MANILA, Philippines—A US scientist admonished Pangasinan Representative Mark Cojuangco for “dangerously misrepresenting” a scientific study in a bid to make the lawmaker’s proposal to reopen the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) “look good.”
Dr. Kelvin Rodolfo, professor emeritus of the University of Illinois Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, said he was dismayed Cojuangco misused the 2005 study the American and two fellow scientists made.
“I am dismayed that our paper was cited by Cojuangco in his exploratory note. He is being ignorant of scientific data,” said Rodolfo.
Cojuangco authored a House bill seeking to revive the $2.3-billion BNPP mothballed over two decades ago.
A visibly angry Rodolfo, during a Friday conference on nuclear power at the University of the Philippines National Institute of Geological Sciences (UP-NIGS), accused Cojuangco of “dangerously misrepresenting” the scientific study, which covered the geology of Subic Bay.
Rodolfo, also an adjunct professor at UP-NIGS and a staunch critic of nuclear energy, argued that the paper did not certify the safety of the area where the BNPP is located.
A heated exchange ensued during the open forum when Cojuangco tried to rebut Rodolfo’s accusations, saying that the rest of his proposed measure was based on solid scientific data.
Cojuangco also said that the bill was meant to ensure long-term availability of power in the country and reduce the effects of global warming.
But Rodolfo rebuked Cojuangco saying that the lawmaker should have understood the purpose of their paper, which studied geologic faults in Subic Bay and not Natib where the BNPP stands.
Rodolfo said his team even found by accident some geologic faults previously undetected. These could in fact cause some danger to surrounding areas of Subic, which includes Natib, some 10 kilometers away, he said.
“What you’re doing is cherry-picking arguments that would make your proposal look good,” Rodolfo said.
Trying to calm down, Cojuangco finally apologized to Rodolfo and said he would amend his bill. “I’m going to try to put amendments in my explanatory note that you are anti-nuclear.”
Rodolfo also posted online a statement about the alleged misuse of the study.
6 Feedbacks on "US scientist scolds pro-nuke lawmaker"
Mark Cojuangco
This is a completely inaccurate and one sided account of what went on at the NIGS debate.
You left out many parts.
Specially Dr. Rodolfo’s cherry picking of the facts from Craven’s book. “Power to save the world, the truth about nuclear power”.
Dr. Rodolfo tries to discredit her (the author) without citing that her references were Dr. Rip Anderson Phd. a noted geologist and nuclear scientist who was deeply involved in the development of Yucca Mountain repository in the US, and who guided Cravens to meet the many US Scientists from Sandia and Oak Ridge national labs among others, to gain an understanding of the nuke industry from the inside, thus creating a very authoritative book.
You also failed to mention that Dr. Rodolfo’s suggestion for our countries energy situation is to “conserve”.
This point was not well taken because we are a poor country with low per capita electric consumption resulting in poverty, and caused by high electric prices. Further, my comment that he should advice conservation in the US, his adopted country since they consume close to 50% of the world’s energy and yet only have about 5% (about 20 x the Filipino per capita electric consumption) of the population, but that his advice is not applicable to a poor country like ours.
You also did not mention a single of the multitudes of points raised br the other resource speakers; Dr. Arcilla and Dr. Aleta. Why?
Finally, I did not apologize for doing a wrong thing (citing that Natib is approx 12,000 years from last eruption, from his paper).
What I cited is true and IT IS in his paper. I did right in citing that and, I do not apologize for that.
What I did, and which you misrepresented, was to express regret that he (a friend) was hurt by his perception that people think he is pro nuke from my explanatory note. That, was never intended.
And so again, let me state: Dr. Kelvin Rodolfo and Dr. Cabato are not pro nuke. They are anti nuke. I will try to get that note into the explanatory note to hopefully finally satisfy Dr. Rodolfo, if it will be allowed by our rules.
Mark Cojuangco
P.S.
Dr. Arcilla and Dr. Aleta’s presentations were complete, backed up by data and, in my opinion, very credible rebuttals of Dr. Rodolfo’s assertions.
Dr. Rodolfo’s assertions seemed to be more emotional than scientific.
Dr. Rodolfo’s tantrums on the floor were not appreciated.
It was supposed to be a scientific debate, not a coercion session.
Repeatedly and loudly threatening to resign has no place in such a forum.
J pastor
Reviving BNPP is just like a horror movie that a mad scientist trying to revive the dead to life-like zombie. Wake-up man… there are other natural sources of power available in our country and plenty. Merely following one of the provision of the power deregulation law (demand side management) would lessen or delay requirements of new power plants for many years. That means increasing the load factor of our power plants during off-peak would promote higher system efficiency.
A.B. Long
It will not be a horror movie in my opinion, it will be heaven for Filipinos. Imagine cheap electricity (check Australia), and thousands of jobs that will be created if BNPP is openned. It will create a chain reaction, with cheap electricity and cheap labour, more investors would opt to do their business in The Philippines. Only intelligent and risky people would revive such facility. There are heavy risks, but the reward will far outweigh the said risks. Well, we cant gain something for nothing.
JB Ibasan
Cong. Cojuangco (or perhaps one of your minions who wrote this reply), your proposal to reopen the BNPP was not in question. The issue was your alleged misrepresentation of Dr. Rodolfo’s paper. While it is understood that you are unable to comprehend the paper in its entirety at least you should have done due diligence to review scientific materials. If you must know, these are reviewed extensively by peers and other scientists to ensure credibility. Authors take great pains to come up with a properly developed work. Take note of that and you’ll understand why Dr. Rodolfo was angry at you.
And about your apology, remember that there were at least two other cameras present. You uttered “I’m sorry.” You know what happened to the last public official who said that and lost her credibility.
EM
Congressman Cojuangco and his minions, I am in favor of the nuclear plant as long as you put all the nuclear waste in your place.
Please Leave a Comment!