When It Comes To This Science, The Mid-East Is Ahead Of The US
    By Hank Campbell | October 9th 2013 09:24 AM | 13 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0®.

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone ever had. Others may prefer Newton or Archimedes...

    View Hank's Profile
    When you think about science leadership, you don't often think about United Arab Emirates. Dictatorships don't lend themselves to quality basic research but when they put their minds to applied research and development, and a lot of money, good things can happen.

    While environmental activists wish we were a little more dictatorship-oriented when it comes to banning cars, like the Chinese did before the Olympics (for everyone but elites, anyway), plenty of scientists might like to have a more dictatorial, mission-based approach to research in the US, like we had with the Manhattan Project and the NASA Moon landing.

    Though 40 percent of the country's gross domestic product is oil and gas, the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation wants to advance green energy science - nuclear power.

    It's safe and it's green. Living within 50 miles of their nuclear plants will expose people to 0.00042 of the radiation they will get from cosmic rays and the soil and all other natural sources combined. The first plant will be delivering energy in 2017 and by 2020 they expect to have 25% of their energy be emissions-free, without forcing mitigation and rationing on their citizens. They'll still happily get rich selling oil to us, of course.

    Scary graphic means science must not be allowed. Actually, this is just daily ultraviolet radiation doses from sunlight vary by latitude and season. Credit: NOAA. Link: Discovery

    Their Barakah location was chosen after an analysis that included seismic history, security, distance from large population centers and environmental considerations - you know, science, like we always do before we decide not to do things regardless of the science, like Keystone XL and nuclear power. Barakah has been tectonically inactive for nearly 100 million years. It's basically Yucca Mountain but their project went ahead because they didn't have anti-science activists or a leader determined to kill it. 

    Barbara Thomas, Lady Judge, chair of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and a member of the International Advisory Board for the nuclear program, told the audience at a public forum of the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation, “It’s clearly the best thought-through and resourced nuclear programme in the world today. Everyone is proud to be associated with it.”

    It's okay to be jealous, America. At least we have The Daily Show.


    Hank,scientists and politics were saying that Antarctica was "stable" but now it's changing fast,and we don't know for sure where this change will take us.If you'r going to "push" Nuclear power as "clean and green" I would suggest you take out an insurance policy in case the situation changes.Linking all the power systems of the world up{ as greenpeace is suggesting for Europe}would greatly improve our energy production and usage efficiency.An insurance against nuclear contamination of our environment would have to be taken out,by keeping nuclear out of the southern hemisphere,since the northern hemisphere is separate environmentally from the north and has not got it's nuclear proliferation.The Northern Hemisphere already has low population,high clean food production capacity and could be a provider of clean food,clean air,clean water in case of another nuclear disaster like Japan.I was once against computers because although I could see a lot of good in them,I could see a lot of bad as well and the evil more than outweighed the bad.My son however showed me a way of separating the good from the bad by having two computers,one for public and the other for private use and keeping the two separate.I think it may be a good thing if the internet itself was divided in such a way as well,since it is in the area of privacy that evil is most active.

     I would suggest you take out an insurance policy in case the situation changes.
    That goes for any energy source. That is what insurance is for.
    Are you going to "push it"though with equal zeal as your "nuclear energy/G,M.crops"solution to the worlds problems,and at the same time,because i know from present day journalism,It's all in the emphasis we place on facts{as you suggest in your sociology blog} that makes an impression on peoples minds and actions.

    I am unsure what you mean but that may be a language issue. If you mean what I read you to mean, yes, I am always going to side with a rational, safe solution to problems instead of retreating into the mysticism of the past and creating a culture of fear about science.
    Yes I did mean what you read I meant,a sense of adventure[not fear] with insurance is the ideal way.

    When I clicked on this article I first expected it to be about Kuwait's cutting-edge research on Gaydar.

    I THOUROUGHLY DISAGREE WITH hANK and his prejudice towards nuke power.
    A little place like Germany does too. Perhaps Japan will buy hANK's naitivity...
    but then they don't have a half-life to live on this subject, now do they?
    If I read more articles like hANK's on this site, I will leave it.

    If you refuse to read articles on science if they disagree with your pre-existing beliefs, you can any pick a point in history and not have accepted lots of things - pasteurization, penicillin, vaccines, a round earth, the earth orbiting the sun. Lots and lots of people said science was naive and prejudiced about those topics.

