Who’s Afraid of nuclear power?
October 24th, 2008
|
| Share |
A provocative documentary looking at the public opinion of nuclear energy in various areas, “Who’s Afraid of Nuclear Power” is definitely worth watching. You can view the entire film, without the annoying overlay here, for a nominal fee of 1 GBP. Normally I’m not so keen on recommending that visitors pay for online content, but supporting this film is more than worth it.
The documentary compares areas which have nuclear energy with those that don’t and shows how fear-based tactics in opposition to nuclear energy are very effective in areas where the population has had less exposure to nuclear energy. In Australia, for example, there are no nuclear power plants and only one nuclear reactor (a small research reactor) operates in the country. The country has been ripe with anti-nukes for years and unfortunately all too many Australians have fallen pray to the lies being told.
On the other hand, in Sweden, the population has lived with nuclear energy for years. Having become accustomed to the routine safe operation of the power reactors, citizens are less susceptable to the claims that living near a nuclear plant will cause someone to die of cancer. In some areas, people even swim in the warm waters of a nuclear plant’s condenser discharge.
It goes to show how lack of experience and general ignorance of a topic are the best friends of scaremongering political interests.
Who’s afraid of nuclear power? NOT ME!
Note: I don’t mean to insult the Australians here. These same tactics work very well in areas that don’t have experience with nuclear energy elsewhere in the world. In the US, it’s a mixed bag, as nuclear plants are in operation but have been effectively portrayed as dangerous, at least to some, yet opinions may be changing, as recent polls show more US citizens favor nuclear energy than oppose it by almost two to one.
This entry was posted on Friday, October 24th, 2008 at 2:34 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Enviornment, Good Science, Nuclear, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
October 24th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Who’s afraid of nuclear power?
Coal companies!
Quote Comment
October 24th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
The same tired catechism that the antinuclear movement has chanted for the forty years. The same smoking gun of big coal working to keep the nuclear option suppressed for as long as posible. The same doxology that we don’t know enough about the impacts of man-made CO2 on the environment.
It really is rather pathetic to see a First World nation wallow in that sort of ignorance but I am not under the illusion that things would be any different in Canada if coal was a bigger product than uranium in the mining sector.
However much of Australia’s hatred of things nuclear can be traced to British testing there at the Maralinga and Woomera Test Sites in the 1950’s, and the French testing on the islands of Mururoa and Fangataufa. in the 1960’s and the general feeling that these were acts of high-handed retro-colonialism by Powers that had been on their knees a few years earlier, and that had required Australian blood be spilled to save them.
The Australian authorities looked upon the British atomic tests as an opportunity to gain access to information about atomic energy. However, for the first three tests there was no Australian scientific involvement. The British claiming they were in a difficult position, as any such arrangement would be frowned upon by the Americans. After much negotiation, three scientists were permitted to attend the tests on Australia’s behalf but these were vetted by the British and were little more than tokens. Although the government tried to arrange for increased Australian involvement in the work, no invitation to step inside was forthcoming. The atomic club was for members only. The carrot was regularly dangled, but Australia only ever managed the smallest of nibbles. The Americans were bound by their own domestic legislation, as well as their commercial ambitions, while the British were bound by their obligations to the Americans. Australia’s hopes figured very small in comparison.
While much of this was not known to the public at the time, it did eventually get reported. The fact is that even as Australia was supplying uranium, and test facilities it was basically frozen out of nuclear science, which has left ripe ground for antinuclear forces to plow.
Quote Comment
October 25th, 2008 at 12:20 am
DV82XL said:
Not that this is at all related to civilian nuclear energy to begin with…
However, the Brits did use the Australian outback for tests of nuclear weapons amongst other things but there were only a handful of very small tests done in Australia. Absolutely nothing compared to the amount of testing that went on at, for example, the Nevada Test site.
There were a few tests done in Australia and you could make the argument that the Brits had to test the nuclear weapons somewhere outside Greater Britain as they simply do not have enough land to do that kind of thing domestically.
Really, when you compare it to NTS, the effect is downright tiny.
Most of the British tests, especially the larger ones were done at Christmas Island or at the Nevada Test Site as part of a joint test program with the United States.
Looking at some Google results it’s amazing to see pages with titles like “Our own shame: How Australia Allowed Nuclear Testing in Our Own Back Yard” or “The Destruction of The Outback: A Tragic Legacy”
Damn… you know, we detonated damn near one thousand nukes about 75 miles away from one of the biggest tourist destinations in the country…
A for the Australians agreeing to the testing of nuclear devices, I could see how one could make the case that they had some stratigic justification for it. This was the beginning of the Cold War, and the Australians were firmly on the side of the West in general (the US, Canada, the UK). Since the Australians were not going to develop weapons themselves, it was to their benefit to have allied nations that would have weapons to counterbalance the Soviet Union. For a country like Australia, the British having nuclear weapons meant that the US no longer would have a monopoly on them and they would have another close ally who’s nuclear deterrent would benefit them as part of the greater North American/Western Europe/Nato/Allied group of nations against the USSR/Warsaw Pact/East Germany/Red China group.
Quote Comment
October 25th, 2008 at 12:41 am
drbuzz0 said:
And since when has that ever stopped the antinukes from making the connection?
drbuzz0 said:
Oh it would seem they had some interest in developing their own weapon, or at least elements in the inner circles there did at the time. Keep in mind that Charles de Gaulle’s observation that the Americans could not be expected to sacrifice New York to save Paris struck a cord in many capitals in the 50’s, and even here in Canada studies were done to determine just how fast we could make a weapon if the need arose and there was a good deal of cooperation between Canada and the U.K. in the early days of the British program. Also remember that this was before the Ban-the Bomb movement and many of these countries were full of people that had just fought a major war, and nuclear weapons did not have the amoral trappings then that they do today.
Quote Comment
October 25th, 2008 at 2:28 am
DV82XL said:
Yeah, I understand that, but would there really ever be a single attack on Paris alone? Would the US ever attack Russia as a response to an attack on just Paris? No, maybe not. But as part of a massive invasion and attack on Western Europe? I think it’s likely. The concept behind MAD was that it was all or nothing. So if some nukes started going off in Europe then it would have been assumed to be part of a larger attack on the US and the Allied nations.
If I remember correctly, in addition to NATO, the US, Canada and the UK entered a try-party mutual defense alliance which especially stated that they would consider nuclear attack on their territory to be worthy of a unilateral retaliation. I think there was some continuity of government thing to it because the idea was that the command authority had to be redundant because any of those countries could be decapitated in a surprise attack and that is why there was the establishment of international command authorities via nato and the defense alliances.
Also, regarding nuclear force control and response, I don’t know if it is still like this, but for a long time Canada was part of NORAD and the General in charge was Canadian for a while. NORAD had backup facilities in Canada at one time. I don’t mean Canada was just involved in NORAD, but they were a full party in it and had even the authority on the same level as the US within the NORAD force command.
Also, remember Kennedy was the one who said that “Any missile fired on any country in the Western Hemisphere will be seen as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States and requires a full retaliatory response”
That’s not uncertain words. He’s saying they’d sacrifice New York for Mexico City.
Does anyone think that a nuclear exchange in the Cold War would be just one bomb and just one city? I think if Paris was vaporized it would be assumed to be an allout attack and it would become a doomsday.
Quote Comment
October 25th, 2008 at 2:52 am
Oh, I am sure the US would have retaliated if Paris was bombed with a nuclear weapon during the Cold War because it would have been seen as a prelude to a larger attack on Europe and North America. It was a central tenet of the mutually-assured-destruction concept that you would not have an isolated attack. Another thing with the nuclear forces was that there was always a plan to respond to the first shot and not wait for a full on attack to hit. There was no time. If you detected a nuclear attack the goal was a rapid response and (hopefully) to destroy some of the missile silos or bomber bases before they are deployed, as that is the only hope of keeping some of the attack away from yourself.
In such a case nuclear weapons can become a liability. Any exchange between the US and Soviet Union would have involved attacks on any other country that was allied with either side and had the capability to strike back, less they do so. Therefore, if there had been a two way exchange, the Soviets would have targeted the UK, France and Western Germany (Where US nuclear forces were located) because they would want to suppress any retaliatory response. In such a case, if Australia had nuclear weapons the Soviets might consider them a necessary preemptive target.
But lets not forget this was the 1950’s and not everyone had realized this at the time. The US was still perusing the idea of tactical nuclear weapons and small devices for limited nuclear use in an otherwise conventional war. That concept doesn’t really make much sense. Also, the ICBM changed things a lot, because if bombers are your delivery method there’s not the same kind of rapid response and bombers can be shot down.
Since then cooler heads have generally prevailed.
Quote Comment
October 25th, 2008 at 3:05 am
Ctrl Alt Del said:
You have to remember timelines here. Attitudes and understanding of the impact of nuclear weapons on the strategic and tactical landscapes of war were not fully developed in the late Forties and the Fifties Also one has to keep in mind that WWII was a very fresh memory for everyone then, and that too influenced perceptions, America had (from the French perspective) taken its own sweet time entering the war, and the feeling there was that France had to be able to look after herself in the event of a Soviet land assault. This was the context of the sacrificing Paris remark.
As things developed yes policies firmed up on these issues, and several potential nuclear nations realized that there was no real reason for them to maintain a weapons program. Indeed the American dual-key deployment of tactical nukes arming many NATO members, like Canada, made such efforts redundant. And these were not just tokens, while we were part of this, about one third of Canada’s military spending was devoted to these nuclear armed units that were serving with NATO and NORAD.
Others like France and Britain saw clearly that the only hope they had of maintaining the Great Power status that they had enjoyed for the previous couple of centuries, was to be nuclear States, but these attitudes developed latter.
Quote Comment
October 25th, 2008 at 10:03 am
For a nation like Australia, a nuclear weapons program is going to be necessarily very expensive. Having a full on nuclear weapon program with a stockpile of reliable, secure, battle-ready nuclear weapons is expensive enough as is, but they are not worth much without an effective delivery system. For a country like Australia, relatively isolated from most of the rest of the world that might be of a threat then it becomes even more of a problem.
What does Australia do with a nuclear bomb? Bomb New Zealand? Or some other nearby country?
If they want to use a nuclear weapon then they need to have a fleet of long range bombers. They need a fleet of refueling aircraft. They need forward bases for these aircraft.
If not that then they need to have ICBM’s. They need to have a network of hardened silos. They need a command and control system for this. To make it a credible threat they will need command centers that can survive, like multiple deep underground sites or airborne command centers.
If not ICBM’s, then SLBM’s are needed. Then they need a fleet of submarines, probably nuclear submarines that can stay submerged.
Either that or perhaps they could use aircraft carriers to deliver the weapons. Or maybe a fleet of surface ships with cruise missiles? That is a poor delivery system anyway.
This becomes an extremely expensive proposition for a country like Australia which has a population smaller than California. What is the point of expending so much national treasure on a program of such scope and magnitude? Perhaps for a country that is already equipped with a very large air force it would be worth it. Or perhaps for a country that is already seen as a major world power and thus is susceptible to a preemptive attack.
Quote Comment
October 25th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Engineering Edgar said:
Again, I caution you to remember that these were issues that were being considered fifty years ago. Just what a nuclear weapon was could not have been too clear to many in power anywhere, because the lid of secrecy was on pretty tight at that time. Any national government was bound by the nature of that institution to at the very least find out as much as they could about this technology. Naturally as they did it became apparent to many that they had no need for such a thing, and programs were stopped, but I suggest that they would have been derelict in their duties if they had not at least explored the subject at that time.
Also while Doc is right that nuclear weapons and nuclear energy are separate issues, this was not seen as the case back then as clearly as it is today – a fact that the antinukes have leveraged ever since.
Quote Comment
October 25th, 2008 at 11:57 am
DV82XL said:
I’m entirely tired of this argument. It’s stupid. IF a country wants to have nuclear energy and has no desire to have nuclear weapons that is totally possible. Sweeden, Canada, Japan, South Korea, The list goes on!
Nuclear energy technology can be used for nuclear bombs, sure. It’s not like it is inherently nuclear-weapon enabling because you have to at least acquire some other capabilities, like the design and manufacture of the components for one.
Do we see such opposition to space technology? Can’t a satellite launcher not also be an ICBM? What about biotech? A vaccine factory can make biological weapons. A chemical facility can make explosives or chemical weapons. A fertilizer factory can easily make high explosives for use in bombs.
How about this: Take a petrochemical plant and a fertilizer plant and put them together to create incendiary bombs, which can level a city with enough wooden structures as easily and as a nuclear weapon. Now how about airliners? They’ve got plenty of capacity and could easily be a B-52 like bomb truck with a few minor modifications. There you go! You’ve got everything you need to bring rampant destruction on a group of civilians. So lets ban all these things! Right???
Quote Comment
October 25th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Chem Geek Gregor said:
Doesn’t matter whether or not it’s dishonest or misleading or just plain untrue. It works. They keep using it because it works. Simple as that.
Quote Comment
October 25th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I think perhaps one reason why there is more skepticism or opposition to nuclear power in Australia than in other nations, like the USA for one example, is that nuclear power is just a completely alien thing to most Australians.
For those of you in the States, you might very well have a nuclear power plant close to your own city, or at least almost certainly somewhere in your state. So, basically everybody knows that they live with nuclear power plants in their communities, and most people understand that these plants obviously aren’t killing the community, there are obviously no three-eyed fish, no mutated babies, and people see first hand that the plants are safely operated, carefully managed, and that they are secure sites, and they are big employers and big contributors to local economies, providing ample clean cost-effective electric power.
You might even be able to visit your local nuclear power plant, and learn about it, or have a tour or something – although of course there is generally less of that today after 9/11, unfortunately.
In Australia on the other hand, nuclear power plants are a completely alien thing, for most people. Most people have never ever seen a nuclear power plant, except in pictures – myself included. So, people just don’t have the same awareness, and are naturally suspicious.
Quote Comment
October 25th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Of course, the main factor is the entrenched influence of Big Coal, which is just as big in Australia as it is anywhere else in the world.
Quote Comment
October 25th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
If you follow the money, you will see that Big Natural Gas has a lot more of it than Big Coal. A lot of government money is natural gas money.
In recent years, both in the USA and Europe, most new electrical capacity has been gas-fired, plus token wind turbines.
Quote Comment
October 26th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Luke Weston said:
That was kind of the point of the video. It’s possible to bring weird claims to a place like Australia about it and people will buy it. It’s simply that they don’t have any experience with it. These claims are very hard to bring to a place like France where the plants are everywhere and people live around them and see them all the time. In the US, it’s a mixed bag..
I live not very far from a nuclear plant. It’s about a 30 minute drive and when I was a kid my parents used to rent a cottage on the shore that was very close to the plant to go to the beach and such. (at the time we lived further from the water, so it was a kind of little vacation to have a rental like that for a couple weeks each year.)
What’s it like living in the shadow of a nuclear power plant? Very very uneventful. It’s just there. It never causes any problems to bother anyone. The only time you hear about it is when an anti-nuclear group makes a big stink about some incident happening like a broken steam valve or a small transformer fire or something. Other than that, it’s just like any other business of the community. The plant occasionally might sponsor something like a little league team. It’s just very uneventful.
Quote Comment
October 27th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Frankly, why is everyone so riled up about carbon dioxide? A rough estimate says that particle pollution from coal power kills 25 person prematurely per TeraWattHour produced. The US aline, in 2006 produced 2 000 TWh from coal. Every nuclear powerplant that replaces a coal plant saves approximately 15 000 lives.
Worldwide air pollution is killing more people every week than the UN and WHO estimates Chernobyl will kill from april 26 1986 until eternity. People are *dying* from fossil fuels, even as I write this comment.
Looking out of my office window to my left, I see a parking lot, filled with gasoline guzzling cars. Looking out to the front (if I had had a window there), I see the Barsebäck nuclear power station, unfortunately now powered down and de-fueled because of idiot politics. I so much wish it was the other way around: that is was the cars that were defueld and the power station that was still running… because the cars kill more people than the power plant ever would.
Quote Comment
October 29th, 2008 at 4:55 am
How many people hate nuclear power because it is Big and Centralized?
There is no “consumer nucleonics” because you cannot build a reactor weighing less than a few tons (once the radiation shielding is included) and even then it could never be marketed because such a small reactor would have to be fuelled with weapons-grade material.
Quote Comment
October 29th, 2008 at 10:18 am
George Carty said:
I doubt very many. The same ones who hate nuclear energy are the ones who want to build ridiculous multi-gigawatt wind farms or solar power towers that produce hundreds of megawatts.
Quote Comment
October 29th, 2008 at 10:29 am
drbuzz0 said:
As demonstrated in the Penn & Teller: Bull****! episode “Evironmental Hysteria”, the connection between enrvironemental organisations and anti-globalism/anti-capitalism, doesn’t seem all that far off. Especially Parick Moore, former head of Greenpeace, argues that the environmentalist movements are heavilly influenced by it.
Penn & Teller: Bull****! – Environmental Hysteria, part 1
Penn & Teller: Bull****! – Environmental Hysteria, part 2
Penn & Teller: Bull****! – Environmental Hysteria, part 3
Quote Comment
October 30th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Has anyone read this James Heartfield article claiming that environmentalism has replaced anti-Semitism to become the new socialism of fools?
Quote Comment
October 30th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Great link George, thanks!
My favorite passage was:
“Harking back to an imaginary land of ****aigne where happy peasants trade their own produce at the village fayre is about as far as environmentalists get when it comes to practical initiatives – it is so much easier to tear plants out of the soil than to put them in.”
So true.
Quote Comment