Saturday Apr 03, 2021
Debating Nuclear Risks with Ed Lyman, Union of Concerned Scientists
In this episode I step out of the pro-nuclear echo chamber and interview a senior representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a non-profit climate-oriented group with a history of opposing nuclear power. UCS has annual revenues on the order of $40 Million.
Engaging with opposing ideas and challenging our assumptions should be a continuous process, and exposure to contrary views is necessary if we want to make a difference in public opinion.
Dr. Edwin Lyman is the Director of Nuclear Power Safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, DC. He earned a doctorate in physics from Cornell University in 1992. From 1992 to 1995, he was a postdoctoral research associate at Princeton University's Center for Energy and Environmental Studies (now the Science and Global Security Program). From 1995 to 2003, he worked for the Nuclear Control Institute. His research focuses on nuclear power safety and security. He is a co-author (with David Lochbaum and Susan Q. Stranahan) of the book Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster (The New Press, 2014). He is the recipient of the 2018 Leo Szilard Lectureship Award from the American Physical Society.
Follow me at https://therationalview.podbean.com
Join the conversation at https://facebook.com/groups/therationalview
Insta https://instagram.com/the_rational_view
Twitter https://twitter.com/AlScottRational
#therationalview #podcast #evidencebased #netzeroneedsnuclear #climatechange #greenenergy #nuclearpower #atomicenergy #nuclearfornetzero #nuclearreactors
Comments (1)
To leave or reply to comments, please download free Podbean or
Dr. Lyman raised some good points about reductionism, but failed to submit any way to go about a more thorough comparison. Indeed, it seems that such an undertaking would be both costly and lengthy and the outcome would be too late for the change that needs to happen. Rationally, we should accept a rough comparison over no practical alternative. Simply starting something is flawed does not always make it irrelevant. We need to reduce carbon asap and it's impossible without nuclear, currently.
Monday Apr 12, 2021
To leave or reply to comments,
please download free Podbean App.