Beyond the Abstract: The Contents of the Actual Paper on Nuclear Attitudes.

[NNadir]

Many years ago, the physicist Richard Feynman was interviewed on television about his life. Dr. Feynman, of course, besides being particularly lucid in his simple descriptions of relatively arcane concepts in physics, was famously iconoclastic and was a man of strong opinions about, well, almost everything.

When asked about the so-called "social sciences," in this interview, Feynman dismissed them as follows, as I recall:

"They don't formulate mathematical laws, and therefore they are not sciences!"

Feynman was referring to laws of course as mathematical laws that are predictive in nature and/or explain observable nature in one system in such a way as to make predictions about a different system in a coherent way.

The second law of thermodynamics, for instance, can be written (simply) as follows dS_universe > 0. This law was first discovered in relation to the behavior of energy is gas phase systems, but it also explains many other things: Why a broken egg never spontaneously reassembles, why it is that if we crank an engine backwards it doesn't produce gasoline (or steam), but the statement of the law made it possible to predict many other things as well, about the course of chemical reactions before the reactions are performed, for example. It also suggests answers to many other questions, like "what is time?"

Recently in this space, we had an anti-nuke announce that "peer reviewed" research proved that anti-nukes had "values" that he interpreted as being superior to pro-nukes, the latter being my class.

Here is the thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=259801&mesg_id=259801">The difference between those who embrace nuclear power and those who reject it

When one thinks of "values" of course, one is reminded of Feynman's critique of so called "social sciences" since "values" are if anything, vague by definition. Moreover the assignment of moral status to such values - something I feel subjectively the initiator of that thread was attempting to do - is totally subjective and says as much, at least, about the person doing the assignation as it does about the person whose morality is being assessed.

I, for instance, regard it as immoral to oppose a woman's right to abortion. Pat Robertson, were he to know me - and he doesn't - would say that my position on his position is immoral.

I regard people who oppose nuclear energy as immoral. Others don't.

Anyway, the anti-nuke, while asserting that the "values" assigned were "peer reviewed," failed to provide a reference for the paper, possibly he was concerned that someone might find the paper and read not his interpretation of the paper, but the paper itself.

Another correspondent in the thread, in my opinion a brave soul, managed, after six posts to get this which was supposed to pass, I guess, for providing a reference:

You'll find it listed twice at the top of the page if you google /"Values beliefs norms" nuclear/.

Once under "scholarly articles" and again as the first web result.

(The exchange included a ridiculous Lovinian and very myopic claim that "nuclear power is dead" even though it is the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free primary energy and even though the Chinese, unimpressed by the same assertion whether made in 1980 (by Amory Lovins) or in 2010 on the death of nuclear power, were unconcerned with armchair philosophy by people who don't pay much attention to world events in the energy field, announced a $120 billion investment in nuclear energy in the next five years. They, um, have the money.)

Whatever.

Two things became apparent: 1) The article was found by Googling and not by anything representing scholarly research. 2) The author of the post never actually read the paper, but interpreted it based on a rather glib reading of the abstract which he essentially plaguerized with few modifications.

From this, and from the statements made from the abstract, the "peer reviewed" source article could be determined. Here is the reference with the original (unspun) abstract in its original form:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01155.x/full">Risk Analysis, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2009, 425-437

I am fortunate inasmuch as I have access to one of the world's great libraries and can read almost any scholarly paper I wish to read, with the exception of a few journals.

I have access to all Wiley journals and was able to download the full text of the paper.


Here are some excerpts from the paper, with editorial bolding by, um, me.

Stern et al.,(21,22) building on the universal human value framework of Schwartz and his colleagues,( 23–25) developed a VBN model of environmental decision making that combines human values with social context variables. The VBN model deemphasizes the formal, calculative logic of the rational actor paradigm(26–28) and emphasizes the intuitive logic and the substantial ability humans display in pattern recognition and language processing.7 When presented with a novel stimulus, such as a request to evaluate the risk associated with a technology or express their level of support for the technology, the VBN model posits that most members of the public engage in a decision process that is more social and deliberative than calculative.

I in other words, "the public" can't grasp numbers. They must be referring to the American public. I believe our high school graduates rank somewhere behind 30 other countries.

Note the authors of the paper - the lead author, http://sociology.msu.edu/documents/DietzCV2010-09sept.doc">Thomas Dietz is citing his own model - claims that rationality is generally not a part of public policy. (I'm not saying I agree.)

It appears that for much of the following, the authors rely on self-assessment of whether one is, for instance, "altruistic."

Now for the fun part:

Less trust in nuclear organizations and lower education predict greater perceived risk of nuclear power. Therefore, education is indirectly associated with nuclear attitudes via risk, and trust in nuclear institutions has both direct effects and indirect effects
on nuclear attitudes via nuclear risk.

Um, um, um...less education?

Gee, if I agree with that statement, do I have to say that I hold a positive view of sociologist bull?

Um...um...um...

The paper closes with a great "please fund my research, nuclear industry!" kind of appeal:

The VBN model, supported in part by our results, frames and summarizes the dynamics of what shapes nuclear attitudes. It shows that the individual decisionmaker is neither an isolated, cold, calculating maximizer of the rational actor paradigm, nor is the “cognitive cripple” ruled by incoherent thinking once believed in the psychology of risk. Instead, the decisionmaker exhibits a rich combination of cognitive insight, social and emotional intelligence,(63) and cultural awareness, all anchored by fundamental values showing concern for others and the environment. To the extent that an enhanced reliance on nuclear power is or can become technologically, economically, and environmentally viable, it will require not only a more robust understanding of the underlying drivers of public attitudes, values, and perceptions about nuclear power but also active assimilation of that understanding into public policy and institutional design.

By the way, "public policy" is only weakly attached to reality. For instance, it was public policy in Italy in the early 17th century to deny that the earth orbited the sun and to make it illegal to assert that it did. This had more of an effect of chilling Italy's future than it did on the actual orbital parameters of the earth in relation to the sun.

Newton and Kepler couldn't have cared less about Italian law in performing their work.

If the public says that six is the same as two, that doesn't effect the value of six nor of two.

China, India, Japan, and France are not really interested in public perception by Americans. That said, the paper reports that generally, most Americans support nuclear power, adding the qualifier "in the abstract."

Now my editorial bias:

Americans had better support nuclear power or I assure you they will become irrelevant.

[GliderGuider]

1. Not that you give a shit, but

there are days I like you. :-)

[NNadir]

4. OK, but don't make a habit of it.

I'm rather proud of never having attended charm school.

[DrGregory]

2. I agree with Feynmann.

"They don't formulate mathematical laws, and therefore they are not sciences!"

Feynman was referring to laws of course as mathematical laws that are predictive in nature and/or explain observable nature in one system in such a way as to make predictions about a different system in a coherent way.
=========================================

I remember an interview with Feynmann on PBS's NOVA saying that.

Feymann stated that he knew what it was to really know something.
The so-called social scientists have NO concept of what it is to
really know something. They have NO concept of the scientific
RIGOR that goes into knowledge such as physics.

I agree with Feynmann - the social scientists are NOT scientists.

Science relies on the immutable laws of Nature. If something
violates one of these laws, then I know it can't happen, and I
can say it can't happen.

Social scientists can't make statements like that. They have
no underlying laws. The have trends, hunches, voodoo, whatever...
but they don't have inviolable laws.

Prediction is at the heart of science. What is the difference
between science and religion? Science can explain something via
its laws. Religion can explain the same thing, just by saying,
"The angels did it". The religious explanation explains everything.

However, here's the rub; the religious explanation predicts NOTHING.
You can't say what the angel will do.

Science can say what can / can not happen. Science can make predictions.

That's the hallmark of true science.

Dr. Greg

[FBaggins]

3. Ouch... that's gonna leave a mark.

Not that such would be admitted of course.

lower education predict greater perceived risk of nuclear power

As has been implied (usually politely) more than once on these threads.

[XemaSab]

5. .

:thumbsup:

[joshcryer]

6. Thanks a bunch NNadir!

Gosh I miss access to journals. :( Public libraries here can't afford access at the moment.

[NNadir]

22. No problem. I recognize that I am very, very, very fortunate to have this

access.

It's startling actually, that I can now carry around papers that 15 years ago would have weighed tons on a little tiny disk that I can easily string around my neck.

I had my little guy in the stacks this weekend - those great movable stacks filled with bound paper journals - and I pulled some old journals off the shelf and showed him how it used to work.

I felt like such a dinosaur that I even knew how it used to be. (I'm sure he'll never get it, really, what it used to be like.)

The incredible thing is how easy it is to search stuff. I can now find stuff in five minutes that it would have taken me a full day to find in former times. I don't even have to stand up.

It's scary, almost, beautiful, but scary.

[phantom power]

40. It stuns me, how rapidly access to published research has changed due to the internet.

I'm probably of the last generation who ever had to spend significant time actually walking stacks in a physical library to obtain sources.

These days, I rarely even have to go behind a pay wall on the intertubes. It's just... out there.

:wow:

[kristopher]

41. Cool, huh.

[phantom power]

46. It is cool. It happened so fast that...

we seem to be just now starting to figure out how to use it. For example, taking advantage of increased collaboration and open contributions, while maintaining quality of results. It's almost like a new set of social conventions, or best practices, or something, needs to be folded into how we define "scientific method," "peer review, " etc.

You know, without gratuitously shit-canning the proven principles we've spent so long working out already.

Fun time to be alive!

[NNadir]

56. Well, I saw something very funny today. I use Princeton University's libraries, and of course

Princeton is one of the world's great universities.

I'm in the Firestone Library - one of the world's greatest libraries - and I have electronic access to everything there is and then some.

Some guy is sitting next to me doing research. What's he looking at?

Wikipedia.

It just seemed in a way, tragic, but I confess I've done that too called up Wikipedia pages in Firestone.

But I do wander the stacks. There are very beautiful things in those stacks, incomparable really.

My son's robotics coach says that someday Universities will be superfluous. I'm not sure I agree but one can learn a great deal without ever leaving the library.

My sister-in-law is a librarian. It's a great job, I think.

[kristopher]

7. In other words the original post I made was correct.

That is a very long screed to say something simple.

[NNadir]

8. Oh, jeeze...

You really are something, aren't you?

What is immediately clear is that you didn't read anything more than the abstract.

[kristopher]

9. That is false.

Not only have I read the article, but there is information from the body of the article in my post that proves it - something you would know if you were capable of actually reading for meaning. Your problem is that you have an extremely low capacity to employ basic valid reasoning - and that, my friend, is the fundamental skill required by anyone who is doing science.

Your OP is a pathetic attempt to hide the very clear results of the research which were accurately summarized in my post.

This is drawn from published, peer reviewed research on the beliefs of the public and how those beliefs flow from values held.

1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived risk

2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions.



Here is the abstract and full list of references for the paper:
Abstract and references are intended for public use and distribution

The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception
Stephen C. Whitfield,1 Eugene A. Rosa,2 Amy Dan,3 and Thomas Dietz3;

Abstract
Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy.

Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.


1. Colvin J. Dawn of a new era. Nuclear Plant Journal, 2005;
23:42-44.

2. Moore T. License renewal revitalizes the nuclear industry.
EPRI Journal, 2000; 25:8-17.

3. International Atomic Energy Agency. Operational and Under
Construction Reactors by Country. Vienna, Austria: Interna-
tional Atomic Energy Agency, 2005.

4. Uranium Information Center. Nuclear Issue Briefing Pa-
per #16. Melbourne, Australia: Uranium Information Center,
2002.

5. Bisconti AS. Why public opinion about nuclear en-
ergy is changing. Nuclear Energy Review December:
70-72, 2006. Available at: http://www.business-briefings.
com/cdps/cditem.cfm?NID=2402#Public%20Understanding.

6. Rosa EA, Dunlap RE. The polls-poll trends: Nuclear energy:
Three decades of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly,
1994; 58:295-325.

7. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Nuclear energy industry
poised for growth based on excellent performance of today’s
plants. NEI News Release, 2006.

8. Ansolabehere S, Deutch J, Driscoll M, Gray PE, Holdren JP,
Joskow PL, Lester RK, Moniz EJ, Todreas NE. The future
of nuclear power. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 2003.

9. Sailor WC, Bodansky D, Braun C, Fetter S, Van Der Zwaan B.
Nuclear power: A nuclear solution to climate change? Science,
2005; 288:1177.

10. Bennhold K. Nuclear energy is making a global comeback.
New York Times, October 17, 2004.

11. Wald M. Hopes of building nation’s first new nuclear plant in
decades. New York Times, January 27, 2005.

12. The Economist. A new dawn for nuclear power? Economist,
May, 2001; 19-25.

13. Marshall E. Is the friendly atom poised for a comeback? Sci-
ence, 2005; 309:1168-1169.

14. Rhodes R. Nuclear power’s new day. New York Times, May
7, 2001.

15. Starr C. Societal benefit versus technological risk. Science,
1969; 236:280-285.

16. Freudenburg WF, Rosa EA. Public Reactions to Nuclear
Power: Are There Critical Masses? Boulder, CO: Westview
Press/ American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1984.

17. Wald M. Mississippi extends hospitality to nuclear power. New
York Times, January 27, 2005.
The Future of Nuclear Power 437

18. Morgan D. Restarting reactor could boost nuclear power in-
dustry. Washington Post, May 16, 2002.

19. Rosa EA. The future acceptability of nuclear power in the
United States. Paris: Institute Francais des Relations Interna-
tionales, 2004.

20. Rosa EA. The public climate for nuclear power: The changing
of seasons. In The Role of Nuclear Power in Global and Do-
mestic Energy Policy: Recent Developments and Future Ex-
pectations. Washington, DC: H.H. Baker, Jr. Center for Public
Policy Conference, 2007.

21. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. A So-
cial Psychological theory of support for social movements:
The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 1999;
6:81-97.

22. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L. Value orientations, gender and
environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 1993;
25:322-348.

23. Schwartz SH. Are there universal aspects in the structure
and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 1994;
50:19-45.

24. Schwartz, SH, Bilsky W. Toward a universal psychological
structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1987; 53:550-562.

25. Schwartz SH, Bilsky W. Toward a theory of the universal
content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural
replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1990; 58:878-891.

26. Dietz T. “What should we do?” Human ecology and collective
decision making. Human Ecology Review, 1994; 1:301-309.

27. Dietz T, Stern PC. Toward realistic models of individual
choice. Journal of Socio-Economics, 1995; 24:261-279.

28. Jaeger C, Renn O, Rosa EA, Webler T. Risk, Uncertainty and
Rational Action. London: Earthscan, 2001.

29. Rokeach M. Understanding Human Values: Individual and
Societal. New York: Free Press, 1979.

30. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R. Environmental values. An-
nual Review of Environment and Resources, 2005; 30:335-372.

31. Slimak MW, Dietz T. Personal values, beliefs and ecological
risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2006; 26:1689-1705.

32. Frewer LJ, Scholderer J, Bredahl H. Communicating about
the risks and benefits of genetically modified food: The me-
diating role of trust. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23:1117-1133.

33. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M,
Mayer H. Nuclear waste and public worries: Public percep-
tions of the United States’ major nuclear weapons legacy sites.
Human Ecology Review, 2007; 14:1-12.

34. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M,
Mayer H. Preferences for alternative risk management poli-
cies at the United States major nuclear weapons legacy sites.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2007;
50:187-209.

35. Kasperson RE, Golding D, Kasperson JX. Risk, trust and
democratic theory. In Cvetkovich G, L ̈ofstedt RE (eds). Social
Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan,1999.

36. L ̈ofstedt RE, Rosa EA. The strength of trust in Sweden, UK
and the U.S.: Some hypotheses. Report of the 4th Seminar of
TRUSTNET, Paris, France, 2000.

37. Metlay D. Institutional trust and confidence: A journey into
a conceptual quagmire. In Cvetkovich G, L ̈ofstedt RE (eds).
Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan,
1999.

38. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Exploring the dimensionality of
trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23:961-972.

39. Renn O, Levine D. Credibility and trust in risk communica-
tion. In Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM (eds). Communicating
Risks to the Public. The Hague: Kluwer, 1991.

40. Rosa EA, Clark DL, Jr. Historical routes to technologi-
cal gridlock: Nuclear technology as prototypical vehicle. Re-
search in Social Problems and Public Policy, 1999; 7:21-
57.

41. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perceptions of hazards: The role of
social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20:713-719.

42. Seigrist M, Cvetkovich G, Gutscher H. Shared values, social
trust, and the perception of geographic cancer clusters. Risk
Analysis, 2001; 21:1047-1053.

43. Seigrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C. Salient value similarity,
social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 2000;
20:353-362.

44. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Survey-
ing the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 1999; 19:689-
701.

45. Slovic P, Layman M, Clary BB. Perceived risk, trust and nu-
clear waste: Lessons from Yucca Mountain. In Dunlap RE,
Kraft ME, Rosa EA (eds). Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste:
Citizens’ Views of Repository Siting. Durham, NC: Duke Uni-
versity Press, 1993.

46. Earle TC, Siegrist M, Gutscher H. Trust, risk perception,
and the TCC model of cooperation. In Siegrist M, Earle
TC, Gutscher H (eds). Trust in Cooperative Risk Manage-
ment: Uncertainty and Skepticism in the Public Mind. London:
Earthscan, 2007.

47. Dillman D. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design
Method. New York: Wiley, 1978.

48. U.S. Census Bureau. Table DP-2 (Profile of Selected So-
cial Characteristics: 2000), Geographical Area: United States,
2000. Available at: http://factfinder.census.gov/.

49. Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of val-
ues: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1992; 25:1-65.

50. Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA. A brief inventory of values.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1998; 58:884-
1001.

51. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AD, Jones RE. Measuring
endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP
scale. Social Science Quarterly, 2002; 56:425-442.

52. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD. The “new environmental
paradigm:” A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary
results. Journal of Environmental Education, 1978; 9:10-19.

53. Peters E, Slovic P. The role of affect and worldviews as orient-
ing dispositions in the perception of nuclear power. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 1996; 26:1427-1453.

54. Arbuckle JL. Amos 5. Chicago, IL: Smallwater Corporation,
2003.

55. Gallup Poll. Expanding the Use of Nuclear Energy. Princeton,
NJ: Gallup Organization, 2007.

56. Dunlap RE, Kraft ME, Rosa EA. The Public and Nuclear
Waste: Citizen’s Views of Repository Siting. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press, 1993.

57. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Gender, race and perception of
environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14:1101-1108.

58. Kalof L, Dietz T, Guagnano GA, Stern PC. Race, gender
and environmentalism: the atypical values and beliefs of white
men. Race, Gender & Class, 2002; 9:1-19.

59. Mander J. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.
New York: William Morrow, 1978.

60. ABC/Time/Stanford University. Concern soars about global
warming as world’s top environmental threat. Department of
Political Science. Stanford, CA: Department of Political Sci-
ence, Stanford University, 2007.

61. Slovic P, Flynn JH, Layman M. Perceived risk, trust and the
politics of nuclear waste. Science, 1993; 254:1603-1607.

62. York R, Rosa E, Dietz T. Bridging environmental science with
environmental policy: Plasticity of population, affluence and
technology. Social Science Quarterly, 2002; 83:18-34.

63. Grewal D, Salovey P. Feeling smart: The science of emotional
intelligence. American Scientist, 2005; 93:330-339.

[FBaggins]

10. Then maybe you can help.

Less trust in nuclear organizations and lower education predict greater perceived risk of nuclear power. Therefore, education is indirectly associated with nuclear attitudes via risk, and trust in nuclear institutions has both direct effects and indirect effects
on nuclear attitudes via nuclear risk.

I can't seem to get the paragraphs about lower education to display. Could you post them please?

[kristopher]

11. Another pathetic attempt at spin.

Is the word "direct" used as a modifier for education?

Did the authors of the study consider education to be significant enough to include in THEIR summary?

The answer is "Yes, they did." But if you can read the evaluation by the AUTHORS of the report instead of relying on the fractured reasoning of nnads, you'll see that they explicitly conclude:

Nuclear attitudes do not vary by ... education...

There are a lot of interesting items I didn't include in the 10 point list I provided; that doesn't negate the primary finding of the study.

1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived risk

2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions.


Abstract and references are intended for public use and distribution

The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception
Stephen C. Whitfield,1 Eugene A. Rosa,2 Amy Dan,3 and Thomas Dietz3;

Abstract
Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy.

Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.

[FBaggins]

13. Spin? I was asking for your assistance.

You said that you had read the paper so (assuming you were being truthful) I asked for a couple paragraphs that flesh out their conclusion.

Are you saying that you were lying?

[DrGregory]

26. Not trust - KNOWLEDGE

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power
===================================

It's not trust but knowledge that portends support.

The people who know the most about nuclear power -
physicists and engineers - support nuclear by
over 90%

Dr. Greg

[FBaggins]

35. It's also backwards.

The poster would like people to believe that the nuclear industry is trying to brainwash people... and that once you trust them, your perception of risk goes down (as you believe their lies). That confuses cause and effect. It's really that the lower perception of risk (due, as you said, to superior knowledge) leads to greater trust in the industry.


It's like recognizing the correlation between sunburns and the amount of sunlight on a given day, and then claiming that having a sunburn causes the sun to shine.

Par for this particular course I'm afraid.

[Kolesar]

12. Mods: How is calling out another poster's thread &insinuating that he is "immoral" not *flame bait*?

Hmmm?

[FBaggins]

14. The OP did neither.

The poster replied to that thread with a note that a full reply deserved it's own thread. That's not "calling out". And pointing out that one poster considers support of nuclear power to be immoral while he considers opposition to nuclear power to be immoral is not the same thing as a personal attack on another poster.

Time for a thicker skin, hmmm?

[XemaSab]

15. Yeah, calling out a thread that says

that people who support nukes are closet conservatives. :eyes:

[kristopher]

16. Care to explain these poll results?

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[Dead_Parrot]

17. Tricky...

Of course polls also tell us:

82 percent believe in God,

79 percent believe in miracles,

75 percent in heaven,

Only 42 percent believe in evolution.

Edit: Oh, and 41 percent expect Jesus to return by 2050

My explanation? Americans are prone to wishful thinking and largely cut-off from reality.

What's yours?

[kristopher]

18. The base of support for nuclear is the same as the base of support for coal.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[phantom power]

19. You probably know this, but marginal distribution != joint distribution

Like, for instance, I support nuclear power, but I think coal is going to kill us all.

[NNadir]

20. And this means what exactly?

The intersection of that set could be as small as 2%.

It's interesting that a guy who pastes the same Venn diagram over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over - albeit with made up subjective variables - doesn't seem to grasp what such diagrams are meant to convey about sets.

I don't know how many times in this space I've heard anti-nukes hyping the nonsense concept of "clean coal" or "dangerous fossil fuel" waste dumps, aka sequestration.

These asses think that ICS exists on scale, and they are quite willing to discuss "hydrogen HYPErcars" and other bull even though most of the world's hydrogen involves either coal or gas as a source.

By contrast I know almost no pro-nukes, here or elsewhere, who support coal in any form.

I have long advocated the immediate phase out of all dangerous natural gas, dangerous oil and dangerous coal.

But again, making energy decisions by popular vote is not a good idea, since so many Americans are innumerate, as is demonstrated almost every time an anti-nuke posts something here.

[DrGregory]

25. AMEN!!

[kristopher]

28. This supports the Whitfield paper perfectly.

52% traditionalist, 40% altruist. Given their values, we could expect to see an overlap is in the area of support for renewables. The traditionalist is primarily concerned about security and stability for home and country so the main concern they want addressed is "steady power" otherwise referred to as "energy security". That results in a 'let's pursue all alternatives' strategy on their part.

The 40% that are altruists reject coal and nuclear because of their high external costs. They do not trust the nuclear industry to tell the truth about the problems associated with nuclear any more than they expect the coal industry to tell the truth about coal.

"Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power."

The results reported in this line tell us that concern for climate change is offset by the lack of belief in nuclear power's ability to solve the problem without creating another mess. Among this group renewables are perceived (correctly) as a superior alternative to nuclear. They also are arriving at their conclusions independently since whether or not they trust environmental institutions has no bearing on their conclusions.

What is truly interesting is what this tells us about the beliefs behind your posts. You attack renewable energy without fail - one of a very, very small minority to do so.

I would posit that the poll gives evidence that your beliefs and values as you have displayed them here are not rational if we judge them by the values in this survey that we've so far looked at.

In point of fact, however, there are 4 categories included in the survey: traditional, altruistic, open-to-change, and egoistic. I interpret your unceasing attacks on renewables, in spite of the clear and unequivocal evidence of their worth argues that your values are grouped in the egoistic area, probably with emphasis on the facet of "wealth, material possessions, and money".

Also note that: "Individuals with lower scores on the NEP (New Environmental Paradigm) scale (i.e., with less concern for the biosphere) have greater trust in nuclear organizations." p.433

Traditional values
Family security, safety for loved ones
Honoring parents and elders, showing respect
Self-discipline, self-restraint, resistance to temptation

Altruistic values
Respecting the earth, harmony with other species
Protecting the environment, preserving nature
Equality, equal opportunity for all
Social justice, correcting injustice, care for the weak
Unity with nature, fitting into nature
A world at peace, free of war and conflict

Openness to change values
An exciting life, stimulating experiences
Curious, interested in everything, exploring
A varied life, filled with challenge, novelty, and change

Egoistic values
Influential, having an impact on people and events
Authority, the right to lead or command
Wealth, material possessions, money p.430


You attempt to ally yourself with altruistic values, however that simply isn't consistent with your rejection of renewables and is more likely a ploy motivated by your embrace of the other egoistic values - (you want to be influential, to have an impact on people and events; you believe you should have authority and the right to lead or command on the issue) and if that takes espousing values on an internet forum that are contradicted by your actual stance, then you will do it.

The monetary motive seems probably due to the conflict between this appeal to altruism and your rejection of renewable power as even an "all of the above" choice, since either renewables are almost certainly going to crowd out nuclear, or nuclear is almost certainly going to crowd out renewables. If you were just looking to influence people for ego gratification, you wouldn't reject renewable energy, you would embrace it. So the monetary value seems most likely.

[DrGregory]

29. Pscho-babble!!

You attempt to ally yourself with altruistic values, however that simply isn't consistent with your rejection of renewables and is more likely a ploy motivated by your embrace of the other egoistic values
-----------------------------------------------------

Then there are those of us who don't give a diddly DAMN
about your psycho-babble.

We make our decisions based on SOUND SCIENCE.

We KNOW what nuclear power can / can not do.

We also know how ANEMIC and IMPOTENT renewables are.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

30. You do not speak for scientists

And it's been repeatedly proven you are misrepresnting yourself at all levels on this forum.

Holdren on the other hand, we know something about, and he certainly thinks it is real, and neither anemic nor impotent. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that you are projecting your personal traits on the energy issue...


From one of his presentaions:

The renewable option: Is it real?

SUNLIGHT: 100,000 TW reaches Earth’s surface (100,000 TWy/year = 3.15 million EJ/yr), 30% on land.

Thus 1% of the land area receives 300 TWy/yr, so converting this to usable forms at 10% efficiency would yield 30 TWy/yr, about twice civilization’s rate of energy use in 2004.



WIND: Solar energy flowing into the wind is ~2,000 TW.

Wind power estimated to be harvestable from windy sites covering 2% of Earth’s land surface is about twice world electricity generation in 2004.



BIOMASS: Solar energy is stored by photosynthesis on land at a rate of about 60 TW.

Energy crops at twice the average terrestrial photosynthetic yield would give 12 TW from 10% of land area (equal to what’s now used for agriculture).

Converted to liquid biofuels at 50% efficiency, this would be 6 TWy/yr, more than world oil use in 2004.



Renewable energy potential is immense. Questions are what it will cost & how much society wants to pay for environmental & security advantages.




The nuclear option: size of the challenges

• If world electricity demand grows 2%/year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3...

–nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050;

– this means 1,700 reactors of 1,000 MWe each.



• If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...

---–enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);

---–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.



• If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...

---–the associated flow of separated, directly weapon - usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;

---–diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.



• Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...

---–34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.


Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, but doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.


Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren

Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, *but* doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

John P. Holdren is advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology,
Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology...

Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,
director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and
Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren

[XemaSab]

31. Let's look at the math here:

SUNLIGHT: 100,000 TW reaches Earth’s surface (100,000 TWy/year = 3.15 million EJ/yr), 30% on land.

