Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
2012 Is the Year to Finally Bury Nuke Power
The year 2012 has opened with news that Fukushima's radioactive cloud may already have killed some 14,000 Americans, according to a major study just published in the International Journal of Health Services.
Some 100 million tons of tsunami trash---much of it radiated by Fukushima fallout---has begun contaminating the beaches of our west coast.
Germany and Japan, the world's third and fourth largest economies, along with numerous others countries, have definitively turned away from the "Peaceful Atom."![](/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/nuclear_power_plant_0_0.jpg ""Fukushima," writes Wasserman, "has taught us that as long as reactors operate, the apocalyptic clock is ticking.""){kind=spacer}
"Fukushima," writes Wasserman, "has taught us that as long as reactors operate, the apocalyptic clock is ticking."
But it hasn't yet been buried. That's up to us. And 2012 is the year to do it.
We are already very close. The mythical "Nuclear Renaissance" has been gutted by Fukushima, low gas prices and the escalating Solartopian revolution in green energy. Solar panels, wind turbines, sustainable bio-fuels, geo-thermal, ocean thermal, increased efficiency and much more have simply priced atomic energy out of the market.
There is virtually no private money to build new reactors---except where there are huge government subsidies and guarantees. In 2012 we must make those all go away.
Likewise, there are increasingly powerful grassroots movements focused on shutting reactors that still operate. Germany has shut 7, and the rest will be gone by 2022, if not earlier. In Japan, just 11 of more than 50 reactors now operate. Because local governments can prevent reactors from re-opening once they go down for refueling, Japan could emerge from 2012 without a single nuke on line.
The biggest US battle is at Vermont Yankee. March 21 is D-Day for forcing a nuclear corporation to honor a solemn contract it signed with a sovereign state, agreeing to shut down if the state doesn't approve continued operations. The legislature wants the reactor shut, which Entergy now refuses to do.
But with some 430 reactors still operating worldwide, and with several score ostensibly on order, here are some of 2012's keys to finally ridding the planet of this radioactive curse:
- The switch to green power has become definitive and is clearly unstoppable. Last year renewables generated more US electricity than nukes. Far more private capital is now being invested in renewables than in nuclear or fossil fuels. General Electric says its photovoltaic solar cells will generate electricity cheaper than coal within five years. Well-funded opponents are making it more difficult to spread green technologies, but they can be beaten.
- The breakdowns in the solar business are far fewer and further between than in the fossil/nuke world. The lead in this technology has shifted to Asia. The much hyped Solyndra failure came not from technological issues, but because the Chinese are underselling its American competitors---and its own costs---by 30-40%. Returning at least some of the business to the US is essential to our economic survival.
- A dollar invested in increased efficiency---powered by accelerating breakthroughs such as LED lighting---has long since produced more jobs and saved more energy than one invested in nuclear power.
- In-depth studies from the Union of Concerned Scientists, Rocky Mountain Institute, and a host of others make it clear that investments in solar and wind energy yield better returns than nuclear.
- It takes at very least and optimistic five years to bring a nuclear plant on line assuming all permits are in order, but large-scale wind and solar facilities regularly come on line in half that or less.
- The decisions by Japan and Germany to abandon nuclear power have come from countries long at the core of the industry. Japan manufactures many key reactor components, and maintains ownership stakes in General Electric and Westinghouse, which have designed and/or built most of the world's commercial reactors. Germany's corporate giant Siemens, an industry mainstay, has abandoned the technology to focus on renewables. As other major countries and corporations follow suit, the nuke industry will waste away.
- Those who "support nuclear power" cannot guarantee the reactors they want built will be properly regulated or monitored. The world at large may not hear about the next Fukushimas until long after the radioactive fallout spreads around the planet. Given the dismal state of regulation even in "advanced" countries like Japan and the US, will those who support the "Renaissance" be there to monitor the Korean nukes sold to the United Arab Emirates et. al.?
- The US Department of Energy still has some $10 billion in designated loan guarantees for new reactors. Two reactors are technically under construction in South Carolina, and two more at Georgia's Vogtle. Despite $8.33 billion in loan guarantees, Georgia's rates are already soaring. Attempts to get Congress to kick in more money have been blocked by the grassroots No Nukes movement.
- Local resistance to reactor projects has raged wherever reactors operate or are proposed, and has been extremely effective. Richard Nixon promised 1000 US reactors by the year 2000, but the operable number was 104. Those nearly 900 reactors that went missing were mostly stopped by local grassroots movements. Every proposed or operating reactor not killed financially can be ultimately stopped by local opposition movements geared toward a long, hard struggle against "impossible" odds that ultimately prove beatable.
- As it has been from the start, nuclear power is a ward of the state. Nowhere on Earth are the builders held fully responsible for their mess. The Japanese government has just coughed up a tip-of-the-iceberg $13 billion bailout for Fukushima's owner, the Tokyo Electric Power Company. Hundreds of billions are yet to come. Either the company goes bankrupt, or the government takes it over beforehand. Either way, the public pays financially, and with its health and that of its children. So it will be everywhere nukes are built, including the US, where the 1957 Price-Anderson Act still limits owner liability in the wake of a catastrophe.
- Cost estimates for new reactors have already soared 200-300% and more over original prices just a few years ago, and will continue go ever higher. By contrast, renewable technology prices continue their rapid, steep decline.
- France's nuclear industry has all but given up on the US market. A reactor under construction in Finland is years behind schedule and billions of Euros over budget, as is another at Flamanville, in France itself. French public opinion has turned strongly toward renewables.
- US war hawks now want an attack on Iran for allegedly using commercial technology to build a Bomb. But it's instructive to remember that the west once tried to sell 36 reactors to the Shah, who was overthrown by religious fundamentalists in 1979, leading to the current crisis. Does the "Renaissance" blueprint mean pushing reactors everywhere, then launching preemptive wars following the inevitable regime changes?
