Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThree Mile Island at 29: Reactors and Infant Health
Today marks 29 years since the partial meltdown and radiation disaster at Three Mile Island (TMI) near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.News accounts noted the reactor's loss-of-coolant, fuel melting, multiple explosions, venting of radioactive gases, dumping of contaminated water and the buildup of explosive hydrogen inside the reactor vessel. The accident caused such a nationwide scare that the expansion of nuclear power ended in the United States.
Yet the environmental and health consequences of the TMI disaster aren't widely understood. Official cover-ups, industry propaganda, and ignorance of radiation-induced illnesses have led to present-day trivialization of TMI and a supposed revival of reactor construction. Any such revival is totally dependent on billions in federal subsidies included in the recent energy bill, because, as Forbes magazine blazoned across its cover: "The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale."
The nuclear industry's attempt to raise nuclear power from the dead involves denying the damage resulting from TMI itself and flies in the face of 25 years of science regarding the effects of low-dose radiation. One Wisconsin legislator said on the record last December, "Three Mile Island was a success of containment."
Things weren't much different in 1979. President Carter's Kemeny Commission hurriedly finished its report on the disaster issuing it in Oct. 1979. The commission did not consider any data on the effects of wind-borne radiation, although the wind blew 6-to-9 mph toward upstate New York and western Pennsylvania.
Over 10 million curies of radioactive noble gases including 43,000 curies of krypton-85 -- which stays in the environment for 100 years -- as well as 15-to-24 curies of radioactive iodine-131, were vented from the "containment" building. (A curie -- 37 billion disintegrations per second -- is a huge amount of radiation.) As the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) later noted, several "deliberate but uncontrolled releases" were used to vent radioactive gas. Official airborne release estimates are just guesses, because of the insufficient number of outside radiation monitors half weren't working, and a large number of them went off-scale.
On the third day of the venting of these gases, half the population within 15 miles -- 144,000 people -- fled the area. By this time the bulk of the accident's airborne radiation was already spewed and drifting on the wind.
In addition, approximately 400,000 gallons of radioactive cooling water that had leaked from the reactor were secretly dumped into the Susquehanna River, a source of drinking water for nearby communities. Later about 2.3 million gallons of radioactively contaminated cooling water were allowed to be "evaporated" into the atmosphere.
In 1980, Pennsylvania State Health Department authorities reported a sharp rise in hypothyroidism in newborn infants in the three counties downwind from the reactor. Late in 1979, four times as many infants as normal were born with the disease. The NRC said the increase was unrelated to radiation released by TMI. Upwind incidence of the disease had dropped to below the national average.
The same year, six workers entered the heavily contaminated reactor building. Five of the six later died of radiation-induced cancers. David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists reports that UCS opposed license renewal for the surviving TMI units and demanded health studies for neighbors. The NRC refused.
In the county where TMI is located infant deaths soared 53.7 percent in the first month after the accident; 27 percent in the first year. As originally published, the federal government's own Monthly Vital Statistics Report shows a statistically significant rise in infant and over-all mortality rates shortly after the accident.
Studying 10 counties closest to TMI, Jay M. Gould, in his meticulously documented 1990 book Deadly Deceit, found that childhood cancers, other infant diseases, and deaths from birth defects were 15% to 35% higher than before the accident, and those from breast cancer 7% higher. These increases far exceeded those elsewhere in Pennsylvania.
Gould suggests that between 50,000 and 100,000 excess deaths occurred after the TMI accident. Joseph Mangano of the New York-based Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP) says, "The NRC allows reactors to emit a certain level of radiation, but it does not do follow-up studies to see if there are excessive infant deaths, birth defects or cancers."
Leukemia deaths among kids fewer than 10 years of age (between 1980 and 1984) jumped almost 50 percent compared to the national rate.
Mangano reports that "between 1980 and 1984, death rates in the three nearest counties were considerably higher than 1970-74 (before the reactor opened) for leukemia, female breast, thyroid and bone and joint cancers."
The Spring 2000 edition of Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology Mangano and Ernest Sternglass reported that in counties adjacent to nuclear reactors, infant mortality falls dramatically after the reactors close. The RPHP study found that in the first two years after the reactors were shuttered, infant death rates fell 15-to-20 percent. In communities near Big Rock Point in Michigan for example, the decrease in infant mortality rates was 54 percent; at Maine Yankee, the percentage decrease was 33.4 %.
The evidence of cancers caused by reactor operations brings to mind the words of Roger Mattson, former Director of NRC Division of Systems Safety, who said during the TMI meltdown, "I'm not sure why you are not moving people. I don't know what we are protecting at this point."
John LaForge is on the staff of Nukewatch, an environmental action group in Wisconsin, and edits its quarterly newsletter. His articles on nuclear power, weapons and waste have appeared in New Internationalist, Z Magazine, Earth Island Journal, The Progressive, the opinion page of the Minneapolis Star Tribune and elsewhere.
78 Comments so far
Show AllWith respect to the relative safety of NP and radiation versus crossing a street or driving a car, I would say that in the first instance it would not be my choice to allow a NP plant and therefore be exposed. In the other instances I am chosing to cross the street, get in my car and drive, get on an airplane, etc. And these everyday activities do not produce cancers or other diseases in the unborn. And so on.
March of 1979, my family all lived in Carlisle, PA. I worked in Camp Hill, PA, my husband worked in Middletown, PA. He could see the TMI towers from where he worked. To summarize a very long, sad consequence which in all likelihood will NEVER be proved because of the squelching of the truth of TMI, my mother died of kiney cancer that spread to her lymph nodes. My sister died of lupus. I was diagnosed with lupus and now have a long list of auto-immune diseases, including auto-immune hepatitis along with a diseased liver... My beautiful daughter, who was three months old when TMI happened (I ceased breast feeding immediately) is now approaching thirty. For the past fifteen years, she has been fighting for her life as one thing after another attacks her body. Her diagnoses have been "compromised" down to fibromyalgia and Epstein Barr for certain. She lost her spleen (it ruptured when she turned over on our couch) at seventeen. She has abnormal RBC's and has to take vitamin B12 shots every two weeks because her body does not retain the vitamin as it should. As of right this minute, she suffers from unaccounted for pain, daily low grade fevers, and a long list of symptoms which many specialists have been unable to diagnose. She is presently being evaluated by her third neurologist. At this time, MS is suspected. Do I blame TMI for all these health issues, Damn RIGHT! NO one else on either side of my husbands, my mothers, my father's family have any similar diseases. Obviously, we have no recourse. But DO NOT BELIEVE the rhetoric of the government. The TMI accident is responsible for many health consequences.
Hi ~Jstevens~, I don't believe we are prone to a Chernobyl type nuclear accident either. I do believe we are prone for Three Mile Island type accidents and as the plants become older that becomes far more possible by the year. I also don't like having to "SAFELY" store nuclear waste forever. As it is well proven we cannot safely store it for 60 years.
We also must keep in mind the possibily of a massive earthquake, or sabatoge and a total breakup of a nuclear plant or its cooling capability and a meltdown, which cold be as bad or even worse than the Chernobyl disaster. Why use nuclear at all, when clean energy is viable, affordable and safe?
Hello Kem Patrick. There are certainly lots of things to worry about. I share your anxiety about methane gas release and the possibility of sudden catastrophic climate change. However, I don't consider the United States nuclear energy industry to be prone to Chernobyl-style disasters. Remember that a containment dome (present in all US reactors) would have prevented the problems. Also, if the Chernobyl plant had remained within its operating limits, (which were well known), the accident would not have happened. Chernobyl was a result of gross Russian mismanagement.
It is so hard to know what to believe as the media is becoming increasingly unaccountable and inaccurate. You almost have to be a nuclear physicist yourself to draw any conclusions. As much as I enjoy the CD articles, they hype the nuclear dangers to about the same extent that Bush hypes our Iraq success.
BTW ~Bill~, it was not the undersea hydrates I or that article was refering to, but am glad you mentioned them also. It's the Arctic methane that is of the greatest concern at this time and the highly qualified author states there is enough Arctic methane there to wipe us out. ___ Hope he's wrong. ___ I HOPE I win the powerball someday too.
Hi ~BILL~ I understnd just the methane in the Arctic and Siberia is enough to do us in. When it occurred previously, all life was wiped out in a few short hours. It will certainly put enough giga-tons of methane in our atmosphere to rapidly accererate the global warming process even if we can still breathe.
The global warming the last time was caused by massive vocanic action, which essentially did the same thing as the Co2 we humans now put into the atmosphere, which is equivelant to 17,000 large active volcanos according to the National Geological society. The global warming in turn allowed methane to bloom out and ZAP, overnight all life was put out.
The ocean hydrates are not a problem when they are under (water pressue AND COLD water). Presently the largest amount of those is in the Arctic region, the cold water temp there is maintained by an underwater river, which flows from a huge, southern Antarctica ice shelf, which has recently begun to break up due to global warming. A domino effect is currently taking place.
I go along with the author of the article posted in that website, don't like to hear it but we certainly should listen and take firm sensible action. Will we? Don't hold our breath.
Kem,
I agree with you that methane hydrate is one of the scariest aspects of global warming. But I think the anticipated operative scenario is different from paleoclimate changes.
I believe in the paleoclimate methane 'burps' the sea level dropped so far as lower the pressure on the undersea methane hydrate. If this were to occur, methane would be released from all near offshore areas with hydrates. That would include the huge beds of hydrates off the coast of North Carolina and in the Gulf of Mexico.
The current anxiety with global warming is not about the undersea hydrates. If anything, rising sea levels will tend to keep them secure. The current concern is for hydrates in frozen tundra. Here, if the tundra defrosts, it can release the methane.
Methane from the tundra is spooky enough but I don't think we have to worry much about the much larger inventory of undersea hydrates. A prompt annihilation is not a very likely scenario but it is worrisome none the less.
Regards,
Bill
I lived on the Jersey shore, down wind from TMI when the "accident" happened. At the same time, it was announced in the news that the US military had "lost" a nuclear bomb someplace in the ocean off the coast of New Jersey. I had concerns on both sides.
Just to remind everyone here - there was a plan to build a floating nuclear power plant off the coast of Atlantic City. Local activists fought the plan. Ralph Nader came to Cape May and helped. He did this with no fan fare. We won. The plant was never built. Consider voting for Nader.
The methane levels in our atmosphere has to stay fairly steady ~BBR~, ___ that's the kicker.
The scary comment in that methane article is, "Once it starts, ___ there is No turning back, ___ NO do-overs.___ Once the Arctic methane blooms and "burps" out, it will play itself out."
The last two times that occurred on Earth, almost ALL life, except some deep sea creatures and bacteria, was exterminated within a few short hours. Of course human nature being what it is, it's something we humans don't wish to hear, or even think about. As one blogger so well stated here in a profane manner.
Well, we may not wish to hear it, but it would be productive to do so anyway and then do something sensible to prevent it.
It sort of reminds me of a man who has all of the symptoms of prostrate cancer. It frightens him and he does not wish to believe it, so he IGNORS and DENIES it until the cancer spreads to his liver, kidneys, stomach, bladder and bones. When he finally is so sick he can't get out of bed, it's too damn late to correct it. One more dead dufus and that is soon forgotten.
IGNORING or DENYING the real possibilty of the Arctic methane gas release is a bit more serious, but could have the same type of result. A lot of dead guys, women and children and that too will be forgotten, becuse there won't be anyone left here to remember it.
