Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
What Will WorkFighting Climate Change with Renewable Energy, Not Nuclear
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Kristin Shrader-Frechette

Print publication date: 2011

Print ISBN-13: 9780199794638

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2012

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199794638.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 04 December 2021

Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island: Flawed Science and Accident Cover-Up

Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island: Flawed Science and Accident Cover-Up

(p.110) Chapter 4 Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island: Flawed Science and Accident Cover-Up
What Will Work

Kristin Shrader-Frechette

Oxford University Press

Chapter 4 argues that atomic energy is also costly in terms of human health, scientific data, and practical reliability. Because of industry cover-ups, scientific misrepresentation, and violation of conflict-of-interest guidelines, this chapter shows that industry's atomic-energy-accident data are grossly flawed. These data significantly undercount harmful nuclear consequences. As a result, the chapter shows the public has been seriously misled about atomic energy, as medical journals confirm. In particular, industry PR caused many people to erroneously believe that the 1979 Three Mile Island (TMI), Pennsylvania, nuclear accident and core melt was a minor mishap that killed no one. In fact, there was a documented, 64-percent cancer increase, especially in childhood cancers. This chapter argues that the dominant or accepted scientific position about what has caused post-accident, TMI-related health problems fails. The most likely explanation is that TMI radiation caused these health harms. Flawed inductive methods help explain why the dominant or accepted causal hypothesis about TMI health effects—that nuclear-accident-related stress, not radiation, is the culprit—errs. Many scientists erroneously reject the radiation cause, partly because they fall into conflicts of interest and also misunderstand randomization requirements in statistics; thus they misuse classical-statistical tests to draw causal inferences from non-experimental data. However, given actual, non-experimental data from TMI, inference to the best explanation, especially contrastive explanation, better reveals the cause of TMI health harms. Once scientists use correct statistical methods, it is easy to show that nuclear fission is an extremely risky technology, thus a questionable way to address climate change.

Keywords:   atomic energy, cancer, human health, practical reliability, scientific data, Three Mile Island

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .