Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMcCain's Michigan Melt-Down Madness
Leave it to John McCain to pick the site of a horrific atomic meltdown to symbolize his push for nuke power.
McCain says he wants at least 45 more US reactors as part of his "do everything" campaign for American energy independence. Apparently that strategy does not include inflating car tires, long known as one of the easiest, cheapest and most reliable ways to significantly improve auto gas mileage. McCain had only ridicule for Barack Obama's ideas to fight waste in our energy economy.
Indeed, the term "efficiency" has no apparent place in the McBush lexicon. The "drill drill drill" mantra speaks only of production, a "supply side" Reaganomic approach to a problem whose fastest solution is to cut back on demand. As if turning off lights in empty rooms or making cars run cleaner is somehow an affront to American manhood, more production is the one and only idea in McCain's energy plan.
Thus it was fitting he chose Monroe, Michigan for a nuke-powered energy push. The town's central square hosts a statue honoring General George Armstrong Custer, wiped out by Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse at the Little Big Horn in the summer of 1876.
More important was the melt-down at Monroe's Fermi Unit I on October 5, ninety years later.
Fermi I was a sodium-cooled fast-breeder. Its promise was not only electricity "too cheap to meter," but a fuel system that would magically generate more than it used. This astonishing fantasy was part of a government sponsored "Peaceful Atom" push to paste a happy face on the nuclear weapons industry.
Fermi I was key in a number of ways. Detroit Edison's legendary boss, Walker Sisler, told the feds he would be a prime nuke booster. But like the rest of the nation's utility execs, he demanded protection against the monstrous liability that could come with a major melt-down.
So in 1957, before the "inherently safe" Fermi I was built, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, shielding reactor owners from the billions in lawsuits that would follow a catastrophe. Since they believed it would be a short time before private insurers stepped in, the bill was only good for 15 years. Since then, it has been constantly renewed. Today the prospective builders of new reactors demand this same federal insurance protection. So the "temporary" acknowledgement that private insurers won't touch atomic reactors is now a permanent shield for this "safe" technology.
Fermi I was subjected to the first major legal challenge to reactor construction by the United Auto Workers legendary lawyer Leo Goodman. The UAW took Edison all the way to the Supreme Court, where it lost 7-2. In a benchmark minority decision, Justices William O. Douglas and Hugo Black warned that nuclear power involved "a lighthearted approach to the most awesome, the most deadly, the most dangerous process that man has ever conceived."
In 1966 a blockage occurred in the $100 million plant's cooling system. Because it carried highly volatile liquid sodium, which can explode when exposed to air, all of southeastern Michigan stood at the brink of an unthinkable catastrophe. Police officials seriously debated evacuating Detroit, just forty miles north.
But an explosion at Fermi would have permanently irradiated the Great Lakes and a gigantic area of land stretching hundreds of miles in all directions. Countless thousands of people would have died from both short-term and long-term radiation sickness. One actual victim from the releases that did occur may have been then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who spoke in Monroe the day after the accident, and later died of cancer.
The public was kept totally in the dark. That day I served as Editorial Director of the University of Michigan Daily, where we were tapped in to the core of the nation's major news sources. Though I was the Time Magazine and United Press International correspondent for Ann Arbor, just forty miles west, I never heard a word about this accident until I stumbled upon John G. Fuller's legendary WE ALMOST LOST DETROIT in 1974. Writing for the Readers Digest Press, Fuller's astonishing tale still sends chills down the spines of a whole generation that lived in the neighborhood and never suspected the danger we were in.
So Monroe is indeed a fitting global symbol for nuclear power. In mere moments, a $100 million asset became a multi-billion-dollar liability, and millions of people and square miles were put at unconscionable -- and uninsured -- risk.
But for John McCain, none of this seems to matter. His fellow nuke backers argue that the Fermi-style fast breeder is no longer on the table.
In response, we suggest that the next time he's overseas pumping his global creds, he can lead a "more nukes" rally at Chernobyl. And when he comes home, MCain can complete the trifecta at Three Mile Island.
Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! Our Green-Powered Earth is at www.harveywasserman.com, along with his HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. In 1989 he was given the Leo Goodman Award for safe energy activism by the Citizens Energy Council's Larry Bogart. This article was originally published by http://freepress.org.
