Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT: Old Foes (some environmentalists) Soften to New Nuclear Reactors

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 05:40 PM
Original message
NYT: Old Foes (some environmentalists) Soften to New Nuclear Reactors
Old Foes Soften to New Reactors
By FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: May 15, 2005


WASHINGTON, May 14 - Several of the nation's most prominent environmentalists have gone public with the message that nuclear power, long taboo among environmental advocates, should be reconsidered as a remedy for global warming.

Their numbers are still small, but they represent growing cracks in what had been a virtually solid wall of opposition to nuclear power among most mainstream environmental groups. In the past few months, articles in publications like Technology Review, published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Wired magazine have openly espoused nuclear power, angering other environmental advocates.

Stewart Brand, a founder of the Whole Earth Catalog and the author of "Environmental Heresies," an article in the May issue of Technology Review, explained the shift as a direct consequence of the growing anxiety about global warming and its links to the use of fossil fuel....

***

For many longtime advocates of environmental causes, such talk is nothing short of betrayal....But as mounting scientific evidence points to a direct connection between increasing carbon emissions and climate change, Mr. Brand and others have come to see conventional fuels like oil and coal as a greater threat.

In his article, Mr. Brand argued, "Everything must be done to increase energy efficiency and decarbonize energy production." He ran down a list of alternative technologies, like solar and wind energy, that emit no heat-trapping gases. "But add them all up," he wrote, "and it's just a fraction of enough." His conclusion: "The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon-dioxide loading is nuclear power."...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national/15nuke.html?hp&ex=1116129600&en=1c78e4248b7ee1c3&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rockerdem Donating Member (706 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. What does the Left in Europe say about their plants?
Im a little unsure about this issue. Those people seem to have more experience with better designs??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chrisduhfur Donating Member (163 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Better Designs? What do you base that one?
Besides why do you need approval from others before making up your own mind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockerdem Donating Member (706 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. I was asking a question.
I dont know anything about their designs, better or worse. I know that they have more over there than in the US, and havent noticed a lot of news stories about flaws. I was guessing that maybe that was the reason. But I confess ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugarbleus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. Wow, brave post.... I used to be 100% anti-nuclear, now...
I'm starting to think it over in positive terms. ONLY IF the stories I hear are true; in that we "alledgedly" have newer designs on the planning table, better tech on the building of reactors etc...

I call you brave because there are many rabidly anti nuclear energy advocates in here; if I had posted this I'd expect to be flamed right into hell. So, I've kept my thoughts to myself. I respect other's opinions on this subject; I was in that mindset too but something has to change soon. Maybe a combination of clean sources along with N. energy?

I've listened to the debates over N. energy for a couple years..pro and con. I'm leaning towards the pro these days.........with conditions.

It's obvious we can't be tossing particulates and carbon into the air forever..it isn't clean nor healthy at all. On the other hand we have to find a way to build S.A.F.E and clean N. plants along with tech. that finds a way to treat and/or store any waste/by-products. Soooo, all you Science Majors, put your thinking caps on and do some research. Something has to be done to save our environment and ourselves.

Interesting post. Kudos to ya :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
megatherium Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. I use to be in the conditional pro-nuclear camp.
Edited on Sun May-15-05 09:08 PM by megatherium
If you read stuff by nuclear engineers and physicists who are devoted to nuclear power, it can sound very good. In practice, however, it proves much more problematic and expensive. Arguments of nuclear vs. renewables (wind and solar) sometimes compare the ideal of nuclear energy with the reality of renewables; e.g. the claim by Nicholas Kristof in the NY Times the other week that solar is five times more expensive than nuclear. (There's good reason to believe solar will be cheaper than nuclear in the 15 years it will take new nukes to come on line: see the recent article on PV in the American Journal of Physics.)

I don't know if you'll be flamed here for being pro-nuke, but watch out for that jpak guy -- he's tenacious and well-informed. <grin>

On edit: I think that article on PV is in the AJP. I was looking for a link but I can't find it there. Anyway, my colleague in physics passed it on to me, very interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Hey
I heard that...

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugarbleus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #9
18. LOL....
:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rayofreason Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. conditional pro-nuclear...
...is that sort of like Schrodinger's cat? ;)

In 2002 the US produced 21.3% of its electricity from nuclear. Consider how much more CO2 would have been produced except for nuclear. We should build new generation pebble bed reactors as fast as we can and kick the fossil fuel habit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. Stewart Brand: From the King of Hoes to the King of 'Ho's
Edited on Sat May-14-05 06:54 PM by jpak
BTW: that Wired article was written by a couple of snarky little anti-environmentalist Repugs - not "established environmentalists".

What horseshit..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. Good news, indeed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. The Brand article cited here is incredibly superficial.
Edited on Sat May-14-05 10:56 PM by struggle4progress
Based on numerological mumbo-jumbo, he claims population growth really won't be a problem.

In discussing genetic engineering, he advises: "The best way for doubters to control a questionable new technology is to embrace it." But of course no coherent political analysis or strategy development is possible on the basis of such mystifying nonsense.

His three page article is a collection of sweeping generalizations, for none of which (right or wrong) does he provide any suporting evidence or any bibliographic reference to supporting evidence: thus, he has provided only the flimsiest foundation for his argument that the environmental movement is driven by romanticism rather than science.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
6. Government report gives new wind to green energy (UK)
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
15 May 2005


Wind power is better than nuclear power stations for tackling global warming, the Government's official environmental advisers will tell Tony Blair this week.

Their conclusion - after the most comprehensive study of wind energy in Britain - contradicts the Prime Minister's own opinion and could intensify the debate about building new nuclear power stations.

The Sustainable Development Commission's report - financed by the pro-nuclear Department of Trade and Industry - aims to start the fight-back against the increasing drive to build at least 10 new nuclear power stations in Britain. It sets out to correct "systematic misrepresentation" about wind power by influential nuclear advocates.

The Government's advisers on nuclear waste, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, warned last week that no decision should be taken to build new nuclear stations until it had determined how to dispose of its highly dangerous detritus. Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for the Environment, takes a similar position. <snip>

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=638548

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nittygritty Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
10. I don't buy it.
Edited on Sun May-15-05 09:12 PM by nittygritty
I could google tons of shit and spend an hour with an eloquent post on the inherent dangers of nuclear power with facts and many examples of accidents, but i'm sick of explaining it as i've been doing it for years. And it's actually a very simple concept:

Nuclear ANYTHING generates extremely deadly radioactive waste, whether it's low level or high level. The high level shit remains deadly for 25,000 to 250,000 years, and it always seems to make it's way into the ecosystem no matter how hard we try (or lie). There's no safe way to transport it, store it or neutralize it. Both the plants themselves and the waste make great terrorist targets. Mining uranium and the like fucks up the planet too.

With all the technology and science we have, if the world focused on renewable energy research instead, i'm SURE we could come up with safe viable alternatives to supplying the planet with energy.

Again, it's the old grey men and their oil and nuclear industries that won't make any money off of such technologies, so it's downplayed, scoffed at, lied about, underfunded, lobbied against, etc etc...

This shit shoulda been happening 30 years ago.

edit: I don't know much about this Stuart Brand (i've read the Whole Earth Catalog for years), but one thing I can tell you: he obviously isn't running or been hanging with the folks who founded Greenpeace and/or EarthFirst, cause THEY would set him straight, no doubt. Any 'environmentalist' who is pro-nuke in ANYWAY is severely lacking the correct information or is otherwise a sham, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rayofreason Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. "it always seems to make it's way into the ecosystem..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nittygritty Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. BULLSHIT.
Edited on Sun May-15-05 10:02 PM by nittygritty
Gonna make me do it for you, huh?

Fine. Ok. This list is by no means complete or comprehensive...


The nuclear power plant is a particularly nefarious use of nuclear energy. Unlike conventional power plants, nuclear plants have a relatively short life-span -- 30 years -- before critical reactor components become irreparably radioactive. At that point the plant must be decommissioned (`mothballed'), or its entire reactor core replaced at great expense. To date, there is no solution regarding where to store spent power plant reactor cores. Compounding the storage problem is an accumulation of spent radioactive fuel rods, which have a life-span of only three years.


3 January 1961
A reactor explosion (attributed by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission source to sabotage) at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho Falls, Idaho, killed one navy technician and two army technicians, and released radioactivity "largely confined" (words of John A. McCone, Director of the Atomic Energy Commission) to the reactor building. The three men were killed as they moved fuel rods in a "routine" preparation for the reactor start-up. One technician was blown to the ceiling of the containment dome and impaled on a control rod. His body remained there until it was taken down six days later. The men were so heavily exposed to radiation that their hands had to be buried separately with other radioactive wastem, and their bodies were interred in lead coffins.

24 July 1964
An accident at a commercial nuclear fuel fabrication facility in Charlestown, Rhode Island left one person dead.

19 November 1971
The water storage space at the Northern States Power Company's reactor in Monticello, Minnesota filled to capacity and spilled over, dumping about 50,000 gallons of radioactive waste water into the Mississippi River. Some was taken into the St. Paul water system.

March 1972
Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska submitted to the Congressional Record facts surrounding a routine check in a nuclear power plant which indicated abnormal radioactivity in the building's water system. Radioactivity was confirmed in the plant drinking fountain. Apparently there was an inappropriate cross-connection between a 3,000 gallon radioactive tank and the water system.

28 May 1974
The Atomic Energy Commission reported that 861 "abnormal events" had occurred in 1973 in the nation's 42 operative nuclear power plants. Twelve involved the release of radioactivity "above permissible levels."

22 March 1975
A technician checking for air leaks with a lighted candle caused $100 million in damage when insulation caught fire at the Browns Ferry reactor in Decatur, Alabama. The fire burned out electrical controls, lowering the cooling water to dangerous levels, before the plant could be shut down.

28 March 1979
A major accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania. At 4:00 a.m. a series of human and mechanical failures nearly triggered a nuclear disaster. By 8:00 a.m., after cooling water was lost and temperatures soared above 5,000 degrees, the top portion of the reactor's 150-ton core collapsed and melted. Contaminated coolant water escaped into a nearby building, releasing radioactive gasses, leading as many as 200,000 people to flee the region. Despite claims by the nuclear industry that "no one died at Three Mile Island," a study by Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, professor of radiation physics at the University of Pittsburgh, showed that the accident led to a minimum of 430 infant deaths.

1981
The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that there were 4,060 mishaps and 140 serious events at nuclear power plants in 1981, up from 3,804 mishaps and 104 serious events the previous year.

11 February 1981
An Auxiliary Unit Operator, working his first day on the new job without proper training, inadvertently opened a valve which led to the contamination of eight men by 110,000 gallons of radioactive coolant sprayed into the containment building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah I plant in Tennessee.

1982 The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that 84,322 power plant workers were exposed to radiation in 1982, up from 82,183 the previous year.

25 January 1982
A steam generator pipe broke at the Rochester Gas & Electric Company's Ginna plant near Rochester, New York. Fifteen thousand gallons of radioactive coolant spilled onto the plant floor, and small amounts of radioactive steam escaped into the air.

15-16 January 1983
Nearly 208,000 gallons of water with low-level radioactive contamination was accidentally dumped into the Tennesee River at the Browns Ferry power plant.

25 February 1983
A catastrophe at the Salem 1 reactor in New Jersey was averted by just 90 seconds when the plant was shut down manually, following the failure of automatic shutdown systems to act properly. The same automatic systems had failed to respond in an incident three days before, and other problems plagued this plant as well, such as a 3,000 gallon leak of radioactive water in June 1981 at the Salem 2 reactor, a 23,000 gallon leak of "mildly" radioactive water (which splashed onto 16 workers) in February 1982, and radioactive gas leaks in March 1981 and September 1982 from Salem 1.

1988
It was reported that there were 2,810 accidents in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants in 1987, down slightly from the 2,836 accidents reported in 1986, according to a report issued by the Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc.

28 May 1993
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released a warning to the operators of 34 nuclear reactors around the country that the instruments used to measure levels of water in the reactor could give false readings during routine shutdowns and fail to detect important leaks. The problem was first bought to light by an engineer at Northeast Utilities in Connecticut who had been harassed for raising safety questions. The flawed instruments at boiling-water reactors designed by General Electric utilize pipes which were prone to being blocked by gas bubbles; a failure to detect falling water levels could have resulted, potentially leading to a meltdown.

November,1997
Novovorenezh, Russia - A collector of radioactive water at a power plant begins to leak (Bellona Web, December, 1997).

August, 1998
Dolna Banya, Bulgaria - Water containing radium and uranium leaks from a uranium mine into the river, which empties into the Aegean Sea (WISE, August 1998)

August 3,1998
One worker is contaminated and seventy-two workers are evacuated from the Sellafield processing plant. The radiation leakage is the second in two weeks (WISE, August 1998).

August 5, 1999
Liquid radioactive waste leaks out of its storage compartment in a tanker in the Ussuriyskiy Bay, Russia, and floods the ship's compartments (Bellona Web).

Sept. 30, 1999
Japan's worst nuclear accident. Workers at a uranium-processing plant in Tokaimura accidentally added too much highly enriched uranium into a mixing tank, causing an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction. Radiation measures at 10,000 times above normal near leak site. 439 workers and residents are exposed to radiation. Two workers die within the next nine months as a result of the accident, a third is seriously injured.

15 February 2000
New York's Indian Point II power plant vented a small amount of radioactive steam when a an aging steam generator ruptured. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission initially reported that no radioactive material was released, but later changed their report to say that there was a leak, but not of a sufficient amount to threaten public safety.

September, 2000
Bulgaria - Two to five people were contaminated with radiation from an accident at a nuclear power plant (WISE, September 15, 2003).

Winter, 2002
A shipment of radioactive iridium-192 leaks on its way from Sweden to the USA. The package leaked quickly, however it is not known when or where the leak began and at what level people were exposed to radioactivity (WISE, Feb. 15, 2002).

March 7, 2003
Connecticut, USA - Radioactive leakage at the Millstone power plant causes an emergency to be declared (Nuclear Regulatory Commission Event Notification Report, March 7, 2003).

April 10, 2003
Hungary - A leakage of radioactive gases occurs during cleaning at the Paks nuclear power plant. The incident is rated at level three because the gases were released into the environment (Nucnews by Reuters, June 18, 2003).

PROCESSING, SHIPPING AND STORING

1971
After experimenting with disposal of radioactive waste in salt, the Atomic Energy Commission announced that "Project Salt Vault" would solve the waste problem. But when 180,000 gallons of contaminated water was pumped into a borehole; it promptly and unexpectedly disappeared. The project was abandoned two years later.

1972
The West Valley, NY fuel reprocessing plant was closed after 6 years in operation, leaving 600,000 gallons of high-level wastes buried in leaking tanks. The site caused measurable contamination of Lakes Ontario and Erie.

December 1972
A major fire and two explosions occurred at a Pauling, New York plutonium fabrication plant. An undetermined amount of radioactive plutonium was scattered inside and outside the plant, resulting in its permanent shutdown.

