QUESTIONS ON ENERGY YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO ASK BUT COULDN'T FIND ANYONE WHO KNEW THE ANSWERS

By

Karl H. Puechl

April 14, 1996

(Talking points only; spoke off-the-cuff)

This talk came about because I constantly get annoyed by people who know nothing about a subject, spouting forth as if they know what they are talking about. These people can be ordinary folks who think they know something for sure simply because it seems to be reasonable to believe it, or since the media has repeatedly implied that the belief is true. Or it can be experts in related fields, who then simply assume that they have enough expertise to allow them to draw conclusions about something that they are familiar with but, about which, in reality, they are no more knowledgable than an ordinary person. Carl Sagan, in my estimation, is a classic example of this. He is an astromomer, or if you want to stretch the point a little, an astrophysicist. But he is no nuclear physicist, or ecologist. So he has no business making predictions about the aftermath of the use of nuclear weapons. While I generally agree with Sagan's philosophical positions; I can't condone his commenting as an "expert" in technical areas where he, in reality, is a layman. Perhaps the most flagrant overstepping of these bounds is done by ecologists. Ecology is such a broad subject that so-called "ecologists" often provide commentary in technical areas where they have little expertise. This most often comes about because they come up with a reasonable conjecture, like that some chemicals that we release into the environment can seriously affect our hormonal production. Certainly, there are such chemicals. But then they generalize and, perhaps, write a book about the potentially disasterous effects of many chemicals. And they write about all these chemicals as if the disasterous effects were a certainty. They do this in spite of the fact that true experts, specialized toxicologists, know the effects of some of these chemicals, and know full-well that there is little or no relationship between the chemical and hormonal effects. I ask, why do these ecologists not try to contact the experts before they write a book? Are they just lazy? Are they so sure of their supposition that they are convinced of its universality and therefore feel it to be superfluous to seek verification? Or are they afraid that if they asked the experts they would find that their supposition has only limited validity and that, therefore, it would not be worth the effort to write a book?

Let me give you some recent examples that irked me.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. Problem is there is no such thing as a rocket scientist.

Everyone is surprised that a man lives after being shocked by 250,000 volts of electricity, when everyone who knows anything about electricity knows that 110 volts is the most dangerous.

Robert Mueller's statement that he wants to ban nulcear weapons and nuclear power since man could not exist on earth while it was very radioactive. Why don't people learn some facts before they spout off. Mutations are needed for evolution; they bad ones die out, the good ones survive.

Which releases more radioactivity to the atmosphere: a coal-fired powerplant or a nuclear powerplant. A nuclear plant releases nothing. Perhaps we should have had it release a little every day, like a coal-fired plant. Then the amount left in a nuclear plant after 3 years of operation wouldn't be so horrendous.

Also, note that I once wrote an article that explained that a nuclear reactor was a net destroyer of radioactivity. Mix it with the dirt taken out of the mines and shove it back in.

Pioneers in the nuclear business were ultra-cautious. Difference between a chemist's lethal dose and a physicists, maximum body burden. Define, then tell about the Margaret Mead fiasco.

Also, again note decision to allow no release of radioactivity while the poweplant was in operation; rather than letting it out gradually.

Mention NUMEC dichotomy between NY Operations office and Washington. Waste disposal contriversy hinges around not understanding these two alternatives.

Electric cars. Whoever asks where will the electricity come from to recharge the batteries?