This is BULLSHIT, the guy (Oehmen) is a mechanical engineer with a management focus. He worked at my alma mater (ETHZ). His field of experties is supply chain risk management. Look up his papers, he isn't a nuclear physicist.
I'd say he's about as qualified to make a comment on the situation as I am.
Nuclear Energy suffers from a poor public image. We’re here to change all that.
For decades the nuclear energy industry has been under attack
by antinuclear activists both organized and unorganized.
Fear and panic have been their call signs and with little
regard for science or the impact on civilization, they
have remained unchecked for years
And more, from that page:
Jason Morgan
A corporate finance and accounting professional
who has great personal interest in the future of
the world’s energy crisis. Jason is looking forward
to utilizing his financial and economic data
analysis skills to shed light on nuclear energy.
I don't think all examination of qualifications constitutes a genetic fallacy. If anything it's closer to an argument from authority plus a closed-world assumption (i.e. I only accept arguments from authorities). But expertise and authority has a significant role in science, and not entirely an improper one imo. If I say that I prefer to hear expert analysis of nuclear reactors from someone with a PhD in nuclear physics, rather than from someone with a PhD in another field, that seems like a decent epistemological heuristic. The qualifications don't prove anything about the argument, but in general I expect people with relevant qualifications to know more of the relevant facts, so am more willing to defer to their judgment.
It's doubly the case when the original article author promoted the article as being by an "MIT PhD". If someone is explicitly invoking their credentials to add weight to an argument, investigating whether the credentials are relevant seems reasonable.
I disagree. The logic of the post clearly states that the source of the information is a reason to reject it rather than a problem with the information itself. This is a common problem with a vast majority of the negative responses to the "why I am not worried" article.
Remember, the poster says that the origin of the facts makes those facts bullshit. Textbook genetic fallacy.
What I'm discussing is evidential weighting and critical source analysis, not logical inference (I do happen to research logic in my day job, so I'm familiar with what constitutes valid deduction).
Since this isn't a scientific paper that presents data sufficient to support its conclusions, we can't judge it purely objectively. It presents itself as an engineering safety analysis. The first step in judging an engineering safety analysis is usually: was it performed by someone qualified to perform such an analysis? We typically want them to be performed by people who are both domain experts (in this case, nuclear engineers), and specifically people who are experts in assessing the risks in that domain, as well as in the general science of risk analysis. If a safety analysis is done by someone who isn't such an expert, it's quite rational to give it lower weight, because we aren't confident that they're familiar with all the relevant science and possible risks.
I mean, would you argue it's also a genetic fallacy that I take articles in Nature more seriously than I take articles in the Daily Mail? That I believe what Richard Feyman's lectures have to say about physics more than I believe what some random person on Geocities has to say? It just seems like good sense to me; considering the source of a claim is a good first step when deciding how much weight to give it. Bayesians would agree! It's possible that the Daily Mail will publish an insightful new analysis of global warming, but it's not very likely, and I would probably want to hear confirmation from a more reliable source before I believed it. Same here; this analysis is interesting, but I'd have more confidence in an analysis performed by someone who's actually an expert in the field, so until I hear one of them say that it's correct, I treat it with skepticism.
I'm arguing about the original post that I responded to, which makes the argument "this is not from an engineer, but a lobbyist and is therefore bullshit". That is a genetic fallacy.
If he had made the entirely reasonable point that you did-- that this might not be as trustworthy a source compared to another, or engaged the actual evidence used, I wouldn't have taken the time to critique it.
In other words, my disagreement with you has nothing to do with the weighing of credible sources, but the fact that the original post didn't do that.
Note that I haven't even brought up the fact that the post he actually responded to was a revised version of the article by nuclear engineers, thus invalidating much of his claims about it anyway.
I don't think the grandparent poster was aware of the fallacies in his argument; more importantly, it throws the reliability of the original information supplied into question.
Plutonium complicates things rather significantly. Accuracy should not be sacrificed to fearmongering, but nor should it be sacrificed for mere reassurance.
Edit: downvoted for supplying more accurate information with a citation? Classy.
So mechanical engineer cannot possibly say anything truthful about nuclear energy?
The fact still remains: nuclear energy is the safest and cleanest we have for now.
So far we had what, three serious incidents with total number of causalities of 35, all in Chernobyl. Sure it affected much more people but still: the single incident at Sayano-Sushenskoye hydroelectric power plant claimed 75 lives. How about Banqiao Dam?
