A plea for a return to science on the nuclear power issue

I get mail:

German physicist Peter Heller wrote a passionate plea for a return to science on the nuclear power issue, published in German here: http://www.science-skeptical.de/blog/fukushima/004149/

With Dr. Heller’s permission, I’ve translated it in English. But having gone over the content, I think his plea is worthy of a much wider audience – more than what NTZ can offer. So I send this to you with the kind request that you consider publishing it at WUWT.

Best regards,

P Gosselin

——————————————–

German physicist Peter Heller makes a passionate plea for a return to science on the nuclear energy issue. He wonders if ignorance and fear will cause us to abandon the legacies of Einstein, Heisenberg and others.

Fukushima

By Dr Peter Heller, http://www.science-skeptical.de

Astronomer, Physicist

There’s no place on earth I would rather be right now than at Fukushima – right in the atomic power plant, at the centre of the event. I say this because I am a physicist and there is no other place that could be more exciting and interesting for a physicist. The same goes for many, if not most physicists and engineers, on the planet.

Already at a young age I knew one day I would study physics. As a boy, I received a telescope for Christmas, and from that point on my view was fixed on the night sky; gazing at star clusters, nebula and galaxies was my favourite preoccupation. It was only later that I learned that these lights and the twinkling in eyepiece were actually the expressions of a chaotic and violent force of nature – the direct conversion of matter into energy during the fusion of an atomic nucleus.

My curiosity carried me, as if on a high, through 10 semesters of study and subsequent graduation. It was a time of discovery that involved the tedious task of understanding. At times I felt exasperation and self doubt with respect to the sheer complexity and breadth of what there was to learn. Yet, there were times of joy whenever the fog lifted and the clarity and beauty of physical descriptions of natural phenomena moved in its place. It was a time that, unfortunately, passed all too quickly and is now some years in the past.

The great minds that accompanied me through my studies were Planck, Sommerfeld, Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, and a host of others who, for us physicists, are still very much alive today. They are great thinkers who contributed to unravelling the puzzles of nature and the forces which keep the world together through the most minute structures. I devoured the stories of Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner, of Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller – to name a few – and on how they created completely new technologies from theoretical concepts, how the energy stored in the nucleus of an atom could be used for the good of man and how it became possible in a single process to tap into this source of affordable, clean and plentiful energy on a large scale as never seen by man. Electricity illuminates our world, drives our machines, allow us to communicate over great distances, thus making our lives easier and more comfortable. It is a source of energy that staves off poverty and enables prosperity.

Electricity: manufactured by splitting atomic nuclei with neutrons, gained through the direct conversion of mass into energy. It is the principle by which (via the reverse process of fusion) the stars twinkle in the night sky, a principle by which our sun enables life on our planet.

As a physicist it fills me with great joy and pride to see how man is able to rouse this force of nature at the most minute structural level, then amplify, control, and use it for our benefit. As a physicist I have the fundamental understanding of the processes – I can imagine them and describe them. As a physicist I have neither fear of an atomic power plant nor of radioactivity. Ultimately I know that it is a natural phenomenon that is always around us, one we can never escape – and one that we never need to escape. And I know the first as a symbol of man’s capability to steer the forces of nature. As a physicist I have no fear of what nature has to offer. Rather I have respect. And this respect beckons us to seize the chances like those offered by neutrons, which can split nuclei and thus convert matter into energy. Anything else would be ignorance and cowardice.

Dark times in history

There were times in history when ignorance and cowardice overshadowed human life. It was a time when our ancestors were forced to lead a life filled with superstition and fear because it was forbidden to use creativity and fantasy. Religious dogma, like the earth being the centre of the universe, or creationism, forbade people to question. The forbiddance of opening a human body and examining it prevented questions from being answered. Today these medieval rules appear backwards and close-minded. We simply cannot imagine this way of thinking could have any acceptance.

But over the recent days I have grown concerned that we are headed again for such dark times. Hysterical and sensationalist media reporting, paired with a remarkably stark display of ignorance of technical and scientific interrelations, and the attempt by a vast majority of journalists to fan the public’s angst and opposition to nuclear energy – pure witch-burning disguised as modernity.

