One of the biggest lies ever told in American industrial history is that "no one died at Three Mile Island."
In the frenzy to get public funding for still more nuclear reactors, some industry backers now say no one has ever been killed by the nuclear industry AT ALL.
These absurd statements reflect atomic energy's desperate need for federal loan guarantees, which have been slipped into the Energy Bill now before Congress. After fifty years of proven failure, no private sources will invest in this lethal, expensive technology.
Meanwhile billions are pouring into the booming business of green power, including wind, solar power and increased efficiency. These technologies are not only profitable and clean, they don't kill people.
And the reality is that people have, in fact, been killed by the fallout from atomic power, and not just at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
At the very birth of fission technology, Lewis Slotin, a top researcher on the Manhattan Project, was fatally irradiated in an early experiment. Patriotic workers were exposed to high radiation doses while building the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In the 1950s, a critical accident struck a reactor at Chalk River, Canada. Scores of American "jumpers" were run into the plant to do clean-up work and then run out. One was the future president Jimmy Carter, who joked about the incident in his autobiography "Why Not the Best."
In 1961, three workers were killed at the SL-1 plant in Idaho. One was pinned to the ceiling of the containment dome by a fuel rod that shot out of the reactor core. The men's bodies were classified as high level radioactive waste, and were buried in lead casks.
On October 5, 1966, a critical blockage brought Michigan's Fermi I fast breeder reactor to the brink of disaster. Fermi's owners said the $100 million accident released no radiation. But for a month state authorities prepared to evacuate Detroit.
The entire history of atomic energy is defined by radiation releases that the industry has covered up. Today, nothing reactor owners say can be believed. At both Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, elaborate official studies done before the accidents "proved" that it was "impossible" for what then did happen to occur. The term "inherently safe" had been applied to reactors that proved very much otherwise. Today that same term is being used to describe the "new generation" of plants to be underwitten by these proposed guarantees.
In the late 1960s, Dr. John Gofman was asked to evaluate the killing power of so-called "normal" releases from America's fleet of atomic reactors.
Gofman was a towering figure. He was instrumental in developing the atomic bomb. As a medical doctor, his breakthrough discoveries in heart disease and LDL cholesterol are still in use.
Dr. Gofman was chief of health research at the Atomic Energy Commission. But he discovered that regular radiation emissions from America's nukes would kill 32,000 citizens per year, even without an accident or terror attack.
The industry demanded Gofman change his findings. When he refused, he was fired. He spent the rest of his life warning that Americans were being killed every day by the ever-growing fleet of US reactors.
In 1979, human error caused the melt-down at Three Mile Island Unit Two. The reactor's owners immediately denied there was any melting of fuel. This was a lie. Robotic cameras later showed that at least a third of the fuel had melted.
The owners said there was never a danger of a major catastrophe. That was a lie. The plant was very much at the brink of an apocalyptic radiation release.
The owners ridiculed those---among them Pennsylvania's Secretary of Health---who desperately warned that local citizens should be evacuated, especially to protect pregnant women and small children. The governor finally ordered just such an evacuation, but later fired his long-time friend at the Department of Health, who had advocated the evacuation, and who warned of damage from TMI's stealth radioactive fallout.
TMI's owners denied that its releases harmed anyone. But the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has admitted to Congress that nobody knows how much radiation escaped or where it went.
Official statistics showed a huge jump in infant death rates in Harrisburg in the three months after the accident compared to the numbers for the previous two years. State statistics showing heightened cancer rates were quickly altered. The state's tumor registry was abolished. Evidence showing downwind health effects was suppressed.
But an investigative team from the Baltimore News-Herald uncovered a massive epidemic of death and disease among the area's farm and wild animals.
In early 1980, I reported from ground zero on a ghastly epidemic of human death and disease. Based on a horrifying series of house-to-house interviews, I found cancer, heart attacks, respiratory problems, skin lesions, cataracts, a metallic taste in the mouth, hair loss, birth defects and everything else you'd expect from a major radiation release was everywhere to be found.
With three other researchers, I spent two years investigating these and other parallel epidemics at nuclear facilities throughout the United States. Our findings were published in 1982 by Dell/Delta in a book called Killing Our Own that showed a similar death toll throughout the nuclear fuel cycle---especially at uranium mines, mills and enrichment facilities---and at weapons production plants, waste storage pools and much more.
At TMI, 2400 central Pennsylvania families filed a class action lawsuit seeking justice. But the federal courts have never allowed their case to be heard.
Studies by Steven Wing of the University of North Carolina have confirmed the TMI death toll. Researcher Joe Mangano and others have used the government's own statistics to show a heightened cancer rate in the region. Parallel studies have correlated radioactive emissions with infant death rates, cancer rates and other health epidemics around other operating reactors.
But the industry's response is always the same. Anyone who shows that reactors kill people is automatically "discredited," even if their credentials, like those of Dr. Gofman, dwarf those of their attackers.
Even at an obvious catastrophe like Chernobyl, the deniers are out in force. The radiation releases at this unprecedented explosion far exceeded what was released at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
By all accounts, the plague that darkened central Pennsylvania after TMI was exponentially exceeded for thousands of downwind square miles in the Ukraine and other nearby nations of the former Soviet Union. The cancers, birth defects and other radioactive plagues have duplicated on a far larger scale what had already happened in the US in 1979.
Today, with billions in bailout dollars on the line, there is big money to be made in saying that atomic reactors have harmed no one.
But the truth is less convenient. Nuclear power kills people. From the Manhattan Project to TMI, from Chalk River to Chernobyl, even "normal" operations can be lethal.
Solar power, wind energy, bio-fuels, increased conservation---these sources are safe and clean. They don't create radioactive emissions or wastes, and will not be potential terror targets.
Nor do they need federal loan guarantees. Unlike atomic energy, green power is profitable for the entire community.
And unlike Three Mile Island, we will never have to evacuate wind farms or solar panels while their owners lie about what's really going down.
Harvey Wasserman edits www.nukefree.org and is senior editor of www.freepress.org.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
91 Comments so far
Show AllHe may not have read Clinton's explination of what sex actually isn't. If he did, then too much shafting may not have occurred.
Regardless, there was too much shafting going on
If that's not so, one could say he was shafted.
Hi FZ,
I recall that SL-1 was uncomfortably hiding a secret love triangle, where dude on the ceiling was impaled for 'similar activities' with the wife of another of the technicians.
Namaste
Good article Harvey.
Killing Our Own is a chilling read. I'd recommend all to read it.
May I elaborate further on the article?