1979
The Critical Mass Energy Project (part of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, Inc.) tabulated 122 accidents involving the transport of nuclear material in 1979, including 17 involving radioactive contamination.

16 July 1979
A dam holding radioactive uranium mill tailings broke, sending an estimated 100 million gallons of radioactive liquids and 1,100 tons of solid wastes downstream at Church Rock, New Mexico.

August 1979
Highly enriched uranium was released from a top-secret nuclear fuel plant near Erwin, Tennessee. About 1,000 people were contaminated with up to 5 times as much radiation as would normally be received in a year. Between 1968 and 1983 the plant "lost" 234 pounds of highly enriched uranium, forcing the plant to be closed six times during that period.

January 1980
A 5.5 Richter earthquake at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where large amounts of nuclear material are kept, caused a tritium leak.

19 September 1980
An Air Force repairman doing routine maintenance in a Titan II ICBM silo in Damascus, Arkansas dropped a wrench socket, which rolled off a work platform and fell to the bottom of the silo. The socket struck the missile, causing a leak from a pressurized fuel tank. The missile complex and surrounding areas were evacuated. Eight and a half hours later, the fuel vapors ignited, causing an explosion which killed an Air Force specialist and injured 21 others. The explosion also blew off the 740-ton reinforced concrete-and-steel silo door and catapulted the warhead 600 feet into the air. The silo has since been filled in with gravel, and operations have been transferred to a similar installation at Rock, Kansas.

21 September 1980
Two canisters containing radioactive materials fell off a truck on New Jersey's Route 17. The driver, en route from Pennsylvania to Toronto, did not notice the missing cargo until he reached Albany, New York.

1983
The Department of Energy confirmed that 1,200 tons of mercury had been released over the years from the Y-12 Nuclear Weapons Components Plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, the U.S.'s earliest nuclear weapons production plant. In 1987, the DOE also reported that PCBs, heavy metals, and radioactive substances were all present in the groundwater beneath Y-12. Y-12 and the nearby K-25 and X-10 plants were found to have contaminated the atmosphere, soil and streams in the area.

December 1984
The Fernald Uranium Plant, a 1,050-acre uranium fuel production complex 20 miles northwest of Cincinnati, Ohio, was temporarily shut down after the Department of Energy disclosed that excessive amounts of radioactive materials had been released through ventilating systems. Subsequent reports revealed that 230 tons of radioactive material had leaked into the Greater Miami River valley during the previous thirty years, 39 tons of uranium dust had been released into the atmosphere, 83 tons had been discharged into surface water, and 5,500 tons of radioactive and other hazardous substances had been released into pits and swamps where they seeped into the groundwater. In addition, 337 tons of uranium hexafluoride was found to be missing, its whereabouts completely unknown. In 1988 nearby residents sued and were granted a $73 million settlement by the government. The plant was not permanently shut down until 1989.

1986
A truck carrying low-level radioactive material swerved to avoid a farm vehicle, went off a bridge on Route 84 in Idaho, and dumped part of its cargo in the Snake River. Officials reported the release of radioactivity.

6 January 1986
A container of highly toxic gas exploded at The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma, causing one worker to die (when his lungs were destroyed) and 130 others to seek medical treatment. In response, the Government kept the plant closed for more than a year and fined owners Kerr-McGee $310,000, citing poorly trained workers, poorly maintained equipment and a disregard for safety and the environment.

1986
After almost 40 years of cover-ups, the U.S. Government released 19,000 pages of previously classified documents which revealed that the Hanford Engineer Works was responsible for the release of significant amounts of radioactive materials into the atmosphere and the adjacent Columbia River. Between 1944 and 1966, the eight reactors, a source of plutonium production for atomic weapons, discharged billions of gallons of liquids and billions of cubic meters of gases containing plutonium and other radioactive contaminants into the Columbia River, and the soil and air of the Columbia Basin. Although detrimental effects were noticed as early as 1948, all reports critical of the facilities remained classified. By the summer of 1987, the cost of cleaning up Hanford was estimated to be $48.5 billion. The Technical Steering Panel of the government-sponsored Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project released the following statistics in July 1990: Of the 270,000 people living in the affected area, most received low doses of radiation from Iodine, but about 13,500 received a total dose some 1,300 times the annual amount of airborne radiation considered safe for civilians by the Department of Energy. Approximately 1,200 children received doses far in excess of this number, and many more received additional doses from contaminants other than Iodine.

1987
The Idaho Falls Post Register reported that plutonium had been found in sediments hundreds of feet below the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, an experimental reactor testing station and nuclear waste storage site.

1988
The National Research Council panel released a report listing 30 "significant unreported incidents" at the Savannah River production plants over the previous 30 years. As at Hanford (see 1986), ground water contamination resulted from pushing production of radioactive materials past safe limits at this weapons complex. In January 1989, scientists discovered a fault running under the entire site through which contaminants reached the underground aquifer, a major source of drinking water for the southeast. Turtles in nearby ponds were found to contain radioactive strontium of up to 1,000 times the normal background level.

6 June 1988
Radiation Sterilizers, Incorporated reported that a leak of Cesium-137 had occurred at their Decatur, Georgia facility. Seventy thousand medical supply containers and milk cartons were recalled as they had been exposed to radiation. Ten employees were also exposed, three of whom "had enough on them that they contaminated other surfaces" including materials in their homes and cars, according to Jim Setser at the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.

October 1988
The Rocky Flats, Colorado plutonium bomb manufacturing site was partially closed after two employees and a Department of Energy inspector inhaled radioactive particles. Subsequent investigations revealed safety violations (including uncalibrated monitors and insufficient fire-response equipment) and leaching of radioactive contaminants into the local groundwater.

24 November 1992
The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma closed after repeated citations by the Government for violations of nuclear safety and environmental rules. It's record during 22 years of operation included an accident in 1986 that killed one worker and injured dozens of others and the contamination of the Arkansas River and groundwater. The Sequoyah Fuels plant, one of two privately-owned American factories that fabricated fuel rods and armor-piercing bullet shells, had been shut down a week before by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when an accident resulted in the release of toxic gas. Thirty-four people sought medical attention as a result of the accident. The plant had also been shut down the year before when unusually high concentrations of uranium were detected in water in a nearby construction pit. A Government investigation revealed that the company had known for years that uranium was leaking into the ground at levels 35,000 times higher than Federal law allows; Carol Couch, the plant's environmental manager, was cited by the Government for obstructing the investigation and knowingly giving Federal agents false information.

31 March 1994
Fire at a nuclear research facility on Long Island, New York resulted in the nuclear contamination of three fire fighters, three reactor operators, and one technician. Measurable amounts of radioactive substances were released into the immediate environment.

May 1997
A 40 gallon tank of toxic chemicals, stored illegally at the U.S. Government's Hanford Engineer works exploded, causing the release of 20,000-30,000 gallons of plutonium-contaminated water. A cover-up ensued, involving the contractors doing clean-up and the Department of Energy, who denied the release of radioactive materials. They also told eight plant workers that tests indicated that they hadn't been exposed to plutonium even though no such tests actually were conducted (later testing revealed that in fact they had not been exposed). Fluor Daniel Hanford Inc., operator of the Hanford Site, was cited for violations of the Department of Energy's nuclear safety rules and fined $140,625. Violations associated with the explosion included the contractor's failure to assure that breathing devices operated effectively, failure to make timely notifications of the emergency, and failure to conduct proper radiological surveys of workers. Other violations cited by the DOE included a number of events between November 1996 and June 1997 involving Fluor Daniel Hanford's failure to assure adherence to PFP "criticality" safety procedures. ("Criticality" features are defined as those features used "to assure safe handling of fissile materials and prevention of...an unplanned and uncontrolled chain reaction that can release large amounts of radiation.")

8 August 1999
The Washington Post reported that thousands of workers were unwittingly exposed to plutonium and other highly radioactive metals over a 23-year period (beginning in the mid-1950's) at the Department of Energy's Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky. Workers, told they were handling Uranium (rather than the far more toxic plutonium), inhaled radioactive dust while processing the materials as part of a government experiment to recycle used nuclear reactor fuel.

June 2000
U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) led a field senate hearing regarding workers exposed to hazardous materials while working in the nation's atomic plants. At the hearing, which revealed information about potential on and off-site contamination at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio, DeWine noted, "We know that as a result of Cold War efforts, the government, yes, our federal government, allowed thousands of workers at its facilities across the country to be exposed to poisonous materials, such as beryllium dust, plutonium, and silicon, without adequate protection." Testimony also indicated that the Piketon plant altered workers' radiation dose readings and worked closely with medical professionals to fight worker's compensation claims.

July 2000
Wildfires in the vicinity of the Hanford facility hit the highly radioactive "B/C" waste disposal trenches, raising airborne plutonium radiation levels in the nearby cities of Pasco and Richland to 1,000 above normal. Wildfires also threatened the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and the DOE's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. In the latter case, the fires closely approached large amounts of stored radioactive waste and forced the evacuation of 1,800 workers.


:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. What makes radioactive waste amy different than other toxic wastes?
We spew tons of crap into our environment, and the only qualitative difference between radioactive waste and non-radioactive waste is that radioactive waste is easier to find and clean up. Radioactive waste announces itself quite plainly because it is radioactive, while most toxins, such as those found in oil or coal wastes, are quiet.

The "half life" argument is stupid too. Radioactive waste decays, many other wastes don't. Toxic stuff like the arsenic they put in treated wood products never decays -- that stuff will still be around when the sun is dead and the earth is nothing more than space dust. (And yes, that arsenic is a carcinogen.)

People who don't panic when they spill a little gasoline or used motor oil on their hands will worry endlessly about a small nuclear accident on the other side of the globe, when in fact that bit of gasoline or oil on their hands is a very strong carcinogen, and is more likely to kill them than some random radioactive molecule they ingest.

I very much enjoy these huge incident lists the anti-nuclear activists are always posting. If you ever saw the same sorts of records kept by aircraft maintainence technicians, then you might never fly, and if you ever saw these same sorts of records kept by hospitals, then you might never visit a hospital.

Anti-nuclear activists have access to these records because you must keep such records to run any high technology industry safely. These are the institutional memory that keeps mistakes from being repeated. To post them like this, without comparing them to the records of other power generating industries, makes them meaningless. Without any doubt, the coal power industry kills more people per unit energy generated than the nuclear power industry. Solar and wind power kill people too. Farmers will die growing corn for ethanol.

We have to make the decisions knowing all the facts. There isn't anything humans do that won't have deadly consequences. It is quite possible that more people will die if we don't expand our use of nuclear power than will die if we do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nittygritty Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Not much...
"What makes radioactive waste amy different than other toxic wastes?"

Not much. No arguement there...

BUT -

because society and industry didn't get on the ecological bandwagon like it should have 30 years ago when science started to catch up with industrial revolution and the effects of all it's toxic by-products, does not mean that the "well, it's too late and we don't have enough time to switch over to an eco-industrial revolution" arguement is valid:

"It is quite possible that more people will die if we don't expand our use of nuclear power than will die if we do."

This is a 'damned-if-we-do-damned-if-we-don't' defeatest attitude. The real elephant in this room is a corporate/political greed roadblock (greedblock?) barring funding/research/developement/education/implimentation of renewable energy technologies (as well as non-toxic, ecologically safe industries and products). We can send a mission to mars, clone human beings and hurl cruise missles that travel thousands of miles to land within 3 meters of their targets, but we can't come up with safe, renewable energy and industry technologies?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. We are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
We built this society on cheap oil. The plane is up in the air and running out of gas.

As the engines begin to sputter the best we can hope for is a long wide beach to crash upon.

Nuclear power may be that beach. It cannot replace cheap oil and natural gas, but it can certainly keep the lights on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nittygritty Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. long, wide beach...
Edited on Mon May-16-05 03:06 PM by nittygritty
maybe, just maybe a jolting crash is what humanity needs.

If I had faith in industry and political leaders to lead the way into an eco-industrial revolution, I might, just might accept TEMPORARY nuclear power infrastructure to help ease the transition.

But I see no genuine attempt to look at renewable energy technologies now even as we reach peak oil. All I see is a rehashing of old grey men policies of oil, coal and nuclear with no added foresight on renewables. These same old grey men would capitalize and promote nuclear power with no intent on looking at alternatives, while retaining the same old shoddy inspections and shortcuts that have caused all major and minor nuclear accidents past.

Better in the long run for the planet and humanity to stay the course and crash hard, IMO. Maybe then we will finally learn something about how interconnected and precious life really is, not to mention lessons learned with regard to corporate controlled gov'ts.

"if ya wanna sing the blues, ya got to pay the dues...."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rayofreason Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Crash hard??
Is that is your idea of a responsible proposal to deal with the energy crunch?

Fine - let's hope for massive collapse, with war and famine attendant. And certainly let's hope for no possibility that the people of India and China ever have a decent standard of living and industrialized societies with all of the things that come to the vast majority of people in such societies (modern medicine, education, opportunity for personal fulfillment, to name a few).

In your concern about "old grey men" you seem to be willing to condem billions of brown and yellow men, women, and children to a horrible fate. It is very easy to sing "...ya got to pay the dues..." when someone else pays in spades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. I agree with you
They're creating and repeating a lie that "we" are softening up on
nuclear power. They plan to repeat the lie, to make it appear true, so
to justify their actions.

The beaches east of where i live, and parts of the seabed, have been
contaminated by 100's of thousands of particles of nuclear FUEL ROD.
that were accidentally released from a nuclear plant. The UK Atomic
Energy Association (UKAEA) is still covering up whether it is safe to
swim around bits of plutonium on the beach.

There are no-fishing zones and areas of the coastline that are dangerous,
even cancer clusters and leukemia clusters around Dounreay.
http://www.ukaea.org.uk/dounreay/particles.htm

The UK atomic energy lobby wants to build a new reactor, when they had
over 200 spills in the last couple of years durnig their attempts to
clean up their first waste dump. Worst of all, they only focus on jobs
and today's energy, and not on 100,000 year horizons of particle mess.

As well, there is an insideous thing about nuclear power, as it involves
"secrets" and an Us and a Them to divide society in to an in and out
crew who can and can not get access to the public dosh loaded in to
nuclear power.

Its a scam, and we need to stand firm against these jackasses...
either its "oil and war" or nuclear power and toxic dumps, but these
evil filth can't conceive of radical insulation, fuel efficiency,
solar power and simple ways to dish the drugs... rather they would
make a toxic waste dump like Hanford and demand public money to
clean up the disgusting mess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Both sides are serving up the Kool Aide...
I have no idea why anyone would look forward to a "hard crash." The economic consequences of such a hard crash would kill billions of perfectly fine human beings.

Even if humanity does manage to destroy itself and much of the existing ecosphere, on geological timescales this does not amount to anything.

An all-out missile-flinging nuclear war might start tommorrow, and maybe humanity and ninety five percent of all other species would become extinct, but in just a few million years nothing would be left of it but an interesting layer in the fossil record. Life itself would go merrily along.

