[PREV - CREDENTIALS_IPCC] [TOP]
CREDENTIALS_HELEN_CALDICOTT
November 6, 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Caldicott
There was a time when Helen Caldicott seemed like
the biggest name among anti-nuclear activists,
bigger than someone like Amory Lovins. Somewhat
famously, she was a pediatrician (essentially
playing up the "outsider" bit... and you know,
she was concerned for *the children*). Wikipedia
has her background as:
"Caldicott went on to study medicine and received
her medical degree in 1961 from the University of
Adelaide Medical School. In the 1970s, Caldicott
rose to prominence as a public figure ...
speaking on the health hazards of radiation from
her professional perspective as a pediatrician."
I sometimes wonder why we seem to have stopped
hearing from Helen Caldicott.
For me Caldicott is a primary symptom of everything that
was wrong with the 70s-era nuclear power debate: She's
always had a very earnest, alarmed speaking style,
delivering factoids at a furious rate with a tone of
absolute certainly... and not always (often?) getting
them right.
I was once listening to KPFA (maybe a little over ten
years ago), when Helen Caldicott was on the air, and a
researcher from Stanford called in to talk to her about
the conference they had both just attended. He got as far
as "But that's not what he was saying, Helen!" at which
point Caldicott cut him off with a flurry of sanctimonious
ranting, and by the time she was done, the KPFA board-op
had helpfully hung-up on the guy and moved on to another
caller.
Then there was this book by Caldicott that was the first
place I ever saw the odd notion that Nuclear power is
actually a heavy CO2 emitter:
https://books.google.com/books?id=eNCsSm7EBncC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Nuclear+Power+is+Not+the+Answer%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAGoVChMIwJj83IP2yAIVBNFjCh36RQMY#v=onepage&q=%22Nuclear%20Power%20is%20Not%20the%20Answer%22&f=false
Nuclear Power is Not the Answer (2006):
"Nuclear power is not 'clean and green,' as the industry
claims, because large amounts of traditional fossil fuels
are required to mine and refine the uranium needed to run
nuclear power reactors, to construct the massive concrete
reactor buildings, and to transport and store the toxic
radioactive waste created by the nuclear process."
And skimming through the text to find out how she supported this
(rather outrageous) claim, I found it relied on a *single* study:
"Very few studies are yet available that analyze the total life
cycle of nuclear power and its final energy input versus output.
One of the best is a study by Jan Willem Storm can Leeuwen and
Philip Smithe titled 'Nuclear Power-- the Energy Balance.'"
I laughed put the book down, and then years later found people on
the net quoting this thesis as gospel-- long after that one study
was discredited.
(Perhaps unsurprisingly, Caldicott also quotes Amory Lovins-- in
this case claiming that renewables are growing so rapidly they're
eclipsing nuclear).
But it's been many years since I've seen an anti-nuclear
person cite Caldicott by name. To my eye, she's suddenly
disappeared from the scene. Did relying on her suddenly
seem too similar to relying on a Fred Seitz or a Fred
Singer?
=== November 6, 2015
CREDENTIALS_MONBIOT_VS_CALDICOTT
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/13/why-this-matters/
The turning point might have been a dispute between Caldicott
and George Monbiot on Democracy Now, which resulted in him
publishing this follow-up piece patiently tracking down some
of her references and finding no connection between them and
what she was saying.
"At first I asked for general sources for her claims. She
sent me nine documents: press releases, newspapers
articles and an advertisement. Only one of them was linked
to a scientific publication, the BEIR VII report published
by the National Academy of Sciences. She urged me to read
it. I did so and discovered that, far from supporting her
claims, it starkly contradicts them."
He concludes:
"What if, for example, the continuing dangers of radioactive
pollution for the people in the nations around Chernobyl have
been so greatly exaggerated that they have been exposed to 25
years of unnecessary terror and distress? What if this has
caused serious and widespread psychological problems, as the UN
Scientific Committee suggests(Page 513)? What if we have
exploited vulnerable people-- those born with deformities and
genetic diseases-- by parading their conditions as examples of
the damage radiation has done, when the evidence suggests that
they are not? What if the same burdens are inflicted on the
people of Japan?"
"If that has happened, is it not a terrible thing to bear?
Don’t we have a duty to interrogate ourselves as scrupulously
as we can to ensure that we have not and will not do such a
thing? All of us who are concerned about such issues-- Helen
and I included-- want to prevent unnecessary suffering. If we
spread misinformation, we could inadvertently achieve the
opposite."
My current theory is that this exchange with Monbiot-- who is
no less than the man generally credited with inspiring the
Limbaughism "moonbat"-- was the turning point in Caldicott's
reputation.
The discussion at this blog "intersection" at Discover
Magazine seems very instructive: the author tries to use http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/05/the-left-abusing-nuclear-science-monbiot-vs-caldicott/#.Vi2xtEJLvUk
Monbiot's Caldicot-takedown as proof that "the left"
distorts the facts when discussing nuclear energy. In
the comments, rather than attempt to defend Caldicot the
main response is to deny that she's representative of
the left.
This is a phenomena I think I've seen before... once it's
clear someone has become a political liability, that
person is retroactively marginalized. After which, The
Movement may quietly adopt a different position... or it
may just look for someone else to use to support the same
old position. Either way, this kind of retcon may be the
best we can hope for... explicit retractions and apologies
essentially don't happen.
--------
[NEXT - CREDENTIALS_GEORGE_MONBIOT]