A collection of nuclear facts and opinions that are interesting, informative and
just plain handy for keeping things in perspective.
Facts
and Figures. Brought to you by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency).
A world view.
Myths and
Realities. Brought to you by the CNA (Canadian Nuclear Association). No
grand-standing, posturing and empty bluster here - just the plain facts -
and all of them supportable.
Who speaks
for the poor? - perhaps the single best article on where nuclear energy
fits in to the global context. Required reading. Just in case the link should
disappear in the future, here is a pdf version of the
article.
"Resolving the controversy over beneficial effects of ionizing radiation",
overheads (pdf 44 kb) and text
(pdf 33 kb) by Dr. Jerry M Cuttler, PEng, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited,
presented at the conference on the Effects of Low and Very Low Doses of Ionizing
Radiation on Health World Council of Nuclear Workers (WONUC), Versailles,
France, 1999 June 16-18.
The
LNT Hypothesis: Ethical Travesties, an article by Margaret N. Maxey, Ph.D.,
Professor, Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, The University
of Texas at Austin, Wingspread Conference, Racine, WI, August 1997. - Slowly
but inexorably, radiation scientists are recognizing that the LNT hypothesis
-- at one time administratively useful in regulating radiation exposures during
the infancy of radiation science -- has in its maturity become scientifically
illegitimate and ethically indefensible.
Colour Nuclear Power Green, an article by
OECD secretary-general, Donald Johnston, Globe and Mail, Thursday,
November 16, 2000.
The
Hunger Site - Every 3.6 seconds someone dies of hunger, 75% of them are
children. Now, what was your problem again?
The
Prisoner's Dilemma - This is a site that includes an interactive game
inspired by Prisoner's Dilemma game theory as described in the book The
Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Discover the difference between enlightened
self-interest and selfishness. Such musings on the fundamental nature of humans
are important to the nuclear world.
U.S. tragedy shows peril of bad globalization
by David Crane, columnist, The Toronto Star, 2001.09.12 - "A small
band of terrorists struck with deadly precision at the most visible symbols
of American capitalism and American military power. This was a different kind
of globalization, but a powerful warning that the tensions between the spread
of western civilization and other societies and civilizations could be a source
of growing conflict in the years ahead. ..." Indeed, how can we truely
win when others are losing?
World's
poor can change their own lot by Jim Travers, columnist, The Toronto Star,
2002.04.20 - "Mixing classical economic theory with painstaking, primary
research into the complex, hidden structures that control informal economies,
de Soto reaches the startling conclusion that the poor are not poor. Their
problem, unlike those in industrialized nations, is that they can't access
the capital needed to turn what little they have into more. ... Stripped of
numerology, that delivers an unambiguous, mostly unwelcome message to those
who think of themselves as in control. [Egyptian President] Mubarak, a quasi-democrat
trying to hold together an ancient, proud and —— that word again
—— poor country, has remarkably few economic levers. The informal
sector is bigger than the formal, illegal buildings outnumber legal and, most
important, ordinary people are living by their own rules." Just in
case the link should disappear in the future, here is a pdf
version (18kb) of the article.
Searching for a Sustainable Energy Future by Dr. Patrick Moore (bio, pdf 84kb), co-founder of Greenpeace, Canadian Nuclear Association Winter Seninar, Ottawa, Ontario, February 23, 2006. Just in
case the link should disappear in the future, here is his presentation (pdf 6.6Mb) and his talk (mp3 11.8Mb). View the presentation while listening to his talk. This is dynamite stuff.
Climate Change -
Water we worried about? (pdf 221kb) by David Brian Barber,
dbinid[at]msn.com. No Models.
No Predictions.
Just a simple collection of data facts and
the one thermodynamic implication that
should be understood by all.
Dave Barber has degrees in Physics, Radioecology and Chemical Engineering, is wholly devoted to advancing nuclear energy and, as of December 2005, is a staff member at the Idaho National Laboratory. Think global warming is a sure thing? Don't be so sure.
Supplementary information: It is instructive to superimpose the solar energy spectrum on the graph on page 4 in the pdf file above. About 50% of solar energy is in the visible range and there is little absorption by water in that range (I guess we evolved sight in that range for that reason). The bulk of the remaining 50% is in the infared, and about 1% in the UV. This reinforces the notion that water vapour is the biggest single player even if you can't see it. It is an interesting aside that we animals are well equipped to detect 99% of the solar emissions - we can see half and feel the heat of the other half. Since we need energy to survive, that is not surprising, I suppose.
Personal commentary (Bill Garland) on global warming - I got into nuclear as an outgrowth of high school discussions on the impact that humans have on the earth - that was back in the late 60's when the Club of Rome stuff was all the rage. I feel that people need to be empowered if they are to tread lightly. And you cannot be empowered if you don't have power / energy. There are many more important issues than greenhouse gases. The Koyoto frency, while well meaning, is misdirected. Like radiation, emissions need to be put into context so that considered judgements can be made and meaningful actions can be taken. For instance, our chronic carbon based emissions should be placed on a chart next to natural emissions (including volcanic eruptions, biota decay, ...), and human-made accidental ones (Hemel Hempstead oil depot fires in England in December 2005, for instance). We need to balance the footprint of our industrial progress against the likely footprint that will occur if developing countries are NOT assisted in moving quickly to a state where they are no longer denuding the planet. Farming, for instance, is by no means a benign activity. And so on. My concern is the opportunity cost of the misdirected attention. There is a direct cost in time, effort and resources but there is a deeper indirect cost of an increased mistrust of the scientific world when the penny finally drops that the scientific community sold its integrity to the political process.
So tell me again how human activity is causing global warming? If that were true, how come we see these temperature trends over the ages?
