Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!morrison
From: morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Intellectual Sleaze (Long)
Message-ID: <12@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Sep-85 16:41:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.12
Posted: Wed Sep 18 16:41:10 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 21:24:47 EDT
References: <1386@utcsri.UUCP> <5952@utzoo.UUCP> <820@water.UUCP>
Reply-To: morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison)
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 80
Summary: 

The inconsistency in the attitudes of the pro-industrialists with respect
to acid rain and nuclear power is the following. Let us agree that the 
connection between dead lakes and SO2 emissions (largely from coal 
combustion) is at least as well established as the connection between 
cancer and the injestion of excessive quantities (whatever that is) of 
radioactive isotopes found in nuclear waste. It is probably true
that the SO2 connection is far better established - perhaps even verging
on the status of facthood which Henry Spencer so loves to bandy about.

So, what is the result of cleaning up coal combustion??  High costs.
And if we were wrong (i.e. there is little connection between lake
death and SO2 emissions)?? We have spent an awful lot of money
on cleaner air and reduced illness.

What, on the other hand, is the result of pursuing the technology
of nuclear power? WE DON'T KNOW. Why not? Because we have no way
of knowing the concentrations of radioactive particulate which might 
be introduced into the food chain through a long term program of
waste management. (Much as Mr. Spencer might wish otherwise, nuclear
technology is in the domain of engineering not science. Engineering
artifiacts fail.) Even if we knew these concentrations, we would
be in much the same position as we are now wrt carcinogens such
as sodium nitrite. There is no flaming gun - only an immense number
of factors which we must sift through in order to establish
the most tenuous connections. No one can tell you have many
strips of bacon are "safe."

YET, out of one side of their mouths, the pro-industrialists 
tell us further study of acid rain
is needed before we go to all the expense of a clean-up, while out
of the other side they tell us that our fears of
long term environmental damage from radioctive contamination are
unfounded. That is, no further study is needed. We have the
technology, so let's use it.

In adopting nuclear technology on a grand scale we are conducting
a vast experiment - one that will go on for thousands of years
(the time frame arising from the half-lives of the most
virulent nuclear wastes). The experiment may be successful.
If it is not, we may so contaminate the ecosystem that 30000 lives/year
will look good. And because of the lifespans of the contaminants, it
could take thousands of years to recover the damage - something
even acid rain cannot match. (Note: these are not facts; they
are conjectures - and that is about all we have at this stage.)

The toxicity and the half-lives of nuclear waste are as close to
facts as we are likely to come. The fallibility of engineering
artifacts, while hardly a fact, is well established - bridges still
fail, buildings still collapse, aircraft still crash. Most often, the
failures are minor. Occasionally, they are not. I see no reason, 
other than blind faith in technology, to believe that the 
engineering of nuclear power will be different. Unfortunately, 
in the case of nuclear technology, the cummulative consequences of 
even repeated minor failures over hundreds of years could 
be horrendous. 

Henry Spencer states the "fact" that nuclear power is the 
safest available technology. The safety of a particular technology,
however, is decided largely  by its past performance - not by any sort of
a priori argument. For the reasons I have outlined, applying this method
to nuclear technology could be disastrous. It will certainly require
more time than the scant years we have now been applying the technology.
Indeed, we must not think in terms of the standard engineering design
lives of 50 or 75 years, but in terms of thousands of years.
Clearly, we have no experience in the engineering of such artifacts,
and to apply current notions of safety analysis to nuclear technology would
be folly.

We choose to think of empirically well-established scientific theory
as fact. Merely repeating TECHNICAL OPINION about the benefits
of one form of technology or another, whether in technical
journals or on the network news does not make it fact. Adopting
it as such is what I consider INTELLECTUAL SLEAZE.

My ONLY HARD CLAIM is that our lack of understanding of a
technology which has the potential for extreme hazard calls for
great caution - caution that is not now being exercised. 
To continue to promulgate TECHNICAL DOGMA in the guise of 
scientific fact does nothing for reasoned debate about technical
issues.