Field of Science

Top 5 reasons why intelligent liberals don’t like nuclear energy











  1. As an Organic chemist I demand the world stop using carbon-based fuel sources!!!!!! Time to go totally metallic!!!!

    I'm going to start an organization called S.O.O.C.E.M.P..

    Stop Oxidizing Our Carbon for Electricity and Mechanical Propulsion!!!!!!

    Seriously though, even as a right-wing nut, I must admit France is right on this one. Nuclear is the way to go. Science wins this one over my ultra-conservative, far right wing ideology.

  2. Thanks for your excellent article. I think your analysis is sound---certainly it explains what we see around us. Also, thanks for the book recommendations. If you don't mind, I could also recommend a book I have from the public library, A Serious But Not Ponderous Book about Nuclear Energy by Walter Scheider. He doesn't discuss the politics or the pros and cons, just the physics; but he explains it in terms people with ordinary educations can understand. He includes a detailed chronology of the Three Mile Island accident.

    Patrick Moore, the Greenpeace founder who now works for a pro-nuclear lobby, contends that environmentalism has changed and now is driven by ideological aims instead of scientific. He knows more than I do, but from this end it seems as though there are two branches of environmentalism. One branch is studying environmental systems for understanding so as to protect them better. I think that generally this branch favors nuclear energy, or at least doesn't adamantly oppose it. The other branch seeks to drive the world toward particular economic constraints; as I read the supporters' literature I get the impression they attempt to use science, or something with a scientific appearance, in pursuit of their political objectives. To them nuclear energy is the enemy which must be vanquished at all cost.

    The split in the public media is different. People who work in the media tend to be uneducated about science, so their views about nuclear energy are based more on ideology than science. I think the split may be more important to journalists than it is to private citizens. As I talk to people, the impression I get is that most of them are open to nuclear energy and are aware that the news media haven't done a good job of covering the subject.

    This little ramble should close by saying that your article is contributing much by pointing us readers in the direction of good information.

  3. chemgeek: You seem to be one reasonable and intelligent ultra right wing conservative ;)

    craig: thanks for the appreciation and for the book references. you have an excellent blog too. i have linked to it. it's nice that you have talked about bernard cohen's work.
    you are right about there being a very dogmatic environmental faction as well as a relatively reasonable one. unfortunately the dogmatic faction is lent great voice by people like caldicott whom i just don't understand anymore. how can she be so unscientific? you are also right about people in the media usually being scientifically uneducated. the main problem often seems to be that they do understand that media viewpoints are biased, but don't know exactly where to get more information. i would be happy if blogs such as ours can make even a minor contribution.
    by the way, my main blog for nuclear matters is actually but i usually cross post articles here too.

  4. You make some really good points, and I think you've hit it dead on. A lot of people are misinformed and frightened. (For my part as a superliberal treehugger, I'm pro-nuclear energy...cautiously.)
    Red Craig is definitely right about the split in environmentalists! An alarmingly large number of them seem to think that all chemicals, everywhere, are horrible evil things. Superstition abounds in this crowd. Then there are those of us with more of a scientific slant...who understand what the real risks are and don't get as paranoid.
    (and I really hope you're using "liberal" as an adjective and not as an invective)

  5. Very nice. You've just given 5 reasons why the term 'intelligent liberal' is an oxymoron. Thanks.

  6. BTW, I just want to make it clear that I exaggerated my political leanings (significantly) for effect. and perhaps a cheap laugh? When has an ultraconservative, far right-wing nut job ever agreed with France or Science?

    Anyways... Red Craig makes a very good point in that your post has great value in pointing the reader to information and is not a hollow rant.

  7. Thanks for the link, Ashutosh. I'm pleased to return the compliment.

  8. psi*: As chemists, I am sure we understand the irrational reactions many environmentalists have against nuclear energy, or against the chemical industry for that matter as you said. the problem is that the much-touted renewables are not going to solve the problem. also, you must have noticed how the media calls almost everything "chemicals" without discussing the diverse nature of the specific compounds involved, many of which are quite harmless.

    chemgeek: correct. and i doubt if ultra right conservatives regularly read my blog!

    anon: that's a little harsh! i should have probably just said "intelligent" people. but i usually was under the impression that liberals (emphatically not the extreme-left "liberals") are usually more open to discussion and objectivity than right wingers. however, there seems to be a split among the liberals themselves in this country, with most left wingers also calling themselves liberals, which i don't think they exactly are.

  9. I agree with most every point you name in your article, as the facts that you write about in regards to Nuclear Power are pretty much right on. However, I am curious why you don't use the same intellectual honesty and fact based thought process when it comes to global warming. I noticed you wrote, "stupidly against global warming". It is not logical to say someone is against global warming, the earth heats up and cools down by many natural phenomenom, such as during the winter and summer months in the North, as well as thoughout history there have been ice ages, and global warming. I think what you must be referring to is that some disagree that the cause of the recent warming is mad made or by natural weather cycles of our planet. I will not try to persuade you on this topic, but I encourage you to do some more research and keep an open mind and you might be surprised with what you find.

  10. Global warming certainly is cause for concern especially if you don't want an enviromental crisis to end humanities potential progress I am saddened to read these thoughtless articles advocating the use of nuclear power when it is obviously so dangerous and you cannot build a plant that is indestructible there will always be flaws, as in the case of the "unsinkable" Titanic. How can we not learn from history? The people of Russia are still recovering from the Chernobyl disaster and there have been leaks in Canada too eg. the Chalk River nuclear facility in November of last year. Very high occurrences of illnesses such as cancer for the residents surrounding a nuclear plant are well documented. Why are you trying to argue the case for nuclear power, is it the latest fad in a time full of environmentally unfriendly trends, are you trying to be "unique" by advocating something that would not usually be advocated by any sane member of society? What ever the reason I think it is very important to do your research before making false claims, usually made by people who have never visited a nuclear site or done the appropriate environmental research in their lives so I hope you will change your minds. By the way , there is nothing "breezy" about nuclear power and no one would write a title like that unless they were a power crazed and controlling individual.

    1. Arging against nuclear power based on Chernobyl is like arguing against avaition because a Ford Tri-Motor crashed and we want to build 747's.

      There are reactor designs that are light-years ahead of anicient 1950's Soviet graphite-moderated reactor designs like Chernobyl and Chalk River too would be comparable to a DC-3.

  11. Paul: I have should have been more clear about the "stupidity" regarding global warming. I am not referring to those who argue about various details; I won't call them stupid. As you indicated, I am referring to those who simply deny that it is man-made, or that man has engaged in enough activity to seriously change the climate. Inhofe quite decidedly is in the second category. I don't hesitate calling him stupid.

    Green: I have done my research. I would like to see yours which indicates that nuclear reactors have claimed an unusually high number of human lives. Even assuming that a reactor is not an entirely safe entity, would you mind telling me how reactor safety and lives lost because of reactor meltdowns compare to lives lost from coal pollution and automobile accidents? Also, you probably really need to do research if you think that Chernobyl (an anomaly that can be easily avoided) and Chalk River (an incident that was nowhere as bad as Chernobyl) are representative of everything that can go wrong with nuclear reactors. These two incidents compare extremely favorably against the overall record of nuclear power plants. Chernobyl was very bad, no doubt about it, but think of the dozens of chemical industries polluting the air and water. As they say, one sparrow does not make a bird.

    Instead of accusing me of not doing research, you need to come back with some of your own that clearly indicates that nuclear reactors are dangerous and have led to a great loss of life.

  12. As a pro-nuclear liberal, I agree with this article.

  13. Disagree. Title should be more like "Top 5 reasons why ignorant liberals don’t like nuclear energy"
    Intelligent liberals are 100% for nuclear (intelligent people enjoy science, or like myself have a bachelors in science).
    From a political standpoint it may have dissuaded us from invading the middle east multiple times, and it is the only practical way (smart liberals know wind/solar energy are only good for remote locations) we can stop the all too powerful oil companies from destroying the atmosphere/oceans. (BP GULF SPILL)


Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic