Dave,
You made some very good points. Buried in your comments is the tendency to
blame "big business" for any problems. A distrust of big business is often
very evident and many individuals in these advocacy groups subscribe to the
concept that "small is beautiful." People generally feel that "big
business," e.g., utilities march to a different drummer and that they don't
have any power over these companies. Hence the wish for smaller entities
that can be controlled by "the user." Sort of cooperatives where each
member has a voice. The argument goes as follows: "I do not like the way
utility X generates its power but there's nothing I can do about it. Now if
I were to generate the power myself, I could choose the (to me) most
environmentally friendly or most ethically responsible way to generate this
power." I recall having a discussion with an "environmental activist" who
is opposed to the research we are doing in nuclear waste management. After
some hesitation, she agreed that she was not really all that opposed to what
we are doing, but she advocates a new "world order" where the "little
(wo)man" calls the shots.
There have been energy balance calculations done on energy conversion
systems but I don't have the data on hand. Back in the 1980s, Inhaber did a
study on this. At the time there was comparatively little data but, as I
recall, he set up a framework. Somewhere in my files I have a copy of a
draft of his paper. I did a quick check on the Internet and it seems that
his work may have been published as: H. Inhaber, Energy Risk Assessment,
Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Inc., New York (1982)
Another aspect that is often ignored is maintenance of alternate energy
conversion systems. Look at a picture of a "wind farm" and see how many are
NOT turning. If this indicates that they need servicing, who is going to
fix them and at what risk? How often do solar panels need cleaning and who
is going to do this? Keep in mind that one of the most common industrial
accidents consists of people falling off something.
I'm often reminded of an old advertisement that used to run in the National
Geographic Magazine. "There are no easy answers, only intelligent choices."
or words to that effect and I think it was run by Caterpillar.
Chuck
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: David F Siemens [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday May 30, 2001 11:17 PM
To: kamillal@worldnet.att.net
Cc: vandergraaft@aecl.ca; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Organizations
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 <mailto:vandergraaft@aecl.ca>
To: 'Kamilla ludwig' <mailto:kamillal@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu <mailto: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 - 09:50:52 EDT