Thus 1% of the land area receives 300 TWy/yr, so converting this to usable forms at 10% efficiency would yield 30 TWy/yr, about twice civilization’s rate of energy use in 2004.



WIND: Solar energy flowing into the wind is ~2,000 TW.

Wind power estimated to be harvestable from windy sites covering 2% of Earth’s land surface is about twice world electricity generation in 2004.

You seem to think that 1% and 2% don't sound like a lot of land area.

There's 57.5 million square miles of land on Earth, so 1% of that would be 575,000 square miles. Alaska is 663,268 square miles.

2% of the Earth's land area would be 1,150,000 square miles. India is 1,236,085 square miles.


"Oh," I hear you objecting, "It would be split up so it wouldn't be all in one big chunk."


3% of the Earth's land area is 1,725,000 square miles. Obviously Antarctica has to be factored out of the land area, so it would be more like 3.3% of the land area excluding Antarctica.

Just for the sake of argument, Asia would need 558,000 square miles, Africa would need 387,000 square miles, North America would need 312,000 square miles, South America would need 227,000 square miles, Europe would need 130,000 square miles, and Australia would need 115,000 square miles.

Mongolia, Egypt, California PLUS Montana, half of Colombia, Germany, and Victoria PLUS most of Tasmania should do it.

Even if you only needed 1.1% of the land area of each continent, that would be Turkmenistan, Republic of the Congo, Colorado, Suriname (plus another 10,000 square miles), Bulgaria, and Tasmania.

And something tells me most of these places aren't interested in being covered with solar panels.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[XemaSab]

36. Oh, okay

Let's just pave over 1/4 of Colorado for solar and sit in the dark all night 'cause there's no storage.

[GliderGuider]

37. "and sit in the dark all night"

Like we used to do for the last hundred thousand years, give or take a couple of hundred. You know, there are times when that doesn't seem like the end of the world to me.

[XemaSab]

38. I take it you're not a fellow insomniac?

:P

[GliderGuider]

39. I'm a big fan of 12-hour meditations... n/t

[kristopher]

42. That's quite a set of fabrications.

You included in your quoted section the fact that the land areas mentioned for both the wind and solar are enough to power the world twice over. Yet you then proceed to add them together and pretend that this represents some sort of accurate image of the land area that would be required for renewables.

How dishonest can you possibly be?

In addition to obviously inflating the area 400% you also ignore the fact that we have geothermal, wave, biofuels, tidal, current, and isothermic energy sources that can be tapped. To that we add in the fact that the land area only represents 30% of the surface of the planet, and that we are certainly looking to the ocean for access to renewables, and your attempt at math only proves that you are intent on supporting nuclear power no matter how much it requires you to distort reality to do so.

You *know* all of those factors are part of the picture.

It makes my skin crawl to deal with people who demonstrate a willingness to stoop to that level.

[XemaSab]

48. Your skin is crawling?

Are you sure it's not the meth or the scabies?

[Confusious]

57. Does that include the power needed to run those fancy cars?

2/3 of the power of the United States comes from oil to run cars. Only a 1/3 is used to generate electricity.

So increase the 1% of the land mass by 66% to run cars.

[Kolesar]

43. Ha! Senator George Voinovich for one

NN: "By contrast I know almost no pro-nukes, here or elsewhere, who support coal in any form."

How about the board members of the electric utilities? Babcock and Wilcox? General Electric??

I would be that Senator Inhofe is in your camp, too.

Edit, add: The Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Columbus Dispatch

[kristopher]

44. The stakeholders for coal and nuclear are almost identical.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x260378

[Dead_Parrot]

45. What, based on one project?

Hey, if I can find one project combining coal and solar, does that prove they have the same stakeholders, too?

[Dead_Parrot]

21. Math still isn't your strong point, I see

52 percent of people want to increase coal mining. 52% want to build more nuclear power. There's nothing there that suggests it's the same 52%: The actual percentage who want both could be anywhere between 4% and 52% of the total population.

50% of people are male. 50% are female. Very rarely are they the same people.

Interestingly, if 91% of the population want more wind and solar power and 75% believe in miracles, it is a certainly that at least 66% of renewable advocates are fucking morons. This doesn't actually say anything about the technology, but shows that joining statistics together is a fun game anyone can play.

[DrGregory]

24. the old adage applies..

Interestingly, if 91% of the population want more wind and solar power and 75% believe in miracles, it is a certainly that at least 66% of renewable advocates are fucking morons. This doesn't actually say anything about the technology, but shows that joining statistics together is a fun game anyone can play
-----------------------------------------------------

I agree with you on the morons.

The old adage is:

Figures never lie; but liars sure can figure.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

23. Don't choose my friends / allies for me....

The base of support for nuclear is the same as the base of support for coal.
===========================================

I see nuclear as the best technology AGAINST coal.

