Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site utecfc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utai!uthub!utecfa!utecfc!dennis
From: dennis@utecfc.UUCP (Dennis Ferguson)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Intellectual Sleaze (Longer)
Message-ID: <43@utecfc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 21:56:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: utecfc.43
Posted: Fri Sep 20 21:56:19 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Sep-85 08:21:35 EDT
References: <1386@utcsri.UUCP> <5952@utzoo.UUCP> <820@water.UUCP>
Reply-To: dennis@utecfc.UUCP (Dennis Ferguson)
Organization: Mechanical Engineering, University of Toronto
Lines: 108
Summary: 

Sorry, I am weak and can't resist.

In article <12@ubc-cs.UUCP> morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison) writes:
>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.

This is not really true.  The absolute maximum amount of leakage from
any particular dump is easily calculable.  The performance of
several storage technologies over a shorter time is known from
experiments, at Chalk River and by the Tennesee Valley Authority
to cite examples that I know of, and these provide some data as to
the rates of leakage that might be expected over a much longer
time.  Note that these rates are very low, and as the stuff
was buried 30 years ago this was obtained with early storage
technology.  We can do better now, and better in the future.

Are you sure anyone understands the future consequences of the
alternatives to nuclear energy any better?

>Even if we knew these concentrations, we would
>be in much the same position as we are now wrt carcinogens such
>as sodium nitrite.

If this means that we don't know how much ingested radioactive
material is dangerous, this is not quite true either.  Try the
USAEC Rules and Regulations for a listing of the maximum safe
body concentrations by isotope, and the consequent permissible
environmental concentrations.  These numbers are derived from
collected observations of the effects on both humans and lab
animals, and all lie well below the concentrations of radioactivity
found naturally *within* the body (mostly from carbon-14 and
potassium-40, with a wide variety of other isotopes in smaller
quantities).

>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.)

I would conjecture differently.  When the trees are dead,
the topsoil which took tens of thousands of years to create
has washed out to sea and the PH of what soil is left
is 3.5, I suspect thousands of years would be the minimum recovery
time.  I hope we don't have to find out whether either of these
conjectures is true.

>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.

When did 50 to 75 years become a "standard" engineering design life?
For what is this the standard?  My Ford is having problems after six
years, while the Hagia Sophia [sp?] in Istanbul, quite a large building,
is 1500 years old and still in use.  You design to meet the requirements
of your particular project as best you can.

And why is even 75 years so unacceptable?  If we can guarantee 75 years
of leak-free storage, we will be handing the problem over to people with
waste technologies 75 years more advanced than our own.  And their
technologies had better be advanced, because this won't be the only problem
we'll be leaving for them to clean up, or even the most serious (my opinion).

>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. 

The discussion, as you pointed out in an earlier posting, is nuclear
energy versus its alternatives.  And like it or not, its main alternative
is coal.  Do you then have a complete understanding of the effect on
our atmosphere and climate that another 30 or 50 years of massive carbon
dioxide production by hydrocarbon combustion will cause?  If not,
how are you so sure that its effect will be any less dangerous then
what you have suggested for nuclear waste?  What about the damage
caused by 30 more years of acid rain, are you sure that its effect
will not be as permanent?  Is it empirically well-established that
the combustion byproducts from the furnace and the scrubbers are
less dangerous than nuclear waste?  We are bound to have some immunity
to low level radioactivity due to our constant exposure naturally,
but some of those compounds are utterly foreign.  In failing to make
clear why you prefer coal to nuclear power (*not* just why you think
nuclear power is bad) you avoid the central issue (and perhaps a label
of "intellectual sleaze" for yourself).

It is a time for hard decisions.  With nuclear energy, there is a
possibility, maybe even a good probability, that we will never have to
find out what it is like to live in an environment contaminanted by its
waste.  With coal we will have an equally difficult waste management
problem and we *will* find out what it is like to live with an atmosphere
containing too much carbon dioxide.  And SO2, unless we move to clean
that up quickly.  I'd rather not find out any of this.  "Intellectual
sleaze" or not, I prefer to take my chances with nuclear.
--
					Dennis Ferguson
					...!utcsri!utecfc!dennis