Meltdown, USA: Nuclear Drive Trumps Safety Risks and High Cost (with video)
Art Levine
The pro-nuclear Department of Energy is set to offer this month the first of nearly $20 billion in loan guarantees to a nuclear industry that hasn't built a plant since the 1970s or raised any money to do so in years. But although the industry is seeking to cash in on global warming concerns with $100 billion in proposed loan guarantees, environmentalists, scientists and federal investigators are warning that lax oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of the nation's aging 104 nuclear plants has led to near-meltdowns along with other health and safety failings since Three Mile Island - including what some critics say is a flawed federal health study apparently designed to conceal cancer risks near nuclear plants.
(Photo: Matthew Strmiska; Edited: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t)
Also See: Part II: Energy Department, NRC Back Nuclear, Ignore Industry’s Dirty Little Secrets
But Daryl Kimball, associate director for policy of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a national organization of medical professionals concerned with nuclear war and other dangers from nuclear power, said the study ''raises more questions than it answers.''Mr. Kimball said the study diluted the risks of exposure to radiation from nuclear plants by examining entire counties instead of areas where people were directly exposed to radiation. He cited the Fernald weapons plant near Cincinnati, where over 500,000 pounds of uranium were released into the atmosphere. This uranium may have fallen on only a small area, he said, but the study includes all the people in the surrounding counties.
France - one the world's leaders in nuclear power, let us not forget - was having to import electricity during the summer because its nuclear reactors couldn't function in the hot weather. That might pose a few problems in the face of rising global temperatures. And they say nuclear power can help save us from global warming?(Then it was announced that France was having to import electricity during the winter as a significant number of the country's reactors would be out of action during those months as well.)Nuclear power - reliably unreliable.
Old Foes Welcome Clean FuelRising demand for emission-free energy is spurring a nuclear rebirth.By Patrick MooreNuclear energy, a prime source of electricity for Pennsylvania, is finally getting the respect it deserves.It's not hard to see why: America's power needs continue to grow, and meeting them without harming the environment calls for every available nonpolluting energy source.Nuclear energy is the most dependable and cost-effective such option.It isn't the only solution, of course. Wind, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources will likely become a bigger part of Pennsylvania's energy portfolio, and America's. But nuclear energy will be expected to shoulder the biggest load.Because nuclear energy is virtually emissions-free, America's 104 nuclear reactors already account for nearly 75 percent of the country's clean energy, and 93 percent of Pennsylvania's.Nuclear energy has maintained a strong record of safety, reliability, and efficiency for decades, and Americans increasingly appreciate its environmental and economic benefits. A recent Gallup poll showed that 59 percent of Americans support using nuclear energy to meet the country's energy needs. Support is even higher in Pennsylvania, reaching 82 percent of residents polled last year for the Pennsylvania Energy Alliance.
Let's be blunt here. This isn't just misleading. This isn't just misinformation. This is a lie.Nuclear energy is not clean energy. One need only look at the environmental destruction caused by uranium mining. In his book ‘Wollaston: People Resisting Genocide’, Miles Goldstick details the damage brought to the lives of the people living around the uranium mines in Canada's Saskatchewan province. The accumulation of radioactive isotopes in edible plants. The lead, arsenic, uranium and radium found downstream from the mines. The spills that J.A. Keily, then Vice President of Production and Engineering for Gulf Minerals Rabbit Lake, described in 1980 as “probably too numerous to count.”These are stories found wherever uranium mining takes place. The ruined lives, the contamination, the cover-ups, and the deception. And that's before we even consider what happens to the waste produced by generating nuclear energy.As for ‘nuclear is non-emitting’, it takes just five seconds to Google for ‘nuclear power’ and ‘emissions’ to show that statement for the ridiculous falsehood that it is.
New nuclear power is so costly that shifting a dollar of spending from nuclear to efficiency protects the climate several-fold more than shifting a dollar of spending from coal to nuclear. Indeed, under plausible assumptions, spending a dollar on new nuclear power instead of on efficient use of electricity has worse climate effect than spending that dollar on new coal power!"
Nuclear fuel production - the mining, milling and enriching of uranium - is one of the nuclear industry's dirty secrets. Very little attention is paid to it by industry propagandists and pro-nuclear politicians and for very good reason. It's dirty, dangerous, incredibly damaging to the environment and endangers the health of those people unfortunate enough to live close to uranium mines.To hear some supporters of nuclear energy talk, you'd think the whole process of generating electricity begins with the throwing of a reactor's “on” switch. But there's a long story before we even get that far. It's also a long, sad story that often goes untold in the wider media.Pick any uranium mine around the world and it will invariably be surrounded by stories of pollution, contamination and the exploitation of local communities. Niger, Namibia, Brazil, Canada, Kazakhstan.And Australia. The country's “Environment Minister Peter Garrett has formally approved the new Four Mile uranium mine in South Australia, saying it poses no environmental risks.”
For many of us, some of the electricity we use every day comes from nuclear power stations. Those reactors are fuelled with uranium. Do you know where that uranium comes from?Does it come from Namibia where uranium mining has made the traditional lifestyles of the Topnaar Nama people ‘impossible to maintain’. Does it come from Caetite in Brazil where the drinking water has been contaminated with uranium? Does it come from Australia or Canada where there native peoples' ways of life are threatened? Does it come from Niger whose streets where children play are contaminated with radiation?