Now if another big mouth prick wishes to call me a morbid old turd for writing that, knock yourself out. That won't stop the global warming and the then most serious problem of the methane gas release killing you and your family. ___ It'll kill your pet dog or cat too.
No fight last night?
I googled Tritium and found the NRC fact sheet. Tritium isn't a big deal and actually occurs in nature. It has comparisons to other small radiation exposures such as flying across country... The NRC has a "Lessons learned task force" to detrmine causes and prevention of unexpected tritium spikes. Tht's what I want to hear. As far as Strontium is concerned, the data probably is cherry picked, but something did occur in Germany and possibly (can't believe everything you read on the net)at the Limerick station here in PA.
Checked out the CH4 time bombs, too, and I remember seeing film of a geologist at a melting pond in Alaska that was effervescent with gas. The global CH4 level is steady, but this stuff is scary.
But KEM -- Isn't a self regulating industry likened to casting swine upon pearls ?
What if they aren't operating properly, that ever been known to occur? ___ Tritium is very nasty stuff, eh Bill?
One way or another, we MUST stop burning fossil fuels and oil and do so very, very soon. If we don't combat the atmosphere's greenhouse effect and the resulting global warming, this WILL occur. ___It's about a three to four minute read.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
bbr,
I'll rise to your bait.
You are correct, strontium is very easily substituted for calcium in the body. Sr90 is a beta/gamma emitter. There was a fair amount of it dispersed during the above ground nuclear testing. There was also a significant quantity released by the Chernobyl accident.
Properly operating nuclear reactors releasing Sr90 is bogus. The data are cherrypicked. Those studies have been discredited repeatedly by the NRC. Tritium?-yes. Strontium?-no.
Bill
I grew up near the Big Rock nuclear plant in Michigan. Nearly every one of my friends' fathers died of colon cancer in their 60s. And growing up it seemed like there was always a child at our elementary school suffering from leukemia. On of my best friends died from leukemia at age 16, and another died suddenly from it at age 24.
We have always wondered if it was not related to the Big Rock plant, but no studies or investigations have ever been done. At least no one I know has been contacted.
Hi ~Billy~, how ya doin? I won't get into the DU issue here except briefly, since you rightfully brought it up. Even though DU along with the methance gas issue are the two greatest threats for our children's future.
I will post two DU links for any who may wish to read them. The first is a three minute read, th esecond is lengthy. Thirty governments still test fire and or use DU in combat every day and inhaling even a microscopic speck of DU can insure eventual cancers in the body. ~Chuck~ is abolutley correct about uranium in the body being deadly.
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du_blowinginthewind.htm
Http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/background.htm
The greatest danger of any nuclear power plant is an accident, caused by any number of things, human error, equipment failure, sabatoge, or an earthquake, etc. Presently we are overdue for a massive number (8) or higher earthquake in both the Missouri and Yellowstone National park regions. Our government has discovered illegal aliens have obtained jobs in any number of places, including the border patrol. So sabatoge by a "trusted worker" or a delivery person in a nuclear facility is not out of the question.
The best alternative for all of us is CLEAN energy, it is affordable, viable and with enough such power plants, we wouldn't need any nuclear or coal fired plants. That of course is not what the powerful money people wish to see happen and therefore it won't. ___ Not unless there is a serious nuclear accident here that wipes out a land area the size of California, New York, or Rhode Island.
Maybe Brita filters can take out Strontium some day.
Looks like you guys stayed up all night fighting. Lets go for Round 2!
How about Strontium-90 in baby teeth? This is one of old Doc Sternglass's issues. Studies have found increased Sr-90 in baby teeth and increased chilhood cancers near some nuclear plants. There must be something leaking. The reactor water loop(s) or the ponds (or whatever-billy_y will set it straight) for the old rods. Strontium has the same valence as Calcium, so your body doesn't know any better and uses it to build bones and teeth. Then you have a few Sr-90 atoms here and there, all through your body, gradually emitting beta(?)rays.
It should be preventable, but that's why we need continuous monitoring and public disclosure of the data.
John LaForge - this is a very good article. Has it been published in any other places like newspapers or magazines?
David,
I agree that fusion is an attractive option. There is very little long term radiation to deal with. It is not, however, a short term solution.
ITER, the next generation fusion reactor, is just now planning construction and starting to build the pieces. First plasma is expected in 2016 (with luck). The next reactor beyond ITER may be a power production prototype. The US government has dropped out of ITER but fortunately the Chinese have picked up our share.
Bill
Chuck,
Internal radiation from uranium is usually not a public health problem. It is a concern for nuclear energy industrial workers and uranium miners. If not properly handled, it can be a problem from mine tailings.
Internal exposure from expended uranium anti-armor munitions can be a problem (don't get Kem Patrick started on this one!). There is a debate whether the internal radiation exposure or the heavy metal toxicity is the greater threat but certainly airborne dust from munitions is a health risk.
A properly operating nuclear power plant does not give off or emit uranium. (In the event of a major accident like Chernobyl or TMI all bets are off. The beta/gamma emitters from Chernobyl caused the prompt injury and death in that accident, not the alpha radiation.)
Bill
WOW ... there is some serious hate on this thread ... if only somehow we could harness that energy we could power all of the US for the next ten years!!
Seriously though, while nuclear power could solve some energy problems there are still a lot of legitimate concerns about it.
I think Nuclear Fusion is the way to go :)
We just need more investment by the government into this and other technologies so that we can stop destroying the environment.
When the danger of radiation is mentioned, usually, it is compared to "backgroud raditaiton" - this is utter bullshit!
Yeah, we get x amouts of radiation from cosmic rays abd bla bla -- but when it comes to shit from the (mis)use of uranium the clock turns differently.
