What is Green?

Written by on

What is green?  Sure, it’s a color.  It’s a social movement. It has something to do with the environment; and generally, when we talk about someone being green or living a green lifestyle, we assume that the individual shuns plastic shopping bags, drinks wheatgrass smoothies, and sports Birkenstocks regardless of the climate.  Beyond that harsh assessment, it’s difficult to put one’s finger on a concrete meaning of being green.  My aim is to attempt to articulate a definition of “green” and more specifically- what it means for an energy form to be “green.”

Recently, I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace and the Co-Chair of the CasEnergy Coalition. During a lecture, Dr. Moore identified four terms used and misused in the context of energy; clean, renewable, sustainable, and green. Clean describes forms of energy, like nuclear, that do not produce CO2.

Renewable means that a given resource can be replenished in a fairly short period of time. In other words, renewable implies that it is possible to ‘restock or refill’ a given resource. In terms of energy, burning wood is a renewable form of energy because trees can be planted to replace those cut down in a given year.

Sustainable implies that a resource can be maintained long in to the future at the present rate of use. Something that is sustainable is not necessarily renewable.  For example, nuclear energy is a sustainable form of energy because the quantities of natural uranium available in the earth will make nuclear energy viable thousands of years into the future.  However, nuclear is not renewable in the most basic sense because we cannot create new uranium supplies within the earth.  By now you may notice that each of these terms is relative and has its nuances.  I’m sure you could argue that nuclear is renewable if you factor in reprocessing but that’s a topic for another article- I’m trying to keep things simple.

Green requires a more longwinded response. It’s more of a marketing slogan than concrete concept.  Commercialization makes it more difficult to find meaning in a term like green.  It’s become clouded by marketing campaigns such that all anyone comprehends are the tidbits picked up in popular culture and on shopping trips to local health food grocers.  There are green cars these days.  Does that mean they’re clean?  Perhaps not–But increasingly these two terms are being linked.  In fact, it seems as though considered renewable, clean, or sustainable is automatically touted as green.  I now realize half way through this diatribe that I may not be able to come to a formal definition of green.   According to Dr. Moore, “Green is a concept.  It’s like art- it can’t be defined.”   Ha!  I really like that assessment. Attempting to find a definition for green feels similar to standing in front of a large work of modern art and then being asked to describe what I perceive to be the artist’s purpose.  It’s hard at best and near impossible when you look at it from a less optimistic point of view.  Ultimately, I think that the commercial marketing slogan of green has been used when a product is “pro-Earth.” Whether a product is made from recycled materials, manufactured locally, or constructed such that it decomposes within a year– the product’s end goal is a reduction in the negative impacts on the Earth.  From this standpoint, a commodity can be considered green if it in some way reduces harm or damage inflicted towards the environment.  This is still a wishy-washy definition but it at least gives us something tangible to work with.

Now that we prescribed a meaning to green as a social concept, it becomes necessary to identify green forms of energy.  If a green form of energy is simply one that aims to reduce its impact on the environment, then nuclear is certainly a green form of energy. Is wind?  Is solar?  How about hydroelectricity?  They all seem to be if you pick your argument accordingly.  It’s important to dissect what a utility means by marketing its energy as green.  Do they mean that it’s sustainable?  Do they mean it’s renewable?  If it is renewable or sustainable, is it still free of greenhouse gases?  The homework is ultimately left up to the consumer.

I believe that clean and sustainable are the key words to look for when assessing various forms of energy.  However, practical considerations enter into the argument; it’s important that energy be reliable and affordable, in addition to clean and sustainable.  Nuclear is the only clean and sustainable form of energy that is capable of reliably meeting the needs of society.  I don’t propose for all energy to come from nuclear- there should be a mix.  However, I do want to challenge individuals who view nuclear energy in a negative light to read more on the subject.  It’s incredibly harmful to reject or embrace an issue prior to fully understanding the topic at hand.  There are benefits and risks associated with every form of energy; it’s when we weigh cost with benefit that we arrive at a meaningful opinion.   Likewise, I encourage consumers to approach ‘green’ with skepticism in order to decipher precisely what benefits a product may offer.

 

*For more information about sustainable forms of energy visit Dr. Patrick Moore’s website:  http://greenspirit.com/

*To learn more about nuclear energy visit the Nuclear Energy Institute at http://nei.org  or if you’re in the mood for light reading, check out the Nuclear Literacy Project’s fact page:http://nuclearliteracy.org/fast-facts/

Caldicott Encounter

Written by on

Last night, I attended a presentation on the medical implications of Fukushima and Chernobyl.  The lecture was given by Dr. Helen Caldicott, the World’s foremost activist for the anti-nuclear movement.  I went into the event knowing full well her opinions would be counter to my own, but I was interested in learning how she presented her argument.  I figured if all else, it would be a social learning experience.  The lecture was held in the Sustainable Learning Center at the University of South Carolina and was sponsored by the Midland’s Sierra Club.  This may have been a red-flag for some with experience in the nuclear industry, but I optimistically assumed young environmentalists in attendance would see the light and come to see Nuclear energy as a carbon-free and sustainable form of power.

Ultimately, I hoped this presentation would provide a platform for discussion —And it did, but not nearly as peaceably as I envisioned.  I imagined proponents of nuclear refuting the speaker’s false statements and exaggerations (respectfully, of course), the speaker conceding to our reasoning, and the whole night ending in a campfire kumbaya session between the opposing groups.  Instead, Dr. Caldicott refused questions, became increasingly hostile and arrogant, and created a strained environment for everyone.  The worst part is that Dr. Helen Caldicott wants to raise the blood pressure of her audience:  She uses fear and misinformation to scare her audience into believing that all nuclear power plants kill, cause cancer, and are nothing short of nuclear bombs.

