Wikipedia is composed of donations of bits and pieces of material from a lot of
people. It can certainly be helpful. However, it isn't necessarily a font of
expert information. If I have time today, I'll see if Harvey Wasserman is the
person whose articles on Fukushima I remember. You might look that up if you
have time. I know that you're a lot more skillful than I am, on the computer.
Look on the Democracy Now for the stories that were done on the disaster at the
time and afterward. There are texts of the programs and links to related
articles. If I were able, and if my computer wasn't having issues, I'd do it
and post it.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 10:15 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
Indeed, perhaps I should read the book.
But even if it did turn out to be the case, that is, even if it did permit me
to connect in a more emotional manner with what an accident in a nuclear plant
might actually be like, I would hope that it would not impair my ability to
rationally evaluate evidence, such as the one confirmed cancer death from
radiation at Fukushima, as the Wikipedia article states.
Emotions are extremely important. But they cannot be the only method for
judging evidence, evaluating choices and making decisions in life.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 10:02 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
Perhaps you might read the book in order to connect in a more emotional manner
with what an accident in a nuclear plant might be like. I realize that most of
the positions that I take on political, economic, and social issues, have their
basis in my feelings about the people who are involved.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 9:57 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
Yes, I seem to somehow remember that you like Chris Bohjalian.
Thanks for the review.
As you probably know, I am subscribed to the DB Review list, so I might have
actually read your review, although I can't recall it at the moment.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 9:50 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
Evan,
As I read your response to Carl, I remembered a novel that I read a few years
ago which is relevant to this conversation. Here's the review I wrote for the
DB Review lis.tAs Close your eyes, hold hands: a novel DB78965 Bohjalian,
Chris. Reading
time: 8 hours, 17 minutes.
Read by Grace Blewer.
General
Living in an igloo of ice and trash bags half a year after a cataclysmic
nuclear disaster, Emily is convinced that she will be hated as the daughter of
the drunken father who caused the meltdown. She assumes a fictional identity
while protecting a homeless boy. Unrated. Commercial audiobook.
2014.
I was a bit doubtful when I read the description of this book, but the fact
that the author is Chris Bohjalianc convinced me to download it and I'm glad
that I did. His books never disappoint me. They're always about different
situations although I think I remember one book which also involved a rainstorm
which caused a river to flood a Vermont town, causing a family tragedy. The
title, we learn from Emily, is a quote from a teacher who led the small
children out of the school at Sandy Hook after the shootings that took place.
The teacher didn't want the children to see their dead friends and teachers so
she told them to close their eyes and holds hands, and she led them out of the
building.
In this case, many days of unusually hard rain causes something to go wrong in
a nuclear plant and a meltdown occurs, similar to what occurred in Fukashima a
few years ago. That part of the story is interesting, in and of itself because
we have many nuclear plants built on precisely the same plan, that that
Japanese plan was built, throughout the US, although I do believe that Vermont
has recently closed down the nuclear plant that actually existed there. So
unusual weather conditions could, very well, cause a similar situation in many
areas of the US. But Bohjalian has played down, in this book, the danger to
people who don't live close to the site of the nuclear accident in order to
focus on Emily's story.
But the story of Emily's own personal meltdown is the one that dominates the
book. Her father was the main engineer at the plant and her mother was
responsible for public relations. Sixxteen year old Emily realizes that
probably both her parents are dead and simultaneously, she discovers that
people are blaming her father for the tragedy that has suddenly befallen so
many families. The book is Emily's story of what happened to her from the
morning of the nuclear accident until the present. It is written just as if a
sixteen year old were telling it and the narrator is very young so that you are
emotionally swept up into the story and youwatch helplessly as Emily, immature,
distraught, incredibly intelligent and perceptive, attempts to find acceptable
solutions for the huge problems that engulf her. Emily has sustained unbearable
losses, her parents, her home, the dog she loved, her childhood, everything
that has made her who she is. And in that sense, we can probably all identify
with her because all of us at one time or another in our lives, have lost
someone or something very precious to us.
There's an interview with the author at the end of this commercial production
in which we learn that the narrator of the book is actually is teenaged
daughter. It's a very touching interview. The book is, I think, for just about
everyone, except if you're incredibly uncomfortable reading about some of the
seamier sides of life.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 9:04 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
Unfortunately, we have a more urgent problem. That is climate change. Until we
can go entirely renewable, we need nuclear. I think we should be able to phase
it out, maybe even in the not too distant future, but renewable cannot
completely replace fossil fuels anytime soon.
I do not regard nuclear fission as anything more than a transition power
source. I don't think it will be necessary to use it indefinitely. Being safer
than fossil fuels, and contributing no carbon to the atmosphere makes it a part
of the mix of energy sources we need to use until we can go completely
renewable.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 6:30 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
My major concern regarding returning to nuclear energy has to do with the
disposal of the waste. As I write this, the sludge from the huge storage tanks
deep underground at Hanford, Washington, are eating through the tanks and
oozing toward the Columbia River. The federal government has stalled in
efforts to "clean up" the leakage to the point of the State of Washington
having to sue their own federal government to force them to do their job of
protecting American citizens. The never ending problems stemming from the
2011 Fukushima accident should be enough of an alarm that until we have the
know how to do the cleanup, we should put the lid back on that Aladdin's Lamp.
Carl Jarvis
On 11/9/18, Evan Reese <mentat1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Never heard of Don Moore.
Hmmm, a list where blind right wing people hang out. Too bad this list
cannot be combined with that one. Might create some stimulating
discussion.
There are always risks in life. The risks of nuclear accidents, as the
evidence shows, are greatly overstated. As Fukushima shows, one
confirmed death by radiation cancer, a heck of a lot of deaths, from
the PANIC about the radiation. Chernobyl was not as bad as was made
out either. That does not preclude future accidents of course. The
point is to do one’s best to prevent them or mitigate their
consequences. The nuclear record over the past several decades is
pretty good on that score.
Every rational person knows about the possibility of accidents. And
there’s an issue of waste from making solar panels. We have to store
nuclear waste sensibly. But we do not have to figure out how to store
it sensibly for all eternity. If future generations do not know more
about how to deal with it, then they will likely either not be hear,
or will have bigger problems than nuclear waste to worry about.
There’s also the issue of the large amounts of land that need to be
given over to wind and solar farms. Environmentalists should be
talking about that as well.
I think perhaps the ultimate solution would be to send solar panels
into orbit and then beam down the energy. More efficient collection of
solar energy above the atmosphere, and much less land use down on the
surface.
Don’t hear much talk about that lately though.
And then there’s nuclear fusion, which even Michio Kaku is a fan of,
but that keeps receding into the future.
Evan
Evan
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 4:36 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
There are people who are way right wing today, who used to be way left
wing in 1970. I’m not sure how that relates to the issue of the very
real danger of accidents occurring in nuclear plants or the problem of
disposing of nuclear waste. Do you know who Don Moore is? He now runs
a very right wing email list where blind right wing folks hang out. He
worked for Senator McGovern’s Presidential campaign back in the 70’s.
McGovern was left of center and the party was so upset about his
candidacy that they instituted the system of super delegates.
Miriam
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 3:39 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
In fact, he used to be an antinuclear activist. he changed his mind
based on the evidence.
If you had read the first article I sent by him, you would have known
that.
Besides, what would you consider an objective source? Have you changed
your mind about anything recently based on an objective source
presenting you with evidence that caused you to reconsider a
longstanding view and modify it? If so, I haven’t seen it. I can’t
help but entertain the notion that it is quite possible that you would
define an “objective source” as one that agrees with what you already
believe. I hope I am wrong about that.
Evan
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 3:07 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
Thank you for the article sent to you by a Nuclear energy advocate
who writes for a business oriented publication. Sounds like a truly
objective source!
Miriam
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 1:08 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
Hey Guys, thought I’d pass this along.
Not only is public support for nuclear power growing, but the Union of
Concerned Scientists is changing its tune as well.
Evan
From: Michael Shellenberger
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2018 11:50 AM
To: Evan Reese
Subject: Top Climate Scientists Warn Governments Of "Blatant
Anti-Nuclear Bias" In Latest IPCC Climate Report
Dear Evan,
Below is my latest column for Forbes on the rising pro-nuclear tide —
please share!
Michael
As Renewables Drive Up Energy Prices, Voters In U.S., Asia & Europe
Are Opting For Nuclear Power
Voters in the U.S., Asia, and Europe are increasingly opting for
nuclear power in
response to rising electricity prices from the deployment of
renewables like solar
panels and wind turbines.
By a more than
two-to-one margin
(70% to 30%), voters in Arizona on Tuesday rejected a ballot
initiative (proposition
127) that would have resulted in the
closure of that state’s nuclear power plant
and in the massive deployment of solar and wind.
In Taiwan, momentum is building for a repeal of that nation’s nuclear
energy phase-out.
Grassroots pro-nuclear advocacy inspired a former president to
help activists gather over 300,000 signatures
so voters could vote directly on the issue on November 24.
And after
a coalition of grassroots groups rallied in Munich, Germany
last month to protest the closure of nuclear plants, a wave of mostly
positive media
coverage spread across Europe, inspiring
a majority of Netherlands voters
, and the nation’s ruling political party, to declare support for
building new nuclear
reactors.
Now, in the wake of rising public support for nuclear energy, a
longstanding foe
of nuclear power, the U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists, has
reversed its blanket opposition
to the technology and declared that existing U.S. nuclear plants must
stay open
to protect the climate.
These events have surprised mainstream journalists, politicians, and
energy analysts
who, over the last three years, have dismissed and derided the world’s
454 operating
nuclear reactors as antiquated given the declining cost of solar
panels and wind
turbines.
But the declining price of solar panels and wind turbines has not made
the technologies
more reliable, and the inherent unreliability of sunlight and wind —
along with their
huge material and land use requirements — have helped
drive up electricity prices
in places like California and Germany,
even at a time of lower natural gas prices
.
Notably, growing voter support for nuclear energy comes both from
progressives who
tend to be more concerned about climate change and from conservatives
who tend to
be more concerned about the cost of electricity.
In Netherlands, grassroots advocacy for nuclear energy, and favorable
coverage by
the mainstream media — including long segments (
in English
) by two of the nation’s most
influential TV journalists
— has shone a light on the inadequacy of solar and wind to address
climate change.
In Arizona, the campaign against proposition 127 focused heavily on
avoiding the
mistakes made by California, where
electricity rates rose five times faster than the rest of the country
thanks in large measure to the closure of nuclear plants and the rapid
deployment
of solar panels.
“Proposition 127 is a recycled version of California’s failed energy
initiatives
being exported to Arizona courtesy of Tom Steyer, California energy
hedge fund billionaire,”
wrote
an Arizona state Senator.
Steyer, who
made his money
building coal plants in Asia, and has heavily invested in natural gas
and renewables,
spent a record $18 million
of his own money in the doomed effort to pass 127.
In Taiwan, it appears that it is the combination of environmental,
economic, and
energy security concerns that has moved voters to overcome their fears
of nuclear
in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima accident and panic.
Taiwan imports 98% of its energy and, due to the nation’s nuclear
energy phase out,
suffered a devastating electricity shortage last year that
resulted in one death
,
threatened
the nation’s semiconductor industry, and contributed to the declining
approval of
the nation’s president.
Economics and environment are two sides of the same coin. Had
California and Germany
invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of
renewables like solar
and wind farms,
the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity
from clean
(low-emissions) energy sources.
These aren’t the first pro-nuclear victories in recent years. In 2016,
state governments
in
Illinois
and
New York
acted to prevent nuclear plants from closing. In 2017, a
South Korean
“citizens jury” went from 60% opposed to 60% in favor of nuclear. That
victory was
quickly followed actions in
Connecticut
and
New Jersey
to save their nuclear plants.
Increasingly pro-nuclear advocacy is grassroots. In places like South
Korea, Taiwan,
and Europe, where the electric utilities that own nuclear plants are
often government-owned,
and thus unable to engage in politics, it has been up to independent
environmental
groups — and
outspoken climate scientists
— to advocate for nuclear power.
The impacts of their work has stunned and thrilled pro-nuclear activists.
“We Dutch
have been anti-nuclear since the 1970s,” said Olguita Oudendijk,
co-founder of Ecomodernism
Netherlands. “What turned us around is the high cost of renewables,
the
Nuclear Pride Fest
, and serious media attention to the issue turned the public around.”
A poll of 18,000 Dutch voters released yesterday found that
54% favored the use of nuclear energy
while just 35% opposed it. “Achieving climate goals weighs heavier
than their objections
to nuclear energy for voters,” the pollster said.
In Taiwan — where pro-nuclear activists went on hunger strike, and to
court — to
overturn the government’s attempt to keep the referendum off the
ballot, a former
president
said
, "Opposing nuclear energy is now outdated. What has become a trend is
how to reduce
emissions of carbon dioxide to tackle global warming."
In most places, activists have focused heavily on
debunking the many myths
about nuclear power promoted by organizations like Greenpeace,
including the notion
that cheaper solar panels and wind turbines will translate into lower
electricity
prices when
the opposite is usually the case
.
The inadequacy of solar panels and wind turbines was highlighted by
Arjan Lubach
— the John Oliver of Dutch TV — last Sunday, who in a 20-minute
segment educated
viewers on nuclear power’s necessity and safety while making sly,
sexual puns. (The
segment
was translated into English.)
A telling moment in the segment came when Lubach cut to a Greenpeace
spokesperson
who acknowledged that with nuclear energy “There are no carbon
emissions, that’s
true, so it doesn’t contribute to global warming, but there are other
disadvantages.”
“Whoa whoa, wait a minute,” Lubach interrupted. “It doesn’t contribute
to global
warming but there are
‘other’
disadvantages? You can’t state a huge advantage and then say, “It
becomes even worse.”
Asked about the difference in attitudes between the Dutch and the
nation’s famously
romantic, antinuclear German neighbors, Dutch ecomodernist Oudendijk
said, “We Dutch
are basically very rational people. We just want to solve the problem.”
Said TV comedian Lubach to an on-air correspondent, “I say we take
nuclear energy
out of the taboo-sphere.” The correspondent in the "taboo-sphere" is
dressed in protective
gear to protect himself, he explains, not from nuclear but rather from
STDs.
Michael Shellenberger, President, Environmental Progress. Time
Magazine "Hero of the Environment."
