Nuclear: be afraid!
“In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world’s worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDONIST FACTOID HERE]“
– Section of a press release by Greenpeace (reported by IPA)
Advertisement
67 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Libertarians and ele… on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Dom Vasta on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Shem Bennett on Libertarians and elections (an… 
'Nuke' Gray on Libertarians and elections (an… Dom Vasta on Libertarians and elections (an… 
TerjeP (say tay-a) on Libertarians and elections (an… TerjeP (say tay-a) on Libertarians and elections (an… 'Nuke' Gray on Libertarians and elections (an… Shem Bennett on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Brendan Halfweeg on The Santa Claus Governmen…
Catallaxy Files- Open Forum: February 11, 2012 February 10, 2012 Sinclair Davidson
- Not all recessions are caused by the Fed February 10, 2012More middle of the night blogging. My economics is classical. The almost perfect overlay of my own book can be found in a series of notes taken by Nicholas Kaldor at the LSE in 1927-29 from lectures delivered by the great American economist, Allyn Young. These notes were only published around a decade ago but [...]Steve Kates
- Where’s Romney? February 10, 2012It is quite extraordinary to watch the American political process up close. Now, I admit I have been busy and I don’t watch much of the television and do not read a lot of the press. But before I arrived the thing I did want to do was see more of Mitt Romney since from [...]Steve Kates
- inCISe
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012When I wrote in Incise yesterday, ‘Rebate should not be means tested,’ I did not expect events to move quite as quickly as they have. The government seems confident it has the numbers to get the means test through. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rob Oakshott and Andrew Wilkie have indeed swallowed the government’s nonsensical arguments, but it will be interestin […]Robert Carling
- Quiggin versus Carling and Kirchner February 9, 2012John Quiggin accuses Robert Carling and I of ‘an appalling breach of elementary standards of research’ for not acknowledging that Alberto Alesina’s work on the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus and consolidations is ‘highly controversial.’ In fact, we referenced Alesina’s work precisely because it has featured so prominently in public debate, including in the […]Stephen Kirchner
- Police going too far February 9, 2012According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, police are lecturing parents for letting their children walk to the shops or catch a bus on their own, with senior police saying such incidents will be reported to the Department of Community Services (DOCs) if a child is considered at risk. But when is a child ‘at risk’? One mother was told it was inappr […]Sara Hudson
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012
- IPA news
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012Australians will be surprised to learn that, apparently, the federal government now has responsibility to help the city of...
- It's time to bring back the thrift February 9, 2012Ted Baillieu plans to shave 3600 jobs from Victoria's bloated public service. The state of Wisconsin in the US, with a...
- We'll huff, we'll puff, we'll blow the budget into surplus February 8, 2012Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid". So it is. Unsuccessful politicians might be inclined to argue,...
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012
I can’t seem to find this on IPA’s website, what is their source?
It’s not available online. It is on the inside back page of their magazine (IPA Review 58:2 July 2006) under the section “Strange Times”.
The press release was issues in response to George Bush going to Pennsylvania in May to promote his nuclear energy policy.
After the dodgy press release was issued Greenpeace said that the language was an internal joke that was accidently released. Opps!
Excellent. Even if it is true that the statement is an internal joke rather than a template, you can learn much about an organisation by how they parody themselves.
Damn luddites.
Bugger, I wanted a link too. It might be worth pointing out that it actually appeared in a Greenpeace publication and that some silly twit forgot to fill in the blanks.
The original piece was reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer, appears to have dropped off their site (it was here). But the Washington post piece on it is here: Greenpeace Just Kidding About Armageddon (June 2 2006):
Clearly Greenpeace understands the media.
If you want dirt on Greenpeace try reading the following site by one of the founding members of Greenpeace. He does not like them much these days:-
http://www.greenspirit.com/about.cfm?a=1
Chris, have you got a link to that WaPo piece?
““This volatile and dangerous source of energy” is no answer to the country’s energy needs, shouted a Greenpeace fact sheet, decrying the “threat” posed by the reactors Bush visited in Limerick.”
This is what I sincerely adore about the lunatic brigade. Ignoring the fact that nuke has been the safest power generation process going in the west with less dying than any other form of energy production, they say nuke is not the answer.
These idiots actually do think that the US or Oz for that matter can run on of a few gusts of wind.
They really are religious lunatics.
Drom Terje’s link:
“Fifteen years of Greenpeace campaigns later I had some new insights. It was time to switch from confrontation to consensus, time to stop fighting and start talking with the people in charge. I became a convert to the idea of sustainable development and the need to consider social and economic issues along with my environmental values. I adopted the round table, consensus approach as the logical next step in the evolution of the movement for sustainability.”
What he’s done is replace one set of religious beliefs for another set it seems. He’s just another idiot looking for his paradise on earth.
JC,
You did not read much of his site did you? I found his articles on the ecological benefits of promoting forestry as an industry to be insightful and refreshing. Yes he is a greeny but without the marxist baggage.
Regards,
Terje.
I don’t… it was pulled off factiva. I can’t seem to pull it up anywhere on the open web.
