Nuclear Power Is Like a Religion

How many times have we been told, since the Fukushima nuclear crisis began, that we’re not being told everything? The revelation that three reactors suffered fuel meltdowns soon after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami—a scenario vigorously denied by plant and government officials at the time—only reinforces my view that whatever the technological wonders of nuclear fission, it’s humans that can’t be trusted. The continually shifting “facts” and belated revelations about the disaster have me wondering how nuclear proponents can continually be seduced by the wonders of this “clean” energy while completely overlooking how miserably it’s being managed, and how the cover-ups keep piling up.

Science journalist John Horgan writes in the Chronicle of Higher Education’s Chronicle Review about his on-and-off status as a nuclear proponent, noting that he “jumped on the pro-nuclear bandwagon” again last fall after being convinced of its safety and its low emissions relative to coal.

Fukushima took a bit of the green glow out of him, though: “I was still congratulating myself for my open-mindedness when the tsunami smashed into Japan, which had been a paragon of nuclear competence.”

The past competence of Japan’s nuclear industry is not very impressive when you dig into it. But setting that aside, Horgan’s main point—that Fukushima ought to at least give us pause—is a rare admission for a nuclear proponent. Horgan, who teaches a class in the history of science and technology at the Stevens Institute of Technology, concludes his commentary by noting that he encourages a healthy skepticism in his classrooms full of techno-optimists:

Read more: http://www.utne.com/Wild-Green/Nuclear-Power-Is-Like-a-Religion.aspx#ixzz1NxDhF593

Yes, nuclear power is like a religion.

That no one would die because a reactor got hit with a 9.0 earthquake and a 15m tsunami?

I agree people can't be trusted with nuclear power plants.

Where did the universe come from? Why are we here? What happens when we die? etc.

This is the realm of religion. Loving nuclear power with all one's heart is not.

re·li·gion
noun /riˈlijən/ 
religions, plural

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods
- ideas about the relationship between science and religion

Details of belief as taught or discussed
- when the school first opened they taught only religion, Italian, and mathematics

A particular system of faith and worship
- the world's great religions

A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance
- consumerism is the new religion

Three and four apply.

The second bold definition does fit well, but it is inflammatory. It is similar to Ann Coulter calling liberalism a religion.

The OP states: "Nuclear Power Is Like a Religion"

That means there are parallels between the structure adopted by the nuclear industry and the structure of religion. Several posts have given good reasons for concluding that this is true. If you don't agree or approve, then perhaps you could explain WHY those points of similarity are, in fact, not accurate.

What you seem to be doing is acknowledging the parallels and disapproving of discussion about them.

I'll add another that hasn't yet been discussed except in the OP:


We could also go into other attributes associated with religions, like


Or



I've always been fond of the "compare and contrast" method of discussion for topics like this myself. Perhaps you'd like to focus more on contrasting to balance the comparisons others are making.

I did agree with the forth definition of religion applying to this situation, but I said it was inflammatory. It was meant as an insult. If someone disagrees with you, and they say you are being religious about the subject, they are not complimenting you.

-"Proselytizing is the act of attempting to convert people to another opinion and, particularly, another religion"

Persuasion is so universal in human interaction, that calling it a religious act lessons it.

From the quote: "any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not."

-"Apostasy ...a defection or revolt, ..."

This could fit the forth, inflammatory definition of religion. But the article mentions sports, so apostasy does not have to concern religion.

-"Heresy is a controversial or novel change to a system of beliefs"

This definition mentions causes. Causes are not always religions.

Also, you find it "inflammatory" but if the correlation is accurate what does your reaction mean?

I can (and will if you insist) go into the blogosphere and extract quotes from nuclear supporters demonstrating attitudes among nuclear proponents that any reasonable person will view as demonstrating a faith-based, closed minded religious type of approach to implementation of their beliefs.

But before that there are a couple of posts already up that you are ignoring. Especially the one by bananas in post #9.


I'll be gone for a bit, so take a moment to consider your response in light of say, the attempts at character assassination made against valid academics who reject nuclear as a solution. Think about the logic of attacking a person as an "antinuke" because they have examined a problem with the best methods and information available and concluded that nuclear energy doesn't live up to the unsupported claims made by proponents.

Is dogma exclusive to religious style thinking? No it isn't. But is religious thinking characterized by dogmatic thinking? It most certainly is.

She wrote a book about it, and I am sure it is filled with little examples to further her claim, but what was her goal? To further conversation or to inflame? She was obviously trolling.

The accusations of Obama worship are not meant to further conversation, they are meant to inflame.

The accusations of gun worship are not meant to further conversation, they are meant to inflame.

Anytime you are telling someone else that their non-spiritual beliefs are like a religion, you are insulting them.

so you try to end to discussion and, I presume, have the heretical words stricken from the pages of DU.

That is really all that you have isn't it? Why not try debating on the merits instead of acting like a Xtian fundamentalist having a hissyfit.

ETA: Think of what is being discussed this way - religion typifies a certain type of organizing principle that is effective within a certain segment of the population and that works by employing a known set of strategies and tactics to ensure group obedience. While it isn't the only area where this type of brainwashing people into initial and continued belief is practiced, it is its use in the supernatural area that it is most well known and widely understood. Therefore it is natural for that type of organizing principle to be identified in discussion as "like a religion".

Now, the use of these tactics on people is not well regarded by most, and it is desirable to have them stripped out of the equation whenever possible. From what I know of Coulter's thesis, it relies on overlaying the world of the communist revolution on completely different and unrelated concept of liberalism and thus her usage fails.

However, when the nuclear industry deliberately sets out to organize itself on the lines of a religion there is little room to take offense to discussion of the topic as it is clearly TRUE.

I have not tried to end the discussion. I have answered all your replies.

-"I presume, have the heretical words stricken from the pages of DU."

I have not alerted on any posts in this tread, and no post has been deleted.

-"That is really all that you have isn't it?"

I have my argument you never addressed.

-"Why not try debating on the merits instead of acting like a Xtian fundamentalist having a hissyfit."

Here you prove my point. You make my argument for me. You are not calling me religious to further the conversation, you are calling me religious to personally attack me.

Thanks for proving my point! :D

I didn't "call you religious".

I wrote that "you are like a Xtian fundamentalist having a hissyfit".

If I were "calling you religious" and meant it to be derogatory I would have written ""you are nothing but a Xtian fundamentalist having a hissyfit".

And finally, in point of fact, you have responded to NONE of the points I raised. You've cherry pick a couple of comments you can build a fallacy on, that is all. For example it has been pointed out that the discussion uses religion as an examplar while you are trying to make it an accusation.
You also have yet to address the content of post 9 and the added remarks in post 40.

You object to a comparison of the organized structure of beliefs in religion and nuclear power being carried out. All of that opposition is based on your personal determination that such a comparison can only serve as an epithet.

You've been presented any number of arguments and evidence challenging your personal determination. You have so far refused to address those arguments and chosen instead to persist in the trying to derail a discussion focused on the evidence by turning it it into some kind of pissing match about your personal preferences.

excellent.

-"You've been presented any number of arguments and evidence challenging your personal determination."

To some extent, I agree. Although I agreed one of the definitions for religion applied, I disagreed with some of the reasons.

We both agree "Nuclear Power Is Like a Religion." We disagree the reasons. There was an old beer ad that had two guys arguing on why the beer was the best. One would say, "Tastes great!" The other would then say, "Less Filling!"

-"You have so far refused to address those arguments and chosen instead to persist in the trying to derail a discussion focused on the evidence by turning it it into some kind of pissing match about your personal preferences."

I posted that I liked the article, but thought the title was inflammatory. Someone replied to my post, I responded, I received a response, etc. To be honest, I didn't think my original reply was that interesting.

to any reply to make.

I am accustomed to a cool climate, I am not sure how I will be able to handle Florida's heat; wish me luck.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's very hard to have an open-minded conversation when we're convinced our side is right.

Here iN California that summer when Enron controlled P G & E here. I didn't find any pro-nuke people too upset about that. (Their side of bread is buttered by the same people - so why would they care?!?)

If the pro nuclear side is wrong, as it was on March 11, 2011, we shall see, over the coming decade, a million plus people dead and dying, as happened with Chernobyl. And it will be worse with Fukashima.

Am I supposed to take those numbers on faith?

The anti-nuclear people tend to grossly inflate the actual statistics while the pro nuclear people tend to minimize them. Of the two, the figures the anti-nuclear people use are the most flagrant exaggerations.

I'm a Luddite in many ways -- if I was Emperor of the Earth I'd ban personal automobiles and maybe slap a 15 amp fuse on everyone's residential electric service. I'd impose a twenty hour work week as a way of killing our consumer culture and decreasing our "productivity." Our productivity is killing our environment.

Still I cannot rank either Chernobyl or Fukushima very high on my scale of technological catastrophes. Things like our misuse of antibiotics have had deadlier consequences. Foods and drinks scientifically designed to appeal to our senses without satiating our hunger destroy lives. The horrors of modern technology are endless. There is nothing that sets the hazards of nuclear energy apart from the rest. Fossil fuels, hydro, nuclear, even wind and solar, it all sucks. To believe nuclear power is somehow exceptional is a kind of religious belief.

The type of radioactivity that is released when the world experiences a Chernobyl, or a Fukushima, is NOT low level radiation. Within five days, everyone on the planet receives some amount of radioactivity – and the particle physics of radioactivity is such that we do not even have all the names of all the types of particles that are released when such plutonium-based radiation releases occur. (Some types of particles may occur only for a nano-second some three weeks or later, after the plutonium event.)

The smallest micron level part of radioactivity that gets inside a human being will be emitting its radioactivity for thirty years.

Look at this information – which is rather dialectic in its approach:

“There are, of course, many agencies that have gone on the record as having looked into the particulars of the April 26, 1986 disaster.

“You have UNSCEAR’s assessments of the radiation effects, and they point to the fact that there were 30 people killed by radiation in the first few weeks after the disaster. And that another 100 people were injured by radiation in that period as well. (UNSCEAR stands for: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.)

“Initially, one hundred and fifteen thousand people were evacuated on account of the event. But in the end, closer to two hundred and twenty thousand people were forced from their homes in areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

“Over the years, older people have moved back into these areas, wanting to be back where they feel most at home. Also, since they are older, they are not as fearful of a possibility that cancer might generate inside their bodies some twenty years down the road – at which point they might be dead from something else anyway.

“Among the most notable of the tragic results of this accident were the serious social and psychological disruption in the lives of those affected. There were also large scale economic losses. It should not be overlooked that large areas of the three countries were contaminated with radioactive materials, and radionuclides from the Chernobyl release were measurable in all countries of the northern hemisphere. (Not just in the afore mentioned Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.)

“Some military, social and political analysts credit the profound dismay, combined with anger, sadness and a desire to deviate and to revolt against the system that brought about this nuclear disaster to be the major propelling force, along with the Afghan War, that had the Soviet people bring down their Communistic way of life. The event is also given credit for the toppling of the Berlin Wall.

“Now back to the grim statistics – what statistics we glean from the records of the UNSCEAR report –
Among the residents of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, there had been up to the year 2005 more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the accident, and more cases can be expected during the next decades. Notwithstanding the influence of enhanced screening regimes, many of those cancers were most likely caused by radiation exposures shortly after the accident. Apart from this increase, claims the authors of this United Nations study, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to the radiation exposure some two decades after the accident.

“Many current day travelers to the old Soviet Union, and many who visit places in the Ukraine where the uprooted Ukrainians now live, distrust this report. They see first hand the numerous children who do not live to the age of fifteen, but die of cancer or a genetic condition, or a birth defect.

“It is known that the accident at the Chernobyl reactor happened during an experimental test of the electrical control system as the reactor was being shut down for routine maintenance. The operators, in violation of safety regulations, had switched off important control systems and allowed the reactor, which had design flaws, to reach unstable, low-power conditions. A sudden power surge caused a steam explosion that ruptured the reactor vessel. This allowed further violent fuel-steam interactions that destroyed the reactor core and severely damaged the reactor building. Subsequently, an intense graphite fire burned for 10 days. Under those conditions, large releases of radioactive materials took place.

“This radioactive material went across Europe and Scandinavia. Italy received among the highest doses.

“Meanwhile, the Belarus national academy of sciences estimates 93,000 deaths so far and 270,000 cancers, and the Ukrainian national commission for radiation protection calculates 500,000 deaths so far. These numbers far surpass the UNSCEAR reporting of some four thousand deaths.

“The mismatches in figures arise because there have been no
comprehensive, co-ordinated studies of the health consequences of this accident. This is in contrast to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where official research showed that the main rise in most types of cancer and non-cancer diseases only became apparent years after the atomic bombs fell.

“Critics of the UNSCEAR report also point to the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency has compromised the research and findings as collected by the United Nations. For instance, WHO guidelines, utilized quite often by UNSCEAR, were requiring the peer review of evidence and collected data and this has made it hard for many deaths and illnesses to even be considered as part of the complete record.

“The UN’s World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people have died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually.

“Controversy rages over the agendas of the IAEA, which has promoted civil nuclear power over the past 30 years, and the WHO. The UN accepts only peer-reviewed scientific studies written in certain journals in English, a rule said to exclude dozens of other studies.

“Eleven years ago, an IAEA spokesman said he was confident the WHO figures were correct. And Michael Repacholi, director of the UN Chernobyl forum until 2006, has claimed that even 4,000 eventual deaths could be too high. The main negative health impacts of ­Chernobyl were not caused by the ­radiation but by the fear of it, he claimed.

“However, it is important to consider the remarks of Linda Walker, of the UK Chernobyl Children’s Project, which funds Belarus and Ukraine orphanages and holidays for affected children, as she called for a determined effort to learn about the effects of the disaster. ‘Parents are giving birth to babies with disabilities or genetic disorders … but, as far as we know, no research is being conducted..
Reply

*

> ... and the particle physics of radioactivity is such that we do not even
> have all the names of all the types of particles that are released when
> such plutonium-based radiation releases occur.

:banghead:

Lots of good points in your post but they will be mostly lost because of bollocks
like that in the first paragraph.

:shrug:

say, for instance, some three weeks down the road and exist for a nano second (or far far far less.)

Some researchers think we have discovered and named each and every one of the little blips on the research screen. Others think we haven't.

If you have a link to show me that we have indeed discovered and named each one, and the link is conclusive, I'd be glad to omit that leading sentence.

Japan tried to warn future generations about tsunami's with stone monuments and an oral tradition passed on from generation to generation - the warnings went unheeded: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4865502&mesg_id=4865513

I'm talking about our ability to have conversations like civilized human beings. On the other hand this is the internet, so what the fuck am I thinking???? :shrug:

it sounds a bit like like "pro-abortionist"

Labeling other people sucks, no matter whether you feel justified or not. I get called a "Malthusian" all the time - it's meant to sound like "Misanthropic killer of helpless babies and old people". I always respond by ignoring the label and addressing the substance of the remark with civility, humour and good grammar.
That way if anyone goes off on a tirade, they take the hit for being a jerk, not me. And it's only a tiny bit passive-aggressive. :evilgrin:

Can civilized human beings discuss the connotations of the term "anti-nuke"?
Can civilized human beings compare the connotations of the terms "anti-nuke", "infidel", and "atheist"?

I fell into the same trap as Horgan did last year, becoming a nuclear proponent because of its low-carbon qualities and my residual trust in the technocrats. Oops.

Fortunately I don't have anyone like Adams in my life, trying to chivvy me back into the fold. I made a mistake in supporting nuclear power, I'm quite willing to admit it, and I've promised myself it won't happen again.

In the article Adams is quoted as saying, "I think our creator has offered us a technology that makes it possible to both eat cake today and to have some available tomorrow." I don't believe we have any inherent or even earned "right" to flat screen televisions or air conditioning. Especially if it takes nuclear power to get them.

I've read twice, I believe its been, that you said the same thing. Good On you GG

Admitting mistakes leads to growth. Being stubborn prevents growth. I really prefer growing...

As an old professor told me one time boy you got to believe in something and be willing to change when you've been shown that what you previously thought was wrong, but first you have to believe in something. I wish I could remember the exact words he used.

If the technological difficulties hadn't been explained to me by people I knew in the industry, I would've fallen for the happy talk too.

They hide the truth from us because they don't want people to panic,
they don't want people to stop buying their stuff,
and they want to build more nukes, even after this disaster!

:nuke: :hide:

in their modern incarnations of Uranium, Plutonium, and Thorium.

...I have to say: well played.

:)

I'd rather worship Thor than the fossil fuels of Satan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_coal_mining_and_burning
"When comparing the radiational impact of coal and nuclear plants on the surrounding environment, however, coal plant wastes are more radioactive than waste generated by nuclear plants producing the same amount of energy. Plant-emitted radiation carried by coal-derived fly ash delivers 100 times more radiation to the surrounding environment than does the normal operation of a similar-productive nuclear plant. <12>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Coal
"Coal contains a small amount of radioactive uranium, barium, thorium and potassium, but, in the case of pure coal, this is significantly less than the average concentration of those elements in the Earth's crust. The surrounding strata, if shale or mudstone, often contain slightly more than average and this may also be reflected in the ash content of 'dirty' coals.<17><14> The more active ash minerals become concentrated in the fly ash precisely because they do not burn well.<14> The radioactivity of fly ash is about the same as black shale and is less than phosphate rocks, but is more of a concern because a small amount of the fly ash ends up in the atmosphere where it can be inhaled.<18>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
"Indeed, coal ash is much less radioactive than nuclear waste, but ash is released directly into the environment, whereas nuclear plants use shielding to protect the environment from the irradiated reactor vessel, fuel rods, and any radioactive waste on site.<93>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#Human-caused_background_radiation
"Older coal-fired power plants without effective fly ash capture are one of the largest sources of human-caused background radiation exposure. When coal is burned, uranium, thorium and all the uranium daughters accumulated by disintegration — radium, radon, polonium — are released.<19> According to a 1978 article in Science magazine, "coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment".<20>"

Japan's Unlikely Saviors: Elderly Willing to Toil in a Nuke No-Go Zone
Posted by Hannah Beech Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 7:01 am

In ancient Japan, or so the folktale goes, there used to be a mountain where old people were taken and abandoned once they reached 60 years of age. Although the practice of obasute was probably more rural legend than actual reality, it is a chilling reminder of the perils of old age in a nation where roughly one-quarter of Japanese are now 60 years old or above.

But lest anyone think that Japan's growing coterie of elderly doesn't contribute to society, a newly formed group called the Skilled Veterans Corps shows just how vital pensioners are to rebuilding a nation still reeling from the March 11 earthquake and tsunami. Composed of nearly 250 retired engineers and other professionals as of June 1, the group is volunteering to tread where few dare to go: the forbidden zone around the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, which is still leaking radiation after the earthquake and tsunami devastated the facility. Skilled Veterans Corps was founded by Yasuteru Yamada, a 72-year-old retired engineer who believes that it is the older segment of society that should expose itself to potentially deadly radiation, thereby protecting younger Japanese from long-term health risks. “Even if I were exposed to radiation, cancer could take 20 or 30 years or longer to develop,” Yamada told the BBC. “I am 72 and on average I probably have 13 to 15 years left to live.”

The stoicism and selflessness with which Japanese have dealt with this year's natural...

... For young and old, the fallout from Japan's March 11 calamity continues.


http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/06/01/japans-unlikely-saviors-elderly-willing-to-toil-in-a-nuke-no-go-zone/#ixzz1O3HE4qsf

All we've heard thus far from the anti-nuke crowd are talking points meant to further your agenda: spread fear uncertainty and doubt about nuclear power.

So, truly from the heart, thank you Kristopher for finally noting that the Japanese people affected by their worst earthquake ever, followed by a monster tsunami, then a disaster at one of their hundreds of nuclear power plants... are in fact people, who just want to live their lives, be with their families and loved ones, etc.

I sometimes have brief remembrances of the people I met when I was in Japan, then I wonder if they are alive today.

PS, I agree with the 70-ish engineer: the aged have much to teach us and the Japanese need their expertise and their efforts now more than ever. I believe that robots should be used for the most dangerous work, IMO, (or at least remotely operated vehicles) to keep people as much out of harm's way as possible. But ROVs can only do so much: sometimes you need a live person to do dangerous work.