    The reason that the CO2 emissions per capita of people in France are one half those of people in Germany is simple; they use more nuclear power. So you can worry about a potential problem (the French don't agree that their nuclear plants are certain to melt down, the way you insist they must) or deal with a real one; CO2 emissions. We are not going back to the 13th century and using wind power. Solar is not going to be ready for decades. Until then we need a bridge and nuclear is the best clean choice to be that bridge.
    Good grief.

    (1) You said that living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant will expose people to the amount of radiation they get from cosmic rays, soil, etc.

    That is such a false comparison, and intellectually dishonest.

    What you neglect to mention is how harmful nuclear radiation is, and how it's not the same radiation as cosmic rays, etc. and therefore cannot be compared as such.

    (2) Radiation from nuclear power plants such as Cesium, Plutonium, Strontium, Tritium, cause detrimental health effects to humans such as cancer, heart disease, breast cancer, birth defects, miscarriages, etc.

    In addition, radiation from nuclear power plants ADDS to someone's radiation dose; it doesn't replace it.

    (3) Radiation from nuclear power plants pollutes the surrounding air, water, cattle, fish...and are even tracked in NRC reports called "Radioactive Effluent and Environment Reports"

    (4) There is NO safe dose of Nuclear Radiation. Read: "Nuclear Radiation: There is No Safe Dose" by Dr. Romeo F. Quijano

    (5) And by all means, immediately go to and read the headlines and Forums to learn the truth about the dangers of nuclear energy.

    (1) You said that living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant will expose people to the amount of radiation they get from cosmic rays, soil, etc.

    That is such a false comparison, and intellectually dishonest.
    Well, no, it's none of the above. But then you send people to an anti-science site so the audience can learn "the truth" from non-physics scaremongers. That is what we call irony.
    This is all wrong. I'll give you an idea of how wrong this is.
    If you happen to end up near ground zero of a 1 megaton nuclear device detonating, and the fireball doesn't kill you from the heat, and you're not killed from mechanical damage (say a building falling on you), you did not get a fatal dose of radiation. Fact. It would be a really bad day, but it isn't fatal if you're not already dead.
    Then if you protect your skin (a piece of plastic will do) and you do not ingest any of the radioactive fall out (do not drink from open water, wash any foods with clear water before you eat it, etc) you will not get radiation poisoning. Fact.

    This survival tip brought to you by the Military Industrial Complex and the University of Maryland Library.

    Unless your nuclear power plant cracks open, they are completely safe. And even then with a little bit of care you will be safe.
    Never is a long time.
    Two things here need to be addressed .Co2 is not a pollutant or dirty,but a necessary ingredient in our atmosphere to enable plants to live.All plants absorb nutrients by osmosis which works according to the relationship of the concentration of nutrients on either side of the semi -permeable membrane .High levels of carbon in the soil enable the flow of nutrients from soil to plant. but high levels of carbon take many years to build up by carbon sequestration.This is the reason why the balance of ch2's to protein across a wide range of foods is not as it should be to maintain health and the reason why there is so much sickness associated with excess carbohydrates.Across the whole world where human life has value,governments are struggling with blowouts in health and if scientists don't want their research budgets cut[like Antarctic research]they had better get on board and support carbon sequestration in our soils.The second thing that needs to be addressed is the credibility of science itself which you seem to have forgotten Hank.What about thalidomide,D.D.T,Hydrogen bombs,.Japan"s nuclear meltdown and many more."wonders" of science.Science can so easily fall into the wrong hands and the money men in their haste for greed cut corners and take short cuts.Unless scientists.across the world address this,science will continue to lose credibility in the eyes of the layman.We have to show,the science of the circle,that everything goes round and has to be recycled,wealth included,one way or another,easy or hard it all has to go around.The republicans in the congress can't keep taking out and not putting it back,that's not scientific and it's about time scientists said so with the evidence,that's before them,in every sphere.Are we really then short of energy or just greedy for it?

    Dose often makes the difference between medicine and poison - and we can drown in water, though it is essential for life. Don't let your culture war against political opponents make you blind about science. Some exaggerate, sure, models that project 80 years into the future are pointless, but the science is not wrong that pollution is bad. 

    Don't make me pull up that crying Indian commercial from the 1970s.

    On energy, I basically agree with you, progress is about moving forward, not retreating into th past ad rationing, but energy solves every problem we have even in the poorest countries; food, water, health and wealth. Let's make more of it, just cleaner.