Discovery.com: Is Nuclear Energy Safe?

[bananas]

http://news.discovery.com/tech/is-nuclear-energy-safe.html

Is Nuclear Energy Safe?
Analysis by Tracy Staedter | Wed Mar 17, 2010 09:58 AM ET

<snip>

It’s a complicated topic, but to give you some food for thought, I interviewed two people from either side of the issue. First, I spoke with Tom Kauffman, senior media relations manager for the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, D.C. Kauffman has been in the industry for more than two decades, held a senior reactor operator license and was at Three-Mile Island when the accident occurred in 1979. Out of that conversation, I came up with a list of questions, which I emailed to Edwin Lyman.

Lyman is a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C. His research focuses on the prevention of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, and prior to working at the UCS, he was the president of the Nuclear Control Institute. Lyman emailed his answers.

Below are Kauffman’s and Lyman’s responses to some of the main safety concerns hovering over the future of nuclear energy. Neither one saw the other’s answers, as I did not want them to debate each other, but rather provide information about these issues from their point of view. Since I spoke with Kauffman first, I’ll put his answers first. Here are their responses to this controversial issue:


Often times the topic of Chernobyl comes up when nuclear energy is mentioned. Could a Chernobyl-type accident happen in the United States at a nuclear power plant?

Kaufman: <snip misleading nuclear industry PR>

Lyman: The short answer is yes. An accident resulting in a large radiological release to the environment comparable to or worse than that of Chernobyl could definitely occur at a U.S. nuclear power plant. While the particular accident mechanism resulting in a catastrophic release of radioactivity would be different for a U.S. light-water reactor than for a Chernobyl-type reactor, the outcome could be similar. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a policy that if a core-melt accident occurs (such as the one at Three Mile Island in 1979), then the probability that the event could result in a large radiological release should be less than 10 percent.

According to computer simulations, some U.S. reactors would comfortably meet this limit, while it is less clear for others. Some reactor-containment buildings could be ruptured by a hydrogen explosion, for example. In addition, when a plant is down for a refueling outage, the containment building is open to the environment, but the fuel remains hot and is still vulnerable to melting if cooling is interrupted. And finally, terrorists with the tactical skill to attack a nuclear plant would find it fairly easy to blow a hole in the containment building.

<snip>

Further on, Kaufman (the paid nuclear industry PR spokesman) says "Carter stopped all development and research on reprocessing." That's extremely misleading, Ford stopped reprocessing in 1976, Reagan revoked the ban in 1981. So the ban was started by a Republican, it only lasted 5 years, it hasn't been banned for almost 30 years, yet the nuclear industry keeps trying to blame Democrats for their technological failures, and as a life-long Democrat I resent that and find it offensive. As I wrote previously: "Bush wanted to begin reprocessing with his GNEP program, it was "a goofy idea" according to MIT, the National Academy of Sciences, the Federation of American Scientists, and just about everyone else. After the National Academy of Sciences report came out, Congress defunded it." - see excerpts and links to the MIT, NAS, FAS reports in this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=234000&mesg_id=234122

[TheWraith]

1. Reprocessing it's a failure, the alternative is simply too cheap.

They're doing reprocessing successfully in Europe, but over here it's cheaper simply to store the used fuel rods and buy new uranium on the open market. We should mandate reprocessing for spent fuel.

[kristopher]

2. Fuel is cheaper here than it is there?

Is that what I understand you to be saying?

I'd also be interested in how you are defining "successfully". What is the measure of success for reprocessing nuclear fuel?

[TheWraith]

3. No, but they're more concerned with disposal of long term waste.

We just don't give a fuck.

[kristopher]

4. A French documentary on nuclear waste

A French documentary on nuclear waste
By Mycle Schneider on February 22, 2010 11:10 AM

On 20 February 2010 Greenpeace issued a call for a moratorium on shipments of reprocessed uranium from France to Russia. Activists had been repeatedly blocking rail shipments of the material from the La Hague reprocessing plant to Cherbourg port.