Nuclear is only slightly more expensive than coal;
and that's with all the costs internalized in the
the cost structure - waste disposal, decommissioning...
while lots of the costs are externalized with coal;
health effects, CO2 pollution, radioactive pollution...

Dr. Greg

[XemaSab]

32. I'm going to continue the derision sparked upthread and say that

if 40% of Americans bought a book in the last year, 40% of Americans don't have access to broadband, 40% of Americans have a tattoo, and 40% of Americans reported that high cost has kept them from filling a prescription, there's a big chunk of Americans who 1) sit at home and read because they don't have internet and who should 2) maybe consider spending money on meds instead of tattoos.

See? It's the bullshit game. Fun for all ages.

The good news here is that 40% of Americans not only believe that Obama is a socialist, but 40% of Americans are also likely to get swine flu in the next 2 years, so at least that should keep those tools busy for a while.

[Nihil]

33. Easy

> Care to explain these poll results?

Implication of correlation is not proof.

As far as playing silly buggers with statistics is concerned,
Dead_Parrot has got you nailed in .21 ...

:shrug:

[GliderGuider]

47. Do many people here feel that "pro-nuclear environmentalist" is an oxymoron?

I've decided on reflection that the phrase describes me reasonably well, so I'd like to get a feeling for how explicit this sentiment is around here.

[XemaSab]

49. I think the "pro-nuclear" frame is a bunch of BS

I think there's one person here who is enthusiastically pro-nuclear and there are about 20 people who grudgingly admit that nuclear is the best option for fighting climate change.

I'm not pro-nuclear so much as I am anti-fossil fuels and anti-trashing the landscape for poorly thought out solar and wind projects.

To paraphrase Matthew, "For what does a man profit, if he should stop climate change and suffer the loss of the very nature he was trying to preserve?"

If cranes can no longer migrate between their breeding grounds and their wintering grounds without running through a gauntlet of windmills, how is that less damaging then the potential effects of climate change? If desert tortoises no longer have undisturbed habitat in the Mojave Desert, how is that less damaging then the potential effects of climate change?

(ETA: To draw a comparison, it's like abortion. Nobody is "pro-abortion," but the pro-choice option is better than unwanted children and back-alley abortions. I'm pro-choice when it comes to nuclear.)

[GliderGuider]

50. "Pro-choice" is a phrasing I can live with.

It's interesting how circumspect the language of those who are not "anti-nuclear" has had to become, though. Phrases like "grudgingly admit", and "I'm not pro-nuclear so much as..." feel like scar tissue left over from past beatings at the hands of ideological bullies.

If CO2 is really Public Enemy #1 then we need to get realistic about fighting it with every last tool at our disposal. If we're not going to cut our planetary energy consumption by 75% over the next 25 years, the imagined risks of nuclear power pale into comparison beside the awesome planet-trashing majesty of fossil fuels. Compared to that inevitability, the average nuclear power plant is a fuzzy bunny.

I'm fed up with the hysterical fear-mongering, the determined anti-numeracy, the utter inability to do risk analysis, the baiting and the bullying that I see coming from the moral purity contingent around here. Nuclear power is not a zombie that wants to eat your brain. If you want a future that looks anything like the present in terms of your comfort, mobility and quality of life, then nuclear power is going to be a part of it.

Deal.

[kristopher]

52. Bullpuckey.

Reality can be measured and your support for nuclear power is a path that that directly contradicts the goal you claim you wish to achieve.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[GliderGuider]

53. Is "bullpuckey" a scientific term?

Or is it an emotionally loaded term used to silence opposition, to bully and bludgeon others into a position of moral purity?

[kristopher]

58. It is a technical term in public policy

roughly rendered in the common lexicon as "horseshit".

[GliderGuider]

59. Horseshit is very environmentally friendly

As long as it doesn't come from the horse you rode in on.

[Nihil]

60. Good point ...

> It is a technical term in public policy
> roughly rendered in the common lexicon as "horseshit".

Now if only you would get in the habit of posting that single word
instead of your usual truck-load of it (e.g., in .52) then Skinner
could save a fortune on disk space and you wouldn't be accused of
spamming every thread ...

:shrug:

[Dead_Parrot]

55. ...

[Dogmudgeon]

61. Does "Markie-Z" know he has such an ... intense ... fan club?

Man-oh-man, if he ever does an ego-Google, is HE gonna be in for a surprise!

--d!

[kristopher]

51. It really isn't complicated.

Anyone can call themselves whatever they like on the internet. However in the real world the combination of those who place environmental values as a high priority and those willing to accept the external costs of nuclear power is one seldom seen.

But, like I said, anyone can claim anything on the internet.

[Dead_Parrot]

54. "Anyone can call themselves whatever they like on the internet"

We've noticed.

[eppur_se_muova]

27. I had to check to be sure it wasn't another Alan Sokal paper ...

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html