- After more than 50 years, the radioactive waste problem has been nowhere solved. Nevada's Yucca Mountain is not revivable, and there are no usable high-level storage sites anywhere else on the planet.
- Nuclear power makes global warming worse. Greenhouse gases pour out of the mining, milling, enrichment and waste management process. Massive quantities of direct heat threaten our rivers, lakes and oceans. Thus more and more reactors must shut during hot summer months, when they are supposedly fighting global warming.
- The calculations on how much climate changing heat and steam have spewed into the atmosphere during the explosions at Chernobyl and Fukushima remain to be done. Likewise the heat impacts of the liquid emissions into the ocean at Fukushima remain unknown.
- By wasting huge amounts of social capital, nuclear construction slows the conversion to renewables, which are at the real core of defeating global warming.
- Fukushima is not over. Three melted cores remain problematic, and the entire complex is vulnerable to aftershocks which could bring spent fuel pools crashing to the ground and cause other disasters impossible to foresee.
- Nuclear power is killing people in ever-greater numbers. The industry continues to mount its usual personal assaults on those who prove that. But the killing power of radiation has been known since "mountain sickness"---lung cancer---began surfacing among Czech uranium miners in the 1500s. The continuum is unbroken through the introduction of x-rays, the work of the Curies, radium watch dial painting, definitive links to childhood leukemia, and more. The Hiroshima-based "science" used to establish a "safe" dose of radiation has been thoroughly debunked. The medical consensus that there is no such thing is quite firm.
- The nuclear industry never accepted the burden of proving this technology to be safe before being deployed amidst a civilian population. For a half-century reactor backers have done a superb job of simply refusing to maintain or study reliable epidemiological data bases around commercial reactors (as well as weapons production facilities). But as early as 1970 the chief medical officer of the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr. John Gofman, branded commercial atomic power as a form of "premeditated mass murder."
- The largest study so far of the health impacts of Chernobyl, conducted by three Russian scientists, indicates upwards of a million casualties over the past quarter-century. That first study of the US health impacts from Fukushima, indicates that many thousands more deaths are likely to be suffered in the US above what's already apparent.
Does all this add up to the end of nuke power?
Worldwide, the industry is crumbling. The collapse of its private investment base, and the shutdowns in Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Mexico, Israel and elsewhere are rapidly shrinking the technology's credible reach.
In the US, we can cut off all subsidies for new reactors, and shut down the old ones in Vermont, New York, Ohio and wherever else they sit. Fierce no nukes campaigns in the UK, India and even China, as massive demonstrations there are starting to erupt. None of these fights will be easy, but all are winnable, especially as the full impacts of Fukushima become known, and as the Solartopian green power revolution renders the nuclear option increasingly uneconomic.
The movement to shut the old reactors is hitting critical mass. The Vermont Yankee case will go to the US Supreme Court, which must decide if corporations are above even the contracts they sign with the public. Some two dozen Fukushima clones now operate in the US. They are old, rickety, cracked and dangerous. Other designs, like Ohio''s Davis-Besse, with a cracked containment and an infamous hole eaten through its head, aren't faring much better. Nebraska's Cooper has been flooded. Indian Point, New York, is also under attack from the state. Once the first of these are forced shut, the dam will break and the American fleet of 104 licensed reactors will rapidly shrink, along with others around the world.
Far more money is being invested in renewables worldwide than in nukes or even fossil fuels. Green energy will soon constitute the world's largest industry, financially and in terms of employment. The conversion to a post-fossil/nuclear Solartopian economy based entirely on renewables and efficiency will mark the most important industrial transition in human history.
Fukushima has taught us that as long as reactors operate, the apocalyptic clock is ticking.
With that in mind, and with the flow of green money turning into a financial tsunami, we can make 2012 the year nuke power finally dies.
It will require a serious push from the grassroots.
But we are ready to win a green-powered earth.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
118 Comments so far
Show AllHarvey,
When are you going to start opposing coal and shale-gas electric power with the degree of fervor you reserve for nuclear?
You beat me to it ~PJ~... We have to close all of them down, both coal fired and nuckear... Actually coal should be the first priority, but not build one more nuker, ever.
The coal fiired first because global warming is soon going to a runaway and irreversible catastrophic disaster unless we reduce Co2 emissions world wide by at least 50% very soon.... Replacing all coal fired power plants with clean energy will do that and that may also save our oceans from being destroyed at the same time.
Harvey,
Your opening 'hook" for this piece: "...news that Fukushima's radioactive cloud may already have killed some 14,000 Americans" has been debunked and called "Voodoo Science" by an editor at the Scientific American. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/20/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-Fukushima-death-study/
Better look for something more credible next time. I don't trust anything else that you wrote.
Hello to the nuclear industry's low-paid boiler room bloggers.
My question of the month is, it's been nine months since Fukushima went bang, bang and bang. Have there been reports of miscarriages and mutations in the prefecture's hospitals?
Is Japanese society so closed that no family in Japan would want this information to go public? Even now, many Japanese won't marry a person from the Hiroshima area, for fear that they carry multigenerational mutations from 1945.
No reports of such in the Fukushima prefecture of which I am aware. But a discussion of the same report that Harvey Wasserman pointed to, on MedPage Today, gave this analysis:
"On the contrary, any link between the deaths and the radiation released by the reactors is "very, very unlikely" simply because the levels are low, according to Richard Morin, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
Morin told MedPage Today that such an acute effect would be unlikely, unless radiation levels were four or five orders of magnitude higher than those reported by Mangano and Sherman, and the whole body of the victim was exposed.
Typically, he said, the effect of low-level ionizing radiation doesn't appear until years after the exposure.
Morin, who is chair of the American College of Radiology's safety committee, said an earlier public report by the authors on the same issue -- preceding the journal article -- "has not been taken seriously by the scientific community."
He added it's important to remember that "association doesn't imply causation."
While exposures were much higher in the Fukushima prefecture than in the U.S., they were no where near 4 or 5 orders of magnitude higher. Miscarriages don't occur until 10 rems or more acute radiation doses are experienced and nothing like that happened downwind from the plants before people were evacuated. Mutational effects cannot be studied this soon and the numbers of exposed individuals is too small to make it likely there will be any statistically detectable increases. That is not to say no mutations occured, but not so many as to be detectable by scientific methods.
Harvey Wasserman is a bit too optimistic, as major state players like France & the Czech Republic are still going all-in on nukes. Unless the bureaucrats and government decision makers across the planet who drink the nuke Kool Aide are removed from positions of power and influence, there is still a very long way to go to get rid of nukes.
Nuke energee is an imperialist tool, first and foremost. If someone wants to use nuke energee to benefit the people, let him first ensure that such a tool cannot be abused for imperial aims. I guess this strategy is hard to oppose. We on the far left see that some strategies may be formulated which are hard to oppose. This realization would suggest that the arm of the people is stronger than one might otherwise be led to believe. Strong enough perhaps to finally and permanently sever the backbone of the imperial juggernaut.
This is what ~RFinston~ posted on a very recent Fukushima thread.... Quote,,, > ("you are evidentally unaware that we inhale natural radioactive isotopes every second of our lives: carbon-14 and the radioactive alpha particle-emitters from the decay of natural radon gas. In foods we ingest natural radioactivity such as potassium-40 which behaves virtually identically to 'deadly' cesium... There is no difference,"). End Finstons's incredible quote.
RFinston and his sidekick ~John Lannetta~ say the radiation of cesium 137 and Pu-239 are not really very dangerous, that inhalng such poisons is not any worse than the radiaton we receive from cosmic rays every second and eating bannanas, etc.
That of course is as stupid an opinion and commentss as stupid could possibley be... Potassium-40 is radioactive and our bodies are loaded with it. It is also in food, such as lima beans, bannanas and Brazil nuts, etc... Potassium-40 is a vital element for our bodies good health.
However; our immune systems take care of that type of natural radiation if our immune systems are in good health,,, but our immune systems do not take care of the deadly radiation of injested or inhaled radioactive isoptopes of cesium 137, plutonium and other man made poisons which often are emitted into the environment from nuclerr reactors.
The radioactive isotopes of different poisons which have been released from Fukushima will kill many millions with cancer over the years and any who have the false belief that another Fukushima type of meltdown won't happen again, someplace at sometime are delusional.
There have been three severe earthquakes during just the past week, one in Siberia, one off the southern coast of Japan and one near New Zealand... There are 22 nuclear reacotrs located vvery near dangerous earthquake fault lines or some are built right on top of them here in the United States.
20% of all nuclear power plants in the world are very near or built on earthquake fault lines... It was the earthquake which caused the disaster at Fukushima, not the tsunami... We cannot prevent earthquakes, but we can prevent building nuclear power plants whch are not needed... We have ample sun, geothermal, hydro and tidal energy to supply all of our electrical energy needs. .
Wayne,WR: Please let me speak for myself, and don't put words in my comments such as:
"RFinston and his sidekick ~John Lannetta~ say the radiation of cesium 137 and Pu-239 are not really very dangerous, that inhalng such poisons is not any worse than the radiaton we receive from cosmic rays every second and eating bannanas, etc"
Nothing of the sort have I ever written and your attempt to discredit me is WR...wontonly ridiculous.
Your attempted differentiation between natural and man-made radioactivity has absolutely no basis in theory or epidemiological research. No scientist has ever claimed or shown that a cell in the body can distinguish a photon, electron, alpha particle, etc. as coming from a natural or from a man-made source. The only relevant issue is how much of any such radiation is experienced by the cell. Everything else that follows from your ridiculous concept is thus fallacious. Your scare-mongering is worse than useless.
WayneWR wrote:
'...Potassium-40 is radioactive and our bodies are loaded with it. It is also in food, such as lima beans, bannanas and Brazil nuts, etc... Potassium-40 is a vital element for our bodies good health....'
Just for the record, only 120 out of each million potassium atoms in the body is a potassium-40 atom.
'However; our immune systems take care of that type of natural radiation if our immune systems are in good health,,, but our immune systems do not take care of the deadly radiation of injested or inhaled radioactive isoptopes of cesium 137, plutonium and other man made poisons which often are emitted into the environment from nuclerr reactors. '
Both cesium-137 and potassium-40 emit beta particles when they decay. The ONLY difference between the Cs-137 beta and the K-40 beta is that the maximum energy of the former is 1.18 Mev, and the maximum energy of the latter is 1.33 Mev.
Energy is what causes cell damage; that's why dose is expressed in units of energy per unit mass.
John
~Lannetta~,,, you and Finston really should get with the citizens of Japan and their government officials and let then know that there was no reason to have evacuated 100,000+ people from their towns and farms.
What you wrote about potassium is accurate but I do believe you ignore that potassium-40 has a very very long half life and the radiation hazard of it is not anything at all as dangerous, if at all, as cesium 137 or Pu which is in a person's blood stream.
You also ignore the fact that our immune systems are capable of taking care of natural radiation, but don't do at all well with human created rdioactive isotopes.
http://www.rerowland.com/K40.html
From the article... > ("Potassium is a radioactive element, identified by the chemical symbol K. Yet, this radioactive element is vital for our good health. It is an element that is essential for the body's growth and maintenance."). End article quote... .... Cesium 137 or Pu however are not vital for our good health.
From the article.. > ("Every person on earth carries essentially the same amount of potassium in their body, and always has... Since body potassium is not considered to be a threat to mankind, ___ (*this must indicate that the body's repair processes are able to handle the potentially malignant changes produced*) ___ by the radiation emitted (*by potassium*).
Further, the radiation emitted by K40, beta rays and gamma rays is no different than the beta rays and gamma rays emitted by other radioactive sources, which (*might suggest*) that any such radiation, at a similar intensity, would not produce visible damage. End article's quotes. ... They are speaking of natural radioactive elements.
Again Lannetta, you are saying as Finston does, that injested cesiumor 137 or Pu is not a serious health hazard... I disagee,,, and not respectfully,,, but with appropriate scorn and disgust.
Neither of us said, "that injested cesiumor 137 or Pu is not a serious health hazard...". We have stated that all radioactivity, both natural and man-made, is a potential hazard, depending upon the amounts involved. And the sentence, "... the radiation emitted by K40, beta rays and gamma rays is no different than the beta rays and gamma rays emitted by other radioactive sources" appears to be exactly what we have said. Thank you.
Well Finston, is clearly obvious that you overlooked the important word in that paragraph,,, the word (*might*).
The article is primarily about natural radioactive radiation .
And again Finston,,, you claim that you are fully aware that a single isotope of cesium 137 or Pu will not radiate internal body cells and cause them to become cancerous.. But you still after nine months of arguing your assertioons, you refuse to post a link for a credible article to back up your claim.
You ignored my recent posting that one ionizing particle, compared to the 6,000 per second that natural radiation hits us with, and the fact that natural radiation is a minor contributor to cancer according to the radiation biologists, is all one needs to say on this point. It is obviously unlikely when you know what is going on every second of life, that one atom of cesium-137 has no chance of causing cancer. Add to that the standard model of cancer induction as a multi-step process and you can see why your 'single bullet' model is crackpot science. It may scare gullible people but it doesn't hold water.
Wait Just a Minute Here! Didn't last month RE: another article on Fukushima here @ Common Dreams, several guys [I don't remember if RFinston was one] claim that we were over exaggerating the potential risk of not just minimal External Exposure to radiation, but even for INGESTION of TOXIC Radioactive substances? INCLUDING Inhaling fine particles of Plutonium &/or Uranium?!! They claimed that the body can ALWAYS get rid of ALL ingested / inhaled radioactivity with in 2 -3 months!
Nixakliel wrote:
'Wait Just a Minute Here! Didn't last month RE: another article on Fukushima here @ Common Dreams, several guys [I don't remember if RFinston was one] claim that we were over exaggerating the potential risk of not just minimal External Exposure to radiation, but even for INGESTION of TOXIC Radioactive substances? INCLUDING Inhaling fine particles of Plutonium &/or Uranium?!! They claimed that the body can ALWAYS get rid of ALL ingested / inhaled radioactivity with in 2 -3 months!'
It's all in the numbers. Every adult on Earth has ingested/inhaled SOME uranium or plutonium. We all inhale radiactive radon all the time. No estimation of health hazard can be made without answering the question, "How much radioactivity?"
The definition of "half-life" (whether physical or biological) implies exponential decay. That means that the body is NEVER completely rid of the isotope. Although the biological half-life of cesium is about 70 days, that of lead or strontium is measured in decades.
John
WayneWR wrote:
'What you wrote about potassium is accurate but I do believe you ignore that potassium-40 has a very very long half life and the radiation hazard of it is not anything at all as dangerous, if at all, as cesium 137 or Pu which is in a person's blood stream.'
It's all in the numbers. K-40 emits a more energetic beta particle than does Cs-137. If equal numbers of such particles are emitted from the bloodstream by ANY radioisotope, the more energetic particle is more likely to produce cell damage.
The only relevance to half-life is that it determines the mass of the isotope required to produce a given beta emission rate.
'You also ignore the fact that our immune systems are capable of taking care of natural radiation, but don't do at all well with human created rdioactive isotopes.'
The source of the radiation is completely irrelevant. I believe that K-39 (the most common and stable isotope of potassium) can be neutron-activated to produce K-40.
Do you really feel that the body cares whether the K-40 in the body is natural or man-made?
'Again Lannetta, you are saying as Finston does, that injested cesiumor 137 or Pu is not a serious health hazard... I disagee,,,'
And again, it's all in the numbers. We all have SOME Pu-239 and Cs-137 in our bodies (along with radioactive radium, thorium, uranium, rubidium, carbon, lead, polonium and hydrogen). The degree of health hazard depends on the amount. And it makes no never mind whether the lead (for example) is primordial (natural) or man-made.
John
I finally understand ~Johnny~... The human created radioactive isotopes of cesium,, Pu,, etc,, which are emitted from a nuclear reactors are nothing to be concerned about the doses prescribed by our EPA and the Japanese government are perfectly safe. and that is why you and Finston post your comments here to advise us and the idiot ~Harvey~ of how it really is.
A very large number of cesium or Pu isotopes in the body is harmful,,, but only a few or just one won't hurt.... In other words,, a single isotope of cesim 137 in the body won't radiate body cells and cause them to become cancerous... Got it.
Further reply to commend you two radiation experts is posted at end of the comments... Thank you so much for all of your valuable information, I'm sadly impressed.
You lie Finston,, as usual... The quote of yours' which I posted is cut and pasted, word for word from one of your recent posted comments.
Here is another one from that same posted comment of yours',,, quote > (" We certainly agree that a trillion 'isotopes' of cesium-137 is different from a single atom... But there is virturally no chance of those trillion atoms causing cancer in the first place."). End Finstons' lying quote.
I have posted nothing to (put any words in your mouth) Finston... Everything I wrote is accurate... You are not ignorant, you know the truth, but you are a liar and all you have ever posted here at CD is on nucler threads and you tell everyone that nuclear power is not dangerous and cesium, Pu, etc are not any reason to worry about such poisons to cause cancer, even if a person had inhaled a trillion of deadly cesium 137 isotopes. One is enough, every isotope of cesium 137 is identical and every single one can cause cancer once it enters a person's blood stream.
And yet Finston, you have claimed many times that you do not favor nuclear power... Bullshit! ... You have to be the stupidest lying shill the nuclear industry has ever hired, second only to John Lannetta.
And btw,, it is quite proper to term the microscopic sized (isotopes) of cesium or Pu,,, as "isotopes".
Now it is "quoting out of context" that you are pursuing, WR. The reason I wrote what you quoted is that if one by chance inhaled or ingested a trillion atoms of Cesium-137, for so long as all remained in the body, less than one thousand of those atoms would decay each second (emit an ionizing particle). In contrast, natural radiation causes many thousands of such particles each second to be experienced by the body. It is known that natural radiation is a minor contributor to cancer induction, so an amount of Cesium-137 consisting of a trillion atoms would be tens of times less hazardous than natural radiation sources. Further yet, those trillions of atoms would be excreted from the body with a biological half-time of 70 days. Thus the vast majority would leave the body in the same state they arrived, still as Cesium-137 and without having emitted any ionizing radiation.
Your subsequent idea that the emission from one atom of Cesium-137 can cause cancer (the 'bullet' model you offered here at CD) is also ridiculous and without any basis in the science of cancer induction.
You are raving again, like you always do. Keep trying, but it won't wash with the smart folks who read Common Dreams. I oppose nuclear power, but your scare-mongering is a discredit to our movement trying to phase-out nuclear power.
But you stated you never said (any such thing), which is a lie ,,, It is not out of context ,, the words I posted were (your) words, whatever the reason you chose to write them.
.
If anyone isinterested, here is the very recent Common Dreams article which Finston and Lannetta posted numerous similar comments on __ Thursday, December 29, 2011. __ Titled,,, “US Nuclear Renaissance Unlikely after Japan's Fukushima Disaster”.
Here is a real beauty Posted by RFinston ,,, Jan 1 2012 - 9:52pm… A word for word cut an pasted quote in reply to me… >>> (" If it were true everyone would develop lethal cancer because between natural radioactivty in our bodies and (cosmic rays from outer space) we are beirg 'shot' with ionizing rays thousands of times each and every second of our lives. One extra 'isotope' of 'deadly' Cesium (or Plutonium) in the body, which gives off its single ionizing particle when it chooses to decay (on the average after about 43 years), would have absolutely no effect on the over all risk of cancer from radiation.”)... End Finstons’ quote, one which John Lannetta defended.
So incredible.... Finston says cesium 137 in a person’s body will not begin to decay until AFTER 43 years on average…. Cesium 137 isotopes begin to decay as soon as they are produced in a nuclear reactor… They are deadly poisons as soon as they are produced.
When injested or inhaled any released radioactive isotopes produced in a nuclear reactor which enter a person’s blood stream can cause cancers to develop. Any single one of them.
Did I see the words "cosmic rays from outer space" written by Finston? __ Yes I did... But Finston never said any such thing... Uh-huh,,, if he did it was out of context,,, out of his mind is much more apt
This is tedious, WR, we have re-hashed this one many times. Give it up. No one wants to go through your tired efforts to discredit and demean me. Stick to the topic at hand, please: Harvey Wasserman's citation that 14,000 Americans may already be dead due to Fukushima. That opinion piece is supposed to be the subject of comments, not old news items that have been beaten to death. I thought it unfortunate that he used that as his "hook" to get our attention for his overall purpose, with which I agree. In that respect, his promoting Voodoo Science reminds me too much of you.
Left out of Wasserman's account is the critical problem of intermittent generation that is inherent in solar and wind technics.
They generate electricity only when the wind blows or the sun shines, but the grid needs juice at all times, in all conditions. Peak usage often occurs on windless nights!
By itself, this would be a very difficult problem for wind and solar to overcome, since current storage methods are not up to the job.
But there is the additional problem of the poor output-per-generator-unit inherent in wind and solar, and the resultant problem of energy and land-usecost for building giant wind and solar farms.
The bottom line is that -barring fundamental and politically impossible changes in the grid and the production-consumption (of everything, not just electricity) cycle- wind and solar need some sort of (more) on-demand system of electricalgeneration to back them up, and that that almost for sure means a thermal generator (outside of hydropower zones).
That pretty much means three broad options:
1) Biomass
2) Fossil Fuels
3) Nuclear Fission
Of course, Biomass could well fill the gap by itself for the right society. But others may not have enough burnable biomass to sustain the system and produce the demanded electricity. At that point, it may be possible to drastically alter the demand profile and make the fully renewable system run on forever, no nukes.
But this might be a long shot for a society at any level of energy usage commiserate with the socially desired technical capability.
Thus, Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Fission come into play.
So, without taking any "side", I hope I have presented the conundrum that Wasserman appears to want us to forget:
Fossil Fuels (coal and methane gas) and Nuclear Fission are going to be needed to solve the inherent problem of intermittent generation in solar and wind systems -at least until a MAJOR retooling for Biomassis complete, and perhaps even then.
Given this, why are we constantly limiting our conversation to the very unrealistic and likely impossible fight for near-term elimination of coal and nuke generation plants!?!?
