Nuclear power: Petr Beckmann
Bill Tanenbaum
> Beckmann's chapter on coal contains a variety of confused assertions,
> one of which is that "in the United States, for example, the
> fertility rate has dropped below the `Zero Population Growth' level,
> but its population is still expanding." ...
-----
Please, Richard, tell me why this assertion is "confused". If the
fertility rate did drop below the ZPG rate (the rate that, if sustained,
would eventually lead to a stable population), the total population
would still continue to rise for years thereafter because of the initial
age distribution of the population. This is even without taking into
account immigration into the U. S., which is significant.
Beckmann's assertion about the fertility rate may be true
or false, but it is clear and consistent. It looks like the
confusion is elsewhere. (I think that, in fact, the U. S. fertility
rate did drop below the ZPG level sometime in the 1970's, but I am not
sure.)
--
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
T. Dave Hudson
> Scientists* by the respected biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich. Here
> is what they said about Beckmann's contributions:
> Beckmann's chapter on coal contains a variety of confused assertions,
> one of which is that "in the United States, for example, the
> fertility rate has dropped below the `Zero Population Growth' level,
> but its population is still expanding." ...
(I don't have the figures.) It might possibly be a false assertion,
but it is not a confused assertion. Last I heard, ZPG did not attempt
to take immigration into account.
David Hudson
Michael V. Stein
>My principal objections are aimed not at the view that we should
>expand the use of nuclear power, but at the grossly simplistic way in
>which the extremely complex issues of energy policy have been
>presented by some of the nuclear advocates on the net.
My principal objections are aimed at the greatly simplistic way that
certain of the anti-nuclear advocates treat the issue of nuclear
energy. I will get to the gist of the matter, but first things first.
>A case in point of gross oversimplification of the issues is the
>uncritical citation of the pro-nuclear views of Petr Beckmann and
>Bernard L. Cohen as if their publications were uncontroversial and
>widely accepted. Let us first consider Beckmann.
>Beckmann is an electrical engineer who "went into early retirement in
>1981 to devote himself fully to the defense of science, technology
>and free enterprise through his monthly journal, *Access to Energy*."
>He contributed an article on "Solar Energy and Other `Alternative'
>Energy Sources" and one on "Coal" to *The Resourceful Earth: A
>Response to Global 2000*, ed. Julian L. Simon and Herman Kahn (1984).
>This volume was reviewed in the February 1985 *Bulletin of the Atomic
>Scientists* by the respected biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich. Here
>is what they said about Beckmann's contributions:
>
> Beckmann's chapter on coal contains a variety of confused assertions,
> one of which is that "in the United States, for example, the
> fertility rate has dropped below the `Zero Population Growth' level,
> but its population is still expanding." ...
Now, first lets examine how Mr. Carnes decides to prove that Dr.
Beckman's views are controversial. I subscribed to the "Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists" and am well aware of the partisan nature of its
articles. Yet for those unfamiliar with the Bulletin deserves to be
called a scientific jurnal, can take a look at the Feburary 1976
issue. There was an article by Frank Church, "Covert Action:
Swampland of American Foreign Policy", "The Week We Almost Went to
War" - (an article about the Cuban missle crisis claiming it was
unnecessary and provoked by the US, etc.) I am told that this is also
This is also the issue with the poem "National Anathema",
Oh C.I.A. can you see
By the Chile down light
How profoundly you failed
In your late great scheming....
...
While maybe it qualifies as interesting reading material, it doesn't
really make it as a scientific journal and is certainly not in the
class of say "The New England Journal of Medicine."
Now the author of this criticism is Paul Ehrlich who Mr. Carnes added
the title "respected biologist." Mr. Ehrlich's views are so far
afield from the mainstream of science that the title "respected
biologist" should simply be changed to "radical". This is easy to show for
yourself. Simply read some of Mr. Ehrlich's numerous books, such as
"Ecoscience", "Population Bomb" or "Population, Resources, Environment."
His lack of understanding seems even more warped by his radical
ideology. Ehrlich's writing includes such notable quotes as
"Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the
government to control human reproduction. Some people have the viewed
the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right.
Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Consitiution
mentions a right to reproduce." Another revealing quote is "Several
coercive proposals deserve serious consideration, mainly because we
may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth
rates are rapidly reversed by other means." (Admittely later editions
of some of his books try to hide the most Nazi-like statements.)
With the general lack of interest in his doomsday theories, I notice he is now
jumping on the nuclear winter bandwagon. At any rate, to use your own phrase
Mr. Carnes, I don't need this "Orwellian Horseshit."
Let us proceed though to the comments made by Mr. Ehrlich.
> Beckmann's chapter on coal contains a variety of confused assertions,
> one of which is that "in the United States, for example, the
> fertility rate has dropped below the `Zero Population Growth' level,
> but its population is still expanding." ...
While I am not surprised that Mr. Ehrlich couldn't understand this, I
am a little surprised that you couldn't. It takes decades for a
change in the fertility rate to affect the population. Also it is not
only the birth rate that affects the population size. If the average
life time increases, obviously the population increases. If
memory serves, the fertility rate in the US is at something like 1.8,
this is below the ZPG level of 2.1. Therefore as Dr. Beckman writes,
now, the US population is increasing, and it will continue to increase
for some decades yet. (I am not sure how much immigration is
increasing the population either. It might be a noticeable variable
increasing the population also.)
> Beckmann also dashes off one of the least valid comparisons in the
> annals of inept environmental commentary: "A political campaign has,
> for example, succeeded in frightening the public over a minuscule
> quantity of temporarily toxic nuclear wastes while glossing over an
> annual billion tons (in the US) of coal wastes with an infinite
> lifetime, a considerable part of which is diposed of into the
> atmosphere."
>
> What billion tons could he be referring to? ... Only a tiny fraction
> [of the overburden removed in surface mining] is either particularly
> toxic or long-lived. If it is to be included in a coal-nuclear
> comparison, so also must be the voluminous overburden from surface
> mining of uranium and the bulky and toxic tailings from uranium
> mills. [Paul and Anne Ehrlich]
Again, Mr. Ehrlich shows his vast knowledge of energy production. A
1000 megawatt coal plant will generate about 36,500 truckloads of ash
residue in a year. About 10% of this ash will go up into the
atmosphere. Coal contains trace elements of radium and thorium
which also is emitted into the atmosphere. Indeed if the NRC ran
coal plants, they would all have to shut down as they emit far
more radiation than the NRC regulations allow. The radium-226 in
coal has a half-life of 1620 years and is water soluble and chemically
active. There are no major provisions (that I know of) to prevent
the poisons in coal ash from being leeched out by rainwater.
The heavy metals in it are poisonous and are probably only
surpassed in danger by the carcinogenic hydrocarbons among
the poisons. As noted before, the radionuclides in
coal waste are chemically active and water solubile. Will these
become dangerous if we continue to use coal in the future?
Let future generations worry - it certainly isn't our problem.
Nuclear waste disposal seems trivial in comparison.
(The clever net.reader will recognize the fact that the Ehrlich's
missed the whole point of Beckman's statement. Is this supposed to
be a valid criticism of Dr. Beckman's work? Do I have to go on?)
--
Michael V. Stein
Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services
UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs
SEVENER
After reading the critical review of Petr Beckman's work on renewable
energy sources, I am not at all surprised that he would write a
tract in the Wall Street Journal about Meselson et al's article
on "Yellow Rain" (i.e. bee feces) which shows either that he never
read the article or that if he did, he chose to totally distort
what the Scientific American article actually said.
The suspicions that Petr Beckman is some sort of misinformed
hack seem confirmed.
tim sevener whuxn!orb
Richard Carnes
Ehrlich, but it should be answered in any case.
>Now the author of this criticism is Paul Ehrlich who Mr. Carnes added
>the title "respected biologist." Mr. Ehrlich's views are so far
>afield from the mainstream of science that the title "respected
>biologist" should simply be changed to "radical". This is easy to
>show for yourself. Simply read some of Mr. Ehrlich's numerous books,
>such as "Ecoscience", "Population Bomb" or "Population, Resources,
>Environment." His lack of understanding seems even more warped by his
>radical ideology.
Paul Ehrlich is Professor of Biological Sciences and Bing Professor
of Population Studies at Stanford University. He is a member of the
National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science. He is a trustee of the Rocky Mountain Biological
Laboratory, past president of Zero Population Growth, and the
recipient of the Sierra Club's John Muir Award. His most recent
book, *The Machinery of Nature*, is adorned on its cover with such
review quotes as:
"The complicated and swiftly moving science of ecology is here
explained in lucid and entertaining style by one of its foremost
practitioners. No one has contributed more broadly than Ehrlich to
the many basic and applied issues..." ---Edward O. Wilson
"Paul Ehrlich is both one of the world's great ecologists and men of
action. No one else is so uniquely suited to discuss both the
technical details and the larger implications of the science of
ecology." --Stephen Jay Gould
"Only a scientist with the credentials of Ehrlich could have written
this magnificent book." --Robert Ornstein (Stanford psychologist)
In three passages in *The Cold and the Dark*, the report of the
conference on nuclear winter, Ehrlich is described as "distinguished"
by Lewis Thomas, M.D., Thomas Malone, and Carl Sagan.
I am not sure what else Ehrlich has to do to become a "respected
biologist" -- perhaps being elected president of the National Academy
of Sciences and two or three Nobel Prizes might suffice for Mr.
Stein. "Far afield from the mainstream of science" !
>With the general lack of interest in his
>doomsday theories, I notice he is now jumping on the nuclear winter
>bandwagon.
This snide remark epitomizes Stein's comments. Ehrlich did not "jump
on the nuclear winter bandwagon"; he was invited by the original
group of scientists investigating nuclear winter, presumably because
of his reputation in the scientific community and his writings on the
survival prospects of the human race, to chair the task force of
twenty prominent biologists who investigated the consequences of
nuclear war for the biosphere.
>Ehrlich's writing includes such notable quotes as
>"Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the
>government to control human reproduction. Some people have the
>viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable
>right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the
>Consitiution mentions a right to reproduce." Another revealing quote
>is "Several coercive proposals deserve serious consideration, mainly
>because we may ultimately have to resort to them unless current
>trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means."
Sounds like a real Nazi, doesn't he.
>(Admittely later editions of some of his books try to hide the most
>Nazi-like statements.)
What "Nazi-like statements"? If you have any serious criticisms of
Ehrlich's views on population, Mr. Stein, by all means let us hear
them, but this sort of cheap innuendo only serves to put you into
discredit.
Richard Carnes
Wayne Throop
> [quoting Paul & Anne Ehrlich]
> Beckmann's chapter on coal contains a variety of confused assertions,
> one of which is that "in the United States, for example, the
> fertility rate has dropped below the `Zero Population Growth' level,
> but its population is still expanding." ...
What is confused about this? Seems straightforward to me.
In fact, it seems likely that the Ehrlichs are confused here.
> "[...] while glossing over an
> annual billion tons (in the US) of coal wastes with an infinite
> lifetime, a considerable part of which is diposed of into the
> atmosphere."
>
> What billion tons could he be referring to? ... Only a tiny fraction
> [of the overburden removed in surface mining] is either particularly
> toxic or long-lived. If it is to be included in a coal-nuclear
> comparison, so also must be the voluminous overburden from surface
> mining of uranium and the bulky and toxic tailings from uranium
> mills. [Paul and Anne Ehrlich]
How about the billions of tons of (let us say) carbon dioxide, which may
be damaging the thermal ballance of the whole planet? And a billion
tons annually doesn't have to be very toxic to be dangerous. The point
that nuclear wastes, while highly toxic, are small in quantity compared
to those from chemically powered processes is still valid.
I note that I personally don't find nuclear power a panacea, nor to I
agree with Beckmann in all things. But some of what he has to say is
quite valid, and weak attacks on valid points, such as these, don't do
much to increase the credibility or perceived competence of his
detractors.
--
Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
Michael V. Stein
>After reading the critical review of Petr Beckman's work on renewable
>energy sources, I am not at all surprised that he would write a
>tract in the Wall Street Journal about Meselson et al's article
>on "Yellow Rain" (i.e. bee feces) which shows either that he never
>read the article or that if he did, he chose to totally distort
>what the Scientific American article actually said.
Let's review the facts here. Beckman once *summarized* an article by
William Kucewicz . This article, *written by Mr. Kucewicz* appeared
in "The Wall Street Journal". This article by Mr. Kucewicz
questioned Meselson's yellow rain hypothesis and was based on
interviews with Meselson and other pertinent researchers such
as Chester Mirocha. Mr. Kucewicz's article was critical of
Meselson's hypthesis and raised a number of the opposing points
in the yellow rain debate.
Mr. Sevener had written as if Meselson's hypothesis
was proven and accepted, yet there were enough unanswered questions
raised by Mr. Kucewicz that this seemed a valid point of debate.
If I had realized how strongly Mr. Sevener would react when
someone questions some idea of his, I would never have bothered.
His viscious attacks on Dr. Beckman, for reporting what Mr.
Kucewicz wrote, were diatribes that would have been legendary on
net.flame. I wrote 3 or 4 messages trying to
set the record straight on what Mr. Kucewicz had written and ended
with saying that I wasn't going to participate in Mr. Sevener's
mockery of a debate. (I, like most humble readers of the net, am
not very good at dealing with irrationality and blind hatred.)
Since this was a topic of debate here on the net, I
assumed that Mr. Sevener would not blindly close his eyes to
the evidence. I blithely assumed that he would at least read the
articles in the "Wall Street Journal" to get at the truth. Instead,
Mr. Sevener *still* seems to be under the delusion that
Dr. Beckman is a writer for the "Wall Street Journal." (Don't we all
wish we could be that certain about our beliefs, that we don't even
have to check to see the nature of the opposing position?)
(Oh please, please (!) let's not use this as an excuse for bringing up
the yellow rain garbage again. Everyone here can read the relevant
articles, and I am so tired of venomous attacks directed against the
innocent.)
Richard Carnes
am reposting an article.
Congrats to everyone who wrote to explain Paul Ehrlich's alleged
"confusion" concerning an elementary fact about fertility that he has
no doubt been teaching to undergraduates for 25 years in the first
week of "Introduction to Population Biology" -- you have confirmed my
estimate of the net's level of brilliance. Presumably the same
people, when they read the end of this article, will write to explain
that the eminent ecologist is unaware that CO2 is "absorbed" in
photosynthesis; I assume they would not hesitate, in conversation
with S. J. Gould, to explain to him that dinosaurs were not
contemporaneous with cave men, or point out to Carl Sagan that there
are many more stars than you can see with the naked eye, or explain
to Richard Feynman that protons carry a positive charge. Sheesh.
I will not have the time or stomach to read the netnews for a long
while at least, so if you want to argue with me please send email.
Following is the text of the reposted article:
>>[Paul & Anne Ehrlich]
>>Beckmann's chapter on coal contains a variety of confused assertions,
>>one of which is that "in the United States, for example, the
>>fertility rate has dropped below the `Zero Population Growth' level,
>>but its population is still expanding." ...
>
>What is confused about this? Seems straightforward to me.
>In fact, it seems likely that the Ehrlichs are confused here.
"ZPG fertility rate" is not an accepted synonym for "replacement
reproduction", which is apparently what Beckmann is referring to:
that level of the total fertility rate which, sustained for about one
life expectancy, will result in the leveling off of population growth
to ZPG, assuming no net immigration or changes in age-specific vital
rates. "The TOTAL FERTILITY RATE is the average number of children
each woman would bear during her lifetime if age-specific fertility
remained constant, and a total fertility rate of 2.1 is roughly equal
to an NRR [net reproductive rate] of 1 where typical developed
country death rates prevail." [P. Ehrlich, A. Ehrlich, and J.P.
Holdren, *Ecoscience*, 2nd ed., p. 218]. In the US, the total
fertility rate has been under the replacement level of 2.1 since
about 1972, at least until about 1983, the last year for which I have
found data.
Nit-picking? Perhaps, but the quote from Beckmann is found in a book
(*The Resourceful Earth*) that brags about its sophisticated approach
to projections of population and resource phenomena. Speaking as
former president of ZPG, Paul Ehrlich writes:
...these organizations [ZPG and Friends of the Earth] feel that the
U.S. population should be stabilized, and they rightly view current
immigration practices as destabilizing. They believe that there
should be a national population policy, spelled out and written down,
and they realize that there can be no coherent population policy that
does not include an immigration policy. Eventually, the number of
people who enter the United States must be balanced by the number
leaving or by a reduction in fertility. The sooner this is achieved,
the better. The population of the United States has already exceeded
the optimum if not the maximum for maintaining the kind of life
Americans expect. [P. Ehrlich, A. Ehrlich, and L. Bilderback, *The
Golden Door: International Migration, Mexico, and the United
States*, pp. 344-45.]
So it is not clear what "ZPG fertility rate" should mean, if
anything, although it is clear what Beckmann intends by the phrase.
In *Ecoscience*, Ehrlich et al. explain some basic concepts of
demography:
If age-specific vital rates (birth and death) remain constant, the
age composition of a population eventually becomes STABLE, a
situation in which the proportion of people in each age class does
not change through time. A population with a stable age composition
can be growing, shrinking, or constant in size....
When a population is constant in size, demographers refer to it as
STATIONARY. Colloquially, one says that zero population growth has
been achieved....
The NRR [net reproductive rate] of a human population is the ratio of
the number of women in one generation to that in the next. It is
calculated by applying the age-specific birth and death rates of the
population at a given time to a hypothetical group of 1000 newborn
female babies, determining how many live female babies those females
would themselves produce, and dividing that number by 1000. ...
The drop in American fertility to below replacement level between
1972 and 1975 was popularly interpreted to mean that ZPG had been
achieved in the United States. But growth certainly had not
stopped....
Demographer Thomas Frejka, using 1965 as a base year, showed what
could happen to the United States population under a variety of
assumption. For instance, instant ZPG could be achieved only by
reducing the NRR to slightly below 0.6, with an average of about 1.2
children per family, between 1965 and 1985. ... After that, in order
to hold the population size constant, the crude birth rate and NRR
would have to oscillate wildly above and below the eventual
equilibrium values for several centuries. The age composition would
correspondingly change violently, undoubtedly having a variety of
serious social consequences.
[These problems] could be avoided by maintaining the 1975 level of
fertility (slightly below replacement). This would produce further
growth, but at a slackening rate. Disregarding immigration, growth
would end in about fifty years with a peak population of about 252
million, and then there would be a slow decline. Accepting some
further growth followed by a period of negative population growth,
rather than attempting to hold the population precisely at ZPG, would
seem to be much less disruptive. And ... there are powerful
arguments for reducing the size of the United States population well
below its *present* level.... [Ehrlich et al., *Ecoscience*, pp.
208-14]
Now here are two more confused assertions of Beckmann, according to
the Ehrlichs:
[Beckmann] also says that deforestation in the Third World could play
a significant role in reducing the "absorption" of carbon dioxide
produced by coal burning ("absorption" into what?), and that "high
labor intensity and troublesome handling" will be "far more decisive"
in affecting coal use than will be all its environmental problems
combined.
Richard Carnes
Wayne Throop
>> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
> Congrats to everyone who wrote to explain Paul Ehrlich's alleged
> "confusion" [...] you have confirmed my
> estimate of the net's level of brilliance.
I assume that this estimate is low. Nevertheless, you have not shown
that Beckmann was confused, merely that he uses "non-standard"
terminology.
Note further:
>>What is confused about this? Seems straightforward to me.
>>In fact, it seems likely that the Ehrlichs are confused here.
This is supposed to support the conclusion that I'm "explaining"
Ehrlich's confusion? I merely asserted that, from the snippet you
posted alone, the Ehrlichs *seem* confused, and Beckmann's statement
*seems* quite straightforward. Again, merely quoting what Beckmann says
and calling it "confused" without providing the analysis is not very
convincing. In this case, when you provided the analysis, it turned out
that the "confusion" amounted to using a term involving ZPG where one
involving NRR might be more appropriate. In fact, you yourself say:
> So it is not clear what "ZPG fertility rate" should mean, if
> anything, although it is clear what Beckmann intends by the phrase.
which is just what I was asserting: Beckmann's intended meaning is
clear, and not confused at all. In terming it "confused" when the
meaning is clear, the Ehrlichs give the appearance of confusion
themselves.
> [Beckmann] also says that deforestation in the Third World could play
> a significant role in reducing the "absorption" of carbon dioxide
> produced by coal burning ("absorption" into what?), and that "high
> labor intensity and troublesome handling" will be "far more decisive"
> in affecting coal use than will be all its environmental problems
> combined.
OK. I give up. Why is *this* one confused? More BS about nonstandard
terminology, despite the use being quite clear and straightforward?