Virgil

That's good news, Virgil. I've never thought wind or solar could do it all, but I have no problem exploring them as suitable, alternative options. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, etc., etc.

As to the media, well, you know, drama sells. Apparently they know this, too. Yes, I agree with you that the media are notoriously bad at getting their stories straight. I think that speaks to the fact that many issues are complicated, and I think in most mainstream papers, are not geared toward complexity. It will probably get worse, as we move more and more toward 'nuggets' of information.

In the interests of openness, my degree is in journalism.

Oh, congrats to your niece!

The media coverage of these kinds of items is really bad. Mostly I think it stems from the fact that media coverage is designed to entertain and get ratings now. It isn't there to simply inform people accurately, which is kind of scary on a number of levels. I tend to skew towards trade journals for my science information, but subscriptions can get VERY costly.

Hi Virgil.

Yeah, good blog! I certainly can't fault your observations about the media and hysterical scare mongering. I'm old enough to remember when, the BBC at least, was very cautious about reporting unverified "facts". Lord Reith may have been an anally retentive, Gay and Woman-hating, religious maniac, but his insistance that the BBC should be regarded as an institution that only told the truth, and what's more, in a calm measured manner, had a lot going for it. Sadly, this is now but a distant memory. Tabloid style sensationalism is now the norm, endlessly repeated by stumbling toung-tied reporters and anchor-persons, or by bouncy, screaming gabblers, who talk so quickly that the nonsense they are spouting so ungramatically through thick impenetrable accents, barely has time to register in the brain before they move on to the next unverified or speculative article.

However, I confess that I retain severe reservations about the use of nuclear power. The stories, post earthquake, about Fukashima may well have been over egged, but I can assure you that the aftermath of Chernobyl has not been. Yes, I know that Chernobyl was a much older facility and a lot has been learned since then, but the potential consequnces of nuclear accidents can't be understated. Nuclear power also generates very dangerous waste. Dealing with this is also no small matter. Like all industrial processes, the nuclear option is a relatively short-term solution to an immediate, or at least iminent, short-fall in energy, but it is laying up problems for generations to come, and concievably even those which may come after the collapse of civilisation as we know it. You only have to look at the lengths being gone to in Onkalo...

However, The nuclear option remains very much alive in Britain. The current government claims to remain committed to the building of new atomic power stations as part of it's stratergy for decreasing reliance on imported fossil fuels and in order to augment the limited production capacity of renewable enrgy. However, only last night it was revealed on the news (if it can be believed, of course) that there are still almost insurmountable obstacles to implementing this policy. These obstacles are not environmental though. They are financial and coupled with a long-standing political problem which has more to do with decisions to privatise energy production and then allowing foreign owned companies to control the infrastructure of a soveriegn state, which I must confess, I deem to be not in the national interest.

A proposed new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, which has already cost the Government Millions, even before a contractor has buldozed the first shovelful of soil, is now in danger of collapsing because the exisiting sceme can't be funded within budget, and EDF Energy, a French company responsible for a large proportion of our energy production in Britain, and which appears to be insisting on a contract which will cost the Government Billions in ongoing subsidies for many years, is threatening to pull out.

I guess all we can hope for, is that before civilisation actually collapses, some bright scientist will come up with Buzz Lightyear's "crysrtolic fusion" or that a cheap, reliable hydrogen power source will be discovered.

Hopefully, your clever niece will come up with the goods!

Best wishes, as always, to you and yours.

Hawk.

On the whole I approve of nuclear power for providing base load, notwithstanding the occasional accident. No one has died yet from the Fukushima accident yet, so far as I know. My main worries about nuclear are (a) proliferation of nuclear materials and (b) maintaining of high safety standards in all countries that may decide they need nuclear power too. I also worry about about proliferation of nuclear weapons made possible by uranium enrichment processes, but it seems if a country is determined to build nuclear weapons then they will. In twenty or thirty years time, fusion should be here.

