[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: [DOEWatch] Dr John Gofman Rebutts Nuclear Industry
FYI.
> ----------
> From: Bill Smirnow[SMTP:smirnowb@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 4:01 AM
> To: Rad-UK/Europe List; Nukenet; Nucnews List; No-Nukes Asia List;
> Downwinders List; DOE-Watch List; Abolition-Caucus
> Subject: [DOEWatch] Dr John Gofman Rebutts Nuclear Industry
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/top10args.txt
>
> Reprinted with permission.
>
> THE MOTHER EARTH NEWS
> more than a magazine... a way of life
>
> NUMBER 67 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1981
>
> Copyright 1981 by The Mother Earth News
>
> Despite the fact that nuclear power plant construction has slowed
> since the accident at Three Mile Island. America's conflict over the
> peaceful use of atomic energy goes on. Indeed, smarting from the
> wounds inflicted by the near-disaster outside of Harrisburg,
> Pennsylvania, the proponents of nuclear energy have "come out
> swinging" with magazine and television advertisements, traveling
> speakers, literature, and even airport advocates who loudly promote
> their point of view.
> Well, there's nothing wrong with people's expressing their
> opinions, of course. On the other hand, though, the folks here at
> MOTHER feel there's nothing wrong with rebutting such propositions
> ... especially when the arguments seem to us to be either subtly
> misleading or down-right incorrect. So we spent some time seeking out
> the strongest and most commonly used pronuclear statements we could
> find. Then we sent the arguments off to Dr. John Gofman, chairman of
> the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility and one of our country's
> most prominent opponents of nuclear power. The following, then, are
> ten of the arguments most often used by proponents of nuclear power .
> . . and Dr. Gofman's replies.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> EDITOR'S NOTE: The pronuclear arguments presented here come from a
> variety of sources: Nos. 1, 3, and 10 from national ads by America's
> Electric Energy Companies, Dept. TMEN, Department C, P.O. Box 420,
> Pelham Manor, New York 10803 . . . Nos. 2, 4, and 6 from Petr
> Beckmann's The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear ($5.95 postpaid
> from The Golem Press, Dept. TMEN, Box 1342, Boulder, Colorado 80306)
> . . . Nos. 5 and 9 from Bernard L. Cohen's opposition to John Gofman
> as set forth in "Radiation Fantasies", Reason magazine, March 1980
> (Reason Foundation, Dept. TMEN, 1129 State Street, No. 4, Santa
> Barbara, California 93101) . . . No. 7 from an energy debate attended
> by a MOTHER staffer . . . No. 8 from John Gofman's debating
> experiences {as cited in "Irrevy": An Irreverent, Illustrated View of
> Nuclear Power $3.95 postpaid from the Committee for Nuclear
> Responsibility, P.O. Box 421993, San Francisco, California 94142).
> Dr. Gofman will be the subject of the Plowboy Interview in MOTHER
> NO. 68.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Do some of the arguments of nuclear power supporters "feel"
> wrong to you, even though you have trouble pinpointing the
> fallacies in them? Then you'll be glad to read . . .
>
> THE TOP 10 PRONUCLEAR ARGUMENTS...ANSWERED
>
>
> *
>
> ARGUMENT 1: We receive more radiation sitting in our living rooms
> than is given off by nuclear power plants. A brick wall puts out 3.5
> millirems of radiation per year but a nuclear power plant releases
> only 0.3 millirem in the same time period. In fact you can stand
> right next to a nuclear power plant and receive no radiation at all.
> GOFMAN: First let me agree that certain building materials do give
> off enough radiation doses to deserve consideration. Let me also
> agree that there is a very low dose of radiation emitted at the
> fenceline of a nuclear power plant that is functioning normally If
> this were not the case, workers couldn't park their cars nearby or
> even approach such utilities at all.
