Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Nuclear Gamble on the Not-So-Distant Horizon

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 » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-10 02:03 AM
Original message
A Nuclear Gamble on the Not-So-Distant Horizon
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/04-8

Published on Friday, June 4, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
A Nuclear Gamble on the Not-So-Distant Horizon
by Paul Gunter and Linda Gunter

Much like Captain Renault in Casablanca, the White House is suddenly shocked, shocked to find that oil rigs can explode, destroying ecosystems and livelihoods. The Obama administration has backed away from its offshore oil expansion policy in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe as the long-term environmental and economical consequences unfold in the Gulf States. Headlines are clamoring for the criminal investigations of BP, TransOcean, Halliburton and ultimately, the federal regulator, Mineral Management Services (MMS). Rather paradoxically, President Obama is using the oil spill to call for more nuclear power.

Yet, with the exception of a handful of insightful political cartoonists, the obvious parallel between the regulatory delinquency of MMS and that of its nuclear equivalent - the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) - and the potential for an equally catastrophic accident in the nuclear sector, has not been drawn. As with the MMS debacle, the NRC is gambling with inevitable disaster with the same spin of the wheel of misfortune and with potentially even higher stakes.

Investigations have already revealed that MMS had become too friendly and compliant toward the industry it was supposed to regulate. This hands-off approach proved to be a formula for inevitable disaster. Similarly, the NRC consistently puts the financial motives of the nuclear industry it is supposed to regulate ahead of public safety. In instance after instance, the NRC has chosen not to enforce its own regulations even in the face of repeated reactor safety violations, risking a serious reactor accident while leaving often high-risk safety problems to linger unresolved for decades.

The NRC acknowledges that the greatest hazard to a reactor comes from fire. Yet not one of the 104 currently operating reactors is in full compliance with critical federal fire safety regulations. The NRC has known this since 1992 when the majority of U.S. nuclear plants were found to have installed bogus fire barriers prone to fail in a significant fire. Rather than take prompt action, the NRC spent six years discussing the problem with industry, then issued corrective orders which it later discovered the industry had ignored, substituting them instead with less costly, unapproved and illegal measures. The NRC took no punitive action and simply changed its rules to accommodate an "alternative compliance strategy" that relies largely on quantifying or trivializing the risk from fire with computer models, many of which cannot be validated as reliable. Any one of the U.S. reactors operating today could be the next Deep Horizon fire, but spilling cancer-causing radiation instead of oil.

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-10 06:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. Lets shut down all of our energy sources, They are all obviously too
dangerous to to be using. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-10 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Nuclear will become too dangerous
when we allow certain interested parties to write their own regulations and do enforcement. Just as with the extraction industry. We don't do things like we used to in this country. This is a point lost on many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-10 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. How many people have died in this country from...
Edited on Sat Jun-05-10 11:25 AM by RC
Coal?
Oil?
Nuclear?

In the last 10 years?
In the last 30 years?
In the last 50 years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-10 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. This has no relevance now
that corporations rule the fucking country and write every piece of regulation they will face. It wasn't too many years ago that construction workers nearly beat government inspectors to death when they suggested the work wasn't being done to spec. This was in Kansas I believe. With nuclear we must assume that anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Or, don't you feel that is the correct approach?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Exactly...
airplanes crash, therefore we should stop driving.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-10 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
2. k&r nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-10 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
6. Unrec...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heywood J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-10 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
8. The common denominator here: profit.
This proves that the best thing to do, regardless of how the energy is generated, is to take the production and generation out of private hands. As long as the means of producing energy (an essential commodity in today's society) is in the hands of those with extreme incentive to cut corners and make a buck by doing so, it doesn't matter how you generate the power.

If it means saving a buck to pay the CEO, a corporation is just as likely to:
  • use substandard bolts and have solar panels fall and crush workers
  • use an inferior steel grade on wind turbines and have the blades fly off into someone's house
  • use substandard fire protection at a nuclear plant
  • fail to inspect coal plant dams impounding fly ash and slurry, and have them flood small towns
  • the whole situation with BP
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 Wed May 08th 2024, 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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