You cannot compare backround radiation to what happens if you get U234-5-8 inside your body. The main radtion of the U isotopes is ALPHA radiation which cannot go through your skin -- HOWEVER, inside the body it is deadly.
"Three Mile Island and Infant Health". I do believe we got off topic.
And if you check it out, you were the first to use the "F" word here. This was a good thread until you started on me. I will not reply to you anymore. Okay. Good. Don't fuck with me either.
Well Paul, you and I are friends, but when any ever call you a stiupid ass, or an old morbid turd or such and start a stupid detrating pisding contest for no good reason, I believe you answer in tune. This guy is a detractor.
BTW, once being a professioal writer in the long ago past and having been a history teacher and all that long before I went legally blind and got into rather poor spelling here on this computer writng, I didn't need your advice on how to write. But I do apreciate your advice and always take constructive criticism, as long as it's civil. I don't sit and re-write several times here as done when writing a newspaper article or a book.
If you wish to offer such again, you can e-mail it to me, as I have done for you, and now you don't write long blogs in a single paragraph. Your comments are among the best here and now they are much easier to read.
How you got it all going is still there Riverman. Your writing is identical.
I don't post my personal opinions on the issue of the methane gas, I cite and offer the highly qualified geologist, who wrote the books and articles on the very serious subject. All life was extinguished here on Earth twice in the past due to methane "burps". Some people are not aware of that clear and coming danger. I post it and have no regrets.
You post your comments about global warming and that's fine, but for some strange reason, I'm not supposed to do that in your opinion. If you wish to didagrre with me that's your perogitve and it's fine also. But don't come on me with your vulgarity and then later write and whine that I tell you to go fuck yourself. Your an asshole.
I have an extremely long day/weekend starting in about three hours, but will post regarding this article before it drops into the archives.
zephyrndinburg...I've mentioned this to Kem in a number of dispatches, and despite being the elder fart you state he has made an effort to listen, and it shows.
What I told Kem was if he really wanted people to pay credence to what he was saying then write intelligently, meaning proper form. What this means is take the time to capitalize & puncuate properly, get your syntax correct, avoid fragmented sentences, and if unsure of how to spell a word by all means use your Google toolbar.
If something is poorly written people tend to believe the writer too lazy to take the time to learn how to write, and educated people will dismiss what is being said, even if the ideas trying to be expressed might be good & sound. Think about it, Kem has, and there is a noticable improvement in his form & clarity of expression since I first started seeing his posts.
Another thing to consider, and on this one you might find something of interest, Kem, is university studies have proven the people that people pay the most attention to what they are saying use the least profanity. There is a direct correlation, less profanity=more credibility. Something to consider, eh?
sorry kem I don't wanta bother with war with you I don't really have much respect for you, but those things don't matter much to me. you chose to see what you see. you tell me is that you, is that me?
I don't really care about your views. Time for a change. whata yuh say we try & go somewhere where all of us can luve togeher
sounds good to me !
whattayuh say?
wow isn't it nice how your implications are ignored every post ended with f u just like a.....
ah well kem
I hope you enjoy your space
its not like a publi... oh yeah fuh... fuh.. te duhbyuh\
WE'RE ALL already here & every body already knows everything
scary for you kem????? how you gonna controll us all if cant scare our pants off of them.
"uber alles uberleutenent"
vintyoone' voos agiinstuis inan innumee'
whose like cheney? google du, google methane burp
I'de add google (dioxin, byphenol,global fish stock,global fooc production, global population,global prosperity,individual survivability,global sustanability, ect.)
use your mind imagine your childrens happy futures &
smile
smile
smile
&
keep on smilin
:)
To all others who may care. I'm sorry that shit fight started, I hope it ends now. I don't start them. Any who know me, know I'm against nuclear and coal fired power plants and am fully awre that the scientists s are not correct with thrir time frame predictions and we must have some fast action or we, and more importantly, our chlldren and theirs are in big trouble.
I never labeled you a TROLL, you must have a reading disability, besides being a rude jerk? You deny you started this crap by calling me a "morbid old turd and a stupid ass".
I had replied to you and was not rude about it. I said I understood differently about the cause of global warming. It's a most serious issue and the methane gas is the most serious and I blog that, __frequently,__ because these articles are buried in the archives in a couple of days. If you don't like it, I don't care.
I do care when people start rude, snotty remarks from the safety of their home computer and call me names. I respond to them and to you in like style. And you have disrupeted this forum. You may not be a troll, And I NEVER implied, or stated you are, but you are now acting like one, YOU start some shit and then pretend you didn't initiate a fight here. ___ Fuck you.
For anyone else, that "Anartic ice shelf breaking off" article is very important, it's a headline article and is in in last Wednesday's archives.
Not to mention KEM that I POINTED OUT that we needn't coal or nuclear AT ALL to fulfill our energy needs & you try to label me troll because rather than " OH MY we're all going to die, THAT there ARE SOLUTIONS & you try to label ME a troll.
Tell me KEM WHERE? other than in your mind did I demonstrate that penchant for neoconism THAT YOU HAVE BY PICKING & CHOOSING MY STATEMENTS TO SUIT YOUR OWN AIMS>>> global wamimg is very real I mearly tryed to inform you of a gross underestimastion that GEOLOGICAL SCIENCE has reported in an highly repsected journal NEW SCIENTIST & you go over hill & dail of how I must be some how undermining you since i mearly point out the tired gloominess of your recitations. ANd sick I am of your tired sandwichboard, "yes we'll all die" I don't disagree I just think aftera certain point, well????
