False media balance – radiation health risks contrasted against climate change
An Atomic Insights reader pointed me to Joe Romm’s recent post titled False Balance Exposed: BBC Gives Too Much Weight to Fringe Views on Climate Change, Independent Review Finds. Duh. In that post, Joe discusses how an outside reviewer has determined that the BBCs strong desire to show impartiality can result in providing poor information to the public.
If there is a topic where there is overwhelming scientific consensus, but a show producer feels the need to show “balance”, he or she might decide to give a fringe opinion nearly equal time. That decision would, instead of providing information, result in a perception that there is no consensus and there is still an open and ongoing debate.
Since I am passionate about the fact that nuclear energy is a terrific answer to concerns about global warming and the build up of CO2 caused by burning 6-10 billion tons of hydrocarbons every year, I decided to ask Joe, a notorious nuclear energy denier, some questions. Here is the comment that I left on his post.
Joe – How do you think that the news media’s coverage of the hazards of low level radiation compares to its coverage of climate change? Are the wild opinions of the far out – like those of Helen Caldicott – given too much weight in comparison to the reality of measurements and the science that has been developed over the past 100 years by organizations like the Health Physics Society or the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)?
Do you agree that the UNSCEAR is correct in its statements that the death toll from Chernobyl is approximately 50 with the POSSIBILITY that another 4,000 or so MIGHT die earlier than they otherwise would have – out of a population of several million?Or do you think that Yablokov and his Chernobyl Consequences book that Helen Caldicott promotes so heavily is correct in his claim that there have already been almost a million deaths caused by the accident?
Do you agree that the science shows that the probability of zero deaths from exposure to the radioactive materials that leaked from Fukushima approaches 100%, though there is some uncertainty due to the fact that a handful of workers have received doses that are high enough to give them a measurable increase in cancer risk? That increased risk is a few percent higher than it would have been without the exposure.
This question is closely tied in with global warming denialism because the only emission-free technology that has proven its ability to replace coal, oil and natural gas combustion is nuclear fission – no other alternative can produce reliable power at the time and place where it is needed.
However, actively promoted fear of radiation is causing some really silly political actions. One shining example is the decision by Germany to shut down several perfectly well-functioning nuclear plants that are not near any potential source of a tsunami in favor of increased consumption of coal and natural gas. Another is the decision by certain local leaders in Japan to keep reactors shut down even when the power is needed and the reactors have been carefully inspected.
My assertion is that the same funding sources that support efforts to confuse the public about global warming also support efforts to confuse the public about nuclear energy and radiation.
In both cases, acceptance of the truth would lead to a reduction in consumption of fossil fuels and a reduction in the wealth and power of some very greedy people who care little about the truth or the prosperity of their fellow human beings.
Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights
Knowing Joe and his opinions reasonably well, I am going to guess that, if he responds, the response will say that he is not opposed to nuclear energy, just that he believes it is too expensive to matter. (Joe likes to espouse the philosophy of one of his first energy mentors – Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, where Joe worked from 1991-1993.)
My response then would be – how much additional cost do you think that the excessive fear of radiation has added to the cost of building and operating nuclear energy facilities? It is a rather incredible number to contemplate from the viewpoint of seeing just how much effort we put into the process of ensuring that radiation levels are “as low as reasonably achievable” with the word “reasonable” defined by irrational people like Greg Jaczko, the man who thought it was “reasonable” to evacuate Americans who were within 50 miles of three reactors that had been shut down for four days already.
In support of my assertions about the health effects of radiation, I highly recommend a 2010 paper published in Dose-Response, the journal of the International Dose Response Society, by Zbigniew Jaworowski titled OBSERVATIONS ON THE CHERNOBYL DISASTER AND LNT (4.5 MB PDF).
Have an atomic day!
You realise that asking Joe Romm that question is similar to asking Jaczko about climate change; the only difference is that Romm is working in a field that has been captured for 20 years, whereas the process of capturing the nuclear field is still in progress. Of course, climate science doesn’t hold a candle to economics…
I think this might be a more direct link to the Dose Response Society paper that Rod referenced.
http://dose-response.metapress.com/link.asp?id=03523n6276303212
In 2007 an international summit of radiation biologists and health physicists met to discuss the matter of ultra low-dose radiation exposure and whether or not it has health impacts. Why? Because there is no scientific basis for claiming health impacts below an exposure of 10,000 millirem.
http://www.orionint.com/projects/ullre.cfm
Populations around the world that live on relatively radioactive geological formations are not susceptible to greater rates of cancer. NM, which has uranium-rich soil, radium hot springs, etc., has one of the lowest cancer rates in the US. The estimates about radiation exposure deaths to members of the public from Fukushima are irresponsible and without a sound scientific basis.
Here we go again with the pseudo-science of anthropogenic global warming. So much for Rod being steeped in reality. Support nuclear power for real, valid reasons, not for goddess Gaia reasons.
@Ioannes
So supporting nuclear energy for its density and land requirements are palatable arguments?
@Ioannes
The irony is Rod is citing Jaworowski, a pseudo-science buster who happens to be also an icecores specialist and a… vocal AGW “denier”.
The irony with both of you clowns is that you don’t recognize that some people (perhaps Rod would include himself) try to be rational and don’t simply go along with whatever side their ‘tribe’ is on.
That’s right. Some people, like Rod here, would never point out that Joe Romm, Amory Lovins, Helen Caldicott, and Alexey Yablokov are all part of the same tribe. They would never use the word “consensus” as part of an argument intended to influence someone else’s opinion. And they would never, ever try to label another group as “deniers,” considering the emotional baggage that this word now carries as a result of its use for those who “deny” that the Holocaust ever happened and the guilt-by-association that it implies.
They are far too “rational” to do stuff like that, and would be horrified to use debating tactics that require their audience to “simply go along with” some sort of tribal argument that encourages them to be part of the good (“consensus”) group and discourages them from being part of the bad (“denier”) group.
In case you’re wondering, that was sarcasm, not irony.
“It is simply impossible for a sane mentally competent person to appreciate how alone they are on this alien planet. Except perhaps in the last suicidal moments of a soon to be corpse.”
It is also very difficult for those suffering from paranoid delusions to realize just how out of touch they are with reality.
One is forced to ask why you read/comment on these pages if you have concluded that most of what is written here is wrong, and what isn’t is hopeless. That you do continue do do so appears to be more a reflection of your state of mind than constructive criticism of our ideas.
DV82XL – Apparently, some people just have too much time on their hands and too much ego to use it productively.
This anti-nuke site was mentioned on New York 1 cable here today in NYC as an “authority source” on the truth that’s happening in Japan http://peoplefreefromradiation.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/a-bit-of-truth-on-fukushima-and-japan-radiation-news/ With fair press as this any wonder why the public’s leaning against nukes? Rod, how we get blogs as yours to become “an authority”? I’d really like to see you pros here take down each of this blog’s issues so I can cut-paste e-mail your corrections back to New York 1. Yes, there were explosions but was there really a big smoky blaze at Fukushima? It looks like Kobe!
James Greenidge
Was not that picture, the one that the news was showing when talking about Fukushima, but it turned out to be the Oil Refinary the burned for 10 days?
Eh! You’re sharp! Someone ought do a screen capture of that pix in that anti-nuke site and pin it on their sly lying tails! And the greater unwashed, unlike you, wouldn’t have the idea to even wonder about that! That’s what we’re fighting, blunt and brass — ignorance. Worst — exploited ignorance.
James Greenidge
I just wanted to let you pro-nuclear guys know I created a website(Still in a fairly basic form):
http://australiancannonball.com
I’m not trying to steal anyone off Rod’s forum but I’m happy if some of you guys come over and join in the debate from time to time. It gets a bit boring when everyone agrees with each other. I commend Rod on this site as even though I work in IT(Not web development) they do take alot of work. I will only remove foul language. I’d prefer no personal attacks and just debating the topic but if its constructive banter well there is some flexibility there. I’m sure you all get the point.
After a brief scan, it looks like a paean to radiophobia to me. You do need some counterbalancing help from some experts in Health Physics. This is a subject that professionals spend their entire lives on, but start by reading Rod’s https://atomicinsights.com/2011/07/a-little-radiation-can-delay-cancer-until-after-you-are-dead-anyway.html and following the associated links.
Rod,
Why waste any effort on Joe Romm? Climate Progress is just an echo chamber that has a handful of acolytes who nobody takes seriously.
At Climate Progress, James Hansen is regarded as the Moses of climate science. Joe Romm is blind to real science because he has faith in his false gods.
I could not see your comment at the Climate Progress post. Looks like it didn’t clear moderation there.
Too bad. We’ll never know how Mr. Romm would respond.
The Japanese government has handled this so badly! Technically there’s no reason the Fukushima evacuees cannot return to their homes based on inhabited radiological environments around the world; “You live in Denver now, that’s all.” Better than living downwind a coal-fired plant, right? That’s a no-brainer deal compared to two towns in West Virginia and Pennsylvania (I believe — I saw this report so long ago!) that have been total ghost towns for over 40 years because the coal seams beneath those towns are still on fire from mine accidents and it’s dangerous just to tread the land at risk of caving in beneath your feet. Like a bad sci-fi movie all highways come to a dead-end approaching the towns and signs warn forbidden property. Whole towns with their own police and fire departments as good as wiped off the face of the earth — the residents can NEVER go back — yet the coal industry hasn’t taken any hit from this umber mass evacuation. And let’s don’t even get into Love Canal and other toxic sites that won’t be resettled. And slightly irradiated soil is worst?? The hypocrisy of anti-nuke groups and the media is something else!
James Greenidge
@James Greenidge – When are people going to understand the difference between the radiation in Denver and the radiation in Fukushima. Yes as far as acute radiation is concerned it doesn’t really matter all radiation will kill you at the right dose. The levels of Cesium-137 found in the soil and air in Fukushima is not comparable to Denver Colorado or flying in an aeroplane for that matter!. Some of the so called professionals that post on this forum surely get it?. I wish one of you would at least make that distinction or God help us all if this is the logic of the nuclear industry.
Your comparing apples with oranges. Man made fission elements that did exist billions of years ago(We brought it back) vs radiation that has existed due to its long billion plus year half life. It is possible to prove if wine is of a certain age if it has been sealed and it contains none of these man made fission elements.
http://www.uranlimited.com.au/about-uranium.html
Extract:
What is ‘half-life’?
Half-life is the time taken by a radioactive material for half of its radioactive particles to decay, and thus for it to lose half its radioactivity. Eventually all radioactive wastes decay into non-radioactive elements.
The more radioactive an isotope is, the faster it decays. Obviously, for any given amount of radiation, the faster it decays (i.e. the shorter its half-life) the higher the radiation of any nearby person or object will be in a given period.
Radionuclides with long half-life tend to emit alpha and beta radiation, whilst those with short half-lives tend to emit the much more dangerous gamma radiation.
End Extract:
The website is pro-nuclear as well.
Luke – a dose of radiation that measures 10 mSv is the same as another dose measuring 10 mSv, no matter what the source is. That is the beauty of measuring doses in Sv or rem, all of the biological conversion factors are already taken into account. (Of course, one can engage in spirited discussion on a technical level about the accuracy of the assumptions in those conversions, but that is a different topic.)
Living organisms cannot tell one ionizing dose from another.
By the way, Cs-137 doses have not provided any measurable negative effects in the region around Chernobyl.
Luke, I invite you to learn about natural reactors at Oklo in Gabon. They operated for thousands of years about 2 billion years ago and ran on uranium ore that Mother Nature had enriched more than the uranium found today. The geological record shows that their plutonium and other radioactive by-products of the water-moderated chain reaction remained near the natural reactors.
Our DNA does not know the difference between natural radiation and radiation emitted by medical isotopes used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes and radiation emitted by coal-fired plants (in the US, they emit 100-400 times more radiation into the environment than commercial nuclear plants do). If people living in the Chernobyl region were to move to Denver, their radiation exposure would increase fourfold or more. (Chernobyl region happens to be low in natural background radiation.)
What matters is that layfolks get the idea of comparative exposure — NOT the source of that exposure, whether cesium or sun/comsic radiation.
Er, are there there any anti-Love Canal type protest groups? They can show you REAL babies affected by REAL toxins in the earth, NOT hypotheorical Cesium-sprawned freaks. All this crying about Cesium poisoning! Where are they, sir? Surely there MUST be some Cesium or radiation victims you can produce by now.
James Greenidge
Your mistake, repeated over and over, is to expect logic and consistency from people for whom such things are incomprehensible. If you were mentally competent, you would have figured out that half the general population is incapable of grasping the basic concepts behind logic.
The same concepts that underly math, programming and any other formal system also underly logic. The concepts of non-contradiction, of logical implication, and of structural identity. This is why most people say things such as “math is hard” as self-evident truths which we regard as self-evident UNTRUTHS. If you were mentally competent, you would not have confused other people SPELLING “logic” with their actually USING it.
Incidentally, since it’s self-evident to me that you ARE capable of logic, and incapable of judgement, it follows then that you are NOT capable of the second component of judgement which is creativity. And I repeat myself here: your being able to SPELL creativity doesn’t mean you actually USE it.
There is a difference between exasperated loathing of the general population for being incapable of logic on the one hand. And your seriously expecting that logic can actually be taught to the general population on the other. The former is my sane response to an intolerable insane situation. The latter is your complete self-delusional whack job loonier than a fruitcake crazy tune.
Oh and your totally non-creative “we need to educate people” non-solution to the problem. A non-solution which has failed to work for decades, over and over. Well, that gives away your own cognitive deficits.
That article I linked actually makes nuclear power sound great. It is great until there is an accident and the shorter lived radioactive isotopes are released into the surrounding population and cause kids to die of cancer. Its not the technology I’m against its the fact we cannot handle the accidents. We all know that. I doubt one of you can say to me we can handle the accidents?.
Remember I said I’ll be back to handle these arguments. I’ll debate you guys on this forum, my forum, somebody elses forum. I really couldn’t care less.
Let me ask you a question; what do you mean by “handle the accidents?” I bet the widows of oil rig workers and coal miners ALL around the world would’ve GLADLY traded their husbands jobs for one in the atomic industry for the way its “handled its accidents” — and make that nearly 60 years worth of widows. You don’t get that streak by luck or fluke. The ultimate nuke nightmare happened in Japan via natural forces and zero were killed and no physical damage outside the plant’s gates and the local landscape likely received no more sprinkling of radioactive residuals as belched by their local volcanos. My God, weren’t all industries as benign of their “accidents”! I’m REALLY tired of people who have a beef against nuclear energy on philosophical grounds than proven sound science using “kiddies get cancer” tears-over-fact and Twilight Zone “what if” crap to swing the unwashed and ignorant. I get pissed because these media-darling anti-nuclear brawlers are influencing this entire nation’s energy security and economy based on off-the-wall nit-pick frets just to have something to complain about. If they REALLY want to feel useful about kiddies catching cancer they ought look into pesticides and product materials which way more up close than any nukes.
And no, I’m not joining anymore nuclear blogs. We need less high school debates and more ACTION in the trenches as Rod and his sort are doing to get this country’s energy future hitched up to REALITY.
James Greenidge
Is this zero?
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/features/archive/news/2011/04/20110426p2a00m0na006000c.html
http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110314-1.pdf
Even if it can be proven it was not the radiation it is a complication of the disaster.
I’ll answer your other questions tomorrow as I’m about to go to sleep. Point for point I will address them all. I will go through this thread tomorrow Australian time. Also I mean the other parts in your question.
In the meantime I hope you watch this. Yes it goes for 90 minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LethPJ9Vd8Y
One of my points is in moderation as it contains two links.
Naw, don’t have to watch. If you can’t explain what radiation can and can’t do to living things and the world in ten minutes, then the vid’s just jam-packed with unchallenged har’em-scare’em tech speculations set to deep Darth Vader music and wronged rad victims to the tune of volins.
James Greenidge
The Japanese consider riding on non-crippled bicycles to be unreasonably dangerous. Bicycles in Japan have their seats lowered so the legs cannot be fully extended. This greatly limits the power bicyclists’ legs can produce and so the speeds they can achieve. This is all done “for safety”.
Actually you guys are are waste of time.
Typical of the kind, he slinks away with his tail between his legs, dropping an insult to salve his wounded ego.
It’s tough trying to blow smoke in the face of an intelligent audience, isn’t it Luke. Best to go back to your little circle of sycophants, they won’t stir things up with inconvenient facts, or with analytic arguments based on logic. You’ll be much more comfortable there.