BY ANNE AND PAUL EHRLICH
RELATED CONTENT
A Portable Environment, A Portable Environment, or...How To Survive The Ice Age, In Comfort! Januar...
ECOSCIENCE July/August 1979 by Anne and Paul Ehrlich Paul Ehrlich (Bing Professor of Population Stu...
A new study predicts we could have one quarter of our energy needs from renewable sources by 2025, ...
The new report, based on a scientific congress held in Copenhagen, Denmark, in March, updates proje...
A Plowboy Interview with William Ophuls whose 1973 Ph.D. dissertation was on the management of poli...
Paul Ehrlich (Bing Professor of Population Studies and
Professor of Biological Sciences, Stanford University) and
Anne Ehrlich (Senior Research Associate, Department of
Biological Sciences, Stanford) are familiar names to
ecologists and environmentalists everywhere. As well they
should be. Because it was Paul and Anne who—through
their writing and research—gave special meaning to
the words "population", "resources", and "environment" in
the late 1960's. (They also coined the term coevolution,
and did a lot to make ecology the household word it is
today.) But while most folks are aware of the Ehrlichs'
popular writing in the areas of ecology and overpopulation
(most of us—for instance—have read Paul's book
The Population Bomb) ... far too few people have any idea
of how deeply the Ehrlichs are involved in ecological
research (research of the type that tends to be published
only in technical journals and college textbooks). That's
why it pleases us to be able to present-on a regular
basis-the following semi-technical column by
authors/ecologists/educators Anne and Paul Ehrlich.
THE "INHABER REPORT", PART 2
In our last column, we gave an overview of the "Inhaber
Report" scandal ... an attempt by the Canadian Atomic
Energy Control Board (abetted by various prestigious
journals and scientists) to foist the results of a
hopelessly flawed study upon the public. The
report—entitied Risk of Energy Production (AECB1119)
— written by Herbert Inhaber, purports to show that
solar energy sources are nearly as dangerous to human
beings as are conventional sources (such as coal) ... and
more dangerous than is nuclear energy!
Because we know that MOTHER's readers are interested in
alternative energy sources, this column will attempt to
describe—in detail—how biased data selection
was combined with incredible bungling to reach AECB-1119's
preposterous conclusions.
A COMPREHENSIVE COMPARISON?
First, Inhaber claims to have tallied up the direct health
risks—to workers and to the public—brought
about by the construction and operation of conventional and
nonconventional energy sources. He claims to count
accidental deaths and injuries, as well as disease ... and
to include—in his figures—all phases of the
fuel cycle (such as, for example, acquisition of the raw
material to build energy facilities ... the manufacture of
components ... the construction of power plants ... the
mining of fuels ... plant operation and maintenance ... and
the disposition of wastes).
Page: 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
Next >>
