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/
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 22, 2011 at 7:51 am
James Sexton says:
March 22, 2011 at 6:56 am
In my view, many people who espouse the view of Darwinism, haven’t intellectually nor scientifically come to this view,(indeed, much of the theory, like CAGW, is unfalsifiable) instead they’ve reached it through believing first, that there must not be a creator.
============================================
Evolution is eminently falsifiable [finding a human skeleton in Triassic sediments would do it], but what you are claiming should be applicable to Creationism as well, namely the belief that the must be a creator and that Creationism then follows. Could you have Creationism without a Creator? I think not. Can you have Evolution [and don’t call it Darwinism, because it is not] with a Creator? Absolutely, yes.
============================================
Your distinction is noted, and I agree.
You wrote, “Your comment doesn’t really deserve a response, but it occurred to me that you and a few others might actually be gullible enough to believe this nonsense.” Comments like that give the impression you are only interested in finding an excuse no matter how farfetched to ignore the radiation observations, blame someone else for imagined fantasies, and act in a fit of irrational hysteria. According to one of the Japanese newspapers, the City of Fukushima experienced 20.18 microsieverts at 6 p.m. on March 15th. Even if we incorrectly assumed the rate remained this high, the daily exposure would remain less than 250 microsieverts. To place this 250 microsieverts into context, you exposed yourself to something in the neighborhood of 900 microsieverts of additional radiation from space when you flew to Japan from the United States.
Also, you can compensate for the increased daily exposure from the Fukushima nuclear power plant by no longer sleeping with your wife for a week or so. Sleeping in the same bed with your wife can expose you to an additional 55 microsieverts of radiation for each 8 hours in bed with her. Each four days of not sleeping with your wife can compensate for one day more or less of exposure to the radiation levels being reported in Fukushima. Additional savings in your radiatoin budget can be achieved by avoiding CRT monitors, CRT televisions, LCD monitors, computers, smoke alarm detectors, cigarettes and passive smoke inhalation, and most foods. Above all, don’t even think about taking any long distance flights which will expose you to 900 microsieverts per flight.
This is precisely what the U.S. Navy announced:
Notice the part where the U.S. Navy said: “For perspective, the maximum potential radiation dose received by any ship’s force personnel aboard the ship when it passed through the area was less than the radiation exposure received from about one month of exposure to natural background radiation from sources such as rocks, soil, and the sun.” The standard background radiation for Americans is something on the order of 8.16 microsieverts per day times 30 to 31 days is about 244 to 252 microsieverts per month. So, the answer is the U.S. Navy repositioned the 7th Fleet units to avoid a radioactive plume from the Fukushima nuclear poweer plant that was exposing the personnel to radioactivity less than flying 24 hours per day and no more than the cigrattes they smoke each day or the food they may be eating each day. The U.S. Navy has traditionally survived on peanut butter, and peanut butter exposes the crew to comparable amounts of radiation.
Although the U.S. Navy has many other reasons for moving out of a relatively inconsequential source of radiation, such as calibrations of instrumentation, the main reason is simply to avoid political damage inflicted by irrational people who will accuse the U.S. Navy command of unnecessarily exposing their sons and daughters to the radiation and perhaps making specious lawsuits later.
James Sexton says:
March 22, 2011 at 9:41 am
For example, “If the mutation gives a calf on the steppe fins rather than legs, the calf dies.” And my response is yeh, ’cause we see that all the time. Sorry, it begs for sarcasm.
No sarcasm needed. Atrocious mutations do happen [we can make them artificially] e.g. in fruit files where legs grow where antennae or eyes should be.
it boils down to being “randomly selective”.
This is the main problem you have. Perhaps I don’t know what you mean, but the selection is not random at all. It is very much directed very prosaically by survival chances. Nature ruthlessly weeds out what does not work at the level of an individual’s life. Nothing random here.
I suspect that Mr. Sexton means is that the selective forces of nature are unplanned, not directed by anything or anyone, hence ‘random’. I could be wrong, but for some the absence of a ‘guiding hand’ is intolerable.
/Mr Lynn
Smoking Frog says:
March 22, 2011 at 7:08 am
“It is not nonsense to say that a claim of fact about the real world has been proven, so that’s not the trouble.”
Your own words go against you here. You agree that any theory can be falsified by new observations. So what is the point of saying a theory is proven? You would have to say that it proven until future observations falsify it.
“The trouble is that, arguably, a theory is not a claim of fact.”
If it is not a claim of fact then it has no consequences for observation. Therefore, it is not about the world and not an empirical theory. If not empirical then not scientific.
Mr Lynn says:
March 22, 2011 at 8:59 am
“We may even be growing our houses, instead of building them!”
Well, yes, but then the Left will claim that our houses have rights that can be enforced against us.
Mr Lynn says:
March 22, 2011 at 7:07 am
“I too was surprised that the moderator(s) allowed the topic in, since it is usually off-limits on this board, but it was brought up, if tangentially, in the lead essay by Dr. Heller. In general, I agree with proscribing the topic here, as it comes down to science versus religion, and that is a swamp best avoided.”
That is a position that you can explicate for us and defend. Why don’t you do it? Instead, you are presuming to use the word ‘proscribe’ with regard to the topic of science versus religion. Sorry, but you are attempting to do the same thing that the Left is so good at, namely, ruling a debate out of bounds. No one demands that y0u enter the debate. What business is it of yours what the discussion turns to? If you believe that it is your business then please as Anthony for the privilege of an appointment as hall moderator.
By the way, if you would actually read Heller’s essay, you would discover that the topic is not Fukushima but the insane behavior of the MSM in using the Fukushima event to further their program of trashing nuclear energy. A lot of people read the title and jumped into a general discussion of nuclear energy. Fine. Let them have it. But why can they not extend the same courtesy to those of us who are actually interested in discussing the Leftist/MSM tactic of producing propaganda under the name of news reporting? In case you do not understand, let me emphasize that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Creationism came up as examples. Darwin is an example of forced political correctness because our high schools mistakenly teach it as the truth and Creationism as an example of a topic whose discussion is simply forbidden. People must learn that free speech can mean only free speech and not something less than free speech.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 22, 2011 at 10:58 am
James Sexton says:
March 22, 2011 at 9:41 am
For example, “If the mutation gives a calf on the steppe fins rather than legs, the calf dies.” And my response is yeh, ’cause we see that all the time. Sorry, it begs for sarcasm.
No sarcasm needed. Atrocious mutations do happen [we can make them artificially] e.g. in fruit files where legs grow where antennae or eyes should be.
it boils down to being “randomly selective”.
This is the main problem you have. Perhaps I don’t know what you mean, but the selection is not random at all. It is very much directed very prosaically by survival chances. Nature ruthlessly weeds out what does not work at the level of an individual’s life. Nothing random here.
===========================================
Leif, given your great command of the English language, it is easy to forget that you may not pick up on some of the nuances and subtleties that I place in many of my posts. Without going into much detail to beleaguer the point, I understand your general characterization of evolution. What I often do, in a manner similar to applying “Occam’s razor”, is to strip words out of a dialogue to get to a base meaning. In this particular case, I’m left with “random” and “selective”. These are the two characteristics described by evolution. Random genetic mutations, and selective survival. Hence, randomly selective as an explanation for our existence.
I use the same reasoning, at times, during discussions on our climate. For instance, the words used to describe the reason for this and last winters severity were characterized as a “Warm Arctic Cold Continents” dynamic. I reduce the words, and am left with warmcold. (Oddly, to my knowledge this isn’t how the first use of the invented word came to be, but close.) In my view, this would be a grammatical congruency to working out a mathematical equation. For instance, if I stated 6*2/3 = (1+1)*3. I would reduce it to its simplest form and see if this would be correct….. 4=6. So, the equation is rejected. Warm doesn’t equal cold, so the explanation is rejected. Random and selective seem similar to these concepts. (I find much is lost when using this lengthy explanation.) Here is why I reject the description of evolution.
There are [naturally] occurring random genetic mutations. And then nature causes the selection. As you stated earlier, “Nature ruthlessly weeds out what does not work at the level of an individual’s life. Nothing random here.” And, I completely agree, there is nothing random about Nature. (“God does not play dice.”) But if our two statements are correct, how then can the first sentence of this paragraph be correct?
Leif, I’d like to thank you for your time discussing such matters. It is appreciated. In the interest of fairness, I’ll give you the last word.
James
I suggest to anyone wanting to get a deep insight into the “nuts and bolts” of how natural selection and genetic drift work – and the evidence for them which pervades the natural kingdom, please read the excellent and deeply thought-provoking book “The Ancestor’s Tale” by Richard Dawkins.
Proided you can look past his anti-religious prejudice (which keeps a low profile in this book) and stay with his rather indulgent digressions and streams of consciousness, the book gives a unified, deep and rich picture of the emergence, diversification and adaptation of life, in which rules only exist to be broken.
You dont need to be a specialist of any sort to enjoy and be educated by this greaat book.
Mr Lynn says:
March 22, 2011 at 11:58 am
I suspect that Mr. Sexton means is that the selective forces of nature are unplanned, not directed by anything or anyone, hence ‘random’. I could be wrong, but for some the absence of a ‘guiding hand’ is intolerable.
========================================
I’m stating that both don’t logically hold to being true at the same time. See my explanation of the thought in my response to Leif.
No, not intolerable. Unimaginable.
Mr. Lynn, I would like to thank you, also, for your time in this discussion.
Myrrh says:
March 21, 2011 at 7:42 pm
phlogiston says:
March 21, 2011 at 1:34
From which: “In a paper published by the Chernobyl Ministry in the Ukraine, a multiplication of the cases of disease was registered – of the endocrine system (25 times higher from 1987 to 1992), the nervous system (6 times higher), the circulation system (44 times higher), the digestive organs (60 times higher), the cutaineous and subcutaneous tissue (50 times higher), the muscolo-skeletal system and psychological dysfunctions (53 times higher). Among those evaluated, the number of healthy people sank from 1987 to 1996 from 59% to 18%. Among inhabitants of the contaminated areas from 52% to 21% and among children of affected parent from 81% to 30%. It has been reported for several years that type 1 diabetes (insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus) has risen sharply amongst children and youth.”
There is no possibility, scientifically, for a single one of these claims to be true. Where is the scientific evidence for them? Where is the detailed dosimetry, internal and external? Where are the unirradiated controls matched for socio-economic status? No-where. Your sole evidence is that “The Chernobyl Ministry of Ukraine” said so, and trust me – that is not scientific evidence of any kind.
Why was I in Chernobyl, Kiev, Minsk, Bryansk, Slavutich (the replacement town for Pripyat next to the reactor)? Why was there an influx of foreign journalists, scientists, clinicians etc? Why did organisation of holidays for groups of children supposedly from impoverished and disastrously irradiated villages (but in reality mostly children of priviledged urban party officials) become an international industry which continues today? (I met my wife, a teacher from Minsk, in the course of one such holiday in the west of England.) The accident was a huge bonanza of fundraising for the new and bankrupt nation of Ukraine, and like any charity, hyping up the catastrophe of Chernobyl was an essential and very successful fundraising activity.
Combined with this was a very real paranoia-hysteria, where people attributed any and every health problem from fatigue to impotence to ionising radiation. The Chernobyl ministry was able to build on these fears, which was and is very easy in our post-modern society where evidence-based science is a dirty word and superstition and pure fiction on radiation related issues pour forth unfiltered from journalists day and night all over the world.
Back to Chernobyl, the radiation and the science. There are two types of radiation health effect (leaving aside for now genetic effects and mutagenesis) – stochastic and deterministic. Low doses cause a statistical risk of cancer in the future, but no immediate noticeable effects – these are stochastic effects. There is long delay or induction period between irradiation and subsequent appearence of the cancer from a minimum of 5 years for leukemias to up to 25 years for solid cancers.
Deterministic effects are clinically evident effects appearing within days or weeks of the irradiation – these include the three classic radiation “syndromes”, haemopoietic, gastrointestinal and central nervous system (CNS). One Gray of irradiation (absorbed joule per kg of ionising energy) will give you haemopoietic, 10 Gy and you get gastrointestinal, 100 Gy and you die quickly (and mercifully) from the CNS synrdome – your brain is fried. The scientific literature on deterministic effects is very consistent in showing thresholds of several Grays for the appearence of these syndromes which result from sufficient radiation damage to affect the functioning of tissues. It is dividing cell populations that are most radio-sensitive, thus the first syndrome is haemo where the dividing marrow cells are affected, then the proliferating gut lining cells being killed causes the gastro sysndrome and so on.
A handful of Chernobyl workers and firemen died of the CNS syndrome. A few dozen died from haemopoietic and gastrointestinal syndomes. Including also the most highly exposed workers remediating the site such as the heroic minute-men “liquidators” who ran onto the reactor roof for one minute, eyeballing the exposed reactor face-to-face and each to throwing down a few fragments of contaminated reactor core graphite – perhaps 100- or so died of acute radiation effects. These were people whe received more than a Gray or so of radiation.
Looking out to the wider population in regions contaminated by fallout, the radiation doses fell very sharply. Even in heavily contaminated areas, maximum doses were at worst generally in the tens of milliGrays. The vast majority were in the single digit milliGray or the health-irrelevant micro-Gray level. One exception was children exposed to radioactive iodine and contracting thyroid cancer. There were several hundred cases in the 3-4 years following the accident in the affected regions, up from a baseline level of a handful per year – these cancers were uniquivocally induced by Chernobyl radiation. One of the volatile radionuclides from a breached reactor is iodine in two isotopes, I-131 (8 day halflife) and I-133 (20 hour halflife). These isotopes of iodine exposed populations to doses up to a Gy to the thyroid, since iodine is concentrated in the thyroid (a gland in your neck) where it is used to synthesise the growth regulating hormone thyroxine. Thus the distribution of iodine tablets to “dilute” intake of radio-iodine with stable iodine and keep it out of the thyroid competitively.
However, disappointingly for the catastrophists, very few of these children died. With the great upsurge in medical surveillance and care of people in the region following Chernobyl, and great inputs from clinicians in the USA and elsewhere, the thyroid cancers, which are a highly treateable cancer when caught in time, were successfully treated in the majority of these children – I think only a small handful died. It should be made clear that these cancers were not low dose stochastic cancers – they apeared too quickly for that. They were caused by high – Gy level – doses and resultant actual tissue damage and irritation.
These child thyroid cancers are the ONLY cancer population that can unequivocally be linked to Chernobyl.
There was NO excess statistically of leukemias following Chernobyl in the contaminated regions (and therefore none anywhere). None. Nada. Zilch. A very particular type and spatial distribution of ionising radiation tracks across haemopoietic marrow cavities is required for leukemia induction (Sr-90 is ideal for leukemogenesis, but not I or Cs or even Pu, Am and other actinides although Am241 has some efficacy due to its secondary 60 kV de-excitation x-ray). This is interesting -leukemia is the type of cancer people usually associate with and expect from radiation exposures; there were none from Chernobyl. (But the Japan bomb survivors got them – they got the right type of radiation.)
In summary: the relation between radiation doses received (from human and animal studies where those doses are well known) is abundantly sufficient for it to be clear that these claims of the type of tissue level diseases requiring several Grays of radiation, to be suffered by many tens of thousands in the wider Ukrainian population due to Chernobyl, are utterly impossible. The radiation doses are nowhere near enough. Also – many of the diseases listed by Myrrh (nice blog name but not yet one of the wise men) have no experimental or evidential basis for being radiation induced. Going back to discussion of the classic 3 radiation syndromes, typically these result from killing of dividing cell populations (excepy CNS which just fries your brain). For instance:
“the endocrine system” – only the few hundred children with thyroid cancer qualify fot this – they mostly survived
“the nervous system” – no, CNS syndrome requiring tens to hundreds of Gy afffected a small handful of Chernobyl workers only
“the circulation system” – requires doses above 1 Gy, received by a few dozen liquidators and firemen
“the digestive organs” – gastrointestinal syndrome was suffered by a dozen or so workers and firemen
“the cutaineous and subcutaneous tissue” – what does this mean?? literally it means the whole body? Skin is partly dead and very radiation insensitive except for burns with a few Gy. Fat has very low radiosensitivity.
“the muscolo-skeletal system” – not very radiosensitive except bone marrow – that is the haemopoietic syndrome;
“psychological dysfunctions” – not connected with radiation exposure. CNS syndrome kills you (fries your brain) and does not otherwise change your behaviour.
Two things – the sharp economic decline in Ukraine following the Soviet Union breakup shortly after Chernobyl, with declining living standards for many, combined with however an increase in surveillance for cancers and other supposed health effects of radiation – and psycological expectation of such effects, together explained the increases in conditions described by the Ukraine Chernobyl ministry and quoted by Myrrh.
Thankyou – you made my day.
D. Patterson says:
Although the U.S. Navy has many other reasons for moving out of a relatively inconsequential source of radiation
The main problem is that Nuclear Aircraft carriers are loaded with radiation detectors.
If they become contaminated with a small amount of radiation from an external source then they have problems detecting their own.
If you look at the Japanese nuclear radiation reporting, the Fukushima Daini(It’s been in plant is reporting ‘above normal radiation’ levels even though it isn’t leaking. But how can they be certain it’s not them? They can’t. So every 3 hours they take radiation readings at the site, report them as required by law and reinspect the entire site for possible radiation leaks even though everything at the site is at cold shutdown.
If a nuclear power aircraft carrier receives has ‘higher then normal’ radiation readings then someone has to run around and verify that the readings are not originating from the ships nuclear reactor.
James Sexton says:
March 22, 2011 at 1:19 pm
These are the two characteristics described by evolution. Random genetic mutations, and selective survival. Hence, randomly selective as an explanation for our existence.
That is not a nuance, but a misstatement. ‘Randomly’ is an adverb that goes on ‘selective’, but it is connected to the wrong word. The selection is not random. Then correct ‘short’ form would be ‘random, selection’ as the two parts are equal and disconnected.
There are [naturally] occurring random genetic mutations. And then nature causes the selection. As you stated earlier, “Nature ruthlessly weeds out what does not work at the level of an individual’s life. Nothing random here.” And, I completely agree, there is nothing random about Nature. (“God does not play dice.”)
Natural selection is not random, but extremely directed by the necessities of life. But you make too big a leap. Nature at the bottom is completely random. God does play dice and he throws them where we cannot see them.
phlogiston says:
March 22, 2011 at 2:02 pm
please read the excellent and deeply thought-provoking book “The Ancestor’s Tale” by Richard Dawkins. […] You dont need to be a specialist of any sort to enjoy and be educated by this greaat book.
I completely agree.
James Sexton says:
March 22, 2011 at 2:13 pm
I’m stating that both don’t logically hold to being true at the same time.
Of course they can as they have nothing to do with each other. The random process that causes a mutation [cosmic ray, what have you] does not ‘know’ anything about what happens next. And the natural selection that kills a maladapted being does not ‘care’ about how the maladaptation arose.
No, not intolerable. Unimaginable.
Thus unfalsifiable.
Roger Sowell says:
March 21, 2011 at 11:25 pm
“Low cost nuclear plants”
Here is the Columbia Generating Stations Annual Budget. Cost is 3.4 cents/KWh .
http://www.energy-northwest.com/who/documents/2010Budget/Final%202010%20Columbia%20Generating%20Station.pdf
South Carolina is 52% nuclear, and it’s electricity rates are below the national average.
@harrywr2: re low costs 3.4 cents — you have just reported on the variable costs. As before, please take a business plan for constructing a new generation nuclear power plant in the USA, to any lender you choose (make sure they have at least $10 billion) and tell them you will sell the power it produces for 3.4 cents per kWh. Good luck in obtaining financing.
A nuclear power plant must make enough money through sales of its electricity to not only pay for the variable costs (fuel, labor, maintenance, water, treatment chemicals, and a few others) but must also pay off the bonds and interest on any equity securities issued to construct the plant. The utility bonds will have an annual coupon payment plus a payment into a fund that will increase over time to pay off the principle when it becomes due.
As a simple illustration using round numbers, perhaps a single-reactor 1000 MW nuclear plant can be built for a total cost of $10 billion, including interest on construction loans. If the entire capital cost is then converted to 30 year bonds at 10 percent interest, the nuclear power plant must pay the bondholders 10 percent of $10 billion, each year, or a bond interest payment of $1 billion per year. Also, the power plant must pay money into a fund to pay off the principal in 30 years, which will require $1 billion per year, invested at 10 percent interest (and paying 20 percent taxes on the interest earned) for 30 years. With just these three components of financing a nuclear power plant, variable costs, bond interest, and bond principal, the power price charged to the customers must be 28.7 cents per kWh. The interest on the bonds equates to 12.7 cents per kWh, and the payment to the bond fund is also 12.7 cents per kWh, plus this example uses your number of 3.4 cents per kWh for variable costs. There are of course many other costs in operating a nuclear power plant, including property taxes, license fees, income taxes, and others.
In short, there is absolutely no way that a new nuclear power plant built in the USA can sell power profitably for 3.4 cents per kWh. As I have stated before, the number is more like 30 to 35 cents per kWh.
I’m afraid you got the example backwards. Dr. Heller says,
However, I do agree with you and Dr. Heller that the MSM’s hysterical treatment of the radiation hazard in Japan was reprehensible. And I’m all for freedom of speech, press, and scholarly inquiry. I do not object, however, to Anthony’s previous ban of religious discussion on his blog, much as I enjoy such discussions. It’s his blog, and I think I understand the reasons for it. There are plenty of other sites where one can dispute the merits of evolutionary theory versus Creationism.
/Mr Lynn
In other words, they won’t if you can say and do anything about it…..
Since there are no fossils that show ‘evolution’ connecting order lines Darwin’s idea are wrong. Darwin’s hypothesis is slower dying than the global warming hypothesis.
Most arguments over evolution/creation are poor on both sides.
Just for fun,
it’s eye opening how Richard Dawkins is a house of cards. It takes little for Ben Stein to shake him up:
If Dawkins is liberated because he has left the idea of God out of his mind then why is he so unsettled about things?
The cost figures reported in Europe are much lower. In Olkiluoto’s new site in Finland the construction costs are 3.3 billion euros and estimated cost per MWh is estimated to be 25 euros. http://www.olkiluoto.info/en/13/3/74/
So selling electricity at 3.2 dollar cents per kWh could be profitable.
phlogiston says:
March 22, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Your sole evidence is that “The Chernobyl Ministry of Ukraine” said so, and trust me – that is not scientific evidence of any kind.
You are doing the same, asking people to trust you, literally to trust you, because you say so.
phlogiston
I haven’t read through the entire work because I’ve just heard about it today. But it isn’t written by The Chernobyl Ministry of Ukraine. This is what it says in the intro:
“Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment,” Volume 1181 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, published online in November 2009, was authored by Alexey V. Yablokov, of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alexey V. Nesterenko, of the Institute of Radiation Safety (Belarus), and the late Prof. Vassily B. Nesterenko, former director of the Belarussian Nuclear Center. With a foreword by the Chairman of the Ukranian National Commission on Radiation Protection, Dimitro M. Grodzinsky, the 327-page volume is an English translation of a 2007 publication by the same authors. The earlier volume, “Chernobyl,” published in Russian, presented an analysis of the scientific literature, including more than 1,000 titles and more than 5,000 printed and Internet publications mainly in Slavic languages, on the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster.
It looks pretty extensive. But I have to read it to see for myself what will these papers say. About 4 years ago I wanted to know what global warming was for myself. It took me a little time. But now I have a clear picture of it. I’m going to take some time to learn for myself about Chernobyl. This work is a good place to start.
JimF says:
March 21, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
March 21, 2011 at 6:51 am
“…So you think a 9.5 earthquake couldn’t happen with a 80 foot tsunami? Has an 80+ foot tsunami ever happened before? Cause I’m just wondering
I already knew there had been tsunamis higher than 80 feet. I wanted to know if JimF knew. When I know the answer to a question I ask I say “cause I’m just wondering” after I ask.
opps
typo
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/20/a-plea-for-a-return-to-science-on-the-nuclear-power-issue/#comment-626868
I wanted to know if Douglas knew
Leif and James Sexton,
Herr Heller started this dialog of science versus creationism by referring to it in the lead post, but this will end my comments on it.
Scientifically, having a universe that has no beginning does not present a problem, we see a lack of evidence of any initial non-existence of the universe and have evidence of it having an immense history.
The scientific problem starts to occur when someone posits (on some basis) that there is a creator of the universe; as if the universe needs a source to give it meaning to humans. Positing a creator just begets the turtles-all-the-way-down infinite regression argument. Who created the creator? If someone argues that nobody created the creator and he always existed, then what is the problem in just accepting that the universe does not have a creator to begin with? If someone argues that somebody did create the creator, then did someone create the creator’s creator or not? That leads to a non-sensical infinite regression of premises (turtles).
That also applies to the analysis of the idea of man’s origin; if the creator of the universe argument does not hold logically/scientifically then man’s origin by a creator also does not hold. Evolution of life as a science, as long as it is supported by observation and maintains theories with attributes that are falsifiability, does not have
premise issues as far as I can see.
With the above said, although I am not a Christian or religious (aka supernaturalistic), I have respect for the long term vision of Paul of Tarsus (Christian Apostle Paul). He was a remarkable far thinking individual. He foresaw very clearly the problem of trying to rationalize the Christian view and just pre-emptively advocated that the essence of being Christian is solely an act of faith in its truth, period. He held that Christianity did not need sustaining by reference to historical/logical/scientific terms. I would attribute Christianity’s long term survival, in large part, to him. To the extent it has kept away from directly confronting science, it has survived.
John