Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
Sat Jun 2, 2012, 11:23 PM Jun 2012

Skewed Nuclear Science?

Long article at link but with lots of history from Hiroshima to Fukushima...RE


Science with a Skew: The Nuclear Power Industry After Chernobyl and Fukushima
By: Gayle Greene

It is one of the marvels of our time that the nuclear industry managed to resurrect itself from its ruins at the end of the last century, when it crumbled under its costs, inefficiencies, and mega-accidents.

Chernobyl released hundreds of times the radioactivity of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs combined, contaminating more than 40% of Europe and the entire Northern Hemisphere. But along came the nuclear lobby to breathe new life into the industry, passing off as “clean” this energy source that polluted half the globe. The “fresh look at nuclear”—in the words of a New York Times makeover piece (May 13, 2006)—paved the way to a “nuclear Renaissance” in the United States that Fukushima has by no means brought to a halt.

That mainstream media have been powerful advocates for nuclear power comes as no surprise.

“The media are saturated with a skilled, intensive, and effective advocacy campaign by the nuclear industry, resulting in disinformation” and “wholly counterfactual accounts…widely believed by otherwise sensible people,” states the 2010-2011 World Nuclear Industry Status Report by Worldwatch Institute.

What is less well understood is the nature of the “evidence” that gives the nuclear industry its mandate, Cold War science which, with its reassurances about low-dose radiation risk, is being used to quiet alarms about Fukushima and to stonewall new evidence that would call a halt to the industry.

more:
http://japanfocus.org/-Gayle-Greene/3672#
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
1. Thanks for mentioning this. and what can we do?
Sat Jun 2, 2012, 11:36 PM
Jun 2012

In November, we can choose between two candidates, both of whom advocate for Big Energy, and Big Nuke. So as far as nuke radiation, we have no choice!

And Obama's EPA shut down its montering stations on May 17th 2011, went they were needed more than ever to monitor the radiation blanketing much of the Western Hemisphere, due to Japan's air current.

In Canada, the government is seeing to it that any food seen from Japan to Canada must be certified as not being from any areas contaminated by radiation released at Fukushima. What has our government done? Why, they have been busy telling us that radiation is not as dangerous as we used to think it was!

TheWraith

(24,331 posts)
3. Your claim is false.
Sun Jun 3, 2012, 12:29 AM
Jun 2012

The EPA did not "shut down" monitoring stations. They went back the the regular rate of reporting, instead of constantly, because by that point it was obvious that there was no detectable health risk from any radiation releases in Japan. And by the way, we have the same standards for importation of food as Canada does.

Obama advocates for nuclear energy because it's safer than coal, CO2-safe, and necessary. That's the simple truth. As much as some people might want to complain about it, they have to completely ignore the fact that coal plants do more damage in normal operation than a nuclear plant does in a catastrophic emergency.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
5. Actaully we do not have the same standard of food protection
Sun Jun 3, 2012, 04:57 AM
Jun 2012

that Canada does.

And it might be of interest to you that many of the monitoring stations here in the USA were not able to work to capacity, as our money doesn't go to things like EPA monitoring stations but to Afghanistan drone wars, etc.

As far as there being no detectable radiation levels as of May 19th 2011, that is not the information that got reported from monitoring stations in New England. And if they detected cesium, then it definitely was also here on the West Coast.
The only way that anyone can advocate for nuke over coal as nuke is safer is because they have no concept of radiation, its dangers, and the fact that unlike pollution from coal, its dangers last for hundreds of years in terms of some of the isotopes, and tens of thousands of years for others. Coal's polluting materials can be mitigated over ten years.



truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
2. Scarey paragraph from middle of the article by Gayle Green
Sat Jun 2, 2012, 11:49 PM
Jun 2012

"Comparisons with Chernobyl have been conspicuously absent from mainstream media, even when Fukushima was upgraded, in early June, to a level on a par with Chernobyl, level 7, the highest.

"Even when Arnold Gundersen, a nuclear engineer turned whistleblower who has been monitoring Fukushima from the start, asserted that this accident may actually be more dire than Chernobyl. Gundersen, an informed, level-headed commentator who inspires confidence, points out that there are four damaged reactors leaking into the atmosphere, ocean, and ground in an area more populated than the Ukraine: “You probably have the equivalent of 20 nuclear reactor cores…that is 20 times the potential to be released than Chernobyl.” (Fairewinds, June 16, 2011). But apart from the damage control piece it published March 15 (cited above) and Helen Caldicott’s passing reference to “research by scientists in Eastern Europe” (op-ed, “After Fukushima: Enough is enough,” December 2)—the Times has barely mentioned Chernobyl (and even Caldicott did not mention the Yablokov study by name). What Chernobyl has wrought, which has been documented so clearly by Yablokov et al., is simply too dangerous to give press to, undercutting as it does the nuclear industry’s claims to safety and viability."

TheWraith

(24,331 posts)
4. "Level 7" is rather like "Category 5."
Sun Jun 3, 2012, 12:37 AM
Jun 2012

It doesn't measure severity, it measures where the meter maxxes out. Were it measured by severity, Fukushima would be a 1 and Chernobyl a 19.

By the way, Arnie Gundersen is not a "nuclear engineer," in fact he's never handled a reactor in his life, and he hasn't had anything at all to do with Fukushima. He's a professional TV personality who gets on the screen talking about how evil nuclear power is while ignoring science. Including the fact that only one reactor leaked, not four, and that the releases are a fraction of a percent compared to Chernobyl. But I wouldn't expect that to stop the continuous stream of anti-nuclear propaganda from those who stand the most to gain by killing the number one source of clean, CO2 free energy on the planet.

bananas

(27,509 posts)
7. Anyone can easily verify that Arnie Gundersen is a highly qualified nuclear engineer.
Sun Jun 3, 2012, 12:00 PM
Jun 2012

You falsely stated 'Arnie Gundersen is not a "nuclear engineer" ',
anyone can easily verify that statement is wrong (to be polite).

Wikipedia mentions that he has a MS in nuclear engineering,
and was a senior vice president of a nuclear energy consulting firm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Gundersen

Gundersen is chief engineer of Fairewinds Associates, an energy consulting company.[3] He previously worked for Nuclear Energy Services in Danbury, a consulting firm where he was a senior vice president. Gundersen holds a master's degree in nuclear engineering.[4]


He blew the whistle on safety problems, which is why the nuclear industry hates him and tells so many outright lies about him:

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/12/nyregion/paying-the-price-for-blowing-the-whistle.html

Paying The Price For Blowing The Whistle
By JULIE MILLER
Published: February 12, 1995

FOR three years, Arnold Gundersen was awakened by harassing phone calls in the middle of the night. He became so concerned about his family's safety that he bought a large dog for protection. The problem? He was a whistle-blower, one of those who take on the dismally unpopular role of exposing what they find to be unsafe or unlawful practices in the workplace, especially the nuclear workplace.

"It feels like you're in a fort surrounded by Indians, and you send for help," Mr. Gundersen said. "You hear the hoofbeats of the cavalry in the distance as it finally comes toward you. But they start shooting at you."

Mr. Gundersen, who lives in Warren, told of the day in 1990 when he discovered radioactive material in an accounting safe at Nuclear Energy Services in Danbury, the consulting firm where he held a $120,000-a-year job as senior vice president. Three weeks after he notified the company president of what he believed to be radiation safety violations, Mr. Gundersen said, he was fired.

<snip>


In a 1993 congressional hearing,
in response to a question by Committee Chairman Democratic Senator John Glenn,
NRC Chairman Ivan Selin testified:
"Everything Mr. Gundersen said was absolutely right; he performed quite a service"


And that's why the nuclear industry hates him and lies about him.

You can read the transcript of that hearing at http://www.archive.org/details/federalregulatio00unit


His in-depth understanding of nuclear engineering is why he gained so much credibility, and that's why he has been vetted by CNN, MSNBC, DemocracyNow!, KPBS, and other highly respected news organizations:
http://vermontdailybriefing.com/?p=663

June 12th, 2007
What Arnie Gundersen Says About Yankee Eventually Becomes Truth About Yankee
by Philip Baruth

<snip>

On the Vermont Yankee issue, I got religion in the North and I got religion in the South: Arnie Gundersen, my neighbor in Burlington’s New North End, and Steve West and Gorty Baldwin, WKVT radio hosts in Brattleboro, all began schooling me in the issues and the various dangers.

But today, let’s take Arnie’s story

Arnie was an executive in the nuclear industry, back in the late ’80’s, but in 1990 he came forward as a whistleblower and was fired the same year. Over the next several years, his case got a great deal of attention, and he testified before Congress during hearings on ways to protect whistleblowers.

Fast-forward to 2007. Arnie is now a prominent nuclear safety expert witness. And he’s also a longtime reader of this site.

<snip>


Anyone who claims he isn't a nuclear engineer is full of shit.


snot

(10,478 posts)
6. It certainly seems that lots of big, critical facts are in dispute – facts
Sun Jun 3, 2012, 10:26 AM
Jun 2012

that should be relatively easy to establish one way or the other.

More sources might be helpful.

In any case, I hope people who know more than I do will contribute to this thread, and perhaps help clarify . . . and then the sources of those "facts" shown to be incorrect should be discredited.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Skewed Nuclear Science?