The talk started relatively well—granted, I could tell she was angry from the second she walked in the room.   She began by affirming “it’s inappropriate to lie with science.”  Whatever hope that instilled in me for the rest of the talk was quickly crushed by the load of distorted and misrepresented facts she started free flowing.  To get the audience’s blood boiling, she commented on the event’s location—Columbia, South Carolina.  In her own words, she chastised, “I would not live here- it’s really dangerous.” The audience gasped and since she had everyone where she wanted them, she compounded her accusations with a disturbing history of nuclear energy research.  With regards to Madame Curie, Dr. Caldicott stated “she was so radioactive; she almost glowed in the dark.”  I knew that was a joke-whether or not it was intended as such– but the audience members?  It is ridiculous fears like glowing in the dark that drive public confusion and fear toward the nuclear industry.

Then Dr. Caldicott attacked chocolate.  At that point, she accelerated her point loss in my book.  In her expert opinion, Hershey’s chocolate gives you cancer.  Her reasoning?  The Hershey’s Chocolate factory is located near Three Mile Island.  She claims that the cow’s milk in the area is still contaminated with very high levels of Cs-137, Sr-90, and I-131.  I may be going out on a limb here, but I bet she doesn’t have any evidence to substantiate that claim.  I haven’t gotten around to it yet myself, but I encourage scintillation testing on Hershey’s bars.  Feel free to report back findings.

To address the medical implications of Fukushima, Dr. Caldicott cited ‘a study’ that showed within a group of 3,000 children, 1,000 had thyroid nodules.  An audience member inquired about the typical occurrence of thyroid nodules in children.  Dr. Caldicott dodged the question and was asked again to provide values.  She became even more defensive than she already was and finally said thyroid nodules “are rarer than hen’s teeth.”  I located the research Dr. Caldicott referred to and it was a legitimate study. However, the lead researcher, Dr. Mitsuyoshi Urashima (a pediatric Oncologist in Tokyo), said that although thyroid nodules were present it was not clear whether this presented a high percentage.  Furthermore, he affirmed that no thyroid cancers had been detected thus far.   And as for all evacuees from areas surrounding Fukushima– Dr. Caldicott plainly stated “they’re all going to die.”  With that opinionated retort, Dr. Caldicott decided she would no longer accept questions.

With regards to Chernobyl, Dr. Caldicott claimed over a million people have died.  Compare that to the findings in the World Health Organization.  The WHO report on Chernobyl concluded that beyond 28 liquidators who died by acute radiation sickness, there may be up to 4,000 additional cancer deaths among the highest exposed groups.  All in all, this corresponds to a 3-4% increase above the normal incidence of cancer in the population.  Had Dr. Caldicott acknowledged my question about her figure, I’m sure she would have countered by saying something about the WHO being corrupt.  In past media interviews, Dr. Caldicott has stated that the WHO is part of a massive conspiracy to hide the true death toll surrounding Chernobyl.  She also showed slides with pictures of deformed children and claimed that all abnormalities in the Ukraine could be attributed to the fallout from Chernobyl.  However, according to Gerry Thomas, who worked for the United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation, “there is absolutely no evidence” for an increase in birth defects.  Are we to believe the UN is involved in a conspiracy as well?

Throughout the remainder of the talk, Dr. Caldicott threw out exaggerated numbers, claims, and attacks.  In one instance, she said that subjecting a U-235 atom to a neutron flux makes the material 5,000 times more radioactive than if it were simply left in the ground.  At that point an audience member asked if she would go through the math she used to reach that figure.   The question was certainly not out of line- throughout the entire lecture she had waived around a dry erase marker and used it for figures and sketches on the whiteboard-yet she snapped back, and said that she had seen the research and he didn’t need to see the math.  The audience member apologized and said they were only interested because their passion was mathematics.  Dr. Caldicott’s fevered response was, “the math is in my book, you can check it there!”

Dr. Caldicott concluded her lecture by comparing nuclear power plants to nuclear weapons.  She claimed that there was no truth behind the term “atoms for peace.”  Rather, the nuclear energy industry was a front for the nuclear weapons industry.  She went on to terrorize the audience with statistics from the Cold War- citing thousands of nuclear weapons per country and detailing the chilling affects a nuclear war would have on civilization.  I don’t so much doubt her numbers on nuclear weapons; I just wonder why they were relevant to the lecture.   She attacked the Megatons to Megawatts program even though she had just asserted that stockpiles of nuclear weapons pose a massive threat to humanity.   One of her arguments against the program was that MOX fuel could only be used in Sodium cooled reactors.   In reality, MOX fuel can be used in thermal light water reactors, as well.  However, that doesn’t create quite the same stir in the audience as the promise that any leak in the Sodium coolant will lead to an explosion.

After the lecture, Dr. Caldicott refused to take questions and after signing a few of her books in a corner, rushed out of the lecture hall.  She planned to instill fear and tension in the audience and it worked.  The frustration from her refusal to answer questions coupled with her hateful responses those that she did respond to, left a bitter taste in everyone’s mouth.  Rather than coming across as an intelligent and powerful woman, Dr. Caldicott came across as a harsh and argumentative radical.  Her premature exit from the lecture hall turned out to be a blessing in disguise.  It allowed the audience to voice concerns and interact with one another rationally.  A leader from the Sierra Club approached me and asked me what I thought of the new licenses at VC Summer.   I told him I was honestly excited and that I saw the licenses as a positive push for the nuclear industry.  He naturally inquired about safety and expressed his fears about building new plants in the area. I explained the passive safety features of the AP1000 and by the end of the conversation he felt less anxious about the new builds.  All in all, the lecture proved to be a learning experience for nearly everyone involved—but it was certainly not attributable to the ‘good doctors’ teachings.