Anthonares

After Tuesday’s review of Chapter 1, I put off reading the second and third chapters because I dreaded that the science would be as terrible as was chapter 1. Well, the science was nowhere near as bad, though it was presented with a great deal of naivete and, as seems Bethell’s style, misdirection. However, Bethell made two very important points relating to misinterpretation and misuse of science that are well suited to the non-political aims of this book. But, I digress, let me first give you a very brief overview of the main points Bethell made in Chapters 2 and 3, entitled “Yes, More Nukes” and “Good Vibes: The Virtues of Radiation.”

Summary Of Bethell’s Points:
Chapter 2:
Bethell begins by making a case that nuclear power was irresponsibly halted by public fears of nuclear disaster and fallout. He then spends several pages telling the story of how environmentalists are fighting over wind energy due to the deaths of thousands of birds at some wind energy farms. Then, he makes a case that renewable energy will require vast tracts of land to produce energy equivalent to nuclear power.

Chapter 3:
This whole chapter is a series of arguments and case-study results that argues that low doses of radiation are good for you. What he calls “hormesis”, environmental chemists call the dose-response curve. The basic concept is that many chemicals are beneficial in low doses, though toxic at higher levels. The evidence seems to be growing that this is also true of radiation.

My Response, and Chapter Reviews:
First things first, these two chapters are much more effective than Chapter 1. Why? Because they each have one main theme (though the focus on renewable energy in Chapter 2 reduces the quality of that chapter compared to chapter 3). He sticks to that theme, and presents a more thorough case for his two main points. They are: (for chapter 2) public fear of nuclear energy is irrational, and (for chapter 3) small doses of radiation are good for you.

However, I wrote the comment “source?” in the margins over 15 times. Is this mere laziness? He could easily have had twice the number of sources for each chapter, that might be overkill. Bethell generally provides a source for news events, but omits it for factual statements or when citing results of studies. He does, however, nearly always cite factual statements for studies that support his viewpoint.

His continual editorializing was something I had not planned to mention in further reviews, because I was going to simply take it for granted. However, in Chapter 2 he writes two entire pages of partisan storytelling that explain to us why hippies, Ralph Nader, and Jimmy Carter are killing people with coal. None of this tripe is sourced, all of it is his interpretation, and he makes no effort to distinguish his memory’s recollection of history from the facts he claims to present. But, from now on, unless I mention otherwise, assume that there are several paragraphs and dozens of short sentences worth of completely worthless political drivel mixed in with what may (or may not) be useful scientific/political discussion.

But, let me get back to his main points. His first point, that public fear of nuclear power is irrational, is something that I as a scientist and engineer agree with entirely. We certainly need to be careful about protecting our plants (as the Union of Concerned Scientists, which he attacks as anti-nuclear, has stated in regards to NYC’s Indian River plant), but nuclear is currently the only real means of producing power for a nation without producing the tens of thousands of deaths from coal burning each year. New plants designs are safe and drastically less likely to meltdown (in fact, it may be physically impossible for this to occur with the Pebble Bed reactor designs), and the nuclear industry has been our safest and most reliable source of energy for over 50 years, even considering Three Mile Island. However, half of Chapter 2 was about renewable energy and it was either a) entirely not on-point, b) just partisan hackery, or c) probably factually incorrect usage of overly-conservative estimates from old technology.

His second point, that radiation doses in small quantities may be beneficial, is also well taken. The studies he cites that show at a certain distance from ground zero in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, cancer rates are lower than would be expected in a non-exposed population. Other studies show similar results, and appear to be robust (though I’m no expert). It does seem to make sense scientifically that higher radiation levels will be beneficial as they will tend to trigger the body’s chromosomal repair mechanisms in preparation for more acute exposures. This is an important point for space travel as well, as the radiation environment there is much more severe than found here on Earth, and certainly beyond the safe levels for an un-adapted human. But, can children born in space adapt to its radiation environment as they grow? The answer to this will certainly affect the design of human habitation in coming centuries.

The next review will feature what promises to be a much more interesting review on the effects of dioxin on people (Chapter 4) and the ban on DDT (Chapter 5). So, from climate, to nukes, to chemistry, we’re movin’ ahead!