> However, the "no dose at fenceline" statement doesn't consider the
> radiation people can receive from the entire nuclear power fuel
> cycle. We need to take into account all of the steps that make up the
> atomic energy process including the production of mountains of
> uranium tailings (unshielded piles that are continuously releasing
> radioactive radon) . . . the inventory of radioactive poisons--such
> as cesium 137 strontium 90 and iodine 131--that "leak" or "puff" into
> the atmosphere when a power plant is not functioning normally . . .
> the quantities of radioactive wastes being moved in fallible vehicles
> that can (and do) leak . . . and the so-called burial sites which
> have also been shown to leak and spread their material into the
> environment at large.
> Now let's come to the claim that a nuclear power plant itself
> releases only 3/10 of a millirem per year. Were that radiation
> dose--coupled of course with other fuel cycle emissions--truly always
> so small I would hardly waste my time concerning myself with the
> hazards of nuclear power. But the proof that advocates of this energy
> source have no confidence whatsoever in their estimate of the plants'
> releases lies in their behavior with respect to the legal radiation
> standards.
> As late as 1979, nuclear power plants were, legally, allowed to
> bombard the public with 170 millirems per year. When my colleague
> Arthur Tamplin and I proposed a tenfold reduction in that standard,
> the nuclear industry and pronuclear government agencies fought us
> tooth and nail. Now it has to be regarded as the acme of strange
> behavior for an industry to say, "Look, we're never going to give you
> more than 3/10 of a millirem per year" . . . and then demand that the
> permissible standard remain more than 500 times as high as that
> limit! So I would say that as long as the industry fights against
> reducing legal standards to a level comparable to the 3/10 millirem
> per year that nuclear power advocates claim is the maximum dose per
> plant, any member of the public can dismiss such ludicrously low
> estimates.
> (The legal standard was changed in 1979. It now permits 25
> millirems per year of ionizing radiation to be passed on to the
> general public, under normal operating conditions! The Catch-22 here
> is that if anything occurs to make the operating conditions
> "abnormal", a nuclear facility is permitted to release an
> increased--and unrestricted--quantity of radiation.)
>
>
> *
>
> ARGUMENT 2: People living in high altitude cities, such as Denver,
> receive twice as much natural radiation as do those living at low
> altitudes . . . yet the residents of such cosmically bombarded
> locales don't display double the average incidence of cancer.
> GOFMAN: The answer to this favorite pronuclear argument is that
> the cosmic radiation hitting the people in Denver probably does cause
> an increase in the number of cancer cases per capita. (One should not
> expect to find twice as many cases of cancer, of course, because
> radiation is not the only cause of the disease.) But to statistically
> demonstrate such a reality, we would first have to know [1] that the
> medical reporting of disease categories was equally accurate in that
> city and the sea-level community to which Denver was being compared,
> [2] that the people who are considered "at risk" in both communities
> had all lived at the same location all their lives, and [3] that any
> other carcinogenic factors--aside from background radiation--were
> identical in both areas. (Undoubtedly they would not be identical.)
> The fact is that no expert in the field of vital statistics would
> be prepared to contest the point that Denver residents may be
> experiencing an increased cancer incidence rate as a result of cosmic
> radiation . . . when compared with otherwise equivalent people at sea
> level.
>
>
> *
>
> ARGUMENT 3: A chest X-ray exposes a person to 50 millirems of
> radiation, and a coast-to-coast jet flight gives one a dose of 5
> millirems. But the spokespersons of the antinuclear "movement" don't
> complain about those hazards.
> GOFMAN: An individual has the right to choose to accept the
> radiation received by flying coast to coast or by having a chest
> X-ray . . . in exchange for a perceived benefit for him- or herself.
> (The dose received from a variety of medical X-rays is high enough,
> though, that I would not recommend undergoing such examinations
> unless the procedures are required in order to make an accurate
> diagnosis of a potentially fatal disease.)
> But nuclear power does not offer a voluntary choice . . . the
> radiation released by nuclear power is imposed upon people. Indeed,
> atomic power represents the use of an entire population as
> involuntary guinea pigs in a gigantic game of Russian roulette . . .
> the results of which could be an epidemic of cancer, leukemia, and
> genetic disease. And there would be no justification for such an
> involuntary imposition of risk even if the majority of the people in
> a country voted in favor of nuclear power . . . because the majority
> has no right to risk committing genocide against the minority.
>
>
> *
>
> ARGUMENT 4: The genetic dangers often cited by antinuclear
> activists are obviously exaggerated, because not even the atomic
> bombs dropped on Japan in World War II produced any harmful genetic
> effects.
> GOFMAN: I've often heard the statement that the Hiroshima/Nagasaki
> data show that no genetic damage results from radiation, so I went
> out of my way to analyze, very carefully, those particular scientific
> papers . . . and I was astounded to discover that the findings in
> that study were exactly the opposite of what is being claimed! The
> often quoted Neel-Kato-Schull study examined dominant genetic
> diseases that are expected to cause death in early life among
> children under 17 years of age, and definitely indicated that
> ionizing radiation increased the incidence of such diseases.
> The Neel-Kato-Schull findings were significant at what is called
> the "5% level", which means there's one chance in 20 that the
> findings were the result of chance . . . and 19 chances out of 20
> that the findings were correct. Now the scientists who did this work
> decided that--considering the delicacy of the matter--they didn't
> want to trumpet their results around . . . so they concluded in their
> paper that they found "no clear effects" (my italics).
> Well, they had indeed found that radiation has an effect on the
> incidence of genetic damage, at the 5% level of significance. But--by
> twisting the words in their summary--they provided pronuclear
> advocates with the opportunity to grab at the statement that "no
> effect was clearly observed" and then to jump to the fraudulent
> conclusion that "no effect exists".
> The Japanese evidence certainly does not prove the absence of
> genetic effects of radiation.
>
>
> *
>
> ARGUMENT 5: Antinuclear advocates exaggerate the dangers of
> plutonium. After all, the substance is easily safeguarded because
> it's produced in very small quantities. Furthermore, other dangerous
> poisons--like lead, which has an infinite half-life--are continually
> being spewed into the environment.
> GOFMAN: Plutonium has to be one of the most dangerous carcinogens
> that I know of. In fact, I believe that my own estimates of its
> toxicity--figures that are thousands of times higher than those of
> "official" estimating bodies--may well be understated.
> And--although nuclear advocates claim that the carcinogen is now
> made in relatively small quantities--if we develop an industry
> involving reprocessing fuel rods (which must surely come to pass if
> we commit ourselves to the nuclear energy route), society will be
> handling millions of kilograms of plutonium. Under such
> circumstances, in order to avoid a lung cancer epidemic, the
> containment of this plutonium will have to be 99.9999% perfect . . .
> in other words, they'll have to safely guard all but one part in a
> million!
> And yes, lead does have an infinite half-life and may be injuring
> the brains of many, many children . . . particularly those in urban
> environments. However, pointing to the dangers of another damaging
> pollutant to justify creating plutonium is the equivalent of arguing
> that if others are committing murder, then additional homicide is
> justified!
> The correct assessment involves the realization that if we're
> letting the lead industry get away with dangerous pollution, we
> should do something about the lead industry . . . and not promote
> still another dangerous violation of human rights and health.
>
>
> *
>
> ARGUMENT 6: If all U.S. power were nuclear in origin, the
> radioactive waste produced would amount to only the size of one
> aspirin tablet per person per year.
> GOFMAN: The important concern here, of course, is not only the
> amount of poison, but its toxicity. A fully developed nuclear
> industry would produce more than enough hazardous substances to kill
> everyone on the earth many times over. So the real issue is not
> whether each citizen's "share" of such materials occupies the size of
> a football field, a garage, or an aspirin . . . but whether one
> hundredth, one ten-thousandth, or one millionth of the accumulated
> poisons will escape. If the cumulative amount that is released is
> anything like one-thousandth of the little "aspirins" nuclear
> proponents speak about, we'll have one giant "headache": a cancer and
> leukemia epidemic that will make all of history's advances in public
> health care seem trivial.
>
>
> *
>
> ARGUMENT 7: Antinuclear activists often complain that the
> potential damage caused by atomic power isn't covered by any
> insurance companies. But the reason such businesses haven't insured
> the industry is simply that they have no actuarial experience on
> which to base their rates.
> GOFMAN: Yes, the insurance companies have said, "We don't know the
> safety of nuclear power plants, so we won't insure them." For this
> reason, Congress passed--and twice renewed--the Price Anderson Act, a
> law that relieves the nuclear power industry of any liability claims
> beyond $560 million (a small sum in the event of a major
> catastrophe). Congress has also decreed that the taxpayers would, in
> effect, reimburse the nuclear industries for $460 million of that
> $560 million! MY ITALICS HERE- THIS SUM IS NOW[1/30/2001] $9.43
> BILLION. STILL NOT REMOTELY CLOSE TO THE ECONOMIC DAMAGE THEY WOULD
> INFLICT-
> SEE: http://www.geocities.com/mothersalert/crac.html
>
> The insurance companies are smart . . . they don't know the risks,
> so they won't insure. Does that mean it would be a good idea for you
> to "bet your life" on nuclear power?
> If the utilities were sincere about the safety claims that they
> make publicly, they would agree to repeal the Price-Anderson Act and
> say, "We'll put our assets on the line and insure each other." None
> of the power companies has done so . . . which should tell you what
> they really think about the safety of their plants.
>
>
> *
>
> ARGUMENT 8: Nuclear power supplies 13% of our country's
> electricity today. If Industry is denied that energy, many jobs will
> surely be lost.
> GOFMAN: The relationship of employment to energy is a very complex
> matter. If you simply shut off the electricity serving a specific
> factory tomorrow, then of course the people working there will be out
> of work. On the other hand, the long range increased use of
> electricity in factories often results in more mechanization and a
> decrease in the number of humans required to conduct the businesses'
> activities.
> Furthermore, there's little reason to believe that the method of
> energy production affects employment . . . though many solar
> advocates claim that "their" energy source will produce more jobs per
> dollar than most other power alternatives.
> And as for any possible energy--not jobs--shortage that could
> occur if we were to abandon atomic power (nuclear plants do produce
> 13% of our electricity, but that amounts to only 3% of our total
> annual energy consumption) . . . the American Institute of Architects
> has calculated, in two carefully researched reports, that we could
> work up to a 26% saving in America's projected energy use by 1990
> (which would be equivalent to the production of about 430 giant
> nuclear plants) simply by putting conventional technology to work to
> make our buildings energy-efficient.
>
>
> *
>
> ARGUMENT 9: The question of the risks of nuclear power is a deeply
> technical issue that only well-informed scientists, in that specific
> field, can understand . . . and the majority of such people support
> nuclear power.
> GOFMAN: I have several things to say in response to that one!
> First, by simply using common sense, the layman will often behave far
> more intelligently than would a Ph.D. The ordinary man-in-the-street
> can look at the amount of radioactivity that would be produced in a
> full-scale nuclear industry and realize that containing such toxins
> to 99.9999% perfection day in, day out, year in, and year out--when
> one considers all the possible human and machine fallibilities--is
> impossible. But the expert who looks at a computer printout based on
> the perfect execution of a string of single operations and then
> concludes that the toxins can be contained to one part in a million
> is, to my way of thinking, the person who's behaving like an idiot.
> Let me now address the idea that the majority of qualified
> scientists support nuclear power. When considering this statement,
> you should first realize that the U.S. government funds about half of
> the research in this country. And, as I can tell you from my own
> personal experience, the government doesn't like results that
> disagree with its policies. Therefore, many scientists are publicly
> silent on nuclear power, or declare that the issue is too
> controversial to take a stance on, when privately they will admit
> their reservations.
