You decide: Is MIT Nuclear Engineering Dept shilling for the nuclear industry?

[kristopher]

Search Google:
"define: shill"

act as a shill; "The shill bid for the expensive carpet during the auction in order to drive the price up"
a decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A shill is person who is paid to help another person or organization to sell goods or services. The shill pretends to have no association with the seller/group and gives onlookers the impression that he or she is an enthusiastic customer. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

A person paid to endorse a product favourably, while pretending to be impartial; An accomplice at a confidence trick during an auction or gambling game; To promote or endorse in return for payment, especially dishonestly; To put under cover; to sheal
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shill

Many of the students in the Nuclear Engineering Department are watching their future jobs wither on the vine as a result of the Fukushima meltdowns.

And immediately after the disaster started, their students were "accidentally" used by pronuclear bloggers to circulate a fictitious letter trying to downplay the accident.
http://geniusnow.com/2011/03/15/the-strange-case-of-josef-oehmen/

DO you think that students at the MIT Nuclear Engineering Dept. are unaware of, a little familiar with, or extremely familiar with the network of nuclear bloggers funded by the nuclear industry?

The MIT Nuclear Engineering Department is already on the hook for basically falsifying (they took anything the industry claimed as gospel fact) a pivotal study that was used to justify US Government support for a new effort to rebuild the nuclear industry.

Look at this graph. One of the 4 lowest pink numbers - the one that is at $1500 - is MIT. That number was used to lock in massive funding with the 2005 Energy Bill. Then look at what happened when independent (non-industry funded or affiliated) analysts started looking at the same set of circumstances with a critical eye after the money was locked in.

Jonathan Porritt, chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission and advisor to Gordon Brown, says it does. "Cost estimates from the industry have been subject to massive underestimates—inaccuracy of an astonishing kind consistently over a 40-, 50-year period" (Porritt, Chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission 2006). A UK-government commission agrees, claiming virtually all nuclear-cost data can be "traced back to industry sources" (UK Sustainable Development Commission (UK SDC) 2006). University of Greenwich business professor, Stephen Thomas, says nuclear-industry sources "are notoriously secretive about the costs they are incurring" (Thomas 2005). Such charges suggest the need to scrutinize industry claims that, to address climate change, nuclear power is "the most cost-effective power source" (European Atomic Forum 2006). - p 2

Consider first the nature of a COI. As defined (p. 6) in a classic 2009 US National Academy of Sciences report (Lo et al. 2009), "conflicts of interest are defined as circumstances that create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest. Primary interests include promoting and protecting the integrity of research," the quality of scientific education, and the welfare of the public, whereas "secondary interests include not only financial interests...but also other interests, such as the pursuit of professional advancement." What happens when one applies this COI definition to nuclear-cost studies that are performed/funded by nuclear interests? The circumstances of the nuclear industry’s performing/funding nuclear-cost studies (whose results could affect industry profits) — may "create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest," scientific integrity, may be ‘‘unduly influenced by a secondary interest," nuclear-industry financial interest. - p 13

-Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette
Journal of Science Engineering Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y

A lot of people around here are saying that you can trust MIT and/or the DOE agencies working to promote nuclear power. Well, MIT might have some good information, but you should never forget who they seem to be working to protect.

[bananas]

1. Salon.com also debunked that garbage

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/15/josef_oehmen_nuclear_not_worried_viral

Debunking a viral blog post on the nuke threat
An MIT researcher's claim that there was no threat of radiation in Japan was picked up widely, then it fell apart

<snip>

[BrookBrew]

2. MIT vs a Blog.. I mean "maybe" is not fact?

try harder.

Dr Oehmen is German. If his father spent much time in the German nuclear industry, there is a very very good chance that he worked – or works – for Siemens.

I mean MIT seems far more credible.

Your COI article DOES NOT mention MIT, you are aware of that, RIGHT?

[kristopher]

5. Well, here are 4 paragraphs showing the problem as late as 2009

"MIT" is on 30 of the 33 pages of the study.

...Despite these strengths, however, the industry-funded, 2009 MIT authors ignore problem (a), the high costs of nuclear energy calculated by credit-rating companies— and the challenges that (a) provides to their conclusions. Instead they follow overly optimistic, nuclear-industry assumptions that lead to low-nuclear-energy-cost conclusions, as will be shown below.

Regarding problem (b), excluding taxpayer-subsidy data from their nuclear-cost analyses, the 2009 MIT authors fail to take account of the many taxpayer subsidies that significantly reduce nuclear costs. They say (p. 9) their analysis ‘‘does not include any of the benefits from the production tax credits or loan guarantees...of 2005,’’ that is, a specific class of 2005 US taxpayer subsidies (Du and Parsons 2009). Yet, they ignore the fact that their analysis incorporates many other cost subsidies which artificially lower their calculated nuclear-electricity costs. If the late MIT physicist Henry Kendall is correct (p. 131), US nuclear-power subsidies amount to about $20 billion annually (Shrader-Frechette 2002)—all of which are ignored by the MIT authors in their cost analysis. For instance, they ignore the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies needed for nuclear-waste storage, perhaps because these are not market costs. Instead the 2009 MIT authors assume (p. 21) that the total costs of spent fuel and waste disposal will be only ‘‘the statutory fee of 1 mil/kWh currently charged’’ by government to the utility (Du and Parsons 2009), which, over the last 10 years, amounts to only $5 billion total (Shrader-Frechette 2002). Given the average, 22-year lifetime of nuclear plants (see above), this statutory fee means the total collected from current US nuclear plants amounts to roughly $11 billion. Yet this is only a tiny portion of permanent waste-storage costs, most of which will be borne by taxpayers, per government agreement (Shrader- Frechette 2002; Congress 1999). While the nuclear industry would pay this $11 billion (which MIT authors have assumed are total US nuclear-waste costs), government and US National Academy of Sciences studies in 1996 placed the real US nuclear-waste-management costs at roughly $350 billion (US National Research Council 1996), and these costs have now risen to $1 trillion (Shrader-Frechette 2002; Congress 1999), most of which will be paid by taxpayers. Thus the MIT authors may be counting, as total nuclear-waste costs, only between 1% (assuming $1 trillion is needed) and 3% (assuming $350 billion is needed) of the total monies needed for US nuclear-waste management, because they ignore taxpayer nuclear- waste-management subsidies. More generally, the MIT authors (Du and Parsons 2009) assume that nuclear electricity includes no taxpayer-subsidized costs, although ‘‘federal subsidies cover 60–90% of the generation cost for new nuclear plants’’ (Lovins et al. 2008). As already documented, US federal nuclear subsidies have already amounted to about $150 billion. The MIT failure to take account of nuclear subsidies in nuclear costs is especially troublesome because utility executives say (p. 17) that because nuclear plants are so uneconomical, ‘‘without loan guarantees, we will not build nuclear plants’’ (Madsen et al. 2009).

Regarding problem (c), the 2009 MIT authors also use mainly uncorrected nuclear-industry data, and they make many counterfactual nuclear-cost assump- tions, the effect of which is to lower nuclear-cost estimates. They assume, for instance, that ‘‘the total cost’’ of a nuclear plant does not include financing or interest charges on construction capital, although they admit that utilities are allowed to recover these costs from ratepayers (pp. 4–6), and although they and earlier paragraphs (of this paper) showed that financing costs at least double nuclear-construction costs (Du and Parsons 2009). They also assume (p. 4) that nuclear-plant construction takes only 5 years (Du and Parsons 2009), although earlier paragraphs show historical-average nuclear-plant-construction time is 10–23 years. Likewise, the MIT authors assume (p. 18) that a nuclear-load or ‘‘capacity factor of 85%’’ is reasonable (Du and Parsons 2009), although earlier paragraphs showed that historical-average capacity factors are 71%. Likewise, the 2009 MIT authors assume (pp. 16, 19) that the annual inflation rate for future nuclear construction will be 3%, although they admit that, over the last 5 years, annual nuclear costs have increased by 23% per year (Du and Parsons 2009). They also assume (p. 22) that for nuclear energy, ‘‘the costs of capital equal to those for coal.’’ Yet this assumption appears wholly unrealistic, given that market-interest rates for nuclear loans, as already mentioned, are 15%, whereas coal loans are only about 25% of that figure. Moreover, as already noted, nuclear interest can add 250% to overnight reactor costs whereas, on the admission of the 2009 MIT authors, coal- plant interest charges add only roughly 17–21% to coal-plant overnight costs (Du and Parsons 2009). The MIT authors likewise assume (p. iii) that it is rational for them to claim to ‘‘update the cost of nuclear power,’’ when their calculations of nuclear-electricity costs are only roughly half of those calculated by credit-rating firms like Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s (Du and Parsons 2009; Mariotte et al. 2008; Finance 2008). Moody’s says that, even from 2008 to 2009, it has taken ‘‘a more negative view for those issuers seeking to build new nuclear power plants’’ because of ‘‘the substantial execution risks involved’’ (Moody’s Corporate Finance 2009). The discrepancy between MIT and credit-rating-company figures arguably should have caused the 2009 MIT authors to question their industry-friendly economic assumptions that contributed to their low-nuclear-cost conclusions.

The earlier 2003 MIT nuclear-cost analysis (Ansolabehere et al. 2003) likewise was at least partly funded by the nuclear industry and perhaps, as a consequence, fell into similar counterfactual assumptions about nuclear costs. This study claims (p. vii) to be funded by the ‘‘Alfred P. Sloan Foundation,...MITs Office of the Provost, and Laboratory for Energy and the Environment’’ (Ansolabehere et al. 2003). However, ‘‘funding for this work comes from a variety of sources, including DOE, EPRI....INEEL’’ (MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (LEE) 2003). Like the 2009 MIT studies, this one (a) appears to include no nuclear-cost data from credit-rating agencies, (b) appears to include no nuclear-cost data that include taxpayer-provided subsidies, and (c) appears to use uncorrected, nuclear-industry-supplied cost data. Regarding (b), this 2003 MIT report criticizes (p. 43) nuclear subsidies, yet proposes (p. 8) additional ‘‘modest’’ US subsidies for nuclear power, but then excludes (p. 82) the value of taxpayer subsidies from its cost accounting of nuclear power (Ansolabehere et al. 2003). Likewise, regarding (c), the MIT analysis assumes that nuclear-plant construction takes only 5 years (Ansolabehere et al. 2003), although earlier paragraphs showed historical-average nuclear-plant-construction time is 10–23 years. It assumes a nuclear-load-factor of 85% (Ansolabehere et al. 2003), although earlier paragraphs showed that historical-average load factors of 71%. Likewise, the 2003 MIT study assumes an 11.5 interest rate, although earlier paragraphs showed that 15% is the market rate. It assumes a 40-year lifetime for nuclear plants, although (as noted earlier) the historical-average lifetime is 22 years. Thus, these implausible and counterfactual nuclear-industry assumptions appear to have compromised the MIT nuclear-energy-cost analyses. ...

p 18-19
Sci Eng Ethics DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y
Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette

You have been diligent in denying that MIT is examined in this study. Are you Barry Brook the nuke blogger mentioned at the link in the OP or are you from MIT?

[BrookBrew]

6. Nothing from the Psychology professor on MIT COI there

looks like a cost equation.

Got another name, maybe someone who has a physics background.

[BrookBrew]

7. What does she teach? Hint not physics

looks like a cost equation issue.

Got another name, maybe someone who has a physics background.

[kristopher]

12. Physics, you say?

Kristin Shrader-Frechette has held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida.

Currently she is O'Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame, where she also directs the Center for Environmental Justice and Children's Health . She studied physics at Xavier University and then graduated summa cum laude, In 2004 Shrader-Frechette became only the third American to win the World Technology Award in Ethics. Earlier a Harvard professor won for work in biomedical ethics, and a Princeton professor won for work in development ethics. She won for her work in public-health and environmental ethics. In 2007, in 1967, with an undergraduate major in mathematics from Edgecliff College, Xavier University. In 1972, she received her Ph.D. in philosophy of science from the University of Notre Dame. Shrader-Frechette also did postdoctoral work for 2, 1, and 2 years, respectively, in biology (community ecology), economics, and hydrogeology. She has held Woodrow Wilson Foundation, National Science Foundation, and Carnegie Foundation Fellowships in philosophy of science and has held offices/served on committees in the US National Academy of Sciences, the Risk Assessment and Policy Association, the American Philosophical Association, the Philosophy of Science Association, the Society for Philosophy and Technology, and the International Society for Environmental Ethics. Shrader-Frechette has been a member of many boards and committees of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, US Environmental Protection Agency, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, and the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences, including its Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, its Committee on Risk Characterization, and its Committee on Zinc-Cadmium Sulfide Dispersions.

[BrookBrew]

14. Still no mention of MIT and COI..(nt)

[kristopher]

15. Paper title "Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest" w/ MIT on 30 pages

That would be 30 out of 33 total pages.

Too complex for ya?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=734833&mesg_id=734954

[BrookBrew]

17. Philosophy professor, preaching. Youtube advocate.. got MIT folks on camera pimping a cause

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=filPP04UObo

[Canuckistanian]

9. Link?

Oh, I forgot. You don't do links.

[kristopher]

11. Peer reviewed Journals are far better than links. The citation is included.

Go to your library.

About the author of the paper cited:
Kristin Shrader-Frechette has held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida.

Currently she is O'Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame, where she also directs the Center for Environmental Justice and Children's Health . She studied physics at Xavier University and then graduated summa cum laude, In 2004 Shrader-Frechette became only the third American to win the World Technology Award in Ethics. Earlier a Harvard professor won for work in biomedical ethics, and a Princeton professor won for work in development ethics. She won for her work in public-health and environmental ethics. In 2007, in 1967, with an undergraduate major in mathematics from Edgecliff College, Xavier University. In 1972, she received her Ph.D. in philosophy of science from the University of Notre Dame. Shrader-Frechette also did postdoctoral work for 2, 1, and 2 years, respectively, in biology (community ecology), economics, and hydrogeology. She has held Woodrow Wilson Foundation, National Science Foundation, and Carnegie Foundation Fellowships in philosophy of science and has held offices/served on committees in the US National Academy of Sciences, the Risk Assessment and Policy Association, the American Philosophical Association, the Philosophy of Science Association, the Society for Philosophy and Technology, and the International Society for Environmental Ethics. Shrader-Frechette has been a member of many boards and committees of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, US Environmental Protection Agency, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, and the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences, including its Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, its Committee on Risk Characterization, and its Committee on Zinc-Cadmium Sulfide Dispersions.

[Recursion]

24. PhD in philosophy of science?

And a BA in math?

What a totally inappropriate academic background for making conclusions about nuclear power.

[kristopher]

25. She is exmining the ethical implications of nuclear industry funding of research

...particularly research used to obtain government funding for the industry in question. Does someone need to be a chemist to know that drug makers manipulate science to obtain profit?

Why would the nuclear industry's quest for profit not be a cause for the same concerns? The nuclear industry makes fraudulent claims about their product in order to make money, and they are having far more trouble getting away with it than they thought they would.

Reread the abstract to see why your claim isn't accurate.
"Merck suppressed data on harmful effects of its drug Vioxx, and Guidant suppressed data on electrical flaws in one of its heart-defibrillator models. Both cases reveal how financial conflicts of interest can skew biomedical research. Such conflicts also occur in electric-utility-related research. Attempting to show that increased atomic energy can help address climate change, some industry advocates claim nuclear power is an inexpensive way to generate low-carbon electricity. Surveying 30 recent nuclear analyses, this paper shows that industry-funded studies appear to fall into conflicts of interest and to illegitimately trim cost data in several main ways. They exclude costs of full-liability insurance, underestimate interest rates and construction times by using “overnight” costs, and overestimate load factors and reactor lifetimes. If these trimmed costs are included, nuclear-generated electricity can be shown roughly 6 times more expensive than most studies claim. After answering four objections, the paper concludes that, although there may be reasons to use reactors to address climate change, economics does not appear to be one of them."

Then read this study to see what the strategy of the industry is:

http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[kristopher]

26. Was that clear enough to address your concerns? nt

[kristopher]

13. Here is a link

For the bio

http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/ksf-cv-Jan-1-2011.pdf

[marions ghost]

3. At this point

that chart looks ugly. You can really see the push for nukes. Many people behind it tho.

[Recursion]

4. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons combined have killed fewer people...

...than our dependence on fossil fuels and the imperialist lengths we have to go to to keep them flowing.

[marions ghost]

20. It just can't be compared to fossil fuels

The potential for nuclear to kill far more people is ever present.

Neither are good.

[Recursion]

22. Well, no, not really

It's not really as powerful as you seem to think it is. Fewer people were killed in Hiroshima than were killed by napalm (a fossil fuel, ironically) in Dresden.

[kristopher]

23. Your comparison is still irrelevant.

!
V

[kristopher]

21. Yes there are.

What is amazing is how easily they get away with it.

Share the cure.

!
V

[Night Crawler]

8. If true don't you think that MIT's Nuclear Engineering Dept

Might just be more informed on the subject than, oh I don't know, SOME ANONYMOUS POSTER ON AN INTERNET WEBSITE?

[kristopher]

10. The paper cited fm a peer reviewed academic journal on ethics in science and engineering

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x734833
Kristin Shrader-Frechette has held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida.

Currently she is O'Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame, where she also directs the Center for Environmental Justice and Children's Health . She studied physics at Xavier University and then graduated summa cum laude, In 2004 Shrader-Frechette became only the third American to win the World Technology Award in Ethics. Earlier a Harvard professor won for work in biomedical ethics, and a Princeton professor won for work in development ethics. She won for her work in public-health and environmental ethics. In 2007, in 1967, with an undergraduate major in mathematics from Edgecliff College, Xavier University. In 1972, she received her Ph.D. in philosophy of science from the University of Notre Dame. Shrader-Frechette also did postdoctoral work for 2, 1, and 2 years, respectively, in biology (community ecology), economics, and hydrogeology. She has held Woodrow Wilson Foundation, National Science Foundation, and Carnegie Foundation Fellowships in philosophy of science and has held offices/served on committees in the US National Academy of Sciences, the Risk Assessment and Policy Association, the American Philosophical Association, the Philosophy of Science Association, the Society for Philosophy and Technology, and the International Society for Environmental Ethics. Shrader-Frechette has been a member of many boards and committees of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, US Environmental Protection Agency, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, and the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences, including its Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, its Committee on Risk Characterization, and its Committee on Zinc-Cadmium Sulfide Dispersions.

[BrookBrew]

16. Dude post the hyperlink of that paper in full.

please, not 4 paragraphs so righthaven can sue, just a link. Please. Hosted content.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

28. Go to the library.

While you are there it would be a good idea for you to get a book on ethics and read it, since the subject of the OP is the demonstrated lack of ethics by MIT. Your defense of their actions with the transparent diversions and rationalizations you've employed shows that you have a very poor intuitive grasp of the topic.

[kristopher]

18. Interview w/ Shrader-Frechette on Deepwater

Q: Your work focuses on the consequences of lax regulations, including health problems from pollution. But what can the average person do?

A: People need to ensure that everyone who makes a polluting product or releases pollutants pays the full cost of doing business. If I use gasoline, then I ought to pay the full price of using gasoline. I ought to be paying the cost of the BP oil spill. I ought to be paying for the harm to indigenous people in Latin America and in Africa who are harmed by drilling practices that would never be allowed in the United States. Using an internal combustion engine releases nitrogen oxides and particulates and benzene. If I buy that gasoline, it should be priced high enough to cover pollution control.

....

Q: What are some others?
A: If we don't know how to fix a problem, then we ought not to use the technology. For example, we don't know how to solve problems with drilling several miles beneath the surface of the water. If we don't know how to solve problems with deep sea drilling, we shouldn't be using deep sea drilling. An environmental impact statement should have noted we don't have the slightest idea how to secure these wells that are several miles beneath the surface of the water.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/deepwaterhorizon/7062335.html

[PCIntern]

27. Hell, I think we have a couple on this Site lately... n/t