Atomic Insights

Time 2020-06-17 17:03:49

Web Name: Atomic Insights

WebSite: http://atomicinsights.com

ID:3180

Keywords:

Atomic,Insights,

Description:

Atomic Show #277 Simon Wakter, pro-nuclear engineer in an ambivalent countrySimon Wakter is a strongly pro-nuclear engineer in a country that passed a referendum officially phasing out nuclear energy since several years before he was [Read More...] about Atomic Show #277 Simon Wakter, pro-nuclear engineer in an ambivalent countryOne vignette in radiation fear campaignJune 5, 2020 By Rod Adams 11 Comments Abject fear of radiation, even at low doses, is a root cause of the cost and schedule difficulties associated with atomic energy development and deployment.At Atomic Insights, we believe that most of the fear of low dose radiation is not only unwarranted, but it is also purposely created, taught and carefully reinforced by people. Every person that participates in the campaign has their own unique combination of motives and techniques, but some of the major factors are a desire to prevent use of nuclear weapons, a desire to eliminate nuclear weapons completely, a desire to discourage nuclear energy development for competitive reasons, and a desire to discourage use of moderate doses of radiation as a treatment or a cure for various health conditions. The radiation fear campaign has been going on in earnest since June 13, 1969. That was the date when the New York Times ran a front page headline stating that SCIENTISTS TERM RADIATION A PERIL TO THE FUTURE OF MAN. Throughout the decades since that first proclamation was issued, there have been additional claims and stories with fear creation and maintenance as either a sole or ancillary purpose.On October 12, 1969, the New York Times published an article written by Kathleen Teltsch under the following headline: RADIATION LINKED TO RETARDATION: U.N. Report Warns of Even Low Doses in Pregnancy. That is a headline that can capture attention and a subtitle that stokes fear, especially among young women who are planning to have children. It will cause fear, anxiety and guilt among young mothers that have, for one reason or another, been exposed to radiation while pregnant with children that are still growing.It is an unfortunately truth about newspaper readers that some finite portion of the audience only reads or remembers headlines and subtitles.Though this article did not make it to the influential front page, the editors carefully chose a placement that was almost as impactful. It was a full, single column article running from top to bottom of the left-most column on a page that was otherwise filled with an attractive ad for the Gimble s 127th Annual Columbus Day Sale. October 12, 1969 was a Sunday, so the sale was happening the next day. It seems likely that the article and its placement would draw people in the exact demographic that might be most interested in – and frightened by – finding out that radiation harms children in the womb. I m not a newspaper skimmer lazily flipping through sale ads on a Sunday morning of a three day weekend in the late 1960s, so I carefully read the rest of the article. I wanted to learn more about what the New York Times and the United Nations wanted to tell people about radiation health effects in the fall of 1969.The scientists that wrote the report issued in October 1969 were members of the standing committee that the United Nations had created in 1955 to study effects of atomic radiation. The primary source for their reports was data gathered by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, which studied effects of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Though the article subtitle gives the impression that even low doses were found to be harmful, the article states that the specialists who wrote the report found that evidence of harm at low doses was extremely tenuous but harm could not be excluded. By their definition, any dose less than 50 roentgens was considered to be low. The article reminds readers that a typical diagnostic X-ray would give a dose of 1 R or less, but also tells them that doses have been gradually lowered through technological improvements. Some readers who might have had X-rays while pregnant in the past are left wondering if they might have received higher doses.The article did not mention that 50 R was 10 times the maximum allowed annual dose for trained radiation workers at a nuclear power plant. It substantially exceeded the amount of radiation that any member of the public might expect to receive, even if accumulated over a lifetime living at the fence line of a power plant.The report was based on studying development of 1,613 children whose mothers were pregnant at the time of the atomic bombings. Researchers binned the victims based on the calculated doses the mothers received from the explosion and its aftermath. It s worth noting that virtually all of the radiation received was instantaneous. Those who received higher doses were highly likely to have been subjected to additional bomb