The Cold War Threat to the Navajo (Uranium Mining)

[groovedaddy]

The folks who promote nuclear power as the "solution" rarely talk about this aspect of it!

The Cold War Threat to the Navajo - NY Times

It is alarming that the nuclear power industry is talking about resuming uranium mining near a Navajo reservation. A mining company has applied for permits for a new mine on privately owned land in New Mexico just outside the reservation’s formal boundaries but within what is commonly known as Navajo Indian Country. Regulators must not allow this to proceed until the enormous damage inflicted by past mining operations has been fully addressed.

Residents of the Navajo Nation are haunted by radiation threats from more than a thousand gaping mine sites abandoned after the cold war arms race. After decades of uranium mining — and accumulating evidence of spikes of cancer and other diseases — mining companies walked away from their cleanup responsibilities.

The federal government has also shamefully failed its tribal trust obligation to deal with what Representative Henry Waxman has aptly termed “an American tragedy.”

The California Democrat is investigating a history of shocking neglect that would not be tolerated elsewhere. Among the horrors: shifting mountains of uranium tailings; open mines leaching contaminated rain into drinking water tables; wind-blown radioactive dust; home construction from uranium mine slabs; and even the grim spectacle of children playing in radioactive swimming holes and ground pits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/opinion/12tue3.html?th&emc=th

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Share the hypocrisy

Coal mining kills thousands of people every year. Coal burning kills (conservatively) about a million per year, and is forcing climate changes that could reduce the agricultural "carrying capacity" of the Earth to about one-tenth of what it is now.

Once spring comes to the northern hemisphere, we will hear about a mine disaster about once a week.

Our entire economic system depends on coal, while it is killing us. The risks of nuclear energy exist, but are far smaller. These risks have been followed in great detail for decades.

So what gets the attention? What form of energy production is demonized?

"The folks who promote nuclear power as the "solution" rarely talk about this aspect of it!"

Who do you think did the original studies? (Yes, the eeevil nuclear scientists and industry.)

Nuclear energy is the least of our worries.

--p!

[groovedaddy]

2. "Nuclear energy is the least of our worries."

Tell that to that to the victims of Chernobyl, still a looming disaster.
You are right about the deaths caused by coal and that can't be diminished. But as Chernobyl proved,
nuclear disasters are the "gift that keeps on giving!" But then, so does coal through global warming.
WE NEED ALTERNATIVES!!!

[Dogmudgeon]

3. How many victims from Chernobyl?

Really ... how many people died as a result of Chernobyl? OR will die?

What alternatives do you have in mind?

When you dig into it even a little, you will also find that nuclear energy is the least of your worries. But then, every asshole on the internet who thinks of himself as a firebrand radical will call you a "paid shill".

I can suggest two alternatives to nuclear energy. Neither are funded adequately; one is usually trotted out just for show. I support nuclear energy because our entire economic system is based on using a lot of energy. It may sound desirable to get rid of our economic system, but it would cause the deaths of about 5-6 billion people.

So don't just rant. Explain what we have available to depend on.

--p!

[groovedaddy]

5. Wind and solar are first obvious alternatives (probably the 2 you're referring to)

that could also provide a boost to our economy through jobs, not to mention the energy independence they would foster (also geothermal and hydroelectric).
Nuclear power generates waste that will remain deadly for thousands of years. There are no "safe" ways of disposing the waste.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/FatalFlawsSummary.pdf

If you are simply looking at the numbers who currently die from the use of coal as opposed to those who died as a result of the Chernobyl accident, I guess you would win the argument hands down. But it's not that simple. Again, the waste is so dangerous for THOUSANDS of years. If the human race does survive on this planet, what plan would keep human beings from being exposed to waste radiation hundreds or thousands of years from now? There is none.

The economic system needs changing (not destruction). Monopolistic control of energy resources and resistance to the development and implementation of alternatives is a problem. It needs changing.
If these alternative sources were given the kind of subsidies that nuclear, coal and petroleum get, it would make a huge difference.

"But then, every asshole on the internet who thinks of himself as a firebrand radical will call you a "paid shill" - sounds like a bit of a rant.

http://www.harvardir.org/articles/1476/

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PP/PPtxt.html

[GliderGuider]

11. Remember that a million or more will die every year from coal use, as long as coal is used.

If we continue to use coal for another hundred years, it means that more than 100,000,000 will die from coal.

