Comments on: Not A “War on Science,” Again http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Jon Frum http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232&cpage=1#comment-13954 Jon Frum Fri, 22 May 2009 03:22:07 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232#comment-13954 "We have no idea whether Yucca Mountain would be a suitable burial ground for nuclear wastes." Ten billion dollars, and we have no idea? Surely we have some idea. What we know for certain is that the Nevada NIMBYs and the anti-nukes are blocking Yucca - Nevada for the obvious reason, and the anti's in their tried and true "gum up the works to stop the machine" tactics. We certainly know to a scientific certainty that the existing waste is not safe in the long term where it is now. “We have no idea whether Yucca Mountain would be a suitable burial ground for nuclear wastes.”

Ten billion dollars, and we have no idea? Surely we have some idea. What we know for certain is that the Nevada NIMBYs and the anti-nukes are blocking Yucca – Nevada for the obvious reason, and the anti’s in their tried and true “gum up the works to stop the machine” tactics. We certainly know to a scientific certainty that the existing waste is not safe in the long term where it is now.

]]> By: jae http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232&cpage=1#comment-13949 jae Thu, 21 May 2009 21:49:42 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232#comment-13949 "The administration’s budget for the Energy Department raises a disturbing question. Is President Obama, who has pledged to restore science to its rightful place in decision making, now prepared to curtail the scientific analyses needed to determine whether a proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada would be safe to build? . . ." Why would the issue be framed this way: "The Admin. is prepared to curtail THE SCIENTIFIC ANALYSES...." Doesn't that say "science be damned, we are not going any farther?" Why did they not be straightforward and honest, by saying something like "The Admin has decided that that the Yucca Mtn. Repository is not a feasible option." Why mention science at all here? “The administration’s budget for the Energy Department raises a disturbing question. Is President Obama, who has pledged to restore science to its rightful place in decision making, now prepared to curtail the scientific analyses needed to determine whether a proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada would be safe to build? . . .”

Why would the issue be framed this way: “The Admin. is prepared to curtail THE SCIENTIFIC ANALYSES….” Doesn’t that say “science be damned, we are not going any farther?” Why did they not be straightforward and honest, by saying something like “The Admin has decided that that the Yucca Mtn. Repository is not a feasible option.” Why mention science at all here?

]]> By: Mark Bahner http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232&cpage=1#comment-13947 Mark Bahner Thu, 21 May 2009 21:34:27 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232#comment-13947 "Imagine defending the Bush administration sanction of the “abortions cause breast cancer” hypothesis. Like Pres. Obama’s position on Yucca Mountain (i.e. damn the science, no repository on my watch) Pres. Bush allowed himself to be associated with a very unscientific view for political expediency." "Abortions cause breast cancer" is much more amenable to scientific analysis than "The casks in Yucca Mountain will not have been breached 10,000+ years from now." If abortions cause breast cancer, there should be enough abortions and breast cancer cases in the past decade or the coming decade to sort out a statistical connection (or lack thereof). In contrast, even a few hundred years into the future isn't sufficient long to know whether the casks will be breached 10,000+ years into the future (except in the unlikely event they are breached in the next few hundred years). “Imagine defending the Bush administration sanction of the “abortions cause breast cancer” hypothesis. Like Pres. Obama’s position on Yucca Mountain (i.e. damn the science, no repository on my watch) Pres. Bush allowed himself to be associated with a very unscientific view for political expediency.”

“Abortions cause breast cancer” is much more amenable to scientific analysis than “The casks in Yucca Mountain will not have been breached 10,000+ years from now.”

If abortions cause breast cancer, there should be enough abortions and breast cancer cases in the past decade or the coming decade to sort out a statistical connection (or lack thereof).

In contrast, even a few hundred years into the future isn’t sufficient long to know whether the casks will be breached 10,000+ years into the future (except in the unlikely event they are breached in the next few hundred years).

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232&cpage=1#comment-13944 Roger Pielke, Jr. Thu, 21 May 2009 19:35:26 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232#comment-13944 -4-bend Be careful, talk like the following will get you in trouble;-) "the president’s deffinition of the proper place for science (while different from mine and probably most apolitical, science conscious citizens) is not functionally different from that of his predecessor" -4-bend

Be careful, talk like the following will get you in trouble;-)

“the president’s deffinition of the proper place for science (while different from mine and probably most apolitical, science conscious citizens) is not functionally different from that of his predecessor”

]]> By: bend http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232&cpage=1#comment-13943 bend Thu, 21 May 2009 19:20:01 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232#comment-13943 I see a sentence fragment in my previous post which may cause some confusion. William Jennings Bryan did not have an obligation to represent the interests of the entire country. I attempted to use his attitude as symptomatic of a representative who made decisions according to what would make the best politics rather than the best policy. I see a sentence fragment in my previous post which may cause some confusion. William Jennings Bryan did not have an obligation to represent the interests of the entire country. I attempted to use his attitude as symptomatic of a representative who made decisions according to what would make the best politics rather than the best policy.

]]> By: bend http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232&cpage=1#comment-13942 bend Thu, 21 May 2009 19:12:37 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232#comment-13942 Thanks, Roger. These are my points exactly: "Obama’s decision to remove it from consideration is not a 'scientific decision'" It is a political decision. Nevadans don't want nuclear waste in their state, regardless of the opinions scientists and engineers. So Pres. Obama concurs with a politically relevant constituency regardless of the opinions of scientists and engineers (he doesn't even want to hear the opinions, which is what the editorial is criticizing). Like William Jennings Bryan who famously said, "The people of Nebraska are for free silver so I am for free silver. I'll look up the arguments later." Obama is forfeiting his obligation to represent the interests of the entire country on this science related matter for the purpose of appeasing the electorate from a swing state. "and has nothing to do with the “proper place”, wherever that is." "Proper place" is the administrations characterization. You are right in that the phrase and those like it, "rightful place," are ambiguous and subjective. But what the NYT editorial suggests, to me at least, is that the president's deffinition of the proper place for science (while different from mine and probably most apolitical, science conscious citizens) is not functionally different from that of his predecessor. Thanks, Roger.
These are my points exactly:
“Obama’s decision to remove it from consideration is not a ’scientific decision’”
It is a political decision. Nevadans don’t want nuclear waste in their state, regardless of the opinions scientists and engineers. So Pres. Obama concurs with a politically relevant constituency regardless of the opinions of scientists and engineers (he doesn’t even want to hear the opinions, which is what the editorial is criticizing). Like William Jennings Bryan who famously said, “The people of Nebraska are for free silver so I am for free silver. I’ll look up the arguments later.” Obama is forfeiting his obligation to represent the interests of the entire country on this science related matter for the purpose of appeasing the electorate from a swing state.

“and has nothing to do with the “proper place”, wherever that is.”
“Proper place” is the administrations characterization. You are right in that the phrase and those like it, “rightful place,” are ambiguous and subjective. But what the NYT editorial suggests, to me at least, is that the president’s deffinition of the proper place for science (while different from
mine and probably most apolitical, science conscious citizens) is not functionally different from that of his predecessor.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232&cpage=1#comment-13941 Roger Pielke, Jr. Thu, 21 May 2009 18:51:58 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232#comment-13941 -2-bend I think that your characterization of Obama's position on Yucca Mt. is half wrong: "damn the science, no repository on my watch" Obama has said the latter part on many occasions, can you point to where he has said anything related to the former? Science surely plays a part in the Yucca Mountain issue, but only a part. Whether or not the site is suitable, and regardless of sunk costs, Obama's decision to remove it from consideration is not a "scientific decision", whatever that means, and has nothing to do with the "proper place", wherever that is. -2-bend

I think that your characterization of Obama’s position on Yucca Mt. is half wrong:

“damn the science, no repository on my watch”

Obama has said the latter part on many occasions, can you point to where he has said anything related to the former?

Science surely plays a part in the Yucca Mountain issue, but only a part. Whether or not the site is suitable, and regardless of sunk costs, Obama’s decision to remove it from consideration is not a “scientific decision”, whatever that means, and has nothing to do with the “proper place”, wherever that is.

]]> By: bend http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232&cpage=1#comment-13940 bend Thu, 21 May 2009 18:35:27 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232#comment-13940 I'm sure that the NYT editorial writers are well aware of the political significance of Yucca Mountain. This does not make the editorial an unfair critique. Imagine defending the Bush administration sanction of the "abortions cause breast cancer" hypothesis. Like Pres. Obama's position on Yucca Mountain (i.e. damn the science, no repository on my watch) Pres. Bush allowed himself to be associated with a very unscientific view for political expediency. This doesn't qualify as a Democratic war on science and I don't think that the NYT suggests as much. Nevertheless, Obama is not honoring his commitment to restore science to its proper place, unless he thinks that the proper place for science is a matter of political expediency. I’m sure that the NYT editorial writers are well aware of the political significance of Yucca Mountain. This does not make the editorial an unfair critique. Imagine defending the Bush administration sanction of the “abortions cause breast cancer” hypothesis. Like Pres. Obama’s position on Yucca Mountain (i.e. damn the science, no repository on my watch) Pres. Bush allowed himself to be associated with a very unscientific view for political expediency. This doesn’t qualify as a Democratic war on science and I don’t think that the NYT suggests as much. Nevertheless, Obama is not honoring his commitment to restore science to its proper place, unless he thinks that the proper place for science is a matter of political expediency.

]]> By: Reid http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232&cpage=1#comment-13937 Reid Thu, 21 May 2009 16:26:57 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5232#comment-13937 The opponents of Yucca and nuclear power in general quote very long half life of waste as a big problem. The reality is the longer the half life the less dangerous the material is. I would be much more worried about waste with a 100 year half life then waste with a 100,000 year half life. I predict that new uses will be found for nuclear waste. They are heavy metals that are very rare. Long before the over-engineered casks start leaking the vitrified waste will probably be recycled and used in new technology that has not yet been conceived. The opponents of Yucca and nuclear power in general quote very long half life of waste as a big problem. The reality is the longer the half life the less dangerous the material is. I would be much more worried about waste with a 100 year half life then waste with a 100,000 year half life.

I predict that new uses will be found for nuclear waste. They are heavy metals that are very rare. Long before the over-engineered casks start leaking the vitrified waste will probably be recycled and used in new technology that has not yet been conceived.

]]>