The 1961 accident at SL-1 in Idaho was thought to have been caused by a faulty control rod that would get stuck. When it got stuck the men would use whatever means necessary to dislodge it. It was said that the man impaled to the ceiling pulled the control rod up too far. That's a good example of mans stupidity, arrogance, and ignorance just like the Brown's Ferry incident mentioned. Nuclear energy is a disaster/accident waiting to happen or actually already happening.
More on the Fermi I fast breeder reactor: If my recollections are correct there are 20,000 gallons of radioactive liquid sodium coolant encased in concrete there to this very day.
Seems like only a corporation hell bent on centralized power generation would support nuclear energy. I for one would much rather have a wind turbine or CSP (concentrated solar power).
Oh my gosh Ibertas, you told it so well. Of course those studies cost BIGGG money and some of that big money comes back to the requester of the study in an envelope at the gulf course, or in the rear of a big limo.
I'm computer stupid nspire, don't know what the browser is. Shhhh, don't tell anyone else.
I did get there by clickng on the link you offered Thank you.
P/S I think that blogger Guy is stupid too.
KEM,
Good news!
If you use your browser HISTORY, you will discover as I just did, that the "missing" DU article is still here on the server, it just no longer has a link from the archives page, but this worked a moment ago:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/18/5309/#comment-139993
Namaste
P.S. I guess the editor "angels" fly in the blind sometimes
This will work out like everything else. Global warming? we must have a several year study. Years pass and the commission makes its report. Yes, global warming is a fact and here are the results of our work. Hmmmm this requires a several year study and a new commission is formed to study the results of the study. Meanwhile, temperatures rise, storms flatten, croplands turn to deserts. By golly, we need to study this and see if it is important...
DU used, horrible birth defects, thousands of sick troops, civilian populations in areas have increased sickness, cancers, birth defects.
We need to study this, it may just be a coincidence. In a few years, some panel will publish their results that DU seems to be the culprit for this increase in disease and cancers. This will call for a study of their methodology and results for a few years...
We are drowning in government studies which solve nothing because if they don't come out the way the government wants them to, the scientists are fired and they look for new scientists who will do as the government asks; start with the desired results and work backward to a government acceptable cause..
Thank you for that info HAWKNH. Have you seen the news today, where the CDC states that childhood diabetes has skyrocketed in the past four years? Twenty some years ago, diabetes in children was very RARE. Of course they say is it due to diet and obesity.
Well, We know of three children in one family who have diabetes and none are obese at all. In fact they are all rather thin. They suffer a great deal and now one is having serious memory loss problems, all have constant aches and pains in their joints and often serious headaches and bloody noses. Sheryl is a delightful child who was a straight A student until this year. It does appear to their parents, they may be suffering from radiation posioning. That is just one family we know about.
DU is fired off on a military range, not far and down wind from where they live. The serious problem of many birth defects in their local hospital, is now being "studied" once again by the CDC. We can bet that DU will not be found ot be a cause of any problems. DU is "SAFE" as so many here have so 'wisely' noted.
Two things to note. First, I note with more than a bit of irony that not one of the advocates of nuclear power who has posted here has responded to my statements about repealing Price-Anderson. That's because they know that, if that huge subsidy is repealed, nuclear power is dead for all time in this country. May it rust in peace. Secondly, someone stated that the only people screaming about DU contamination are the Baathists in Iraq. Sorry, but the evidence of deadly effects is well-documented in Boznia-Herzegovina, Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere where US forces or our (MANY) client states have used these weapons. There is also extensive data that the VA has (leaked now) demonstrating over 100,000 deaths or serious injuries resulting from DU exposure on troops participating in the original Gulf War in 1991.
I'd hoped that our editor 'angels' could fly higher.
The sky's the limit, but past that, just empty space -- sigh
I thought that was your meaning but I wasn't quite sure. Thank you for the explination. They do that every time on a DU article. Reasons? ___ I can only guess. I doubt you will recieve a reply, that's how editors are, though I do think there are very good ones here. They give free reign most of the time and sometimes I believe they delete some of my rants, to protect me from looking as overly stupid.
Hi KEM,
When you wrote:
"Uhh, I'm sorry NSPIRE I don't understand your last post?"
I believe that you may have been puzzled by blatant sarcasm, where I said:
"I was looking as well, guess this proves that there's no health risk, as the evidence amounts to nothing . . ."
Sarcasm, that the missing email thread and article where not accidentally deleted, but outside forces may have reached it and 'disappeared' the offensive information, ergo we are left with no evidence (it keeps vaporizing). I emailed the editor to re-post the thread but no response there, yet.
Namaste
KENDPOTTER, I certainly appreciate you and many others reluctance to form a strong opinion on the subject of DU hazards, due to the many conflicting references written by WHO and other govermental agencies, who deny the danger. However, on your prior post I thought that was what in fact you did do, if not, I apologize for assuming.
Here is just one article of over 1,300,000 website refrences on the subject of DU, with strong comments written by Doctor POITR BEIN.~PhD,MASC,P Enginering. It is a very detailed report from an uranium weapons conference and explains in detail the dangers of DU. This link, which is purely scientific discussions without the hype of scare tactics, helps to explain the magnitude of the misinformation we do have from governments abut the danger of depleted uranium.
If you care to take the time to read this report, you may have the scientific consensus you need to form a better opinion. Thank you for taking your time, to reply to my prior post also.
http://uraniumweaponsconference.de/background.htm
KEM,
I don't want to inhale DU of any kind because I know that it is a chemical toxicant.
I am aware of Dr. Miller's work. It is one study, limited in nature/numbers, not peer reviewed, or published. That is not to say that she is not absolutely right in her conclusions. These nano-particles caused by pyrophoric combustion may be just as damaging as she says they are. I am just relating what is specifically known and accepted (well studied and peer reviewed) inside the Health Physics community. You are certainly welcome to believe what you want. I prefer to suspend judgement on such matters until there is scientific consensus.
Uhh, I'm sorry NSPIRE I don't understand your last post?
KEM,
I was looking as well, guess this proves that there's no health risk, as the evidence amounts to nothing . . .
The article about the New York town that was contaminated with uranium and DU is no longer here. There were over 60 comments posted. It came on Sunday afternoon and now it isn't even available in the archives. Why does someone at Common Dreams do that with articles about DU? ____ A most important subject. There are many articles here that will be available for a week or more, that are hum-drum, about as useful as readng about Paris Hilton. Guess I'm strange, ___ or just stupid.
KENDPOTTER, if you were offered to inhale a few microscopic specks of DU dust which had been taken from an exploded DU round of ammo, would you fear to inhale it?
To answer yours and COMARK's comments and argue the flip side of the coin, please read this link.
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du_howkilling.htm
You see, it is not MY opinions you are arguing. I'm not that smart to know it all.