Parliamentary enquiry, government statements, Greenpeace actions are a few of the stunning consequences of a 100-minutes TV documentary Déchets - Le Cauchemar du Nucléaire (Waste - The Nuclear Nightmare) broadcast by the Franco-German station ARTE for the first time on 13 October 2009 and re-broadcast by various television stations since. The documentary presents the results of an investigation into nuclear waste management in the US, Russia, Germany and France. The authors Eric Guéret and Laure Noualhat were often accompanied by technicians of the French independent radiation-monitoring lab CRIIRAD. They detected and measured radiation in many places where they went, from the Columbia river close to the US nuclear weapons lab in Hanford to the Soviet counterpart Mayak in the Urals. Some of the most remarkable scenes include a Geiger counter that goes crazy under a publicly accessible bridge over the Techa river and a scene outside the French "plutonium factory" called reprocessing plant at La Hague. In the latter case a spokesman for operator AREVA, when asked about radiation levels in the fields outside the plant, stated after a long hesitation that he would not call this contamination, but "absence of impact" before stumbling: "Well, we'll redo that one..."

However, remarkably enough, the largest impact had a simple mass calculation that the journalists presented. Constantly facing the AREVA PR that states that 96% of the nuclear materials are "recycled" through the reprocessing scheme, the reporters inquired where the recovered uranium, roughly 95% of the mass of spent fuel, does end up. In fact, AREVA has been sending most of the reprocessed uranium (23,000 tons were still stored in France at the end of 2008), to Russia officially for re-enrichment. In fact, even if all of that uranium had indeed been re-enriched, which is not the case, over 90% of the mass remains in Russia as enrichment tails. This material is waste, because there is absolutely no economic incentive to re-enrich it, in particular considering the hundreds of thousands of tons of "clean", first generation enrichment tails that are stored in Russia and in the other major enrichment countries, including in France (close to 260,000 tons at two sites).

The message that AREVA's "recycling" ratio had to be corrected from 95% to less than 10% of the original mass send a shockwave through the French political landscape. The minister of Environment asked for clarifications and the parliamentary Office for Scientific and Technological Option Assessment (OPECST) organized public hearings. During the hearings EDF has admitted that, apart from a period of about five years, 100% of the reprocessed uranium had been sent to Russia. Between 2000 and approximately 2005 (the EDF representative was not certain) reprocessed uranium was sent to URENCO's Dutch plant that can re-enrich reprocessed uranium (contrary to URENCO's UK and German plants). EDF signed a contract with AREVA to use part of the Georges-Besse-2 plant, currently under construction, to enrich reprocessed uranium for a period of about 10 years starting in 2013. The French Nuclear Safety Authority ASN announced that by the end 2010 it will have finished studies into the potential requalification of reprocessed uranium as waste.

The full version of the film "Déchets - Le Cauchemar du Nucléaire", by Eric Guéret and Laure Noualhat (in French and German with English subtitles) is available online. ARTE-Editions has also published a 210-page book by Laure Noualhat with the same title (in French). It can be ordered here.

http://www.fissilematerials.org/blog/civilian_nuclear_industry/

[TheWraith]

5. You know a Geiger counter will tick over anywhere, right?

People who don't understand physics can be easily made nervous by trace amounts of radiation.

And you also know that Greenpeace's founder has repudiated their anti-nuclear stance and says that all they helped do was insure decades more of fossil fuels?

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. "reprocessing does not reduce the need for storage and disposal of radioactive waste"

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/nuclear_proliferation_and_terrorism/nuclear-reprocessing.html

... reprocessing does not reduce the need for storage and disposal of radioactive waste, and a geologic repository would still be required. Plutonium constitutes only about one percent of the spent fuel from U.S. reactors. After reprocessing, the remaining material will be in several different waste forms, and the total volume of nuclear waste will have been increased by a factor of twenty or more, including low-level waste and plutonium-contaminated waste. The largest component of the remaining material is uranium, which is also a waste product because it is contaminated and undesirable for reuse in reactors. Even if the uranium is classified as low-level waste, new low-level nuclear waste facilities would have to be built to dispose of it. And to make a significant reduction in the amount of high-level nuclear waste that would require disposal, the used fuel would need to be reprocessed and reused many times with an extremely high degree of efficiency—an extremely difficult endeavor that would likely take centuries to accomplish.