According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province,[5] in the
province, approximately 26,000 people died from flooding and another
145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about
5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected.
And thats not counting all the incidents in coal and oil industry (and the fact that burning coal releases more radiation for the same amount of energy produced than nuclear power plants).
- 31 dead from acute radiation poisoning within months
- 216 non-cancer deaths until 1998
- Between 9,000 (official government report) and 60,000 (TORCH report) cancer deaths overall
Thanks for pointing that out one more time. I'm not an anti-nuclear zealot but I'm getting extremely tired of supposedly intelligent people citing the "35 deaths" bullshit-figure on HN in each japan-thread.
If there had been only 35 or 4000 deaths then Chernobyl would not be considered a catastrophic event up to this day. Instead it would be considered a testament to the safety of the technology.
I wonder if the part that these people have trouble wrapping their head around is the latency?
This is what happens during a nuclear accident: Nothing. At the very worst we may see a few hundred immediate deaths. Other than that, life goes on.
The real aftermath kicks in 10-20 years later, when people start developing cancer and birth defects. Different sources report different figures for Chernobyl, partly due to political bias, and partly because it's just really hard to track >600k people over such a long timeframe.
However, the estimates from most sources other than the IAEA and the russian government range in the tens of thousands - quite a long shot from "35".
>If there had been only 35 or 4000 deaths then Chernobyl would not be considered a catastrophic event up to this day. Instead it would be considered a testament to the safety of the technology.
> The fact still remains: nuclear energy is the safest and cleanest we have for now.
Burning natural gas is both cleaner is safer, and it is a power source for much of Europe. I wonder why all nuclear advocates always bring in coal into the comparison.
I imagine it has something to do with the quantity of power a nuclear power plant can generate compared to a gas based power station (given equivelent time/amounts of fuel)?? But I don't really know.
Having said that, though I don't remember the name/type ofdhand and am too lazy to look it up, there are new types of power plant in development/trials that 1) physically cannot meltdown, 2) produce much less (and less hazardous) waste and 3) use a plentiful form of nuclear fuel. If/when those nuclear power plants become production ready, then the choice between nuclear and fossil fuels is an easy one. For now, though, I agree with you and don't know the answer.
The article is full of facts that make absolute sense and shed light on a large number of things that the news do not get right. My thanks to the author especially for a clear interpretation of the explosions. We need a clear head and should rely on facts in these situations. We also should not assume that nuclear reactors are not well constructed. I am sure they are. So it does not come as a surprise to me, that someone who knows the details is able to explain them in a way that it makes sense.
This does not excuse the fact that the reactors failed. This is a different story. But it helps to understand what really happens now. What the author did not stress is the fact that, as the Zircaloy structure may have failed, all subsequent pressure releases will be highly contaminated.
BTW, engineers are the ones who know best how safety is constructed, not scientists (I write this as someone who got his phd in atomic physics. So I am not an engineer).
It reads very much like a last-ditch effort by nuclear energy lobbyists to convince us that nuclear energy is really safe. This brings back memories of the Iraqi information minister.
In 15 years, if there are no further disasters, they might crawl out of their holes and start preaching about the wonders of nuclear energy again. Until then, just give up.
> a last-ditch effort by nuclear energy lobbyists to convince us that nuclear energy is really safe.
Well, let's see. In this case we've had a bunch of nuclear power stations very close to the site of a historically-large earthquake and the ensuing tsunami, large enough that even with Japan's outstanding disaster-preparedness thousands or tens of thousands of people have died. That would seem to be pretty much a worst-case scenario.
And, so far, all the troubles at the nuclear reactors have produced a grand total of zero deaths. Now, for sure, it's too early to know what the final outcome will be. Maybe there will be a Vast Nuclear Holocaust that obliterates Japan. (No, the laws of physics do not in fact permit this, but that objection applies equally to a number of other nightmare scenarios people have been proposing.) But so far as anyone can tell, the worst outcome that's at all likely is: a few people die, a few square km of land become unusable for a while, and they need to rebuild from scratch somewhere else. Well, that's pretty bad, for sure. But if that's the worst-case outcome from such a major natural disaster, it seems to me that -- so far as what we know right now goes -- nuclear energy is still looking pretty safe overall.
I'd say he's about as qualified to make a comment on the situation as I am.
The "essay" by Oehmen was first published by a notorious nuclear lobbyist, Jason Morgan. Look at this: http://nuclearfissionary.com/about/
And more, from that page: In short: FUD by nuclear energy lobbyists.