When I suggested yesterday that you are "preaching to the choir," I really didn't mean you in particular. I know little about your readership other than what I can estimate by reading the comments. My experience is that too many pro-nuclear commentators have readers that are already almost all pro-nuclear to start with -- the Amen choir. But the same is true for any controversial topic, I guess. Getting the attention of others who are non-technical and have been mislead by the media is the challenge. That's why I mentioned PragerU and Oliver Stone's new movie. We need to get the word out about these attempts to educate the general public -- then maybe your readership will increase too.
You along with others in the Gordian Knot choir keep missing the point, no matter how many different ways I say it. The problem is NOT the public. The problem is a corrupt nuclear establishment feeding off the taxpayer and a regulatory system designed to make nuclear prohibitively expensive. Get rid of that establishment and replace that regulatory system with one that has built in checks and balance, promote competition among the nuclear vendors, then nuclear will blossom. Don't do that, then nothing happens.
OK, I see your point. But I doubt that will happen until there is enough public pressure to make it happen. As long as the general public is irrationally fearful of nuclear waste or minute amounts of radiation, any attempt to reform nuclear regulations will be demagogued by the alarmists as "putting profits ahead of safety" -- and you can be sure the media will fan the flames. The regulators will not take any chances of being blamed for an accident that the media will blow completely out of proportion unless they think the public is on their side in loosening the regulations. So in the end, I think public awareness and education is essential.
We have a nuclear establishment that preaches LNT and enforces ALARA. If the public is irrationally fearful of low dose rate radiation, it is because the nuclear establishment has told them to be fearful. The nuclear establishment has to change in order for public attitudes to really change. Barring really strong presidential leadership, I do not see this happening inthe US.
Jack - I agree with your diagnosis, but I will continue to push my reasoning regarding the root cause of that corruption.
Many of the individuals and entities that you call the "nuclear establishment" are also part of the hydrocarbon establishment. They are willing to settle for a modest piece of the energy pie with excessive unit costs that are driven by efforts to maintain a rough price parity with the established fuel sources. Those extra costs make up for the limited sales volume that they have accepted. (Others in the original nuclear establishment carried the burden of participating in the "original sin" of nuclear energy, but that is a different story.)
The burdensome regulatory system is justified by the fear that was instilled with frequently repeated messages about the danger of any kind of exposure or contamination. Have you ever noticed how frequently reports, even the official ones to regulators, do not QUANTIFY the dose rates or the contamination levels? Nearly everyone has been carefully taught to believe it doesn't matter. (Prime example is the hype surrounding enormous volumes of water contaminated by minuscule amounts of tritium, one of the least harmful isotopes we know of.)
As you have so often pointed out, the rate of exposure and the intervals between exposure are what determines actual risk of damage.
The LNT - which I prefer to call the "no safe dose" assertion - didn't arise out of nothingness. In 1934, the International Council on Radiation Protection, after years of experience with radiation exposures, established a limit based on real science of observation. Using modern units, it was 2 mGy/day. Notice, it did not include any cumulative limits. It did not complicate the figure with "well buts." The number was based on observable harm with a 10x safety margin.
That construct allowed the Manhattan Project to safely achieve its mission without harming any of its tens of thousands of workers.
Maintaining that construct would have enabled the atomic energy industry to achieve what Sir Arthur Eddington predicted - that the delicacies of coal and oil would be replaced by "sub-atomic energy." (He made that prediction to the world's established energy industry during the 3rd World Power Conference held in Berlin in 1930.)
My research tells me that at least one or two attendees at that Conference took the prediction as a warning and began laying the groundwork for slowing down a formidable competitor that could take away a lucrative and growing market.
Muller was the most visible and useful tool of the ensuing, multi-decade campaign to create radiation fear.
You maybe my most recalcitrant parishioner. Your comment on fossil fuel belongs under
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/big-oil-and-nuclear where I point out that Big Oil make a big bet on nuclear in the crucial 60's and 70's. Blaming nuclear's woes on fossil fuel is at best a counterproductive distraction from our real problems.
LNT accepts the No-Safe-Dose hypothesis but so do all sorts of non-linear dose-response curves including the logistic. The key difference is that a linear response implies the dose is cumulative, we have no repair systems. The non-linear response curves are consistent with a repair capability and the harm depends on the dose within the repair period. Pls see
Jack - I continue to challenge your description of "Big Oil's" ancient dabbling in nuclear as a "big bet." On the scale of the companies involved, it was a mere sideline. Perhaps it could be more accurately described as a distraction that apparently worked in at least one case.
I also reject your continued effort to paint my thesis for the root of radiation fear as being limited to "Big Oil." I believe the source of the fear is by a long running, not coordinated education effort by hydrocarbon interests, a very large group that includes bankers, politicians, metals producers, tanker owner/operator/builders, pipeline operators/builders, port operators, coal utilities/miners, traders/speculators/investors, and railroads.
