The first glimmers of hope begin to shine from the nuclear crisis in Japan, but they will do little to brighten the views of some about nuclear power. As the disaster at Fukushima has shown, nuclear certainly has risks, as do all forms of energy. But the disaster has also reminded us that it's really hard to get people to change their minds about a risk, once those minds have been made up. And close-mindedness isn't the brightest, or safest, way to make the healthiest possible choices about how to stay safe.
As a TV reporter in Boston I covered several nuclear power controversies. Seabrook. Pilgrim. Yankee Rowe. These were great stories... lead stories... because they involved possible public exposure to nuclear radiation, and everybody knows that's really dangerous. My stories were full of ominous drama and alarm. But when I joined the Harvard School of Public Health and researched nuclear power for a chapter in a book, RISK, A Practical Guide for Deciding What's Really Safe and What's Really Dangerous in the World Around You, I was ashamed to learn how uninformed and misleading my alarmism had been. Ionizing radiation is indeed a carcinogen. But it's not nearly as potent as most people fear.
94,000 survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been followed for 66 years by epidemiologists from around the world and, compared to normal cancer rates in Japan, only about 500 of those survivors have died because of the radiation. About two thirds of one percent. The radiation also caused birth defects in children born to women pregnant when they were exposed, but no long term genetic damage. These findings are widely accepted in the scientific community. Governments around the world base their radiation regulations on them.
But that evidence is rejected by people who have made up their minds about nuclear power. They reject the reassuring evidence from respected neutral organizations and substitute their own, from sources like Greenpeace or others that have a well-established anti-nuclear posture. Which is interesting, because this is just what many of those anti-nuclear activists accuse the conservative right of doing on climate change; denying the science, using only the facts that fit their pre-conceived views, quoting only the experts who agree with them. What they're doing with nuclear power is sort of like complaining about people who argue against climate change by citing facts from close-minded right wing science deniers like Senator James Inhofe or Rush Limbaugh, then turning around and doing the same thing.
Chris Mooney writes on Desmogblog, "Are Liberals Science Deniers: Now's a Good Time to Find Out." He refers to the nuclear debate as "a natural experiment in the politicization of science," and optimistically bets that anti-nuclear liberals will be more open-minded and respectful of the scientific evidence than conservatives. And indeed some of his respondents, and comments elsewhere, come from self-identified liberals who are open to consideration of nuclear power.
But liberal inflexibility about nuclear power is still widespread. Peter Canellos of the Boston Globe writes about strident anti-nuke Helen Caldicott trying to "brace up wobbly liberals who look to nuclear energy as a cure for global warming." Writers responding to a blog I wrote for NPR, "Nuke-O-Noia Could be the Greatest Threat to Japan," in which I suggested the health impacts of fear could do more harm than the radiation - as the UN found was the case after Chernobyl - said: "Do you need references to other studies that show different statistics for TMI and Chernobyl? I'm stunned." And: "Nuclear Propaganda Radio. I'm giving my financial support to Democracy Now," a liberal radio program that's avowedly anti-nuclear.
More thoughtful liberals maintain their anti-nuke positions by saying it's unaffordable, or we haven't figured out how to dispose of the waste, or that spending on nuclear denies economic support for renewables. Much of which is rooted in a fear of nuclear radiation that flies in the face of the biological facts. Nuclear radiation is dangerous, but not as much as those rooted fears believe. That puts the tradeoffs of nuclear power compared with other energy sources in a whole new light.
But the point here is not about nuclear power. The observation here is that our perception of risk is never a neutral unbiased view of the evidence. The psychology of how we perceive and respond to risk is an affective mix of facts and how those facts feel. And once we've made up our mind about a risk, Confirmation Bias takes over and we choose to believe the evidence that agrees with what we already believe. True liberals, non-wobbly liberals, are supposed to oppose nuclear power. Period. True conservatives, for some reason, are supposed to deny climate change. Period. Find the facts that fit. Toss out the inconvenient truths. Personally denigrate anyone who disagrees, because other views are not just a different way of looking at things. They're a threat. These are litmus test issues for who gets to belong to the tribe, and who doesn't.
