The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear

Rating:
Summary: Rational attack on unreasoned silliness
Review: A thoughtful examination of the energy issue, as well as environmental safety concerns associated with it. Accurate, reliable well researched, I strongly recommend this book for anyone concerned with the future of society or the environment.

Rating:
Summary: A must read if you think Nuclear Energy dangerous
Review: I am a student attending the University of Phoenix Online University. In one of my classes this question was posed:

In what ways can a company be legally but not socially responsible? What are examples of this?

I used the opportunity to quote from The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear by Dr. Petr Beckmann.

The paper requirements were fairly informal and we are encouraged to chose subjects that stimulate discussion so I wrote the following: (hopefully I didn't corrupt the intent of Dr. Beckmann's work)

Typically legally imposed responsibilities represent the minimum, socially acceptable standard. (In my opinion, laws are the social/cultural norms that have been legislated into law.) Always taking the minimum route, while possibly more profitable, does not translate into socially responsible.

One example that comes to mind is the activities of the press/media. Often, the media's quest for ratings and to "inform the people" ahead of one of their competitors, results in releasing information about a crime in such a way that the defendant cannot be assured a fair trial. This can lead to a couple of possibilities. The first being that the guilty party gets away. The other extreme, of course, is an innocent party gets convicted because of public pressure rather than evidence. Is it legal? Yes. Is it even close to being socially responsible? Absolutely not.

Now, what if a company/industry, in light of unquestionable scientific evidence, chose a technology for production of its product that was less subject to government regulations and had popular appeal with media? And this course of action ultimately reduced the stockholder's return on investment and took a much higher toll in human lives and damage to the environment? The actions of this industry brings with it an incredible social cost in terms of higher government expenditures. Would you say this company was socially irresponsible? Naturally, there is no question. Right?

Well this is exactly what ! happens every time a power generating company chooses not to use nuclear power. (Assuming they could start up a plant in this ridiculously over regulated industry.) I won't labor the issue but here are some undisputable facts listed in the 1985 book, The Health Hazards of NOT going Nuclear, by Dr. Petr Beckmann. It is important to note that Dr. Beckmann's thesis is not that nuclear power generation is safe. On the contrary, he simply points out that all methods of converting energy are inherently dangerous. Nuclear is simply the least dangerous, most efficient method of doing so. This is just one example of socially irresponsible management responding to criticisms of the biased and uninformed media.

First of all Dr. Beckmann dispels the myth of a nuclear explosion. The technology used to convert energy via nuclear fission is entirely different from that used to create nuclear bombs and an explosion is impossible.

However, an oil fired power plant with a of capacity 1000 MW capacity usually stores 6 weeks worth of fuel or roughly 2 Million barrels of oil. What happens if the fuel catches on fire? In December 1952 3,900 human lives were lost due to such an accident and the ensuing black cloud that engulfed London. 24 years later another similar accident happened in Brooklyn NY when a 90,000 barrel oil storage complex caught fire. The fire could not be brought under control and burned for 4 days. Had the weather not been favorable, thousands of lives would have been lost (Beckmann, pp.88-89.) Now, think about the fact that there is a place (undisclosed) on the east cost that stores 151 million gallons of oil literally on top of a town of 37,000 people (Beckmann p.92).

The potential energy of a 200,000 ton oil tanker is roughly equivalent to that of a two megaton hydrogen bomb. Naturally if one caught fire and exploded it would not release all the energy at once so you can sleep well knowing the resultant blast would probably not exceed that of a couple of nuclear bombs like the ones d! ropped on Hiroshima (Beckmann p. 93).

Another example. Liquid natural gas (LNG) is far more dangerous than oil. In Cleveland, in October 1944 a LNG tank exploded taking 133 lives. The quantity of LNG stored in highly populated areas is 20 times that of the tank that exploded in Cleveland. An empty tank exploded in February 73, but since it was empty, it only took 33 lives. Minor accidents with natural gas claim about 100 lives/year. Not hypothetical lives of a computer simulation but actual lives counted by coroners. (Beckmann, p. 93).

[ "Professor Richard Wilson of Harvard University has made an interesting comparison on the money spent to save human life from LNG tank explosions versus the money spent to save a human life from the radioactive emissions of nuclear power plants. [13] When in 1973, the maximum possible radiation dose at the property line of a nuclear power plant was reduced from 170 mrems/ year to 10 mrems/year, the effect was to reduce the incidence of cancer from 4 to 1 per year (out of a total of 300,000 cancers in the US). The cost of this step was $800,000,000 per saved life.

On the other hand, there are 75 LNG tanks located in US cities. The cost of moving these tanks out of the cities (calculated in the same way as the example above) would amount to only $1,000 per saved life; but this cost has not been paid and the LNG tanks remain in the cities.

Now who is it (and here we are no longer quoting Prof. Wilson) that decides to pay $800,000,000 for saving a human life from one danger, but refuses to pay $1,000 to save it from another?" [13]R. Wilson, paper given at Energy Conference, Center for Technology and Political Thought, Denver, Colo., June 1974. . . ] (Beckmann pp. 93-94,183)

I submit this is a powerful example of an industry or company staying well within the letter of the law and ! being completely, socially irresponsible.

Works Cited Beckmann, Petr. The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear. Rev. ed. Boulder, CO: The Golem P, 1985.

Rating:
Summary: An accurate analysis of all forms of power generation.
Review: In an objective, technically researched book, Dr. Beckman presents a great deal of thought=provoking material that should give us pause to reconsider many of media=promulgated myths of nuclear power generation. In addition, he provides many facts pertaining to so=called "conventional" methods of generating power that will surprise and disturb you. A "must" read for anyone who is the least bit concerned and curious about the subject. This is not a book you read from cover=to=cover==a few pages at a time, anywhere in the book, will always prove worthwhile!

Rating:
Summary: A tremendous scientific response to the anti-nuclear view.
Review: Petr Beckmann stands up and answers the anti-nuclear attacks. He is very scientific in his answers. This book was written in a way that those without nuclear scientific know-how could understand. Most enjoyable was the voice and attitude Petr Beckmann used. He was tired of the stupid reasons used against nuclear power, and he explains why these reason were stupid.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent and worthwhile analysis
Review: The book is an in-depth technical treatment of the subject, but it is very readable for the layman. Beckmann deals with the arguments against nuclear power in a clear and decisive fashion. There is an interesting analysis of the reasons for the controversy as well. The only major problem I have with this book is the fact that it is rather outdated at 20+ years old.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent and worthwhile analysis
Review: The book is an in-depth technical treatment of the subject, but it is very readable for the layman. Beckmann deals with the arguments against nuclear power in a clear and decisive fashion. There is an interesting analysis of the reasons for the controversy as well. The only major problem I have with this book is the fact that it is rather outdated at 20+ years old.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent - Well thought out and provocative.
Review: The media loves to bash Nuclear energy. They would have us believe is that nuclear energy is a giant bomb waiting to happen. What Dr. Bekman so clearly points out is that ALL large scale conversion of energy is inherently dangerous. The truth is that Nuclear Energy production is the least dangerous per unit of production. Read it, then decide for yourself.