...

[abqmufc]

7. Mining also, one only look at the mining conditions on Navajo...

Nation to realize this country did not care about the costs in of our previous nuclear legacy. The mining, the storage, the transport all safeguarding the middle class while putting low-income and ethnic minorities (like Tribal peoples) at the greatest.

Ecocide some call it.

[PavePusher]

8. Wow. Interesting censorship you used there.

Biased, much?

[joshcryer]

9. Pretty much.

[bananas]

12. I have to wonder what kind of rocks

a person has in their head to consider that censorship. I posted a link to the article, explained that it has pro and con arguments, and pulled out a couple of items I thought were important. In case you're unaware, DU rules don't allow us to quote entire articles (with a few exceptions, such as we have permission from the author or it's public domain etc).

[PavePusher]

13. You came nowhere near including the entire article...

but you apparently deliberately excluded to initial "pro" statement, while inserting a personal opinion.

"<snip misleading nuclear industry PR>"

I'm not sure how to take that as anything but bias and censorship. And I might agree with you, but the intellectual dishonesty/hypocracy does your position no help at all.

[kristopher]

14. There was nothing misleading about his presentation.

You are apparently of the opinion that attacking the messenger is a legitimate way of scoring points.

[joshcryer]

15. Calling an action "censorship" when it is accurate is not an attack.

[cprise]

16. Trolling much?

If clicking on the supplied link is such a hurdle that it suggests censorship to you, then maybe you could benefit from http://idle.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&type=story&sid=10/03/01/1628211">one of these.

Perhaps you would prefer to be forced to quote randomly from the articles you post, or else be jeered for "censorship". Better yet, regularly quote entire articles (and get kicked off for breaking forum rules).


Multiple snips in a quoted article are long accepted as normal in forums, and the way bananas did it was if anything more intellectually honest than how its usually done.

[bananas]

17. It is misleading nuclear industry PR

and I hear it repeated all the time, the nuclear industry has spent a lot of money "catapulting the propaganda" and they've been very effective.
The article states that Kaufman is "senior media relations manager for the Nuclear Energy Institute",
here's some snips from Sourcewatch's entry on the Nuclear Energy Institute and their misleading tactics:

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nuclear_Energy_Institute

<snip>

The lobbying / PR wing of the U.S. nuclear industry

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)<2> is described by Dr Helen Caldicott - a pediatrician and long-standing nuclear critic - as "the propaganda wing and trade group for the American nuclear industry spends millions of dollars annually to engineer public opinion".<4>

NEI’s objective is to ensure the formation of policies that promote the "beneficial uses" of nuclear energy in the United States and around the world. It has over 280 corporate members in 15 countries, including companies that operate nuclear power plants, as well as design and engineering firms, fuel suppliers and service companies, and labor unions.<5>

NEI is governed by a 47-member board of directors and has more than 130 employees. NEI's board includes representatives from the nation's 27 nuclear utilities, plant designers, architect/engineering firms, and fuel cycle companies. Eighteen members of the board serve on the executive committee, which is responsible for NEI's business and policy affairs.<6> NEI also takes part in Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, a group funded by the gas, oil, electric and nuclear industries. <7>

In recent years, the NEI has used a variety of approaches to try and win the PR battle to secure a new generation of nuclear power plants.

<snip>

"Clean, safe" pro-nuclear front group

Hill & Knowlton and NEI have also been involved in the setting up of a pro-nuclear front group. In April 2006, the New York Times,<28> reported on the formation of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. It said that a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, “acknowledged that it was providing all of the financing, but would not say what the budget was". Former New Jersey Governor and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Christine Whitman, and former environmentalist, Patrick Moore, were hired to lead this new public relations campaign for new reactors. The formation of the new front group coincided with the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster in Ukraine. <6>

The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition was described as a front group forged by Hill & Knowlton for the nuclear power industry, by the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR).<29> The Review criticised the Washington Post for simply referring to Moore as an “environmentalist” and a cofounder of Greenpeace — without mentioning that he is funded by the industry.