effects including blast and heat.Though there was a strong correlation between mental retardation and radiation doses above 200 R, the correlation was much lower at doses between 50 and 99 R. Below 50 R, the incidence of retardation was less than 1%.There is no evidence presented indicating that the incidence of retardation among children exposed to less than 50 R is any different from the level that might be found any any randomly selected population.Though the article provides accurate information that should be reassuring to anyone with critical reading skills, it was headlined, placed and structured in a way that creates fear and uncertainty. In the emotionally charged topic of child development and the responsibility of mothers to provide protection, it provides reason to fear radiation – even at low doses – when there is no evidence indicating that fear is the correct response.Of course, the editors at the New York Times didn t create the report, and Ms. Teltsch probably didn t write the headline, but both helped make this an effective component of the long-running campaign. The article concludes with some hints about why the report was issued and why the Times chose to cover it in a way that would capture attention and perhaps stimulate action.Even though the US, the UK and the Soviet Union had agreed to stop testing nuclear weapons in the open atmosphere by 1963, both France and Communist China were still engaged in atmospheric testing programs that still released uncontrolled fallout. Underground testing was still seen to be somewhat risky because test sites still leaked.Not stated in this article – but known to contemporary readers – is the fact that there were dozens of nuclear power plants under construction in the United States. Though begun during a period of optimism about atomic energy and its potential for benefiting electricity customers, there was a growing level of concern about health effects of radiation from routine operation of those plants. People concerned about those effects were making their concerns known through active efforts to slow nuclear plant construction and add increasing layers of protection.History students can also find numerous indications that the coal, oil, gas, freight and banking industries had always been worried about losing sales to nuclear power. It s not difficult to understand that they would be happy to buy ads in newspapers that published stories that might slow their atomic competitor.Filed Under: Health Effects, Radiation Atomic Show #277 Simon Wakter, pro-nuclear engineer in an ambivalent countryMay 30, 2020 By Rod Adams 1 Comment Simon Wakter is a strongly pro-nuclear engineer in a country that passed a referendum officially phasing out nuclear energy since several years before he was born. He has to round up to be called a thirty-something.Simon works in the nuclear energy branch of AFRY, a well-established 17,000 employee, all-of-the-above. engineering company that recently adopted a new brand name.During this show we talked about his research and professional work investigating new markets for smaller nuclear power systems, his interest in risk management and analysis, his participation as an active member of the young generations group of the European Nuclear Society, and his work as the editor of a newsletter that covers nuclear energy from a Nordic perspective.We talked about the complicated political history of nuclear energy developments in Sweden, delved into the sources of antinuclear activities, and chatted about recent improvements in nuclear energy acceptability as a powerful tool to address climate change and energy poverty.Simon is young man who appreciates the importance of abundant clean energy in helping humans to develop their full potential. He is enthusiastic about technological advances that are revisiting some aging and possibly obsolete assumptions about the limitations of nuclear energy s contributions.Please provide your comments and suggestions.Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 50:23 57.8MB)Subscribe: Android | Google Podcasts | RSSFiled Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Atomic history, Atomic politics, Podcast, Small Nuclear Power Plants, Smaller reactors Review: Juice: How Electricity Explains the WorldMay 25, 2020 By Rod Adams 3 Comments It s clear that Robert Bryce and Tyson Culver like living on a planet populated by humans. They have produced a movie that celebrates electricity as the key enabler of the modern world that we have created. Their film challenges us to keep on building and improving our technology until everyone has abundant, reliable access to [ ]Filed Under: Clean Energy, Documentary review How did leaders of the Hydrocarbon Establishment build the foundation for radiation fears?May 21, 2020 By Rod Adams 13 Comments On December 8, 1953 President Eisenhower announced to the UN that the US knew how to harness atomic energy to produce useful power. He stated that the US was willing to widely share that knowledge. He described an especially intriguing possibility of using atomic energy to bring power to the power-starved areas of the world. [ ]Filed Under: H. J. Muller, Health Effects, Radiation, Smoking Gun Atomic Show #276 – HolosGen Claudio Filippone and Chip MartinMay 19, 2020 By Rod Adams 15 Comments HolosGen has attacked the nuclear power plant cost and schedule challenge from the opposite direction chosen by many nuclear reactor developers. Claiming to be agnostic about the reactor specifics – as long as it produces reliable heat in a small-enough configuration – HolosGen founder Claudio Filippone decided to focus on radical improvements to the balance [ ]Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Atomic Entrepreneurs, Gas Cooled Reactors, Podcast, Small Nuclear Power Plants, Smaller reactors Atomic Show #275 Managing advanced nuclear development during pandemicMay 12, 2020 By Rod Adams 10 Comments Managing any business is hard work, especially during a global pandemic with stay-at-home orders in place. It requires creativity and flexibility along with some amount of prior preparation. On May 11, 2020, I gathered a group of representatives from several start-up companies that are developing advanced nuclear technologies to talk about how they are making [ ]Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Atomic Entrepreneurs, Business of atomic energy, Podcast Atomic Show #274 Thomas Jam Pedersen, Copenhagen AtomicsApril 30, 2020 By Rod Adams 1 Comment Copenhagen isn t the first city name that comes to mind as the place to start a nuclear company. Denmark has decommissioned its last research reactor and has never had a nuclear power plant. That hasn t deterred Thomas Jam Pedersen and his colleagues at Copenhagen Atomics. Starting a decade or more ago, they began learning about [ ]Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, International nuclear, Podcast Nuclear energy makes a cameo appearance in Jeff Gibbs s Planet of the HumansApril 24, 2020 By Rod Adams 38 Comments Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs teamed up to produce a piercing, controversial, gut punching documentary titled Planet of the Humans. Partly as a result of the global closure of theaters, and partly as a result of wanting to make an impact on the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day, they released their film for free on [ ]Filed Under: Alternative energy, Biomass, Clean Energy, Climate change, Solar energy, Wind energy Atomic Show #273 Liz Muller, Deep IsolationApril 23, 2020 By Rod Adams 5 Comments Liz Muller is a co-founder and the CEO of Deep Isolation, a company that makes the modest claim of having invented a solution to nuclear waste. The politically unsolved waste issue has plagued nuclear energy development since the mid 1970s. That was when it became abundantly clear that the original plan to recycle used fuel [ ]Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Innovation, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear Waste, Podcast Atomic Show #272 Karnfull EnergiApril 18, 2020 By Rod Adams 4 Comments Karnfull Energi is a young company that is successfully proving that nuclear energy is more popular than politicians believe. They have created the world s first 100% nuclear energy offering. Customers have responded with their wallets, showing they are willing to pay a modest premium for higher quality electricity. People are shopping at Karfull s online store. [ ]Filed Under: Business of atomic energy, Podcast Atomic Show #271 Improving Nuclear Cost and Schedule PerformanceApril 15, 2020 By Rod Adams 4 Comments One of the most persistent arguments against the rapid deployment of nuclear energy is that projects are too expensive and take too long to complete. Based on the performance of the few nuclear plants that have begun construction in the West during this century, it s hard to disagree. But there is solid evidence from projects [ ]Filed Under: Business of atomic energy, Economics, Podcast X-300 Blazing a Different Kind of Trail in Smaller Nuclear Reactor DevelopmentApril 1, 2020 By Rod Adams 18 Comments GEH spent about half a billion dollars designing, testing and certifying the ESBWR. Despite that investment, the 1,520 MWe Enhanced, Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) design documents are just gathering dust with no active projects in sight. GEH is a joint venture between US-based GE, a $95 billion annual revenue conglomerate and Hitachi, a Japanese [ ]Filed Under: Boiling Water, Smaller reactors Go to page 1Go to page 2Go to page 3Interim pages omitted Go to page 295Go to Next Page Primary SidebarSearch Atomic InsightsTweets by @AtomicrodThe Atomic Show Follow Atomic InsightsRod Adams Nuclear energy expert with broad small nuclear plant operating, maintaining, training, financing, marketing and design experience. Former submarine Engineer Officer. Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast.

TAGS:Atomic Insights 

<<< Thank you for your visit >>>

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

Hot Websites