![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Monbiot Goes in the Ditch Again
Aug. 14th, 2008 10:25 amGeorge Monbiot makes his positioning on the use of nuclear power sound like a soured romantic liaison that he's gotten over for the greater good. When in doubt, fall on the unerring carbon market to sort things out. A new form of green neoliberalism. No need to have an educated opinion on any of this, the spreadsheet will make our decisions for us. Guess who will probably set the boundary conditions on this analysis? Cripes.
Regarding the Scientific American article that references a thirty year old Science article written by the folks at the nuclear-focused Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a quick look at the abstract raises some questions about the interpretation of that publication in this context. No mention of biological measurements in particular. Looks like a paper study. Again with the boundary conditions.
As a side note, I consider most Scientific American articles to be about the same in quality as New Scientist ones. Entertaining, well written with excellent graphics but not entirely trustworthy. Kind of science junk food. Fun to consume but probably not good for you in the long run.
BTW, if Monbiot provided a secondary source like the SciAm article in a paper for one of my classes, instead of using the original Science article, he'd get a serious talking to about academic standards. The relative risk of natural thorium and uranium vs. hopped up cesium and strontium from a reactor would also be fair game here. Either way, if one has decent non-radioactive alternatives, and we do, the discussion is indeed an academic one.
Monbiot puts out some interesting works but sometimes he dives for the weeds with his momentary support of Galloway's Respect Party and now with his dipping into the river on nuclear power. Hopefully someone will have his heel and he'll return to a more nuanced and sensible position. As he often note, we don't have a lot of time for screwing around on this one. Now back to my regularly scheduled shrieking . . .
The Stakes Could Not Be Higher. Everything Hinges on Stopping Coal - The Guardian (UK) - 05 Aug 08
"have now reached the point at which I no longer care whether or not the answer is nuclear. Let it happen - as long as its total emissions are taken into account, we know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried, how much this will cost and who will pay, and there is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will be used by the military. We can no longer afford any rigid principle but one: that the harm done to people living now and in the future must be minimised by the most effective means, whatever they might be."
Old King Coal is a Brave Old Soul, but He is Talking Utter Nonsense - Guardian (UK) - 12 Aug 08
"The odd and widely ignored truth is that routine radioactive discharges from coal-burning are greater than those produced by nuclear plants. Coal contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium. Though these are present at much lower levels than in nuclear fuel, a lot more coal is burned, which means that total emissions are greater. An article in Scientific American last year maintained that levels of ionising radiation in the bones of people living around coal plants are up to six times higher than the levels in people living around atomic power stations."
"I feel I need to point out that I have not become an advocate for nuclear power. My position is that environmentalists should stop trying to pick technologies for electricity generation. Instead we should demand a maximum level for the carbon dioxide produced per megawatt-hour, impose a number of other public safety measures, then allow the energy companies to find the cheapest means of delivering it. Otherwise we are in danger of backing the solutions we find aesthetically appealing and delaying the massive carbon cuts that need to be made.
If nuclear power meets the very tough conditions I proposed last week, we should no longer oppose it - though that remains a big if. This is too subtle a point for Arthur and other commentators, who are shrieking that Monbiot has gone nuclear."
Regarding the Scientific American article that references a thirty year old Science article written by the folks at the nuclear-focused Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a quick look at the abstract raises some questions about the interpretation of that publication in this context. No mention of biological measurements in particular. Looks like a paper study. Again with the boundary conditions.
As a side note, I consider most Scientific American articles to be about the same in quality as New Scientist ones. Entertaining, well written with excellent graphics but not entirely trustworthy. Kind of science junk food. Fun to consume but probably not good for you in the long run.
BTW, if Monbiot provided a secondary source like the SciAm article in a paper for one of my classes, instead of using the original Science article, he'd get a serious talking to about academic standards. The relative risk of natural thorium and uranium vs. hopped up cesium and strontium from a reactor would also be fair game here. Either way, if one has decent non-radioactive alternatives, and we do, the discussion is indeed an academic one.
Monbiot puts out some interesting works but sometimes he dives for the weeds with his momentary support of Galloway's Respect Party and now with his dipping into the river on nuclear power. Hopefully someone will have his heel and he'll return to a more nuanced and sensible position. As he often note, we don't have a lot of time for screwing around on this one. Now back to my regularly scheduled shrieking . . .
The Stakes Could Not Be Higher. Everything Hinges on Stopping Coal - The Guardian (UK) - 05 Aug 08
"have now reached the point at which I no longer care whether or not the answer is nuclear. Let it happen - as long as its total emissions are taken into account, we know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried, how much this will cost and who will pay, and there is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will be used by the military. We can no longer afford any rigid principle but one: that the harm done to people living now and in the future must be minimised by the most effective means, whatever they might be."
Old King Coal is a Brave Old Soul, but He is Talking Utter Nonsense - Guardian (UK) - 12 Aug 08
"The odd and widely ignored truth is that routine radioactive discharges from coal-burning are greater than those produced by nuclear plants. Coal contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium. Though these are present at much lower levels than in nuclear fuel, a lot more coal is burned, which means that total emissions are greater. An article in Scientific American last year maintained that levels of ionising radiation in the bones of people living around coal plants are up to six times higher than the levels in people living around atomic power stations."
"I feel I need to point out that I have not become an advocate for nuclear power. My position is that environmentalists should stop trying to pick technologies for electricity generation. Instead we should demand a maximum level for the carbon dioxide produced per megawatt-hour, impose a number of other public safety measures, then allow the energy companies to find the cheapest means of delivering it. Otherwise we are in danger of backing the solutions we find aesthetically appealing and delaying the massive carbon cuts that need to be made.
If nuclear power meets the very tough conditions I proposed last week, we should no longer oppose it - though that remains a big if. This is too subtle a point for Arthur and other commentators, who are shrieking that Monbiot has gone nuclear."