A string of other newspapers followed this, failing to mention that Moore is also a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry. CJR concluded that it is “…maddening that Hill & Knowlton, which has an $8 million account with the nuclear industry, should have such an easy time working the press”.

The words "Clean" and "Safe" were chosen as part of the nuclear industry's mult-million dollar campaign to describe itself. The industry continues using these words despite opposition from anti-nuclear groups.

NEI ghostwriters

In April 2004 The Austin Chronicle <30> revealed that NEI had hired the Potomac Communications Group <31> to ghostwrite pro-nuclear op-ed columns to be submitted to local newspapers under the name of local personalities. Other clients of this Washington DC-based public relations firm include: Areva, Bechtel, BWX Technologies, Entergy and Washington Group International.

<snip>

[joshcryer]

18. Both of those guys being interviewed are shills.

They're both on the extreme of the debate.

[bananas]

19. Nope

Lyman is not a "shill", and UCS is not on the "extreme" side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is a nonprofit science advocacy group based in the United States. The UCS membership includes many private citizens in addition to professional scientists. Emeritus Professor Kurt Gottfried, a former senior staffer at CERN, currently chairs the UCS Board of Directors.<1>

Contents

* 1 History
* 2 Issue stances
* 3 Press
* 4 Criticism
* 5 See also
* 6 References
* 7 Publications
* 8 External links

History

The Union of Concerned Scientists was founded in 1969 by faculty and students of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Scientists formed the organization to "initiate a critical and continuing examination of governmental policy in areas where science and technology are of actual or potential significance" and "devise means for turning research applications away from the present emphasis on military technology toward the solution of pressing environmental and social problems."<2> The organization employs scientists, economists, engineers engaged in environmental and security issues, as well as executive and support staff.<3>

One of the co-founders was physicist and Nobel laureate Dr. Henry Kendall, who served for many years as chairman of the board of UCS. In 1977, the UCS sponsored a "Scientists' Declaration on the Nuclear Arms Race" calling for an end to nuclear weapons tests and deployments in the United States and Soviet Union <4>. In response to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), the UCS sponsored a petition entitled "An Appeal to Ban Space Weapons" <5>.

In 1992, Kendall presided over the UCS' Warning to Humanity, which called for "fundamental change" to address a range of security and environmental issues. The document was signed by 1700 scientists, including a majority of the Nobel prize winners in the sciences<6>.

According to the George C. Marshall Institute, the UCS was the fourth-largest recipient of foundation grants for climate studies in the period 2000-2002, a fourth of its $24M grant income being for that purpose.<7>

According to Charity Navigator, an independent, non-profit organization that evaluates American charities, the UCS maintained $20,575,731 in assets, $5,514,946 in liabilities, $15,060,785 in net assets, and $14,112,057 in working capital, as well as $10,058,784 in program expenses, $813,335 in administrative expenses, and $1,703,907 in fundraising expenses in fiscal year 2006. In 2007, the Union of Concerned Scientists received a four (out of four) star rating from Charity Navigator.<8>

The Union of Concerned Scientists is member of the Sustainable Energy Coalition.

Issue stances

In the UCS-published book The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists, the authors attempt to give practical advice to consumers to "help...distinguish the critical from the trivial and make choices that are congruent with your values." The book identifies using a fuel-efficient car and driving less as the number one way most people can reduce their environmental impact. The authors say minor choices such as choosing between paper or plastic bags do not have that much overall impact.<9>

The UC supports an increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, as well as a reduction in smog pollution from construction equipment and diesel trucks and the enactment of state laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, based on California's regulations. The group supports deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, as well as national and international action to combat climate change. The organization has also produced several reports on regional effects of climate change in the United States.<10><11> The group supports increased taxes for polluters to discourage pollution and incentives for environmentally beneficial practices.<9>

The UCS supports a national renewable electricity standard which would require utilities to produce a certain percentage of their energy from sources such as wind, solar and geothermal. The UCS also acknowledges that nuclear power can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but maintains that it must become much safer and cheaper before it can be considered a workable solution to global warming (see nuclear debate). They support increased safety enforcement from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission among other steps to improve nuclear power.<12> The group also supports a national energy efficiency standard for home appliances.<9>

The UCS has also endorsed the Forests Now Declaration, which calls for new market based mechanism to protect forests, as the group has recognised the importance of curbing deforestation in order to tackle climate change.<13> The group also supports governmental incentives for people who want to preserve undeveloped land instead of selling it to developers.<9>

The Union of Concerned Scientists has accused the US government of dozens of instances of political interference in science<14> and supports whistleblower protection, monetary incentives, and free speech rights for federal scientists. Its scientific integrity program has produced surveys of federal scientists at multiple agencies<15> and a statement signed by more than 11,000 scientists condemning political interference in science<16>.

The UCS supports the reduction of antibiotic use on livestock to prevent medical antibiotic resistance in humans who consume treated animals. It also opposes cloning animals for food, as well as forms of genetic engineering.

The group opposes the use of space weapons and supports the idea of an international treaty to regulate military uses of space. The group also works on reducing the number of nuclear weapons around the world and opposes the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. The group criticizes the technical feasibility of building a missile defense shield.

Press

In 1997, the UCS presented their “World Scientists Call For Action” petition to world leaders meeting to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. The declaration asserted, “A broad consensus among the world's climatologists is that there is now ‘a discernible human influence on global climate.’" It urged governments to make “legally binding commitments to reduce industrial nations' emissions of heat-trapping gases”, and called global warming “one of the most serious threats to the planet and to future generations.”<17> The petition was signed by “more than 1,500 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in science.”<18><19>

In February 2004, the Union received press attention for its publication "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking". The report criticized the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush for "politicizing" science. Some of the allegations include altering information in global warming reports by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and choosing members of scientific advisory panels based on their business interests rather than scientific experience. In July 2004, the Union released an addendum to the report in which they criticize the Bush administration and allege that reports on West Virginia strip mining had been improperly altered, and that "well-qualified" nominees for government posts, such as Nobel laureate Torsten Wiesel were rejected because of political differences. On April 2, 2004, Dr. John Marburger, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a statement claiming that incident descriptions in the UCS report are "false," "wrong," or "a distortion",<20> and dismissed the report as "biased". <21>. UCS rebutted the White House document by saying that Marburger's claims were unjustified. UCS later wrote that since that time, the Bush administration has been virtually silent on the issue. <22>

On October 30, 2006, the Union issued a press release claiming that high-ranking members of the U.S. Department of the Interior, including Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Julie MacDonald, systematically tampered with scientific data in an effort to undermine the protection of endangered species and the Endangered Species Act<23>.

On December 11, 2006, the UCS issued a statement signed by 10,600 leading scientists including Nobel laureates.<24> The statement calls for the restoration of scientific integrity to federal policy-making.

On May 23, 2007, the UCS cited a joint-study with MIT and issued a press release claiming that "any test of the U.S. missile defense system that does not show whether an interceptor missile can distinguish between real warheads and decoys is irrelevant" and "contrived," and called for an end to the taxpayer-funded program until the system can show an ability to actually address "real world threats."<25>

On June 21, 2007, a UCS report charged the EPA with political manipulation of scientific data to influence updated US ozone regulations: "The law says use the science, the science says lower the standard to safe levels," said Francesca Grifo, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program. "In disregarding its own scientists' analysis, the EPA is risking the health of millions of Americans."<26><27>

In August 2008, the UCS purchased billboards at the airports in Denver, Colorado and Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota where the Democratic and Republican presidential conventions are to be held. The two nearly identical billboards showed the downtown areas of each convention city in a cross hairs, with the message that “when only one nuclear bomb could destroy a city” like Minneapolis or Denver, “we don’t need 6,000.” The name of Senator John McCain or Senator Barack Obama follows, with this admonition: “It’s time to get serious about reducing the nuclear threat.” The billboards were removed after a complaint from Northwest Airlines, the official airline of the Republican convention. The UCS has accused Northwest, whose headquarters are in Minnesota, of “taking on a new role as censor” and of having acted because it regarded the Minneapolis advertisement as “scary” and “anti-McCain.”<28><29><30>

Criticism

The most vocal critics of the Union of Concerned Scientists assert that the organization harbors a liberal "pro-regulation, anti-business" agenda.<31><32> In 2004, the conservative media watchdog Media Research Center called the UCS an "unlabeled left-wing activist group";<33> in 2007, the watchdog's founder L. Brent Bozell reiterated this assertion.<34> In 2009, the conservative website NewsMax described the UCS as a "left-wing" organization that "receives substantial donations from liberal-leaning foundations."<32><35> Libertarian author and television personality John Stossel has also accused the organization of having a "left-wing" agenda.<36>

Critics of UCS policy positions have accused the organization of placing ideology over science. In 2006, two physicists associated with the American Physical Society criticized the UCS for not supporting a government-run nuclear waste reprocessing program.<37> In 2009, free market activist Ronald Bailey wrote that the organization's opposition to untested use of genetically modified crops amounts to the rejection of "modern farming" practices.<38> The UCS has also been criticized by skeptics of climate change. In 2007, the conservative non-profit group Capital Research Center accused the UCS of waging a "jihad against climate skeptics",<39> and televangelist Jerry Falwell even cautioned Evangelical Christians against "falling for...global warming hocus-pocus" propagated in the mass media, with the UCS "leading the charge".<40>

See also

* The Cult of the Atom
* Three Mile Island: Thirty Minutes to Meltdown

References

1. ^ Salpeter and Gottfried sign letter urging Congress to pass binding resolution against nuclear weapons
2. ^ Founding Document: 1968 MIT Faculty Statement
3. ^ List of UCS experts
4. ^ Scientists' Declaration on the Nuclear Arms Race
5. ^ UCS - History
6. ^ World Scientists' Warning to Humanity (1992)
7. ^ Funding Flows for Climate Change Research and Related Activities
8. ^ Charity Navigator - Union of Concerned Scientists
9. ^ a b c d Brower, Michael, Ph. D. and Leon, Warren, Ph. D. The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists 1999, Three Rivers Press.
10. ^ Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region
11. ^ Confronting Climate Change in the Gulf Coast
12. ^ Nuclear Power and Global Warming
13. ^ Forestsnow - Endorsers - NGO and Research Institutes
14. ^ A to Z - Examples of Political Interference in Science
15. ^ Surveys of Scientists at Federal Agencies
16. ^ Who Are the 11,000+ Scientists? - Scientist Statement Signatories
17. ^ Union of Concerned Scientists. "World Scientists Call For Action". Archived from the original on 10/12/2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20071012163018/http://ucsusa.org/ucs/about/1997-world-scientists-call-for-action.html.
18. ^ ‘’Science Daily’’Oct. 2, 2007 article “World’s Nobel Laureates And Preeminent Scientists Call On Government To Halt Global Warming”
19. ^ List of Selected Prominent Signatories with awards and affiliations.
20. ^ UCS Response to Congress
21. ^ Scientists: Bush Distorts Science
22. ^ Scientific Integrity in Policymaking
23. ^ Systematic Interference with Science at Interior Department Exposed - Emails and Edited Documents Show Evidence of Inappropriate Manipulation
24. ^ 10,600 Scientists Condemn Political Interference in Science - New Guide Documents Ongoing Federal Abuse of Science; 110th Congress Must Act
25. ^ Another Contrived Missile Defense Test is Coming Up - Decoys Would Overwhelm System, Says Union of Concerned Scientists
26. ^ EPA Falls Short of Scientists' Calls for Stricter Controls on Smog - Old standard not enough to protect public health
27. ^ Critics question EPA's tighter ozone limits
28. ^ Ads on Nuclear Threat Removed From Convention Airports
29. ^ Ad critical of McCain doesn't fly with NWA
30. ^ Northwest bans ad from airport
31. ^ Byron Spice (2004-08-09). "Defending Bush against his bashers". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EPANAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GHEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5426,6788549&dq=union-of-concerned-scientists+liberal+activist+funding. Retrieved 2009-08-02.
32. ^ a b (2007-01-23)"Scientists Group's Funding 'Openly Political'". 2007-01-23. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/1/23/93038.shtml. Retrieved 2009-08-02.
33. ^ Union of Concerned Scientists, Timeswatch.org Topic Index
34. ^ Oil Giant Accused of Funding Global Warming 'Disinformation', CNSNews.com, 2007-01-04
35. ^ Financial profile of UCS at ActivistCash.com
36. ^ Stossel, John, Scaremongers screaming 'BOO!' even louder after column challenges their 'facts' - Jewish World Review, 2005-04-13
37. ^ Bombs, Reprocessing, and Reactor Grade Plutonium
38. ^ Yielding to Ideology Over Science: Why Don't Environmentalists Celebrate Modern Farming on Earth Day?
39. ^ Union of Concerned Scientists: Its Jihad against Climate Skeptics By Myron Ebell, Iain Murray, and Ivan Osorio, Capital Research Group
40. ^ Falwell, Jerry (February 24, 2007). "'Global warming' fooling the faithful". WorldNetDaily.com Inc.. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54413. Retrieved 2008-12-21.

