What predicts support for nuclear power? What predicts opposition?

[kristopher]

Trust in the nuclear industry predicts support.

Embrace of altruistic values predicts opposition.

The primary reference is a product of nuclear industry funded research.

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 for the primary reference.

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.

[applegrove]

1. I bought into the 'clean fuel' description of nuclear power until my sister pointed

out that the waste had to be stored for 10,000 years. That single fact set me straight quick.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Some waste can now be reprocessed into fuel.

There are other technologies in the works for dealing with the old waste in innovative ways.

You might also think of nuclear power as a means of disposing of the incredible tonnage of weapons grade plutonium and uranium, as we draw down strategic nuclear forces with Russia.

[DCKit]

2. Much of the support is also bought and paid for.

Look at all the the non-nuclear scientists trotted out this week to tell us how safe we are. And that's not even counting experts who showed up here to argue the pro-nuclear viewpoint on every thread about Fukushima for the past eight days.

For me, it's a complete lack of trust in the industry and our government - they lied to us about TMI, the incredible environmental damage at Hanford, experimenting on our soldiers and citizens and all the other less-serious accidents in the U.S., going on seventy years now.

[FBaggins]

3. I guess the danger from Fukushima is receeding.

Kris has gone back to his spamming ways. :)

How many times have you posted this thread Kris?

Nothing else in the news that interests you?

[kristopher]

4. It is valid data which informs the discussion.

Here is a website from a Democratic group that energetically works to promote nuclear power:
http://www.thirdway.org/

It is informative to review their policies on a range of programs. What it basically amounts to is that they embrace Traditional Republican Economic issues while giving lip service to support for social issues.

We saw the depth of that support, however, when these "New Democrats" were negotiating the health care bill.

Their priority unmistakably favors corporate interest when money and social issues clash.

[madokie]

5. Thats all you got to say

I haven't read this in the E/E forum before and i though I was here about as much as anyone or at least an hour or two each day. I must be blind :-)

[FBaggins]

6. Can't speak to whether or not you're blind.

But he's spamposted it at least a dozen times (probably twice that many) over the last six months.

Usually as a reply to other posts, but also as an OP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x264407

"Do not spam the message board by posting the same message repeatedly,"
"Do not post duplicate topics that have already been posted. "

[kristopher]

8. It is a well reasoned argument based on analysis funded by th nuclear industry

When claims are made that are refuted by that argument, I will use it.

If anything is "spam" it would be the endless offers to buy into nuclear power that use sale pitches crafted by the nuclear industry.

[FBaggins]

9. If you do say so yourself?

Mighty humble, aren't we?

It wasn't the argument from the paper... it was your argument spun from the paper. Others pointed out where it didn't say what you claimed, but you would have none of it.

In short. You're wasting our time (as well as violating DU rules for the 2.3 X 10 ²³rd time).

[kristopher]

10. You are free to refute it. Now, what about that 12% support for more nukes in France?

Waiting for a reply to your request for help?

[FBaggins]

11. 12% support for more nukes in France?

They already produce more electricity from nuclear than their ENTIRE demand... Why would anyone want to build more?

[kristopher]

12. 12%.

[FBaggins]

17. Only 12% of my family supports buying new socks.

Is that because we don't like socks (ignoring the fact that we're hobbits)? Because we don't think we need them? Because theres something else we prefer for the task?

Nope. It's because we have all the socks we need for the forseable future.

[kristopher]

20. How do you explain their support for building renewables being in the high 70s?

[FBaggins]

21. Same answer.

I'm short on dress shirts. I'm in favor of more dress shirts.

[madokie]

7. I can't see how with our manufacturing base gone that we need to continue operating

the more dangerous ones we have operating now. Just the number of gadgets we each own now, compared to 30 years ago can't compare to the manufacturing load we've lost, can't even get close to the same electrical load so why are we even thinking of adding more nuclear energy. Seems silly to me to even be having discussions of adding the most dangerous power source of all. I mean look at Russia and see what happens when it goes wrong in a big way. We may have Japan to look back at on that level if they don't get lucky and get this catastrophe in the making stopped soon. it'll be a long time before its safe to safely return to the area around Chernobyl as pictures of the 70,000 person previous city of Pripyat is a reminder of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enSoipINKRs

[AtheistCrusader]

15. We're still neck and neck, or slightly behind China in manufacturing capacity.

We've declined somewhat, but most of the impetus in their passing us is in Chinese domestic manufacturing growth.

Unfortunately I only have UN data up to 2007, but here:

1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007
USA 1,041 1,289 1,543 1,663 1,700 1,831
China 143 299 484 734 891 1,106
Japan 804 1,209 1.034 954 934 926
Germany 438 517 392 566 595 670


My understanding is, by mid-2010, China arguably caught us and possibly took the #1 spot. But our total manufacturing capacity continues to grow, albeit at a much slower pace than China.

And reactors like Vermont Yankee and Browns Ferry continue to age...

[diane in sf]

16. You might like reading what Amory Lovins has to say about meeting power needs with

efficiency and clean forms of energy and getting off nukes and carbon, at a profit: rmi.org

Enjoy!

[madokie]

19. Thank you I will

[Petrushka]

13. Here are the conclusions for your primary reference, as well as a link to the entire study:

6. CONCLUSIONS
A proper interpretation of our results requires
an appreciation of the “plasticity” of variables, by
which we mean the speed with which a given variable
can change in any direction and the possible range
of that change.(62) Longitudinal data on nuclear attitudes
over decades show them to be asymmetrically
plastic. It is relatively easy to increase nuclear opposition
with negative events, such as public protests or
accidents such as ThreeMile Island, but very difficult
to increase nuclear support, even after long periods
of safe operations.(6) Hence, whether a new generation
of safe reactors, or a burst of enthusiasm from
the nuclear industry, or national policy and financial
support can redirect nuclear attitudes to be supportive
of the technology is highly problematic. As for
trust, the risk perception literature has been dominated
by the assertion that trust is fragile—once broken
it is hard to regain.(40,44) Our data reaffirm that
those who believe that nuclear power is an essential
part of America’s future energy supply will need
to devote as much attention to institutional design
and performance as they do to reactor design if they
hope to win public support. Our results, along with
the other data reviewed here, suggest that public attitudes
toward nuclear power, while considerably less
negative than in the recent past and trending slightly
positive, are not yet reflective of the exuberance of
those predicting an early renaissance in commercial
nuclear power.
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.

http://brc.gov/pdfFiles/February2011_Meeting/Feb1-2mtg/Whitfield%20et%20alPublished.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of values, you say:
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.
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.


What if a person's traditional values---such as those listed below and upon which (supposedly) your 5 &6 (above) were based--- What if a person's list of traditional values includes the altruistic values below (among others): Will that person oppose or support nuclear power? Prediction, please.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: The primary reference/study was based on the following factors/variables:

Traditional values
Family security, safety for loved ones
Honoring parents & 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

New ecological paradigm
If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe
The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset
The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources
Humans are severely abusing the environment
The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations
The so-called ecological crisis facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated
Human ingenuity will ensure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable

Nuclear trust
The nuclear industry
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Environmental trust
Environmental Protection Agency
National environmental groups
University scientists

Nuclear risk
Nuclear electric power plants
Nuclear waste
Nuclear weapons

Global environmental risk
Depetion of ozone layer
Global warming/greenhouse effect

Nuclear attitudes
If your community was faced with a potential shortage of electricity, constructing a new nuclear power plant would
be one acceptable means of supplying that electricity

In light of health concerns about acid rain, damage to the ozone layer, and climate change associated with the
burning of coal and oil, America should rely more heavily on nuclear power to meet its future electricity needs

I would be willing to pay a significant increase in my taxes to prevent the possibility of any more nuclear power
plants being built

Nuclear power is not an acceptable approach for meeting the nation’s energy needs

[kristopher]

18. OK let's talk

For discussion I'm assuming you support nuclear power.

You wrote:

Speaking of values, you say:
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.
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.


What if a person's traditional values---such as those listed below and upon which (supposedly) your 5 &6 (above) were based--- What if a person's list of traditional values includes the altruistic values below (among others): Will that person oppose or support nuclear power? Prediction, please.

Preface
Since you've read the paper you're, at the least, acquainted with the VBN model used - values beliefs norms. That's what we need to talk about.

First lets tack the definitions used in the paper here to keep them handy:
Altruism — a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species — has been a strong and consistent predictor of various measures of environ- mental concern and in one application has been shown to influence perceptions of ecological risk. High levels of altruism lead to an increase in per- ceived risk via people’s generalized beliefs about the environment.

Traditional values—assigning importance to family, patriotism, and stability—are also strong predictors of environmental concern and pro-environmental values, but their effects are directly opposite from altruism. Those with strong traditional values typically exhibit less concern about the environment and are less likely to express pro-environmental behavioral intentions. They, therefore, have more trust in the institutions that manage risk and perceive less risk from nuclear technology.

Discussion
Background
The point to answer your question is that they seldom have a great deal of overlap precisely because we are talking about 'values'. The noun /value/ should be connected to the transitive verb /value/ in your awareness when using it. That means it is about choices and the choices required of the two value sets are largely exclusive of each other. If I prioritize A as the most important thing to me, then I cannot also prioritize B as most important to me.

What most critics focus on, as you seem to be leading to here, is a false dichotomy where you claim that if I say you have traditional values then, in your mind, I must be "accusing" you of being a conservative.

You are actually leading up to the issue in a way, however, that allows for constructive discussion. Remember that it is about choices. It isn't that a traditional profile means you possess no altruistic awareness, it just means that when confronted with situations that require choices, the traditional profile would make different choices than an altruistic profile because you hold things dear with different 'intensities', shall we say.

Nuclear power and renewables are, therefore, a perfect example to demonstrate the application of VBN to choices.

Body
We are all faced with a choice about energy. There are two broad paths that are for the most part and for many reasons, mutually exclusive. There are economic, technical and social factors that predict with "great confidence" (the academic) or as I prefer to say here "without doubt" (legal standard) that these are mutual exclusivity.

That means you, as an individual, are confronted with a choice - Do you want to follow the nuclear path, or do you want to follow the renewable path? In the technical sense they are equally possible; we can power the modern world with either one. This means the choice must be guided by other considerations. Positivism doesn't take into account your children, that is the kind of item we all are required to overlay on the factual framework of reality in order to function in our culturally defined roles of individual, family member, worker, dog's friend, etc.

Behind the values there are beliefs. Simply put, these are the things we believe to be true. These, in turn are largely shaped by the norms we each, as individuals, experience through life. This process is especially strong in early childhood (pre-7) but it is also "influenced by an individual’s position and movement in the social structure."

On page 427 the authors say that "core values are relatively stable over the course of an individual’s life providing a basic referent for action, including assessing and making use of or discarding new information."

We are wired at birth to learn rapidly; and as we reach progressive developmental stages and as language and social skills progress this wiring interacts with the environmental influences to shape us further, but at a slower rate than in the first 7 years. It isn't determinism that is at work, it is a survival strategy that allows you to function without having to write a dissertation on whether to have that extra piece of cake for desert or whether or not to jump into a river to save a drowning man.

When you first heard about nuclear it is highly unlikely the information hit a blank, pristine portion of your brain where it sat waiting to be pored over in a scientifically rigorous manner - imprinting itself not at all on your consciousness until your analysis was complete and had been passed around to an independent committee for review.

No, it didn't hit a blank slate; it smacked into an entire personality fully formed and replete with biases, false beliefs and swirling emotions. The beliefs formed are a product of all that, and those beliefs are what guide your evaluation.

So while traditional values do allow for environmental values, when it come time to make the decision about nuclear the Tradition oriented person takes a position on the knowledge informed by the beliefs and applies the values that are most important; a process that includes "assessing and making use of or discarding new information."

Stay with me here as we move to page 428 and the statement about the "next link in the VBN " where it describes "those who see humans as having substantial adverse impacts on the environment" as being people who "will perceive greater risks for most technologies".

OK?