All of those interests were (are) threatened by the prospect of a successful, less burdened atomic fission industry.
Yes, I am recalcitrant, but I intend to keep coming to church and sharing my modifications of your preachings.
As a loyal member of the choir, I can say I am not missing the point. I agree that the nuclear establishment, at least part of it, is the problem, but not all of it. I see the problem as including the public, the media, the politicians, and the regulators. The disagreement might be where best to attack this knot. What is the best use of our few remaining years. Jack's contributions, writing hard-hitting, technically correct, well-researched blog posts is essential. We in the choir can link to these in our FaceBook discussions and communications with the media and politicians. We need both his expert writing, AND public communications. I would say the latter is actually more productive at this time. The anti-nuclear dam has a few cracks, and it won't be long before it collapses.
I am spending my limited time on improving the Citizendium articles on nuclear power. As an editor, I have to refrain from advocacy, so perhaps some members of this choir can help. We need to better inform those few members of the media who are not emotionally tied to the anti-nuclear group-think, and are concerned about climate change. I'm thinking of TV hosts like Chris Hayes, and editorial writers like Paul Krugman. I've written to Krugman, and he seems interested.
I have also attempted to write for Wikipedia, but so far not much progress. They won't accept even IAEA documents as sources on reactor designs (alleging that IAEA is part of the nuclear establishment, and therefore has a conflict of interest). This may be changing, however. Ancheta Wis, a participant with lots of "barnstars" came to my rescue when I said that gaseous fission products bubble out of molten salt and are not a big problem, as alleged by Wickey. Maybe a few more experts like Ancheta will tilt the balance at Wikipedia. Have a look at the history of their ThorCon article. Someone should challenge their reliance on UCS as the only allowable source in the Criticism section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThorCon_nuclear_reactor#Criticism
That someone should probably not be Jack. He has no tolerance for idiots, and will probably get banned.
I found your take very amusing but of course the situation isn't very funny. However please don't get depressed, you write clearly and extremely well and the reviews on the Gordian Knot help us in the choir clarify our thoughts. There are not many people who do understand nuclear power and write well enough to spread the facts. Keep up the good work.
I have been sitting quietly at the back of the choir, but listening closely to the sermon. I leave the choir daily and talk to all the people I know about the messages from the pulpit. They are tired of my insistence, but I am armed with knowledge, with perspective and with facts that would otherwise be unknown to me. There are many paths of argument which will not prove fruitful and you help me avoid these pitfalls. For example, I don't argue for a threshold, I argue for a strongly nonlinear response such as a logistic curve.
I am sensing frustration in your latest sermon. I would like to assure you that there are many others like myself out of sight at the back of the choir that are learning the gospel and actively spreading the gospel.
I feel that the tide of public opinion is changing.
Whenever anyone accuses me of "preaching to the choir," I remind them that all successful evangelists spend most of their time preaching to both their choir and the larger congregations whose attendance at weekly strategy sessions might be less regular.
Energizing, educating and inspiring followers is one of several necessary ways to make lasting changes in attitudes and actions. Keep up the good work.
And I would not dispute that for a second. I was not "accusing" anyone of "preaching to the choir". My off-hand use of the expression was merely a short-hand way of referring to the fact that getting the truth out about nuclear power (or any other "controversial" topic) is difficult when almost everyone that reads it already knows the basic truth.
I find Jack's writings here very informative, and I certainly appreciate what he is doing. However, I am an aeronautical engineer with no professional stake in nuclear science or engineering. Sometimes I get frustrated with the fact that, no matter how much more I learn about the advantages of nuclear power or the reasons for the failure of its growth, the more I realize that what I personally know has no bearing on the situation.
I guess I could have some marginal influence by getting more active on social media. I gave up on facebook a few years ago as largely a waste of time. I have a LinkedIn account that I don't use much, but perhaps I should get more active and at least link to forums like this one.
"Nuclear power plant releases are both inevitable and tolerable. As long as reasonable buffer zones are provided, and kids are prevented from drinking I-131 contaminated milk, most releases will produce no detectable radiation harm to the public. See Three Mile Island, Windscale, Fukushima, even Chernobyl."
I expect we'll see greater use of nuclear in many other nations before the US regulatory situation changes much. But at some point when the US is in enough pain, and something like the foregoing perspective has been adopted in other parts of the world, we'll finally open up and make progress. In the meantime, there is a steadily growing segment of the educated public which is changing its perspective on nuclear energy.
When I suggested yesterday that you are "preaching to the choir," I really didn't mean you in particular. I know little about your readership other than what I can estimate by reading the comments. My experience is that too many pro-nuclear commentators have readers that are already almost all pro-nuclear to start with -- the Amen choir. But the same is true for any controversial topic, I guess. Getting the attention of others who are non-technical and have been mislead by the media is the challenge. That's why I mentioned PragerU and Oliver Stone's new movie. We need to get the word out about these attempts to educate the general public -- then maybe your readership will increase too.
