Comments on: The Politics of Nuclear Power: Where's the Left Wing Science Denial? http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/04/the-politics-of-nuclear-power-wheres-the-left-wing-science-denial/ Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:28:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: seamus http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/04/the-politics-of-nuclear-power-wheres-the-left-wing-science-denial/#comment-52280 seamus Wed, 06 Apr 2011 02:03:58 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=17138#comment-52280 There's not so much denial on the left about nuclear, as there is ignorance. Liberal anti-nukes think they already know, so they don't bother learning anything new, and thus their assumptions are locked in. There are a few examples right in this thread. For example, the idea that uranium reserves will run out, and that nuclear "waste" has to last 10,000 years. (Read up on fast breeder reactors if you have an open mind.) There's also a tendency to create strawman arguments and rail against them. Nuclear proponents who see it as a necessary part of a no-carbon energy plan aren't saying "only nuclear and nothing else". We are saying sure, we need renewables, and we need nuclear too, because renewables alone won't even come close to enough capacity to replace coal. It's not about costs, it's about capacity! Reflexively dismissive and emotional, coupled with a bit of wishful thinking. Not the same as climate science denialism, but it is ironic that once we move past the AGW "debate", one of the big impediments to effective implementation of a clean energy economy is the knee-jerk reaction against nuclear energy. There's also the nuclear weapons issue, and some have a tendency to conflate nuclear energy with nuclear weapons technology. Still, I have faith that liberals are more open-minded and amenable to reason than the right-wing authoritarians which pass for conservatives these days, and that many on the left will come around to nuclear once they learn a bit more (and unlearn a few things as well). Hey, Hansen did, Monbiot did, and so did I. There’s not so much denial on the left about nuclear, as there is ignorance. Liberal anti-nukes think they already know, so they don’t bother learning anything new, and thus their assumptions are locked in. There are a few examples right in this thread. For example, the idea that uranium reserves will run out, and that nuclear “waste” has to last 10,000 years. (Read up on fast breeder reactors if you have an open mind.)

There’s also a tendency to create strawman arguments and rail against them. Nuclear proponents who see it as a necessary part of a no-carbon energy plan aren’t saying “only nuclear and nothing else”. We are saying sure, we need renewables, and we need nuclear too, because renewables alone won’t even come close to enough capacity to replace coal. It’s not about costs, it’s about capacity!

Reflexively dismissive and emotional, coupled with a bit of wishful thinking. Not the same as climate science denialism, but it is ironic that once we move past the AGW “debate”, one of the big impediments to effective implementation of a clean energy economy is the knee-jerk reaction against nuclear energy.

There’s also the nuclear weapons issue, and some have a tendency to conflate nuclear energy with nuclear weapons technology.

Still, I have faith that liberals are more open-minded and amenable to reason than the right-wing authoritarians which pass for conservatives these days, and that many on the left will come around to nuclear once they learn a bit more (and unlearn a few things as well). Hey, Hansen did, Monbiot did, and so did I.

]]> By: keith kloor http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/04/the-politics-of-nuclear-power-wheres-the-left-wing-science-denial/#comment-52279 keith kloor Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:33:17 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=17138#comment-52279 I understand this discussion started initially as a thought experiment within a specific U.S. political context. But there is a larger debate to be had on this that extends across the Atlantic. And for a window into the reflexive (and passionately held) anti-nuclear attitudes of the left in Europe and the UK, one only has to view the reaction to George Monbiot's recent string of nuclear-power related columns, especially the last, which is referenced upthread. I understand this discussion started initially as a thought experiment within a specific U.S. political context. But there is a larger debate to be had on this that extends across the Atlantic.

And for a window into the reflexive (and passionately held) anti-nuclear attitudes of the left in Europe and the UK, one only has to view the reaction to George Monbiot’s recent string of nuclear-power related columns, especially the last, which is referenced upthread.

]]> By: david ropeik http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/04/the-politics-of-nuclear-power-wheres-the-left-wing-science-denial/#comment-52278 david ropeik Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:26:08 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=17138#comment-52278 What a marvelous conversation. Many good points. Gaythia's (18) is wise. It's simplistic to just say left and right. There are important variations between people. There are many high profile liberals open-minded to nuclear power. And some (though perhaps fewer) conservatives honestly concerned about climate change. There are important distinctions among positions for and against nuclear power too. I take Rowe's to be economic, for example, not informed by ideology. But there are several comments here that support the observation that, in some cases, our views on many science issues are powerfully influenced by our underlying worldviews and not "just the facts." Sorry Zombie, but there are humongous disagreements about the actual physical danger of ionizing radiation between anti-nuke advocates and the epidemiologists who study such things. And an anti-nuke calling NPR "Nuclear Propaganda Radio"? The psychology of the way we perceive and respond to risk is a fascinating mix of fact and feeling. The nuclear issue is a great example. What a marvelous conversation. Many good points. Gaythia’s (18) is wise. It’s simplistic to just say left and right. There are important variations between people. There are many high profile liberals open-minded to nuclear power. And some (though perhaps fewer) conservatives honestly concerned about climate change. There are important distinctions among positions for and against nuclear power too. I take Rowe’s to be economic, for example, not informed by ideology. But there are several comments here that support the observation that, in some cases, our views on many science issues are powerfully influenced by our underlying worldviews and not “just the facts.” Sorry Zombie, but there are humongous disagreements about the actual physical danger of ionizing radiation between anti-nuke advocates and the epidemiologists who study such things. And an anti-nuke calling NPR “Nuclear Propaganda Radio”?
The psychology of the way we perceive and respond to risk is a fascinating mix of fact and feeling. The nuclear issue is a great example.

]]> By: The Left Abusing Nuclear Science: Monbiot vs Caldicott | The Intersection | Discover Magazine http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/04/the-politics-of-nuclear-power-wheres-the-left-wing-science-denial/#comment-52277 The Left Abusing Nuclear Science: Monbiot vs Caldicott | The Intersection | Discover Magazine Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:08:37 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=17138#comment-52277 [...] I called for proof of liberal/left misuse of science with respect to nuclear power, and now, George Monbiot has [...] [...] I called for proof of liberal/left misuse of science with respect to nuclear power, and now, George Monbiot has [...]

]]> By: Jinchi http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/04/the-politics-of-nuclear-power-wheres-the-left-wing-science-denial/#comment-52276 Jinchi Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:05:23 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=17138#comment-52276 <i>the best way to quantify nuclear antiscience is to ask for a numerical answer to the following question: How many people has Chernobyl killed so far?</i> That question tests a knowledge of trivia, not scientific facts. Not knowing the answer doesn't prove that someone is anti-science any more than not knowing how many people died in the Boston Massacre proves that someone is anti-history. And more to the point, denialism isn't about whether someone knows the answer to a question, it's whether someone refuses to believe the correct answer even when presented with solid evidence. the best way to quantify nuclear antiscience is to ask for a numerical answer to the following question: How many people has Chernobyl killed so far?

That question tests a knowledge of trivia, not scientific facts. Not knowing the answer doesn’t prove that someone is anti-science any more than not knowing how many people died in the Boston Massacre proves that someone is anti-history.

And more to the point, denialism isn’t about whether someone knows the answer to a question, it’s whether someone refuses to believe the correct answer even when presented with solid evidence.

]]> By: Chris Mooney http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/04/the-politics-of-nuclear-power-wheres-the-left-wing-science-denial/#comment-52275 Chris Mooney Tue, 05 Apr 2011 12:45:34 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=17138#comment-52275 @22 that Monbiot article is finally what I'm looking for! It makes a plausible case that Caldicott is distorting the science on deaths from Chernobyl. I haven't independently investigated but this sounds highly plausible. Now--how influential is she??? @22 that Monbiot article is finally what I’m looking for! It makes a plausible case that Caldicott is distorting the science on deaths from Chernobyl. I haven’t independently investigated but this sounds highly plausible. Now–how influential is she???

]]> By: Chris Mooney http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/04/the-politics-of-nuclear-power-wheres-the-left-wing-science-denial/#comment-52274 Chris Mooney Tue, 05 Apr 2011 12:43:03 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=17138#comment-52274 @ 9 so friend me! @ 9 so friend me!

