Second half of a Nuclear Street Interview with Michael R. Fox, Ph.D.,
- By Randy Birch -
Part Two of an exclusive Nuclear Street Interview with Michael R. Fox, Ph.D.,
writer, thinker, philosopher and doer by Randy Brich.
Dr. Fox not only talks the talk but has walked the walk. With a
Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry, Dr. Fox has taught theory at the university level
and applied that theory at the practical level for academia, industry,
government and non-profit organizations. He’s as comfortable in a
radiochemistry laboratory as he is behind a lectern or a PC. Concomitant
with Dr. Fox’s past experiences of developing applications for power production,
waste management and environmental compliance is his capacity for new
experiences.
This interview with Dr. Fox occurs in two consecutive weekly parts and
focuses on the necessity of energy -- amplifying the nuclear paradox that
symbolizes the state of education in the U.S. In addition to publishing
pieces on a variety of subjects Dr. Fox provides expert testimony as well as
public appearances. He can be contacted directly at:
mike@foxreport.org.
Part II
(continued)
Nuclear Street: What is the one change to energy
policy that the United States could make that has the greatest potential to
improve the quality of life in the United States?
Dr. Michael R. Fox: I would place an emphasis on
replacing and expanding our domestic supplies of all forms of energy. We
have some of the largest coal reserves in the world, the technology to extend
nuclear energy uses for centuries, (including amazing advances in nuclear
diagnostics and therapies of cancer, arthritis, and AIDs---Europe is well ahead
of the U.S. in these medical technologies as well), and untapped oil and natural
gas reserves in oil-shales, off shore, and in Alaska. In practical terms
becoming free of foreign oil dependence, for example, seems unlikely. But we
should consider energy non-dependence, whereby we would have real political
choices of foreign sources from which to import oil.
NS: If you were President what actions would you take
that would produce immediate results in terms of the U.S. energy future, i.e.,
would you involve the national labs and if so in what tangible way?
Fox: The troubles I see are many and monumental.
I would insist upon hard science being made a crucial part of the energy and
environmental policies. Policy making today is largely driven by fear,
uninformed legislators, and the rent seeking lobbyists. Energy policy needs to
be strengthened immediately, if we are to retain our freedom and prosperity.
The public school systems are broken and for two generations have produced
graduates relatively ignorant in science, math, U.S. and World history, and
English. Such people are being hired into state and federal government positions
now to run the mightiest nation the world has ever known. We are paying a
dear price. They have been taught that their own country is evil and the
source of all conflict on the planet. They have been taught that all of
the science that they need can be found on Google, and all of the statistics
they need can be provided by Excel. No thought required. Too many of our
citizens have only scorn and no respect for their own homeland. I’d quickly set
about major program education reform.
In addition we need to revisit the regulation, taxation, and litigation
messes we are now in. The first large reactor that mankind ever built was the
B-reactor at Hanford during the Manhattan project under Roosevelt. It went from
a patch of sand to loading fuel in a completed first of a kind reactor in 15
months. Additionally, we had to build the roads, railroads, power lines,
water supplies, and housing for thousands of workers in addition to the reactor
construction. This can be done again if we rethink the regulations,
taxation, and litigation commercial reactors now face. To the extent that the
public hearing processes can stall such crucial projects for years, putting the
financial futures of companies and utilities at risk, I’d recommend streamlining
the hearing processes, too.
The British established an appealing process during the Windscale reactor
public hearings. When witnesses gave their testimony they were put under
oath. Additionally, they did not give their testimony to a judge, but to a
battery of subject matter experts -- many of which (were) (are currently--out)
employed at various national laboratories scattered across the country -- on
reactors, radiation, energy, waste disposal, etc. Being under oath and
making testimony to experts who could cross-examine, kept the rhetorical
flourishes of the witnesses at a minimum. It would work in the U.S.,
too. We also need tort reform, badly, with the British loser-pays feature
added. We need to enforce the Federal Data Quality Act signed into law by
Clinton. This requires that all federal documents be of the highest
scientific quality. We should also have similar requirements at the State
levels for state laws and regulations.
NS: Would you care to comment on the scientific basis
of environmental radiation regulations?
Fox: The regulations of many environmental factors at
state and federal levels are driven too much by a collective public fear of
these factors. For more than 40 years there has been a continuing series
of doomsday threats, by greens, media, by legislators driven by public pressure
to help “protect” their fearful constituents, and rent-seeking companies willing
to accept billions to protect the public from immeasurable, mythical risks.
Except for consumers and taxpayers who pay these billions, there are no
financial incentives to the elected officials, government agencies, the media,
the greens and the rent-seekers to quantify the risks involved. Too many
small unquantified risks are just as big a menace as the large risks, when
billions of dollars are involved. Very often the billions of dollars being
spent to protect people have little relationship with the risks involved.
Protection from small risks cost as much or more than protection from large
risks. The body-counts are ignored. The history of mankind is
filled with instances of pending mythical doom and billions of dollars literally
poured down the proverbial drain to protect us from it. And, it hasn’t worked,
(since the risks are so small). Despite innumerable federal regulations
controlling manmade carcinogens at miniscule levels, and requiring huge
expenditures from industry, lifestyle remains the single most important source
of cancer in Americans today.
A good example of federal regulations gone berserk is ionizing
radiation. Radiation is perhaps the most misunderstood component of our
natural world. And certainly the health effects of radiation, especially
low level radiation, is equally misrepresented and poorly understood. This
has led to a gross overstatement of such risks and the unnecessary expenditure
of billions of dollars to protect the public from infinitesimal risks.
When evaluating any toxic substance such as botulism, vitamin A, or
radiation, we should make these evaluations with the rules of toxicology in
mind. We should also make an effort to understand the simple principles of
toxicology and those of relative risk (distinguishing big risks from small
risks). Some activities have high risks and some are of low risks, and too
often we don’t know the differences. Similarly some materials are of high
toxicity and others of low toxicity. Entire university curricula are
devoted to the world of toxicology. But, the nuances of toxicology get
lost among the rhetoric spewed forth by the greens and amplified by the
media.
As the Swiss physician Paracelsus admonished regarding toxic materials “It’s
the dose that makes the poison.” Stated differently everything is toxic at
some higher dose, as is radiation, but often not at lower doses. Overdosing on
water is a known cause of death, and this does not involve drowning. Yet water
is not considered to be toxic. Clearly, the public is not aware of the
world of toxicology, and what it teaches us.
This also provides fertile grounds for unethical greens and journalists in
need of a new scare story. “Toxic materials” are everywhere; except for most the
doses are too low. It’s even more complex since many materials such as
sodium chloride, vitamin A, water, are toxic at high doses, but essential for
life at low doses. Simply put materials considered to be poisonous by the
media are sometimes not toxins at all. It always depends upon the dose.
The same applies to radiation. Even though radiation is
part of our natural world and environment, it is not widely known by the general
public. It also naturally occurs in very high doses, very low doses, and all
levels in between. Radiation has been known and measured by scientists for
more than 100 years and known to be everywhere in our world, including soils,
air, water, and all living plants and animals. Yet we are not taught about it in
the typical school curriculum or by the media.
Radiation risks have been exaggerated for years, especially for low doses.
All men, women, and children live in a sea of low dose radiation caused by
naturally occurring radioactive materials. In some locations in the world
these natural sources of radiation are impressively high, much higher than those
received by nuclear power workers.
As humans we can’t sense radiation; but, we can certainly measure it with
instrumentation. Yet, the basis of regulating radiation exposures has always
assumed there is radiation harm at all doses greater than zero. This
assumption is unsupported by scientific evidence and is therefore bad
science. The bad science was summarized by Lauriston Taylor, the nominal
Father of Health Physics when he said "this is a deeply immoral use of our
scientific heritage." Radiation expert Gunnar Walinder adds, this is "the
greatest scientific scandal of the 20th Century." The controversy over the
Linear No Threshold Theory is discussed in great detail by Cuttler and Pollycove
(http://tinyurl.com/lkwkjq).
This faulty basis has had a devastating effect on all aspects of radiation
and dose management, especially when one realizes this overstates the harm at
low doses. For the U.S. nuclear industry this has been a major contributor
to the huge costs for nuclear reactors being spent in the pursuit of small or
zero risks. Harm to humans has never been demonstrated at these low doses,
including among those who live in very high natural radiation backgrounds. Yet,
the nuclear industry is forced to protect workers and the public from trivial
amounts of radiation, in most cases far smaller than those for natural
sources. Obviously, the ratepayers are forced to pay these extra billions
spent in the futile pursuit of zero risk.
NS: Changing subjects, I know you are an avid reader;
what books are you currently reading?
Fox: I am always reading and researching, usually
science, including many of the global warming texts. I have also
gained a real interest in history of the United States, the Constitution, how
did we get this amazing and historically rare nation we have, and the threats to
our freedoms from near and far.
I am currently reading LIBERTY AND TYRANNY by Mark Levin, which I highly
recommend. This book is excellent, and a stern reminder of the internal
threats we face.
I just finished Jamie Glasov’s book UNITED IN HATE, describing the political
and philosophical links between the far political left of the U.S., with its
ties to Islamic tyranny and terror. They share a common hatred of the
U.S.
Also, I have Steve Milloy’s new book GREEN HELL, all ready to go.
NS: Have you read any novels lately?
Fox: I do not read fiction much at all except for
Michael Crichton and Tom Clancy. The fiction I do know of comes to me in
“books on tape” which is an excellent way of learning while driving. My wife and
I can even discuss the book at the same time, too. As such I have “read” or
heard a number of the Grisham books, and our recent favorite was Ayn Rand’s
ATLAS SHRUGGED, on 40 CDs! This book is almost prescient in describing today’s
corrupted government and big rent-seeking corporations.
NS: Thank you for the interview and keep sending us
those informative articles.
Fox: My pleasure. Your website is doing a great
and needed service at a very important period of our Nation’s history.
Keep up the good work.
Click below for Part One:
Nuclear Street Interview with Michael R. Fox, Ph.D.,
- By Randy Brich -
Dr. Fox not only talks the talk but has walked the walk. With a Ph.D.
in Physical Chemistry, Dr. Fox has taught theory at the university level and
applied that theory at the practical level for academia, industry, government
and non-profit organizations.
About Randy Brich
Randy graduated from South Dakota State
University in 1978 with a M.S. in Biology. After developing the State of
South Dakota’s environmental radiological monitoring program, he became a Health
Physicist with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, eventually
transferring to the Department of Energy where he specialized in environmental
monitoring, worker protection, waste cleanup and systems biology. Later in
his career he published a multi-sport adventure guide book and became a regular
contributor to The Entertainer Newspaper’s Great Outdoor section.
Since then he has retired from the federal government and, after taking
time out to build an energy efficient house near the Missouri River, has formed
Diamond B Communications LLC. Diamond B Communications LLC uses a
multimedia approach to explain complex energy resource issues to technical and
non-technical audiences. He also guides for Dakota Bike
Tours, the Relaxed Adventure Company, offering tours of the Badlands
National Park, the Black Hills and Devils Tower National Monument.
If you have questions, comments, or know of a book that you think Randy
should review Email Randy Brich>> randy@nuclearstreet.com