposite and, if they have a chance, exaggerate the
dangers. The latter also have a tendency to blame "big business" for any
problems.
I can look at the logic, but I'm not equipped to dig through the
scientific, engineering and business reports to determine what is
actually involved. I sometimes stumble across the obvious. Probably those
with the training and experience to dig out the "whole truth" are too
busy doing to bother with this kind of analysis. Further, if I can scare
you, I have a good chance to get you to pay me to "protect" you from the
"terrible danger." It's easier to scare people with a clever lie than by
any other means I know. It also gets a bigger play in the press. An
impartial analysis doesn't sell papers or attract viewers.
Dave
On Wed, 30 May 2001 20:22:09 -0600 "Kamilla ludwig"
<kamillal@worldnet.att.net> writes:
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 : Thu May 31 2001 - 00:23:17 EDT