Will nuclear waste kill 100,000 people a year for the next thousand years? How would you substantiate such an assertion? Keep in mind that nuclear waste (certainly the high level waste that everyone is so exercised about) is intended to be contained, which would axiomatically localize its effects and bring it into contact with a minuscule proportion of the earth's population. This is unlike the the CO2 and contaminants from fossil fuels that spread freely through the air and affect every living thing on the planet.

[jpak]

7. How many have or will die because of Chernobyl?? More than 4000

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html

and that is the conservative estimate.

The UN estimates 9000 excess cancer deaths from the Chernobyl "nondisaster"....

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=18165&Cr=Chernobyl&Cr1=&Kw1=chernobyl&Kw2=&Kw3=

Chernobyl apologists can STFU

[NickB79]

27. So, 4000 dead and 9000 excess cancers

Even assuming that ALL of the cancer patients died, that means that approximately 520 people died per year in the past 20 years since the meltdown.

More people than that die every year in China alone mining coal.

Comparing the death toll of Chernobyl to the death toll of coal mining and coal usage is laughable.

[jpak]

28. No - it's 4000-9000 deaths as the result of a single reactor accident

Chernobyl apologists live in an alternate reality....

:puke:

[NickB79]

29. Oh, so it's 9000 deaths total?

Then wouldn't that be 9000 deaths/20 years, or less than 500 deaths per year average? Even more laughable to compare Chernobyl to coal mining deaths then. Thanks for the info.

[losthills]

30. ....laughable?

I used to criticize some people on this forum for not having a sense of humor, but if anyone can laugh at 9,000 deaths then they've got me beat by a mile. To me, 9,000 deaths is a catastrophe...

A man that can laugh at that might have a great sense of humor. Or he might be in serious need of medical attention.....

[Nihil]

32. It was the argument that was laughable (and still is).

It was the folly of comparing the number of potential deaths from
a catastrophic event to the vastly larger number of actual deaths
from normal operations in a single country.

"9000 deaths" isn't funny per se (even over 20 years).

The irrational focus on this number whilst ignoring all of the
high-volume causes of unnatural death that happen EVERY DAY is
the laughable element as it shows that the holder of said focus
has little grasp on the real world.

You seriously need to get a sense of scale.

[NickB79]

33. Ok then, let me clarify

9000 deaths from the Chernobyl meltdown over a 20-year period is a tragedy. However, 20 MILLION deaths from coal over the same timespan is a slightly bigger tragedy, wouldn't you agree? The difference is so huge, on orders of magnitude huge, that the action of mentioning Chernobyl as a counter-argument to coal-induced deaths is what's laughable.

[losthills]

35. I don't see anything to laugh at

except your belief that there are no deaths caused by nuclear power. There are, and we have provided statistics for it in this forum many times. Maybe I could laugh at your continued insistance that coal and nuclear are our only two choices, but it's just not funny anymore....

[NickB79]

36. My belief that there are no deaths from nuclear power? Huh?

I just said the Chernobyl NUCLEAR meltdown, which killed NINE THOUSAND people, was a tragedy. Yet I don't believe nuclear power kills anyone? :wtf:

"There are, and we have provided statistics for it in this forum many times."

And those statistics show that a million people a year die from nuclear power? Nope. Because that was the point of most of this thread: coal kills FAR more people, by orders of magnitude, than coal.

[GliderGuider]

4. Nuclear energy is an easy target

It supplies only 6% of the world's primary energy, its use is concentrated in a few countries that are by and large rich enough to contemplate alternatives. Attacking the use of nuclear power is a very low-risk activity.

Coal on the other hand, supplies 5 times as much of the world's primary energy (28%), is used by every country on earth and is the largest source of electrical power in the world. Attacking the use of coal is very difficult, because the world economy needs electricity as much as (or possibly even more than) it needs transportation fuel.

If we want to cut coal use significantly, it will have to be replaced. In 2005 the world generated 11.5 trillion kWh of electricity from thermal power plants, which mostly burn coal. If we want to cut that by 10%, we will need to replace over 1 trillion kWh per year of electricity. That's hard.

As a result it's tough to fight coal, even though it's much more deadly than nuclear power. So, like the drunk looking for his car keys under the street light instead of in the dark alley where he dropped them, we choose to fight the easy battles even though they will be fruitless. Since we can't afford to admit to ourselves that our fight is without significance, we convince ourselves that it's of world-shaking importance. This misdirection requires some very careful emotional sleight-of-hand, so it's a good thing we have Chernobyl and TMI to bolster what would prove to be threadbare objections if exposed to the cold light of day.

[hunter]

8. Compared to something like automobiles, yes.

Automobiles are a far, far greater threat to human life, human rights, and the earth's environment than nuclear power.

[losthills]

6. Lobbyists are adept at arguing out both sides of their mouths...

We're told, on the one hand, that coal kills more people than nuclear power-- and on the other hand that nuclear supplies only six percent of our electricity. It doesn't take a genius to see that if we replace coal with nuclear that it wil kill just as many people, and probably more. Nuclear waste containment is a separate issue-- one that they like to sweep under the rug and pretend that it's not important....

The intelligent person might ask, "What's the point of spending billions of dollars to replace coal with nuclear when we know that it's going to kill at least as many of our brothers and sisters and leave massive quantities of waste that no one knows how to deal with?"

The intelligent person can see that nuclear power is not a rational alternative to coal. The intelligent person can see that nuclear power is easily replaceable with renewables while it is still only at six percent. If we allow these energy conglomerates to build thousands more nukes, we'll make this planet uninhabitable.

The intelligent person might also ask, "Why are we being asked to debate the merits of two energy sources that kill us in the first place? What sort of person would even see this as a legitimate debate?" The answer to that is that the same companies that torture the earth and poison us with coal are the same companies that torture the earth and poison us with uranium. In this debate, they win either way.

The intelligent person also knows that wind and solar power are increasing every day, making the premise for this false debate increasingly ridiculous. Too bad for the lobbyists-- they're going to have to get real jobs-- say, installing wind turbines???

[phantom power]

9. Replacing coal with nuclear would kill as many people?

Really? How?

[GliderGuider]

10. It would take a genius

to prove that replacing coal with nuclear would kill as many as coal already kills. I've seen no numbers to support such an assertion. On this topic you're arguing from emotion, not reason (though it may not feel like that to you).

Certainly nuclear power is far more likely to be supplanted by renewables than is coal. I hinted at that in my reply above - the rich nations that can afford nuclear can also afford wind and solar (and can also afford to be environmentally sensitive in the first place). The problem is, from a GHG perspective replacing nuclear with solar panels or wind turbines does the planet no good whatsoever.

I don't think it's just nuclear and coal that are (or at least should be) scrutinized for their killing potential. Oil and natural gas, which combined provide 60% of our energy, have lethal effects through their impact on the climate. It seems to me the reasons oil and gas don't get much play in this debate is that their cost/benefit ratio is so good, and that they will be declining fast enough, soon enough, that they're not seen as long-term players in the death of the biosphere.

Again, I think your arguments are primarily emotional, and as such are poor tools for this particular debate. Emotions rarely convince those who don't share them in the first place. Also, you won't get far around here with the insinuation that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is unintelligent. Lots of very intelligent people can disagree in good faith on all kinds of issues. What you're doing with that tactic is trying to coerce consent. I don't think much of people who try to do that.

[groovedaddy]

12. Here's the problem: LIES perpetuated by industries & government

making it very difficult to have "reasoned discourse." Of course, these lies aren't emotionally based but once you understand the depth and breadth of the lies we've been told, in this case about nuclear energy, you might find yourself having an emotional reaction.
Consider Dr. John Gofman, co-discoverer of Uranium 233. A great read is the section on him in Stud Turkel's "Coming of Age." Gofman was asked to study the effects of radiation, particularly to identify "safe levels of exposure." Gofman was hesitant about conducting the research, based on his prior experience with the government. He stipulated that if the results of his findings were negative and subsequently supressed, he would speak it. His findings? There is no known "safe level of exposure" to radiation. His hesitance about conducting this research proved on the mark.
He was blackballed in the research community never again receiving federal funding. Many of the scientists who knew Gofman couldn't understand why this had happened because they regarded him so highly. But this is how government and industry collude to get their way. What is the relevance to the debate on this thread? Like the Iraq War, the hype on promoting nuclear energy is BASED ON LIES.

[losthills]

16. I thought you were an "agnostic" about nuclear power...

You're sounding more and more like a true believer every day.

My arguments are not "emotional" at all. They are just common sense observations that you have no answers for. You like to do math. I'm sure that an intelligent person like yourself can see the picture as clearly as I can. You stated that nuclear power only provides 6% of our power. Then to replace coal with nuclear we would have to increase it by One Hundred Times. That means 100 times more nuclear power related deaths and 100 times more environmental devastation from uranium mining.

You have seen the figures on cancer rates downwind of nuclear power plants, and in communities where uranium is mined. Can you really advocate increasing those deaths by 100 times? Can you really see that as a rational alternative to coal?

Math is not emotional. And neither are facts. Claims that coal kills more people than nuclear are not proveable. But this is just a stone cold fact: nuclear power is killing people now and it would kill 100 times more people if we used it to replace coal. Nuclear waste would also increase by 100 times.

This is also a fact: we're already running out of uranium, which, like coal is a finite resource. We're not dependent on nuclear power yet. If we make ourselves dependent on it we'll be boxing ourselves into a dead end, with the accent on "dead...."

This is also a fact: We can easily limit nuclear energy deployment now. It's important to do so, and all the major environmental organizations are in agreement on this. Coal can be replaced by renewables. It won't happen over night, but it's happening now, and it most certainly can be done faster than building 100 times more reactors.

No emotions, ma'am, just the facts.....

[GliderGuider]

18. We'll never build 100 times as much nuclear power as we have today.

We won't even build twice what we have today. Take a look at my very generous assessment of the potential of nuclear power in World Energy to 2050. We may build 10% more nuclear capacity than we have today, but it will hit a peak by 2020 and then decline, perhaps permanently. Nuclear power will never be much more of a problem than it is today. Arguments against nuclear power focus on reducing it from its current level, or at least stopping further construction and letting plant aging reduce it over time from attrition. I think that's essentially what will happen.

I don't think that the evidence for excess cancers downwind from operating nuclear plants is all that strong. Even if it's real I refuse to get all worked up over it when there are so much bigger problems in the world. Have you looked at the food security situation in Africa lately? If not, watch this space. I'll have an analysis out in a couple of weeks that should have anyone with more compassion than GWB weeping in their Weetabix. There are real honest-to-Goddess dead babies and starving mothers out there, with no statistical tests required to validate the numbers.

I'll save my horror for the truly horrible, thanks.

[losthills]

22. Most of the experts agree that we would need at least

2,000 new reactors to accomplish anything with nuclear power. With an accompanying increase in the cancer deaths that don't seem to impress you....

"New nuclear reactors cannot address Climate Change fast enough.

"Most experts conclude that 1,000- 2,000 new reactors would be needed to meaningfully displace greenhouse gas emissions. This would mean a new reactor coming online every two weeks until 2050.

"While construction time for new reactors is estimated at around ten years, expected delays with site designation, licensing and construction could extend this figure beyond any realistic planning schedule.

"Dormant for decades, the nuclear industry is unlikely to be able to expand its manufacturing base to meet this unprecedented demand schedule. One major obstacle would be forging reactor vessels with only two companies worldwide currently producing them."



http://www.graceenergyinitiative.org/_climate.php

[hunter]

13. So how do you reverse our increasing reliance on coal?

When do you think we reach this magic point in our economy where solar and wind power start to displace operating coal power plants?

I see no evidence this will ever happen. We are going to increase our utilization of coal and drive this economy over the falls. Nature is going to clean up the mess in her usual fashion, first by killing off the overreaching population, and then by patiently rebuilding biological diversity over geological time scales.

As we are picking through the wreckage of this unsustainable economy I think we are going to have many regrets, and one of the greater regrets will be that our society chose to use coal over nuclear power.

Nuclear waste you can pretty much put in a hole in the ground and not worry about it much. But the adverse impacts of waste carbon dioxide are being written into the genes and geology of the entire earth.

[groovedaddy]

14. "Nuclear waste you can pretty much put in a hole in the ground and not worry about it much."

If you'd like, I can provide you with a list of very knowledgeable people who are worried about it.

[GliderGuider]

15. People worry about a lot of low-probability, low-risk stuff.

Even smart people do that. It's human nature.

Compared to the lethal planetary risks posed by 394 ppmv of CO2, or the lethal ecological risks posed by ocean-going trawlers, or the lethal civilization risks posed by Peak Oil, or the lethal economic risks posed by 700 trillion dollars worth of unregulated derivatives, some high level nuclear waste in a hole in the ground doesn't even rate a footnote.

But hey, everyone needs something to worry about, so knock yourself out. Just don't be too shocked when I decline to share that particular fear.

[losthills]

17. That's gonna be a pretty big hole.....

Some people may not realize the truly massive quantities of radioactive waste that are produced at every stage of the nuclear cycle. It's in the tons, and country has yet figured out what to do with it.

From Greenpeace:
Radioactive Waste : The Problem with No Solution

"It is often said that nuclear power is now a mature technology as it has been operating for over 40 years. Despite this, there is still no environmentally appropriate programme of dealing with any form of radioactive waste. This problem is made worse on a daily basis by the continual production of radioactive waste.

Nuclear waste is produced at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to the reprocessing of spent nuclear. Much of this waste will remain hazardous for thousands of years, leaving a deadly radioactive legacy to future generations.

At nuclear power stations, highly radioactive waste has to be regularly removed from the reactor and at most sites this �spent� fuel is being stored temporarily in water-filled cooling ponds. According to independent experts14, the global quantity of spent fuel produced without a climate based radical expansion of nuclear power is expected to increase from 145,000 tonnes in 1994, to 322,000 tonnes by the year 2010. Whilst a variety of disposal methods have been under discussion for decades, there is still no demonstrated method for isolating nuclear waste from the environment for adequate time periods.

As part of the routine operation of every nuclear power station, some waste materials are also discharged directly into the environment. Liquid waste is discharged into the sea and gaseous waste is released into the atmosphere. "


http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/no.nukes/nenstcc.html#5.1

[hunter]

19. And in comparison to coal that volume is very, very small.

Coal waste is produced at every stage of the coal fuel cycle, from coal mining to the reprocessing of spent coal. Much of this coal waste will remain hazardous forever, changing the earth's climate and leaving a deadly legacy to future generations. Whilst a variety of disposal methods have been under discussion for decades, there is still no demonstrated method for isolating coal waste from the environment for adequate time periods.

You can quote me if you like.

[losthills]

23. If I gave you a choice.....

between keeping a barrel of coal in your garage or a barrel of radioactive waste, I wonder which one you would Choose?

[GliderGuider]

26. If you gave me the correct choice

between storing a shielded barrel of cooled-down nuclear waste in my garage or having the stack gases from a coal plant pumped into my house, I do know which one I'd choose...

[GliderGuider]

20. Since we're talking tonnes

From http://www.lead.org.au/lanv5n3/lan5n3-8.html :

To run your average 1000 megawatt coal-fired power plant, you need to burn about 4 million tonnes of coal. That 4 million tonnes of coal contains 5.2 tonnes of uranium and 12.8 tonnes of radioactive thorium - as well as 0.22 tonnes of radioactive potassium-40. But that's just from a single 1000 megawatt plant in just one year.

The world-wide use of coal in 1991 was about 5,100 million tonnes. When that coal was burnt, some 6,630 tonnes of uranium and 16,320 tonnes of thorium were released into the biosphere.

And if you look at the amount of coal that is predicted to be burnt in the 100-year period from the year 1937 to the year 2037, you're looking at 640 billion tonnes of coal. That enormous pile of coal contains about 830,000 tonnes of uranium, 2,000,000 tonnes of thorium and 35,000 tonnes of potassium-40 - all of it free to enter the biosphere! We are still not too sure where it all goes. Uranium and thorium are not very mobile, but potassium-40 can easily enter the food chain.

In 2006 we produced 6.2 billion tonnes of coal. If the above figures are correct, the combustion of that coal that released 8,000 tonnes of uranium and 20,000 tonnes of thorium. That was radioactive metal, and it wasn't stuffed into the ground or stored in pools, but released into the air for us all to breathe.

We appear to be straining at gnats but swallowing camels.

[losthills]

24. Well again...

You are trying to get us to choose between two different poisons.

I've already stated who I think that (so-called) debate serves.

"None of the above" would be my choice....

[GliderGuider]

25. I understand that it looks like a forced choice.

I don't think it is. There is really no choice available. Nuclear will not go anywhere, so we don't need to worry about it. Coal can't be stopped without stopping civilization in many places on the globe, especially if oil and natural gas go into decline.

We can and will build wind turbines until our fingers bleed, but they won't keep the lights on.

I think we should stop wringing our hands over nuclear power and put our panic to better use. Let's oppose suburban sprawl, industrial agriculture and the global consolidation of ownership in everything from agribusiness to the media. Our effort is far better spent opposing things like that than nuclear power that is essentially at a dead end anyway.

[hunter]

21. People without political power are routinely abused in this nation.

Whether it is coal or uranium mining wastes, many people have suffered.

The wealthy and powerful don't have to live with toxic mining waste. They hold the NIMBY cards.

[Nihil]

31. You've got that right.

> The wealthy and powerful don't have to live with toxic mining waste.
> They hold the NIMBY cards.

They don't even have to live with wind generators "cluttering up their
scenic views" (proving that it is the wealthy and powerful that are at
fault, not one particular political party).

[groovedaddy]

34. Though the g.o.p. is the preferred party of the rich! n.t

[invader zim]

37. I seem to remember

I seem to remember that it was the Kennedy clan who was opposed to the offshore wind farm near them. It ruined their view. Wealthy nimby people come from both parties.