I might point out the magazine (NEW SCIENTIST) you flattly dismissed without bothering to GOOGLE it has tirelessly & FACTUALLY reported on global warming including it's sadly accurate GOODBYE MIAMI issue & does continue to. as is predictable the collapse of our ecosystem accelerates, as the article kem chose misinterpret clearly demonstrates climate change is a lot worse than expected even by those who thought they expected the worst
I'm aware that the scientist predictions are not even close, we are running out of time and if you wish to see what I wrote on the Anartic ice shelf, which has now broken off, that article in in last Tuesday's archives.
That is also what the article states in the methane gas article, we may have ten years or less, we may have fifty years and if that gigatons of methane blooms out into our atmosphere, it will kill almost all life on this panet and that's not my fault or desire.
I sent a five page letter to all three of the primary presidential candidates yesterday and a copy to Bill Clinton and a copy of the Anarticv ice shelf article. I make 500 copies of such articles and hand them out at coffee shops in three cities. I'm an old man and I do what I can. Fuck you again, you started this crap and now you want to say I did. It's all there for any who nay give a shit to see. __ Blow it out your ass.
Look asshole, you started this bullshit with your ("fuck,__ stupid ass __ and morbid turd words") aimed at me for what ever pitiful reason you may have. I never saw your name here before and don't care if you're an old time blogger or a new one.
I was answering a friend ~Billy_y4~, whom I disagree with on the nuclear power issues, with my remarks you re-posted there and he'd also jokingly wrote a "THIN pancake".
It just so happens, I trust the author of that article I recommend. And the book written by a renouned geologist, Michael J. Benton, __ "When Life Nearly Died". __ It's not that I LIKE what they say, they WARN us to take immediate action with global warming or we ARE all going to die off.
It's that I do believe their writings and many others who give dire warnings, is most importnat for all of humanity, including your child. I do feel sadness for the boy, to see he has a parent who is such an ignorant and rude jerk. We can pick our firends but we have no choice with our parents.
BTW, we did have to bury our two sons and don't know why you asked that of me. Fuck you twice.
KEM look dude, you're seriously confused, no offense. Read my last post for christs sake you got with tude. you don't seem to get that I'm not challengeing global warming I'm saying that it's a whole l;ot worse than people have any idea yet as bad as the idea already is. Look seriously every heard of flogging a dead horse? -
I'de like to think solutions exist & you're trying to lambast as a troll for pointing out that the dollars spent on iraq COULD HAVE CREARED # GIGAWATTS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY PER MONTH INSTEAD. stop.
yola
echo
tango
we bitch about the demise of this human civilazation of which we all very invested in,
instead
wouldn't it be better to find some SOLUTIONS??????????????
or you just wanna project on me
eh?
Westinghouse claims it can get the cost down to $1bn/reactor if they have enough orders and are allowed to build standardized units.
The French proved that replicating a standard nuke plant design greatly reduces the costs in contrast to the US capitalists customizing each plant for the express purpose of gouging the taxpayer.
But the economy of replication need no proof. It is COMMON SENSE, which is systematically smashed in the "good ol USA" by capitalists.
Economy of replication is a natural feature of progressive policy for renewable/sustainable energy production at the local level. We don't need capitalist central planning to deliver that.
And we don't need nuke energy at all, especially after capitalist central planning neglected to solve its sourcing, security and waste disposal issues, deliberately gouged taxpayers, and abuses nuke energy and everything else it can abuse, to control, oppress and enslave the people.
tough guy?
lmfao
what was tough abough that mister "your kids are dead"?
fine bit o pojection from you KEM
"Your child and ours probably won't have much of a life. But have a little fun."
Guess that TV program was wrong ~Billy~, all of those people being interviewed and the Russian scientists and the nuclear plant workers must be delusional.
A thin pancake only has one side?
Guess that would be called a "Cheneycake".
Oh, I understand that the Co2 in the atmosphere is creating the Greenhouse effect, which in turn is the cause of global warming. The Co2 in the atmospere has accelerated dramaticly in the past 200 years, ever since the industrial age began. That's proven beyond ANY doubt.
So, we can stop burning coal and use nuclear power, which is a better alternative. Or, we can use clean energy, which is "do-able" and would be far better than nuclear and is the flip side of a THIN pancake.______Or a coin
listen to yourself.
try answering other peoples questions for a change I wholly agree with most of your points, but I think I speak for everybody here we're all sick of the same ones over & over & over & over
a lot like cheney, or bush or cheney, or bush or cheney over & over du burp, burp du, over & over
you needn't be such a petty tyrant if you're really curiuos & wanting to understand our world you take a moment to look arund at it. at least every once in a while rather than just lording over all of us you suppose in need of education by your beknighted arrogance.
I have the same fatalism within myself. I think we all do don't you think it's time to start focusing on at least concecptual solutions rather than reval in our disillusionment?
I'm really sick of how easy it is to get totally fatalistic god knows I've gone there enough myself.
sorry about the pissed off SNAP
but you might have given a moment to consider that I'm not another idiot the info i was relating has NOT made it to mainstrem reporting yet, even in the enviroworld. rather pat stupidities reeking of ignorance & gloom... all too like my own
all be it very differently
the solutions exist look for them. Why dwell on our demise when the means that bring us that world we'de all choose to be a part of can be brought for all the world.
seems to me.
whats the freqency lord kemmeth?
BTW smart-ass, tough guy. I didn't say you were wrong about your warming and Co2 analysis. I just happen to trust the opinions of the scientsits and geologists who say the greenhouse effect is causing global warming and we humans are the cause of it.
Because of that, some powerful people want to start up the nuclear power carts again, and that's what this article is saying. I wish to see a massive effort initiated to have clean energy and I blog such and do as much as you are doing here about it. So shove your rudeness up your butt.
~ZEPHYRNDINBURG~. I thought you wanted our government to do something productive to stop the pollution of the atmosphere and our oceans. ___ I'm on your side if that's so.
