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

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power

Japan's disaster would weigh more heavily if there were less harmful alternatives. Atomic power is part of the mix

George Monbiot

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima

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.

If other forms of energy production caused no damage, these impacts would weigh more heavily. But energy is like medicine: if there are no side-effects, the chances are that it doesn't work.


...



The whole article is in the Guardian at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima - the paragraphs I've posted are basically just preamble to what he has to say, so if you want to comment it's probably a good idea to read the whole thing.

George Monbiot isn't necessarily someone I trust absolutely on everything, but I'm always more inclined to trust people when what they're saying goes against their own usual standpoint.

[w4rma]

1. What is there to trust in this article? It's just an opinion and one that is based on some false

assumptions. Like: No one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation. This plan has contaminated their food supply, water, and it *will* shorten the lifespans of *many* Japanese through various cancers.

[nc4bo]

3. Are there any truthful studies of cancer rates around nuclear power plants?

I bet there are but will probably never ever ever see the light of day.

Can he be a "greenie" and still support this hazardous crap?

I think this guy and his family should be forced to move to and live the rest of his life in any of the prefectures surrounding the hell plant. After the cancers and/or birth defects start occurring, he should be interviewed and asked if he feels the same way.


ETA: almost forgot about birth defects.

[Shagbark Hickory]

2. Way too early to be decaring victory at fukushima. The ill effects are yet to be known.

Tainted food supply. Land that will probably never be used for agriculture again. Countless dead marine life. A little early to say the people working at the plant will be just fine. This is BS.

[buddysmellgood]

4. Then why do we bother evacuating people?

[PhillySane]

5. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Yet, no one yet. As far as we know. Yet.

I can't take it anymore.

[MadHound]

6. Spoken like one who is ignorant of modern green renewables

Obviously he has little knowledge of thin film photovoltaics, wind belts, and other such advances.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. You really ought to read up before using the word "obviously".

Look up George Monbiot.

[MadHound]

10. His lack of knowledge of recent advancements in renewable energy is obvious,

Otherwise he wouldn't be referring to windfarms, or the impracticality of decentralized solar. Nor does he even acknowledge advances in passive solar, conservation, or new tech like methane digesters. He is simply pushing the same old paradigm, nuclear or fossil fuels. There are other options, and I would suggest that both you and he do some research into them before so casually dismissing them.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. What's actually obvious is that you don't know what you're talking about.

"Disagrees with you" is not the same thing as "is ignorant".

I don't know very much about the latest developements in renewable energy. George Monbiot, however, does (although obviously he's a writer, not a scientist). But "he obviously doesn't know about this" is obviously wrong, as a five-minute scan of his biography would have made obvious.

[MadHound]

14. I've actually read a number of pieces of his writing,

And frankly, he seems stuck early in the last decade. Again, he is not keeping up on the latest development in the technology. Windfarms? You can now generate power from windbelts, at windspeeds as low as four mph, something that is easily achievable even in "sheltered places". Methane digesters extract methane from our shit, so we can solve two problems at once, generating power and cutting down on our solid waste problem. Solar is inefficient? Please, at twenty five percent efficiency, solar power has reached the breakout number where it is competitive, and in fact beats many of the older, traditional fossil fuel and nuclear efficiency models.

I see none of this in his work, like I said, he seems stuck at a point early in the last decade. He needs to catch up.

[notesdev]

11. LOL

When you're arrogant enough you can be an expert at everything!

[MadHound]

12. Or when you spend years and decades studying a problem,

You can be an expert in the field you study.

[bullwinkle428]

7. WAY too soon to write a piece like this, when they're still struggling

to regain control of the situation at Fukushima! :banghead:

[swilton]

9. An article that warrants serious reading

Thanks for posting!