[ RadSafe ] Climate science & nuclear sciences

Karen Street Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net
Tue Jun 26 11:46:56 CDT 2012

Maury, I regret to say that I cannot even finish the article. It reminds me of people who argue against nuclear power because the nuclear industry favors it, and so these are people with an agenda, and so.... I personally do not establish which side of an issue I am on by monitoring the ignorant and ideological, but by reading those who know most.

There are lots of people with agendas involved in the discussions of nuclear power and climate change, on both/all sides of each. (Climate change deniers/skeptics come in on a number of different sides, from climate change isn't happening to it isn't anthropogenic to it isn't serious. Overwhelmingly, ahead of that, the main argument of deniers/skeptics is that scientists lack their knowledge, experience, intelligence, integrity, and morality. Coming in a distant 2nd are unsubstantiated statements about what is or isn't happening. In my experience, the most common answer in this category, from the majority of deniers/skeptics I've talked with, is that climate change isn't happening and that it is, but it's not anthropogenic. Consistency not required.) 

In mid-1995, I began looking at nuclear power and then climate change. I began with an assumption that nuclear power and coal were equally bad, and that air pollution was more of a problem than climate change. A preference really.

I sat down with the arguments on nuclear power, and found that those who agreed with my preconceptions were completely clueless, and those who clearly knew what they were talking about said nuclear power is a relatively safe and absolutely necessary source of electricity, especially in light of the really big problem, climate change. Since these people so clearly knew what they are talking about, I read more. At that time, there wasn't a large skeptics/deniers community, but in reading these people in the years since, I am fascinated at how hard it is to get answers to fairly simple questions:

• is Earth warming, and if so, at what rate?
• what causes it? (Natural is not an answer, but Earth moving closer to the sun would be.)

Maury, what is your own belief on these?

And what is it about countries with major fossil fuel resources and climate change?

> Radiation safety is intimately dependent upon Science and is heavily related to the climate sciences because science and engineering are the most likely means for promoting the acceptability and safe applications of ionizing radiation for benefits to mankind (and probably also to armadillos). This essay (click on link below) by Paltridge affords one of the best perspectives on Science and Climate that I've ever seen.
> I hope many of you will find it equally so.
> Best,
> Maury&Dog [MaurySiskel  maurysis at peoplepc.com]
> http://afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/science_held_hostage_in_climate_Uamwgc7zXEsU6RbQJ5MWIJ
> Science held hostage in climate debate    By  Garth Paltridge

Best wishes, 
Karen Street
Friends Energy Project
blog http://pathsoflight.us/musing/index.php

More information about the RadSafe mailing list