Publications

* Catalyst, a bi-annual magazine
* Earthwise, a quarterly newsletter
* The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists
* Scientific Integrity in Policymaking
* Atmosphere of Pressure: Political Interference in Federal Climate Science

External links

* Union of Concerned Scientists
* UCS Climate Change-Centered Website
* Read Chapter 1 Of The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists (From UCS website).
* Sustainable Energy Coalition

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists"

Categories: Environmental organizations based in the United States | Organizations based in Cambridge, Massachusetts | Renewable energy organizations | Climate change organizations | Anti-nuclear weapons movement | Nuclear weapons policy | Scientific societies | Political advocacy groups in the United States | Organizations established in 1969 | Genetic engineering by country

[joshcryer]

20. I like how you interpret "these guys" = "UCS" and leave out Edwin's bio (NCI).

Probably because the people themselves are both on the extreme of the issue, so you attempt to deflect with a large quote of UCS information.

[bananas]

21. You made two false statements.

You wrote:
"18. Both of those guys being interviewed are shills.
They're both on the extreme of the debate."

Both of those statements are false.
Lyman is not a shill, nor is he on the extreme side of the debate.
And you're attempting to deflect the content of the OP with baseless ad-hominem attacks.

You asked for Lyman's bio from the NCI website, here it is:

http://www.nci.org/conf/bio-lyman.htm

Edwin S. Lyman - bio

Edwin S. Lyman became Scientific Director of the Nuclear Control Institute in 1995. His research focuses on security and environmental issues associated with the management of nuclear materials. He has published numerous articles in journals including The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and Science and Global Security. He is active as a member of the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management. From 1997-1998, he participated in the Processing Needs Assessment conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy's Nuclear Material Stabilization Task Group. He received a doctorate in theoretical physics from Cornell University in 1992, where he was an A.D. White Scholar. He was a postdoctoral research associate at Princeton University's Center for Energy and Environmental Studies from 1992 to 1995.

Here is his bio on the UCS website:

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/experts/edwin-lyman.html

Edwin Lyman
Senior Scientist, Global Security

Expertise
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Weapons & Global Security-Nuclear Terrorism

Profile

Edwin Lyman is a senior staff scientist in the Global Security program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in Washington, DC. Before coming to UCS in May 2003, he was president of the Nuclear Control Institute, a Washington-based organization committed to nuclear nonproliferation. He earned a doctorate in physics from Cornell University in 1992. From 1992 to 1995, he was a postdoctoral research associate at Princeton University's Center for Energy and Environmental Studies (now the Science and Global Security Program).

Dr. Lyman’s research focuses on the prevention of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. He has published articles and letters in journals and magazines including Science, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Science and Global Security, and Arms Control Today. He is an active member of the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management. He has testified before Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and has served as an expert witness for intervenors in several NRC licensing proceedings. In February 2009, he testified at an NRC briefing on risk-informed regulation, and in March and June of 2009 he spoke on reprocessing issues at two NRC events.

Here is a page from the UCS website - it is not "extreme":

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-resurgence.html

Nuclear Power: A Resurgence We Can't Afford
Download: Nuclear Power: A Resurgence We Can't Afford

Nuclear power could play a role in reducing global warming emissions because reactors emit almost no carbon while they operate and can have low life-cycle emissions. Partly for that reason, advocates are calling for a nationwide investment in at least 100 new nuclear reactors, backed by greatly expanded federal loan guarantees. However, the industry must resolve major economic, safety, security, and waste disposal challenges before new nuclear reactors could make a significant contribution to reducing carbon emissions.

The economics of nuclear power alone could be the most difficult hurdle to surmount. A new UCS analysis, Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy, finds that the United States does not need to significantly expand its reliance on nuclear power to make dramatic cuts in power plant carbon emissions through 2030—and indeed that new nuclear reactors would largely be uneconomical.

That analysis shows that by significantly expanding the use of energy efficiency and low-cost and declining-cost renewable energy sources, consumers and businesses could reduce carbon emissions from power plants as much as 84 percent by 2030 while saving $1.6 trillion on their energy bills. And, under the Blueprint scenario, because of their high cost, the nation would not build more than four new nuclear reactors already spurred by existing loan guarantees from the Department of Energy (DOE) and other incentives.

A forced nuclear resurgence, in contrast, could make efforts to cut the nation’s global warming emissions much more costly, given the rising projected costs of new nuclear reactors. A nuclear power resurgence that relies on new federal loan guarantees would also risk repeating costly bailouts of the industry financed by taxpayers and ratepayers twice before.

Last Revised: 08/01/09

[joshcryer]

22. Only one who cannot read or think critically would think you've just supported your claim.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[joshcryer]

24. I suppose Lyman didn't get paid by NCI.

[bananas]

25. Only one who cannot read or think critically would think you've just supported your claim.

:rofl:

[kristopher]

10. Interesting photo at the Discovery link...

Why are the sunflowers apparently not pointing towards the sun in that photo? The mottled shadows on the cooling towers seem indicate the sun is somewhere over the head or shoulders of the photographer, yet the sunflowers are aimed towards the horizon in a direction to the right of the cooling towers.

I don't claim it is significant, just interesting. What part of the spectrum do sunflowers track and what is the mechanism by which it is accomplished?

[bananas]

11. Might be the wind - look at the trees

The trees seem to be leaning in the same direction the sunflowers are pointed.
Or, the whole photo could be photoshopped.

edit to add: the steam from the cooling towers is also going that direction.

[Nederland]

26. Good article

The article does a good job of presenting both sides of the issues. While I understand the authors desire to simply have the authors provide information instead of debate, I think a debate would have been interesting too. I'd have to say this was my favorite comment though:

Lyman: First of all, there is no such thing as a "safe" level of radiation. Reputable scientific bodies like the U.S. National Academy of Sciences have reviewed all the evidence and concur that even a single particle of ionizing radiation is capable of causing the genetic damage that could result in cancer. But the risk is proportional to the dose, so the higher the dose the greater the risk.

Since there is no such thing as a "safe" level of radiation, I fully expect Lyman to spend the rest of his life indoors without computers or other electronic devices. The world would benefit from the absence of such an idiot.

[Nihil]

27. I wish that certain other people would follow the advice to people of that view ...

> Since there is no such thing as a "safe" level of radiation, I fully expect
> Lyman to spend the rest of his life indoors without computers or other
> electronic devices. The world would benefit from the absence of such an idiot.

:evilgrin:

[Statistical]

28. Even then he is subjected to radiation.

Our planet is radioactive, our Sun is radioactive, our universe is radioactive.
Now maybe is his house was built of lead, and he filtered all air and water he could avoid radiation exposure.

Life on this planet has been subject to radiation for millions of years. Due to half life the amount of radiation exposure millions of years ago was much higher than today. As such due to natural selection the species that survived were those who were radiation "hardy". Our DNA has multiple failsafes designed to prevent, reduce, and isolate damage done by radiation (which is you live in this universe is happening as you read this).

So while the claim:
"even a single particle of ionizing radiation is capable of causing the genetic damage"
is not false it is taken out of context.

It is also possible to buy a single lottery ticket in your life and win the jackpot, then next drawing buy another single ticket and win again and then next dawing buying another single ticket and win again. It isn't impossible. The odds are astronomical that this scenario won't happen but it isn't impossible.