Monbiot: Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power

[GliderGuider]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima">Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power

You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology. A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I'm not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.

At high latitudes like ours, most small-scale ambient power production is a dead loss. Generating solar power in the UK involves a spectacular waste of scarce resources. It's hopelessly inefficient and poorly matched to the pattern of demand. Wind power in populated areas is largely worthless. This is partly because we have built our settlements in sheltered places; partly because turbulence caused by the buildings interferes with the airflow and chews up the mechanism. Micro-hydropower might work for a farmhouse in Wales, but it's not much use in Birmingham.

But the energy source to which most economies will revert if they shut down their nuclear plants is not wood, water, wind or sun, but fossil fuel. On every measure (climate change, mining impact, local pollution, industrial injury and death, even radioactive discharges) coal is 100 times worse than nuclear power. Thanks to the expansion of shale gas production, the impacts of natural gas are catching up fast. Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry. Yes, I would prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there were harmless alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions. Every energy technology carries a cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power.

Ever the contrarian, eh George? No wonder I get a smile out of all your stuff.

[liberal N proud]

1. wa-wa-wa-what?

:wtf:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[GliderGuider]

3. Remind me - how many people died from D-B?

:evilgrin:

[kristopher]

4. How many people have to die before you stop playing Russian Roulette?

:cry:

[GliderGuider]

5. Oh, I'm advocating for the immediate closure of all nukes...

but not on the grounds that they're dangerous. Nukes cause very few deaths compared to any other mainstream energy-producing technology.

However, nuclear power is a perfect example of a technology that is beyond the moderating influence of human wisdom, promotes a human-dominant attitude towards the natural world, and is intrinsically alienating because of that. Nuclear power is also an easy target because of the deep, irrational fear it generates.

Shut 'em down.

[kristopher]

14. I suspect that will happen for real...

when the paychecks stop.

[FBaggins]

20. So you don't drive a car?

Or live in a home with stairs?

Or own a dishwasher?

[GliderGuider]

23. Touché.

Fear is the mind-killer.

[FBaggins]

25. That's really what it boils down to (no pun intended), isn't it?

It's like we have a group of gephyrophobes trying to scare others into thinking that bridges aren't safe. "Look! One fell down in an earthquake! What have I been telling you people for decades? And now ten people are dead because you didn't listen to me!!!"

This just happens to be an irrational fear that more people suffer from. It comes from the danger being invisible added to decades of cold-war fears about the bomb.

But a commonly-held irrational fear is no less irrational because lots of people have it.

[txlibdem]

29. Bridges are an excellent analog for those old nuclear plants

Both are designed to last a certain number of years. Both need to be inspected regularly to ensure that no problem areas are cropping up. And both should be shut down, repaired, then brought back online once problems are fixed.

But there comes a point when both are just too darn old to be used any more and should be replaced with a new (and newly designed) one.

No sane person would expect a bridge designed with a 50 year life to last for 75 or more years. These 1960s designed nuclear plants were never intended to be in operation this long. They need to be replaced with new, Generation IV, nuclear power plants.

Just as no sane person would whine and cry and cut-and-paste nonsense that all bridges should be taken down, no sane person should be telling you we should halt new nuclear plants. A sane person would look at the recent events and tell you that we need to double our efforts to bring new nuclear plants online, replace the old plants while adding new generating capacity to keep pace with rising demand.

China has a law that, as each new nuclear plant is brought online, the oldest coal power plant must be shut down. They know that coal is the danger, not nuclear. They have intelligently halted their new plants to learn the mistakes of the past, so they don't repeat them in the new nuclear plants that they will build. Once the lessons are learned, they will restart their nuclear plant construction with gusto and determination. Then when they have built enough at home they will begin to build and sell those plants in other countries. Another US industry taken over by people with the knowledge, ability, and the vision to improve and learn from the past, not just gripe and cry about them.

[Nederland]

31. More than those killed by coal every year

As soon as a single nuclear accident kills more people than are killed by using coal as a power source, I'll give up my support for nuclear power.

[enough]

6. I can never understand why people assume that the effects of a nuclear accident can be

measured in a few days. Oh, we didn't have Armageddon last week, everything's fine.

[GliderGuider]

7. True, that.

Having people live in fear of "the cancer" for 30 or 40 years presents alternative power advocates with a golden opportunity. It implants a deep, abiding fear in peoples' hearts that ruins their quality of life and makes everyone else dream of stepping down a level in our energy-generating technology.

That's a good thing. Shut the nukes.

[enough]

8. You know, this method of argument where you assume that anyone who disagrees with you

is a full-blown idiot really doesn't get anywhere.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GliderGuider]

26. Let me try this again from a completely different perspective

I approach the idea of "belief" differently than most people.

I usually take on positions or beliefs only for a while, then I tend to change over to the opposite belief and hold that one for a while. As part of the process of exploring the new belief I have to come up with rational, logical support for it. Part of what you see me doing on here is exploring the logical underpinnings of whatever belief I hold at the moment relative to the topic under discussion. The intensity with which I do that can look like arrogance because I tend to dive into the belief-justification process quite whole-heartedly.

This is a deliberate activity that I find useful for a number of reasons. The first is that it illuminates the subject more completely for me, by allowing me to examine it closely from a number of different points of view. The process also gives me insight into the feelings of those who stake out one side or the other and cling to it, and so gives me insight into other people that I might otherwise miss or reject. Another reason it's useful is that it makes me comfortable with paradox, and I feel that an appreciation of paradox is essential in order to get the cosmic joke. Best of all, it allows me to recognize that all beliefs are artificial constructs. In the process of switching between polar opposite beliefs I find there can be a moment when I catch a glimpse myself naked, without attachment to any position. This philosophical nakedness is a state I value very highly.

