This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

A Strategy for Nuclear Communications: Listen

Milton Caplan's picture
President, MZConsulting Inc.

Milt has more than 40years experience in the nuclear industry advising utilities, governments and companies on new build nuclear projects and investments in uranium.

  • Member since 2018
  • 108 items added with 150,364 views
  • May 29, 2017
  • 823 views

Not a day goes by when we don’t read something about the public acceptance problem in the nuclear industry. A recent article preaching the end of the nuclear era had a pretty strong statement that sums up like this – “Nuclear looks ever more like a 20th-century dinosaur, unloved by investors, the public, and policymakers alike.” While I don’t believe this is actually the case, I am sure that many in the public would not find much to fault with it. And that is the challenge we face.

For more than 30 years we have been hearing that the public just don’t understand the nuclear message – that we need to better educate them – and that while we are all smart folks we are very bad at communicating. Yawn……

As an industry, we pride ourselves on maintaining detailed OPEX from around the world and learning lessons to foster continuous operations improvement. Yet, while there has actually been a lot of recent good work on communicating with the public, in this non-technical area we are much slower in leaning the lessons we need to learn.

Beliefs about nuclear power are well entrenched in society. Most of the concerns come from its weapons origin and a significant fear of radiation that will not just go away with a simple explanation or better education.

This fear translates into fears about nuclear power plants. It is a common belief that we are safely operating doomsday machines. i.e. that a nuclear accident can have such far reaching consequences that it can literally destroy the world. If that is one’s belief how can you convince him or her to support this technology? Talking about low probabilities is of little interest when the perceived consequence is so dire.

Yet, there is hope. There is generational change coming and this new generation is not afraid of technology, but rather sees it as the solution to everything. They have other issues on their minds such as climate change – they likely don’t think much about nuclear power at all.

In our home country of Canada, a recent small study shows very interesting results. Without any scene setting, a simple question on whether the public is in favour of nuclear power shows about a fifth in favour, a third against and the most, about half in the undecided column. This probably demonstrates that nuclear power is not a top of mind issue for many Canadians. However, what is important about this study is that once the question is asked again, if prefaced by some scenarios providing information – such as today nuclear provides 17% of electricity in Canada but less than 1% of carbon emissions; or that Canada has more than 50 years of operating nuclear plants safely; or that small reactors may provide much needed energy to help in Canada’s remote communities; then the result is quite different. The chart below suggests that given a positive reason to think about nuclear power, people are likely to change their view with support growing and opposition declining. The lesson here is that people can be open to a new discussion about nuclear power BUT this must be on the basis of them considering that it is a possible solution to an issue of relative importance to them.

Or to be more clear, the first step is not trying to reduce the fear of nuclear. Without giving people a reason to listen you may as well be talking to yourself. What is needed is to LISTEN, understand what issues are important to the public and demonstrate that nuclear power is a possible solution. Whether their issue is climate change, energy poverty in the far north, energy innovation, high quality job creation, or just electricity reliability; it is only by addressing these issues that there will be an appetite for listening to us to find out more.

A great example is the group Environmental Progress in the USA. Here is a world renown life long environmentalist, Michael Shellenberger, taking up the fight to support nuclear power as a tool to meet environmental goals. I don’t know Michael personally but I would guess that he didn’t just wake up one day with a huge aha moment and decide nuclear power is a fantastic technology that he wanted to support; but rather he looked for solutions to what is important to him, the environment. This is clearly set out in the EP mission – “Nature and Prosperity for All – Environmental Progress (EP) was founded to achieve two big goals: lift all humans out of poverty, and save the natural environment. These goals can be achieved by mid-century — but only if we remove the obstacles to cheap, reliable and clean energy.” I expect that over time, in his quest to improve the environment, he came to consider nuclear as an option and became open to listening and learning more about whether this option would help to achieve these goals.

I have read many of the posts by EP and they are excellent. But what is of interest to me as an industry person is that the arguments being made in support of nuclear power are not new. In fact, they are mostly the same arguments we have been making for the more than the 35 years we have been in this industry. So, what has changed? The dialogue. Once there was a clear goal that is not directly about nuclear power, there became an openness to learn more about those options that can help meet that goal. And then the facts can be discussed and as we know, the facts tell a good story.

What do we learn here? We have a huge opportunity today to change the discussion about nuclear power, but the first step is to stop and listen. It’s not about talking about safety and the LNT model for radiation protection; it’s about understanding the issues of importance to a new generation and then having a conversation to show that nuclear can be part of the solution. Just trying to educate has taken us nowhere. But once we listen, then we can expect others to open their minds and listen too. Only then can we say that nuclear power is not a 20th – century dinosaur; but rather is a technological wonder able to produce the huge amounts of clean reliable energy required for the 21st century and beyond.

Note: This is one of a series of posts to engage in a healthy discussion on public acceptance and nuclear advocacy. As we think about these issues we would like to point out an excellent book by Meredith Angwin, “Campaigning for Clean Air: Strategies for Pro-Nuclear Advocacy”. If you are at all interested in nuclear advocacy, this is a must read.

Original Post

Discussions
Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on May 29, 2017

Milton, the article you cite was written by Fred Pearce, a UK-based antinuclear hysterian, who in an earlier article on Fukushima noted:

“The bright-red digital display on an official Geiger counter read the equivalent of 21 millisieverts per year, just above the limit for human habitation.

Has Fred scolded residents of Ramsar, Iran for thriving in an area where the natural background radiation is ten times higher?

“Record levels were found in a house where the effective radiation dose due to external radiation was 131 mSv/a, and the committed dose from radon was 72 mSv/a. This unique case is over 80 times higher than the world average background radiation…early anecdotal evidence from local doctors and preliminary cytogenetic studies suggested that there may be no such harmful effect, and possibly even a radioadaptive effect. More recent epidemiological data show a slightly reduced lung cancer rate.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Mazandaran

Crazy antinukes, and their crazy imaginations.

Sean OM's picture
Sean OM on May 29, 2017

Nuclear is a waste of money. It is not cost effective. It is why the industry has to lobby so hard for federal money.

Engineer- Poet's picture
Engineer- Poet on May 29, 2017

Here is bionerd23 measuring 53μSv/hr on the resort beach at Guarapari, with families playing all around.

At that rate of exposure you’d pick up 21 mSv in about 400 hours (2.5 weeks).  It would be fun to ship Pearce there and have him scream to the locals to get away from this deadly danger (that they’ve been living in for centuries).  Maybe Brazil would haul him off to a mental ward, which is where he’s belonged all along.

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on May 30, 2017

Pearce was too tolerant as he used the 20mSv/a limit which is the limit for adult nuclear workers. Increases of only 0.2mSv (100 times less, only 10% of normal background radiation!) have shown to create serious additional health damage to newborn.*)

Furthermore the research showed that the frequency of those serious birth defects increase linear with the radiation, for levels from 0.2 – 0.8mSv/a
The linear relationship being: (% are per 1mSv/a increase):
– Heart malformations: ~80% (P=0.002)
– Stillbirth: ~30% (P=0.0003)
– Deformities of skull, face, jawbone, neck, spinal column, hip joint, long bones of the legs, and feet: ~120% more per mSv/a increase in radiation (P=0.00004)!

The 1800 residents of the highest radiation district in Ramsar get on av. 9mSv/a as a special measurement project from Tehran University found.
Still their DNA repair metabolism is increased which indicate that they will live shorter (a.o. faster telomere shortening), though the numbers are too low to find a significant difference. Especial as av. live expectancy is low anyway in the area.
But the meta study, combining the results of different high background radiation studies in the world, did show significant negative health effects.

_________
*) During the period of cell division DNA cannot be repaired when damaged by a radiation particle, because it’s then single stranded.

Vulnerable for increased radiation compared to adults:
– n times more for children
– nn times more for babies
– nnn times more for fetuses
– nnnnn times more for sperm during production in the testicles;
Hence the increased sex ratio of newborn around nuclear facilities and nuclear power plants.

Of course the increased levels of DNA damage also imply less health, intelligence, etc. Studies found significant indications for that in France, USA, Germany. Though the significance levels are low (P=0.05, due to the low numbers of newborn around NPP’s) and possible confounding. Though the studies combined deliver a good indication (alas no one did a good meta-study yet).

So Germany closed its prime nuclear waste dry cask store, while the huge building with 50cm thick walls was still 70% empty, when an extended study by pro-nuclear scientists found even higher increases (>10%) in the m/f sex ratio of newborn. The pictures in the recent Jahresberichte reports and the stated radiation measurements give an overview.

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on May 30, 2017

Milton,
You don’t touch nuclear’s major problem which is that nuclear didn’t live up to its promises:

– cheap.
It’s by far the most expensive method to generate electricity. Even compared to important renewable.

– problems will be solved.
The nuclear waste problem only became bigger in the past half century.

