Climate Scientists Get Respect, So Why Don't Nuclear Scientists?

When we talk about climate change, we point out that 97% of climate scientists agree that we are in a warming period and that we need to act.

When we converse about biological evolution, we acknowledge that 100% of geologists understand that biological evolution has been acting on Earth for the last 4 billion years.

When we discuss medical science, we understand that 99% of physicians agree that everyone needs to be vaccinated.

When we discuss war, we listen to generals, diplomats and other “experts” on the subject.

But whenever nuclear energy is discussed on TV or in the news, the nuclear science community is never referenced, in fact, there rarely is a real nuclear scientist present. Only anti-nuclear activists.

Why?

Even when climate change appears on the news, often a climate denier is invited just for balance.

But not with nuclear.

As a research scientist, a geologist and a nuclear scientist, this is really annoying. And sad. Nuclear is such a complicated scientific discipline that it is insane not to tap this group of scientists if you want to know the reality. Because without them, you will not get any real understanding of this subject.

Part of the problem is the small number of nuclear scientists and the few nuclear programs left at universities. Because of this, nuclear scientists are just not very visible.

But it’s even more insidious for nuclear.

In controversial areas, there are always a few voices that try to sully the scientists’ reputation by saying their results are tied to their funding, or they’re on someone’s payroll, but no one except strong antis really believe that.

Scientists do not get into science to make money. It takes too much dedication and love of science to go through 10 years or more of education, mostly in poverty, to get a PhD that doesn’t pay very well anyway. My first job as a PhD paid $20,000/year. The next year that went up to $21,000.

But nuclear scientists are routinely accused of selling out to someone or something, and sometime it gets pretty nasty. I guess the mainstream media buys off on this and doesn’t care to delve into it.

One reason for this might be that there is no constituency for nuclear. No Texas like there is for oil. No West Virginia like there is for coal. No Pennsylvania like there is for natural gas. There is no congressional delegation that cares much. Even though nuclear energy produces most of our low-carbon energy and provides more economic development per kWh produced than any other energy source.

True, nuclear has not done a good job of talking with the public, and suffers from its incorrect association with nuclear weapons and the Cold War.

But even that doesn’t explain the extreme aversion of news outlets to nuclear. Or why the general media doesn’t dig into this like they do for other controversial subjects like climate change, vaccination, or war.

I raise this issue because last week the Presidents of 39 scientific and internationalsocieties signed a pro-nuclear declaration for addressing climate change. The Nuclear for Climate Declaration was introduced during the International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants in Nice, France, and re-iterated that nuclear power is vital to fighting climate change. These societies represent 50,000 members from 36 countries (American Nuclear Society).

The declaration urges all countries to access “the widest possible portfolio of low-carbon technologies available, including nuclear energy, in order to reduce CO2 emissions and meet other energy goals.” It further calls on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) protocols to “recognize nuclear energy as a low-carbon energy option, and to include it in its climate funding mechanisms, as it the case for all other low-carbon energy sources.”

This declaration echos similar declarations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who also recommends that we increase nuclear power if we want to address global warming.

When an entire scientific community agrees on something as important as climate change, it usually makes the news.

But this never surfaced in the media. NPR, NYTimes, LATimes, MSNBC and many others have excellent scientific reporters and investigators, but are silent on any subject involving nuclear energy.

It’s like everyone’s afraid to talk about nuclear energy because they’re afraid they don’t know anything about it and will look stupid. But all they have to do is talk to their friendly neighborhood nuclear scientist.

We’re here. We’re all ears. And we’re not radioactive.

Follow Jim on https://twitter.com/JimConca and see his and Dr. Wright’s book at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1419675885/sr=1-10/qid=1195953013/