Therefore we protect the existing environment for our own sake. There is probably no higher calling. A world without lions and tigers and bears and whales is a poorer place to us, but the Earth herself doesn't care much one way or another -- she's seen a lot, and she is very patient. Perhaps there were once dinosuars who believed their race to be immortal and created in God's image, but they were clearly wrong. If humans don't survive, some other creatures will.

The idea that man can utterly destroy nature is a deception promoted by the "old grey men." It makes one believe the "old grey men" are more powerful than they are. It is much more likely nature will destroy us. One day soon a virus or a bacteria may come along that we are powerless against. Our civilization, such as it is, would fail, brought down by the evolutionary powers of some very small bug.

Certainly the old grey men might threaten you or kill you, but so can a nameless punk on main street looking to take your wallet. The old grey men might also kill the nature you love -- the nature that pleases you, the nature that delights you. They might bury it under coal tailings, or cut down its forests. Yet Chernobyl, the worst sort of nuclear accident, even the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did not do that sort of damage to the natural environment.

But the "old grey men" have made a science of feeding your fears and leading you around by them. Don't feel powerful? Buy an SUV. (Heh, what fools they are, they buy our gasoline and make us wealthy!)

You know what? I do not fear these old grey men. That old grey man Ronald Reagan is dead. There is no way he will ever come back to life. The forces of nature will continue to keep him good and dead, and there is no magic that will bring him back. Dick Cheney will be dead someday too, and once past that line he wins nothing more than any of us.

Many anti-nuclear activists behave as if nuclear power is a supernatural force, a kind of black magic mankind shouldn't dabble in. Ordinary toxic waste is bad, but radioactive waste is somehow worse. It's not. The most remarkable thing about wastes from our nuclear power plants is that we attempt to contain them all. Meanwhile the toxic wastes from our coal fired plants spews almost freely into our environment.

In another post (I can't find it right now) I think Cprise has identified the greatest fear of the anti-nuclear protestors: That is the fear that nuclear power works, it works well, and we will use it to continue our reckless way, destroying everything we touch. This is the most reasonable argument against nuclear power I've seen here.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
12. Nuclear power is such a religious issue
Yawn. There's no worse way to spend a half hour than listening to someone who's a true believer (on either side of the issue) work up a lather. Invariably these people believe every shred of evidence in favor of their view, as if Jesus himself uttered it from the Holy Sepulchre, and denigrate every last word from the opposite side, as though GeeDubya himself made it up and wrote it on a cocktail napkin after doing Jaeger shots.

Thoughtful people can disagree over the same evidence. Nuclear power *has* changed a lot. Whether or not we should pursue it deserves a detached, scientific analysis, and a serious evaluation of the costs and benefits involved. Because we all have different values, some of us will conclude that the environmental threats are more important than the environmental benefits. Meanwhile, other countries (China, for a major example) are going full speed ahead with new-technology "pebble" reactors, regardless of what we do. Given that there is a relatively limited quantity of fuel ore available (perhaps a fifty year supply), Earth's available fuel stocks *will* be run through someone's reactors. It's just a question of whose.

I can tell you one thing for sure. I'm not going to follow a true believer's one-sided links to a biased website to do my research. This is a complex issue and all scientific points of view need to be heard before we can make a choice.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. Jaeger?
. Invariably these people believe every shred of evidence in favor of their view, as if Jesus himself uttered it from the Holy Sepulchre, and denigrate every last word from the opposite side, as though GeeDubya himself made it up and wrote it on a cocktail napkin after doing Jaeger shots.

Funniest thing I've read all day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
15. Nuclear Power (Sunday Herald / UK)
<snip> According to Peter Roche, an Edinburgh-based energy consultant who used to work for Greenpeace, even if we could get 10 new nuclear power stations up and running by 2025, they would still only displace around 5% of the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions. <snip>

“Energy efficiency can start reducing carbon dioxide emissions today,’’ argued Roche. ‘‘Just one or two efficiency measures, such as making sure all new central heating boilers and white goods are state-of-the-art, would be enough to displace the savings new reactors could make.” <snip>

In Scotland an investigation for the Scottish Executive in 2001 by energy consultants Garrad Hassan concluded that all forms of renewable energy in Scotland could potentially generate a massive 214 terawatt/hours of electricity a year. <snip>

“A combination of demand reduction and energy efficiency, along with increased renewable energy capacity in non-environmentally sensitive areas would make new nuclear power plants unnecessary to meet climate change targets, even with the planned closure of Hunterston B,” said Clifton Bain from the Royal Society for Protection of Birds in Scotland. <snip>

http://www.sundayherald.com/49775





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. That article shows renewables can't solve Europe's problems alone
It says Scotland can generate 214 TWh per year, and that that's a quarter of Europe's potential for renewable energy. If by 'Europe' we mean the EU, its current electricity consumption is 2661 TWh. So renewables could provide about a third of the electricity currently used.