I think that E/E is a great place to explore this process, because so many deeply held beliefs are on display, and they are always so well supported by their adherents.

As hard as this may be to believe, I don't "truly" believe anything I say - no specific belief is an immutable part of my self-identity. That means that I love it when people disagree with something I say, and there will always be someone who disagrees with me. Unfortunately, it also means that sometimes I can think and say things that others find unconscionable or offensive, and I'm always sorry when that happens.

[kristopher]

27. That would be a good personality trait for someone in the field of Public Relations. nt

[GliderGuider]

28. I think it would be a good personality trait for pretty much anyone.

It leads to a much more interesting and comprehensive world view, much less emotional upset, a better understanding of yourself and over time a better ability to understand how other people think.

Highly recommended.

ETA: In PR your clients assume your beliefs and values are for sale. That's a quite different than what I'm talking about.

[2gabby]

10. He's not in a shelter in Japan

And the disaster in Japan isn't even over yet. But the nuclear power accident has left him feeling more confident of nuclear power. Wow. It's like someone dared him to write a pro-nuke piece.

And with these power plants offline for the foreseeable future, when will they have electricity back? When will their lives be normal again? How many are suffering RIGHT now because they don't have power, many don't have enough food or water, and they can't leave. And they're scared. Really scared. And it means nothing to this guy.

Just wow. He thinks the danger had passed and its all ok now. Idiots like him make me feel like a genius.

[BeFree]

11. You may be a genius...

Methinks he's pulling legs. Jerking chains. Antagonizing.

Imagine a world where we are all dependent on big power plants for all our energy needs and we had to do nothing more than pay the bill that comes each month.

Then what happens when those plants peter out? Oh oh.

What a bunch of hippies propose is distributed, home based energy that make communities independent and sustainable.

If they can ever find a way to tax the sun and wind it will happen overnight.

[GliderGuider]

13. I agree, that's precisely what he's doing.

No way Monbiot is that tone-deaf. He does think some things that others find challenging, though.

Big technology is something I've been uncomfortable with since 1969. I'm willing to make an exception for computing and the internet, because things that extend the human nervous system and join people together seem like a very useful idea. But ginormous power plants generating hundreds of thousands of terawatt hours of planet-changing energy - and the alienated attitudes that come with them - seem somehow harmful. Maybe there are other ways to be human.

[BeFree]

15. My feelings

Anti-humans are the ones who want them some big power company to lord over and feed them.

Pro-humans want everybody capable of providing for themselves and be an integral part of the community. It is anti-human to live at the mercy of some far off provider of the basics of life.

[GliderGuider]

16. +1

:thumbsup:

[BeFree]

17. Furthermore

Anti-humans are all gaga over nukes, because nukes can destroy whole societies.

Can anyone prove that statement as being in error?

[GliderGuider]

19. By what mechanism? What does the word "destroy" mean in this context? And the word "society"?

If you mean does it have the potential to physically kill everybody in modern industrial society, the answer is of course not. Much greater threats (e.g. ice ages) have failed to do that, so it's unlikely in the extreme that nuclear-electric power stations could succeed.

However, if you mean something more subtle, as I think you do, the answer could be yes. In fact I think our reliance on ever-larger technology has already done it. Society has a lot of inertia, though, and just hasn't fallen over yet.

[BeFree]

21. Society = Larger community

Many communities make up the whole of our society.

Nuke disasters destroyed the community around Chernobyl and now probably Fukushima.

Destroying a community is part of destroying society.

[GliderGuider]

22. To me, "destroy" means "cause to no longer exist". I don't think that will happen.

However, if you said "damage" or "degrade" society I'd agree.

I still think the real problem to the larger human community is done by the alienation that all big technology imposes on non-consenting individuals.

[BeFree]

24. Humans no longer exist there

We are talking about humans, not the land, right?

But destroy can be an absolute term, so let's say that nukes can cause monumental Change in society. And that Change was not good for the humans that existed there.

But.... it did destroy their existence there. So, have at it... see yall tonight.

[2gabby]

18. well, i am here, so that says something ;)

No, certified non genius here! That's part of what bothers me, it shouldn't be so easy. There are real geniuses out there with good educations. It reminds me of what it took me many years to learn; being a smart/smarter person doesn't at all mean a person is a good person. Decency and brains just aren't the same. Brilliant people can be absolute monsters. So truthfully I think its his morality I condemn, but I hate the way he sounds so informed. So smug.

Yeah, I think you must be right, he must know its nuts to endorse something that lays waste to miles of the surrounding area for generations. Power stations that "malfunctioned" due to predictable earthquakes, inevitable tsunamis and poorly constructed diesel generators located in sure to be flooded basements. They're afraid it might melt down into the water, and its all okay with that clown? Just wow.

I agree with you about local, sustainable power. I'm with the hippies, good people. I know some Rainbow folks, and I always get good ideas and positive energy from them. And they don't call me stupid for stuff I don't know, they're just happy I listen.

Gee. Maybe I'll get out my old vcr Jesus Christ Superstar. The good old days.

[Nederland]

30. About all those Japanese people in shelters...

Do you realize that all those people in shelters are not there because of a nuclear accident?

Perhaps you didn't hear, but there was this massive earthquake followed by a tsunami? Maybe you read about somewhere? :eyes:

[DCKit]

12. Somebody just cashed a big check from the Nnewcuelur industry.

Odd how he manages to mention that solar really isn't appropriate for the Isles, but doesn't bother to mention what ARE appropriate, renewable technologies: wind and wave, both of which the coastal areas of Great Britain have in abundance.

Supply of raw materials, manufacturing, installation, maintenance and oversight would provide many jobs, and far more long-term jobs than a nuclear plant.

[joshcryer]

32. AHAHAHA

I'm glad I saw this.