|
|
Why We Fear Nuclear Power
Ike Morgan
RightBias.com
July 23, 2008
|
Our once never ending supply of cheap abundant fuel supplies are no longer. Skyrocketing
oil prices, Middle East tensions, natural disasters, environmental issues, and a
surging worldwide demand for fossil fuels has put the topic of nuclear power back
into America’s energy equation.
The time may finally have come when we can start looking at nuclear power as a viable,
dependable, cheap, and extremely safe source of energy for the future. Before that
happens though, we are going to have to grapple with the one thing that has unnecessarily
crippled America when it comes to nuclear power… our radiophobia.
Radiophobia is simply the irrational fear of any type of ionizing radiation. Nuclear
power, the product of ionizing radiation is seen by most Americans as dangerous
and wrought with insidious side effects. Mere mention of radiation or radioactivity
conjures up images of sinister, uncontrollable forces that cause disease, deformities,
and death.
Our apocalyptic view of anything nuclear is no passing fit of hysteria. Quite the
contrary, for the past 60 years it has been a hard-wired part of the American psyche.
So where did our radiophobia come from, and how have we allowed it to be one of
the guiding principles in our decisions about nuclear power? The answers lay in
2 distinct areas: one is psychology, the other is bad science.
We automatically equate nuclear power with danger because for the past 60 years
we have been bombarded with gross exaggerations of the true nature of nuclear power.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, hundreds of science fiction movies, images of deformed
and mutated animals, and a media driven by sensationalism have successfully convinced
generation after generation that nuclear power is not only to be feared, but avoided
at all costs. Add in Cold War psychology and the environmental movements’ doomsday
scenarios and it’s no wonder our radiophobia is alive and well.
A cogent example is provided by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski of the Central Laboratory
for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland. Jaworowski states that the psychosomatic
disorders observed in the 15 million people in Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia who
were effected by the 1986 Chernobyl accident are probably the accident’s most important
effect on public health. These disorders were not caused by ionizing radiation but
instead by the belief that any amount of man-made radiation, even miniscule doses,
can cause harm. In the years following the accident more than 270,000 people from
these areas were unnecessarily evacuated and relocated because of radiophobia.
Along with the psychological hysteria attached to anything nuclear we must also
contend with the bad science that was the basis for decision making when it comes
to nuclear power.
In 1959 the International Commission on Radiological Protection signed off on a
policy based on the theory of “linear non-threshold”, or LNT. LNT is a benign little
scientific theory that has not only turned out to be flawed, but has become the
premise by which major scientific, economic, political, and social decisions have
been made.
At its simplest, LNT assumes that the detrimental effects of radiation are proportional
to the dose (a linear relationship) and that even the smallest dose has detrimental
effects.
LNT also premised the idea of “additivity of risk” which meant that even small doses
of radiation can add up over time and lead to detrimental effects similar to that
of larger single doses.
LNT led to the concept of “dose accumulation” which says that a large, damaging
dose exposure to one generation can be hereditarily passed along to future generations.
By its very name, “linear non-threshold” is false when gauging radiation exposure.
The detrimental effects of small doses do not increase as the dose gets larger.
Instead, there is a definite dose ‘threshold’ at which detrimental effects become
evident.
Take the idea of “additivity of risk” that says small doses of radiation can add
up over time and act as if one large dose were applied. That is just like saying
that if a person spends 5 hours in an 80 degree temperature the results will be
the same as if they spend 1 hour in a 400 degree temperature. The math makes sense
(5 x 80 = 400, and 1 x 400 = 400) but the actuality is patently absurd.
All of these assumptions spawned other assumptions that became the basis for many
international policies concerning radiation protection and the uses of nuclear power.
Problem is, all of these concepts have been proven scientifically ridiculous.
Increased use of nuclear power to meet America’s energy needs is on the horizon.
Will we finally be able to rid ourselves of the boogey man called radiophobia?
Article may be reprinted, with attribution
|