We need all the renewable sources we can get our hands on, and massive demand reduction (efficient boilers and refrigerators aren't enough) - and then there still may be a shortfall. After all, a lot of Europe's heating is done directly with gas, so that doesn't come into the 2661 TWh figure. In the long term, that's going to need to be done with electricity too. Nuclear power may be needed in addition to the other sources. And then we have to think about transport. Is that going to take electrical energy too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jayctravis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
16. If we have the technology, it will work.
We need to be spending 87 billion dollars on science and education so we can keep up on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 06:13 AM
Response to Original message
20. Sorry, but still a no sale, besides, there is no need for nuclear power
No matter what else is said about nuclear power, there are three realities that we've yet to solve. The first is the problem of what to do with the waste. We can't bury it, we can't keep it on site at the plant, it is extremely deadly, and no solution is one hundred percent, which when dealing with such toxic waste is what is needed. Second, despite the advances in nuclear technology, and there have been many, the number one cause of nuclear accidents has not and cannot be eliminated, that is human error. Again, this is an industry where one has to be one hundred percent correct at all times. And with human error, you can't be. Third, every single aspect of the nuclear industry is done on the cheapest budget possible. That in itself is a scary thought.

But nuclear power isn't needed anymore. We have had great strides in the development of alternative energy sources. In 1991, the DOE stated in an audit of US energy resources that there is enough harvestable wind resources in North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas to supply the growing US eletrical needs through the year 2030. Now then, let us combine this with solar, biodiesel, hybrid tech and other alternative energy solutions, and what it adds up to is a way for the US to get off this fossil fuel addiction without resorting the nuclear option.

Sorry, but there is no way that we, as a sane, thoughtful society should allow the nuclear industry to become restrarted in this country. We're going to have enough on our plates with the problems of waste and decommissioning of old nuclear plants. We shouldn't add to these problems by starting up the whole mess again. We shouldn't be handing our children's children children such a deadly heritage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nittygritty Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. .
Damn straight!

couldn't have said it better m'self.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ptolle Donating Member (423 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. nuclear power
One of my basic objections to the argument for increasing electrical generation via nukes is that it is based in an implicit acceptance of centalized generation/distribution of electricity and the maintenance of the "grid" I'm of the opinion that renewables of any sort would be far more efficiently utilized in a more distibuted system wherein the power requirements of all but the largest consumers are produced on site. I've enough experience in the design/construction of homes and light commercial buildings to be confident in saying that the vast majority could supply their own needs with green design/construction which included an integrated system of power production from wind and solar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
insane_cratic_gal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 06:52 AM
Response to Original message
21. We can't secure the chemical & Nuclear
we have now.

Where is the waste dump going to be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
24. I've shifted from being rabidly anti-nuclear to utter indifference.
The United States is a collapsing superpower. Politically we are probably too corrupt and too ignorant to expand our nuclear power program.

Can you imagine a rapidly expanding nuclear power industry run by the likes of the Bush Administration? I can't. Such an industry would be incredibly expensive, corrupt, and very dangerous.

Looking into my crystal ball I see other nations developing very safe and economical nuclear power programs, but not the United States. The gap between the rich and poor in the United States will widen. A very small and wealthy minority will enjoy the benefits of solar, wind, and other forms of "clean" energy, while most of our middle class sinks into conditions of utter poverty and environmental degradation.

My ancestors moved away from Europe in the 1800's and those itchy feet are in my genes. When the dark clouds of ignorance get too thick here in the United States, it will be time to move again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
30. What about this?
I'm no expert but the energy amplifier seems promising.

The concept has several advantages over conventional nuclear fission reactors:

  • No overlap with the nuclear weapons fuel cycle — the energy amplifier cannot be used as a basis for creating weapons, so it can be used in politically-unstable countries.
  • Subcritical design means that the reaction cannot run away — if anything goes wrong, the reaction stops and the reactor cools down. A meltdown or explosion cannot happen, making the amplifier an inherently safer design.
  • Thorium is an abundant element — much more so than uranium — reducing strategic and political supply issues and eliminating costly isotope separation. There is enough thorium to generate energy for thousands of years at current consumption rates.
  • No long-lived radioactive waste is produced — the waste decays after 500 years to the level of coal ash. The amplifier can actually be used to transform long-lived waste (plutonium) from conventional reactors into safer substances.
  • No new science is required; the technologies to build the energy amplifier have all been demonstrated. Building an energy amplifier requires only some engineering effort, not fundamental research (unlike nuclear fusion proposals).
  • Power generation would be economical compared to current nuclear reactor designs if the total fuel cycle and decommissioning costs are considered.
  • Ease of operation, inherent safety, and safe fuel transport makes the technology more suitable for developing countries.
  • Operation of the amplifier itself does not produce CO2. When thorium production and power station construction are considered, the energy amplifier is a very low-carbon power technology.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecoalex Donating Member (718 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. The Energy Amplifier seems too good to be true
I would bet the coal/gas industry is not enamored with this plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rayofreason Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. looks interesting
Very interesting link. I had not heard of this before, but it makes sense. Rubbia is certainly a top-flight physicist, and the concept, even in the brief Wikipedia description, sounds plausible enough.

This should be explored along with fission reactors and research on fusion reactors, suplemented by other sources like solar, wind, and wave power and biomass. The use of any and all sources of energy that do not produce CO2 or methane (directly or indirectly) should be expanded as quickly as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 04:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC