No to nukes (OpEd, LA Times)

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-nuclear23jul23,0,6924211.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

JAPAN SEES NUCLEAR POWER as a solution to global warming, but it's paying a price. Last week, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake caused dozens of problems at the world's biggest nuclear plant, leading to releases of radioactive elements into the air and ocean and an indefinite shutdown. Government and company officials initially downplayed the incident and stuck to the official line that the country's nuclear plants are earthquake-proof, but they gave way in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Japan has a sordid history of serious nuclear accidents or spills followed by cover-ups.

It isn't alone. The U.S. government allows nuclear plants to operate under a level of secrecy usually reserved for the national security apparatus. Last year, for example, about nine gallons of highly enriched uranium spilled at a processing plant in Tennessee, forming a puddle a few feet from an elevator shaft. Had it dripped into the shaft, it might have formed a critical mass sufficient for a chain reaction, releasing enough radiation to kill or burn workers nearby. A report on the accident from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was hidden from the public, and only came to light because one of the commissioners wrote a memo on it that became part of the public record.

The dream that nuclear power would turn atomic fission into a force for good rather than destruction unraveled with the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979 and the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. No U.S. utility has ordered a new nuclear plant since 1978 (that order was later canceled), and until recently it seemed none ever would. But rising natural gas prices and worries about global warming have put the nuclear industry back on track. Many respected academics and environmentalists argue that nuclear power must be part of any solution to climate change because nuclear power plants don't release greenhouse gases.

They make a weak case. The enormous cost of building nuclear plants, the reluctance of investors to fund them, community opposition and an endless controversy over what to do with the waste ensure that ramping up the nuclear infrastructure will be a slow process — far too slow to make a difference on global warming. That's just as well, because nuclear power is extremely risky. What's more, there are cleaner, cheaper, faster alternatives that come with none of the risks.

<more>

"Last year, for example, about nine gallons of highly enriched uranium spilled at a processing plant in Tennessee, forming a puddle a few feet from an elevator shaft. Had it dripped into the shaft, it might have formed a critical mass sufficient for a chain reaction, releasing enough radiation to kill or burn workers nearby."

Highly enriched uranium is not a liquid. It's a metal. It can't drip. It's not measured in gallons. If you can't get that kind of basic fact right, your entire argument is suspect.

And I'll take this opportunity to remind everyone that nuclear power has never killed a single human being in the US. The only radiation fatalities we've had are derivative from nuclear weapons testing and manufacture, which is a whole different thing.

"The dream that nuclear power would turn atomic fission into a force for good rather than destruction unraveled with the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979 and the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986."

So one major accident, caused by a grossly flawed plant design being used in a knowingly dangerous test, which deliberately circumvented the safety protocols, is applicable to all times and places? Good to know that if a wind turbine ever falls over and kills someone, it means that all wind power everywhere is unsafe.

"No U.S. utility has ordered a new nuclear plant since 1978"

Because a handful of people made it their life's work to convince the public that if nuclear plants were built it would mean the end of the world. Meanwhile, 60,000 tons of radioactive material are pumped into the air every year, not from nuclear plants, but from coal.

"Many respected academics and environmentalists argue that nuclear power must be part of any solution to climate change because nuclear power plants don't release greenhouse gases."

And they're right.

"The enormous cost of building nuclear plants, the reluctance of investors to fund them, community opposition and an endless controversy over what to do with the waste ensure that ramping up the nuclear infrastructure will be a slow process — far too slow to make a difference on global warming."

If you'd rather not be energy independent in fifteen years or so, that's your choice. Go ahead and keep staging your demonstrations, and keep letting your leaders take the checks--knowingly or not--from the coal industry and the Saudis. Were it not for the paranoia of a handful of grossly unscientific activists running scare tactics on the public, we would probably be energy independent TODAY.

"What's more, there are cleaner, cheaper, faster alternatives that come with none of the risks."