Now I KNOW because I've spent years working in an environment being trained to minimize the impact of my own VBN models on the data before me. When I encounter data it still goes through the same process, but the framework it encounters is replete with technically objective, quantitative and qualitative data that is the best available.

Now, if you come to me and say that you support nuclear power because you are altruistic, it must be because you are not fully informed of the choices, or that your value system isn't what you say - there is no third alternative unless you know something I don't. And that is not the case.

I'm not irrationally afraid of nuclear power - the dangers are real an quantifiable. Even if they are low probability, they are consequential enough to merit consideration in the decision-making calculus. There simply is no argument that you can *plausibly* make for nuclear power except these these two, all other are not credible on their fact: nuclear is big and it is powerful.

That is an attractive combination, and I like it myself. But like your take on the environment, it isn't determinative for me.

So what is the difference between us if we both have values that guide the selection? How do we make a final decision?

Simple, when we establish the goal of as rapid a change away from fossil fuels as possible consistent with economic realities of society, then we have a testable target where we can do that thing called science to calculate the trajectory of the policy projectile towards the target. (forgive the poor mangled metaphor)

We compile an inventory of candidate technologies.
We determine the qualities of the system we want and the system we have.
We assess the qualities of the candidate technologies.
We quantify these qualities to the extent possible.
We model and integrate the economic, technological, and social variables.
We quantify the results as they apply to the qualities desired in the final system.

Now lets go through that again:

We compile an inventory of candidate technologies.
Wind, solar, etc/nuclear/fossilCCS

We determine the qualities of the system we have...
unsustainable - polluting, deplete-able, fragile

and... the qualities we want in the final system.
sustainable - nonpolluting, renewable, dependable

Assuming we agree on those, that leaves:
We assess the qualities of the candidate technologies.
We quantify these qualities to the extent possible.
We model and integrate the economic, technological, and social variables.
We quantify the results as they apply to the qualities desired in the final system.


So I will stop this tome here for now. The next 4 items would best be filled out with the product of discussion which is narrowly focused, which is best done if we are both at the keyboard. After a few more minutes, I'll be away till mid afternoon EST.

Through the process you will see how you are required to apply traditional values and the consequences of doing so.

[txlibdem]

22. False choice: we can power the world with nuclear or with renewables

The fact is that if we choose only one of those then nothing changes in our energy mix: coal and fossil fuels will continue to dominate our futures.

We need to get 40% of our energy from nuclear power and 60% from renewable energy sources (solar PV, Solar Thermal, Onshore Wind, Offshore Wind, Geothermal Power, Wave Power, Tidal Power). If we fail to build as much of each of those as possible then coal and oil will continue to destroy the environment and destroy our grandchildren's futures.

If you want your grand kids to live in a nightmare hell of a world the, by all means, listen to people who want only a partial solution to the fossil fuel problem. If you want your grand kids to have a better world then you will embrace the newest designs of nuclear power (Thorium Cycle such as the LFTR, Modular reactors, and SMRs that are mass produced). Generation IV nuclear power plants such as those listed are passively safe: the problems that are happening in Japan are caused by the fact that those reactors were designed in the 1960s and are NOT passively safe (far from it).

If you want to shut down all the nuclear plants and have 20% renewables then the rest will have to come from coal and oil (so basically renewables replace the existing power created from nuclear power plants in the US) then you will have changed nothing: global climate change, ocean acidification, extinction of species on a massive scale, acid rain, toxic emissions of Mercury, Lead, Arsenic will continue from coal plants and the world will become a living hell.

If you want a living, healthy environment then you will demand that all the old nuclear power plants be replaced with Thorium reactors and SMRs. Insist on mass produced components to keep costs down and insist on contracts that remove monetary rewards to delay construction and put all responsibility for errors during construction solely on the contractors and sub-contractors. And at the same time insist on massive projects for renewable energy. Fight the self-interested groups that want to halt huge solar power plants in the desert. We need nuclear and renewables all working together to topple the evil empire of fossil fuels. There is no other way to succeed but to use all zero-carbon energy sources.

[kristopher]

23. You are interrupting a discussion in progress about values. please don't.

I know that anyone can post to topics but it would be nice if you would also demonstrate a modicum of courtesy.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Petrushka]

25. It's a one-sided discussion thus far, kristopher! Your PM to me shows indications that . . .

. . . it was written by someone yet to be weaned from Dr. Benjamin Spock's feed 'em on-demand method of child rearing. I'd apologize for not being at your beck-and-call; but I did need my beauty sleep and a day away from the computer and its many attractive distractions. Anyway . . .


Your "need" to talk about that VBN model doesn't mean everyone/anyone else has the same need. FWIW: I found the model flawed when (for one thing) a deletion was made so that "...the fit of the model improves with its deletion...." (3.3.6. Risk)

As for the "need" to choose between values---nuclear vs renewables: Who says? For what purpose? And, so what? My own values free me to choose both!

My values also allow me to reject coal as a fuel source for electrical power, knowing full well that it won't be the death knell for King Coal. Coal-mining will continue until the coal peters out because of its many by-productts and, therefore, coal-waste disposal will remain a problem unless more is done to make valley-fills and streambed burial less "economically feasible".

[kristopher]

27. I'm attempting to make it two sided. Does that bother you?

Yesterdays posts

You wrote:
Speaking of values, you say:
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.
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.


What if a person's traditional values---such as those listed below and upon which (supposedly) your 5 &6 (above) were based--- What if a person's list of traditional values includes the altruistic values below (among others): Will that person oppose or support nuclear power? Prediction, please.


Preface
Since you've read the paper you're, at the least, acquainted with the VBN model used - values beliefs norms. That's what we need to talk about.

First lets tack the definitions used in the paper here to keep them handy:
Altruism — a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species — has been a strong and consistent predictor of various measures of environ- mental concern and in one application has been shown to influence perceptions of ecological risk. High levels of altruism lead to an increase in per- ceived risk via people’s generalized beliefs about the environment.

Traditional values—assigning importance to family, patriotism, and stability—are also strong predictors of environmental concern and pro-environmental values, but their effects are directly opposite from altruism. Those with strong traditional values typically exhibit less concern about the environment and are less likely to express pro-environmental behavioral intentions. They, therefore, have more trust in the institutions that manage risk and perceive less risk from nuclear technology.

Discussion
Background
The point to answer your question is that they seldom have a great deal of overlap precisely because we are talking about 'values'. The noun /value/ should be connected to the transitive verb /value/ in your awareness when using it. That means it is about choices and the choices required of the two value sets are largely exclusive of each other. If I prioritize A as the most important thing to me, then I cannot also prioritize B as most important to me.

What most critics focus on, as you seem to be leading to here, is a false dichotomy where you claim that if I say you have traditional values then, in your mind, I must be "accusing" you of being a conservative.

You are actually leading up to the issue in a way, however, that allows for constructive discussion. Remember that it is about choices. It isn't that a traditional profile means you possess no altruistic awareness, it just means that when confronted with situations that require choices, the traditional profile would make different choices than an altruistic profile because you hold things dear with different 'intensities', shall we say.

Nuclear power and renewables are, therefore, a perfect example to demonstrate the application of VBN to choices.

Body
We are all faced with a choice about energy. There are two broad paths that are for the most part and for many reasons, mutually exclusive. There are economic, technical and social factors that predict with "great confidence" (the academic) or as I prefer to say here "without doubt" (legal standard) that these are mutual exclusivity.

That means you, as an individual, are confronted with a choice - Do you want to follow the nuclear path, or do you want to follow the renewable path? In the technical sense they are equally possible; we can power the modern world with either one. This means the choice must be guided by other considerations. Positivism doesn't take into account your children, that is the kind of item we all are required to overlay on the factual framework of reality in order to function in our culturally defined roles of individual, family member, worker, dog's friend, etc.

Behind the values there are beliefs. Simply put, these are the things we believe to be true. These, in turn are largely shaped by the norms we each, as individuals, experience through life. This process is especially strong in early childhood (pre-7) but it is also "influenced by an individual’s position and movement in the social structure."

On page 427 the authors say that "core values are relatively stable over the course of an individual’s life providing a basic referent for action, including assessing and making use of or discarding new information."

