Category Archives: Nuclear power

When will we become sane, to the nucleus?

The New York Times had a rare article today on the benefits of nuclear power. A readers comment:

Evolution equipped humans with a brain capable of almost unbelievable achievements, but it didn’t at the same time liberate the species from a penchant for delusions and irrational feelings. That gives us the nuclear dilemma.

Energy from burning carbonic fuels demands millions of lives every year, yet we are easily obsessed by on average a few deaths per year from nuclear power. Burning carbonic fuels bears an obvious risk of extinction for the entire human species within a century, yet we are easily obsessed by an imaginary risk of nuclear waste a hundred thousand years from now.

This is superstition on a breathtaking scale, putting into question if the human species is worthy of the marvelous brain it has been endowed with. And where are the enlightened and responsible forces to guide the deluded public? They are certainly not in media, who generally are among the worst in propping up fear of nuclear power (today’s article is a rare exception). And they are not among politicians, who mostly follow the easy way of succumbing to voter’s superstition, so far as they aren’t deluded themselves, which is the normal case.

What this article will come to show (and many of the comments illustrate) is that information will not suffice to dissolve the delusions. Intelligence and enlightened reason are handicapped when trying to influence the lizard brain that decides so much of our imaginations and actions.

Where will it end? We may have to ask the real lizards on how to survive.

Fake news as an old media speciality

“Fake news” is on every editor’s mind these days, and one could say that it’s about time, because there’s very much more to it than hits the eye today. It runs back in human history, probably till the very beginning, that people have lived in a world where myth, saga and intuitive senses of evidence have ruled, parallel to rationality and empirical facts. We are told that the Enlightenment marks the turning point at which reason and logic became the real hallmarks of human development. Would that it were.

We will probably never get rid of irrational spirituality, sometimes perhaps for benign reasons, but sometimes for unnecessarily stupid ones. Earnest media have double identities on this question, by both taking their enlightening task seriously but also nurturing specific myths and prejudice that has become “official truths”. Media have in any way a crucial role in forming the prevailing narrative.

There are innumerable examples, so let’s start with the toughest one: nuclear energy. We have just passed the 6th anniversary of one of the most tragic peacetime catastrophes that has ever hit Japan, the tsunami of 2011, which in most media now is renamed “The Fukushima disaster”. It’s indeed a remarkable disaster in which not a single individual has been injured, let alone killed. The real disaster – the tsunami itself – is repressed, and the almost 20,000 human beings that it killed seems forgotten.

The consequences of the Fukushima reactor breakdown, such as evacuations and decontaminations activities, were largely exaggerated due to public pressure, intensified by media and ordered by sensitive politicians. An important fact for perspective: there are areas on earth where people have lived for thousands of years with ten times higher radiation levels than those in the evacuated areas in Japan (look up “Ramsar”, for instance) and with no adverse health effects.

Already 25 years earlier the world had endured a similar event, Chernobyl, without media and others learning anything. More than a hundred of the world’s foremost experts on the subject made a deep and thorough study under UN auspices. Its findings contradict almost everything that had grown into the official narrative. They concluded that the damage on society, including the premature deaths among the public, was mainly a consequence of misguided actions by authorities, including unnecessary evacuations (reference: UNSCEAR 2000).

(One of the few Russians we like – Svetlana Alexievich – received the Nobel Prize in Literature, mainly for her reportage books. One of these covered the Chernobyl events and consisted of interviews with numerous people involved in the accident. A short review: it’s hard to find one single claimed fact in the book that is even close to true.)

Opposition to nuclear energy has become a journalistic faith, not surprisingly. It’s the perfect issue for keeping audiences alarmed at a convenient level, at the same time presenting a low probability that someone gets to call the cards. It’s likewise with other environmental issues suitable for alarmism. Organic products of all kinds are highest fashion here, as elsewhere in “enlightened” countries. And indeed, it sounds a natural thing.

About once a year my newspaper admits space for some scholars from our University of Agriculture to explain that organic farming has very little or nothing to do with environmental protection or health improvement (but the more to price increases). On some parameters, it may be slightly better than traditional farming, but on others it is clearly inferior. Among the former one finds the low level of pesticide residues, which on the other hand is an illusory victory. The pesticide risk we face is namely wildly exaggerated. The total amount of such chemicals we get through food in an entire year pose the same cancer risk as one single cup of coffee.

There’s more to this issue, but already too long, it’s time for an intermission…

Homo Sapiens – a species too clever for its own good, but too stupid to do anything about it

Two prominent scholars, one physicist and one biologist, were asked the compulsory question: do you think there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? The physicist said yes: given the unimaginable number of galaxies and solar systems, there must be organisms with cognitive capacities somewhere, from pure statistical reasons.

Faithful to his experience regarding the conditions of life the biologist was more reluctant to conventional wisdom on the matter. He assumed that life can be suspected to follow the laws of evolution everywhere it exists. And evolution doesn’t further higher organisms; the simple ones are the most sustainable. Looked at it that way humankind on earth may exist in a unique and extremely short period in astronomical terms, sufficiently unique that it not necessarily occurs elsewhere right now.

I apologize for this depressing opening, but I’m about to try a rough thesis:

Homo Sapiens is a species too clever for its own good, but too stupid to do anything about it.

We could begin with the most obvious risk of total extermination, nuclear weapons. Sharp human brains have figured out how to exploit the energy inherent in the bonds between elementary particles in the nucleus of atoms. Savvy technicians used this knowledge to construct a bomb with monstrously explosive power. Then these devices were handed over to politicians and generals, usually not famous for their intellectual brilliance.

Maybe the balance of terror and the threat of total destruction have hindered the Third World War (and the definitely final one) so far, but it has been a close call several times. And the attempts to diminish the risks haven’t been overly impressive.

On the contrary, the United States enhanced the danger unilaterally by abandoning the ABM treaty in 2001. Russia was then still a harmless wreck, posing no threat. And anti-ballistic missiles are offensive, first strike weapons, in that they block an enemy from retaliating to a nuclear attack. The stupid part of the human nature accepted this unprovoked increase in the risk of total extermination without much debate. Today the US has installed ABMs in Poland and Czech Republic, obviously aimed at Russia. We can’t do much more than keep our fingers crossed.

A less stochastic menace to human survival than nuclear weapons is climate change. We can now be sure that this threat can’t be eliminated, only somewhat mitigated if we put all our efforts into doing so. But do we?

Let’s look at my country, Sweden, considered to be progressive in a number of ways. If you ask an average Swede what s/he first of all does to save the environment the answer most probably is: “I separate my household waste into different fractions, which I deliver at specific waste stations”. Anyone who knows fundamentals about waste realizes that such efforts don’t save any environment, rather the opposite. It just saves the conscience of a misinformed population.

The next thing a house-owning Swede may do is to drill a couple of hundred meters into the ground to capture somewhat warmer water, install an expensive heat pump and thus reduce the amount of electricity needed for heating his house (what he probably not reflects upon is that earth’s heat mainly comes from nuclear reactions). His reduced electricity bill may please him, but considering what he has to pay for investment, maintenance and repair, the bottom line is not overwhelming. And the effect on global warming is thus insignificant.

These everyday environmentalists are usually friends of wind and solar power but opposed to nuclear power. The most enthusiastic among them buy “wind power” from their power company, install solar cell panels on their roofs and vote for the Green Party. The effects of their conviction is not just to promote symbolic actions, but in fact counter-productive for reducing global warming.

Take solar energy. Happy headlines announced that electricity output from solar cells in Sweden had doubled two years in a row. What the news didn’t reveal was that the total output now amounts to 0.04 percent of the country’s energy demand (that is: equals zero with an error margin). To spend large amounts on meaningless investments affects indirectly also the environment.

And then the dedicated and hoodwinked Swede goes out to buy a car which has some kind of “environment certificate”, satisfied that he has contributed to save the world.

The only energy source capable of really reducing carbon emissions on a global scale is nuclear energy. Countries like China, India and Russia take this seriously and install new nuclear facilities. Russia is an important producer of plants, and even developing countries show great interest in nuclear energy. Is this where the future is built, while pampered and deluded western ideologues are reading the map upside down?

What the climate issue – and thus human survival – really needs is for us to adopt an entirely new lifestyle, which most likely requires a completely different economic system. There will be no room for brainless consumerism generated by perverted profit-hunting. Instead we have to see genuine solidarity among entire populations.

In short: the intelligent side of our human nature has to take command over the emotional (stupid) side.

Chernobyl – today 30 years of pervasive myths

The children look so puzzled when they lay in their beds awaiting their deaths, says a doctor in Chernobyl Prayer, the heartbreaking book by Nobel Laureate Svetlana Alexievich in which she writes about an event that she considers the most important in the 20th century, of greater significance than all the wars and revolutions during the same period. She sees Chernobyl as the doorway to a new era in which not just knowledge but also “pre-knowledge” plays a part for humanity, clashing with its previous conceptions about itself and the world.

