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
Les Johnson
March 24, 2011 1:19 am

The Fukishima nuclear plant in Japan survived an earthquake 7 times stronger than it was designed for, and a tsunami 3 times higher than the sea wall designed to stop tsunami’s.
Lets go to an alternate universe for a bit:
In today’s news, a 747 with 400 passengers attempted a landing at 1400 km per hour. It survived the landing, but ended up in 14 meters of water.
All passengers and crew survived. A small amount of jet fuel was released to the environment.
The jet is expected to fly again, but two of the engines will need to be replaced.
When interviewed on the way to an UN sponsored anti-airplane meeting in Bali, Bill McKibben and members of Greenpeace were horrified by this incident.
Said McKibben, of the “0 ft.org” activist group: “This just shows why man is not meant to fly!”. He then burst into tears, before boarding his plane, along with Greenpeace members. The sounds of “Kumbaya” were heard coming from the plane, as the doors closed.

Brian H
March 24, 2011 2:42 am

Les — you misquoted the news report;

Les Johnson says:
March 24, 2011 at 1:19 am

He then burst into tears, before boarding his plane, along with Greenpeace members. The sounds strained strains of “Kumbaya” were heard coming from the plane, as the doors closed.

Corrected it for you.
😉

Smoking Frog
March 24, 2011 5:36 am

Theo Goodwin says
Smoking Frog says: “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.

By that argument, no one should ever say that anything has been proved, except in mathematics and formal logic. To say that something has been proved is not to say that it could never be disproved.
“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.

I meant that a theory is an explanation of facts. I think a theory states a general fact that is supposed to imply other facts (both observed and unobserved), but a fact does not imply anything, so a theory is more than just a statement of a general fact. Still, I admit, I wasn’t really prepared for the idea that a theory is a claim of fact.

Leif Svalgaard
March 24, 2011 6:16 am

Smoking Frog says:
March 23, 2011 at 10:55 pm
A theory is not shorthand in the sense of a mere symbol for the body of facts
This is where we differ. I think that a theory is just and precisely that. And with that sense, proof doesn’t come into the picture.

Myrrh
March 24, 2011 11:06 am

Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
March 23, 2011, 9:53
Myrrh Are you involved in Greenpeace or any other environmentalist group?
No. I did once vote for a local Green candidate…. Then I discovered AGW arguments.
I garden, does that count?

TheJollyGreenMan
March 24, 2011 3:00 pm

On 20 March, 2011 at 4:42pm DP gave all and sundry his benefit of years of experience and own unique insight into problems of reactor cooling engineering and thrashing my suggestion of a passive emergency water system in the process.
In the article ‘Building a Better Nuclear Reactor’ published on Bloomberg.com today the passive cooling system of the new generation Westinghouse AP1000 is explained, in addition to a neat description of passive systems using round manhole covers as an example.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_14/b4222070137297.htm
On Elsvier.nl the science correspondent, Simon Rozendaal mentions the fact that the Dutch nuclear power station of Dodewaard had a passive cooling system well ahead of other designs.
http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Opinie/Simon-Rozendaal/292623/Nucleaire-overpeinzing-II-het-gevaar-van-vliegen.htm
IMHO, passive cooling systems offer a better solution than watching the obligatory heroic helicopter pilots hovering over a smoking nuclear facility dropping what appears from a distance to be a meagre haversack of water, a scenario I’ve seen twice in my life time.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
March 24, 2011 8:34 pm

Myrrh says:
March 24, 2011 at 11:06 am
I garden, does that count?
lol!

March 24, 2011 10:32 pm

I’m a gardener, too. Do I count? (I love this phrase…hope it catches on!)
Re the AP1000 and its vaunted passive emergency reactor cooling system. It consists of a small water tank above the reactor containment vessel, and a two types of valves to keep the water in the tank until needed in an emergency. Then, a power supply of some sort triggers explosive charges that open some of the valves and release the water. Other valves are opened more conventionally. The water then runs over the reactor containment vessel’s dome and outer walls, supposedly cooling the dome and walls so the radioactive steam inside is condensed and cooled slightly.
There is water only for 72 hours. Then, the upper water tank must be replenished, somehow. Perhaps by helicopters with water buckets?
Good grief. And THIS is supposed to give us all a peaceful, easy, no-worries-mate sort of feeling? “Power supply” equals batteries? Are they going to work? Seventy-two entire hours? That’s 3 days. Japan showed what happened in 3 days… serious overheating continues into week two, and tomorrow we start week three.
Heat transfer from flowing water (not pumped, but flowing…much different and less effective) over a reactor containment vessel’s exterior wall and top dome. Surface area is, umm,,, how much? I would like to see the heat transfer calculations on this. Gently flowing water over a very small surface (a few hundred square feet?) for only 72 hours is supposed to cool that entire reactor’s residual heat load? As an engineer friend pointed out, the thick steel reactor containment vessel will itself absorb some of the heat. That may help a bit, but for how long?

phlogiston
March 26, 2011 8:10 am

Myrrh says:
March 23, 2011 at 5:32 pm
…together with not taking on board this method now includes all governments intent on keeping the nuclear use of such plants going, for war, and the Nuclear Industry vested interests generally, when there is evidence of this given, is puzzling.
The problem at Chernobyl leading to the instability and explosion was fundamentally the use of graphite as moderator. This is unsafe – graphite is in fact the best moderator (slows down neutrons to energies best for fission) but in the even of a loss of coolant, moderation is still present thus the potential for criticality, as indeed happened. By contrast with water as moderator plus coolant, loss of coolant = loss of moderator = no chance of criticality.
However the Soviets chose graphite moderation in the RBMK reactors such as Chernobyl due to the consequent higher plutonium yields which were periodically creamed off for weapon use.

Myrrh
March 26, 2011 6:20 pm

phlogiston says:
March 26, 2011 at 8:10 am
The problem at Chernobyl leading to the instability and explosion was fundamentally the use of graphite as moderator. This is unsafe – graphite is in fact the best moderator (slows down neutrons to energies best for fission) but in the even[t] of a loss of coolant, moderation is still present thus the potential for criticality, as indeed happened. By contrast with water as moderator plus coolant, loss of coolant = loss of moderator = no chance of criticality.
Well, all the detail of the innards of nuclear reactors isn’t something I’ve looked into before the Fukushima explosions, and that I gave up on, time constraints, as the arguments showed that different peeps had different ideas of how it actually worked. However, somewhere I did read that water is coolant, it is never a moderator. The explanation made sense at the time, but I don’t readily recall it…
However the Soviets chose graphite moderation in the RBMK reactors such as Chernobyl due to the consequent higher plutonium yields which were periodically creamed off for weapon use.
As did Britain. Sellafield, a.k.a. Windscale. Have you heard of it?
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/nukes.html
Section: “Nuclear Technology Transfer” and Paragraph beginning: “For example, in the post World-War II years, the United Kingdom expended considerable effort in its nuclear weapons development programme.”
A few paras down for dates, under heading “Nuclear Weapons Testing”
Ongoing campaign to shut Sellafield down: http://www.sellafieldsites.com
Let’s not get silly and dewy eyed about this and start making up stuff up about the past as Peter Heller’s opening post does here – attributing benign reasons, for the good of mankind and clean energy, to Fermi and Teller and the rest.., see my post March 20, 2011 at 7:22 pm. The reason these nuclear plants were built was only to produce nuclear weapons and research in how to kill the greatest number, any electricity for the oiks was a by-product.
Let’s take France which has around 75% of its electricity produced by nuclear plants – http://www.fissilematerials.org/blog/2010/09/france_official_plan_admi.html
Clean energy?
And back to health.. We’ve practically eliminated the big killers, smallpox etc., and infections of one sort or another by antibiotics, and with the extraordinary rise in medical knowledge we should be the healthiest we’ve ever been, but instead we’re seeing strange increases in diseases practically unknown before, affecting children too. What are the causes of cancer and diabetes, for example of two diseases now rising rapidly? Smoking doesn’t seem to correlate at all with lung cancer deaths – http://www.kidon.com/smoke/percentages.htm and diabetes was practically unheard of until the last century: “a dramatic increase in type 1 has been seen and confirmed by many studies, around the world. This is not based on the impressions of folks like me. Carefully documented studies by the CDC and top researchers have shown that type 1 is increasing at about 3% per year..is now about twice as common as in the 1980’s..about five times as common as in the 1950’s..and at least 10 times as common as a century ago. This has been seen in just about every country in the world. It’s received very little coverage in the media until now. You might check out these studies in particular: …. ” – http://www.diabetes24-7.com/?p=97
No one knows. In response we’re given lists of things we should be doing, eating less meat, more exercise.. Odd that, of the diabetics I can think of, most are slim/normal weight and have always been active. I can think of some older people who were not diagnosed early enough, because not a thing doctors used to look for, who got overweight, so obesity perhaps an effect rather than a cause.
Whatever, there is a rise in auto-immune diseases and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the young people in the developed world, and there’s a new hypothesis, the hygiene hypothesis, to account for it (wiki got a summary). There’s been a great deal of trying to pin such extraordinary rises on vaccinations, as somehow passing on to offspring a genetic aberration, but all these are known effects of nuclear radiation, yet where are the studies to at least look at this?
Is thorium safer? I’ve nothing against the idea of nuclear energy, I just don’t think that what we have is of any value as the downsides are too great. And, I do find it utterly crass to compare deaths from nuclear radiation with deaths by accidents/other power suppliers – the deaths of coal miners or plane crash victims has a very limited spread while Chernobyl, and Windscale and now in Japan, and the continual venting of radiation in the day to day running of these plants and so on, has a far wider reach. To ignore this is suicidal, to whitewash is criminal.

March 28, 2011 2:34 pm

I wish you would go to that power plant as well, rather idiots like you who like to play god should pay the consequences than the heroes that are having to deal with the problem now

1 14 15 16