– safe
Near 1% of nuclear reactors ended in disaster whose costs of more than a trillion US$ are largely socialized. So history shows that the safety statement is wrong.
Worse:
Nuclear management showed to cheat regarding safety. Major fraud shown in S.Korea, France and even USA (though at lower scale).

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on May 30, 2017

Have we mentioned that this is junk science?

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on May 30, 2017

Sorry,
But it seems that for you all scientific results which may harm the position of nuclear equals junk science.

John Oneill's picture
John Oneill on May 30, 2017

‘In the past, lethal recessive mutations of the X chromosome were thought to alter the birth sex ratio in favor of females if mothers were exposed to radiation, since the single X chromosome in males is derived from mothers, and in favor of males if fathers were exposed, since the male X chromosome is transmitted only to daughters. Early observations concerning births to A-bomb survivors (1948-1953) favored this hypothesis but were not statistically significant. Further data collected through 1962 (140,542 births, 73,994 with one or both parents exposed) did not support any radiation effect on sex ratios.

Subsequent considerations regarding errors in sex chromosome number and patterns of X chromosome inactivation in embryonic and extraembryonic tissues have made it difficult to determine how X chromosome mutations may affect sex ratios. Under these circumstances, it seems doubtful that sex ratio measurements can be useful as indicators of genetic radiation damage.’ ( Radiation Effects Research Foundation )
http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/sexratio.html
See also, from Kerala, India, a comparison of sex ratios and birth defects which found no correlation with high background radiation levels. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26343038
Have you considered that these slight variations you make so much of could more likely be caused by the social effects of numbers of power plant workers moving into a rural area, and the economic consequences of that ?

Thorkil Soee's picture
Thorkil Soee on May 30, 2017

To avoid further mistakes, I will mention that the negative impact of radiation has been grossly overstated.
Probably it started already during the cold war.
I have tried to collect something on http://wp.me/p1RKWc-mu
This misunderstanding has put its fingerprint on the attitude to nuclear safety. See http://wp.me/s1RKWc-51

Now we see how nuclear in The West is stagnating. http://wp.me/s1RKWc-98
At the same time we see how the new countries: China and Korea expand and export nuclear.
East European countries, having left the old iron grip of Soviet, are getting help from Russia in order to get pollution-free and stable energy.
In my opinion it shows that nuclear can compete – also economically.

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on May 30, 2017

Radiation impact = radiation level * period.
People don’t live or even stay 400hrs at especially the hot spots at the beach.

Stronger, they will experience far less radiation on average, as radiation at Guarapari beach shows huge differences depending on the exact place.
So the average visitor won’t experience similar radiation at Guarapari beach.

Engineer- Poet's picture
Engineer- Poet on May 30, 2017

You could easily get 1200 hours on the beach in a year.  10 hours a day every weekend wouldn’t be out of line for a dedicated ocean-lover.  2 weeks off for holidays, 1200 hours.

The point, Bas, is that your p-hacked statistics from tiny exposures imply outsized effects at places like Guarapari and Kerala which ought to be very obvious in the public health records.  Instead, they’re totally absent.  Your sources do everything they can to avoid acknowledging this.  They’re liars who make their living concealing the deadly (fossil fuels) while demonizing the harmless, and so are you.

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on May 30, 2017

@John,
I understand that you question whether increased m/f sex ratio of newborn:
– is related to increased radiation
– indicate increased levels of genetic damage.

Both apply. Below a few of the many research results.

UNSCEAR stated in 1958 already in its yearly report to the UN that increased m/f sex ratio of newborn is a sensitive indicator for increased radiation!

Sheets 8 – 11 of this PPT explain shortly: Y-chromosome smaller. So sperm containing an Y-chromosome has less chance to be hit and killed. Hence more male sperm at conception. After conception similar applies as XX-chromosome is larger, so more risk to be hit and damaged/killed. Note that an hit can also result in genetic aberration such as abnormal limbs, etc.

Sellafield
Male workers at the radiation zone of Sellafield get 39% more boys than girls (Dickinson etal, 1996).*) And of course those children also suffer from more health damage. Even significant while it concerns small numbers (345 children).

Thereafter Parker etal (The Lancet 1999) researched the frequency of stillbirth among the offspring of those workers. They found a significant positive association (P=0.009) between the risk of a baby being stillborn and the father’s total exposure to external ionising radiation before conception; 24% more risk per 100mSv. The risk was higher for stillbirths with congenital anomaly and was highest for the nine stillbirths with neural-tube defects.

Then Dickinson etal reported in 2002 that:
Children of radiation workers had a 90% higher risk of leukaemia/non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (both serious cancers) than other children in the Cumbria area (p = 0.05]. The risk increased significantly with father’s total pre-conceptional external radiation dose; risk increase 60% per 100mSv (p = 0.05).

Few other
The Bavarian congenital malformation data set (1984-91) shows a sex ratio of 1.39 (sh.8 of this PPT, check also the many links in the PPT).

This rock solid study (thanks to unique circumstances) regarding those showed that even radiation increases of ~10% of normal background radiation (0.2mSv/a) already result in increased serious health damage to newborn.
Furthermore that the frequency of those serious birth defects increase linear with the radiation, for levels from 0.2 – 0.8mSv/a (normal background ~2mSv/a).

The linear relationship being: (% are per 1mSv/a increase):
– Heart malformations: ~80% (P=0.002)
– Stillbirth: ~30% (P=0.0003)
– Deformities of skull, face, jawbone, neck, spinal column, hip joint, long bones of the legs, and feet: ~120% more per mSv/a increase in radiation (P=0.00004)!

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on May 30, 2017

@John,
Kerala has same problem as Guarapari beach. The radiation levels are highly patchy, so estimations of radiation levels a person gets are very wild (both are due to monazite sand at/near the beaches).
In Kerala frequent movements to other houses also play a role.

Hence while studies at Ramsar do find effects*), those regarding Guarapari and Kerala usually don’t. Scientists from N.Carolina and Paris universities combined results of a number of studies regarding all high background radiation areas, increasing the population under research.
They then found significant negative health effects.
_____
*) Also because Iranian researchers use more advanced techniques.

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on May 30, 2017

Even then, those few who spent so many hours on the beach won’t chose all the time the few hot spots on the beach as they are not known without radiation measurement instrument.

And if they know those they will probably avoid them, following medical advice.

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on May 30, 2017

I’m calling the junk science junk science. We have the low-level radiation people such as Busby, Scherb, Møller/Mousseau, Sherman/Mangano, Gundersen and the late Sternglass and Yablokov. These are all established and discredited junk scientists.

We also have a few life-cycle-analysis junk scientists such as van Leeuwen, Sovacool and Jacobson.

And unfortunately, there’s a lot of mini-versions and followers. Caldicott is one, you are another. There are hundreds more on national levels.

I actually think it’s time to enact legislation that put the junk scientists in jail. We’re losing herd immunity due to vaccine junk, GMO benefits due to anti-GMO junk, losing the climate battle due to anti-nuclear junk and so on. They are a menace to society and they are far more damaging than most other scammers.

Perhaps it should start in the Netherlands, as crimes against humanity? You guys have a history of courts with global reach…

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on May 30, 2017

Bas, since all of your “scientific” results are sourced from one unqualified activist posting from a Munich apartment building, its junk potential is surprisingly high.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on May 30, 2017

Bas, radiation levels at Fukushima are “highly patchy” too. What’s your point?

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on May 31, 2017

Shellenberger is an excellent commnicator.

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on Jun 1, 2017

“….all of your “scientific” results are sourced from one…”
No. Read a.o. my comment below and the comment of Jesper above.

Dr. Hagen Scherb (Ph.D for research regarding statistical methods) has a long list of publications on a range of other subject too, such as chemical pollution, etc. An example: “Chemical- and effect-oriented exposomics: Three Gorges Reservoir”.

He is one of the leading scientists at the Institute of Computational Biology (ICB). Which is part of the Helmholtz Zentrum München, which is the German Research Center for Environmental Health.
Helmholtz centers have similar position in Germany as the national labs in USA.

If you doubt his results: In the sheets until sh. 17 of this presentation you can find the explanation of his methods and the raw data on which his results are based.

Results such as the highly significant (P=0.001) jump-like increase of 10%(!) in the m/f sex ratio of newborn around Gorleben when the first dry casks containing nuclear waste were stored in the huge building with 0.5m thick walls.
Those results were doubted by pro-nuclear scientists in the concerned state. They got an assignment for an expanded study area and found (to their unbelieve) then even higher increases, indicating even more genetic damage!

So the state in N.Germany organized a conference with all involved scientists, incl. those who said that it was impossible.
At the end Scherb (from S.Germany) got the assignment to write the final report for Berlin from the N.German state, bypassing their own scientists.
Berlin then decided to close the site while the huge building was still for 70% empty.

This shows that authorities up to the highest level have no doubt about his integrity, neither his scientific capabilities.

Milton Caplan's picture
Thank Milton for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network® is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »