1. There is some news on the supply of Uranium for the US. Russia and the US have renewed the HEU deal from 2013 to 2023. (Megatons to Megawatts program)

    Cameco said that the deal was not likely to be renewed and that it would cause a 50% supply crunch worldwide.

    According to USU, the new deal will provide 18% of the world supply.

    A news agency report the new deal to be worth 2.8 billions for 10 years and another agency talks of 20 years & 8 billion dollars deal.

    It is really complicated to figure out what the true story is on the supply side if Uranium.

    1. The new deal will not dismantle Russian warheads but rather recycle commercial byproducts.

      I think this is important. It is no longer a Megatons to Megawatts programme.

  2. ALARA was created to politically accomodate the no-safe-level superstition, which was (and still is) the foundation of public belief about the biological effects of ionizing radiation. I literally screamed to my superiors back in the 80s that ALARA was merely a politically expediant rule that had no basis in anything other than the desire to soothe public fears. Nobody listened, of course. I fear all-too-few might listen today.
    ALARA is nothing more than a ridiculous attempt at a psychological placebo. It didn’t mitigate public radiophobia…it actually reinforced the belief that there is no safe level of exposure. If there were a safe level, then the limits would have been set there…right? The Japanese are taking it to the level of absurdity by lowering their limits 10 to 100 times below ICRP standards…just to try and make their radiologically-ignorant, radiophobic population feel better.
    All of your above opinion is correct, from my radeical perspective…yes, it would make perfect sense to stop the ever-tightening strictures caused by the continual lowering of rad standards. But, it would make more sense to eliminate LNT and its copious political trimmings altogether. Goodbye ALARA. Goodbye relative risk mumbo-jumbo. Hello rationality and reason.

    1. How about this for reason and rationality: yesterday in one of the main serious newspapers in the Netherlands, an ‘open letter’ signed by 69 university professors – many from technical universities – made the following claim:

      That in the Netherlands a new nuclear power plant should NOT be built, because:

      – The Netherlands is already a net exporter of energy (primarily natural gas)
      – Nuclear energy is too expensive and cannot compete without massive subsidies
      – Nuclear energy creates fewer jobs than alternatives
      – Fukushima demonstrates that the risks of nuclear energy are too high
      – Since Fukushima, people don’t want nuclear energy anymore
      – Nuclear energy is not sustainable, due to the problem of nuclear waste lasting thousands of years.

      Please use a translator to view the full story here:

      I find it a crying shame that Dutch university professors are stooping so low, with these ‘arguments’ that have mostly repeatedly been falsified. I personally know a few of the persons who signed the letter. Why do they do this? I have sent an email to one of the professors I worked with a few years ago, to please explain in detail why he would sign such a letter.

      The most wrenching detail is that in my country we are building one massive new coal plant and three more coal plants are being planned. Why??

      I welcome any commentary from readers of this blog and of course from the blog author.

      All the best.

      1. @Joris – do you have a list of the signatories and the courses that they teach?

        It seems to me that they are asking to be challenged. Nuclear energy supporters should answer.

      2. It’s a big disappointment. Their only argument I can more or less agree with is ‘lack of expertise’ in the Netherlands. But that could be remedied in the years between planning, construction and start of operations.

        Thing is: there seems to be no support of nuclear energy here worth the name. The one big site about nuclear energy in the Netherlands I’ve found is written by an anti-nuclear group, no blogs, active or even dead are to be found. It almost seems a non-issue. Strange, especially with the rather common dislike of the new coal plants that are being build and planned.

        1. @David
          I’m thinking about a blog and am gathering data for it. To make a general nuclear info-blog is one thing, to make one specifically for the dutch situation is something else. As I have no expertise of my own in this subject, my blog would have to be an overview of existing articles written by others, gathered in one place, maybe with a kind of ‘this is why I think you should read this’-editorial. At the moment I have trouble finding reliable dutch articles. Either I haven’t delved deep enough yet, or there is a genuine shortage of them.

          1. @twominds:

            Please contact me via email at rod_adams at symbol atomicinsights.com.

            I have a Dutch colleague who might be able to help you out in your search. He spent about twenty years working to encourage your country to take a new look at nuclear energy, especially a technology using high temperature gas reactors and closed cycle gas turbines. He accumulated a large library of books, articles and presentations – both in English and in Dutch.

        2. @David
          I’m thinking about a blog and am trying to gather info for it. To make a general nuclear info-blog would be one thing, to make one specifically for the dutch situation would be another. Either I haven’t delved deeply enough yet, or there is a genuine shortage of articles here. Moreover, since I have no expertise of my own about this subject, my blog would have to be an overview of other people’s work, maybe with a kind of ‘this is why I think you should read this’-editorials to go with it.

        3. @ Twominds,

          All of us can learn more.. but on a Blog we share what we are learning for the community that we can influence. You can influence some people in your language that no one else can. Even a few people changing the discussion can multiply. Nuclear power is a bridging technology (between many different political and social groups) that has the ability to improve human lives in ways that takes market share away from other power sources thus increasing the overall supply and lowering energy costs.

  3. Seasons Greetings!

    Ironically, as the detection of small quantities gets better so is the ability to misuse the data. If you can detect one drop of ink in a lake and later better detection finds out that’s actually two drops does that make the situation “worst”? When reports from Fukushima used to cry out that the amount of radioactivity is “really” five times higher what was previously detected and reported, what’s the practical real-world biological difference between one in a trillion and five in a trillion, except exponentially raising the fear factor? The sheer public health hypocrisy of anti-nukers is these low levels of radioactivity are completely dwarfed by carcinogens and pollutions regularly induced around us by other sources — so why don’t they hit those??

    Rod, the thing I regret is we can’t get articles like yours here “OUT” into the mainstream to do a world of good — yet say something ludicrously false about nuclear energy and the media’s tripping all over themselves running for you! Forget CNN and MSNBC, I’d imagine even Yahoo’ “new age radical” and “freethinking” news page would turn you down! The media’s anti-nuclear bias just so totally stinks!

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

  4. The propaganda megaphone is on full volume today!

    1. There are no radiation limits to patients receiving radiation in the diagnosis or treatment of their disease. It is their choice how much radiation to receive in consultation with their doctor.

    2. Nothing is “absolutely” safe…ie, zero risk. There is a risk of dying from the moment you are conceived, particularly from spontaneous abortion. Radiation imposes a small additional risk on top of the risk of car accidents, getting shot, inheriting a disease, etc. That is what the data shows.

    3. Anecdotal evidence (Haroldsen) isn’t appropriate in science.

    4. I never said you should “worry” about .001% risk increase. I said the risk associated with 10 mrem is about .001%. Whether or not you worry or not worry is up to you or anyone else.

    The authors of Roentgen Shrugged also had a commentary in the 01/12 issue of the Health Physics Journal where they correctly state that LNT applies to not only driving but smoking and driving.

    They show that 10 miles driven = 1 mrem = 1 cigarette smoked. (All “=’s” are approximations).

    1. @Bob:

      I defy you to prove a linear risk for either smoking or driving. Driving, for example has a decidedly non linear risk that is associated with judgement and practiced skill. I was just listening to a report the other day on NRP describing how every study showed that the most dangerous year for drivers is their FIRST year. As I recall, the studies quoted showed that the accident rate is fully 3 times as high during that year compared to later years.

      I am also pretty sure that detailed studies would show that smoking tobacco has a non linear response due to the same kinds of repair mechanisms that are being identified for radiation exposure. Moderate use of tobacco for occasional relaxation or rituals was probably not an issue for human health until the corporations started mass producing cigarettes and encouraging people to smoke them almost non stop.

      Both my grandfather and my dad were smokers. Grandpa rolled his own and usually indulged in a dip after dinner. He worked with his hands and did not stop to take a smoke break very often. Dad, on the other hand, learned to smoke in the Navy. By the time he was 21, he was smoking 2.5 packs per day, a habit that he maintained for about 25 years until the doctors told him he might not live to see his children grow up. He quit overnight, but the damage was done.

      Dad and Grandpa died within 24 hours of each other – Grandpa from old age in his late 80s, Dad from cancer at age 61.

      1. Rod, sorry about your Dad and Grandpa, but again. . . anecdotes. Your dad and grandpa do not a study make. Not everyone who increases their risk of cancer will actually develop cancer, so the fact your grandpa didn’t get cancer doesn’t really show there is or isn’t a non-linear risk associated with smoking tobacco. It might just be that because of only smoking one or two cigs after dinner, your grandpas was in a much lower risk group, but still did have a risk of developing cancer, but just didn’t happen to be one of the few in his category who did.

        1. Jeff – Scientists have actually studied this. Rod is correct.

          For example, consider this press release of a study of the risk of smokers developing lung cancer. It even includes a couple of examples:

          Looking at examples from people undergoing lung cancer screening, a 51-year-old woman who smoked one pack per day for 29 years but stopped smoking 9 years earlier had a 0.8% (less than 1 in a 100) risk of getting lung cancer in the next ten years while a 68-year-old man who smoked two packs a day for the past 50 years and continued to smoke had a 15% (1 out of 7) chance of developing the disease in the same time period.

          So the woman has smoked approximately 10,600 packs of cigarettes. The man has smoked about 36,500 packs.

          Under Bob’s extremely naive assertion that each cigarette carries the same amount of risk, the man should have about 3.5 times the risk of getting lung cancer that the woman has. However, the study’s model, based on data from a large lung cancer prevention study, predicts that the man’s risk is almost 19 times that of the woman’s.

          Bob is simply wrong. Smoking is not associated with linear risk.

          Sadly, the risk model proposed by BEIR VII for radiation uses the same naive risk model that Bob is using here.

      2. Rod – One of the things you learn in Engineering School is that everything is linear if you use enough simplifying assumptions.

        That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s accurate, however.

        1. @Brian – believe it or not, I have a whole bunch of friends and colleagues who did attend ABET accredited engineering schools and obtained a variety of degrees in engineering. When I went to the Academy, I was certain that is what I wanted to do, but then I met some of the linear thinking faculty.

          I decided to take a path less traveled. I still love technology, engineering and design, but the world we inhabit is decidedly non linear. So far, my educational choices have not been a significant disadvantage in obtaining my career goals or the prosperity level I desire.

          Simplifying assumptions were justified in the slide rule era and perhaps in the era where Fortran was the coding language of choice and mainframe time had to be purchased by the very expensive minute. It is time for even linear thinking engineers to recognize that fact.

          (Oops – isn’t Fortran still the language of choice for many of the safety analysis and PRA models in use in the nuclear industry?)

        2. (Oops – isn’t Fortran still the language of choice for many of the safety analysis and PRA models in use in the nuclear industry?)

          It sure is. In fact, I’m currently working on porting old FORTRAN code to a new platform. FORTRAN is not a bad computer language for what it was designed to do, even given its rather large limitations. I have a long list of programming languages that I despise much more than FORTRAN.

          Don’t knock slide rules either. Learning the slide rule was often the first point in their education that the old-school engineers were forced to think nonlinearly. If you’re going to worry about anything in engineering, worry about the kids in Engineering School today, who think that a logarithmic scale is a checkbox in Microsoft Excel®.

          1. @Brian – you are right. Engineers trained in the slide rule era tend to be pretty good at recognizing that close enough can be good enough. They also tend to have a more intuitive grasp of “significant digits” and understand false precision.

            There was a time when I considered myself a reasonably competent Fortran programmer, but I decided that I could either program computers or stay married. I tended to focus too much on solving problems and lost complete track of time.

        3. Do not make fun of the slide rule. Kids today have no clue as to how to use it.

          I have a blast performing tricky calculations against them going mano a mano. I have my slide rule of course.

        4. I have a slide rule (a K&E) too, inherited from my father. It’s in great shape, since I don’t think that he ever used it.

          I know how to use every one of the lines on that slide rule, and there are quite a few of them. It’s impressive how much thought was put into designing a really good slide rule to do the same type of repetitive calculations over and over with minimal effort. Going through, in one’s head, how a couple of sticks can do these calculations gives one a new appreciation of how numbers work.

          That doesn’t mean that I’ll be giving up my HP-15C calculator anytime soon, however.

        5. Let’s give a BIG hand of applause to those who invented and crafted the astrolabs.

          Now that is impressive too!

    2. If indeed there was a linear risk for either smoking or driving, insurance companies would be the first to know, and their actuarial process would reflect it.

      An actuarial process is an algorithm used to determine the cost to insure someone. It incorporates several demographic factors and is not use to produce a linear risk graph based on mileage, or the number of cigarettes smoked.

  5. The NRC just approved the AP1000.

    Contrary to expectations, Jazcko found good cause and also lifted the 30 day waiting period for this news to be official.

