Dr. Richard Wilson's (Harvard) Moral Evisceration of Anti-Nuke Strategies.

[NNadir]

I continuously make the point that the anti-nuke cults engage in overtly selective attention in applying the criteria that should be attached to all forms of energy, whether they are large scale - as with dangerous fossil fuels, - intermediate scale - as with hydroelectricity and nuclear energy, - or small (sub exajoule) scale - as with geothermal and wind, - or weeny scale or theoretical scale - as with solar PV, solar thermal, tidal and the attachment of tubing to the butts of cows to obtain methane, only to nuclear energy.

Actually on environmental grounds, including waste management, land use/habitat protection, and risks to human health, nuclear energy is vastly superior to all of its alternatives, real or imagined.

On economic costs, it is something of a wash and is determined by whether or not one believes one should pay now for a safe future - invest capital costs - or merely consume as much as one can as cheaply as one can before one dies and screw future generations.

Culturally, I think, we have chosen the latter.

Richard Wilson, a Professor of Physics at Harvard University is an outstanding American thinker, a true polymath. His http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/publications/published_papers.html">Publication List extends over thousands of writings and lectures from 1947 to the present day.

http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/cv.html">Here is his CV.

Now, if one were to state that everything that Dr. Wilson has said in his life must be true simply because he is Dr. Wilson, one would be engaging in the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority" - a logical fallacy of the type that suggests that wearing one's underwear on one's head is good for you if "Al Gore says..."

Thus it is wise to engage in critical thinking when evaluating any intellectual giant's remarks on any topic. However from my critical thinking standpoint, I agree with almost every statement Dr. Wilson made in this lecture, some years ago, in which he evaluated the fraudulent tactics of the anti-nuke cults.

http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/publications/pp564.html">Nuclear Futures, A lecture in Washington D.C. organized by the Center for Environmental Information.


Excerpts, all bold is mine:

have been asked to discuss the potential for nuclear power in the years ahead, because generating power from nuclear fission does not lead to emission of greenhouse gases; and therefore replacement of any fossil fuel electricity generating plant by a nuclear one will reduce emission of greenhouse gases. In a talk given to this group three years ago, (Wilson 1989) I showed that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by changing from fossil fuels to nuclear power, and the reduction of emission of greenhouse gases by improvement of end use efficiency (loosely called energy conservation) are independent of each other. Both can be partially effective. It is stupid to reject either because it will not do the whole job. If the effect of rising greenhouse gas concentrations is as bad as most scientists fear, both are necessary. In particular I took some leading energy supply projections, and showed how simple modifications could lead to more nuclear power and fewer greenhouse gas emissions than otherwise...

...Nuclear fuel is cheap, and it is plentiful even at present prices. The plentiful nature of the supply has not always been apparent; when nuclear energy was expanding rapidly world-wide in 1965 to 1975, it was feared that the uranium would soon become scarce. But a modification of the technology with a breeder reactor, will enable an almost unlimited amount of fuel to be available at an affordable cost; Many people have estimated for example that we can count on 100,000 years supply at the present world energy consumption using a breeder reactor. (Wilson 1972) Present estimates are, however that it will not be needed before the year 2020 and maybe not then...

The antinuclear strategy

Already in 1970 the nuclear euphoria of 1953 was not universal. Other views began to be expressed. Various scientists, including Dr Ernest Sternglass, Dr John Gofman, Dr Thomas Mancuso, and Dr Karl Morgan had already attacked atomic bombs and exaggerated the effects of radiation on man in order to do so. At the meeting of the American Association for Advancement in Science the then President, Nobel Laureate Glenn Seaborg was picketed. Not for his part in making the atomic bomb, or his work as Chairman of the AEC in assisting in Kennedy's build up of nuclear weapons, but because of his espousal of nuclear electric power. Professional societies, with a notable exception of a strong disagreement with the expressed views of Dr Sternglass by several past Presidents of the Health Physics Society, were silent. The public organizations that engage in research on the effects of radiation, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Council on Radiological Protection (NCRP), and even the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), did little to contain the hysteria. The scientific and technical community were, and still are, silent in spite of an eloquent appeal by an English health physicist Dr Rotblat. This left the field wide open to extremists who were willing to distort the truth. Too few scientists were, and are, willing to speak up in public for scientific truth and process. Lay people therefore rally to the side that is open and enthusiastic.

By 1975, antinuclear activists had begun their steady, and presently successful in the USA, attacks. It is instructive to understand their methods. Although the public hearing process for individual power plants leaves more opportunity for intervention than for other power plants, it is continuously attacked as being not open enough. Studies made by government, industry, academia and non profit groups continually show that nuclear power is more benign than coal or oil burning (IAEA 1991). This led Ralph Nader 15 years ago to propose his successful strategy of using delays in the legal system to make nuclear power too expensive; this included the strategy of controlling the local public utility commissions. As Nader said early on: "We may lose every battle in the hearings, but we will win the war." The US legal system is particularly suited to such tactics. Few, if any, courts are willing to admit that delay, in itself, can deprive people of their legal rights. Yet justice delayed is justice denied...

I have characterized the anti-nuke cults as a bane on humanity, a sect that thrives on and insists upon deliberate ignorance, misinformation and delusional faith based promises to ensure the increasingly dire status quo.

If we are at last, finally to acknowledge some responsibility, we need to confront this appalling, malicious and highly unethical state of affairs.

Sometimes I have been criticized for applying words like "stupid" to describe these anti-nuke people whose level - if you know what you are talking about - is pathetic and whose evocation of tales about, for instance, Native American Uranium Miners is bathetic.

(Dr. Wilson has worked on behalf of a native American tribe that is seeking the right to store so called "nuclear waste" on their land.)

But "stupid," the word that Dr. Wilson freely uses, is maybe too mild a word.

Have a nice afternoon.

[thunder rising]

1. Except they never pay for the proper disposal of the waste. Heard of the radioactive rabbit shit?

And, quite frankly, I don't want any more nuclear power in the hands of corporations. (and government too for that matter)

They also, discount the fact, that the energy companies CREATED the crisis that now demands they solve with the solution they have always wanted in the first place. For decades the energy cartel has shelved and resisted alternative energy to force the application of nuclear.

[NNadir]

5. Ever hear of particulates in human lung tissue?

Couldn't fucking care less about dangerous fossil fuel waste?

Your fantasy about rabbit poop is more important than the more than 1 million people who die each year from air pollution?

Is there any fucking reason you should be taken seriously?

Your anecdotal bullshit evocation is um exactly what Wilson was talking about. Please see the first bold word in the OP.

[kristopher]

2. You ARE making an Appeal to Authority

Sophistry notwithstanding, you ARE making an appeal to authority.

This person has been working in this field all of his life - he has dedicated his entire professional career to PROMOTING the use of his work.

A nuclear physicist has no significant advantage to evaluating the place of nuclear energy as a means of meeting our future energy needs. The costs and benefits of production of electricity by nuclear fission and other technologies are clear and easily understood, so what is required for the task is more appropriately economics or a similar specialty that deals with evaluating complex benefit/cost comparisons. While Prof. Wilson is a man deserving of our respect and gratitude for his contributions, his voice is only one of many in this discussion - and since his bias is undeniable - it isn't a particularly persuasive voice.

Richard Wilson

Professor Richard Wilson was awarded his D.Phil. in 1949 by the University of Oxford for a thesis on nuclear physics. He carried out postgraduate research at Oxford, Rochester and Stanford before accepting an appointment at Harvard University in 1955. Since 1982 he has been the Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics at Harvard. He has played a prominent role in the development of nuclear physics, having published over 720 papers. In the last 25 years he has spent much time on scientific issues relevant to public policy.

In 1970 he was involved in the conversion of the Harvard cyclotron from nuclear physics use to medical applications. He has also been much involved in energy policy questions, notably concerning nuclear power. He chaired an American Physical Science committee on the radiological consequences of a severe reactor accident, and was one of the first foreigners to visit Chernobyl after the accident. He has worked on the possible effects of low radiation doses on public health and was an early foreign visitor to the Chelyabinsk region of Russia. He has often been involved in explaining nuclear power and nuclear safety to the public.
—Courtesy of the Uraniam Institute

http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/cfs2/richard_wilson.php

[NNadir]

3. Um, um, um...

I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/handbill.htm">Source.

The appalling hatred of nuclear science by dumb fundie anti-nukes who know nothing on the subject about they rail so stupidly, speaks for itself.

In general, the anti-nuke cults are consistent in their ability to understand even the most basic rubrics of thinking.

Here is a description of the "Appeal to Authority" argument - not that there is one stupid person here who has ever been able to grasp what the statement means:

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:


The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to make a reliable claim will, obviously, not be well supported. In contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of expertise will be supported by the person's reliability in the area.

Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult. In academic fields (such as philosophy, engineering, history, etc.), the person's formal education, academic performance, publications, membership in professional societies, papers presented, awards won and so forth can all be reliable indicators of expertise.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html">Appeal to Authority.

Men like http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1967/bethe-bio.html">Hans Bethe, Democrat and http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1951/seaborg-bio.html">Glenn Seaborg, Democrat and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg">Alvin Weinberg, Democrat, all vociferous advocates for nuclear power, were all legitimate authorities.

Richard Wilson is a legitimate authority on nuclear power.

Little whiny spoiled brat mystics with a contempt for science, especially nuclear science, and continuous appeals to nuclear ignorance, fundies who endlessly repeat stupid fundie assertions about dopey solar powered car fantasies are not legitimate authorities to speak on nuclear science or nuclear power.

Their moral stature was completely and totally described by Lincoln - in another context - more than 160 years ago.

There is NOT ONE anti-nuke fundie on this website who actually knows anything at all about nuclear science. NOT ONE. Every single one of them is completely and totally ignorant of nuclear science, a point Dr. Wilson made completely clear using the appropriate word "stupid" to describe these asinine and pathetic fools who have done so much damage to the hopes of humanity. Like I said in the OP, "stupid" is probably too kind...

Got it?

No?

Why am I not surprised?

[HamdenRice]

4. This might be an interesting post of an article, but I stopped reading at "anti-nuke cults"

I'm sure this is the effect your style has even on people like me who support the limited use of nuclear power.

FAIL. AGAIN.