We are wired at birth to learn rapidly; and as we reach progressive developmental stages and as language and social skills progress this wiring interacts with the environmental influences to shape us further, but at a slower rate than in the first 7 years. It isn't determinism that is at work, it is a survival strategy that allows you to function without having to write a dissertation on whether to have that extra piece of cake for desert or whether or not to jump into a river to save a drowning man.

When you first heard about nuclear it is highly unlikely the information hit a blank, pristine portion of your brain where it sat waiting to be pored over in a scientifically rigorous manner - imprinting itself not at all on your consciousness until your analysis was complete and had been passed around to an independent committee for review.

No, it didn't hit a blank slate; it smacked into an entire personality fully formed and replete with biases, false beliefs and swirling emotions. The beliefs formed are a product of all that, and those beliefs are what guide your evaluation.

So while traditional values do allow for environmental values, when it come time to make the decision about nuclear the Tradition oriented person takes a position on the knowledge informed by the beliefs and applies the values that are most important; a process that includes "assessing and making use of or discarding new information."

Stay with me here as we move to page 428 and the statement about the "next link in the VBN " where it describes "those who see humans as having substantial adverse impacts on the environment" as being people who "will perceive greater risks for most technologies".

OK?

Now I KNOW because I've spent years working in an environment being trained to minimize the impact of my own VBN models on the data before me. When I encounter data it still goes through the same process, but the framework it encounters is replete with technically objective, quantitative and qualitative data that is the best available.

Now, if you come to me and say that you support nuclear power because you are altruistic, it must be because you are not fully informed of the choices, or that your value system isn't what you say - there is no third alternative unless you know something I don't. And that is not the case.

I'm not irrationally afraid of nuclear power - the dangers are real an quantifiable. Even if they are low probability, they are consequential enough to merit consideration in the decision-making calculus. There simply is no argument that you can *plausibly* make for nuclear power except these these two, all other are not credible on their fact: nuclear is big and it is powerful.

That is an attractive combination, and I like it myself. But like your take on the environment, it isn't determinative for me.

So what is the difference between us if we both have values that guide the selection? How do we make a final decision?

Simple, when we establish the goal of as rapid a change away from fossil fuels as possible consistent with economic realities of society, then we have a testable target where we can do that thing called science to calculate the trajectory of the policy projectile towards the target. (forgive the poor mangled metaphor)

We compile an inventory of candidate technologies.
We determine the qualities of the system we want and the system we have.
We assess the qualities of the candidate technologies.
We quantify these qualities to the extent possible.
We model and integrate the economic, technological, and social variables.
We quantify the results as they apply to the qualities desired in the final system.

Now lets go through that again:

We compile an inventory of candidate technologies.
Wind, solar, etc/nuclear/fossilCCS

We determine the qualities of the system we have...
unsustainable - polluting, deplete-able, fragile

and... the qualities we want in the final system.
sustainable - nonpolluting, renewable, dependable

Assuming we agree on those, that leaves:
We assess the qualities of the candidate technologies.
We quantify these qualities to the extent possible.
We model and integrate the economic, technological, and social variables.
We quantify the results as they apply to the qualities desired in the final system.


So I will stop this tome here for now. The next 4 items would best be filled out with the product of discussion which is narrowly focused, which is best done if we are both at the keyboard. After a few more minutes, I'll be away till mid afternoon EST.

Through the process you will see how you are required to apply traditional values and the consequences of doing so.

To pick up where it was left:



We compile an inventory of candidate technologies.
Wind, solar, etc/nuclear/fossilCCS

We determine the qualities of the system we have...
unsustainable - polluting, deplete-able, fragile

and... the qualities we want in the final system.
sustainable - nonpolluting, renewable, dependable

Assuming we agree on those, that leaves:
We assess the qualities of the candidate technologies.
We quantify these qualities to the extent possible.
We model and integrate the economic, technological, and social variables.
We quantify the results as they apply to the qualities desired in the final system.



Do we agree that the first three steps are accurately defined?

1) We compile an inventory of candidate technologies.
Wind, solar, etc/nuclear/fossilCCS

Are there other technologies we should consider?

2) We determine the qualities of the system we have...
unsustainable - polluting, deplete-able, fragile

Are there other qualities of the existing system that we need to consider?

3) the qualities we want in the final system.
sustainable - nonpolluting, renewable, dependable

Are there qualities you think the system we need to build should have?

[Petrushka]

31. Your attempt is duly noted. See reply #29 (below) . . . and . . .

. . . please be advised that one of my "traditional values" is to resist temptation.

:dilemma:

[kristopher]

33. See post 32

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=281017&mesg_id=281355

[Petrushka]

35. Too late to edit . . . but . . . (**sigh**) . . .

Substitute the word "study" for "model" in the following sentence: "FWIW: I found the model flawed when (for one thing) a deletion was made so that "...the fit of the model improves with its deletion...." (3.3.6. Risk)".

The sentence should be: FWIW: I found the study flawed when (for one thing) a deleltion was made so that "...the fit of the model improves with its deletion...." (3.3.6. Risk)

[kristopher]

39. IT doesn't matter - that is a spurious excuse, not a legitimate critique.

Let's walk through the process and I'll demonstrate why. Refusing just shows a fear of the outcome, you know.

[Petrushka]

26. + 100

:thumbs up:

[kristopher]

28. That post is not relevant to the paper you asked to discuss.

You asked a specific question and I'm attempting to provide the answer. If you wish to participate, you will learn something.

If you don't wish to participate, they perhaps it becomes clear that your values are leading you to avoid information that conflicts with your cherished beliefs.

[Petrushka]

29. Yes, I asked a specific question; but I did not ask to discuss the paper introduced by you, a paper

I now find irrelevent inasmuch as you have introduced more of your verbal prestidigitation and---apparently---chosen to ignore my simple (simple-minded?) question, viz:

What if a person's traditional values---such as those listed below and upon which (supposedly) your 5 &6 (above) were based--- What if a person's list of traditional values includes the altruistic values below (among others): Will that person oppose or support nuclear power? Prediction, please.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: The primary reference/study was based on the following factors/variables:

Traditional values
Family security, safety for loved ones
Honoring parents & 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

New ecological paradigm
If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe
The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset
The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources
Humans are severely abusing the environment
The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations
The so-called ecological crisis facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated
Human ingenuity will ensure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable

Nuclear trust
The nuclear industry
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Environmental trust
Environmental Protection Agency
National environmental groups
University scientists

Nuclear risk
Nuclear electric power plants
Nuclear waste
Nuclear weapons

Global environmental risk
Depetion of ozone layer
Global warming/greenhouse effect

Nuclear attitudes
If your community was faced with a potential shortage of electricity, constructing a new nuclear power plant would
be one acceptable means of supplying that electricity

In light of health concerns about acid rain, damage to the ozone layer, and climate change associated with the
burning of coal and oil, America should rely more heavily on nuclear power to meet its future electricity needs

I would be willing to pay a significant increase in my taxes to prevent the possibility of any more nuclear power
plants being built

Nuclear power is not an acceptable approach for meeting the nation’s energy needs

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you choose not to answer my question nor make a prediction, no problem. I didn't expect you to be psychic.

However, when you say, "If you don't wish to participate, they perhaps it becomes clear that your values are leading you to avoid information that conflicts with your cherished beliefs.", consider the possibility that, maybe, just maybe, your own cherished beliefs are conflicted because others disagree with that plethora of questionable "information" you want to talk about . . . despite your---shall we say?---"altruistic" effort to (**uh**) larn us less edgy-cated critters.

[kristopher]

32. So unless the answer is 2 sentences that you can ignore, you really don't want to hear it.

That is what I suspected, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

You wrote: "However, when you say, "If you don't wish to participate, they perhaps it becomes clear that your values are leading you to avoid information that conflicts with your cherished beliefs.", consider the possibility that, maybe, just maybe, your own cherished beliefs are conflicted because others disagree with that plethora of questionable "information" you want to talk about . . . despite your---shall we say?---"altruistic" effort to (**uh**) larn us less edgy-cated critters."