I find it funny that you tell us how unreliable the media are and then, to prove how wrong they were, post an extract from a media report Of course if you read the actual report it is a fairly accurate representation of the conclusions as is the CNN report which focuses on the psychological issues, which WHO conclude is likely to be more damaging than any other type of illness (there is a section in the report about this).

My primary concern about nuclear power is the waste. They don't really have any idea how to deal with it and the 'political' solution, in the UK anyway, is a poor one. Their solution is to bury it under the hills in Cumbria, which apparently is 'safe'. Of course if it was so assuredly safe then they'd be happy to bury it in a chamber under Westminster, but of course then, no doubt, the MPs would get cold (or perhaps warm) feet. One of my university tutors was an advisor to the nuclear power industry and worked in the industry for many years. His view is that that governments are to keen to conclude that nuclear is 'clean' because they separate the waste element from the production element and in a time where there is significant concern about greenhouse gases, nuclear power becomes the 'holy grail' of clean energy. But they are just stacking up a different problem for the future.

My view is that we need a range of energy solutions, reliance on any one is always going to be a flawed option. I see nuclear as part of that, but I'd also like to see governments focusing more effort and resource into addressing the waste problem. I'd also like to see greater focus on producing energy efficient devices, and considering the use of 'greener' sources (e.g. solar / wind / water) on a more macro level. My solar powered calculator that I use at work has survived 20 years and a bomb and still functions perfectly well. Of course then no one can sell me another calculator, and that is a separate problem (though not mine, I am very happy with my cheap efficient and long-lived calculator).

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

I find it funny that you tell us how unreliable the media are and then, to prove how wrong they were, post an extract from a media report Of course if you read the actual report it is a fairly accurate representation of the conclusions as is the CNN report which focuses on the psychological issues, which WHO conclude is likely to be more damaging than any other type of illness (there is a section in the report about this).

Hehe, that certainly crossed my mind as I was writing my entry. But there were a few reasons why it didn't hold and I went with it. (1) The article came from Bloomberg News and that's about the most non-partisan news org I know. (2) It goes against the grain of what would make headline news. If the opposite were true, every newspaper and news media would have been blasting it. (3) It's filled with facts not hysterical speculations. (4) The CNN article, a news org I find very biased and would naturally love to publish the opposite point couldn't. They substantiated the facts. Call that my anticipatory rebuttal. (5) It substantiated the engineers at MIT that were posting on the situation two years ago. (6) I did a cursory search and couldn't find anything to contradict it. Perhaps I wasn't thorough enough in my search. If you find a legitimate news source to contradict it please point it out and I'll re-evaluate.

Psychological issues more damaging than other types of illness from radiation exposure? Radiation exposure can be devastating. WHO must be filled with dolts. No I don't think that claim can hold. And really, they went through a 9.1 earthquake that devastated towns, a tsunami that killed 20,000 people, do you think the psychological trauma of a speculated fear which didn't materialize measures to that?

My view is that we need a range of energy solutions, reliance on any one is always going to be a flawed option. I see nuclear as part of that, but I'd also like to see governments focusing more effort and resource into addressing the waste problem. I'd also like to see greater focus on producing energy efficient devices, and considering the use of 'greener' sources (e.g. solar / wind / water) on a more macro level. My solar powered calculator that I use at work has survived 20 years and a bomb and still functions perfectly well. Of course then no one can sell me another calculator, and that is a separate problem (though not mine, I am very happy with my cheap efficient and long-lived calculator).

Sure, I agree on multiple solutions. I think I gave some thoughts on that in the blog from two years ago in the comments reply to Manolia and others. There are nice niche applications for solar power. Wind will be a bust. That's just my opinion as an engineer. Perhaps one day governments will stop subsidizing it and prove to me it is self sufficient and competitive.