    1. You know, it might be a hidden blessing that Jaczko was Chairman when this happened. I’m sure that some anti-nukes will, of course, try to paint this as a “corrupt, pro-nuclear NRC which has been captured by ‘The Industry’, rubber-stamping a dangerous nuclear plant design.”

      In Chairman Jazcko, we have the perfect rebuttal to that argument – than a man who tries to claim that he is far more safety-concerned than the rest of the commissioners (according to him and his partisan supporters), signed off on this design and said it’s safe.

      In a way, the theater this past week which has been playing out in the House and Senate Committee rooms, really plays well into the argument that “Why would Jaczko sign off on it, if it isn’t safe”.

      1. Plus remember one thing. Reid wanted Yucca, dead or dead. All the rest was not on his agenda but Jazcko went after everything that moved.

        That was not the plan and it was about to backfire.

        If Reid has any political savvy, you can expect a smoother ride with the application pipeline. (You can substitute Reid with Jazcko as per your mood)

      2. There you go again, thinking the opposition has to be logical and consistent.

        I’ve already seen people say that he’s been “captured”.

  6. That “Roentgen shrugged” is brilliant (yes, I read Ayn Rand’s original).

    Uncanny how the same meme applies to another piece of government controlled “Non-science”. I refer to CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). Here they go again:

    1. @gallopingcamel – I tend to agree with your feelings about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, but as one of the 6-7 billion “frogs” on the planet, I am not so happy about slowly contaminating our atmosphere just because the consequences might be realized in a generation or two.

      We do not need to stop emitting CO2; we need to reduce the rate of our emissions back down to levels that can be absorbed or used by natural processes. We are overwhelming the natural mitigation and feedback systems of the only atmosphere that we are sure can sustain life in a reasonably comfortable manner. That might be justifiable if there was not already a better energy alternative.

      Since there is a better alternative and since there is so much money involved in making the transition to that alternative, I have a deep seated suspicion of the forces arrayed in a propaganda battle against AGW. Humans are dumping 20-30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every single year, that is causing a slow, but inexorable rise in the concentration. It is having a negative effect, though it might not be an immediate catastrophe. It is CERTAINLY not a good reason for trying to shift to unreliable energy or to give up the good things that power consumption provides.

      1. Science is addressing these issues with geo-engineering. There are ideas to mitigate warming with injection of sulfur (like volcano do) into the atmosphere.

        We also have to be optimistic. Man kind always finds a way. Then again we may end up like the dinosaurs, but hey we can read and google atomicinsights.com !

        1. @Daniel – why experiment and mitigate when you can simply slow down the source of the problem you are trying to solve. I am a lazy cheapskate; all of the mitigation schemes I have read about sound really expensive and require a vast quantity of material. They also seem like a whole lot of work.

        2. Wait, doesn’t Sulfer cause Acid Rain? So, you want to deal with one problem, by substituting another problem?

        3. I am the pianist here. I am just saying that geo-engineering techniques are around the corner. Some stratagems would even target the elimination of hurricanes.

          1. @Daniel – reliable energy storage, fusion, and carbon capture and sequestration are also described by some as being around the corner. I am not holding my breath waiting for any of them.

        4. The very fact that there is a plurality of opinion on the matter of global warming and its potential causes demonstrates that our overall understanding of the climate system is incomplete. The very last thing we need is some fool making wholesale changes by applying massive forcing through these types of plans.

          The history of our attempts to ‘fine-tune’ certain ecosystems by the introduction of non-native species and the havoc these caused should stand as a warning.

      2. Rod,
        I agree with your “Solutions”, especially when you are talking about ways to reduce mankind’s dependence on fossil fuels. In particular I support the idea of ramping up fission power capacity right away instead of waiting until the inevitable depletion of fossil fuel reserves forces us to “Go Nuclear”.

        Burning fossil fuels is a shocking waste of a resource that has much better uses. The pollutants produced are in stupendous quantities but my schoolboy chemistry tells me that CO2 is not a pollutant.

        P.G. Sharrow’s comment on another blog summarizes it well::
        “CO2 is the basis of all life on this planet and at 1/2 of the present concentration all life dies out. Mean while we know that 10 times the present amount is optimum for best production of biomass and has been a normal level for much of the past.”

        My apologies for drifting “Off Topic”. As someone who grappled with ALARA day in, day out for many years I really appreciated your post on ALAURA

        1. @gallopingcamel – P. G. Sharrow has apparently never lived in an atmosphere with CO2 levels at 10 times the average concentration of our current atmosphere. That is right about the level of the onset of a permanent headache for humans, though it might be fine for biomass.

          Your high school chemistry apparently does not recognize that any material whose concentration gets out of whack with a healthy balance can be a pollutant.

  7. Dying of cancer at 61 is dying of old age. Cancer is a disease of aging. The young and old are most likely to die from all those bad things that life throws at us. During a flue epidemic in the 70s, we went to the doctor because our baby, my wife, and myself were all sick with the same bug. They hospitalized our baby and sent the adults home to fend for ourselves. Like is more like a ‘bath tub’ curve than linear.

    One of the problems with environmental pollutants is trying to figure out how multiple pollutants affect us. Smoking compounds exposure to coal dust, asbestos, and plutonium to name a few. Non-smokers exposed to coal dust, asbestos, and plutonium seem to suffer few of the adverse affects.

    As I have said before, I do not have a problem with ALARA and would not like to work with anyone with a mindset like Rod. A clean plant is an indicator of excellence in operation. I have been at plants where a respirator was frequently required and full anti-Cs to anytime before I got there. They also killed two workers in a steam explosion. Another accident was not fatal because the idiot was revived with CPR. Two years later we put cotton liners on our shoes to keep from dragging dirt into the plant. We could not detect small problems before they reached the level of being reportable.

    Just because we live in a world of morons does not mean we should immolate them. The local news has a story of a power outage caused by copper thieves. According to utility spokesman, they have found dead bodies this year apparently trying to steal copper.

    1. @Kit P – No one in my father’s family died younger than 80. His loss at 61 was NOT a result of old age. He did, however, spend his last 18 months in the Navy at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard taking apart some of the ships that helped us win WWII.

      Those steam plants contained quite a bit of asbestos – of both varieties.

    2. @Kit P

      I missed the malapropism in your last comment on the first read. Though we might disrespect morons, I would be the last one to recommend that anyone “immolate” them.

      It is not a good idea to imitate them either.

      Here are three alternative definitions of “immolate”

      1. To kill as a sacrifice.
      2. To kill (oneself) by fire.
      3. To destroy.

    3. I don’t think Rod or anyone else on this blog advocates having a dirty and dangerous plant. Mixing up contamination with exposure is not a good argument. A clean power plant is easier to maintain. Unnecessarily building shielding or limiting stay times can be a detriment to effective maintenance.

    4. Depends on the cancer. The most dependable cancer for killing off male humans is prostate cancer. 100% chance of getting it by age 98 I think. Can’t *not* get it. Definitely old age. Getting as Frank Zappa did at age 42, is entirely something different.

      Copper. In the plant I worked at for 25 years in San Francisco, attending the ever increasing “copper miners” was full time graveyard shift job.

      When I first got there, about 3 years in, a homeless..ex cop, no less…tried to steal some 13.8kv bus bar. Unfortunately it did not kill him. It burned off all his clothes and his skin and hair and he ran 300 yards (we followed the bloody footprints) to the front gate where he collapsed and died in utter agony (according the guard there).

      As copper prices jumped off they would steel *alarm cables* and anything that they could take. Very bad.

      1. And what is now the first medical treatment that is recommended for prostate cancer ?

        That’s right. Radio oncology treatments.

      2. The most dependable cancer for killing off male humans is prostate cancer. 100% chance of getting it by age 98 I think.

        Well, there’s a way out of that for most men, if they were to take it. Remove the prostate at age 50, regardless of the condition that it’s in.

        Cancer can’t spread from an organ that is no longer in the body.

        1. Rod – Heh .. I’m not recommending that. I’m just saying that if you want to live as risk-free as possible …

          Surgery, of course, has it’s own risks, but the “precautionary principle” people have never been very good at weighing relative risks between alternatives, have they?

  8. Some of you may have already seen this, but there is a new article about radiation risk on the progressive policy institute website. http://alturl.com/cjt6g
    A reasonable summary of several issues related to nuclear risk.

  9. As interesting as this debate is (and it is) – it is just the kind of thinking that confesses the casual observer (the public maybe?).

    Just suppose LNT is valid for radiation. Then just supposed that that LNT is valid for smoking. Then crunch some numbers and just supposed you come up with something like 40 Cigarettes is roughly equivalent to 1mSv of radiation (whole body effect dose). Now I know there are all sorts of problems with this analysis (not even worthy of the word analysis). But just suppose we are in the right ball park for a moment.

    What does it say about the risks of ionising radiation exposure when trying to deal with the term ‘safe’ – is something ‘safe’. Is smoking ‘safe’. Most smokers I speak to admit they think it has ‘risk’ but then they are exposed ‘at all sorts of risks’ and so it is ‘safe enough for them’.

    What the relationship shows, to a smoker or non-smoker, is that the risk of 20mSv effective dose a year is trivial IF IT WERE compared to smoking (if the relationship above were valid).

    Now, this is all imagined, the point is that somehow I think the public need something really tangible to grab hold of to understand the subject regarding radiation health effects.

    1. Radiation protection standards – UNSCEAR – ICRP – IAEA – EU (if you are in the EU) – country. These are here to stay in my life time. ICRP60 (1990) resulting in the IRR99 (2000) in the UK. ICRP 103 (2007) may result in IRR18 (2018 or beyond) in the UK. New science, whether it is from peer reviewed research or from Busby / Allison will take decades / generations to get into new dose limits or philosophy in radiation protection. All new Nuclear Plants for decades to come will be based on safety assessment principles – based on ICRP (etc). So, with that in mind, as interesting as this debate is (and I am interested since I tweeted the original link to Rod), much work will need to be done to explain the current risk assessments – LNT is here and we need to show that its ‘predictions’ lead to low risks etc…

  10. Another thought. In most civilised societies we have independent bodies in the justice system called “high courts” or “supreme courts”. In the Netherlands, this body primarily is tasked to ensure that lower courts interprete the law correctly.

    Coming back to energy and polution issues. I believe that the apparent arrival of “Peak Conventional Crude Oil” as early as 2006 (recently tentatively confirmed by the IEA), coupled with the likely arrival of “Peak All-Liquids” around 2015 (recently forecast by a high profile ex-IEA employee) could be a reason to introduce a kind of “high court” or “supreme court” for energy matters.

    Such a court would be tasked to ensure that laws and public policy decisions interpret the laws of physics and the state-of-the-art in science and technology correctly. No law or judgement can be passed that violates the purport of the laws of physics or the SOTA in science and technology.

    The reason to have such a court is that the beginning of the end of conventional oil and gas constitutes such a massive threat to the future of civilised society that it justifies the formation of a special independent body to oversee lawmaking, law interpretation and science and technology appraisal in energy matters.

    Obviously, such a court’s first task would be to audit and rapidly remove all existing deadwood and political obstacles, etc, that are currently preventing the full and safe application of nuclear power.

    An idea?

  11. Rod Adams said:
    “……….any material whose concentration gets out of whack with a healthy balance can be a pollutant.”

    I agree with the statement but can you specify what constitutes a “healthy balance” for CO2?

    P.G. Sharrow was thinking of the Palaeocene & early Eocene which was a time that suited mammals. Back then (~60 million years ago) there was no ice at either pole and CO2 concentrations were in the 2,000 to 4,000 ppm range. See Fig 3. in Pearson & Palmer (2000):

    1. @gallopingcamel:

      The climate 60 million years ago might have suited mammals, but there is no evidence whatsoever that it suited the mammals that I care most about – homo sapiens.

      1. You got me there.

        Homo sapiens was one of roughly 20 related species; all the others became extinct during recent glaciations. Why did homo sapiens survive cold climates while Cro Magnons and Neanderthals did not?

        Researchers at Duke University have suggested that homo sapiens survived owing to its relationship with dogs. Pure speculation but the hypothesis appeals to me.

        My point is that we should fear a colder climate more than a warmer one. I will email you a copy of a fine documentary by the History Channel called:
        “Little Ice Age…….Big Chill”.

        1. @gallopingcamel

          There is no question that a 1% change in average global temperatures would create havoc for humanity in the form of mass migration, famine, conflict and suffering on an unprecedented scale. If such were to happen due to natural climate variation it would be bad. It such were to happen due to manmade climate change, it would be an outrage. I think there can be no serious suggestion that such climate change – natural or manmade – would be anything but utter disaster.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts