Manual for Survival
Michael Shellenberger wrote a review of Kate Brown's "Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future" based on his reading of the book, and interviews conducted with author Kate Brown and scientists Jim Smith and Dr. Gerry Thomas.
Surprisingly, Kate Brown cites a chapter from a Caldicott book, and directs Michael Shellenberger to call Dr. Helen Caldicott to answer questions.
I bought a Kindle copy of Manual for Survival. Caldicott's name is never mentioned in the book even though Brown's book cites a chapter published in one of Caldicott's books.
Many of Caldicott's assertions on Chernobyl and radiation are restated and it is clear that Dr. Helen Caldicott's assumptions are being accepted by Kate Brown.
I've written a review for Amazon.ca (where I bought a copy). It can be up/down voted. Some quotes from Jim Smith come from his own review of the book.
https://www.amazon.ca/gp/customer-reviews/R2FFTY50CZBYX9/
And of course, I put together the above video, the MP4 of which can be downloaded here, should you have any use for it beyond my postings.
Hard to put down, yet contains non-credible assertions regarding radiation dose-response.
Kate Brown's book is a compelling read beyond the mandatory play-by-play of the Chernobyl accident itself... Brown uncovers some new "Liquidator" records, and her interview of contaminated wool factory workers is fascinating/horrifying.
However, Brown's book also calls into question basic dose estimation, it ignores all the measurements conducted in the years after the accident both in the former Soviet countries and abroad, and unquestioningly trusts some researchers, while being deeply skeptical of others.
"I was shocked and disappointed to find that the information and opinions I had given on radiation effects on wildlife at Chernobyl had been dismissed. According to Brown, I was a physicist (used almost as a term of abuse in the context) who didn’t feel it necessary to go to Chernobyl to draw my pre-formed conclusions about the accident effects. Brown did not report what I had told her – I first studied Chernobyl fallout in the English Lake District in 1990 and first did fieldwork in the Chernobyl affected areas of Ukraine and Belarus in 1994... Brown dismisses the evidence of my colleagues (including Belarussian scientists) and me by calling me a physicist and implying that I have never been to Chernobyl."
- Jim Smith, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Portsmouth
"Brown takes the views of the ‘usual suspects’ into account, but dismisses mainstream science where there is peer review, and accountability. The 'usual suspects' tell a good story – but without a shred of evidence from studies that are appropriately powered and controlled for confounders."
- Dr. Geraldine Thomas, professor of pathology at Imperial College London, Founder of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank
When asked by Michael Shellenberger to defend some of the claims in Manual For Survival, Kate Brown cited a chapter from a Dr. Helen Caldicott book. Later (in that same conversation) she suggested Shellenberger call Dr. Helen Caldicott.
Having reviewed hours of Dr. Helen Caldicott lectures, I know that she is not a source of accurate information. And Manual for Survival, once past the Chernobyl retelling, and past Brown's own interviews with Liquidators, takes the Caldicott approach of questioning motivations, making poor assumptions about research practices, and the making of untrue statements which could easily have been fact-checked.
"I was further shocked to read in this Chernobyl book Brown’s bald statement that radiation is the only known cause of myeloid leukemia, in the context clearly implying (wrongly) that there are no other causes."
- Jim Smith
"There have been many very careful studies conducted at huge expense over many years and it is a shame that she dismisses these and concentrates on contentious studies carried out by others that are not highly regarded within their own community."
- Dr. Geraldine Thomas
"Brown claims that the evidence collected and assembled by Greenpeace is more reliable than the evidence collected by hundreds of scientists working under the auspices of the UN and other international agencies."
- Michael Shellenberger
I've personally seen Dr. Helen Caldicott and Greenpeace make flat-out untrue statements regarding nuclear power. If Kate Brown wishes to "present both sides" and let the reader decide who is more credible, that is certainly one approach to writing a book. But only the Caldicott assumptions of Chernobyl's impact are fully articulated in Manual For Survival.
Dr. Helen Caldicott
I'd like to see an article in mainstream print media (such as NYT) fact-check Caldicott.
It is obvious she's influenced Kate Brown's work. I still think to laypeople she looks credible, because to-date only George Monbiot has challenged her (in 2011). This is the public-facing totality of Dr. Helen Caldicott's history of easily discredited and untrue statements:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Caldicott#2010s
To include a fuller accounting of Caldicott's statements on Wikipedia I can't rely on my own "reporting", Wikipedia demands a mainstream news outlet report it (or a science journal) for a "controversy" to be worthy of inclusion.
So if you know a journalist interested in such a task, I have indexed video footage available for review.
This includes her speculation about driving an explosives-laden boat into Indian Point's water-intake system, which was removed from a Green-Festival video of event...
"I was outside those Indian Point reactors on Bobby Kennedy's boat I could easily had I been Timothy McVeigh with fertilizer explosives driven the boat into the cooling pipes and melted down the reactor pipes within a couple of hours."
...and only preserved by Frankie Fenton's video capture of the event. (Of course staff at Indian Point disagree with Caldicott's assertion on what such an attack would achieve.)
While we might have lucked out, and had Kate Brown stumble upon a Caldicott fact-check video, and had Caldicott's views not regurgitated uncritically in Manual For Survival... it didn't happen. To increase odds that Caldicott's views won't be restated so directly in the future, there needs to be another journalist-vs-Caldicott fact-check which includes her spoken words, and not just her prose.
Kate Brown's book, and Kate's mention of Caldicott, is a rare opportunity to revisit decades worth of misinformation and make it topical.
Multiphysics Modeling Tools for MSR - Manuele Aufiero @ TEC2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmUzJuvalZA
Manuele Aufiero presented at TEC2018 in Brussels "Innovative Multiphysics Modeling Tools for Molten Salt Reactors".
Milano Multiphysics is a startup founded in 2015, conducting research in collaboration with Energy Department at POLIMI.
The myltiphysics tools used for MSRs are:
- Coupling of Monte Carlo neutronics and CFD.
- Fuel cycle analysis.
- Design optimization.
Recently their research activities included:
- Simulation of fast-spectrum MSR reactivity transients via Monte Carlo and CFD coupling.
- Pebble-by-pebble DEM and neutronics modeling of the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor
- Solid Fuel (TMSR-SF).
- OpenFOAM modeling of the draining and radiative heat transfer cooling in the drain tank in the ThorCon reactor.