I do not want to die, or my wife to die. I do not wish my children, or their's to die, or any other's children to die. I post that GOOGLE arctic methane gas, and or DU and phytoplankton, becasue they are our most serious issues, and I want everyone to be aware of it that may not be. That's my only intent.
You remind me of the asshole king who kills the messenger. You also are giving me orders like a Cheney or a tough guy. ___ Fuck you.
you know what Kem if you're that fatalistic why not just kill yourself & spare the rest of us your old fogy triumphantalism at the end of the worlds grief.
you seem to find perverse pleasure of the irredemable nature of our collective humanity in the face of just such a people as you represent.
hell you're already dead anyway 70 something so fuck on all us our families futures & so on who aren't. you'll just poo poo us with (OH FUCK, DU GOOGLE THAT & METHANE BURP GOOGLE THAT)_ YOU KNOW WHAT KEMMM WE'RE NOT ALL AS DEAD YET AS YOU'RE ARROGANT STUPID ASS HAS CHOSEN TO BE OH YEAH & GOOGLE F.U.S.A.B
say something that'll do something for us OR GET OUT OF OUR WAY!!! you morbid old turd.
you're not listening dude.
ordinarily geologically the co2 rise came AFTER the temp rise
get it!
\
THat means if you look at models & they're always on the far side of the 'worst case scenarios' thats be cause the very rise in temp caused by the rise in co2 itself results in a further rise in c02 (BEYOND THAT RELEASED BY HUMAN ACTIVITY DIRECTLY) relateding to the correlating rise in temp. comprende' vous?
simply x=co2
temp rise= x*2
comprende' verde senor?
GOOGLE ___ nuclear accidents. ___ Amazing.
And that is just the ones that were reported.
Oh, I understand that the Co2 in the atmosphere is creating the Greenhouse effect, which in turn is the cause of global warming. The Co2 in the atmospere has accelerated dramaticly in the past 200 years, ever since the industrial age began. That's proven beyond ANY doubt.
So, we can stop burning coal and use nuclear power, which is a better alternative. Or, we can use clean energy, which is "do-able" and would be far better than nuclear and is the flip side of a THIN pancake.______Or a coin.
yeah KEM I've seen all your posts. its just that real DOABLE solutions do exist, and, it is heartbreaking.
Kem check out the article in New Scientist that usually co2 rise is the RESULT OF warming not the cause. this basically means that all predictions fall short by at least half. the feedback is a lot, a WHOLE LOT, worse than has been model. methyl hyrdarzines (spelling?) & methane, plus a plenty more we don't even get yet.
still gloom'n'doom as I can be as the rest of ita all, IT REALLY PISSES ME OFF THAT THIS IS SOLVABLE, BUT.... UGLY SLIMY BLIND MORONS WOULD RATHER KILL US ALL FOR A QUICK BUCK!!!!!!.
that said I'll quit yelling & to all a good night
A thin pancake only has one side?
Guess that would be called a "Cheneycake".
Your child and ours probably won't have much of a life. But have a little fun.
GOODLE ___ arctic methane gas ___ and then scroll down to the article,___ "Methane Burps, A Ticking Time bomb". ___ If one doesn't wish to believe it, ___ ignore it.
Guess that TV program was wrong ~Billy~, all of those people being interviewed and the Russian scientists and the nuclear plant workers must be delusional.
1 dollar a watt solar is justa bout here, 1 dollar a watt wind power already is & continues to get cheaper. @ an quarter of time output energy production expectation, $12 billion/month = 3 gigawatts of clean power entered into the equation per month @ the cost of the irag war. & that output expectation is a bit on the low side, (we live off grid on this stuff ourselves & so argue not from ignorance). so I'll leave you to work out the rest of the math but for a whole lot less cost (in treasure, god help the lives)than the imbecilicly malignant & wholly criminal war, we'de need have no debate about nuclear power at all, just what to do with all those scrapped coal & anciently dangerous dinosaur nuclear plants right now.
\
seriously do the math
I have an eight year old.
It WOULD BE NICE TO THINK HE HAS SOME WORLD TO INHABIT WORTH LIVING IN!!!!
Kem,
The 'zone of exclusion' around the Chernobyl reactor site is about 18 miles radius. It was home to about 130,000 before the accident. If you want to see some facinating pictures by a Ukraniun photojournalist go to www.kiddofspeed.com. The photographer was a Chernobyl evacuee and now rides her motorcycle through the zone of exclusion.
Regards,
Bill
PS: It is a thin pancake that doesn't have two sides.
On March 28, 1979 in the middle of Pennsylvania at a place called Three Mile Island an "accident" happened. Critical valves had illegally been closed. Some might call that sabotage.
Conveniently, at the same time The China Syndrome was released that fictionalized the ongoing event.
Coincidentally, FEMA, started it's first days of operation, and controlled all news, and did so in a fashion that created panic.
Nuclear power was thus discredited, allowing Anglo-American to begin a 30 year period of imperialism using oil, which they control, as the weapon against other nations who were required to obtain USD to buy oil.
Smells to me like a terror attack, staged by your leaders.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=24841
Some might call it a conspiracy. They would be right.
Oil is not a fossil fuel, it is plentiful and some oil fields once depleted have been refilled by an upwelling of oil from the deep biosphere. The Russians and some scientists know this (read Thomas Golds The Deep Hot Biosphere), but Big Oil and our government suppressed the news, for obvious reasons.
When the myth of peak oil is exposed, as it must someday, then the fall back is Global Warming, which will be the excuse to bring on the carbon tax and reduce consumption of this carbon resource found in abundance. This then allows us to control access to nuclear power, which will not be taxed.
We control the access to the technology and much of the resources, and are already floating the myth of limited uranium supplies.