Actually, no, there aren't. There are things that people pretend are alternatives, but none of them can actually produce more than a few percent of our power needs. Feel free to prove me wrong with actual math: you won't be able to. The only other form of green power that can rival a nuclear reactor in terms of continuous gigawatt-level output is a large hydroelectric dam. Hydro plants are great, but there are only so many places where we can build them.

major review of the risks of radiation links nuclear pollution with increased rates of breast cancer and child leukaemia:
http://www.epha.org/a/710

Scientist links cancer to Texas nuclear power plant www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2001/nn11105.htm

Cancer risk around the nuclear power plants of Trillo and Zorita (Spain) , Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2003;60:521-527
A Silva-Mato1, D Viana1, M I Fernández-SanMartín1, J Cobos2 and M Viana1
Results: In the extreme areas in the vicinity of Trillo, an OR of 1.71 was obtained (95% CI 1.15 to 2.53), increasing in magnitude in the subgroup of more radioinducible tumours and in the period considered as post-latency (1997–99). Risk increased linearly with proximity to the two plants, significantly in Trillo (p < 0.01) but not in Zorita (p = 0.19).
Conclusions: There is an association between proximity of residence to Trillo and cancer risk

Oyster Creek nuclear power plant link to childhood cancer
new study, based on the work of Joseph J. Mangano of the Radiation and Public Health Project and Tooth Fairy Project, shows a link between childhood cancer and the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant. According to Mangano, the study shows the strongest link between routine releases of low-level radiation and the presence of the deadly disease in children younger than 10 years old. http://www.thecancerblog.com/2006/03/29/oyster-creek-nuclear-power-plant-link-to-childhood-cancer/

"Survey Finds Remarkable Cancer Cluster Near Nuclear Power Station: Cancer in women younger than 50 is more than 15 times UK national average." See:
Cancer near Trawsfynydd - New report shows risks doubled with 15-fold risks in women under 50 http://www.llrc.org/trawsrept.pdf
Atlanta Journal Constitution, USA - Jul 5, 2007
By MARGARET NEWKIRK Cancer death rates for children and teens up 58 percent in the region around Georgia Power's Plant Vogtle since the nuclear facility went on line
www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2007/07/05/0706biznuke.html

One: If you read that AJC article, you'll note that the entire point of the article was that the report that made those claims was debunked almost instantly, because it was a load of pseudoscientific scare-mongering.

Two: The article you linked to on the NV state page is also about a crank scientist whose claims can't even come close to being taken seriously. To give you an idea, in case you didn't bother to read it, he claims that 20 million people have been killed by nuclear plants and nuclear bomb testing. You know what his solution is? Convert all nuclear plants to burn fossil fuels!

The cancer blog you linked to is about the same known kook whose work was debunked in the AJC article.

I'd like to see a comparison of how many "cancer nodes" appear more or less at random and are ignored, compared to how many are touted because they happen around something that people are trying to get rid of. I'd also like to see an analysis of the deaths caused because we refuse to shut down our coal and oil burning power plants. Here's a hint: it's more than Chernobyl, and it's every single year.

Federal regulators looking into NRC policy that kept details from being public

By Andrew Eder (Contact)
Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Federal regulators are reviewing a policy that has kept details on an East Tennessee nuclear facility — including a potentially deadly spill of highly enriched uranium last year — hidden from the public.

Since August 2004, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has designated most correspondence with Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. as “official use only,” which has prevented inspection reports and other materials on the nuclear fuel producer from being publicly released.

That policy kept a March 2006 uranium spill at the company’s Erwin, Tenn., plant out of public view for more than a year, until the incident was disclosed in May in a required annual report to Congress. Local authorities weren’t even informed of the spill.

The disclosure drew attention from a Congressional committee, prompting the NRC to re-examine the “official use only” tag, an administrative designation that allows the commission to withhold sensitive documents without technically classifying them. ~snip~

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/jul/11/erwin-uranium-spill-cloaked-in-secrecy/

Go read Feynman's Manhattan Project memoirs. He saw the workers at one site filling large drums with solutions of enriched U-salts and moving them across the plant. He did a calculation, established the criticality threat, and made sure they never did that exactly the same way again.

The newspaper story could be more carefully worded, but it's clear enough.

CRITICALITY ACCIDENT AT A TOKAI URANIUM CONVERSION FACILITY
http://www.ask.ne.jp/~hankaku/english/tokai-criticality.html

It was reported by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Are they "bullshit" too???

Don't think so...

Report reveals '06 nuke spill

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_5527305,00.html

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission revealed in a new report to Congress that a nuclear chain-reaction accident nearly occurred 14 months ago at a nuclear fuels processing plant in Tennessee.

About 35 liters, or just over 9 gallons, of highly enriched uranium solution spilled March 6, 2006, at the Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. facility in Erwin, about 15 miles south of Johnson City, the NRC said in a report published Friday in the Federal Register.

The solution leaked into a protected glovebox, then flowed onto the floor and into an old elevator pit at the plant, which has been making nuclear fuel for Navy submarines and commercial reactors since 1957.

"Criticality," or a sustained nuclear chain reaction that releases radiation, was possible as the uranium pooled in both the box and the elevator pit, the NRC said.

<more>

"Nobody got hurt. There was no danger to the general public," NRC spokesman David McIntyre said Tuesday. "(But) they were lucky, and we don't like them to be lucky, we like them to be careful."

WHO said that?

... NRC spokesman David McIntyre ...

And WHAT did he say?

"Nobody got hurt. There was no danger to the general public ... they were lucky, and we don't like them to be lucky, we like them to be careful."

As many people got hurt stapling the solar cells they printed out with their inkjets to their roofs. Which is ZERO.

Then again, most people THINK that "critical" means "instant nuclear explosion".

Hollywood wouldn't get an important detail like that wrong, would they?

--p!

Normally I would dismiss this kind of thing. I don't go for attacking the person when it is so much easier and more persuasive to advance the argument. But I am familiar with the owner of the LA Times, and its owner, mega-tycoon Sam Zell. And lots of anti-nuclearists think the Republicans are all about the form of energy (nuclear) they worked so hard to destroy in the 80s.

Zell gives a ton of money to the Republicans.

Look him up on one of the political finance quidnunc sites that track this kind of thing.

Here's one: http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=822

70% to Republicans, millions to 527s, yet (fortunately!) his wife supports abortion rights.

The Republicans are Anti-Nuclear.

--p!

to see the Times take a bold stand on an important issue, like they always used to.

"there are cleaner, cheaper, faster alternatives that come with none of the risks."
Truer words were never spoken.

Underneath all the Nuke Industry propaganda lies one undeniable fact: Nuclear Power is totally unnecesary. There are so many better alternatives that no sane individual would consider uncorking this genie for a minute. Unfortunately neo-con money grubbers are not sane. These are the people that think we're on the verge of Armageddon anyway, and won't shy away from precipitating it, as long as they get to make their billions first...

And we'll all get nuclear pie in the sky when we die.

It just goes to show that math isn't a required subject in "journalism" school.

Democrats like myself like it as well. And likely unlike you, I have actually seen reactors up close and been within a few feet of an operating fission reactor.

How about you?

Sam Zell.

I posted a little about him, above.

There are lots of anti-nuclear neo-cons. They are usually big oil investors. But if you try to tell anti-nuclearists that, they scream. Loud.

--p!

I am, frankly, sick to death of you people who insist that there are better alternatives without actually getting into specifics. Either offer a serious competitive option, with the correct math to back it up, or apologize for talking trash about things you don't understand.

If you can't trust musicians, actors, and inheritence-fund kids, who can you trust?

Now that we Euro-Americans have satisfied our every need, it's time to tell the rest of the world: "Enough!"

--p!
No energy for you! Fifty year.
(The Energy Nazi)