In terms of endangering public health it should not be forgotten that Australian coal contains uranium and that our coal fired power stations produce nuclear fallout. If you visit the Hunter Valley expect to get irradiated. By comparison a Nuclear power station that is operating normally would not be anywhere near as bad.
My big fear with Nuclear power is that the government would decide to foot the bill or assume the liability risks.
“Yes he is a greeny but without the marxist baggage.”
Erm.. Most Greenies are equally as critical of soviet industry as they are of idiotic styles of capitalist industry.
You know that Terje, the greens are right (if you like) libertarians to the extent of anarchy with a conservationist edge. See Earth First.
You are trolling here. A leftist backwards approach to what is right.
Erm.. Most Greenies are equally as critical of soviet industry as they are of idiotic styles of capitalist industry.
alllrighhht , which styles of capitalist industry are the “idiotic” ones ?
Greens are soviets, they are indistinguishable. Marx wrote about the capitalist industrial machine that would eat all the resources. So did the first few Greens visionaries, many of which came from East Germany.
Anybody understand what Parkos is on about ?
He’s just an attention seeker. Why do you keep giving him what he wants?
Amateurs
“Anybody understand what Parkos is on about ?”
Parkos’ shrink has a difficult time figuring out what the lunatic is saying so whay place unreal expectations on the rest of us.
People… please… as Yobbo said, you’re just feeding the beast. Nobody gains anything by this petty sniping. I asked him to meet the standards of the blog, but if people continue baiting him then we can’t complain if he responds.
So Parkos & others — no more please.
On topic.
One thing I will clear up here is the world’s first green political party was Australian not East German, the Tasmanian Greens.
They were inspired by Lithuanian-Australian wilderness photographer Olegas Truchanas. Look him up, he believed in the liberty of nature.
If you are feeling sick with environmental illness because a freeway is at the end of your street then go and see Dr Rod Anderson of the Monash Medical Centre.
He has just released a book about the history of anti-logging protests in Victoria, called
Cheap As Chips
Humphreys, quite seriously, green philosphy is libertarian, and to derail as typically marxist is to troll. A clean environment is a basic liberty.
On topic.
One thing I will clear up here is the world’s first green political party was Australian not East German, the Tasmanian Greens.
They were inspired by Lithuanian-Australian wilderness photographer Olegas Truchanas. Look him up, he believed in the liberty of nature.
If you are feeling sick with environmental illness because a freeway is at the end of your street then go and see Dr Rod Anderson of the Monash Medical Centre.
He has just released a book about the history of anti-logging protests in Victoria, called
Cheap As Chips
http://nla.gov.au/anbd.bib-an000040863888
Humphreys, quite seriously, green philosphy is libertarian, and to derail as typically marxist is to troll. A clean environment is a basic liberty.
Furthermore, greens and vegetarians have a higher IQ and more education than average well beyond any standard deviation. according to BBC Inglese.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm
Parkos,
I was a vegetarian for 6 years (Nov 1998 til Jan 2005). It was during that time that my most libertarian inclinations emerged. I like trees and was for many years an avid bush walker. My IQ is above average but not exceptional. None of this changes the fact that the Greens are stricken with watermelon tendancies. Which is tragic because most of the environmental disaster in the world are due to overly powerful governments and/or weak property rights.
Regards,
Terje.
Terje said,
In terms of endangering public health it should not be forgotten that Australian coal contains uranium and that our coal fired power stations produce nuclear fallout. If you visit the Hunter Valley expect to get irradiated. By comparison a Nuclear power station that is operating normally would not be anywhere near as bad.
My big fear with Nuclear power is that the government would decide to foot the bill or assume the liability risks.
—
Coal power stations also release vaporised mercury and radon gas(radioactive and causes lung cancer).
The tradegy of nuclear power is that if not for the arms race we could have put development into thorium driven nuclear reactions: much safer, vastly reduced storage requirements.
But I can’t accept your statement that most pollution is caused by governments. Polllution is a much bigger problem than most people realise, oh the data I could throw at people on this but what’s the point? Even just last week a report demonstrating that diabetes are at increased risk if they live near dumps(that may sound hard to understand for some people but it does make sense don’t ask me to explain). Pollution has continued because of such stupid fallacies as: if it hasn’t been proven dangerous it aint, the concentrations are so small as to be insignificant (yeah, then why do they keep lowering the safety thresholds for lead and mercury?), and plain old greed by everyone because everyone figured it would be someone else’s problem (yeah, our children) and we don’t want to lose money. We are all responsible for the mess.
Where did I make this statement that you can’t accept? I don’t recall ever saying that most pollution is caused by governments.
Sorry Terje,
Don’t know where that came from.
Oh dear, here it is:
Which is tragic because most of the environmental disaster in the world are due to overly powerful governments and/or weak property rights.
Yeah, I misinterpreted that somewhat. However, you do have a point in regard to Russia, the USA, and China. Governments there did choose to ignore environmental issues for the sake of progress but to the credit of the Chinese they are currently making big strides in the environment arena. They have too, China’s pollution problems are rarely reported but oh my ….