48 Comments so far
Show AllBilly_y4 August 10th, 2008 10:15 pm
Neomunk
I worked for the Detroit Edison Co. at the time of Enrico Fermi. I was at the Trenton Channel Plant (coal fired) and bid on several jobs at Fermi (better pay)but never got past the interview portion. Perhaps fortunately. A long time ago. Several people whom I knew at that time did land jobs there. I transferred out into Substation Maintenance and never heard from them and often wondered how they fared. Know the area well.
During the interviews we were warned of possible dangerous situations. Proven by the near meltdown.
I was born and raised in Monroe, and in addition to the original Fermi plant, and the replacement Fermi 2 (which would report a "minor" leak a few times a year) there is a very large coal-fired plant, all within about 8 miles from each other. The statue of Custer mentioned in the article is at least honestly disgraceful in it's depiction. Not too many statues have horses with their tail between their legs...
Sooo..... Next time you find yourself reading one of my posts and making odd faces at my writing style/philosophy, just write it off as negative environmental influence. :-D
kent shaw August 11th, 2008 2:51 pm
Indeed. I've been trying to cut down on my breathing. It just takes too much concentration. Ü
You are correct Ann R Key. That is One reason why I don't say nuclear energy is carbon free. It is however, much less carbon intensive than coal or gas. Furthermore, coal emits sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, mercury, arsenic, etc. right into the air.
Nuclear energy is a far better solution in terms of air quality, and say planet viability. If I said it was the perfect solution, I would be wrong.
re: Barn Burner
You seem to be CLUELESS about the many ways that electricity from solar power can be stored other than with batteries!
1. It can be used in the day to split water into hydrogen and oxygen and the stored CHEMICAL ENERGY for use at night in fuel cells.
2. It can be used in the day to spin flywheels and the stored KINETIC ENERGY can be used at night to generate electricity.
3. It can be used in the day to pump water into towers and the stored POTENTIAL ENERGY can be used at night to fall against water wheels and generate electricity.
4. It can be used in the day to heat stones and the stored THERMAL ENERGY can be used at night to generate electricty.
So does breathing.
jstevens August 11th, 2008 1:09 pm
Making cement releases lots of CO2.
With Mr. Wasserman's particular talent for hyperbole, distortion and fear mongering, I wish he would turn his efforts to fossil fuels instead of nuclear power.
When considering the dangers of fossil fuels, one doesn't have to resort to unsubstantiated claims like linking Hubert Humphrey's cancer to his presence in Monroe.
If he wished to inform the public of the danger's of fossil fuels, he could discuss the thousands of deaths every year from coal induced air pollution. He could talk about the ruination of the inhabitability of the entire planet as a result of climate destabilization, instead of what he thinks COULD have happened in SE Michigan. (emphasis on "he thinks" here.)
Read the article about Arctic Ice disappearing in 6 years, then see if it makes any sense to worry about the long half-life of nuclear waste, stored in cement and buried.
I think McCain missed his calling... he reminds me of the type of minister from a Pentecostal church, deep in the south, that gets people to handle rattle snakes to prove their faith.
Is it true that enough solar energy hits the Earth in one hour to satisfy the world's needs for one year?
My friends! Don't worry about radiation---I don't! My friends, forget about the problems of storing nuclear waste---I do, my friends, every day! My friends, just try not to live near any of it. My friends, when the neighbors' kids sprout antlers and third arms, tell 'em Big Mac was here! My friends...Um, what was the question?
45 more reactors? - we should be closing down all nuclear reactors instead.
Do the scientists and policitians really understand the nature of nuclear radiation and nuclear fission? Do they have the required technology and instruments to accurately measure all levels of nuclear radiation that are produced?
This is the most dangerous source of energy ever discovered by man, yet politicians, scientists and corporate sponsors have been blinded by the profits, the power and prestige of nuclear fission power. Do they really care about the long term affects?
There are scientists and experts, even Spiritual Teachers who are proposing a new safer source of energy - Atomic fusion which is cold, harmless, and can be created from a simple isotope of water.
http://www.share-international.org/archives/Science-tech/sci_chunveil.html
http://www.d2fusion.com/education/
It will probably take a melt down, like what happened in the former Soviet Union to occur, Then people like the goof ball, Barn burner, or what ever he calls himself to say,"sorry", I was wrong. The next day he and his friends in their greed filled lives will set up a 9am Tee time to play golf.
They are easing gasoline prices down to earn your vote. You be sure to reward them.
McCain used to be a Maveric,
'til Big Oil "reined" him in.
Now he's just their "cash cow,"
"pimped out" to do their "spin."