Why do people like Wasserman never seem to mention mandates for -vastly safer and cleaner- Thorium-cycle fission reactors and carbon capture and other pollution elimination/reduction systems -none of which are anything not already on hundreds of chemical plants where they were required by regulations, BTW- for existing and new coal burning plants?
Sure one is a mostly new, partially-tested technic, and the other would increase the price of coal-generated electricity.
But that first is not anthing that al kinds of renewable systems don't also face, and the latter is a VERY GOOD THING.
In short (too late) what is the goal here, to create a sustainable society, or to force a "powerdown" ASAP, no matter the harm?
Nuclear Fission Electric Generators DO HAVE a role in creating a sustainable society!
If not long-term with Thorium, then short-term (from now till shut-down of current reactors)as a bridge to full renewables.
(To be clear, that last parenthentical aside above was meant to indicate that I am against the building of any new Fission Generators that are not on a Thorium cycle -or equally address the safety and waste issues some other way- and for the shut-down of all current reactors either on scheadule or faster if it can be done with little harm. This goes similarly for me with coal. I advocate the retrofit of all current plants with pollution control systems and the requirement of such systems on all new plants. If this is too expensive for the power companies, they can go bankrupt and be reoorganized. The coal companies can live with it too -and in fact, should have no reason to worry about it since a sensible energy policy should also include a flex-fuel mandate for cars which would give them a new market, but that's another subject.)
The intermittent nature of solar & wind power can be over come by several methods that you failed to mention- IE: power integration [using solar, wind, biomass and other forms that you've ignored- In COMBO] & storage [hi-efficiency- long lasting batteries, hi-efficiency electrolysis, etc] plus greater power conservation & efficiency [also seldom mentioned is the fact the lighting, cooking & heating- especially water-heating - can be done DIRECTLY from Solar Energy without needing to first convert it to electricity], & grid up-grades & more Grid InDependence! In fact greater power efficiency & less wastefulness [IE: more energy efficient vehicles & bldgs, & a real commitment to public transport & hi-speed rail] must be a major component because we won't soon likely to be able to wean completely off of oil & methane [Note: I'm not against clean burning methane in principal {IE: bio-gas} but I'm most definitely very wary of the dangers gas shale fracking's poses to the water supply]. And you failed to even mention tidal & geo-thermal power generation [both are quite clean, energy dense & continuous], let alone fusion power [either hot or cold]. The things that must be phased out ASAP are DIRTY/Filthy Coal & Not So Clean-but-potentially Catastrophic fission nuke reactors- plus deep-sea oil drilling & most definitely oil-tar sands should be a NONE Starter!
You mentioned thorium reactors - which May Sound Good in THEORY -BUT- most, if not all, current investments in fission nuke power focus on the same old BWR & PWR Reactors [ala 3Mile Island & Fukushima]. Thus the US Gov't, EU, IAEA, etc - are seemingly UN-Committed to thorium reactors, for what ever reason! Therefore I feel justified to just X-OUT Fission nuke power completely - & that effort & resources can be better used to step-up break-thru on a variety clean(er) renewable energy & Fusion Power [hot or better still Cold]- which should not only be much safer, but would make the radioactive waste problem RE: fission nuke reactors far more manageable, & all but eliminate the very real Nuke Proliferation Issues RE: fission nuke reactors.
Finston wrote,,, quote,, > ("Harvey Wasserman's citation that 14,000 Americans may already be dead due to Fukushima. That opinion piece is supposed to be the subject of comments,").. End Finston's quote.
Hmmm, Looks like Finston didn't read Wasseran's entire article... Harvey Wasserman wrote about18 other excellent reasons why nuclear power is all wrong, all of those reasons are the subject matter of this thread, not just one paragraph.
The reason I brought up Finston's stupidity is because of what he chose to write, that because Wasserman's cited a study of several highly qualified scientists which states 14,000 Americans may have already died because of Fukushima, the rest of what Wasserman wrote is not credible.
What is not credible is RFinston's nine months of steady comments on every Fukushima or nuclear power article, that the released radiation from melted down nuclear plants is not going to cause more than a very few people, if any, in the world to develop cancer or die because of nuclear accidents,,,, which is hogwash and lying and writing anything at all, no matter how stupid it may be, in attempts to prove his lies that there is very little radiation danger from nuclear power plants.
The several deadly radioactive poisons created by splitting atoms in nuclear reactors have beem well established as cancer causing agents, they are not at all the same as cosmic rays, or potassium-40 or other natural radioactive elements as Finston insists they are.
Oxygen for example is radioactive... Our well developed immune systems take care of natural radiation, they do not always take care of inhaled Pu or cesium 137... Those deadly radioactive isotopes cause cancers to develop, especially so in young children... So I reply to Finston in the off chance someone may believe his nonsense and I offer the flip side to his warped coin.
Wayne,WR you are so ill-informed that it is laughable. You said "Oxygen for example is radioactive... "
The natural isotopes of oxygen are all stable, none are radioactive. Those that have been created experimentally by bombardment in nuclear research accelerators are so unstable that none of them produce any environmental hazard. The longest half-life of any of those isotopes is 2 minutes...long gone before they even go "over the fence", much less expose the public, they are stable
It is well known that the naturally-occuring heavy elements are cancer-causing, and we all breathe those to varying degrees. Underground miners experience elevated levels of exposure. But their "immune systems" don't take care of them as you would have us believe because they show high rates of lung cancer.
Your belief in deadly nuclear power radioistopes and benign natural radioisotopes is "crackpot science".
Shall we get back to the details of Harvey Wasserman's opinion piece? I would be glad to critique it with you. My first point is that he started with "voodoo science". That is not the way to build a persuasive case against nuclear plants.
RFinston,,, you wrote,,, > ("The natural isotopes of oxygen are all stable, none are radioactive"). End quote.
There are three stable isotopes of oxygen that lead to oxygen (O) having a standard atomic mass of 15.9994(3) u...... However; 17 radioactive isotopes of oxygen have also been characterized, with mass numbers from 12O to 28O, all are short-lived,
Oxygen can be radioactive... I wrote even oxygen is raioactive and it is. I did not go into specifics.
I wrote that Finston, to make fun of your comments,,,, that you wrote we are bombarded every second with radioactivity from natural elements, food we eat and cosmic rays from outer space, etc.
You wrote those things to (*prove your false agenda*) and downplay the danger of radioactive isotopes of deadly poisons which are emitted from nuclear power plants.
You state the natural radioactive "atoms" we are exposed to every second, are (*no different*) than internal cesium 137 or Plutoonium isotopes a person has in their body... And you know that is not true,,, but you wrote it anyway... There is no comparrison to natural radioactive elements to cesium 137 and plutonium which a person has injested or inhaled and can cause cancer to develop.
Most all children and most all adults in the world for that matter do not do underground mining... Your strawman arguments are typical Finston.
Indeed, our immune systems do protect us from natural radiation or probably none of us would be here... And most all miners do not suffer from lung cancer, especially due to radioactivity.
Fukushima was a terrible man-made, nature assisted disaster. Man made by the construction and then excessive longevity of the reactors combined with an inadequate approach to back up cooling systems. Nature assisted by a 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami.
My major issue with the whole situation is the post accident news black-out and cover up.
EPA announced glitches in their rad monitors late March, and quit disseminating radiation measurements. So did the Canadian gov at the same time....cover-up. Corporate owned mainstream media has barely touched the Fukushima radiation story....successful info black-out. Power company shills and spokespersons have downplayed any danger by ALWAYS finishing the few reactor leak stories with "no immediate harmful effects" from various power plants around the world......blatant BS.
We have had tons of "denial" smoke blown up our collective asses regarding all the becquerels, pico curies and rems of the over 140 radionuclides spewing from Fuku continuously.
If nuclear truth leaked half as much as nuclear reactors, they would be shut down tomorrow and there would never be another one built.
Poor Daddy,
A most excellent post, and so true. In my research of the Mark I containment design, the original engineers resigned in protest since they knew the backup systems were unreliable since to force backup cooling into a stricken reactor requires that the wet well or other source of coolant be at a higher pressure than the core inside the SS RPV. Now, these smaller backup designs functioned OK on mobile Navy Nuke ships before they scaled them up, but as often happens in engineering, Management and Government don't listen to the people who designed them.
All these Frankenplants must be shutdown as fast as possible and the thousands of dangerous fuel rods parked over them removed to dry cask storage. 23 Mark Containment designs, just like fukushima are still ticking away in the U.S. None of them have had their electric vent valves modified to work on batteries!
AFAIK. All my posts are just my opinions only and I could be wrong about everything. Corrections invited.
Thanks Harvey for you tireless good work, and another fine article.
TJ
Here's an update on the situation at Fukushima that you won't hear on the Main Stream Media (MSM). The Triple Melt Down is hanging by a thread. It appears to me, the only "contaiment" the Japanese government is referring to is a lake of water pumped on top of each blob; then that water leaks into the Pacific.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpV2DA3IFn4
Thank you for that update ~TJ~
This link may be of interest also.
Daily Kos: Worst-Case Scenario For Nuclear Spent Fuel Rod Disaster...
From that article,,, ("A single spent fuel pond holds more cesium-137 than was deposited by ALL atmospheric nuclear explosions.")
Btw, a few days ago, there was a magnitude 7+ quake just off of southern Japan about 120 miles... If one hits near Fukushima again before they get those spent fuel rod tanks contanned, look out!! __ (:>(
This URL doesn't appear to be correct as it comes up faulty when I tried.
RFinston:
Please try this:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/30/971665/-Worst-Case-Scenario-For-Nuclear-Spent-Fuel-Ro
John
That URL doesn't work, but I did read the article earlier today, I believe your URL needs to have added: "d-disaster-detailed-in-NRC-report"
Who asked you to open the link? You already know it all... I was talking to ~TJ~. It opens fine for me, that's how I found it.
Anyway; as you and Lannetta have so well proven here, cesium 137 isn't harmful for us so there is no need to worry about it. .
You aren't shown to be involved in this thread you fool! I asked TJ to try again with the link that he had posted, not you. Please mind your own business.
Oh, you sound angry Finey... Hey, Finston, I posted a link and your posted comment that the link won't open, was posted directly below my post and you didn't say who's link didn't open for you.
In addition; you obnoxious loud mouthed lying twerp, I could no longer edit my comment,, which means someone had replied to my post and it apparently was you. If you are going to replay to someone, it is adviseable to say whom it is you are replying to,,, to prevent such horrible misunderstandings which will set you off.
And thank you once again for the "fool" award, I like that Raving Fool nick-name you bestowed upon me last week.
~RF~,,, the Raving Fool.
WR, You would do well to set your 'option' to "Theaded List - expanded" rather than "Flst List-expanded" which is why you erred in thinking I was responding to you rather than TJ. The time of posting is irrelevant, rather which thread it is directed to. If you did that you would know to whom the comment was made.
Me angry??? "... you obnoxious loud mouthed lying twerp..." sure doesn't sound calm to me.
Regards,
"sonny"
Why don't you two get a room?
Ha Haa Haa, good one DK.
You giving me advice on what I should do Finston... LOL... You would do well to stop your lying an deceit Finston.
You claim you were replying to TJ, that his link won't open.. You lied., you flat out lied... You are a very sick person.
When you stated my link won't open, as normal.. Lannetta posted this for you and said to try it... > (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/30/971665/-Worst-Case-Scenario-For-Nuclear-Spent-Fuel-Ro').... That was almost like MY link, Lannetta posted, not TJ's... The link I posted is,,,, > (Daily Kos: Worst-Case Scenario For Nuclear Spent Fuel Rod Disaster).
You are truly sick, WR. The link TJ posted and which I asked him about was not the one that you and John Lanetta posted. Go look it up on the earlier thread. Yet there you go again calling me a liar. It appears that you are totally commited to misquoting, taking out of context, etc. and then claiming that I lie. You must not like what I bring to the table very much or you wouldn't bend over backward this way.
You honestly should seek help Finston.. That was the first time TJ had ever posted that link,, a "new" update... number 1.
You replied to me with this comment,, >("You aren't shown to be involved in this thread you fool! ____ (*I asked TJ to try again*) with the link that he had posted, not you. Please mind your own business.").
You never asked TJ anything... Numer 2.
Lannetta then gave you a modified version of the link I had posted and you replied to Lannetta that you had managed to read the article... number 3.
TJ's link was not anything at all like the link or article I posted and Lannetta replied to you about... TJ's is a UTube,, totally different.. number 4..
You lied and you are still lying about a silly, mundane, who cares issue,, and you are caught,,, but that is what you do,,, all of the time,,, lie... And it is so clearly obvious it is pitiful... You need help.
And yes Finston,,, I will tell anyone who cares to listen what you are and what you are doing,, because your first post here was to discredit ~Harvey Wasserman~ and you continue to do that.
This article is informative, eductional and important and it is you who is not credible and I will reply to your crap every time you post your crap.
Btw, you say I'm dating myself.. So? __ I was born in August, 1933.
The fact remains that Harvey's first sentence has been described by an editor at the Scientific American as "Voodoo Science"*. Harvey's second sentence is unsubstantiated and incredible.
"Pops", I apologize for challenging the movement's lead scare-monger, from whom you appear to take your cues..
*http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/20/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-Fukushima-death-study/
I'd like to share a song I wrote wiith anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear. Its about Fukushima cover-up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wvz3yBSEZI
I'm not a musician by anyone's lights, but folks need to hear this stuff. Please excuse my mistakes, voice and occasional crude word. Here are the lyrics:
FUKUSHIMA DREAMIN
On a sunny spring day, Cherry Blossom smell, an earthquake cracked open the bowels of Hell.
A poisonous stew of leaked radiated slime is changing the planet til the end of time.
Google Chernobyl, Three Mile Island. Open your eyes and stop your damn smiling!
You can think what you want, and do what you do. Just pull your head out yer ass, find out what’s killin you.
Chorus
Fukushima! Malignant and warm.
Fukushima! Non-stop dirty bomb.
Fukushima! Ain’t no mystery,
It’s the biggest cover-up in our history.
The Ostrich don’t know, puts his head in the dirt. He can’t see radiation, so he thinks it can’t hurt.
The whole Human race got the Atomic blues, but you won’t ever hear it on the mainstream news.
When your babies get flippers, and harelips and such, it ain’t no big deal, cuz it still don’t hurt much.
Your food will start glowin, your breathin gets slower, but the bottle just can’t hold the Genie no more.
Chorus
Don’t give it a thought when your lymph nodes all swell, and you’re pukin and shittin and weaker than hell.
Ignore bloody noses or a tumor or three, settle back in you shelter, watch your flat screen TV.
American Idol……the New Jersey Shore….Corporations are the pimps, and we’re all dyin whores.
Just remember while you’re payin your radiation dues, they never even warned you on the evening news.
Chorus
OUTSTANDING!!
http://www.nbc-med.org/SiteContent/MedRef/OnlineRef/CaseStudies/csgoiania.html
From the article,,, > (“Cesium invades the body quickly chemically, then it's radiation shuts down the immune system (bone marrow, white blood cells die). Some of the Cesium victims in Brazil died of opportunistic infections such as thrush that could be easily cured if they had any white blood cells left.”)
http://www.globalfaultlines.com/2011/04/ionizing-radiation-radioactive-contamination-some-basics-some-questions-by-k-m-w/
From the article,,, > (“The radioactive isotopes “concentrate in different organs. Cesium concentrates in muscle, strontium (like calcium) in bones, [and] iodine in the thyroid (link–3a).” Lodged inside us their INTERNAL ionizing radiation “rearranges” our DNA which ups the chances of our getting cell damage, cancer, and leukemia and having children with birth defects increases.
Also, since the “particles” can be carried everywhere by the prevailing winds and get deposited everywhere–because the warmth of landmasses and rain/snow bring them down, radioactive contamination becomes a worldwide disaster.”)..End articl’s quotes.
I do not believe "cosmic rays" from outer space, eating bannanas and lima beans are the same danger as inhaled cesum 137.
And Chiquita Bannana sang,,, "When they are flecked with brown and have a golden hue,,,, bannanas taste the best and are the best for you,,, you cn put the in a salad, cha-cha-cha,,, you can put them in a pie,eye,,, any way you want to eat them,,, it's impossible to beat them,,, but bannanas have the flavor of a very, very tropical equator,,, so never ever put bananassss,, in the refrigerator,, cha-cha-cha da-da- da.... I didn't write that one
May I inquire what a report about acute radiation injury resulting from the theft and public dismantlement of a large industrial radioactivity source in Brazil has to do with the Fukushima accident or nuclear power?
As to the second reference, WR, I notice that you chose not to include this line:
"Excretion of the isotopes that get inside us can occur, but we need to know which ones are there and the best ways of dealing with them". Doesn't that put in doubt your firmly-held belief that cesium is 'lodged' permanently?