It is obvious people are happy to stay within their own reality. The so called left and right live in a reality that is an illusion, created by the leaders you on the left hate today, and who the right hated yesterday. They laugh at you as they divide and rule. They must be getting bored with the game, even with the internet most people do not dare go too far into the unknown, which is definitely not near mainstreet.
The next division will be you and them, they will not care if you are united against them, and will stop playing the deception game and just let you know the truth. And they do not care because they now control you, like it or not. If you don't like it, Cheney and his pals will shrug and say "So?" If you protest too much, they will crush you. You have after all given them the powers they need to do so.
Would someone tell Barack Obama, a supporter of nuclear power, about this?
thanks
I bet that judge read the "official" government report Bill. Ya think?
Gosh ~Bill~, do you mean there is more than one side to this coin? More than one study?
Funny, I watched a science program last month about "Cherry-Nobel" and there were thousands who died trying to straighten the mess up. There were miners digging under the site so they could pour in concrete and the miners could only work for 20 minutes until they'd recieved their maximun life dose of radiation.
Many died at an early age, I forget the number, but believe it was several thousand. I've read that the town there is still deserted, and on that program it showed a large deserted city. Of course that one was the worst but there have been so many others that came so close to being near as bad or even worse.
It will happen again somewhere, someday, and the nuclear experts will say, ___ "Oh my, this was unexpected, don't you just hate it when this happens". ____ How much land is unusable there near Cherry-Nobel now?
bbr,
The utilities that are seeking to include construction costs in the rates are regulated utilities only. The state with the most new nuclear build activity is Texas which is an unregulated state. Those utilities can't charge the rate payers a dime until they are generating electricity.
Bill
Kem,
The studies that I have read indicate that no significant injury or exposure occurred because of TMI. This author references other results.
There have been irresponsible studies and statements by anti-nuclear proponents (along with many careful and responsible ones). I read an anti-nuclear diatribe that said everyone in the city of Pripyat on the day of the Chernobyl accident was going to die (Pyripyat was the nearby town where most of the reactor employees lived.) This statement is quite true. Everyone living in Pripyat that fateful day is going to die. So is everyone in Muleshoe Texas and Walla-Walla Washington that was in those towns on that day.
Everyone that has a pro or antinuclear position has a dog in this fight. You will notice that the author is an antinuclear activist. It is hard to tell where truth lies.
There were a large number of lawsuits over exposure from TMI. Most of them were bundled into a common suit. After hearing expert testimony from all sides the judge ruled that the maximum public dose was 100 millirem. (This is the maximum permissible to the general public and is about comparable to a chest x-ray. The maximum permissible dose for an adult nonpregnant employee is 5000 millerem.)
Regards,
Bill
Hi John--nice to come upon your work in Common Dreams! It is becoming harder and harder to remember the world we knew even 2 decades ago. Thanks for maintaining the necessary outrage that helps us to resist the oncoming disasters, or at least to recognize that there was an alternative. The amazing thing, to me, is the adaptability of human beings. We will persist even when we can no longer thrive. Is this a good thing? ---Jane
They'd better hurry it up, cause when the dome collapses at Cherry Noble, another huge cloud of radioactive dust will circle the globe. Of course it's not safe to be near there for workers for more than a few minutes, but they have lots of people.
class act,
I'm not sure what you are referring to. TMI-2 reactor was defueled and is in monitored inactive storage. It will remain so until TMI-1 is removed from service. Both reactors will then be dismantled. TMI-2 must remain in place at this time because it shares some common equipment with TMI-1.
Chernobyl-4 is not sealed and forgotten. The 'sarcophagus' is disintegrating and at risk of eventual collapse. The Ukraine is, according to the last I saw, looking for aid to build an 'overshelter' over the sarcophagus.
Bill
Good post JAN, good for you. But he's right about west Philly.
We won't need any coal or nuke plants if we develop clean energy. The money we'd spend bulding nuclear power plats would be far better spent developing clean energy.
Jan:
The exposure level to bullets in Lancaster County is pretty low, as long as you don't take a wrong turn off the Schuylkill Expressway and end up in West Philly!
New nukes, maybe dozens, are coming, or are at least in preliminary planning. Westinghouse claims it can get the cost down to $1bn/reactor if they have enough orders and are allowed to build standardized units. I forgot to check if the cooling towers are extra.
Local weather forecasters like to add in the "feels like" heat index, pollen count, ozone level, UV index... Maybe some day they will give the local background radiation count, Sr-90 and tritium count in the water... so we can all plan healthy outings!
The new financial deal is utilities plan on having customers pay for construction as it happens - before they ever get a single watt out of the project. Rates would decline after the plants are on line and making money. Hmmm.
We need to replace coal generation ASAP, but we actually have plans to build more. Nuclear generation is the most powerful and compact substitute, and will be part of the solution. The Philly brownouts stopped after they built Limerick. It can be done safely, but there can be no secrets, coverups or back room decisions, and the public has the right to know exactly what and how much of anything is getting into the environment.
Can nuclear power be made so safe that people living near a facility get more radiation exposure from sunlight, medical X-rays, radon in the basement, computer monitors, cell phones, cigarettes, the coal fired plant in the next state... than from their local nuke?
Background radiation levels around the world have been declining since the atomic bomb test ban treaties. TMI did make a little spike and Chernobyl dusted everyone pretty badly, but last I read levels are still declining as they clean up the mess from the WWII / Cold War bomb building and testing era. Lets keep it that way. As a baby boomer, I probably have more Strontium 90 in my bones than a twenty-something who grew up near TMI.
I don't know what to say about waste disposal. It should be possible to "burn" it in fast neutron reactors some day, leaving only short lived elements. That day isn't here yet. Using Yucca Mountain as a forever repository doesn't appeal to me, either, but we have to support our growing population and end GHG emissions. Its a tough choice.
USAn wrote: "We get exposed to naturally occurring radiation - which varies considerably from place to place, especially with altitude and local geology, every day."
Yes, and statistically, we all get exposed to bullets every day. But if you make your home in Lancaster County, PA, you don't expect to be exposed to the same "bullet level" as Baghdad or Kabul. Neither do you expect to be exposed to the same level of "sub atomic bullets" as a resident of Quito or Denver.
FACT: there were "excess deaths" after TMI. These are people who, statistically speaking, would not have died had TMI not happened. Look at a chart of deaths over time -- especially infant deaths -- and you clearly see a blip. To those people and their grieving families, it matters naught that they might have been exposed to the same level of radiation had they lived in Denver. USAn, go explain to these people that their loved one would have died anyway -- statistically speaking -- had they lived in Denver. I hope you have good running shoes if you do.
This is such an annoying argument that the nuke apologists keep raising. It has no basis in reality. It is the worst sort of twisting science into propaganda. USAn, you should be ashamed.
My little sister was a student at a business school in Camp Hill, very near the TMI complex when the disaster hit. When we finally were able to speak to her, we suggested she head home immediately. She replied with the official line that there was only minimal, if any, danger. At that point I told her to get her butt home NOW! which she did.
She is a healthy, happy, successful and much loved member of the family and community. She is the mother of three outstanding boys, all Eagle Scouts. The two oldest boys returned to the farm after college and the youngest is a freshman in college. She and her husband operate an ogranic dairy, pork, and beef farm which converted to organic in 1981, pioneers in the movement. She is a Director for the Northeast Organic Farmers Association and her husband is one of twelve members of the National Organic Standards Board which advises the USDA on organic policy.
I don't want to think of the personal loss only, but the loss to sustainable agriculture and society if she had remained there while the situation was most critical, and had her health been negatively affected.
All three potential presidential candidates support more nuclear power. John Edwards was against it. Of course that's why he was 'selected' out of the race by a Big Money corporate supported/directed MSM. Follow the money and it becomes readily evident where this 'surge' toward more nuclear power comes from.
Those pushing this whole power power trip are some seriously sick people. Then again I guess they live on some other planet, or in another plane of existence (think Bizarro World). I guess they don't mind walking around in lead lined suits, and self-contained breathing apparatus, but normal people will.
Packages of $100 bills strapped around your body is not ample protection from some forms of radiation, and you can't eat them either. Let's get honest & real in these discussions on nuclear power, instead of secretive & devious. We're in this together (WITT), rather than you're on your own (YOYO).
That's sad ~Barks~. And she is just one of so many.
One of my favorite people ever was from the TMI area. I met her when she came out to California to die. RIP JoAnne
It will be interesting to read what ~Billy_y4~ may write about this. The Three Mile Island disaster was just one of many nuclear accidents over the years and most were covered up, and or attempted to cover.
We have the technology and the people power to initiate a MASSIVE program to have clean energy within eight to ten years, if we have the necessary leaderhip and money to do what is vitally necessay, to eleminate both fossil fuels and nuclear energy to produce electrical power. There would be milions of good paying, long term jobs available with such a program.
Money? Well as long as we continue to use our money, real or borrowed from China to wage illegal wars, it will never happen.
What is also not widely understood is that while the Chernoboyl Incident is contained and over, 3-Mile Island is still on-going, uncontained. Water must continuously be pumped onto the pile and periodically vented. This must continue for the next 10,000 years – or until the danger of full containment is finally faced. Nuclear power is hellishly dangerous and completely unnecessary.
Background radiation was at fairly low levels , varying by altitude and location all across the world, until the late '40s and all the Underground / atmospheric nuclear testing.. todays levels of background radiation is way way higher than it was previous to the testing.
If you think that is a lie that is your choice .. but the FACTS tell otherwise.
but of course some people still think the world is flat.
A great movie that involves the use of nuclear energy as the primary energy source of a society is "THX 1138".
USAn: "Deadly Deceit" addresses natural radiation and defines safety through the well-known concept of "excess deaths". However, the point of my post was not to start a debate based on an excerpt, but to get people to read the book as a whole.
Chernobyl Heart
http://www.chernobyl.typepad.com/
Exelon is submitting the license renewal for TMI Unit 1 this year. I believe its for 20 years. There apparently isn't a lot of local resistance, most of the neighbors figure it won't happen again.
"All four [scientists] concluded that the dose-response relationship was supralinear, which means that there is no level of radiation low enough to be deemed 'safe'".
Than you better find another universe to live in. We get exposed to naturally occurring radiation - which varies considerably from place to place, especially with altitude and local geology, every day.
And, please define the word "safe". Did you drive a car or cross a busy street today?
Hopefully this timely article will spur interest in the very useful book cited by the writer. The full title is
"Deadly Deceit: Low-level Radiation, High-level Cover-up", by Dr. Jay M. Gould and Benjamin A. Goldman. It's available (used) on amazon.com, and is required reading for anyone involved with nuclear issues.
Aside from the fascinating case studies (of course including TMI), the book covers the basic science of low-level radiation. The key conclusion: "All four [scientists] concluded that the dose-response relationship was supralinear, which means that there is no level of radiation low enough to be deemed 'safe'".
Beware of the linguistic tricks from President Bush.
I once heard him say that if we didn't support occupying the oil fields of Iraq with our military, then we would have to support nuclear energy in this country.
Maybe he should be spending a portion of the 12 billion a month he is spending in Iraq on the research and testing of sustainable energy sources so those won't be the only two options his speechwriters allow.
His energy language tricks are just like his standard "If you don't support the war, then you don't support the troops" linguistic trick.
No Mr. President, I can support the troops and clean energy while also opposing your corrupt goals and strategies.