I did not sense any anti-nuke sentiment in Bill's comments on the
Monbiot/Caldicott. debate. I happened to listen to the debate on our
students' radio station. I thought Bill's assessment was a good one.
I also agree with Adam's comment on the Guardian's piece " If only this
view were more prevalent". It is important for the public to hear both
points of view and make up their own mind. After listening to the
debate, many will agree that Helen Caldicott did not serve her cause
well by her many interruptions and outbursts.
On 4/2/2011 9:05 AM, Bill Garland wrote:
Maybe I misunderstand your meaning but to wax poetic to me means to
in favour of effusively. Who on this board speaks in favour of
At 03:56 AM 02/04/2011, Bruce Behrhorst wrote:
on this board wax
poetic on old anti-nuke media icons like Caldicott. The fact is she
pioneered feeding anti-nuke dis-information decades ago to lamestream
Western media is still after her exaggerated fake nuke health science
The fact is FUKUSHIMA NPP park is stable thanks to good work by
nuclear workers and nuke firefighter brigades and it's a question of
clean-up & decommissioning this will take years to accomplish.
Reality is anti-nuke hysteria plays no role is serving developing or
developed nation's economies in delivering safe efficient bulk instant
baseloading electrical energy.
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Bill Garland
- Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 6:37 PM
- Subject: Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Monbiot vs Caldicott
- As painful as it was I did manage to endure listening to
"I'm smart, buy my book" Caldicott. George did a fair job
at trying to get her to think in actual quantitative terms but to no
avail. I didn't agree with George though on deferring to scientific
consensus nor with Helen that the debate is over or with her
pronouncement that solar and wind can save the day.
- At 04:32 PM 31/03/2011, Robin Collins wrote:
- related debate:
- "Prescription for Survival": A Debate on the Future of
- Between Anti-Coal Advocate George Monbiot and
- Dr. Helen Caldicott
- On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Adam McLean
- > Printed in the Guardian on 21 March 2011 and at:
- > If only this view were more prevalent...
- > All the best,
- > Adam
- > ---------------------
- > Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear
- > Japan's disaster would weigh more heavily if there
- > alternatives. Atomic power is part of the mix
- > George Monbiot guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 March 2011
- > history
- > Illustration: Daniel Pudles
- > You will not be surprised to hear that the events in
- > view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear
- > it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am
- > nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.
- > A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features
was hit by a
- > earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity
- > the cooling system. The reactors began to explode
and melt down.
- > disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design
- > as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal
- > Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of
- > For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by
It shows that
- > the average total dose from the Three Mile Island
- > living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of
- > amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in
half of the
- > lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased
- > its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal
exposure. I'm not
- > complacency here. I am proposing perspective.
- > If other forms of energy production caused no
- > weigh more heavily. But energy is like medicine: if
- > side-effects, the chances are that it doesn't work.
- > Like most greens, I favour a major expansion of
- > sympathise with the complaints of their opponents.
It's not just
- > windfarms that bother people, but also the new grid
- > power lines). As the proportion of renewable
electricity on the
- > more pumped storage will be needed to keep the
lights on. That
- > reservoirs on mountains: they aren't popular, either.
- > The impacts and costs of renewables rise with the
- > supply, as the need for storage and redundancy
increases. It may
well be the
- > case (I have yet to see a comparative study) that up
- > penetration - 50% or 70%, perhaps? - renewables have
- > than nuclear, while beyond that point, nuclear has
- > renewables.
- > Like others, I have called for renewable power to be
- > the electricity produced by fossil fuel and to
expand the total
- > displacing the oil used for transport and the gas
heating fuel. Are
- > we also to demand that it replaces current nuclear
- > we expect renewables to do, the greater the impact
landscape will be,
- > and the tougher the task of public persuasion.
- > But expanding the grid to connect people and
industry to rich,
- > sources of ambient energy is also rejected by most
of the greens
- > complained about the blog post I wrote last week in
- > nuclear remains safer than coal. What they want,
they tell me,
- > quite different: we should power down and produce
- > have even called for the abandonment of the grid.
- > sounds lovely, until you read the small print.
- > At high latitudes like ours, most small-scale
production is a
- > dead loss. Generating solar power in the UK involves
spectacular waste of
- > scarce resources. It's hopelessly inefficient and
- > pattern of demand. Wind power in populated areas is
- > is partly because we have built our settlements in
- > because turbulence caused by the buildings
interferes with the
- > chews up the mechanism. Micro-hydropower might work
- > Wales, but it's not much use in Birmingham.
- > And how do we drive our textile mills, brick kilns,
- > electric railways - not to mention advanced
- > solar panels? The moment you consider the demands of
- > the moment at which you fall out of love with local
- > national (or, better still, international) grid is
- > prerequisite for a largely renewable energy supply.
- > Some greens go even further: why waste renewable
- > into electricity? Why not use them to provide energy
- > this question, look at what happened in Britain
- > revolution.
- > The damming and weiring of British rivers for
- > renewable, picturesque and devastating. By blocking
- > up the spawning beds, they helped bring to an end
- > migratory fish that were once among our great
- > fed much of Britain - wiping out sturgeon, lampreys
and shad, as
- > most sea trout and salmon.
- > Traction was intimately linked with starvation. The
that was set
- > aside for feeding draft animals for industry and
- > available for feeding humans. It was the
- > biofuels crisis. The same applied to heating fuel.
As EA Wrigley
- > in his book Energy and the English Industrial
11m tonnes of
- > coal mined in England in 1800 produced as much
energy as 11m
- > woodland (one third of the land surface) would have
- > Before coal became widely available, wood was used
not just for
- > homes but also for industrial processes: if half the
surface of Britain
- > had been covered with woodland, Wrigley shows, we
- > tonnes of bar iron a year (a fraction of current
- > else. Even with a much lower population than
manufactured goods in
- > the land-based economy were the preserve of the
- > production - decentralised, based on the products of
the land -
is far more
- > damaging to humanity than nuclear meltdown.
- > But the energy source to which most economies will
they shut down
- > their nuclear plants is not wood, water, wind or
sun, but fossil
- > every measure (climate change, mining impact, local
- > injury and death, even radioactive discharges) coal
is 100 times
- > nuclear power. Thanks to the expansion of shale gas
- > of natural gas are catching up fast.
- > Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear
- > prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there
- > alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions.
- > carries a cost; so does the absence of energy
- > has just been subjected to one of the harshest of
tests, and the
- > impact on people and the planet has been small. The
- > converted me to the cause of nuclear power.
- > _______________________________________________
- > cdn-nucl-l mailing list
- > cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
- cdn-nucl-l mailing list