Originally Posted by Hawkman

Yeah, good blog! I certainly can't fault your observations about the media and hysterical scare mongering. I'm old enough to remember when, the BBC at least, was very cautious about reporting unverified "facts". Lord Reith may have been an anally retentive, Gay and Woman-hating, religious maniac, but his insistance that the BBC should be regarded as an institution that only told the truth,

Thank you. I don't know who Lord Reith is but he sounds like quite a man.

However, I confess that I retain severe reservations about the use of nuclear power. The stories, post earthquake, about Fukashima may well have been over egged, but I can assure you that the aftermath of Chernobyl has not been. Yes, I know that Chernobyl was a much older facility and a lot has been learned since then, but the potential consequnces of nuclear accidents can't be understated.

The Soviet approach to engineering, while at times innovative, really never put much resource into quality and safety. I've come across a few designs of items that could easily be dangerous and you see they took on much higher risks than we would. It crosses my mind as I write this that the fact that Communists did not have a free market, and therefore never would have had to face a law suit, created a mindset that the cost of failure was low. You cant sue a totalitarian government nor can you fight it. Chernobyl was a learning experience in what not to do. I think nuclear power plant technology is very wide spread at this point and all countries will hire the established corporations to build it.

Nuclear power also generates very dangerous waste. Dealing with this is also no small matter. Like all industrial processes, the nuclear option is a relatively short-term solution to an immediate, or at least iminent, short-fall in energy, but it is laying up problems for generations to come, and concievably even those which may come after the collapse of civilisation as we know it. You only have to look at the lengths being gone to in Onkalo...

The waste is no small matter, I agree. However it seems to be managed. I don't have anything against oil, coal, or natural gas, but the environmentalist extremist seem to. Take away nuclear as well and you're left with nothing. Tongue-in-cheek I kid around and say they want us living by campfires in caves.

A proposed new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, which has already cost the Government Millions, even before a contractor has buldozed the first shovelful of soil, is now in danger of collapsing because the exisiting sceme can't be funded within budget, and EDF Energy, a French company responsible for a large proportion of our energy production in Britain, and which appears to be insisting on a contract which will cost the Government Billions in ongoing subsidies for many years, is threatening to pull out.

The French are responsible for British energy? Henry V must be turning over in his grave.

Hopefully, your clever niece will come up with the goods!

Thank you. I think she wants to go into biomedical engineering, but she's only a Freshman. We'll see if she changes

Thank you everyone for your comments.

Originally Posted by Virgil

If you find a legitimate news source to contradict it please point it out and I'll re-evaluate.

Oh I wasn't disagreeing, actually I went and had a read of the report (skipping ther media interpretation). The full report is available here: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/1...505130_eng.pdf

Originally Posted by Virgil

Psychological issues more damaging than other types of illness from radiation exposure? Radiation exposure can be devastating. WHO must be filled with dolts. No I don't think that claim can hold. And really, they went through a 9.1 earthquake that devastated towns, a tsunami that killed 20,000 people, do you think the psychological trauma of a speculated fear which didn't materialize measures to that?

Well this is what the report says:

Although the assessment of mental health risk is beyond the scope of this HRA, this topic is highlighted as a challenge to the medical community and health authorities that may have an impact at all levels of society. The psychosocial impact is one of the major consequences of nuclear emergencies; this was one of the lessons learned from the Chernobyl accident (141,149). As with the Chernobyl accident, the psychological impact of the Fukushima accident may outweigh other health consequences (150).

Psychological reactions following disasters may include multiple symptoms such as fear, grief, anxiety, anger, depression and distrust (151). These reactions may be exacerbated in radiation emergencies because radiation cannot be perceived by the senses and most people either do not know or do not fully understand the terminology used to express the size of exposures and their potential effects. As a result, community-wide feelings of helplessness and vulnerability may arise. Those disasters with a high degree of uncertainty about potential future health effects are more psychologically traumatic than situations with more visible, immediate and predictable outcomes.

A high incidence of psychosomatic symptoms, psychological distress and psychiatric disorders has been observed among victims of radiation accidents. Parents with young children (152), pregnant women, children, elderly persons, emergency workers, people with pre-existing mental disorders, clean-up workers (153), evacuees (154) and the
population as a whole in some instances (155) may all be at increased risk. Acute stress reactions typically include physical, emotional, cognitive and interpersonal effects. A persistent state of anxiety may result in chronic stress reactions that have behavioural, emotional and physiological consequences. Some people may develop mental disorders
such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety disorders, depression and alcohol use disorder.

The psychological impact of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami was compounded by the subsequent nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi NPP. For many people, the Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident resulted in many stressors that constitute a potentially traumatic situation. In addition to the significant impact of the loss of lives and missing loved ones because of the earthquake and tsunami (134), other conditions such as evacuation, relocation, material and financial loss – as well as fear and uncertainty related to radiation exposure and its potential consequences – increased the mental health impact of the combined disaster. As of September 2012, 329 777
people remain relocated or evacuated (156).

Early management of mental health issues is important (141,157,158). Most people with common psychiatric symptoms such as anxiety and depression do not seek professional care, and those who do seek care often present to general practitioners or paediatricians with physical symptoms. Consequently, medical practitioners need to understand
the full scope of health effects of radiation exposure, to recognize and manage psychosomatic, anxiety or depression symptoms and to treat mental and physical health with equal respect (159).

The psychosocial effects of radiation accidents may extend far beyond the geographical area of impact because of people’s worries about future risks. The size of the population exhibiting chronic stress may be quite large and social stigma attached to residents of affected areas may exacerbate the problems.

So there are two issues really. 1) The WHO conclude that the physical effects of radiation are likely to be quite small so what you're comparing is not significant increases in cancer rates against pyschological illness but rather minimal radiation related sickness against a more widespread, and ongoing, pyschological trauma. 2) Actually you shouldn't underestimate the potential impact of ongoing and continuous fear. In the insurance industry we have a whole raft of issues over 'fear of asbestosis' in the same vein - people think they may have been exposed to a contaminant which is undetectable until the devasatating health effects have kicked in, many years later. They may or may not get sick, but in the meantime the fear of asbestosis creates a form of sickness in itself, presenting as pyschological trauma. Radiation is the same issue. Imagine walking around your home everyday thinking that you're breathing in, surrounded and enveloped by, something that is slowly destroying your body; you can't see or feel it and don't have the means to do anything about it. You don't know if the authorities are telling you the truth, or which media reports to believe. That kind of powerlessness/helplessness and fear can do long term damage to people's lives. Of course it could just be paranoia, but if you're living in the vicinity of a nuclear accident it might be quite reasonable paranoia!

Thanks Fifth. I looked at the report and I read the Executive Summary, which was interesting. Too long to read the rest. Thanks for relevant the quotes on the psychological issues. I don't wish to minimize the psychological traumas. My mother suffers from anxiety coupled with depression, and she's on regular medication. I guess my point was that in the face of immense health issues that could have occurred, the psychological ones can be relieved. Yes constant fear does lead to major health issues, but I'm hoping those fears are mitigated with this report and hopefully some provided counseling. Now I'm not saying we can live with routine nuclear disasters. Not at all. If something like this happens every fifty years, then the industry is not viable. The immense earthquake and tsunami had a confluence of events that the nuclear designers didn't account for. Hopefully every nuclear plant has now gone back and upgraded for flood damage that can lead to meltdown.

I'm trying to think of people living with routine disasters, and the only thing I'm coming up with are Caribbean Islands where numerous hurricanes pass every year, and they probably each get a devastating one every ten years or so. They tend to get used to it. It's amazing what humans get used to. But your example of asbestos, like radiation, is an invisible threat. That really generates fear. But so are cigarette smoking and taking harmful drugs, but people actually embrace those.

That last paragraph was just a rambling of thoughts and not trying to make any point.