Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Naomi Oreskes has accused climate scientists like James Hansen, who support the expansion of nuclear power, of practicing a “strange new form of denial”.
According to The Guardian;
After the signing of a historic climate pact in Paris, we might now hope that the merchants of doubt – who for two decades have denied the science and dismissed the threat – are officially irrelevant.
But not so fast. There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.
Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists, who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power. Just this past week, as negotiators were closing in on the Paris agreement, four climate scientists held an off-site session insisting that the only way we can solve the coupled climate/energy problem is with a massive and immediate expansion of nuclear power. More than that, they are blaming environmentalists, suggesting that the opposition to nuclear power stands between all of us and a two-degree world.
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/16/new-form-climate-denialism-dont-celebrate-yet-cop-21
This article was written in response to a demand by James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley to consider the nuclear option.
Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change
To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not prejudice. Alongside renewables, Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them
All four of us have dedicated our scientific careers to understand the processes and impacts of climate change, variously studying ocean systems, tropical cyclones, ice sheets and ecosystems as well as impacts on human societies. We have used both climate models and geological records of past climates to better understand lessons from warmer periods in the Earth’s history and investigate future scenarios.
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
I can’t help feeling Oreskes has well and truly jumped the shark with the ridiculous claim that scientists like Hansen, Wigley et al are “deniers”, because they don’t believe in renewables. As WUWT reported a while ago, even Google couldn’t find a way to make renewables viable – so it seems unlikely anybody else will succeed where Google failed.
As for Oreskes objections to nuclear power, her argument that nuclear power is too risky is just plain silly. Even if the nuclear route to decarbonisation resulted in several meltdowns every year, how could this possibly be worse than the complete destruction of the biosphere through global warming, which according to the likes of Oreskes and Hansen is the price of continued reliance on fossil fuels?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oreskes has demonstrated once again that CAGW is a religion, and nay who do not hew strictly to the articles of faith laid down by the High Priests, such as Oreskes herself, are blasphemers, and are thus apostate and no longer of The Faith.
I know there must be a joke here somewhere, but I am getting so sick of these people that I seem to have lost my sense of humor.
I sure hope it is temporary, because the hell of no humor is the worst hell of all.
Thanks Michael. I needed that.
Does this person have any sort of credentials that qualify her to even comment on any aspect of climate science, or is she just wanting to re arrange the furniture to suit her pet ideas.
She sounds like a total gad fly to me.
Glad fly? I would have said Bot Fly
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d7Iw0-7EMUo
Couldn’t agree more. I have added this little sketch that I posted over at Bishop Hill where her antics have amused the readers.
https://youtu.be/EjYRC0IBXaY
Canada has some vast, wide-open, and relatively uninhabited places. I suggest we carve out, say, 10,000 km2 of the Northwest Territories and create the new province of Oreskesia. Those of her religion can move there to show the rest of us how to live the “right” way. Oreskesia’s Rule 1 is that no CO2 emissions are allowed, and Rule 2 is that any product that involves the use of fossil fuels at any stage of production is forbidden. The one exception I propose to Rule 2, which would support Rule 1, is that residents would be permitted to wear front and rear carbon capture and storage devices. After they spend a few weeks (or maybe hours?) there in January, we will be able to figure out who truly shares The Faith–at least among those who are still alive.
I would argue that he has shown more than that. That it is anti-human. That anything that is beneficial to humanity will not be acceptable as an energy resource.
Malthusians want to depopulate the Earth down to some small number, Frequently in the millions rather than the billions we have now.
Then let the Malthusians lead the way!
Come now, everyone is a denier of Naomi’s divine wisdom.
Classic Cult behaviour, none are as holy as I, none but I am the most righteous worshiper of my God.
Naomi leaves no doubt as to her delusion, why does she get any notice, beyond derisive laughter?
Actually I snicker every time she rants, I keep reminding myself, I could not have invented raving do-gooders this idiotic, as an act of fiction.
Before encountering members of the Cult of Calamitous Carbon/Climate, I would have dismissed such characters as implausible.
Naomi fails to realize that when everyone is a denier, nobody will be.
The mantra is that “deniers” are denying science but what but in reality it is any dissent from orthodoxy and has become analogous to the term infidel.
What does this say about the Guardian for allowing this woman space?
Guardian of the gullible perhaps?
The only thing worse than an unbeliever to the faithful is a heretic who doesn’t believe part of the dogma. In this case the green religion.This is how the Terror started in France. Citizen Hansen will be sent to the guillotine with the rest of those who are enemies of the state.
This didn’t go well for Robespierre at the end.
And led, ironically, to the Thermidorian Reaction!
Run by The Committee of Public Safety of course!
My thoughts exactly. This seems just so French Revolution. The only thing missing is the guillotine. Maybe this will make Hansen re-evaluate his thinking, seeing how he is so easily thrown under the bus.
Seems I was a little early on making this comment, but the ending still stands for those in the dogma.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/17/german-continuous-nuclear-fusion-reactor-milestone/#comment-2100328
seem to overlook his heretical remarks about nuclear and don’t vilify him.
They may have stopped the overlook.
The Guardian – http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/16/new-form-climate-denialism-dont-celebrate-yet-cop-21
There is a new form of climate denialism to look out for – so don’t celebrate yet – by Naomi Oreskes
But not so fast. There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.
Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists,[link to below] who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power. Just this past week, as negotiators were closing in on the Paris agreement, four climate scientists held an off-site session insisting that the only way we can solve the coupled climate/energy problem is with a massive and immediate expansion of nuclear power. More than that, they are blaming environmentalists, suggesting that the opposition to nuclear power stands between all of us and a two-degree world.
Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Tom Wigley, Dr. Ken Caldeira and Dr. Kerry Emanuel will present research showing the increasing urgency of fully decarbonizing the world economy. However, they will also show that renewables alone cannot realistically meet the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees C, and that a major expansion of nuclear power is essential to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system this century.
http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/372493/c25ebfa5d2/1603503199/be41125912/
Now this is by Oreskes, who goes by – “Not only do the slaves have to “stay on the plantation”, they have to “stay in the same field on the plantation” .
The goal of global warming / climate change movement is not decarbonization, it’s to reduce the human population. Period.
..Agenda 21 ?
Precisely! The rich egotistical “elites” will inherit the Earth, not the “meek”, somebody just misheard & wrotye it down wrong, that’s all!
Let’s be realistic. With all the poor people occupying the only space that will be habitable at low cost in the coming ice age, of course the rich need to start the depopulation before it is too late to establish their fiefdoms. Most of the areas that are being taken out of use are either resource rich with easy extraction, or ideal large scale estates. It doesn’t really take a rocket scientist to see the way the world is being shaped for the future – those that choose themselves to be the owners of the planet and those that will boot lick so as to control what little masses that will be left to maintain the flow of the required resources so as to maintain the standard of living for the planet “owners” and their boot lickers.
Someone still has to make the boots and the mouthwash.
Quite correct. We have six billion surplus souls on the planet according to the deep greens. Now when all the greens and fanatical enviros start leaping from tall buildings I will take them seriously. Nuclear is a great solution and for places like Australia an easy step and also much cheaper than more inefficient wind turbines. It would also free up our coal for conversion to liquid fuels making us self reliant. At the moment we are susceptible to being starved of fuel by disruptions to our sea lanes, an ever growing danger.
That would leave a population of 1 Billion, or so and that’s too much for some of the more strident voices who claim that too many humans exist, such as Ted Turner, who’s said that he thinks there should only be 250- 500 million of us.
l first of all say that I am not American.So this is in the realms of sarcasm or irony :-
Well if they want to reduce the population here’s a song to go with it.
James Bull
All you need do is click your heels together and sprinkle a little sea water on her.
I’m glad I had finished my coffee when I read this… 🙂
Hey, it’s my mother in law !!!
Mine has been known as the Dragon from before we were married. At one family gathering one of my brothers in law was teaching her grandchildren to sing “Grandma’s a dragon Grandma’s a dragon”
She has an impressive display of toy and model dragons in the hallway of her house.
James Bull
” …. not so fast … ”
Wow … Oreskes even quotes the Wicked Witch of the West. I think the line might be “Not so fast – these things have to be done delicately.” ?? (It’s 62 years since I saw the movie … )
Oh Noes! Naomi Oreskes has loosed her flying monkeys.
Wow, she gives a whole new meaning to the phrase ” Left Wing Nut ” !!!
She shows that the CAGW movement is not really serious. If one really believes that warming is going to destroy the Earth, then how can you reject a solution that is much less threatening?
She is a leftist. Leftists are not logical being.
Notice that the nuclear power issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the so-called science of CAGW.
And yet to come out in favor of it is seen as being another way to deny CAGW.
Oreskes has proven, by this denunciation of Hansen (and anyone else who questions the ability of wind and solar to power our technological society), that the real issue is not global warming at all, but blind obeisance to the official party line.
She has proven this issue is political, and not scientific.
It is obvious that Hansen does not deny CAGW… in fact he believes it so whole-heartedly that he is backing the only way to really reduce CO2 emissions any time soon.
So what it is he is denying?
When you answer that question, you will know the real objective of her faction of the Warmistas.
I think that some of the scientist have been on the CAGW or DAGW bandwagon because they want to slow or stop the opposition to nuclear power. I would bet that those who did jump on the bandwagon wish they hadn’t because it isn’t working and now there is no easy way to get off.
Margaret Thatcher made a severe political mistake by taking a gamble on demonising coal & the lefty lead miners, to use Global Warming as an excuse to expand nuclear power, it simply backfired on her & the left siezed upon AGW as an ideal anti-capitalist tool to bash everyone with!
Damn Alan. Now I remember where I got that notion. Is PM Thatcher the reason Lord Monckton got involved with GW?
When the Hansen et al new conference occurred Andy Revkin at the NYTimes “Dot Earth” blog published an astonishing commentary on the “recarbomization” of first the German and then now the French energy grid.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/in-paris-negotiators-trim-a-draft-climate-agreement-climate-scientists-press-for-nuclear-energy-activists-prepare-for-failure/?_r=0
The Green Malthusians would far more prefer to build more coal fired plants in both countries than to tolerate advanced nuclear energy. Though, in the end, what they really want is scarce, exorbitantly priced Green energy, even if that means freezing in the dark for stretches at a time. Just as long as it leads to a return to a feudal age economy, but with a 21st century population we’re talking mega-death. Which is precisely the point.
Sara. “Just as long as it leads to a return to a feudal age economy, but with a 21st century population we’re talking mega-death. Which is precisely the point.”
It is hard to think of a greater evil than this. It is extremely evil to condemn billions to deaths by starvation, freezing to death, riots, war, and so on. We should never underestimate the evil of the radical Marxists. And yet, the evidence that the CAGW movement really does want this sort of mass murder is hard to ignore.
Thanks for your comment.
I didnt get his name..but ABC aus radio national had a chap telling us that we need to go back to 1950 living in aus
its was a decent standard he thought.
polio due to outside dunnys n no running water
a fridge was ONLY for the well off
in 1969 I was 10
we were still using kero lanterns, blocks of ice in a cooler and boiling a copper to wash clothes n heat bathwater
and that was IN a major city of Adelaide sth aus.
I had never ending colds and chilblains because we couldnt afford a heater let alone pay the bill to run one
we did have the luxury of a cold tap of running water in the kitchen, and in the laundry.
love to see todays spoilt darlings cope with that..I really would.
What more natural source of mother natures power could there be? Radioactive decay keeps the Earth warm, to an extant, and from cooling too fast… And it doesn’t create CO2, the ‘magical, evil gas of mass destruction’. Put 1/100th the money spent on GW into providing safe, efficient reactors for electrical generation and everyone will be happy…
/ !/2 Sarc
Ps.
Why has nature not given us a way of engineering a perpetual motion machine?
Looking further, one can see that nuclear fission is just another form of solar energy, albeit from the stars that exploded to forge and disburse the fissionable elements all those billions of years ago.
Pace Jim Hansen, but the best way to “solve the climate problem is for everyone to realize that there is no problem, and that consensus AGW climatology is a crock.
Naomi Oreskes is going have to to bite a very serious bullet when climate alarm frenzy ends with a whimper.
When the fratricide begins, the end can’t be far off for the “warmists”……
Yep. When thieves fall out, honest men come by their own.
(……. honest men keep what belongs to them)
16th Century Proverb
Scott, I agree. There has never been a successful revolution that was not preceded by a split in the military. Or in this case, a split among the militants.
Hansen draws a straight line in the sand which has nuclear on his side, everything else on the other side.
Orestes draws a line in the sand that circles Hansen’s line and tries to bully Hansen not to step out of his box or he will be denied out of the tribe. Hansen looks at her like she is a specimen in a dubious clinical study.
Or something like that.
John
“Orestes draws a line in the sand that circles Hansen’s line”
Will Lew draw a triangle?
simple-touriste on December 17, 2015 at 7:40 pm
– – – – – – –
simple-tourist,
It is possible I guess that Lew, who is a self-acclaimed stereotyping authority, may dream of drawing pentagonal shapes around his antagonists.
John
It seems Hansen has been an Oreskesian ‘denier’ since at least 2011-
Hansen’s support of renewables-
“But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
“”If you drink the kool-aid represented in the right part of Fig. 7 [large-scale deployment of renewables and conservation], you are a big part of the problem. The problem is that, by drinking the kool-aid, you are also pouring it down the throats of my dear grandchildren and yours. The tragedy in doing so is much greater than that of Jim Jones’ gullible followers, who forced their children to drink his kool-aid. All life will bear the consequences.”
James Hansen, newsletter article, 8/2011
Great! They are now starting to eat each other. All we have to do is wait for a little while, and then we can give Anthony and Jo our thanks, shut down all the climate sites, and use the internet for its original purpose. (Cat videos and porn.)
Can anyone-and I mean anyone-take her seriously now? I feel that her opinions should, from now on, be taken with something more than just a grain of salt. I mean, Tom Wigley, James Hansen, deniers? For that matter, should anyone even take the Guardian seriously either, if they are willing to publish this?
Could anyone take her seriously after reading
– neutral pH is 6
– beryllium is heavy
– the various radiation limits (for people, for workers) are based on the concept that low levels of radiation are safe (cause a worker has stronger natural radiation-immunity, m’kay?)
– correlation is not causation unless p<.05
Sources:
First three: her critically acclaimed book
Last: NYTimes interview
I couldn't believe it and I had to check myself on the Web (I spent nothing on that crap, hopefully).
No, but I don’t see those in the article.
Low levels of radiation are safe. (Of course the meaning of low has to be properly defined.) People living in Denver have about 3 times the radiation exposure compared to people living in Miami. Altitude and lots of granite increase the exposure for those living in Denver.
Someone took her seriously? Seriously? I can’t wait for the next Attack of La Nina.
I never honestly took her very seriously, but I suppose even that small part was in an attempt to find her logical fallacies-which are many.
And, neither can I, just wait till those temps drop!
The “Empress” has no clothes!
This reveals that Oreskes has no legitimate data nor logical argument from which to make her case – she can only try an Ad Hominem attack to divert attention from the utter weakness of her position.
“If you point a finger at someone, you have four pointing back at you!”
@David L. Hagen,
“The “Empress” has no clothes!” The mental image that conjures is just plain disturbing!!
More than disturbing. How about nauseating or frightening.
You have to admit the woman is ugly as a truck. The seeing her clothed is difficult enough.
Hey, stop insulting trucks!
Thus the problem with trying to use gender “appropriate” language!