I can almost see the Sarah Palin sneer and wink that goes with that type of thinking.

My field of expertise includes a significant amount of fieldwork in the area of cultural anthropology. The VBM model was developed by anthropologists to investigate the decision-making processes of cultures around the world and it is accepted as having a high degree of reliability when properly done. That study did the job correctly.

You clearly do not understand the simple fallacy behind your claims - you are using beliefs and values interchangeably, they are not.

It is completely normal to have a belief (green is good) and then act against that belief because you have a conflicting belief (my car needs to be clean) and do something like throw your litter on the highway because you value the clean car more than you do the clean highway.

Nuclear power supporters value energy security over environmental and human impact. There is no other conclusions possible given the existing facts.

[Petrushka]

36. Okay, give me a 3-sentence answer that I can't ignore, one based on reality rather than VBN theory.

Meanwhile . . .

You say: "You clearly do not understand the simple fallacy behind your claims - you are using beliefs and values interchangeably, they are not."

I say: Beliefs and values are interchangeable. See Schwartz' model of universal values where it says, "Values can be seen as abstract concepts or beliefs concerning a person’s goals and serve as guiding standards in his or her life. In other words, they describe what is fundamentally important to a person and therefore form a main part of an individual’s identity." http://www.migration.uni-jena.de/project4/values/index.php



You say: "It is completely normal to have a belief (green is good) and then act against that belief because you have a conflicting belief (my car needs to be clean) and do something like throw your litter on the highway because you value the clean car more than you do the clean highway."

I say: "Normal"? For whom? Speak for yourself, kristopher. Folks in these here parts keep litter bags/baskets in their vehicles.



You say: "My field of expertise includes a significant amount of fieldwork in the area of cultural anthropology. The VBM model was developed by anthropologists to investigate the decision-making processes of cultures around the world and it is accepted as having a high degree of reliability when properly done. That study did the job correctly."

I say: My "expertise" includes more than twenty years of coalfield citizen activism. IMO, the study is flawed because deletions relative to coal were made in order to improve the "fit of the model".



You say: "Nuclear power supporters value energy security over environmental and human impact. There is no other conclusions possible given the existing facts."

I say: What are "the existing facts"? However . . . Puh-leeze do not answer that question until you've answered the first one I asked (in Reply #13 & Reply #29).



Edited to add:

You say: "I can almost see the Sarah Palin sneer and wink that goes with that type of thinking."

I say: :spank:

[Confusious]

37. So what happens when energy security

meets environmental and human impact.

i.e.

Energy usage will not go down.

Burning coal causes environmental destruction in the form of global warming. Global warming is happening right now with large chunks of the arctic and antarctic disappearing.
The current supply of food is predicated on energy security. If there is not enough energy to create the fertilizers, or transport the food, hundreds of millions will starve.


Cost vs benefit vs time. 2050 is too late. If as much damage happens in the next ten as has happened in the last ten, we are screwed.

[Petrushka]

30. P. S. --- IMO, that post is as relevant as yours or anyone else's. (eom)

[GliderGuider]

34. Now that I've read the study, I have a few questions.

1. Would you say that a person with strong altruistic values and a high NEP score might still support nuclear power for other reasons, based on the results of this study?
2. Are the value sets defined by "traditional" and "altruistic" mutually exclusive? If not, what happens to the predictive capability if they overlap strongly?
3. Is support for/opposition to nuclear power predictive of trust, risk perception or particular value sets? I.e. if a implies b, does b imply a?

I have strong concerns about the exclusion of the coal power plant question in 3.3.6, but I'll let that one lie for now.

[GliderGuider]

38. And two interesting observations

The first is that "lower education predict(s) greater perceived risk of nuclear power". In other words, the higher your education level, the less risk you perceive. I wonder why that would be - higher intelligence, better developed critical thinking skills?

The second is, "The next link in the VBN model hypothesizes that those who see humans as having substantial adverse impacts on the environment will perceive greater risks for most technologies." I see this process at work in myself, and I find that the more I understand the impact we are having on the planet, the more I come to see technology as a problem rather than a solution. Perhaps we could call it "The Kaczynski Effect"...