By the way, how’s the gut???
I think the “precautionary principle” that you seem to be in favour of Dead Soul can also be dangerous. I’m interested in what your alternative is to scientific proof and investigation.
The media and general public are prone to knee jerk reactions. Hopefully scientists are less so by quantitating events allowing them to put things into perspective. An example of a knee jerk reaction to enviromental issues includes the spotted owl of Nth America, or the DTT ban. Here’s something I read recently on DTT:
“The DDT Lesson
The greatest potential danger of any government policy change is in the form of unintended consequences. Let’s return to the case of Rachel Carson, her book Silent Spring and the eventual ban on DDT by many countries.
The United States and much of the rest of the developed world eradicated malaria many years ago with the help of DDT. Its use was particularly widespread during World War II. Then people fell prey to what is now called the “precautionary principle”: If a new technology has potential negative side effects, don’t use it. Carson presented evidence that DDT caused thinning of eggshells in one species of bird. Indeed, the use of DDT on crops at the time was so heavy that it would have been surprising if there were not some negative side effects, either to nature or to humans.
But policy changes cannot be knee-jerk: One must always weigh costs versus benefits. You drive your car betting that the advantages it provides you outweigh the risks of your being killed in a traffic accident. The same decision is made when you walk across the street. You risk choking to death on food, but you continue to eat. Simply put, no one consistently lives their life according to the precautionary principle.
As a result of many countries’ bans on DDT, nearly 1 million people in Africa die each year from malaria, with many millions more permanently disabled. Most of these are children. It is now known that only a small amount of DDT applied to the doorposts of homes, termed residual spraying, greatly reduces the incidence of malaria. After several years of exploding malaria rates resulting from the discontinued use of DDT, South Africa has now reduced malaria dramatically by resuming its use.
And even though malaria has historically thrived in non-tropical countries, environmentalists now want us to believe that global warming will cause malaria to spread in the future, all the while insisting that DDT not be used now. I suspect that few, if any, of these environmentalists live in Africa. The public would certainly not tolerate a widespread outbreak in malaria in the U.S. DDT would be used to combat it.
In our search for global warming solutions, it is important that we not make the same mistakes that were made with DDT. Even if global warming does become serious, it is clear that solutions will be needed that are both effective and that provide many more benefits than harm.
Good intentions are not sufficient and, as history has demonstrated, are potentially dangerous”
By Roy W. Spencer
Human Events
Posted Aug 08, 2006
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2006/11/19/al-gores-movie-offers-global-warming-hysteria-with-harmful-solutions
Tim,
That story on DDT has been very widely discredited.
Dead Soul,
The gut was a problem for about ten months. Since the new year it has not troubled me at all. So no more telescopic cameras investigating awkward places (touch wood). Thanks for asking.
Regards,
Terje.
“Humphreys, quite seriously, green philosphy is libertarian,”
What, may one ask, is libertarian about people who’s solution to every problem is state regulation and controls? Sounds anti-libertarian to me.
“Which is tragic because most of the environmental disaster in the world are due to overly powerful governments and/or weak property rights.”
This is largely true, Dead Soul. Think about it logically, what is pollution? Basically, it is damage to life and property. There should be no difference between the wrongness of accidently running you over, and inadvertantly giving you cancer by poisoning your land. In both cases, the guilty party owes you restitution, and it used to be this way in the deep dark past (not I think in Australia, or Britain though, I mean in the US), what happened was that governments and companies felt the “national economy” needed a new advantage, so they allowed people to pollute, and from there, we entered our present situation, where one state intervention has produced unintended consequences, and the “solution” is yet another state intervention.
Of course if you took a deep breath in Moscow, or drank from the Volga, I think you would get a greater sense of how governments cause environmental damage, and the problem is the same, a group in society is given the right to do as it pleases without consequences.
I realise you could work through these basic principles in your own time but..
Just look at the amount of death causing government legislation and state regulation linked to the Middle East’s fossil fuels and their use. Buy a bike and ditch the red tape and speed limits.
Hayek’s Catallaxy is just poorly thought out Anarcho-Syndicalism.
Convince me otherwise, with logical steps whilst I leave the ALS website (a textual extension of Indymedia) bloodied but unbowed.
John
Do we have to listen to this tripe, seriously?
JayseC,
I bet you’ve got a nice Italian version of Macmillan pedal steel bicycle, why dont you listen to it if you can listen to tripe that’s written?
I think the “precautionary principle” that you seem to be in favour of Dead Soul can also be dangerous. I’m interested in what your alternative is to scientific proof and investigation.
The media and general public are prone to knee jerk reactions. Hopefully scientists are less so by quantitating events allowing them to put things into perspective. An example of a knee jerk reaction to enviromental issues includes the spotted owl of Nth America, or the DTT ban. Here’s something I read recently on DTT:
—
Scientism annoys me, the simple fact is that in any cutting edge science there is always a great deal of debate and conjecture. Expecting certainty from science is like:
“As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual
certainty, and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life – so I
became a scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you can
meet girls.”
— M. Cartmill
I just emailed this to a bod in Canada and touches on what I am driving at:
“There are cascades of issues here, the complexity is damning and overwhelming. I have driven myself to exhaustion so many times just trying to gain a sliver of insight. It is that hard, it will always be that hard, and I don’t think a person can appreciate how difficult biology is until they have really wrestled with these issues. This is where I do have a complaint with textbooks, these seems to simplify the issues far too much.”
(We are investigating the relationships between the brainstem, immunology, and transient cognitive deficits. If you want to save your brain speak to me but it will cost you heaps. I even know ways to limit age related cognitive decline, to markedly reduce the risk of dementia, and how to maintain attention with age. It’s cheap, its easy.)
The textbooks have to be simple. The media is far worse. I have to keep telling people that the way research is reported is hopeless. I have even considered going into science writing myself. As far as I’m concerned if you don’t get a huge fucking headache trying to understand these things then you have understood nothing.
Of course the precautionary principle can be dangerous and DDT is a good example, but to argue that we should just keep using DDT willy nilly ignores the fact that our goal should always be to find the best way to deal with a problem and the fact is pesticides are dangerous. You won’t hear this much in the press but it is generally agreed and backed up by much good research that Parkinson’s disease can be caused by exposure to some pesticides. Studies around golf courses have found increased rates of cancer. There are mountains of studies demonstrating ill effects from pollution. Nonetheless I think Africa should be using DDT because of the cost benefit ratio.
Which is more dangerous, not being cautious or otherwise? Given the history of pollution caution is warranted.
People read a bit here, a bit there, they think they’ve got it. Well I just spent 2 days ploughing through databases and as usual contradictory results. On previous discussions about DDT people insisted that it was safe, that is until I found plenty of evidence indicating otherwise.
So people take cheap shots at the precautionary principle but give me alternative.
John
As a fellow libertarian I must warn you that you are taking this personal respsonibility, freedom thing a little to far. So far in fact that it could end up causing problems for all.
Parkos is deranged and requires medical assistance for his bi-polar/new age disorder. Medics have warned everyone that allowing this mentally ill person on a blogsite will make things worse for him and that therapy will be delayed for the time he stays on.
I know you have seen this public notice so it is important you follow the advice of his medics. They say quietly escort him out the door and run him back to the asylumn. Failing that you are simply enabling this poor sick man like liquor to a drunk. It’s important that he gets early treatment before his illness totally subsumes him. Please help him.
JC, my mother the psychiatrist lives around the corner from you, I have told her you are basically harmless as you have sorted out your sexual stuff with Jason.
This is largely true, Dead Soul. Think about it logically, what is pollution? Basically, it is damage to life and property. There should be no difference between the wrongness of accidently running you over, and inadvertantly giving you cancer by poisoning your land. In both cases, the guilty party owes you restitution, and it used to be this way in the deep dark past (not I think in Australia, or Britain though, I mean in the US), what happened was that governments and companies felt the “national economy” needed a new advantage, so they allowed people to pollute, and from there, we entered our present situation, where one state intervention has produced unintended consequences, and the “solution” is yet another state intervention.
This contradicts libertarian philosophy. The polluter is the principle agent, many polluting agents know damn well that they are causing damage and simply don’t care. So much for individual responsibility. If I pour litter on the street I get fined, I am responsible, not the government. If a company pours shit into the environment they are responsible and if the owners of that company had any moral integrity they wouldn’t wait to be forced to stop polluting, they’d just do it. As Baron von thurlow once stated, “how can you expect a corporation to have a conscience when it has niether a body to be kicked or a soul to be damned.”
To me, saying a government is responsible because some idiot knowingly polluted the environment is a moral morass of blame shifting. It is like saying, I was mistreated as kid that’s why I’m bad. Blame someone else. The person who commits the act is the person primarily reponsible for that act. That is the libertarian way. If it isn’t it bloody well should be.
John
As a fellow libertarian I must warn you that you are taking this personal respsonibility, freedom thing a little to far. So far in fact that it could end up causing problems for all.
Censorship. Slander. You wouldn’t know a bipolar from a dysthymic. If libertarians can’t tolerate free speech on this forum … .
DS
It’s not about free speech, it’s about having to navigate worthless drivel. Add to that he’s so annoying and irritating that it actually flys over free speech.
If the guy had anything useful to say even if one disagreed with him, that’s one thing. But he talks this totally annoying new age shit that it makes one irritated just seeing his stupid name on a thread.
One just wants to slap him across the head every time you see him if that were possible.
Dead Soul,
Can you deliniate your quoted text from your own words in a more obvious manner.
Regards,
Terje.
“To me, saying a government is responsible because some idiot knowingly polluted the environment is a moral morass of blame shifting.”
You misunderstand me, sir.
Governments are the agencies in society with which we trust the protection of our rights. When government willfully abdicates its responsibility, as it has done in the case of pollution, then they are complicit. It is their willful failure to do their duty that has created this mess just as much as the polluters.
Whether or not people have moral integrity is beside the point, the fact is that we form governments to protect us from those without moral integrity. One may well pontificate on the way society has deteriorated as law has replaced morality, but it does not change the vital fact that none of this would be happening unless government allowed it to happen.
“Governments are the agencies in society with which we trust the protection of our rights.”
Well yea , that’s the theory.
——————————————————-
“When government willfully abdicates its responsibility, as it has done in the case of pollution, then they are complicit. It is their willful failure to do their duty that has created this mess just as much as the polluters.”
So you’re saying we need more gubermant to untangle the mess created by gubermant. Ha. When exactly has that ever worked?
And this pollution thing quite frankly is a personal preference position you’re taking. There are far more important issues to slove than carbon going into the atmosphere.
Get it through your head. Electricity and energy is a truly beautiful thing. We ought to worship to electricity each night before we go to bed thanking it for all the wonderful things it does for us. The costs of cheap power are far outweighed by the benefits. All gubermant needs to do is get out of the way.
——————————————————————
“Whether or not people have moral integrity is beside the point, the fact is that we form governments to protect us from those without moral integrity.”
True but up to a point. most of government these days is redistributive tax churning with political parties selling out to voters by promising to steal from one set of people to give another.
——————————————————————–
“One may well pontificate on the way society has deteriorated as law has replaced morality, but it does not change the vital fact that none of this would be happening unless government allowed it to happen.”
Not true. i don’t need a federal gubermant to tell me that killing is wrong and if I did kill someone I would end up in jail. Gubermant leaders are not my moral guides through life.
Dead Soul, I totally agree with your biologist mate’s comments.
Actually I think the precautionary principle may be named incorrectly. It should be the “hysteria principle”. Or the “mountain molehill principle”. But I’ve only come across the precautionary principle recently and would be happy for you to give me some examples where it could have worked.
Real precaution would be weighing up of pros and cons. Quantitative science and economics are essential for this. Sure you’ll never know every little detail, but that’s often not necessary.
There are numerous examples in science where “precaution” would have had bad effects. For example, penicillin kills rodents and if invented today may had considerably more difficulty getting to market due to precautionary regulations.
Botox, is a deadly toxin but hollywood stars love it in minute concentrations injected into their cheeks. Lucky it wasn’t banned outright.
When I did Chemistry, the full reaction mechanism for most organic reactions was not fully known. Did this stop some researcher mixing chemical A and B adding heat and seeing what would happen? Oh my God, they could have blown themselves to pieces, or released a deadly gas. I heard a story once of a scientist that injected a porphyrin based molecule into his face because he was convinced it could cure skin cancer or something. Porphyrins are known for their photo electronic transfer properties, and abundance in nature. Anyway, after being out in the sun, his face swelled up like a beetroot.
Your biologist friend would hopefully know of a bloke called Paracelsus (1493-1541) who once said “All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy.”
So my point is, to take the “precautionary principle” at face value you’d have to ban pretty much everything.
I’m all for actual precaution and resoponsibility, but totally against banning chemicals outright. Is this your view? Experimentation and advancement of new technologies always involves some risk. For example, with every new pharmaceutical tablet, at some point, someone who’s made a new pharmaceutical molecule in tablet form, gives it to someone and asks them to eat it.
I’d argue that heavy government regulation doesn’t protect anyone against the risk of experimentation, like that protein drug trialled in the UK last year that put a few people into a coma and killed one in the clinical trial. A good company has standard operating procedures and risk assessment, and good employees, know when to quit a dodgy company. The rest should be up to the market. For example, Garibaldi went out of business here in Sth Australia after their fermented meat products killed a couple of kids. This unacceptable accident ruined the company.
About 80% of people in the US (including college students) will sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. Is this being cautious or just stupid?
JC said:
DS
It’s not about free speech, it’s about having to navigate worthless drivel. Add to that he’s so annoying and irritating that it actually flys over free speech.
If the guy had anything useful to say even if one disagreed with him, that’s one thing. But he talks this totally annoying new age shit that it makes one irritated just seeing his stupid name on a thread.
One just wants to slap him across the head every time you see him if that were possible
—
Point taken JC and I am contradicting myself somewhat because I have previously asserted that freedom of speech is not freedom from logic or common decency.
BTW: I don’t read Parkos posts, at least not closely.
Dihydrogen monoxide kills many young children each year. It recently resulted in damage to lots of property in Indonesia. And in Sydney NSW they are talking about building a refinery in the heart of an urban area to process masses of the stuff. Luckily dihydrogen monoxide is relatively easy to contain.
Tim Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Dead Soul, I totally agree with your biologist mate’s comments.
Actually I think the precautionary principle may be named incorrectly. It should be the “hysteria principle”. Or the “mountain molehill principle”. But I’ve only come across the precautionary principle recently and would be happy for you to give me some examples where it could have worked.
Real precaution would be weighing up of pros and cons. Quantitative science and economics are essential for this. Sure you’ll never know every little detail, but that’s often not necessary.
There are numerous examples in science where “precaution” would have had bad effects. For example, penicillin kills rodents and if invented today may had considerably more difficulty getting to market due to precautionary regulations.
Botox, is a deadly toxin but hollywood stars love it in minute concentrations injected into their cheeks. Lucky it wasn’t banned outright
—
Pencillin kills bacteria. It was not Alexander fleming who discovered it but Howard Florey and his team. It was found to be safe, every trial produced no side effects, though in those days what constituted a “trial” is laughable compared to these days. The context here is entirely different, by D Day Florey and Co had manufactured enough pencillin for every landing soldier. By 1950 though resistance was already emerging. Penicillin isn’t used that often now because the bugs are resistant to it and many other antibiotics. Some researchers fear we are running out of ammo but that aint gonna happen too much.
Of course I am not for the outright banning of chemicals, I previously asserted that cost benefit ratio justifies use of DDT in Africa. My concern is that we should never assume a chemical is safe. Of particular importance is that the methodology for determining toxicity is so parlous. For example, in one study they gave very low doses of two known toxins, separately each has no effect at these dosages but together very bad. Now if you take the average human being today you will find 200+ man made chemicals in their body. My point here is obvious.
There are numerous examples where caution would have been preferable. There are now numerous studies dmeonstrating that pollution impacts on strokes, heart disease, dementias, diabetes, asthma, a whole plethora of immunological related disorders are growing. Neurodevelopmental disorders are increasing(autism is through the roof and there is evidence to suggest it has an autoimmune component), childhood cancer rates are increasing in Europe. There is now so much mercury in some fish that we must restrict our eating of the same(never eat swordfish!) yet at the same time we are told fish is excellent food for the brain and body. What a hopelessly stupid situation we have created for oursleves. Heaven knows what else will prop up.
My understanding of the precautionary principle, which I only heard on this forum a few days ago because I stay away from the whole global warming debate, is that you do make some attempt to weigh pros and cons but it is just as dumb to assume something is safe as it is to assume something is dangerous. You need some empirical guides.
But in this case we have the data.
Nuclear is not only safe its the safest, cleanist energy form there is.
Background radiation at low enough levels, far from leading to cancer, in fact acts as a protection against it.
So sayeth the empirical evidence.
Lets get those nuclear plants happening.
It may even be time to have legislation stopping the locals from putting the brakes on proposals for nuclear and coal plants.
“So you’re saying we need more gubermant to untangle the mess created by gubermant. Ha. When exactly has that ever worked?”
So, you don’t understand the difference between omission and commission?
I will put it simply: the beginnings of this mess lie in the refusal of government to carry out its rightful responsibilities. The solution is for government to carry out its responsibilities, and nothing more. Don’t mistake me for an marxist environmentalist.
What you are saying is if the government refuses to protect the rights of individuals, and bad things happen, no solution could ever be found in government protecting the rights of individuals.
“And this pollution thing quite frankly is a personal preference position you’re taking. There are far more important issues to slove than carbon going into the atmosphere.”
This side discussion was started by someone else.
“Not true. i don’t need a federal gubermant to tell me that killing is wrong and if I did kill someone I would end up in jail. Gubermant leaders are not my moral guides through life.”
Not true. If you killed someone by poisoning their land, you would not end up in gaol. The government these days would more than likely respond by taking control of other peoples’ businesses.
Can you not comprehend what I was saying? Where did I say it was the duty of government to act as a moral guide?
Perhaps I should reiterate: “Whether or not people have moral integrity is beside the point, the fact is that we form governments to protect us from those without moral integrity.”
What in that indicates that government acts as a moral guide. It seems to me to mean that government acts where morality fails (for whatever reason, it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion) to restrain criminal behavior.
graemebird Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
But in this case we have the data.
Nuclear is not only safe its the safest, cleanist energy form there is.
Background radiation at low enough levels, far from leading to cancer, in fact acts as a protection against it.
So sayeth the empirical evidence.
Lets get those nuclear plants happening.
It may even be time to have legislation stopping the locals from putting the brakes on proposals for nuclear and coal plants.
———————
Yes, there is some evidence that a little radiation can protect the body and not just against cancer. A little stress goes a long way. It is not just radiation but any low level short term stress activates very protective genes like DNA repair enzymes, KU 70 and 86. This is one reason why I frequently starve myself, research has clearly indicated that best way to improve your health is to stay hungry but be well nourished. The relevant pathways here appear to relate to SIR 2 processes(changes the “packing nature” of DNA by changes in base methylation and acetylation).
Conversely there is good evidence to show that radiation and EMFs from medical procedures (MRI and CT scan) can be potentially dangerous for brains and probably other organs as well. Ironically this danger only arises in the presence of pathology, just when you need these technologies! Catch 22, I’d hate to be the clinician making decisions about whether or not to head scan a kid with a concussion. A Swedish study found that those who had received these scans fared far worse at school in their later years.
I don’t have a problem with nuclear power but I would much prefer Thorium power. You can’t get weapons grade material out of these buggers, the waste products are much less dangerous, and storage times vastly reduced. I do have a concern about the whole world going nuclear, there are too many nutters out there. No problem with Thorium reactors though.
What needs to be considered though is the the first prototype fusion reactor reactor is being built. Now there’s power for you, and safe too. The general introduction of this technology is decades away but it will revolutionise our energy resources.
“Most Greenies are equally as critical of soviet industry as they are of idiotic styles of capitalist industry.”
No they aren’t. Most greenies are in a blind love affair with the state. They think, just as the soviets did, that the answer to environmental problems is to give government control over industry and all natural resources. Just have a look at the Greens website. They have learnt nothing from the mistakes of soviet industry.
As I understand it, the precautionary principle is the direct opposite of the principle of liberty.
The principle of liberty is “You should be free to do what you want, so long as you’re not hurting somone else.”
The precautionary principle “argues that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
With the principle of liberty, the burden of proof is on those who oppose liberty. With the precautionary principle, the burden of proof is on those who are in favour of liberty.
Of course, everything ‘might’ cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, it’s just a question of how high or low the standard of proof is. The precautionary principle is a recipe for centralised dictate based on shifting academic or political fashion.
As for energy policy in general, it’s none of the government’s business. Governments should abolish energy policy. They can only make matters worse. They have just spent untold billions and billions of dollars over the last century on coal-fired power stations and the whole world is braying their condemnation, so what makes people think their next guess is going to be any better?
If one way of making energy were clearly preferable to others, then people would do it, wouldn’t they, and there would be no need for government to favour one over others. But if one way is not clearly preferable, then there is no reason to think government would be able to pick the best way.
And the money they divert into their chosen way will be money that could have been better spent on whatever the market chose. Solar energy might have been economically feasible today if government hadn’t spent the last hundred years confiscating from society the money needed to make it economically feasible, and spending it on coal-fired power stations.
If people want to buy electricity, it is no more the government’s business than buying food, or shoes. Government is intrinsically incapable of knowing what is the best or appropriate use of energy, and the idea that it can know, has been refuted in theory and practice over and over and over again.
JJ says:
With the principle of liberty, the burden of proof is on those who oppose liberty. With the precautionary principle, the burden of proof is on those who are in favour of liberty.
—-
That is so epistemologically fucked. Burden of proof should not be subject to anyone’s philosophical prejudices, it should be subject to to the lessons of history and our current understanding. This is why I never bother with concepts like the precautionary principle or liberty. These are just vague abstractions, each case must be dealt with on its merits. If you are too lazy to do the hard yards and would rather resort to leaning on some philosophical position then stop complaining about those who actually try to engage in reasoned analysis rather than just spouting out cliches.
That’s quite alright then, the social democratic swedes have the best, safest nuclear programme in the world.
Mark Hill Says:
February 11th, 2007 at 11:37 am
That’s quite alright then, the social democratic swedes have the best, safest nuclear programme in the world.
—-
Last I heard they are planning to build more. Yes, those dangerous lefties are all absolutely paranoid about nuclear power and perhaps the most socialist country in the EU is building more of the plants.
As to the greenies and the meltdown risk, that effectively no longer exists, the technology is that good. Radiation is not an issue, the radiation from your mobile phone constitutes a far greater health risk. Despite what the Telecoms says there is enough data out to run this argument. Coal stations are far worse in polllution. Renewable technologies will never be sufficient, bit players in the power game at best.
I basically gave up on the environment a decade ago. I realised then that because most people don’t do their homework and just rely on their favourite sources, power would win this game and it largely has. For example, just yesterday the American Autism Assoc said the continuing rise in ASDs must be environmental and we must start seeking out just what environmental agents are causing this rise. Ha! Good luck, there are number of possible agents driving this trend. Two days before that the results of a Danish study showed continuing increases in various childhood neuropsychiatric disorders. There is something rotten in Denmark.
I advise liberatarians to be more cautious in their approach to the GW argument and environmental issues generally. Right or wrong isn’t relevant here, but when you lot just start throwing out attacks at those who support environmental issues you are sounding not that different from Greenies on the other side of the fence.
“but when you lot just start throwing out attacks at those who support environmental issues you are sounding not that different from Greenies on the other side of the fence.”
You’ve got to attack them. Because they are all anti-science liars and malevolent freaks who mean to do us harm.
graemebird Says:
February 11th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
“but when you lot just start throwing out attacks at those who support environmental issues you are sounding not that different from Greenies on the other side of the fence.”
You’ve got to attack them. Because they are all anti-science liars and malevolent freaks who mean to do us harm.
————
Graeme,
Don’t think about “attack”, think about “critique”. As I’ve made obvious I have some very deep environmental concerns but I could never be involved in Green politics because they live in some strange place. Part of my problem is that because I read so widely I tend to see things coming long before others. Someone said to me recently that I am so far ahead of the pack that I fail to realise just how hard I will have to work to make others understand my point of view. I have even been advised to “play dumb”, particularly when applying for jobs because if people see too much of me they will be intimidated by me. I doubt that though, I find the idea strange.
However I think the “ahead of the pack” may be relevant to libertarians. This is why I have previously advised that libertarians need to provide some sort of road map for the uninitiated to travel on, a way of leading them to understand what libertarian ideas are about and their implications for individuals and society.
When we are attacked are first response it typically defensive, we need to pull away from that a bit. Flattery will do more to persuade people than outright condemnation because it helps prevent this defensive response and demonstrates respect for one’s opponents. Rebutting an opponent at every opportunity suggests tribalism not reasoned analysis, people eventually get tired of that.
Always think about providing a positive spin. So find what little good there is in the subject at hand, acknowledge those points, but then go on to demonstrate why Green solutions are so impractical and other worldly. In short, always try to follow up negativity with positivity.
“Don’t think about “attack”, think about “critique”.
Thats not going to work with them. A gentleman who hasn’t reached his position via reason can’t be argued out of it by the same.
We must take the alarmists and criticise them in the strongest terms until they are permanently wrong-footed. Try and get them fired from their taxeater jobs and get their departments closed down and socially humiliate them as ‘Good Germans’.
Because thats what they’ve done to everyone who has disagreed with them and this is an evil anti-science watermelon-commie movement.
And its not funny anymore.
graemebird Says:
February 12th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
“Don’t think about “attack”, think about “critique”.
Thats not going to work with them. A gentleman who hasn’t reached his position via reason can’t be argued out of it by the same.
We must take the alarmists and criticise them in the strongest terms until they are permanently wrong-footed. Try and get them fired from their taxeater jobs and get their departments closed down and socially humiliate them as ‘Good Germans’.
Because thats what they’ve done to everyone who has disagreed with them and this is an evil anti-science watermelon-commie movement.
And its not funny anymore.
—
Graeme,
Damn quick aren’t you? Get back to work dude! It doesn’t meatter whether or not they change their mind, they won’t. What is far more important is how those “sitting on the fence” perceive your position.
Dead Soul… you don’t have to reproduce all of the previous quote. We can all see what Graeme wrote. And if you want to quote a particular sentence, try putting that sentence in italics. You can do that by typing {i}hello{/i}, but use the angled brackets (shift comma, shift period) instead of { and }.
But I agree with what you wrote. It is the third party that usually gains from a debate and it is infinitely better to use polite reason that angry abuse.
Most beliefs are built on a lot more than reason. To change a persons beliefs you need to loosen the legs that hold it aloft. Reason can help to work the legs loose but it takes time to pull down a belief system that has a lot of legs. It generally also requires the individual to encounter some new personal experiences or references.
Assuming that other people are beyond changing is in itself a disempowering belief.
“To change a persons beliefs you need to loosen the legs that hold it aloft.”
Right. I’ll go along with that.
Just keep (figuratively) loosening Lamberts legs by constantly kicking him in the nuts.
Look I go through the science of it all the time at my blog.
But when you have people that are persistently nasty like the real-climate and Deltoid crowd another level of debate is called for.
Graeme,
I have visited your blog. Having experienced the pointless verbal shit you pour on anybody that disagrees with you even slightly I won’t be visiting again anytime soon. By compaison the people at Deltoid and Real Climate are positively intellectual, hospitable and engaging.
Regards,
Terje.
teerje
There are numerous exmples of hatefilled, anti-market slugecarriers from the left . Could you please point me to any time you have attacked their rude, disgusting characterizations of non believers in the same way you have tried that on with Bird?
Regards
Joe.
Fellas — this is not a place to discus the relative nastiness of different people. Many people are nasty and they have all lost respect because of it. I want to keep ALS discussion broadly on-topic and civil so if you want to continue this please take it to your own blog, the catallaxy open thread or e-mail.
Terje said
Most beliefs are built on a lot more than reason. To change a persons beliefs you need to loosen the legs that hold it aloft. Reason can help to work the legs loose but it takes time to pull down a belief system that has a lot of legs. It generally also requires the individual to encounter some new personal experiences or references.
Assuming that other people are beyond changing is in itself a disempowering belief.
———–
Wise. Everybody think about what Terje has stated.
“I have visited your blog. Having experienced the pointless verbal shit you pour on anybody that disagrees with you even slightly I won’t be visiting again anytime soon”
Now you just settle down there fella.
I don’t always go round heaping verbal shit on people on account of them disagreeing with me.
We had been over this material before at BBB. And so you had already started going around in circles.
And I would have been more patient with it. But then Mark and Jason showed up and they’d put me through the agonising THREADS-OF-DOOM peversely supporting Fyodor all the way.
So when that level of unrighteousness is going on I’m just going to go for a 360 degree head-kicking.
Now its true that Mark and Jason fully deserved that talking to I gave you guys and you only deserved one tenth of that and I admit that.
But the fact is you all seemed to be doing a great impersonation of the leftist group-think for this one topic…… ie Money.
This money business is not over.
I’m not dissuaded in the least.
Money is the most important thing to get right.
More important then the initial NIT or anything.
This is not to say I don’t think you guys have your first year budget down about as perfect as you can get with the 30/30/30 plan.
But in the end we cannot have a just minimalist society without getting the money right and idependent of the state.
So we are just going to have to sit down and go over the money business again.
Because I’ll not be obstructed in this matter, or thrown off course.
liberty falls
Hi. Thanks for the good read.
Trackback by liberty falls | June 29, 2007