MIT reived a $10 million rearch grant in the spring. Last week they announced a huge breakthrough on the storage problem for solar using cheap fuel cell technology. This simple and cheap storage would allow for using the stored energy at night.
The old timey spin of the apologists for the nuclear industry seems to have thrown for a loop.
Now is their last chance to get the public monies locked into expensive nuclear projects before most people see the big changes (solar storage solutions) taking effect over the next decade. They know people can be panicked now (like drilling in Anwar will lower pump prices baloney) and are trying to make the most of a corporate run government and media.
But compare the tens of billions with the $10 million MIT got and how fast ... a solution was found.
The corrupt have rigged the game annabelle but people are smarter and aren't playing games. We win this time... not them.
Encouraging news... Huh? So it does happen... who knew?
Brought to you by a paltry $10 million and some smart folks amongst them dumbed down Americans at MIT.
Hooray... one for the planet!
Um ... they won't need nuclear in Arizona ... thanks to MIT.
Isn't in windy up Michigan way? The MIT storage fuel cell technology works for any electricity generating source including wind energy collected at peak wind periods and stored for later use.
If the Reaganites preached "supply side economics" are Obamites preaching "Demand Side"? Why are Conservatives so opposed to Conservation? Why do Progressives oppose Progress? Why aren't Libertarians liberal?
During the accident at Fermi-1, 3 of the 105 fuel elements leaked. The containment building was contaminated. No one received a significant dose of radiation. No one got hurt.
The contamination was cleaned up. The damaged fuel was removed and replaced. The reactor was returned to service. During the refurbishment there was a sodium fire which delayed the restart.
When the operating license was up for renewal a few years later, it was apparent that sodium cooled reactors were not going to become the norm and the license was permitted to expire.
Bill
Barn Burner August 10th, 2008 4:42 pm
I have the perfect place to locate one of the safe new plants -- YOUR BACK YARD.
J Mc has had almost 30 years to get all the things he talks about doing now . This man has demonstrated a life of unfaithfulness and disloyalty right up until he decided to run . His word is not good .
Barn Burner wrote: "The French are successfully using nuclear and the new plants are safe"
From TimesOnline Aug 7/08: Concern over French nuclear safety
"The French state energy giants bidding to take control of Britain's nuclear industry are facing concern over their safety record in France after the fourth radioactive incident of the summer."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4479848.ece
What the article does not tell you is that Obama is a big coal supporter and his Web site policy positions advocate for Nuclear, and Bio fuels. Obam has taken over 1/2 million in cash from coal as reported the the Center of Responsive politics.
Let's build the next reactor in Washington DC next to the White house and Congress, because the only reason anyone will build one of these liability nightmares is if the government subsidizes it and takes all the liability. If the damn thing blows up or irradiates US politicians it would be less loss than anyone else.
barn burner,
great interview here, carbon free/nuclear free
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-2bN5rhNLs
Ethics? Pray tell, what does ETHICS have to do with it?
Puh...leez Don't let's get bogged down in sophomoric considerations, splitting hairs, arguing points, etc. We're here to get the job done. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !!!!! Don't you know?
Don't be like those effete un-American Frenchies who discuss ethics. I suppose you are just a girlie girl, aren't you? Drinking Chardonay, lifting your pinkie when you do so? You're probably gay. Really. Real men don't bother with discussion of ethics. Honestly. America is the land of the free, home of the brave. EVERYTHING we do is therefore automatically ethical. The most ethical. More ethical than anyone else. If you're going to challenge my ethics you must be UNAMERICAN!
Siouxrose August 10th, 2008 5:04 pm
Greenpeace has made other mistakes.
YAHPSYCHE: In other words, turn all your ethics in at "the gate." (Your assessment unfortunately is true about 80% of the time.)
Golddogs: my stock portfolio is fine thanks as I have no solar plays which have recently got kicked in the ass, however I am not sure I understand your explanation of why Boston is lit up at 3AM. Are you telling me that there is a way to store solar energy without batteries? Are you telling me that there is anyway near enough energy being produced to meet peak use from renewables? are you on solar now? What is the quaranteed life of those batteries? I live where there is sunshines 350 days a year and solar is still not cost effective unless I live to be 100.
Also, someone posted that there has never been a nuclear power plant that hasn't leaked radiation (I might be paraphrasing here a bit) and I don't believe it-show me!
Ahuramazda,
If you don't get it, think about politics. Its not about reality, logic or good sense. Its an emotional appeal made by proclaiming your position loudly, emphasizing what will appeal to people's greed, fear, laziness, prejudice or bias. You emphasize the emotionally stimulating part and totally ignore any related fatal flaws. You freely lie and call things the opposite of what they are: Patriot Act, Clean Air Initiative, Liberty or Freedom Foundation, etc. Its all about emotions. Forget reality and logic or you'll never make a good politician. Oh, and never NEVER admit you're wrong or ever have been wrong. Also accuse the other guy of lying, covering up being wrong and any other bad thing you yourself are doing or have done, to distract attention away from yourself.
BARN BURNER: Green Peace doesn't think the French nuclear plants--and the contaminated water they spew--are so safe. There are dead zones all around European waters.
OLD MAN RIVER: Enlightened post.
TERRAN: Are you sure you have the quote correct? I'm fairly certain Jimmy Carter meant IF CONSERVATION was not applied.
BRIAN BRADEMEYER: Excellent quote. It supports a contention I often raise in this forum, that too much of our collective intelligence is used in service to Mars, "god of war." The conquest approach towards nature, "dominion over" is another expression of Mars, the planet that favors might makes right, force used with ease, endless contests of bravado, and a very abusive relationship toward the earth, "our fair sister." Jim Morrison had it right about her being KNIVED IN THE DAWN and TIED WITH FENCES. In a sense, all the macho boys that want to drill, drill, drill are subliminally favoring the act of RAPE of the great Goddess, PENETRATING her lands everywhere, to co-opt Her resources. And for what? So much is wasted on moving armies about, testing aircraft designed to kill the anointed enemy of the day, or for high stakes testosterone spectacles of NasCar, etc. WASTE!
Celebrities need to start campaigns that make conservation cool, promoting less is more. An ad with a nicely proportioned person next to someone obese would do the trick of drawing this visual truth home!
"Barn Burner" bullshit, you spew the propaganda that you read. time to go and check your stock portfolio.
Why is Boston lit up at 3 am? not because people are working. For the birds maybe? yes, for the birds.
If people near the grid where hooked up and fed power to the grid, then batteries would not be much of an issue.
Nuke power has never hardly paid for itself, it is always heavily subsidized.
The reasons it is pushed are....
lots of people make money off the construction, maintenance and disposal of poisonous waste.
It keeps the general population addicted to buying electricity and from moving to Wind/Solar etc.
you can bet that there will be laws passed to prohibit the average home owner from setting up wind/solar power(there already is laws disallowing it in some towns/cities, see- Home Power Magazine)
"Home Power Magazine" http://www.homepower.com/home/
The French are successfully using nuclear and the new plants are safe, all safety systems are automatic and can not be overridden by humans. The key to success in the U.S. is all plants built with a common modern design, fully trained and qualified employees. The nuclear "waste" from modern nuclear facilities that is not reusable to generate more power is miniscule. The U.S. cannot replace oil with solar or wind energy as the problems of infrastructure to store and move electricity at peak energy use has not been addressed and also other forms of pollution caused by batteries are part of the problem with renewable energy systems. There really is no other sane solution to meet the energy demand of the U.S. Now I know that there will be an outcry from those who want to go back to living in caves, living off your vegetable garden and running your electrical needs off the methane gas from you fecal discharge but unless there is a complete economic meltdown I don't see that scenario playing out for the other 99% of the United States. If you think the U.S. is going to get the alternative life-style message just look at your clogged freeways now that gas prices have eased. Yep, put the bike back in the garage and jump into the hummer or Expedition to go to work, ferry the kids around and get the groceries.
"The most significant characteristic of modern civilization is the sacrifice of the future for the present, and all the power of science has been prostituted to this purpose." -- William James
Let all the countries of the world build reactors and the USA having the most. Then watch as something sets them all off at the same time. The terrifying sunsets of my early life wouldn't begin to compare.
check this out
http://cc.pubco.net/www.valcent.net/i/misc/Vertigro/index.html
The daily dumping of tons of mercury on our children seems like a small thing compared to a reactor meltdown. Save energy, stay home and read to your kids. That's tax free!
Here we have McFlipFlop advocating nuclear energy on one hand, but then being absolutely opposed to any waste even passing though Arizona, let alone being stored there. Actually Arizona makes more sense than Yucca Mountain as a storage place because it lacks seismic activity.
Skeletor McCain, purveyor of death for profit.
Screw all you poor, little, insignificant people. Watch my wealthy wife dance the strip at the Stugis beauty??? pageant.
There is nothing I won't do or say to be like my lil' buddy George W.
Oh, by the way, my brain is calcified.
'As if turning off lights in empty rooms or making cars run cleaner is somehow an affront to American manhood, more production is the one and only idea in McCain's energy plan.'
It's the American Way - more production - whether we need it or not. The American people are trained to assume we need perpetual economic growth. Without any rational argument, elites claim that without economic growth the economy will tank and we will all lose our jobs. A few of the more honest elites will admit that ultimately we're playing a geopolitical game of king of the hill based on economics. They try to scare us with the threat of invasion/conquest if we lose the game. We must dominate the world, thus economic growth without end, thus demand drive by carefully orchestrated over-supply, we become addicts, consumption slaves, to "preserve the peace".
More Nuclear Power For America?
You bet all we are is sheep a few writing a few bah's but most more concern on if the sheperd will lead us to greener pastures.
Only once in my life did we ever stand together. The so called hippies.
Today they are either dead or sheperds.
Obama will force on us just as many nukes . You can take that to the bank.
I never have read or heard of a sheep uprising ,or a stike not to give away their wool. Yep more nukes for us all.
My favorite definition of a nuclear power plant (sorry -- I don't know who came up with this):
"The most expensive, most dangerous way ever devised to boil water and make steam."
I am surprized that at least one of the candidate isn't on the band wagon to promote the new technology break through at MIT for storing solar enerby, as promoting an energy source that we don't have to swindle out of other countries thus eliminating the need for countless wars with endless death and destruction with the cost in billions, one that could provide many areas for job opportunities seems a logical conclusion. Too much interference with the existing energy barons? Or is it just more interesting to wait and watch while the rest of world takes positive steps towards a more sustainable and pollution free environment??
The kindest remedy I usually prescribe for most of Thomas L. Friedman's screed is "more pie".
However, I am obliged to point to a shred of sanity that he displays through this opinion piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10friedman1.html
There are two kinds of commitment... the one I most often wish for Friedman's persistent lunacy... and in this case, the one to which he points as an example for needed US energy policy change.
I suppose even madmen can produce rational discourse at (NY) times.
Terran: and all of this fueled by our unwillingness to change our consumption patterns, our arrogance and our greed.
So what's a tree hugger to do? My soap box is so high now I am teetering,and my outrage-o-meter is off the scale.
..My strategy for now: hide in northern Idaho and hunker down for the worst, which is yet to come...
we are probably the dumbest most uninformed electorate known to mankind but we wouldn't trade in the Bush model on the McCain.........would we?
Probably, there is not a single nuclear power plant that has not leaked radiation locally, whether into the air or the groundwater. The effects of radiation on biological systems are cumulative.
There is no solution to the problem of the waste products of nuclear power plants. Yucca Mountain, on which the United States has already spent tens of billions of dollars, is no solution. The half life of some of the nuclear waste is longer than the existence of homo sapiens to date.
For biological systems (e.g., humans), nuclear power is inherently entropic, which is to say that it degrades the complexity of cellular life. It causes cancer.
Nuclear power is an expression of the psychopathology of men (esp. old men) who are consciously or unconsciously worried about their masculinity: a recent poll reported that men are twice as likely to approve of nuclear power as are women, the latter tending to be more innately nurturing.
Compared with wind or solar, or geothermal or tidal energy for the production of electricity, nuclear power is the equivalent of trying to use a hammer to swat a fly. It is the purest expression of hubris yet exhibited by the human race. It is nuts. As is John McCain.
-30-
"We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations and among the different regions within our own country."
President Jimmy Carter April 18, 1977
I never understood McCain pushing for more nuclear plants in the USA. Nuclear energy is expensive and can be dangerous. While nuclear power indeed cuts down on greenhouse gas, what will become of the permanent waste, not to mention ensuring the GUARANTEE that waste will not be leaked out.
I saw a show talking about how Sweden handles their nuclear waste. The Swedea dig tunnels two kilometers into the earth and store the barrels in rows and cover them up. Hopefully the waste will NEVER penetrate through these barrels.
Meanwhile, the USA is critical of Iran wanting to generate nuclear power, nay denying Iran this right (this is a RIGHT by the way for Iran to exercise) while USA feels it is fine for them to increase nuclear power. This arrogance bothers me...