Barely unimaginable!!
@ur momisugly David L. Hagen .. Actually that’s 3 fingers pointing back at you. The thumb isn’t included it the pointing. It’s at an angle. …
Anyway, I remember the line from the Dire Straits song: Solid Rock
“When you point your finger ‘cuz your plan fell through,
You got three more fingers pointing back at you,”
Who needs drugs or alcohol when you have the equisite self satire of Comrade Oreskes?
A lesson from the French Revolution. When the revolutionaries thought they had won, they started eating their own.
That’s probably just as true for the communist revolution in Russia also. Be careful who your friends are.
Here it is in a nut shell. If it was agreed that nuclear power was a major component in the plans for replacing fossil fuels then the issue would fad away. With nuclear on the table human civilization would not be endangered and developing nations would have a good chance for a prosperous future.
And Naomi Oreskes? She would be out of a job. No longer the heroine, leading the crusade.
Anyway none of the CAGW crowd will go for it. Wrecks their meal ticket. It would be nice to see them have a uncivil war. Gives me a “warmy” feeling.
michael
But beryllium is still a heavy metal, right? It’s a toxic metal, so it’s heavy, right?
Are you a heavy metal denier?
The density of beryllium is 1840 kg/m3 making it about 2/3 as dense as aluminum at 2712 kg/m3 and way less than iron at 7850 kg/m3.
I thought beryllium was a heavy metal for a long time too because it’s a neutron reflector, but it’s not. Just goes to show ya…
Bartleby,
Relative to the metallic element lithium, the metallic element beryllium is a heavy (as in heavier) metal.
John
The more in-fighting there is the sooner the house of cards will topple.
The point about nuclear, even with melt downs from time to time, being an easily preferable trade-off to total destruction of life on earth as we know it, I think this reveals something important. If people like Oreskes actually BELIEVED their own hype, they would see this very clearly. That they don’t tells me they do not actually believe their own hype. I have no doubt they THINK they believe it. But in truth, they really don’t.
Read a fantastic scare story (elsewhere of course!) yesterday that three cores from Fukushima could not be found and where melting their way to the centre of the earth (could explain the millions of degrees down there of course!).
safest place for them to go. They won’t make it past the upper mantle.
When I was a teen, we had a trendy-Lefty teaher that was all a-flustered warning us about the dangers of Nuclear Energy, so she told us the scare-story of the China Syndrome. She did not like it when I asked her how the “molten, nuclear core” would pass through the high temperature of the Earth’s core intact enough to defy gravity and bore ~3900 miles up to China.
Hard to think of a better disposal plan for nuclear waste than to let it sink itself into the core of the Earth.
I think the real fear is/was that once it reaches the water table, a steam explosion will occur and spread the stuff who knows where.
Other Left governments think the same as Dr Hansen.
Take the South Australian Government Royal Commission into nuclear fuel use
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-09/nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission-starts-in-adelaide/6758648
Now in this advocates for ‘decarbonisation’ are very vocal in wanting nuclear power
‘Australia can be low energy cost leader: Garnaut
Professor Garnaut said Australia could achieve huge competitive advantages from low-emission energy resources.
“Australia is much richer in high-grade uranium oxide, the basis of nuclear energy, relative to other developed countries’
The Greens in Australia are so dysfunctional that they even oppose the return of Australian generated radioactive medical waste used in treating cancer.
SBS has highlighted this on their news programs.
This is an issue which divides the green left to the detriment of sense.
If they think carbon dioxide is so dangerous, why not embrace something that isn’t, that will
give base load power?
The Guardian is running the wrong narrative.
But then, its good at some narration
‘The Guardian goes all lad’s mag, gets red faced. headline Tuesday:
My girlfriend’s enlarged breasts turn me on, but I am not sure what to do with them.’
The Australian CUT@PASTE Dec 16th 2015 Pg 15.
No doubt they will be sending in an investigative journalist to find out.
COP21, the Paris Circus, was a vast right wing conspiracy restart the nuclear programs for electrical power production.
Can we stop the conspiracy now and get on with construction?
I’m with Oreskes on nuclear, so I guess that I am no longer a denier while Jim Hansen is.
Dec 17, 2015 at 10:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Tol
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/12/17/the-vacuity-of-naomi-oreskes.html#comments
I agree nuclear in its current form doesn’t make economic sense, and reactors which require active safety are just nuts. But its fun to argue from the premises of your opponents, when their arguments don’t make sense, even on their own terms.
With Fukushima being the worst civilian nuclear power accident outside of the Soviet Union, even the first generation plants have a good safety record (note “good” not “perfect”). The USN has had no deaths attributable to nuclear propulsion and has thousands of reactor years of experience (nearly 400 with one ship – CVN65) with essentially generation one reactors.
The harm from having an annual accident of the scale of Chernobyl or Fukushima would be far less than the harm from misguided “green” policies.
Something else to think about: The primary harm from being exposed to radiation is an elevated risk of developing cancer. The earthquake and tsunami that led to the Fukushima destroyed a lot of chemical plants – how many people will be developing cancer from exposure to toxic chemicals from the earthquake & tsunami versus the number expected to develop cancers from exposure to radiation from Fukushima.
Deaths amongst windmill maintenance crews (not to mention the birds and bats), coalminers, loggers etc. need to be taken into account too.
Eric that’s just not true. Fourth generation nuclear power is cheap and safe. If you’ve done enough research to doubt carbon dioxide is an existential threat to humanity, you owe it to yourself to spend at least that much time looking at contemporary nuclear power designs. Personally I favor the Toshiba reactors but there are quite a few alternatives.
The same people who are trying to kill fossil fuels killed nuclear in the 60’s and 70’s. They’re first class morons.
And Nigel, lets see if the various governmental agencies make a legitimate effect to track how many folks die from falls while maintaining their home rooftop PV cells.
Effort
My understanding is that what happened at Fukashima was completely foreseeable and preventable, and it was only a virtual comedy of errors that allowed what happened to have occurred.
Chernobyl was due to the Soviets building the cheapest possible, graphite moderator reactors, designed such that they actively burn if they melt down. Three Mile Island was a win-win and no one was hurt and the problem contained. Fukushima was just plain stupid—who in their right mind would put the back-up generators in an unhardened structure on the ocean side of the nuclear plant, where a tsunami could wipe them away? That’s just a stupid plan and one very easily corrected.
Liquid fluoride thorium reactors (aka LiFTR) are already liquid and cannot meltdown, they are even self-scrambling and self-leveling, we are up to our ears in thorium, It’s cheap and easy to manage. The proof of concept was done back in the 1960s. It can even be automated and not subject to human error. We could have a completely decentralized energy supply and entirely eliminate the grid and any threat of blackouts or brownouts. Industry would be independent and safe. Imagine the incredible tons of copper and iron that could be recovered from the dismantled power lines.
Oh, and nuclear has the smallest ecological foot print, is one of the cheapest energies, and “green.” Wind and solar have the largest footprint on the planet, cost many times more than other forms of energy, use rare materials that are not only unsustainable but also most for the materials are non-recyclable. Yeah, wind and solar suck big time. The Sun sets, the wind dies, and we do not have a cheap, reliable means of storing energy between times.
YOU CANNOT BUILD A RELIABLE ENERGY SUPPLY FORM UNRELIABLE ENERGY SOURCES.
Glad to see someone else mentioning the potential of the LFTR.
Chernobyl was initiated by a “safety check” of course.
How many people died as a result of Chernobyl ?
Here it is from the UN (The Organisation that gave us the UNIPCC) ..
http://www.un.org/press/en/2005/dev2539.doc.htm
” WASHINGTON, D.C., 5 September (IAEA/WHO/UNDP) — A total of up to 4,000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.
As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.
The new numbers are presented in a landmark digest report, “ Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts”, just released by the Chernobyl Forum. The digest, based on a three-volume, 600-page report and incorporating the work of hundreds of scientists, economists and health experts, assesses the 20-year impact of the largest nuclear accident in history. The Forum is made up of eight UN specialized agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and the World Bank, as well as the Governments of Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine.”
So, yes it was a disaster and many lessons have been learnt, there has not been anything like this since.
How many workers have been killed with other Energy production methods? compared to deaths in the Nuclear industry.
April 26, 1942: A coal-dust explosion at Benxihu Colliery in Japanese occupied China killed 1,549
May 5, 1988: Norco, Louisiana, Shell Oil refinery explosion after hydrocarbon gas escaped from a corroded pipe in a catalytic cracker and was ignited. Louisiana state police evacuated 2,800 residents from nearby neighborhoods. Seven workers were killed and 42 injured.
July 6, 1988: Piper Alpha disaster. An explosion and resulting fire on a North Sea oil production platform kills 167 men.
Someone is bound to Mention Fukishima…
March 2011: Fukushima I nuclear accidents in Japan. Regarded as the second largest nuclear disaster in history, after the Chernobyl disaster, there have been no direct deaths attributed to radiation at or around the Fukushima power station but a few of the plant’s workers were injured or killed by the disaster conditions resulting from the earthquake and tsunami that struck the power plant which precipitated the accident.
Go for Nuclear, it is clean and safe, well mostly clean.
“Liquid fluoride thorium reactors (aka LiFTR) are already liquid and cannot meltdown, they are even self-scrambling and self-leveling, we are up to our ears in thorium, It’s cheap and easy to manage. The proof of concept was done back in the 1960s.”
ABSOLUTELY FALSE!!! Where did you get this junk?
The assumption among some so-called experts is that there is no safe level of radiation, and thus even tiny amounts cause a number of deaths proportionate to the dose.
In other words, it is supposed by these people that the dose/fatality graph is linear for radiation exposure.
It is know to be true that low levels of radiation have the opposite effect…they protect against genetic damage by activating cellular repair mechanisms and other protective responses on a cellular level, and perhaps at the level or organ systems and entire organisms.
Several very well documented instances of this phenomenon are know, and this protective effect is known as hormesis. In the case of radiation, it is called radiation hormesis, but such responses have been documented regarding exposure to other toxic substances and some sorts of injuries.
Getting lots of sun makes a person tan, and this protects against further damage from solar UV.
Broken bones heal to be stronger at the location of the fracture. Working with ones hands and getting numerous abrasions leads to calloused skin, which is highly resistant to almost any sort of damage. Doing strenuous work which tears down muscle tissue leads to the development of very strong muscles, which are able to do far more work than muscles which are not stressed on a regular basis.
These are all well known effects, which no one would dispute. Less well known, but true nonetheless is that within our bodies are other processes that performs tasks such as repairing oxidative damage to cells and tissues including, most significantly for long term low doses of ionizing radiation, repairing damaged DNA. These repair mechanisms respond to stress and extra damage by stepping up their response and effectiveness.
In this way, people who live in places with naturally high levels of background radiation have been shown to suffer less cancers than others who do not experience elevated exposure. Many places, like the monzonite sands of India, have this natural condition, and epidemiological studies have confirmed this (perhaps) surprising and counterintuitive result.
Even cases of sudden elevated exposure, endured over log periods of time by large numbers of people, have been documented.
Perhaps the best known is a building in Taiwan which was constructed as a housing block, and which inadvertently was built with highly radioactive rebars in the concrete. The radiation was not discovered for a very long time, so lots of people lived for a long time under radiation loads which had been supposed would cause greatly elevated cancer risks. But these people did not have elevated rates of cancer…in fact they had rates that were significantly below those of other people with the same demographics but without the radiation exposure.
What does not kill you makes you stronger, is an aphorism which is true in ways undreamed of by whoever coined the phrase.
It is easy to look up this effect. If you never heard of this, you will likely be pleasantly surprised.
A link to the story and subsequent research, but a search will turn up many other references:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/