Russ,
You along with others in the Gordian Knot choir keep missing the point, no matter how many different ways I say it. The problem is NOT the public. The problem is a corrupt nuclear establishment feeding off the taxpayer and a regulatory system designed to make nuclear prohibitively expensive. Get rid of that establishment and replace that regulatory system with one that has built in checks and balance, promote competition among the nuclear vendors, then nuclear will blossom. Don't do that, then nothing happens.
OK, I see your point. But I doubt that will happen until there is enough public pressure to make it happen. As long as the general public is irrationally fearful of nuclear waste or minute amounts of radiation, any attempt to reform nuclear regulations will be demagogued by the alarmists as "putting profits ahead of safety" -- and you can be sure the media will fan the flames. The regulators will not take any chances of being blamed for an accident that the media will blow completely out of proportion unless they think the public is on their side in loosening the regulations. So in the end, I think public awareness and education is essential.
Russ,
We have a nuclear establishment that preaches LNT and enforces ALARA. If the public is irrationally fearful of low dose rate radiation, it is because the nuclear establishment has told them to be fearful. The nuclear establishment has to change in order for public attitudes to really change. Barring really strong presidential leadership, I do not see this happening inthe US.
Jack - I agree with your diagnosis, but I will continue to push my reasoning regarding the root cause of that corruption.
Many of the individuals and entities that you call the "nuclear establishment" are also part of the hydrocarbon establishment. They are willing to settle for a modest piece of the energy pie with excessive unit costs that are driven by efforts to maintain a rough price parity with the established fuel sources. Those extra costs make up for the limited sales volume that they have accepted. (Others in the original nuclear establishment carried the burden of participating in the "original sin" of nuclear energy, but that is a different story.)
The burdensome regulatory system is justified by the fear that was instilled with frequently repeated messages about the danger of any kind of exposure or contamination. Have you ever noticed how frequently reports, even the official ones to regulators, do not QUANTIFY the dose rates or the contamination levels? Nearly everyone has been carefully taught to believe it doesn't matter. (Prime example is the hype surrounding enormous volumes of water contaminated by minuscule amounts of tritium, one of the least harmful isotopes we know of.)
As you have so often pointed out, the rate of exposure and the intervals between exposure are what determines actual risk of damage.
The LNT - which I prefer to call the "no safe dose" assertion - didn't arise out of nothingness. In 1934, the International Council on Radiation Protection, after years of experience with radiation exposures, established a limit based on real science of observation. Using modern units, it was 2 mGy/day. Notice, it did not include any cumulative limits. It did not complicate the figure with "well buts." The number was based on observable harm with a 10x safety margin.
That construct allowed the Manhattan Project to safely achieve its mission without harming any of its tens of thousands of workers.
Maintaining that construct would have enabled the atomic energy industry to achieve what Sir Arthur Eddington predicted - that the delicacies of coal and oil would be replaced by "sub-atomic energy." (He made that prediction to the world's established energy industry during the 3rd World Power Conference held in Berlin in 1930.)
My research tells me that at least one or two attendees at that Conference took the prediction as a warning and began laying the groundwork for slowing down a formidable competitor that could take away a lucrative and growing market.
Muller was the most visible and useful tool of the ensuing, multi-decade campaign to create radiation fear.
https://atomicinsights.com/how-would-a-rockefeller-crony-react-to-eddingtons-vision-of-subatomic-energy/?highlight=Eddington
Rod,
You maybe my most recalcitrant parishioner. Your comment on fossil fuel belongs under
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/big-oil-and-nuclear where I point out that Big Oil make a big bet on nuclear in the crucial 60's and 70's. Blaming nuclear's woes on fossil fuel is at best a counterproductive distraction from our real problems.
LNT accepts the No-Safe-Dose hypothesis but so do all sorts of non-linear dose-response curves including the logistic. The key difference is that a linear response implies the dose is cumulative, we have no repair systems. The non-linear response curves are consistent with a repair capability and the harm depends on the dose within the repair period. Pls see
https;//jackdevanney.substack.com/p/lnt-is-nonsense
Jack - I continue to challenge your description of "Big Oil's" ancient dabbling in nuclear as a "big bet." On the scale of the companies involved, it was a mere sideline. Perhaps it could be more accurately described as a distraction that apparently worked in at least one case.
I also reject your continued effort to paint my thesis for the root of radiation fear as being limited to "Big Oil." I believe the source of the fear is by a long running, not coordinated education effort by hydrocarbon interests, a very large group that includes bankers, politicians, metals producers, tanker owner/operator/builders, pipeline operators/builders, port operators, coal utilities/miners, traders/speculators/investors, and railroads.
All of those interests were (are) threatened by the prospect of a successful, less burdened atomic fission industry.
Yes, I am recalcitrant, but I intend to keep coming to church and sharing my modifications of your preachings.
As a loyal member of the choir, I can say I am not missing the point. I agree that the nuclear establishment, at least part of it, is the problem, but not all of it. I see the problem as including the public, the media, the politicians, and the regulators. The disagreement might be where best to attack this knot. What is the best use of our few remaining years. Jack's contributions, writing hard-hitting, technically correct, well-researched blog posts is essential. We in the choir can link to these in our FaceBook discussions and communications with the media and politicians. We need both his expert writing, AND public communications. I would say the latter is actually more productive at this time. The anti-nuclear dam has a few cracks, and it won't be long before it collapses.
I am spending my limited time on improving the Citizendium articles on nuclear power. As an editor, I have to refrain from advocacy, so perhaps some members of this choir can help. We need to better inform those few members of the media who are not emotionally tied to the anti-nuclear group-think, and are concerned about climate change. I'm thinking of TV hosts like Chris Hayes, and editorial writers like Paul Krugman. I've written to Krugman, and he seems interested.
I have also attempted to write for Wikipedia, but so far not much progress. They won't accept even IAEA documents as sources on reactor designs (alleging that IAEA is part of the nuclear establishment, and therefore has a conflict of interest). This may be changing, however. Ancheta Wis, a participant with lots of "barnstars" came to my rescue when I said that gaseous fission products bubble out of molten salt and are not a big problem, as alleged by Wickey. Maybe a few more experts like Ancheta will tilt the balance at Wikipedia. Have a look at the history of their ThorCon article. Someone should challenge their reliance on UCS as the only allowable source in the Criticism section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThorCon_nuclear_reactor#Criticism
That someone should probably not be Jack. He has no tolerance for idiots, and will probably get banned.
Terrific summary of the state of "play"!
I found your take very amusing but of course the situation isn't very funny. However please don't get depressed, you write clearly and extremely well and the reviews on the Gordian Knot help us in the choir clarify our thoughts. There are not many people who do understand nuclear power and write well enough to spread the facts. Keep up the good work.
Dear Jack.
I have been sitting quietly at the back of the choir, but listening closely to the sermon. I leave the choir daily and talk to all the people I know about the messages from the pulpit. They are tired of my insistence, but I am armed with knowledge, with perspective and with facts that would otherwise be unknown to me. There are many paths of argument which will not prove fruitful and you help me avoid these pitfalls. For example, I don't argue for a threshold, I argue for a strongly nonlinear response such as a logistic curve.
I am sensing frustration in your latest sermon. I would like to assure you that there are many others like myself out of sight at the back of the choir that are learning the gospel and actively spreading the gospel.
I feel that the tide of public opinion is changing.
Sincerely,
Paul Montgomery
Paul,
This a wild swing. Did you go to high school in downtown Cincinnati?
I grew up in Australia, not Cincinnati. I am a fan of your work Jack.
Whenever anyone accuses me of "preaching to the choir," I remind them that all successful evangelists spend most of their time preaching to both their choir and the larger congregations whose attendance at weekly strategy sessions might be less regular.
Energizing, educating and inspiring followers is one of several necessary ways to make lasting changes in attitudes and actions. Keep up the good work.
And I would not dispute that for a second. I was not "accusing" anyone of "preaching to the choir". My off-hand use of the expression was merely a short-hand way of referring to the fact that getting the truth out about nuclear power (or any other "controversial" topic) is difficult when almost everyone that reads it already knows the basic truth.
I find Jack's writings here very informative, and I certainly appreciate what he is doing. However, I am an aeronautical engineer with no professional stake in nuclear science or engineering. Sometimes I get frustrated with the fact that, no matter how much more I learn about the advantages of nuclear power or the reasons for the failure of its growth, the more I realize that what I personally know has no bearing on the situation.
I guess I could have some marginal influence by getting more active on social media. I gave up on facebook a few years ago as largely a waste of time. I have a LinkedIn account that I don't use much, but perhaps I should get more active and at least link to forums like this one.
This is a helpful concise summary,
"Nuclear power plant releases are both inevitable and tolerable. As long as reasonable buffer zones are provided, and kids are prevented from drinking I-131 contaminated milk, most releases will produce no detectable radiation harm to the public. See Three Mile Island, Windscale, Fukushima, even Chernobyl."
I expect we'll see greater use of nuclear in many other nations before the US regulatory situation changes much. But at some point when the US is in enough pain, and something like the foregoing perspective has been adopted in other parts of the world, we'll finally open up and make progress. In the meantime, there is a steadily growing segment of the educated public which is changing its perspective on nuclear energy.