That sort of thinking may be a deep seated part of how we perceive risk, but it's risky in and of itself. Closed-mindedness is self-evidently dangerous. It may feel safe to steadfastly wave the tribal standard, but it's surely a wobbly way to make decisions about energy policy, or any other risk, if we want to make the most informed and healthiest choices.
(This essay first appeared as a guest post on Matt Nisbet's Age of Enlightenment blog at BigThink.com)
Follow David Ropeik on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dropeik
Great article. Keep up the good work.
It's actually worse. This was set down by the BEIR VII report released in 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences. From the press release by the IEER in June 2005:
Contrary to the beliefs of many in the nuclear industry, the BEIR VII report reaffirmed the conclusion of the prior report that every exposure to radiation produces a corresponding increase in cancer risk. The proportionality of risk means that at low exposures the risks are small, as the NAS report points out. The average risks to the population are estimated to be 10 to 15 percent higher than the reference value now used for radiation protection of the general population (565 cancer fatalities per million rem exposure in BEIR VII compared to 500 typically cited in the literature on radiation protection).
While this average risk is in the general range of uncertainties and values reported previously, it indicates an increase of risk overall. Both incidence and mortality risk estimates are now greater. Finally, the committee also noted that relatively high levels of radiation exposure increase risk of heart disease and stroke, though it did not give specific risk estimates.
some interesting bullet points: Children's risk of cancer increases some 300% over adult men--women are double; low doses of radiation ( a little above 'background') will add 1 cancer per 100 people exposed; Women have a 37% higher incidence of cancer than men; and 12 specific cancers are tied to radiation.
http://www.ieer.org/comments/beir/beir7pressrel.html
Helen Caldicott takes apart George Monbiot for his pro-nuclear stances. Caldicott actually understands the subject--Monbiot doesn't.
Reading more into it:
BEIR: "At doses of 100 mSv or less, statistical limitations make it difficult to evaluate cancer risk in humans. A comprehensive review of available biological and biophysical data led the committee to conclude that the risk would continue in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans."
Not sure how they get that. They admit its statistically meaningless to make projections at low doses but decide to make a conclusion anyways.
http://globalnukes.blogspot.com/2008/02/beir-vii.html
The only reliable conclusions of the BEIR report is about high doses, not low doses people would experience from a radiological accident. Suggesting that low doses of radiation adds a 1% risk is statistically impossible to prove and makes assumptions on the model that haven't been demonstrated.
Here's their correspondence on this subject.
It's devastating to her.
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/correspondence-with-helen-caldicott/
https://secure3.convio.net/gpeace/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=801&s_src=home-box
Look at a nation like Indonesia. In the 70's they got half their energy from renewables! Today they get maybe 10% but their standard of living has increase dramatically!
There are lots of other examples!
Electric power generation, steam producing, achieved a 34 percent efficiency in the 1950's under the Eisenhower Administration. Today the same steam producing facilites have a thermal efficiency of 34 percent. Send the power long distance down the grid and lose another 9 percent due to grid resistance. Energize a a 100 watt incandescent lightbulb and lose 95 watts to heat. This energy efficiency dead end is what Malcolm the Great is offering as an wasteful energy solution for America and Indonesia. He can correlate it in whatever manner he wants, and believe me he will spin it as a non isuue, but the fact remains that this is an energy efficiency dead end whether the power is produced by expensive toxic nuclear fission, externalized expensive toxic coal, expensive and dirty oil or less polluting natural gas.
He would have you believe that wasting 66 percent of all electricity produced is a good thing no matter what. He would ignore the fact that the cheapest source of new energy, negawatts of electricity, could eliminate all nuclear power and the majority of coal fired power plants in the America. Lastly, he wants you to buy into socializing the losses and risks of nuclear power and privatizing the profits. He also would have you believe in fairy tales. But wait for his spin.
alvdh1 it doesn't matter concerning nuclear power plants because the secrets out! The industrial nations don't have to build another nuclear power plant and there will be more than 100 new nuclear plants in the fast developing world by 2020 in the fast developing nations!
You know why? Take China for instance in 2009 they burnt over 45% of all the coal in the world that was consumed! By 2040 they will be out! They will have 75 of the new plants!
Now here is the scary part we in the industrial world have had nuclear power for over 50 years and we are going to let the fast developing nations set the international standards of the disposal of nuclear waste including the spent rods!
Thank you the anti science Green Peace helping to pass the whole problem of nuclear waste disposal to the developing world! Trust me Chernobyl is just the first of dead zones!
http://www.change.org/petitions/urge-the-obamas-to-build-a-nuclear-free-future-for-our-children-now#?opt_new=f&opt_fb=t
Great ABC News Video on ocean contamination in Japan.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=13303625
First, let's be completely fair and free of market, and lift liability caps, which are after all a socialist distortion to the market. Second, let's stand back and watch the flood of private capital into constructing and operating nuclear power plants.
Do we have an answer?
into a political subject. Surely there is some basic common
sense that everyone ought to agree on. This is surely one of
them.
That is fine with me if you want to take that chance.
That is different than saying if you go swimming
everyone might drown.
if you are careful driving along a 100 foot cliff your
chances of driving off of it are only 1000 to one.
Do you want to drive it for 3 years?
His clients include the nuclear power industry. So this is just free advertising for him.
Many other folks have presented contrary evidence to his assertion. Who ya going to believe?
No balance in his client history or current support. Talk about Science Denier, look in the mirror Mr. Ropeik.
If he gets outed in public for being a paid nuclear shill, does he lose his shill job? It would have been nice of him to show a level of integrity by pointing this out at the beginning of his nuclear industry ad.
I mean what is that adage about people living in glass houses? Or is this a case of the pot calling the kettle Black!
For every person that writes a centralist article on energy their are 10 paid articles from the green energy side!
I guess to be fair we should point this out for every author and out of hand characterize their point as bias and consequently untrue!
Such honesty. Perhaps zealotry even given your position.
When purported solutions to the waste problem are all attached to multibillion grant requests for taxpayer dollars, it's no wonder we are wary of another boondoggle of waste with uncertain results.
If the industry is safe and profitable, they don't need taxpayer dollars and taxpayers on the hook for disasters.
Wall Street thinks it is too risky.
Wall Street!
Read the first sentance in the second paragraph of the link below.
See the publications in the New England Journal of Medicine further down in the link.
Mkaing it up about no peer reviewed studies seems to be an obsession of yours. Perhaps letting everyone know about this obsession will give you pause the next time you insidiously defame the characters of high distinguished scientists with impeccable credentials with out right lies.
http://www.h-naturals.com/gofman.htm
To see how markkocaldo engages in character assassinations of respected scientists, read the second paragraph of this link.
http://www.healpain.net/articles/bet-than-a-cure.html
http://www.spcancerologia.org/64-cancer-medical.html
Read the last paragraph of this link about peer review of Dr. Gofman.
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q227.html
See reference section at the end of this link to see all of the peer reviewed references to Dr. Gofman's work.
http://ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/heartCT.html
Any notion by markkocaldo that Gofman's work has not been peer reviewed should be fully debunked by the time you are reading this. Being incredulous is the easy path when being honest seems to be so much more difficult for some.
Note that David Ropeik fails to mention that he worked for the industry-friendly Harvard Center for Risk Analysis from 2000 to 2006. That center was headed by John Graham, who went on to work at the Office of Management and Budget under George W. Bush. According to Sourcewatch, Graham has argued that smog protects people from too much sunlight, dioxin might reduce cancer in some cases, safe housing codes can kill people and pesticides on foods are a trivial problem that does not constitute a health hazard. In any case, the center was known to produce studies that reflected the positions of its corporate benefactors, which while Ropeik was there included the American Nuclear Society's northeast chapter, Entergy Power, Edison Electric Institute and Nuclear Energy Institute. For more information on Ropeik, Graham and the center, check out entries on them at www.sourcewatch.org. -- Elliott Negin, Union of Concerned Scientists
Actually, I am surpised that you let one book convert you to a pronuclear position, especially one that isn't based on actual health studies related to the biological effects of ionizing radiation. So I will provide you with a few resources that may, in fact, persuade to reverse course yet again. Please cite the specific study that you obtained your Atomic Bomb Victim statistics.
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/JWGcv.html I would put this scientist up against anyone you can provide from the folks at Harvard who wrote the risk book you cited.
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PP/#TOC
Summary of the National Academy of Sciences BEIR7 Report which confirms Gofman.
http://www.ieer.org/comments/beir/beir7pressrel.html Even though it took the BEIR committee 7 studies to agree with Dr. Gofman's 1960 studies that there is no safe dose, questions remain about the committee panel and not going further with thier conclusions BEIR7 conclusion of no safe dose.
http://www.nirs.org/mononline/appendixinbeirletter1.htm
Faulty Health Registry Databases at Chernobyl and Atomic Bomb Victims.
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/BioMedUnknow.html
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/chp24.txt
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/inetSeries/DDoverV.html
http://iicph.org/alicestewartobit
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajim.4700200612/abstract
http://www.ananuclear.org/Portals/0/documents/Water%20Report/waterreporthealtheffects.pdf
http://www.familyreunion.org/FR_07/cassel/astewart.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world
Goffman aka Goofman is a crank and has been debunked in many places.Junk science with no peer review status.
The specific request was for you to refute Dr. Gofman's assessment - which you have not doen with any tangible evidence other than using Mombiat as an expert - which he is not. Rather than refute Dr. Gofman, you employed the age old nuclear talking point startegy of killing the messenger because you can't kill the message. You can't even make a feable attempt to kill it, but instead made an extraordianry attempt to kill the messenger.
On that note, why don't you and George post your curriculum vitaes up against Dr. Gofman with one F and we can see that combined that the two of you a re not even a pimple on Dr. Gofman's backside. On an additional note, Gofman established the first biomedical division at the Lawrence Livermore Lab at the direction of former AEC Chairman Dr. Glenn Seaborg. The AEC didn't select Gofman because he was a crank. To insinuate that he is a crank, only as an effort kill the messenger, is insidious fella.
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/the-un-would-never-lie-to-george-monbiot/
I got in a heated argument with one the other day about radiation exposure, they were standing out in the sun no hat on a warm bright day and saying, "I don't want to be exposed to any radiation and those operators at the Japanese nuclear plant should be charged as War Criminals! "
Quoting ECRR half truths and lies like it's gospel!
But to be fair something as dangerous as nuclear energy will bring out the fear in many of us! I remember a Sci-Fi movie that had a line "Fear is the mind killer"! I think it fits.
The bigger problem is no matter what we think in the industrial nations the fast developing nations are embracing nuclear energy. China will increase its electrical output by 13 fold by 2020! Other nations are right behind!
It is up to THE INDUSTRIAL NATIONS to set an international standard for nuclear waste disposal! If the developing nations each go their own way it will not be good!
Which brings us to the real problem the anti-nuke fanatics want no solution because they fear it will legitimize nuclear energy! So evidentially we will have more dead zones because of nuclear waste, kind of a self fulfilling prophecy!
Now that scares me!
This should scare pro and anti nukes citizens!
The Japanese nuke plant saved the lives of hundreds of workers who would have perished in the tsunami and has killed nobody. This worst case accident with this ancient vintage reactor was caused by the corruption endemic in Japanese culture not nature, The more modern Daini plant was hit by a larger wave and survived safely. 80's tech vs 60's. The 2000 tech Onagawa plant also survived safely. A Gen 3 reactor wouldn't even have hiccuped.