]]> By: vrk http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/04/the-politics-of-nuclear-power-wheres-the-left-wing-science-denial/#comment-52273 vrk Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:09:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=17138#comment-52273 Commenter 21 gives a link to George Monbiot's article about Dr Helen Caldicott and her science distortions, but doesn't give any context. Here's the full link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world As Monbiot describes, "Dr Caldicott is the world's foremost anti-nuclear campaigner. She has received 21 honorary degrees and scores of awards, and was nominated for a Nobel peace prize." Depressingly she has also distorted, misquoted and misrepresented results of scientific studies into the health effects of radiation, among other things, and I would say, after reading Monbiot's article, that this easily amounts to science denial in places. However, it's not clear where her politics lie. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Caldicott) she has run as an independent candidate (1990) as well as wanted to run as an Australian Democrats' candidate (1991), and based on her writing she seems to be pretty clearly on the political left. This is the first time I've heard of her, though, so I have to defer judgement. Commenter 21 gives a link to George Monbiot’s article about Dr Helen Caldicott and her science distortions, but doesn’t give any context. Here’s the full link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

As Monbiot describes, “Dr Caldicott is the world’s foremost anti-nuclear campaigner. She has received 21 honorary degrees and scores of awards, and was nominated for a Nobel peace prize.” Depressingly she has also distorted, misquoted and misrepresented results of scientific studies into the health effects of radiation, among other things, and I would say, after reading Monbiot’s article, that this easily amounts to science denial in places.

However, it’s not clear where her politics lie. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Caldicott) she has run as an independent candidate (1990) as well as wanted to run as an Australian Democrats’ candidate (1991), and based on her writing she seems to be pretty clearly on the political left. This is the first time I’ve heard of her, though, so I have to defer judgement.

]]> By: Monbiot on anti nuclear misleading us all | ikners.com http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/04/the-politics-of-nuclear-power-wheres-the-left-wing-science-denial/#comment-52272 Monbiot on anti nuclear misleading us all | ikners.com Tue, 05 Apr 2011 08:19:56 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=17138#comment-52272 [...] The Politics of Nuclear Power: Where’s the Left Wing Science Denial? | The Intersection (blogs.discovermagazine.com) [...] [...] The Politics of Nuclear Power: Where’s the Left Wing Science Denial? | The Intersection (blogs.discovermagazine.com) [...]

]]> By: SocraticGadfly http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/04/the-politics-of-nuclear-power-wheres-the-left-wing-science-denial/#comment-52271 SocraticGadfly Tue, 05 Apr 2011 04:51:21 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=17138#comment-52271 @16 Well put on denial vs. exaggeration in many cases. @19 Partially agree, partially disagree. Nuclear EROEI beats tar sand, but falls short of conventional oil or coal, tis true. Estimates are it's 6-1 or so. http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2011/04/fukushima_and_the_future_of_nu.php . BUT ... as more and more oil comes from "nonconventional plays," its EROEI is going to come nearer and nearer to oil. It will still be behind gas or coal, though, but coal has the biggest death factor ... 4,000-to-1 vs. nuclear, NOT counting mining deaths. As for risk decisions without informing the public, may I introduce Massey Coal? Deepwater Horizon/BP? The denialism of mercury pollution, etc., even after it was known? @16 Well put on denial vs. exaggeration in many cases.

@19 Partially agree, partially disagree. Nuclear EROEI beats tar sand, but falls short of conventional oil or coal, tis true. Estimates are it’s 6-1 or so. http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2011/04/fukushima_and_the_future_of_nu.php . BUT … as more and more oil comes from “nonconventional plays,” its EROEI is going to come nearer and nearer to oil. It will still be behind gas or coal, though, but coal has the biggest death factor … 4,000-to-1 vs. nuclear, NOT counting mining deaths.

As for risk decisions without informing the public, may I introduce Massey Coal? Deepwater Horizon/BP? The denialism of mercury pollution, etc., even after it was known?

]]>