> Most important, though, scientific truth is not a popularity
> contest. Throughout history, almost every step forward in science was
> resisted by the majority of contemporary scientists. When most people
> thought that our earth was the center of the universe, the planet was
> traveling through space just as it's doing today . . . even though
> the "vast preponderance" of scientific opinion was steadfastly
> against such an idea. So remember: No matter how many votes a
> scientific committee may cast . . . the truth of nature remains
> unchanged.
>
>
> *
>
> ARGUMENT 10: Every activity--including driving a car--is risky.
> It's impossible to have a risk-free society. Consequently the
> benefits of an action must be weighed against its hazards . . . and
> nuclear power's benefits outweigh its risks.
> GOFMAN: It is absolutely true that we cannot have a risk-free
> society. And, since that's the case, we should recognize that those
> who produce hazards for others must be fully prepared to take the
> financial consequences of the risks. This rule does hold true among
> individuals, and a corporation or the government should not be
> allowed to assume the right--which individuals do not have--to
> aggress against others. Yet nuclear power is currently absolved from
> the responsibilities of its actions by the Price-Anderson Act.
> Moreover, the entire concept of a benefit vs. risk doctrine is
> immoral. There is no benefit to society that can justify the forcible
> imposition of risks or threats to life upon individuals. Indeed,
> there is a straight path from accepting the benefit vs. risk doctrine
> for society as a whole to the philosophy we saw epitomized in Nazi
> Germany.
> Lastly, let me sum up my replies to all of the arguments presented
> here by reminding people that the nuclear power question is
> fundamentally a human rights issue. People have the right not to be
> aggressed against and used as guinea pigs in a massive human
> experiment. However a concern for human rights must not be equated
> with a craven fear of progress or challenge! Humanity has faced very
> difficult problems and perilous situations in the past, and shown
> great ingenuity in devising systems that can minimize dangers in a
> fashion which results in only voluntary risks being taken. But such
> things have to be done in a sensible way, without coercion, and with
> each party or industry involved taking the responsibility for his,
> her, or its actions.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Radiation and Human Health, by John W. Gofman, M.D. Ph.D. R&HH
> (available starting October 1, 1981) is a practical book which can
> make a positive contribution to the health of those who use it, and
> especially to the health of their children, who are the most
> sensitive to radiation injury. The book provides necessary
> information for making recurring personal and family decisions about
> voluntary exposures to medical, dental, and occupational radiation.
> 928 pages, hardcover, $29.95 prepaid. CNR pays for packing and
> shipping. Tax on Californians: $1.80.
> Committee for Nuclear Responsibility
> P.O. Box 421993, San Francisco, CA 94142
>
>
>
>
> This document is available electronically at:
>
> http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/top10args.html (HTML format)
> http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/top10args.txt (ascii TEXT)
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
> eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
> Click here for more details
> http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/488116/_/980856154/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
>
> The Magnum-Opus Project
> DOE Watch List--Solver of Mysteries
> Subscribe: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/doewatch
> DOEWatch page: http://members.aol.com/doewatch
>
> Oak Ridge and its' industry minions use supplanted activist organizations
> fabricating mysterious illness directions to hide HF emission/toxic
> effects and nuclear human experiment war crimes.
>
> Oak Ridge and other gas diffusion sites are primarily Bhopal like chemical
> affected areas and secondarily a Chernobyl like radiation affected area.
> Gas diffusion sites are also affected with high coal power emissions and
> compounded with heavy metal toxins and hundreds of other toxic exposure
> from the plants.
>
> These exposures cause shortened longevity, impacted learning, and produce
> a gullible population for political and industry profiting.
>
> Gulf War affected have related fluoride toxic effects from nerve gases.
>
> In common with GW and DOE gas diffusion ills are long term halogen toxic
> insult via bioconcentration into the lymphatic system, impairment of
> macrophages, and damage to mitochondria of cells resulting in immune
> protection damage and resultant rise of viral, bacterial, microplasma, and
> fungal cell damage.
>
> In the new millenium, the truth will set all free to enter a kinder and
> gentler time for environment and health.
>
>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html