I recall reading recently, within the past year, that there are lakes and ponds in the mountains of Eastern Europe that are still boiling with radiation from Chernobyl.
You MUST SEE the documentary 'Chernobyl Heart' in case you have not already.
Chernobyl Heart is a documentary presented by a group of Irish women who travelled to the region to document the hellish deformities to children caused by the Chernobyl nightmare
http://www.chernobylheart.com/
Folks, all the arguments for and against nuclear power seem to have been made here. I won't belabor them, although precious little has been said about the dangers of the front end of the nuclear cycle. My point to the advocates of nuclear power is this: if you truly believe that nuclear power is safe and secure, then advocate to your congressman and senators for repeal of the Price-Anderson Act. That act limits the liability of any nuclear installation to $5 billion per accident. Considering that most conservative estimates of the cost of a major nuclear disaster on the surrounding region is upwards of $600 billion, I'd say that's a remarkable subsidy of $595 billion per reactor. No other industry has any such blanket subsidy, not even the oil industry. Put your money where your mouth is and support repeal of Price-Anderson, then see if there's any investment house in the world foolish enough to support the construction of a single nuclear plant in the US. I'm betting none of you will take that challenge.
KEMPATRICK
"Ionized DU" - No such thing, well not as we are discussing here. Radioactive elements emit various forms of ionizing radiation (photon, electron (beta), neutron, and alpha particles). Uranium undergoes oxidation as it burns or is exposed to the air.
"from use as ammunition and bombs is NOT naturally present in our enviroment. Uranium is, solid DU is not very dangerous."
True, it is far less dangerous than naturally occurring uranium as it is far less radioactive.
"What COMARK posted concerning DU is 100% accurate."
True.
"I don't believe the Baath party,"
Gosh, I hope not. You seem like a pretty good guy.
"I do believe the doctors and scientists who have spent many years studyng the subject of DU as used in ammunition."
I know the scientists doing the studying and attended a lecture by Ron Kathren, PHD (Google him) on the subject just a couple of days ago, and I have seen no conclusive, peer-reviewed, epidemiological study that says anything like what you say.
"I do believe the results of what has happened to thousands of troops who have severed in the Mid-East, breathed in DU and are now suffering and dying from radiation poisoning."
They may be (and I stress may) suffering from heavy metal toxicity though the scientific jury is still out on that. There is more chance of suffering radiation poisoning from smoking cigarettes (contains trace quantities of polonium and other radioactive elements) than from breathing the air in Iraq. Depleted uranium is just that - depleted. It is what is left when most of the U-235 and U-233 has been removed. The remaining U-238 is very stable, a weak alpha emitter, with daughter products that are weak beta emitters (which tends to be blocked by the U-238).
The most horrible thing that appears to be affecting our troops is the suicide epidemic among the returning vets.
More on 2nd oldest story (corruption):
My buddy once worked on a US nuke pwr plant, and confided a chilling tidbit about sensors, computers, and surveillance of radiation releases:
He was called many times for the same issue, of the radiation sensors having failed (mysteriously?), which coincidently occurred just prior to planned releases (venting) of containment vessel air.
His opinion as a Elec Eng, was that someone had systematically applied 100 VAC (input) to the low voltage DC (output) lines of the sensors - the effect is what anyone can demonstrate by plugging their headphones into the wall outlet.
If they really wanted to know . . .
how much radiation is released, as if they were building a bomb and wanting to know of its performance, there a clear methods to do so (even when the sensors become incinerated while measuring the phenomenally gigantic blast).
Namaste
"Nobody knows how much radiation was released or where it went." Of course they don't. Radiation isn't material. You can't carry around a bucket of light, heat or anything on the EM spectrum. The nuke industry uses this fact to deny any suggestion or epidemiological study indicating increased frequency of disease occurence near radiation hotspots. Tell that to the Ukrainians though, who must live in fear of every single pregnancy they have, praying for a healthy baby.
What treaty? Only the Indians have to obey treaty documents, grey eyes write the rules, they don't live by them.
Most of you are apparently okay with placing nuclear waste on Indian reservations against the will of Indians which is a treaty violation. Where are your voices with respect to this issue? Indians must still be sub-human right? The policy of quiet genocide continues in America. Go ahead, turn your heads.
Now there's a thought, we could use computers for voting machnes too, no more voter fraud. Why not have a computer for a president? Uhhh, naw ___ that would eleminate blow jobs in the oral office when resting off line.
Paul Bramscher. Sequestration of carbon from coal fired power plants is, as you have stated a theoretical concept. Currently, carbon dioxide is injected into dying oil wells to force the oil out. This is a very limited application, and of course, we're not doing much for global warming if we inject CO-2 into the ground for the purpose of bringing out more oil to burn.
Widespread use of this tecnology in burying the massive amounts of CO-2 produced by burning coal (About 2 billion tons per year in the US alone) is a big unknown.
There are some very passionate anti-nuclear posters above. I am not pro-nuclear myself. However, it is coal that is going to ruin the planet first, so why not start with coal? If we had attacked coal plants with the same vehemence that we attacked nuclear plants, we wouldn't be faced with devastating climate change today.
Nucelar weaponry is a separate discussion from nuclear energy. Politically, we are nowhere near getting rid of nuclear weapons, and neither is the rest of the world. If every nuclear power plant were to close, and we only burned coal for electricity, we would still be manufacturing nuclear weapons.
There is no reason for you or anyone else to be sorry for being radical in that respect.
I can't believe folks are even thinking about Nuclear. The arguments regarding nuclear are not so simplistic as how many will die from Nuclear vs Coal or falling off roofs. That isn't the entire point!
Look at what we are in a conundrum about now.... Pakistan has nukes. Are they are friends or not!?? eek... oh wait.. Iran might be getting nuclear.. DAMN.. uh.. oh wait.. what about Syria.. etc.. Ok...
Oh. and don't forget the terrorist theat and our Homeland Security!!!
I just heard a discussion yesterday that brought up the whole point about the Military interest of Nuclear power plants and weapons...
We are an INSANE species. We are so afriad of actually changing our lives.. slowing down a bit more that we would court Nuclear and risk it all.
Keep in mind that all the Nuclear interests have money and power and will keep throwing and manipulating the argument. It apparently is working as so many so called "Green" people are considering it. No logic at all. You can't look at one side of the argument. You can just look at technical numbers of those who died or who might die...
I lose ALL respect for any so called "environmentalist" or "green" person that even considers nuclear.
Sorry. I am going to be a radical in that respect.
You can add Port Hope Ontario ( Can) to the list about 30 minutes east of Toronto, Canada's largest city. For years Port Hope have made the fuel rods for the nuke plants. They are having problems with high levels of radiation. Yet the neo con Harper Gov wants to build even more nuke plants. This is after they use more natural gas to produce oil from the tar sands in Alberta than the amount of emergy they get out of the oil.
I agree 100% with wind solar power. If a "T" attack hits a wind mill it can be back up and running in a month. How long for a nuke plant???
Has anyone noticed that the deniers of the dangers of nuclear plants (like PJD and Mark Abram) never respond to the specific allegations made in the article by Mr. Wasserman?
It's as if someone says the big bad wolf is a menace because he blew down a house made of straw and another house made of wood. The denier then steps forward and says the big bad wolf is not a menace because a house made of brick still stands.
Such arguments are rhetorical, dishonest, misleading and essentially false.
Nuclear energy is looney. Just a few more decades before the cost of extracting the dwindling supplies of uranium skyrockets. The idiots in Washington will have US taxpayers fund trillion dollar wars to secure those dwindling supplies. Is everyone looking forward to grandbaby chimp turning loose the dogs of war in 2050 Niger? Then what are you going to do with the mountains of radioactive waste - the Japanese/French have NO IDEA. Now the French exhibited a nanoparticle of wisdom and replicated one reactor design across all their facilities. The American Chimp ain't so astute - every facility is a pure custom design - deliberately quadrupling all of the costs - this nuclear energy expansion proposal is the largest shaft to the US taxpayer next to the Pentagon. Do US taxpayers enjoy the shaft? Seems like it! Suggestion: Stop all exchange/association with the capitalists and LET THE CAPITALIST ZOMBIE DIE!!
As KEM PATRICK wrote earlier, "We cannot predict the future, but the insurance companies insure, based upon mathematical odds and they won't insure a nuclear power plant." That one fact all by itself tells me that nuclear power is inherently unsafe and we all know about insurance companies.
If insurence companies won't insure any nuclear power plant ever, that tells me much more than all those who promote such a form of energy production. The insurance companies are no dummies, they know a bad risk when they see it.
Therefore, I can only infer and confirm what I believe – nuclear power has no place in this world.
I haven't read quite all the posts yet, but to answer the question (if no one has already) there are 438 nuclear plants worldwide, and just over a hundred of those are in th US.
RE: Mark Abram November 19th, 2007 2:34 pm
"I'll just say that, yes, nuclear power does entail risks, and there have been accidents that have killed people, but far fewer than have died in coal mining accidents, for example, or than might die falling off roofs if the nation goes massively solar."
Hey Mark, Kem, and every one of the regulars on these posts as we once again delve into the seemngly unlimited nuances of this (and the DU) topic,
Mark, awhile back I looked at the reports of the deaths attributed to Chernobyl. The disparity between the Geenpeace death claims, and those by the WHO, while (perhaps)exhibiting bias on both sides, certainly left me (after reading numerous instances regarding governments' cover-ups of nuclear 'incidents') more willing to believe Greenpeace than the highly politically compromise WHO. Keeping this in mind, if you use the Greenpece figure, then divide it by the number of world nuke plants, an average death rate of 218 persons per plant is the quotient.
As a consequence of this calculation I believe your claim erroneous. Actually, I think if you took the top 438 coal mine accidents each year, then added all the years together going back to the Chernobyl 'incident' they wouldn't approach the total of Chernobyl. The deaths from burning the coal itself is an entirely different matter, being far greater than both combined by a considerable factor.
RE: AdeleTheCzech November 19th, 2007 4:19 pm
Great post, and right on the mark. I think one thing the pro-nukers fail to understand is they had their chance and now must step away. If renewables had the funding that nuclear has gotten for the past 50 years or so we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now, and likely wouldn't be at war in the mid-east over oil either.
Remember, those plants are put together at enormous expense, by the lowest bidder. We all know there are no shortcuts, cheaper materials, faulty welds, don't we?
I worked on a construction site many years ago. We were putting up the cheapest trash houses you could imagine. The County Building Inspector would drive up in his Cadillac, look over the houses being built and say. "They have all got to come down!"
The foreman would take him by the arm and go to another building telling him, "There's something over here you have to see."
They'd come out a few minutes later with smiles on their faces, he'd sign off the buildings, get back into his Cadillac and drive off until next time.
It's the second oldest story in the world, folks.
The elephant in the room is nuclear waste problem.. The industry touts Yucca Mountain as a "solution" to the nuclear waste problem. This is,in fact, not true. Yucca Mountain is known to be geologically unsuitable and seismically unstable; it is in the highest risk category for earthquakes. It has certainly not been proven safe for long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste. Nor has transportation of the waste to that site been established as safe.Â
As long as there are nuclear power plants operating in this country, there will be high-level nuclear waste that cannot be moved to any such "ultimate" storage facility. High-level radioactive waste is so hot when removed from a nuclear power plant that it has to remain cooling at the plant site for years.
In purely economic terms, nukes are a horrendous investment because no reactor can be guaranteed not to melt nor can any be protected from terrorism. If people in Chernobyl are still dying from the long-term effects 20 years later, why take the risk of an explosion or leakage? This is the ultimate moral reason for not using nuclear power.
I'm no fan of coal, but carbon can theoretically be scrubbed from emissions from coal plants, whereas radioactivity from nukes cannot. Only time can mend a half-life.
The future is undoubtedly solar/wind/geothermal/hydrogen. Only the purchased politicians stand in the way.
I agree wth you 100% about coal going first. But the power people would make their profit one way or another. Here are some of the current charges on my electric bill.
Geneating electricity, power supply adjustment, competition rules compliance charge, transmission and arcillary services, metering, meter reading, enviromental benefits surcharges, delivery service charge, enviromental benefit charge, and then ~FEDERAL enviromental improvement charge~, (that one could go way up and take care of the free wind and sun rays) power supply adjustment. They would make a very good profit and charge whatever they damnned please. At least we could have cleaner air.
I remember flying over 3 mile island the day after the disaster. It was commercial flight from NYC to North Carolina. The pilot pointed it out over the intercom. We were way up there but you could see a big cloud of steam down there. Something big was happening.
Kem Patrick: Clearly, utilities are very nervous about the idea of energy from a non-proprietary source--ie wind and sun. They realize that they will have a hard time asking for price increases based on rising fuel costs, because, of course, the wind and sun are free for everyone. Our best chance is that more and more individuals install their own systems--windmills and solar panels and bypass the utilities entirely.
Until that time, coal is worst, coal should go first.
I was hoping you would post on this JSTEVENS. You are absolutely correct. Of course I don't want nuclear power either. I want to see about one tenth as much money we've wasted on the unjust and illegal war in Iraq, spent on developing clean energy from geo-thermal, wind/solar and tidal power. Then close down every coal fired plant and every nuclear plant and hope we can get our atmosphere cleaned up before the global warming does kill off the human race.
The use of DU in weaponry is a separate issue from using nuclear power to generate electricity.
CoMarc believes that the potential disaster from coal is much less than the potential disaster from a nuclear power plant. However, the REALITY of burning coal is that our climate is changing. The impending disaster is that the Earth becomes uninhabitable. Global warming is already causing widespread species destruction. How long will it be before we are unable to grow crops, or unable to withstand rising temperatures?
There are many doomsday scenarios one can imagine with nuclear power. However, coal has killed far more people than nuclear energy has, and the worst is yet to come.
Chernobyl is not relevant to discussions about the modern American nuclear industry. It lacked a containment dome. The workers were ordered to run the plant beyond its operating limits for testing purposes. The safety backups were disabled for the test, etc. etc.
Nuclear power has been effectively squashed. Meanwhile there are 150 new coal plants being built in the US alone. They receive very little scrutiny. Unfortunately, as nuclear power is squashed, coal flourishes. Look at a list of our biggest polluters---You will see a lot of coal plants, not nuclear power plants.
STAROFTHESEA. On another article about DU posted on this page, the one with the picture of the DU bullet. Paul Magill Smith posted an excellent reply to the question you and others have, on the subject of vets having radiation poisoning. His was posted on Nov 19 at 2:43am. He also gave some excellent links that cover the entire subect in great detail. Thousands of Gulf War vets have died, or are dying from inhaling DU and the government will not admit DU is the cause. Naturally, how could they possibly admit such a horrific war crime against all of humanity?
Good thing you didn't stop to pee.
I noticed the post from rotogroover, November 19th, 2007 4:08 pm:
"I was in kindergarten in Middletown, PA on the morning of the Three Mile Island accident (well, waiting to go to afternoon kindergarten) and then lived for twenty years in Middletown (a mile down from the plant).
I was downwind from TMI that morning, and had a strange encounter that day, and a strange physical "issue" manifest itself about 2 or 3 days later. Yes, this is quite anecdotal, and could easily have other explanations.
I was a professional driver for a few years, and that day I had stopped along the interstate to restack the load on the end of my flatbed, when a PA system belted out "Are you OK?" and startled me so much I almost fell off the trailer.
The PA State Cop had remained in his car and pulled up within 10 feet of my trailer (and 12 feet of me).
I mimed "OK" to him, and he left. I think he understood from my facial expression that I was pretty mad at him for needlessly scaring me so.
Two or three days later, the tops of both of my ears (about an inch or so long), became completely "raw", the skin peeled right off, and I mean RAW.
I've ended up thinking that cop was pretty smart, he was aware of what had happened a few miles away, and why be "outside" when you don't really have to be. My ears? I have no idea, nothing like it had ever happened before, and hasn't since, to my ears or any other part of my body.
Would someone tell Barack and Hillary? Edwards already gets it.
Either climate change is real or it isn't.
If it is, we risk a global catastrophe of immense proportion. Vast populations will suffer: floods, droughts, crop failures, disease, and all the rest. No one has the right to condemn huge swaths of the planet to the effects of climate change either.
Because we have delayed so long arguing whether it was real, now we're in an emergency situation. The downsides of any energy contributor must be weighed against the downsides of the climate change caused by the carbon fuel they would displace. If this truly is an emergency, and I believe it is, then everything we can do must be on the table.
Personally, I'd rather go with localized distributed risk that we can make efforts to manage, as opposed to overall planetary catastrophe on an immense scale that is completely out of our control.
So I really don't think it's an issue of "whether" nukes are going to happen. I do sincerely hope that it's an issue of whether they can happen soon enough. I don't like it much, but the alternative is far worse in every way.
KEM PATRICK_--first time I read about DU was on a homeopathic website--the practioner was treating Gulf War I vets for some serious imbalances that were attributed to DU. Wish I could remember the site---anyway, apparently the vets could not get the VA to acknowledge their health problems as being combat related despite the fact that so many were having symptoms of radiation overload, and all had served in the ME during Desert Storm.
Hmmmmmmm SO how long did it take for Vietnam era vets to get anyone to officially recognize the terrible legacy of Agent Orange? Is there a pattern here?
Didn't realize the govt link had been removed about DU---I think that's very telling indeed.
That link is not avaliable anymore, imagine that. There are many thousands of links on the net if one wishes to learn about DU, just Google depleted uranium. Some of the first we come to are written by government officials and they lie, as they lied about Agent Orange.
Ionized DU from use as ammunition and bombs is NOT naturally present in our enviroment. Uranium is, solid DU is not very dangerous. What COMARK posted concerning DU is 100% accurate. I don't believe the Baath party, I do believe the doctors and scientists who have spent many years studyng the subject of DU as used in ammunition. I do believe the results of what has happened to thousands of troops who have severed in the Mid-East, breathed in DU and are now suffering and dying from radiation poisoning.
Nobody has a right to put millions of lives at risk for nuclear industry profits. Nobody has a right to pollute the earth and condemn future generations to cancer forever.
Some responses on COMarc's extensive comments here:
The linear no-threshold dose response model for cancer and genetic damage due to low-dose radiation exposure is the scientific consensus model. When the predicted incidence of a disease is too small to detect against the background rate, you do not say the effect is nonexistent, but you do have an interesting philosophical argument about whether it matters. We all die. Many people will get cancers and babies are born deformed and this would occur even if there were no manmade radiation sources or harmful chemicals in our environment. We all face risk factors. The approach which says "If you do this it will kill 100 people" but ignores the fact that it will be impossible to tell which 100 out of 6+ billion human deaths that are already absolutely certain to occur, and ignores the benefits (including saved lives) from the action, is in some sense a fundamentalism.
The differences between the consensus science and iconoclasts like Gofman, Bertell, and a few other credentialed people do not stem from the latter using linear no-threshold and the former assuming a threshold. Rather, they stem from claimed observations of effects which are either sublinear (and thus larger at low dose) or larger than those which are well-established in the literature. Some of the more extreme antinuclear critics (like Bertell) are known for bizarre claims, some of the research is pseudoscience, and some people hold tenure but are regarded by their peers as cranks. Gofman, for example, was anti- everything nuclear except nuclear weapons, which he strongly supported.
Chernobyl was an atrociously bad design; it was inherently unstable, had inadequate safety systems and no containment. TMI wasn't such a great piece of engineering, either, but the containment worked. The next generation of reactors will be much safer and very well contained.
You can say that mistakes are made in every complex enterprise yet we do manage to tame dangerous forces and make them adequately safe. Better materials, better quality control, better management practices, and the use of more sensors and more computer automation makes newer plants safer and more idiot-proof.
Also, with regard to DU, I don't want to breathe a whole lot of the oxide, either. But actually, it is present naturally in our environment and when blown about by the wind and dispersed from combat sites it does not add much to the toxic burden. DU attack sites should be quarantined and cleaned up. But there is no substance to claims that "everywhere its been used as a weapon you see very high instances of diseases like leukimia." That's only if you believe the Baath Party.
Set aside for a moment the fact that nuclear technology is extremely dangerous, not least because of Murphy's Law as several have noted above.
Contrary to the incessant claims of the nuclear industry, nuclear power is by no means carbon free. It would actually be worse than coal-fired power within a short time after any nuclear "renaissance." It can only make global warming worse. However, for the short term benefit of a few, it would prevent forever the deployment of safe and renewable energy systems. From http://www.stormsmith.nl/
Some novel concepts are introduced, to make the results of this study better accessible: the 'energy cliff', the 'CO2 trap', the 'coal ceiling' and the 'energy debt'.
Beyond the energy cliff the nuclear system cannot generate net useful energy and will produce more carbon dioxide than a fossil-fueled power station (CO2 trap). Nuclear power may run off the energy cliff with the lifetime of new nuclear build.
Beyond the coal ceiling more uranium ore has to be processed each year to feed one nuclear power plant than the annual coal tonnage of coal consumed by a coal-fired power plant to generate the same amount of electricity.
The exceedingly large and long-term energy debt, combined with the insecurities of the nuclear energy system will seriously delay the transition of the world energy supply to a real sustainable one. A delay we cannot afford. The nuclear option would absorb a disproportionate part of the ability to cope of the society in a ever diverging need for energy, high quality materials and human skills.
The ease with which the nuclear industry waives the unsolved problems of nuclear power suggests an attitude of 'après nous le déluge'.
Excellent comments CO MARC.
It is unfortunate that so many believe the type of comment KENDPOTTER wrote concerning DU, that is precicely why it is now being used as ammunition by 30 nations.
There has never ever been anything humanity has designed and built, that won't eventually experience a failure. The more complex it is, the more things that can go wrong. Someday we will have a massive accident at a nuclear power plant, which could permanently steralize an area of land the size of Texas, or Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York combined and kill or physically disable hundreds of thousands of citizens. Will it happen? We cannot predict the future, but the insurance companies insure, based upon mathematical odds and they won't insure a nuclear power plant.
The above comment about the human element being involved hits the nail on the head. When I was studying nuclear engineering, I felt that I was a good enough engineer to design a reactor that could be operated safely ... on paper.
But then in the real world its an organization of thousands of people who have to build and operate these things. And the human element is very much a part of things. All the way through from design to operation.
Just one example, real life from Georgia Power (a Southern Company). It may not be obvious, but a nuclear reactor needs power from the power grid to operate. Lots of electrical pumps and electronics involved, and the electrical engineers would tell you why you just can't tap into the generators and get nice 120volt AC power to run it. So, every nuclear reactor has backup generators on standby.
At one of Ga Power's plants, one day a truck hit a power pole by the entrance road cutting the power from the grid to the plant. And then they made a very nasty discovery. The backup generators were there and basically ready to go. Only one problem. They had electric starter motors. I guess no one had noticed this when doing hypothetical tests. But when there was no electricity, it became very obvious that there was a big problem here.
I can trust engineers and PhDs to design a new, safer reactor. What I don't trust is that in the real world that anything is perfect. Like any engineer with some real world experience, I believe in Murphy's Laws and think Murphy was a genius. And when the cost of 'anything that can go wrong will go wrong is a nuclear accident', I'm quite happy to be living today somewhere where I don't think there's a nuclear plant anywhere near me. Lots of warheads not too far away, but that's another story.
Money & Power!
It will take the "BIG BOYS" to build nuclear plants, thus THEY will CONTROL it! Aren't we wanting to lean toward the "commonwealth" and community? ( doubled # of organic farmers markets last year)
Machias Maine used to have it's own power plant on the Little Bad Falls. A tremendous amount of energy is created there. Sadly, the stone foundation of the old plant, is now a park with benches where you can sit and watch the water roar! I wonder how broad an area could be served by building a new plant there? Cpould be done as a state bond issue, and wouldn't take 3 or more years to build, by pricey specialists, as nuclear. And my Bangor Enron bills run about 100. 125 a month!
Also how about educating builders. The majority of them don't have a clue about passive solar! AN awful lot can be done by harnessing nature instead of defying it.
BTW: A biopsy showed I had to have my thyroid gland removed, about 2 1/2 years after 3 mile island! I had a goiter, and that day I swallowed my radio active iodine, and went to the hospital for my "pit & pendulum" nuclear test. When I stepped out of my apartment in NJ due east of 3 mile, here was a strange low lying mist.............
NO HISTORY OF THYROID DISEASE in my well documented family tree!
Du is a good case to talk about how people can be misled.
If you walked up to me with a piece of metal and said is was DU and wanted to hand it to me, I'd be willing to take it from you. As you say, its radioactivity is generally rather low.
But, when its used as a weapon its different. The force and heat of the impact aerosolize the DU into very fine particles that are suspended in the air and later coat most surfaces. At that point DU becomes highly dangerous. Because it now easily can get inside the body. Now you have both a toxic heavy metal and particles of an alpha emitter inside your body where it can do great harm.
So, around DU there is lots of statistics floated around how it can't be dangerous. But everywhere its been used as a weapon you see very high instances of diseases like leukimia.
Well, Chernobyl was a different design, but I don't think you are correct in saying that an explosive event is not possible in a US light water reactor.
The earlier comments on TMI referred to a "hydrogen bubble". This was a bubble of mostly pure hydrogen that was forming at the top of the reactor container from the breakdown of the metals in the fuel rods.
Hydrogen is highly explosive if exposed to a spark and a source of oxygen. Watch films of the Hindenberg burning to get an example. The reason the operators of TMI were concerned about that hydrogen bubble is that had the explosive potential to blow the top of the reactor off and break open the containment. That's exactly why they tried to bleed off that hydrogen and thus expose the population to the radiation that was released at the same time. They decided that risk of radiation exposure was less dangerous than the risk of the hydrogen explosion blowing open the reactor and the containment.
Explosions can happen in different ways. To say that because the Chernobyl reactor was a different design and thus that precise type of explosion can't happen at a US reactor is rather misleading. If that hydrogen bubble had exploded at TMI, I'm not sure the people in the area would have given a damn if the explosion and radioactivity release was from the same reason as Chernobyl or a different one.
My recollection of people in the 1980's when I was studying nuclear engineering was that they were damn lucky not to have a china syndrome event at TMI. I remember being in a seminar when someone from the NRC was showing pictures of the melted core before the news was public, and "holy shit" was the common reaction amongst the nuclear scientists in the room.
It is easy to hate what you don't understand. In fact radioactivity is a normal part of life. It would exist if we didn't and doesn't care that we do. It is there all the time - Solar radiation, radon from (naturally occurring) radioactive decay, etc. Take a hike and camp on a good sized granitic mountain - just commune with nature for a while. You will take the same dose you would have gotten while standing at the fence during TMI. Airline pilots take that dose (from solar radiation) every time they fly.
The hysteria over DU, in the complete absence of facts, is simply ridiculous. DU is significantly less radioactive than naturally occurring uranium. It is a heavy metal and its chemical toxicity is far greater than its radioactive danger - until the level of enrichment reaches approximately 2-3% U-235, or roughly two orders of magnitude greater than in naturally occurring uranium - and even then it is not very toxic (humans amongst all animals seem to have a particular resistance to it). The kidney appears to be the most easily affected tissue and the toxic level of uranium appears to be 3 micrograms/gram of tissue. That is having a whole bunch of uranium O's for breakfast. This is of course dependent on a number of variables including enrichment level, chemical composition, and solubility.
The long chain oxides formed by pyrophyric combustion are being studied and unfortunately that research must still be classified as I have not been able to find much on the subject. Conjecture would have it that the long chains are inherently less soluble and therefore more toxic, but that is again mere speculation.
All of life is a trade-off. Cover the desert with solar panels and somebody with little better to do, will bitch about how some lizard is being driven to extinction by the lack of sunlight. All species on this planet are doomed to extinction. Only the timing is in question. Take an astonomy course. Take a geology course. Get some perspective. Get a life.
Argonne National Lab and others are working on a new generation of nuclear power that will reduce fuel costs and improve safety beyond description. Try to find links for the Argonne Advanced Fast Reactor. The reactors will "burn" depleted uranium, and the final small amount of waste at the end of the reactor's life will be safe within a couple hundred years, not thousands or millions. They might even be able to burn up a lot of the burn a little U235 and put the other 99% in a hole for million years garbage our present reactors make.
An energy bill should include funds to perfect this technology, standardize it and get Exelon, Southern and others to start replacing their coal, oil and old nukes ASAP. Just build them next to old plants and plug them right into the grid. You shouldn't need nuclear catastrophe insurance, either.
It makes what Iran is working on now into an expensive catch up just to get left in the dust again scheme. Another thing about the new fast reactors is you can't extract plutonium from them.
Mr. Wassermann is right about a lot of things. A lot of present nuclear technology doesn't make sense. Water cooled reactors can be unsafe. Multiply the risk times thousands of reactors and many different levels of training and regulatory oversight. In sum, its a little scary. Also, U235 is going to get very expensive, and the waste problem is a nightmare. The new generation reactors might make that all go away, along with CO2!
Do Hillary and Obama know any of this? We know the other guys wouldn't care if they did. They might even fight it. Almost free energy might be frightening to the neocons.
#
jamaz November 19th, 2007 2:04 pm said:
"Until we find a failsafe method of spent fuel rod storage it should NOT be an option, ever."
Isn't DU weaponry a way to use some of that spent fuel? Of course you'd have to define "Failsafe."
I'm a nuclear veteran (Operation Redwing, Bikini Atoll, 1956.) There is no failsafe.
I Have Seen the Dragon
I have seen the Dragon
Through clenched lids and arms pressed tight.
I have felt its hot breath on my back
And listened to the rumble of its voice.
I have looked upon its breath,
Glowing Amethyst, red and purple,
Climbing towards the stratosphere
To deposit its venom downwind.
I have waited in fear as my gums began to bleed
And my hair came out in clumps.
I breathed a prayer of thanks
As I began to heal.
After fifty years, our ranks are thin,
We who have seen the Dragon and survived.
Those who have died or are sickened still,
Their numbers are legion.
All we can hope for, work for, pray for,
Is that no madman will ever be allowed
To unleash the Dragon again.
For its legacy to all is death, disease and decay.
© Stephen M. Osborn
2 November 2006
Yours for peace and sanity in our time.
The realm of extremely remote to impossible is a very interesting realm. Accident probabilities in the nuclear industry are calculated using accident trees that correlate all of the different components and their predicted incidences of failure. The near catastrophe at Brown's Ferry in 1975 was caused by a fire in a wiring conduit that didn't even appear on the plant blueprints. So much for accident trees. A Friends of the Earth article at the time described the delightful occurrence:
***
At noon on March 22, 1975, both Units 1 and 2 at the Brown's Ferry plant in Alabama were operating at full power, delivering 2200 megawatts of electricity to the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Just below the plant's control room, two electricians were trying to seal air leaks in the cable spreading room, where the electrical cables that control the two reactors are separated and routed through different tunnels to the reactor buildings. They were using strips of spongy foam rubber to seal the leaks. They were also using candles to determine whether or not the leaks had been successfully plugged -- by observing how the flame was affected by escaping air.
The electrical engineer put the candle too close to the foam rubber, and it burst into flame.
The resulting fire, which disabled a large number of engineered safety systems at the plant, including the entire emergency core cooling system (ECCS) on Unit 1, and almost resulted in a boiloff/meltdown accident, demonstrates the vulnerability of nuclear plants to "single failure" events and human fallibility.
***
The full article appears at http://www.ccnr.org/browns_ferry.html
And if you want a real-world scientific analysis of the costs of "carbon-free" nuclear power, you're much more likely to find it at the Rocky Mountain Institute: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid185.php than listening to the nuclear shills in this thread.
Another good source of info on the topic: Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/nuclear-power-and-climate...).
Gosh, I thought we were finally going to get beyond solutions (nuclear) which just changed the wrappings on the problem. Silly me! I thought all the creative genius that has gone into exploring/developing clean, unambiguously safe, life-affirming energy sources, that if implemented, might serve to de-centralize and thus democratize energy delivery systems, were what we could all agree would be best for the collective future of the planet/us.
Just because there are 400 nuclear power plants operating around the world begs the question of potential catastrophic risk. There are already some very alarming manifestations of the devastating impact of global warming. Assuming we find the collective will to address the problem aggressively, there are still going to be consequences in the near future. Thank you very much, I feel much safer not having to worry about fire, flood or earthquakes anywhere near a nuclear power plant. Why would we increase the risk by building more?
And even if you don't buy my "alarmist" view, look at the pricetag---just think how many wind generators and solar panels and whatever else we've got coming down the pike for energy sources that could be funded with those proposed subsidies.
De-centralize power generation---bring it closer to home whenever and wherever possible. And if we do, I am pretty sure there will be few that want nuclear in their town or neighborhoods.
"Meanwhile, look at the worst case for a nuclear plant. Chernobyl is basically what we are talking about."
Not true.
Chernobyl was a Soviet-era, graphite-moderated design, for dual-use weapons material production, that would never be allowed or even considered for a power plant in the west. An explosive event of the type that happened at Chernobyl is not possible with a light water reactor. Likweise, the successful containment of the severely damaged and largely melted core at TMI demonstrated that the feared "China Syndrome" is also in the realm of extremely remote-to impossible.
One of Obama's big contributors is Entergy Corp. They own and operate a bunch of nuclear power plants. As always in America, money talks. So Obama gets big bucks from the nuclear industry and thus supports nuclear power.
Just to answer the question .... Google says:
"At the moment there are more than 400 nuclear power plants (NPP) all over the world, which produce about 17% of the world's electricity. The share can range from just few percent in some countries up and to 75 % as in France. The Krško Nuclear Power Plant produces almost 40% of the electrical energy in Slovenia."
That's from the nuclear industry. Specifically http://www.icjt.org/an/tech/jesvet/jesvet.htm
Bobby Kennedy Jr. talks about this issue on Ring of Fire and has noted that you cannot insure your home against nuclear power plant disasters.
Obama believes nuclear power is an option even though it costs a lot in money AND energy to bring a plant on line. We don't know how to safely handle the wastes. And nuclear plants are vulnerable not only to problems like at TMI but also to terrorists. The 9-11 Commission reported that the Indian Point nuclear plant, 35 miles north of New York City, was the original target but they thought it would be too guarded so chose the World Trade Center instead.
I quote one of my TMI era pins, "NO Nukes is Good Nukes".
(Does anyone know how Hillary Clinton feels about nuclear power plants?)
PS ... at Chernobyl, they got 'lucky' with the wind direction. The wind was basically blowing from Kiev towards Sweden. The first realization that something was wrong was when workers at a Swedish nuclear plant started setting off radiation detectors at the plant gates when they were ARRIVING at work.
North and Northwest of Chernobyl and Kiev is a maassive swamp area that is sparsely population. If the wind had been blowing in the more typical direction towards the major Ukranian city of Kiev, things could have been much, much worse.
At the very least, nuclear power should have to prove its market feasibility with no subsidies to support it. And it should have to bear the risks of an accident on its own without a Federal cap on liabilities incurred to the nuclear plant. (I wonder what an insurance company would charge for that!)
The way I look at coal vs nuclear is this.
On most days, I'd rather have the nuclear plant as a neighbor. Its cleaner, and actually less radioactive at the boundary fence than a coal plant. A coal plant does emit radiation. Coal, ie carbon, has radioactive isotopes found in it naturally. Think Carbon-14 dating if you doubt this ... that measures the change in the radioactive carbon 14 isotope to take a decent guess at age. So, while it is counter-intuitive, a coal plant emits more radiation on a 'normal day' than a nuclear plant.
The problem is when it isn't a normal day. What's the worst case for a disaster at a coal plant. Basically it might burn down, a boiler might explode etc. This would likely hurt some workers, but it would be unlikely to affect nearby population.
Meanwhile, look at the worst case for a nuclear plant. Chernobyl is basically what we are talking about. That accident killed a fair number of people, such as the firefighters mentioned above. It also forced massive evacuations of populations. And there is now a 20-30km zone around that plant where people are banned from entering. It will stay dangerous there for a very long time.
I've never heard it discussed, but to me the costs of Chernobyl might have helped create the fall of the Soviet Union. The SU had to buy massive amounts of oil and power after that accident, both to make up the loss of that one plant, and also for the 20 or so other similar plants that were shutdown. They destroyed large amounts of food in their agricultural heartland. Food had to be trucked in and provided to people who would normally eat from the local markets. There were large evacuations. And there was this exclusion zone placed around the plant so a 20km circle of what used to be very productive farmland is now off limits. In the late 1980's, the SU had to pay a very large bill in many ways because of Chernobyl. By the early 90's, the SU was gone.
And people argue they didn't destroy enough food, and the exclusions zone wasn't big enough, and that they didn't evacuate enough people.
So ... here's the question to me. Yes, a nuclear plant may make more sense than a coal plant when looking at a 'normal' day. But, if things go wrong, they can go horribly wrong at a nuke plant. We could literally make an American city uninhabitable if a plant upwind and close enough to the city had an accident. The question isn't entirely as to which is better on a normal day. The question is are you willing to bear the risk of having a really bad day from the nuke plant.
Hey PJD, every time CD publishes Harvey Wasserman on the insanity of reviving nuclear power, you chime in with "Wind and solar have contributions to make, but they will not replace the need for large power generation plants." No matter how many times you write this, it's still as misleading as the first time! Don't you ever watch the History Channel? "Modern Marvels" just spent a whole WEEK on all kinds of new energy technologies that are already up and running -- including a working model of a car that runs on compressed air!
The choice is not nuclear vs. wind and solar. It's between nuclear and ALL of the following: conservation (a huge untapped resource!), solar (photovoltaics, heating, and mirror array electric generation), wind power, tidal turbines, and geothermal (for heating and cooling, you don't need to be in Iceland to take advantage of the temperature differential underground). All these things will create millions of jobs in engineering, construction and maintenance in our country if we get on with it NOW. The new energy bill should delete nuclear, and add a clause that all the renewables must be made with American labor! I've written to my Senators and Congressman about this. Please, contact your representatives in Washington (no, not you, PJD -- I mean people who want to BE the positive change they can imagine).
We finally have a chance to (1) get this energy thing right; (2) put U.S. manufacturing back on its feet, including myriad union jobs; and (3) begin to ameliorate the global warming crisis. Let's not blow it by listening to nuclear siren songs.
One key point ... if someone says that 'no one has died' from a nuclear accident in the history of nuclear power, that is provably false. Just ask the firefighters who were the first responders to Chernobyl. They were the heroes who litterally ran out onto the roof of the reactor building and used shovels to pick up chunks of the radioactive core that were lying about and toss them back into the hole where the reactor explosion had taken place. Doing this limited the disaster to one reactor at Chernobyl, whereas fires and radiation may have made it impossible to keep the other reactors on the site under control except for this heroism.
Although, I did mis-speak. It would be very hard to ask these firefighters as most were dead within a couple weeks of the accident. You'd have to go ask their surviving loved ones.