Chernobyl Prayer is a book about death and particularly one of the most frightening ways to pass: death from radiation. It becomes deeply moving when Alexievich listens to Ljudmila, the wife of one of the rescue workers that participated in the initial phase and received a lethal dose of radiation. “He is not a human being any more, he’s a reactor”, warns a doctor when she wants to hug her dying husband. Radiation from the walls in his hospital room had become so powerful that the scale on the dosimeter was insufficient. Many of the doctors and nurses got ill after some time, and died.

The book consists mainly of interviews with people who have experienced the catastrophe from different perspectives, and lets them speak freely, personally and deeply upsetting. Decease and death appears endlessly in the stories: Black spots on bodies, bald children, nervous afflictions, “atomic tan”… One man got blood cancer after two months, the same as a twelve-year-old boy whose father had worked in Chernobyl. “Over the roof of the wrecked reactor passed 3,600 soldiers… They were young boys… They too are dying now.”

Accompanying this chaos of death was total confusion and contempt for life shown by the Soviet authorities, as perceived by ordinary people. Workers and soldiers were sent on missions where radiation levels exceeded accepted limits, and no one seemed to know what actually happened and much less what really should be done. People had to cling to popular myths, such as one saying that alcohol is a protection against radiation, a prophylaxis widely applied.

Alexievich refers to independent Russian environmentalists saying that 1.5 million people have died following the Chernobyl accident. Cancer frequency in Belarus has increased 74-fold, they say. “Radiation is the leading factor behind population decline.”

All this is overwhelming. So much so, that after 400 heavy pages the reader suffers some fatigue. In other words, the author’s feat is impressive. However, there is one thing to add: most of her claims regarding the effects of radiation are indeed wrong, completely wrong!

In an interview with herself, the author says she has worked with her book for twenty years. Had she spent just a couple of hours of reading the most insightful and thorough study of the whole Chernobyl history ever conducted, she could perhaps have saved a few years of her work. Around 140 of the world’s most prominent experts from some 20 countries made this authoritative study, followed up frequently through the years with the initial results confirmed. (An Internet search for UNSCEAR 2000 provides readable abstracts.)

The expert’s core conclusions can be summarized in a few sentences. All of the 134 individuals who suffered acute radiation sickness were plant personnel or fire fighters who participated in the first 24 hours of rescue operations. 28 of them died within three weeks. Until 2008 an additional group of 34 had died, some of them from repercussions of radiation injuries. Of those who got acutely sick from radiation a majority is thus still alive.

An estimated 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer were discovered after extensive scanning of the affected populations. Though being a benign and operable form of cancer, it is not without problems. The emission of Iodin-131 from the reactor is considered to play a part, since this isotope (with a half-life of 8 hours) finds its way to the thyroid gland and stores there. Some objections have been raised against too simple conclusions. One is that cytological abnormalities that otherwise had not been detected, and possibly not had developed into cancer, were found due to the broad scanning. Another is that many of the cases appeared just shortly after the accident, while cancer usually takes many years to develop.

Apart from these cases, nobody has got cancer or died from radiation following the Chernobyl accident. In the words of the United Nation’s group of experts: “There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure”.

The children who was puzzled facing their radiation death never existed. The thousands of young boys on the reactor roof never died from radiation (or died at all),. A 74-fold increase in cancer frequency is a pure bluff. And so on. Alexievich’s book is a catalog of more or less absurd myths and fantasies in which she obviously agrees but possibly tries to avoid responsibility for by placing them in the mouths of others.

Such as the case with the “beaming” rescue worker: a human being exposed to external ionizing radiation does not become radioactive. Isotopes spread outside a wrecked reactor, such as Cesium-137, are bound to particles that easily can be brushed away. The limited amounts of Iodine-131 that stays in the body cannot possibly make anybody a “reactor” or induce radioactivity on hospital walls, much less kill the doctors and nurses. Alexievich offends her interviewee who in her innocent ignorance only conveys bizarre but predominant myths that the author has set out to pander.

The ignorance that Alexievich shares with so many is founded on an absurdly exaggerated conception of the dangers with ionizing radiation. People do not get sick, much less die, from the doses received after the Chernobyl accident. If that had been a fact, we would have experienced millions of such victims around the world, simply because natural radiation is of the same magnitude on numerous places on the globe.

If there had been rational reasons to evacuate the “Ghost city” of Pripyat permanently, parts of the west coast of Sweden should also be depopulated, simply because the radioactive doses received are the same in both places. The Swedish case is so far worse in that the radiation follows gases that penetrate buildings and people’s lungs.

Assumptions regarding long-term cancerous effects from radiation rest on a controversial, so-called linear hypotheses. In short, it means that there is no harmless dose, regardless of how small it is. This is an assumption that does not apply to any harmful substance that people can encounter. In addition, the hypothesis is probably impossible to prove when it comes to radiation.

There are in fact contradicting studies that show lower cancer frequencies among populations in areas with higher background radiation than average. An exceptional case is the city of Ramsar in Iran where people have lived since time immemorial and where radiation in some places exceeds tenfold the level, which usually requires evacuation after nuclear accidents. Nor in Ramsar is the cancer frequency higher than in other places.

And what about the Soviet confusion? Unlike what people in the countryside according to Alexievich seem to have experienced, the state bureaucracy appear to have functioned meticulously, judging from the detailed and comprehensive statistics the UN experts present.

Nevertheless, there was much suffering, increased illnesses and raising mortality in the affected region. Since radiation had nothing to do with it, the experts sought the real answers, which they found in the extreme physical and psychological hardships people had to endure due to the forced evacuations. Other UN bodies such as UNDP, UNICEF and IAEA have confirmed, in their own studies, the devastating consequences of the forced relocation.

Under the influence of media and interest groups spreading excessive fear of radiation, the Soviet decision makers felt the pressure to order evacuation of an area 5,000 times larger than the radiation hazard really would have required. Since this forced relocation was the main cause behind the suffering, Alexievich and her allied fear mongers bear a heavy responsibility for the human anguish she describes.

As if life was not hard enough for people in the region there followed just four years after the accident a devastating “capitalist revolution” in the already suffering countries. Economies collapsed and people were struck hard. In Russia, 10 million men died in the beginning of the 1990s as a direct consequence of the capitalist “reforms” that wiped out half the industrial capacity and swept away all social safety nets.

During the last half century carbon based energy has claimed 1,000 times more deaths than nuclear energy, in the “production phase” alone. Regarding harmful effects for the world population as a whole the ratio is certainly even more remarkable. To switch from carbon to nuclear energy thus saves innumerable lives, apart from reducing carbon dioxide emissions that undoubtedly is one of the greatest threats to human survival.

However, these truths are vain. Alexievich’s dream that we will face an era in which pre-knowledge eradicates knowledge seems partly fulfilled. Nuclear energy and radioactivity are areas where post-modernism has triumphed and where no factual descriptions can compete. The overreaching and wonderful myth has taken over, according to which also the completely ignorant are free to construct any arbitrary truths they wish.

5 years since Fukushima – and still nobody injured from radiation

Today five years have passed since one of the most horrendous catastrophes in human history shook the world. Warlike headlines and page after page of dystopian hysteria drowned most other news in media for days and weeks. I’m not referring to the tsunami in Japan 3/11/11 that killed almost 20 000 people and left 300 000 homeless. That part of events was overshadowed from the beginning, and soon forgotten entirely.

The catastrophe was of course the breakdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant by the same tsunami. To this day not a single individual has been injured from radiation, let alone killed. And despite continuing horror narratives about global pollution there will never be any deaths attributable to ionizing radiation from this accident. We are in other words dealing with an extremely unique example of an unbearable tragedy in which not a single person will be affected by the main evil: ionizing radiation.

That’s not to say that the harmful effects were nil. Thousands of people were debilitated in different ways by forced evacuation. They had to leave their homes and property and try to resume their lives in often primitive temporary shelters. After the similar accident in Chernobyl it was confirmed that the harm to many people were caused primarily by the forced relocations. And these harms included illnesses and premature deaths.

Like in Chernobyl the evacuations in Japan were based more on political and medial exaggerations than on knowledge in radiation biology and toxicology. (Swedish public radio did broadcast almost continuously on Fukushima for days after the accident. They seemed to find every nuclear power antagonist and self-proclaimed expert alive, and fill their schedule with endless repetitions of the same scaremongering. A few times a day they let through some scholar educated in science and with expertise on the subject, who considerably moderated the fear with some real knowledge. Often enough those interviews were ended in their most interesting phase with the usual “time’s up”.)

This five-year commemoration has passed surprisingly quiet in our media. Our main paper (Dagens Nyheter) had a couple of mentions the past week, one of which dealt with resettlement of villages now opened again, a process so far slow, in part because original inhabitants have become rooted elsewhere.

Perhaps this relative calm in media to some extent depends on appreciated clearing of minds. Hopefully even journalists at last have comprehended the fact that not a single person has been injured by radiation, proving that nuclear energy has some great advantages, also when it comes to safety. But that’s probably to have too high a regard for these Knights of Truth.