Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
Dobken goes on the make the claim that “many environmentalists who once opposed nuclear power have looked at its safety record and its carbon-free generation of electricity and declared it good for mankind” and that the anti-nuclear movement is ignoring “new data, new facts.” Having said that, he fails to mention even one nuclear skeptic. This can confuse a reader into thinking that the unnamed persons and facts are so obvious that they do not need to be spelled out.
Dobken attempts to rebut Johnson’s statement by saying that “every scientist knows that radioactive exposure is cumulative in its effects” with an unsubstantiated “this is simply false….” Without any justification, he negates what anyone searching the Internet can confirm is true in two minutes. Namely, that radiation effects are indeed cumulative. He attempts to confuse a reader’s rational mind with totally irrelevant measures. For instance, he says that the amount of radiation that we receive from natural and man-made sources (such as x-rays and CT scans) and the amount that San Onofre dumped into the ocean in one radioactive water batch release in May are similar.
None of the numbers that Dobken mentions say anything about the impacts of radioactivity accumulation into the local marine food chain from bioaccumulation over decades of ocean dumping, or what level of radiation exposure could result from routine surfing at San Onofre Beach on water batch release days. He also intentionally uses numbers that would be unfamiliar to most readers to cloud their thinking and hide that the comparisons are not relevant to the issue of cumulative effects. The fact that San Onofre has been releasing radioactive materials into the ocean and the atmosphere for more than fifty years with unknown health impacts goes unaddressed.
Dobken muddies the issue raised by Johnson of possible cancer risks from living near nuclear power plants by pointing to unrelated research on nuclear power plant workers and veterans who have been exposed to radiation. He quibbles over whether on not there has been any research in the U.S. to distract from the importance of the issue that Johnson is raising. Dobken is correct that one study of children in Illinois living near nuclear power plants showed no association with cancers. However, he is guilty of cherry picking by not acknowledging compelling studies from abroad that have found significant associations. He obviously hopes that reads will miss Johnson’s main point which is just that we should welcome and not block research on possible cancer streaks in communities within thirty miles of San Onofre and other nuclear power plants around the country.
It can be challenging and exhausting to counter such obfuscation. The purpose of obfuscation is not to have an honest debate or to seek the truth. Some have said that it is like trying to nail a blob of mercury with a needle. Although it may be true that Johnson’s article is not flawless, it is well-documented and well-intended. His purpose is to alert the public to the renewed rush to embrace nuclear energy as a solution to the climate crisis when the U.S. is no closer to addressing the dangers associated with nuclear power and its deadly waste than we were when California blocked expansion of nuclear power plants in 1976. Momentum toward clean energy sources should not be derailed by bring back dirty and dangerous nuclear energy. Dobken’s article uses obfuscation at every turn to confuse and lull the public into a false sense of safety about nuclear power and its deadly waste. Hopefully, the public is not that gullible.