Arthur Scargill Issues Imbecilic Challenge
August 8th, 2008In a Comment is Free article today, Arthur Scargill (who of course has no vested interests) has issued a challenge to George Monbiot:
I challenge George Monbiot to test out which is the most dangerous fuel - coal or nuclear power. I am prepared to go into a room full of CO2 [sic] for two minutes, if he is prepared to go into a room full of radiation for two minutes.
Okay, let’s try that. He can stand in “a room full of CO2” for two minutes, and then, when the paramedics have resuscitated him and explained that you can’t breathe carbon dioxide, we can discuss what “a room full of radiation” might be.
Presumably he has in all his years seen at least one dimmer switch. He might like to explain at what point the room becomes “full” of light. Because you could easily endure a small amount of radiation for two minutes with no ill effects. You do exactly that every two minutes of your life. In the same way, you can endure a small amount of carbon dioxide.
So first we need to work out exactly how much of each thing each room will need to be “full”. Then we need to decide if Scargill will be allowed to supplement his CO2 with any oxygen — bearing in mind that if there’s room for oxygen, it can’t really be “full” of CO2 now, can it?
We should also decide what kind of radiation to use. We could use alpha, beta, gamma, or anything we like from the EM spectrum including long-wave radio, heat or visible light.
After we’ve done that, and Scargill and Monbiot have spent the required minutes in their respective rooms — personally I vote to up Scargill’s sentence to five minutes as it’s by no means unheard of for people to simply hold their breath for two and that’s cheating — we can discuss what the hell any of that was supposed to prove because CO2 is dangerous because a sodding greenhouse gas, not because it’s poisonous.
Scargill’s challenge is like the NRA saying guns are safe and proving it by standing in a room full of bullets for two minutes and failing to die. Or a company showing their new Arsenic Sandwich is safe by sitting in a room with it for two minutes. Or Dan challenging the claim that cigarette smoke is more toxic than car exhaust fumes by challenging me to inhale thousands of times more of the latter than he willof the former.
Another interesting bit of his article is this:
…we live on an island with more than 1,000 years of coal reserves from which we can provide all the electricity, oil, gas and petrochemicals that people need, without causing harm to the environment.
I was going to mock him for this too, but I’ve looked into it, and it turns out he’s right. Modern coal-fired power stations are really quite clever. You don’t actually need to burn the coal. Instead, a kitten gently caresses the coal, and the coal starts to give off heat. This is used to drive a turbine and create electricity. Meanwhile magical pixies suck any CO2 the kitten may have exhaled into magic pixie bottles, which then vanish in a puff of pure joy. It’s true.
Tags for this article: Arthur Scargill
[?][More Help]
6 Responses to “Arthur Scargill Issues Imbecilic Challenge”
Leave a Reply
Apathy Sketchpad is proudly powered by
WordPress
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).

August 8th, 2008 at 16:59
I’d have pulled him up for his physics, too. After all, photons are bosons; they can occupy the same location as one another. Therefore you can put as many of them in a room as you like and yet never fill it up.
Some might argue that I’m being unnecessarily pedantic, but I’d reply that I’m not the one throwing around damn-fool thought experiments and then crossing my arms like I won the argument.
August 10th, 2008 at 16:19
Hey — that “enter all the consonants” question is tricky. I should have paid more attention in English.
Anyway — hear hear on Arthur vs George. I too pointed out in a Comment on Scargill’s article that, in his state of health, 120 minutes in a room full of CO2 would be a death sentence, whereas gorgeous George would be fine & dandy in a “room full of radiation” (whatever that may mean).
I have only just discovered your blog, so will add it to my own humble efforts at Bad Ecology.
All the best,
Rob
August 10th, 2008 at 21:17
Hey, at least I rigged it not to give you any ‘y’s on “enter all the consonants”.
August 17th, 2008 at 17:25
(Commenting on the off chance that this comment won’t disappear like the one I just made on the rat pyramids. Which, I can now claim was the most brilliant comment ever, seeing as it’s dissipated into random bits and bytes.)
Poor Scargill must have thought that would make an impressive soundbite. LOL. Still, the mind-boggling stupidity of it doesn’t mean he’s completely wrong.
Clean coal-fired power stations are not impossible. Clean nuclear power stations are even more of a pipe-dream. These things have to be physically protected for the next few thousand years. They’ve only existed for a few decades and already there has been a continent-sized disaster at Chernobyl.
If nuclear power is so safe, why not build rings of nuclear power stations in the centre of London?
August 18th, 2008 at 10:47
Because London contains the most expensive land in the entire country?
August 18th, 2008 at 13:33
Well, it means he’s at least specifically wrong if not generally wrong.
I don’t have any strong opinions on Coal Versus Nuclear as I don’t consider myself qualified to hold them, but I feel quite strongly about people with obvious vested interests making specious arguments about important things in national newspapers. That’s wrong, even if he’s right.