Freedom of research

So it fills me with sadness and anger on how the work of the above mentioned giants of physics is now being dragged through the mud, how the greatest scientific discoveries of the 20th century are being redefined and criminalized. The current debate in Germany is also a debate on freedom of research. The stigmatization and ostracism of nuclear energy, the demand for an immediate stop of its use, is also the demand for the end of its research and development. No job possibilities also means no students, which means no faculty, which then means the end of the growth of our knowledge. Stopping nuclear energy is nothing less than rejecting the legacy of Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr and all others. It is tantamount to scrapping it, labelling it as dangerous – all in a fit of ignorance. And just as creationists attempt to ban the theory of evolution from the school books, it almost seems as if every factual and neutral explanation in Germany is now in the process of being deleted.

The media suggests a nuclear catastrophe, a mega-meltdown, and that the apocalypse has already begun. It is almost as if the 10,000 deaths in Japan were actually victims of nuclear energy, and not the earthquake or the tsunami. Here again one has to remind us that Fukushima was first hit by an unimaginable 9.0 earthquake and then by a massive 10-meter wave of water just an hour later. As a result, the facility no longer found itself in a highly technological area, but surrounded by a desert of rubble. All around the power plant the infrastructure, residential areas, traffic routes, energy and communication networks are simply no longer there. They were wiped out. Yet, after an entire week, the apocalypse still has not come to pass. Only relatively small amounts of radioactive materials have leaked out and have had only a local impact. If one considers the pure facts exclusively, i.e. only the things we really know, then it exposes the unfounded interpretations of scientific illiterates in the media. One can only arrive to one conclusion: This sorrowful state will remain so.

In truth, this does not show that the ideologically motivated, fear-laden admonitions and warnings were correct. Fukushima illustrates that we are indeed able to control atomic energy. Fukushima shows that we can master it even when natural disasters beyond planning befall us. Still, at Fukushima the conflict between human creativity/competence continues to clamour against the bond energy in atomic nuclei. It’s a struggle that that shows what human intelligence, knowledge gained, passion, boldness, respect, and capability to learn allow us to do. Personally this does not fill me with apprehension, but with hope. Man can meet this challenge not only because he has to, but most of all because he wants to.

Even though I have not practiced physics for some time now, I will never be anything other than a scientist and researcher, and there would be no other place I would rather be than on site at Fukushima. There is no other place at the moment where so much can be learned about atomic energy, which keeps our world together deep inside, and the technical possibilities to benefit from it. Do we have the courage to learn? Do we accept – with respect and confidence – the opportunities we are confronted with? Fukushima will show us possibilities on how to use the direct conversion of matter into energy in a better and safer way, something that Einstein and others could have only dreamed of.

I am a physicist. My wish is to live in a world that is willing to learn and to improve whatever is good. I would only like to live in a world where great strides in physics are viewed with fascination, pride, and hope because they show us the way to a better future. I would only like to live in a world that has the courage for a better world. Any other world for me is unacceptable. Never. That’s why I am going to fight for this world, without ever relenting.

————————————————–

Translated from the German, with the permission of Peter Heller, by Bernd Felsche and Pierre Gosselin. Original text appeared here: http://www.science-skeptical.de/blog/fukushima/004149/

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
386 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 21, 2011 8:50 am

James Sexton says:
March 21, 2011 at 7:52 am
I would point out, the evolution and creationism aren’t necessarily exclusive, save for the word random. But then, I’ve never come to an understanding of the term randomly selective.
Mutations are random. Most are lethal. A few confer an advantage to the organism in its current environment. As the environment [or pressure from other organisms even better adapted] changes, the new species goes extinct. During the existence of the Earth more than 99% of all species have gone extinct. There is nothing ‘randomly selective’ about that. You also have a wrong appreciation of what a scientific ‘theory’ is. A theory is but a shorthand for a large body of facts.

G. Karst
March 21, 2011 9:10 am

Mike G. says:
March 20, 2011 at 10:37 am
“I went back from a planned 5 week vacation to help review the site’s severe accident management guidelines (SAMG). I’ll be back at it tomorrow.”
I am glad to see rapid assessment, in response to latest developments.
My advice, is to focus on plant protection from unanticipated flooding. You will be surprised to learn that none of our stations are adequately protected against flooding from external (ground, rain or tsunami). This is also true with internal flood events, such as LP service water breaks as well CCW and steam line breaks.
Much improvement has occurred at some stations, however there is much work to be performed at many others. SGs, whether CTUs or diesels and their fuel tanks are usually found in exposed locales. They must be protected at all costs, as well as the equipment they supply. I am one voice, who has been saying this for years. GK

harrywr2
March 21, 2011 9:12 am

Larry in Texas says:
March 20, 2011 at 11:26 pm
I would worry more about why they hadn’t considered changes to the design of the reactor that required external power in order to run the water pumps that cooled the reactors
Everything has a design basis. The door between a house and attached garage has a 1 hour burn thru, the beams in skyscraper are insulated to protect against a theoretical fire. It’s all about ‘buying time’ until corrective action can be taken.
Nuclear power plants once shut down need cooling.
There are normally 3 backup power supplies, grid, diesel and batteries. For a period of time cooling can be accomplish with a residual steam cooling circuit.
8 fossil plants got taken out in the Earthquake/Tsunami.
It would also appear that the diesels ingested water while running which would mean a broken crankshaft, forget repairing them.
The batteries were sized at 8 hours which would be more then enough time in ‘normal’ circumstances to either repair the diesels or reestablish grid power.
In hindsight, 8 hours to reestablish grid power and/or repair the diesels appears inadequate.

James Sexton
March 21, 2011 9:27 am

Ryan says:
March 21, 2011 at 8:50 am
1] Can someone please remove the creationism/evolution discussion from this thread – it has no business being here and could quickly bring WUWT into disrepute. I’m not taking sides – just have that discussion elsewhere.
=======================================
Read the post. Dr. Heller, himself, put the question forward.

March 21, 2011 9:35 am

James Sexton says:
March 21, 2011 at 9:27 am
Read the post. Dr. Heller, himself, put the question forward.
No, he did not pose that as a question, but held it as an example of ‘ignorance and cowardice’:
“There were times in history when ignorance and cowardice overshadowed human life. It was a time when our ancestors were forced to lead a life filled with superstition and fear because it was forbidden to use creativity and fantasy. Religious dogma, like the earth being the centre of the universe, or creationism, forbade people to question. “

James Sexton
March 21, 2011 9:41 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
March 21, 2011 at 8:50 am
“Mutations are random. Most are lethal. A few confer an advantage to the organism in its current environment. As the environment [or pressure from other organisms even better adapted] changes, the new species goes extinct. During the existence of the Earth more than 99% of all species have gone extinct. There is nothing ‘randomly selective’ about that. You also have a wrong appreciation of what a scientific ‘theory’ is. A theory is but a shorthand for a large body of facts.”
============================================
Hmm, Leif, I do understand the what theory means in science and mathematics. Still, I would draw a distinction between the law of gravity and the theory of evolution. Something about being demonstrable from start to finish, but I digress.
To repeat one of your assertions, “There is nothing ‘randomly selective’ about that.” …………. Let me try to articulate that thought in ways many can understand, including myself……………… I’ve got it!!
Yes, species selection through random genetic mutations. There is nothing selectively random about that.
I think Orwell can explain this much better than myself. Part 2 Chapt 9.
James

G. Karst
March 21, 2011 9:53 am

harrywr2 says:
“In hindsight, 8 hours to reestablish grid power and/or repair the diesels appears inadequate.”
When a station is depending on battery power, it is already in deep do-do. ANY event which necessitates lengthy battery power is a disaster in progress. If key equipment has been flooded there is no return of that equipment until much later. A broken service water line can take out an entire bank of converters and inverters. This renders emergency power moot. There are hundreds of other examples.
The complete answer is to environmentally protect ALL emergency equipment, from calamitous flooding by water or steam. GK

Mikael Cronholm
March 21, 2011 10:00 am

James Sexton. You are right. He did mention creationism. He dismissed it in a paragraph titled “Dark times in history”. That does not look like an invite. Religious discussions are quite tedious to wade through in a scientific context. So I agree. I don’t think it has any business here.

James Sexton
March 21, 2011 10:01 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
March 21, 2011 at 9:35 am
James Sexton says:
March 21, 2011 at 9:27 am
Read the post. Dr. Heller, himself, put the question forward.
No, he did not pose that as a question, but held it as an example of ‘ignorance and cowardice’:
========================================
Sorry, Leif, that’s a fine distinction and really isn’t worthy of comment other than, when drivel such as this is put forward, what is entirely ignorant, is the expectation that someone wouldn’t respond. So, it was indeed put forth by Dr. Heller.

Mikael Cronholm
March 21, 2011 10:10 am

On the issue of backup power at Fukushima. My understanding is that the diesel gen-sets did start up normally, but that the water intakes were damaged and/or clogged up with all the dirt that the tsunami left behind. My suggestion to solve that problem would be to use gas turbines instead. They can possibly be placed on the roof of the building or somewhere else where it is safe, if that is not possible. They need no cooling except the intake air and air-to-liquid coolers for subsystems, like lube oil and such. Light weight, reliable, come in all sizes. Every commercial jet has a tiny one in the back, the APU. From there you can go up to hunderds of MW.
Large water tanks at high elevation was a good suggestion I saw for keeping a supply of spare cooling water.

John Luft
March 21, 2011 10:10 am

So consider this……virtually every commercial passenger airplane crash in the last 60 years has resulted in far more deaths than even among the front line emergency workers at Chernobyl….yet aircraft continue to be built and aircraft accidents continue to be investigated and improvements made. If the same “logic” employed by the anti-nuclear crowd were applied to the aircraft industry, we would be earth-bound forever.

Ian W
March 21, 2011 10:13 am

Would it not be possible to call a teleconference of the various news organizations’ anchors including Reuters and AP. Set it up as a public webinar perhaps and provide them Nuclear Physics 101 to show how “it exposes the unfounded interpretations of scientific illiterates in the media.”. I feel being publicly shown to be totally illiterate on the news that they are misleadingly reporting might be a salutary lesson that may improve reporting in the future.
If they can be so ignorant and misleading on issues that can be easily validated – how much more misleading are they on issues that we have to trust them on?

Ryan
March 21, 2011 10:15 am

By the way I see that some have claimed here that the tsunami wave was 10m high. From what I have seen of TV footage the wave was about as long as a car i.e. about 5m. That’s high enough to reach the roof of a bungalow. See the footage here and watch for the car and van as they get pushed over the sea wall:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12786619

Jon
March 21, 2011 10:16 am

REPLY: yeah, sure, whatever. TMI was a failure of humans and technology, Fukishima was a result of an act of nature, big diff. – Anthony
Sticking a nuclear power plant in such a seismically active area is definitely a failure of humans!
REPLY: Yeah, sure, on the moon then right? That’s really the goal here, to get nuclear power off the planet. For that matter, power of all kinds except unreliable wind/sun – Anthony

March 21, 2011 10:17 am

James Sexton says:
March 21, 2011 at 9:41 am
Still, I would draw a distinction between the law of gravity and the theory of evolution. Something about being demonstrable from start to finish, but I digress.
Theory of gravity or law of evolution? When Newton formulated the theory of gravity it was not demonstrable ‘from start to finish’. No mechanism was put forward. Many of his contemporaries questioned this ‘action at a distance’. The theory held because of its explanatory powers. Same thing for the theory of evolution. Modern physics does not make sense without the theory of gravitation [incl. Einsteins refinement] as modern biology does not make sense with the theory of evolution. Both theories are shorthands for an overwhelming body of facts. Rather than this being a question about religion, it is a question of what constitutes a ‘theory’. Creationism lacks the explanatory power of evolution, because the nature and rules for the ‘non-randomness’ are left unexplained and unspecified. As simple as that.

March 21, 2011 10:21 am

Remarkable!:
I am a physicist. My wish is to live in a world that is willing to learn and to improve whatever is good. I would only like to live in a world where great strides in physics are viewed with fascination, pride, and hope because they show us the way to a better future. I would only like to live in a world that has the courage for a better world. Any other world for me is unacceptable. Never. That’s why I am going to fight for this world, without ever relenting.
…Not the world of fools, believing in the Gaia “cargo cult” and its malthusian accolites.
This is the choice: Back to pre-history, following the self-designated shamans of the human tribe, (just about to gather at Manaus, Brazil, in the middle of the Amazonian jungle), or way ahead to the future, to a healthy and ever struggling for progress rational humanity.

Jeff B.
March 21, 2011 10:31 am

Good luck with that. Leftists I know are ruled by emotion. They respond to empty rhetoric like “hope and change” instead of action. They are uninformed, prone to groupthink due to their collectivist ideologies, and easily lead by the media. They just feel that nuclear power is dangerous, no matter the facts.

James Sexton
March 21, 2011 10:35 am

Mikael Cronholm says:
March 21, 2011 at 10:00 am
James Sexton. You are right. He did mention creationism. He dismissed it in a paragraph titled “Dark times in history”. That does not look like an invite. Religious discussions are quite tedious to wade through in a scientific context. So I agree. I don’t think it has any business here.
====================================
First, see my response to Leif.
In my view, statements such as Dr. Heller’s should always be challenged. It is that it wasn’t for so long that people get disconcerted when the subject is broached now. For the record, from time to time, these conversations occur WUWT. And, for the record, I haven’t discussed religion. But given some peoples’ view of evolution, I suppose we could call it a religion. I don’t apologize for viewing the evolution theory as wanting in regards to the original question. And, when having these views describe as “ignorant” or an example of “cowardice”, I will always respond.
I can’t help but wonder what Newton would think of all of this.
James

P.Laini
March 21, 2011 10:38 am

Hi, Smoking Frog (March 21, 2011 at 3:03 am )
Let’s easy your job… As I sad, just as an introduction to those topics, and not only about Galileo, I indicated the author Tom Woods, a very well Known and respected one, and not the other two authors. In his site you can find his bibliography. Look for “How the Catholic Church built Western civilization“, http://bit.ly/brQ0Wd. Here you can read parts of it: http://bit.ly/eH5cOP, and in youtube you can find some videos with the same title of the book.
Not by chance, in this book you will find some references to Stanley Jaki, very well indicated by Ronald Van Wegen (March 20, 2011 at 9:37 pm).
Regards
P.S.:
For those who may interest, some other books are great sources to correct some preconceptions about the Church and science, and to show how disinformation spreads:
John W. O’Malley, org., The Jesuits: Cultures, Sciences, and The Arts, 1540-1773, 2 vols., University of Toronto Press
Mordecai Feingold, org., Jesuit Science and the Republic of Letters, MIT Press
Elizabeth Noëlle-Neumann, The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion, Our Social Skin (The University of Chicago Press)

Jerry
March 21, 2011 10:41 am

Sorry, Leif, that’s a fine distinction and really isn’t worthy of comment other than, when drivel such as this is put forward, what is entirely ignorant, is the expectation that someone wouldn’t respond. So, it was indeed put forth by Dr. Heller.
____________________________________________________
Are you really arguing that religious dogma didn’t prevent scientific inquiry in the middle ages? It would appear that Dr. Heller’s comments were specific to the point that certain things were beyond questioning.

Theo Goodwin
March 21, 2011 10:41 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
March 21, 2011 at 8:50 am
“You also have a wrong appreciation of what a scientific ‘theory’ is. A theory is but a shorthand for a large body of facts.”
One purpose of hypotheses is to specify the observations that are possible. The number of observable data is infinite. The hypotheses specify them by implying them. Hypotheses give us an intuitive and manageable way of specifying the infinity of observable facts.
Another purpose of hypotheses is to explain the observable facts. When some set of initial conditions are combined with some set of hypotheses deductions can be made of facts that can be found to exist in the future. The hypotheses describe the natural regularities which have the predicted observable facts as instances. Hypotheses explain the predicted facts by showing that they are instances of natural regularities. Both predicted observable facts and natural regularities are facts, though natural regularities are on probation as long as the hypotheses that describe them are actually used for prediction.
And, from above, another purpose of hypotheses is prediction. Hypotheses are necessary to make the deductions from existing observable facts that we call predictions.
Something is called a theory because it is a collection of hypotheses that has proved especially useful, because it has attained some renown over some period of time, or for similar reasons. You can also call such a set of hypotheses “facts” as long as you keep in mind that you are talking about general statements that might yet prove to yield a false prediction.

March 21, 2011 11:04 am

Theo Goodwin says:
March 21, 2011 at 10:41 am
Something is called a theory because it is a collection of hypotheses that has proved especially useful, because it has attained some renown over some period of time, or for similar reasons. You can also call such a set of hypotheses “facts” as long as you keep in mind that you are talking about general statements that might yet prove to yield a false prediction.
The distinction is not that ‘it has attained some renown’, but that the theory is a useful shorthand [a way of describing very many things with very few statements] for a large body of facts as the facts are know at this time. Should enough new facts be discovered, the theory would be abandoned and possibly replaced by a better theory. The notion that a theory has been ‘proven’ is nonsense. Creationism [in the weak form discussed here – i.e. no creation in 6 days, no young earth, and all the rest] could be a elevated to a theory if the non-randomness [that some people latch on to] could be formalized: who or what determines when a non-random event should happen and under which circumstances. No such explanation that is amenable to testing for its predictive capability is known to my knowledge. Many other pseudo-scientific notions, e.g. astrological planetary influences, electric universe, NAP, etc, suffer from the same problem.

James Sexton
March 21, 2011 11:08 am

Jerry says:
March 21, 2011 at 10:41 am
Sorry, Leif, that’s a fine distinction and really isn’t worthy of comment other than, when drivel such as this is put forward, what is entirely ignorant, is the expectation that someone wouldn’t respond. So, it was indeed put forth by Dr. Heller.
____________________________________________________
“Are you really arguing that religious dogma didn’t prevent scientific inquiry in the middle ages?” —– No, that isn’t what I’m arguing. I would have thought that clear by my several posts.
” It would appear that Dr. Heller’s comments were specific to the point that certain things were beyond questioning.”
Yes, it certainly appears that way. But, is it “were” or “are”? <————- This is exactly my point and how it is relevant to both the submission of Dr. Heller and the general climate discussion.
Dr. Heller bemoans the fact that some things weren't allowed to be questioned. All at the same time inferring there are things he doesn't believe should be questioned. He attached words like "ignorance" and "cowardice" to such a thought. Today, we hear the same arguments from climate alarmists.

March 21, 2011 11:21 am

James Sexton says:
March 21, 2011 at 11:08 am
Dr. Heller bemoans the fact that some things weren’t allowed to be questioned.
Is your version of Creationism allowed to be questioned? I.e. are 90% of the mutations random and only some of the rest ‘guided’? does evolution work 99% of the time and only at some rare crucial time [Adam and Eve, perhaps] is a ‘higher’ guidance at work? As I understand it Creationism is an all or nothing proposition and if you are a believer cannot be subject to doubt. Perhaps I’m wrong on this. You tell me.

Mike Restin
March 21, 2011 11:22 am

“Bob Barker says:
March 20, 2011 at 12:24 pm
It amazes me that so many people, who think that it is impossible for human kind to effectively manage nuclear power development and production, have no trouble believing that effective worldwide CO2 mitigation is just a matter of will with only minor technical and economic challanges and inconveniences along the way.”
I could not agree more.
Boggles the mind.
Way OT: I need an app for an android to replace google earth.
Know of any?

1 8 9 10 11 12 16