OPINION & EDITORIAL
Dismiss anti-nuclear myth
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- No new nukes: Use solar, wind power (March 24, 2008)
- Herald wrong to print abortion ad (March 13, 2008)
- Contrary to common contention, religion inspires inquiry (March 12, 2008)
- Science only part of human condition (March 12, 2008)
Related Stories:
- No new nukes: Use solar, wind power (March 24, 2008)
- President charts promising course on energy policy (February 10, 2006)
- Nuclear power worth risks (October 18, 2007)
- Justification for Iraq in North Korea (April 28, 2003)
- Beyond cogen (October 17, 2003)
by Letters to the Editor
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Nuclear energy’s role in Wisconsin is the subject of heated debate. With respect to safety and disposal, many opponents use arguments high on rhetoric but lacking in facts, such as in Monday’s letter to the editor (“No new nukes: Use solar, wind power,” March 24).
For instance, nuclear plants are not “disasters waiting to happen.” Historically, no deaths in the public are attributable to U.S. commercial nuclear power. Our worst accident, Three Mile Island, resulted in no injury.
Analysis of current designs — vetted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — shows a reactor would melt down at a rate of about once every million years and even then likely have no consequence for anyone off-site. You are about as likely to be struck by a meteor as you are to be harmed by nuclear power.
Those that point to Chernobyl are using a straw man argument. The plant had a poor design, was poorly managed and was unregulated. Such a plant could not be licensed here in Wisconsin. Chernobyl is to nuclear power as the Ford Pinto is to the automotive industry: It’s a now-extinct design mistake.
But what of the byproducts? The perceptions overshadow the reality. Used fuel from all U.S. reactors over 40 years could fit in Camp Randall up to the goal posts. It is solid, compact and insoluble, not a green ooze that can leak.
Nuclear is the only power source that accounts for and has plans to dispose of all its byproducts. The industry has already funded Yucca Mountain and a working repository for defense nuclear waste is already operational near Carlsbad, N.M. Further, techniques exist to recycle and significantly reduce its volume and toxicity. The solutions are technologically available.
At the end of the day, all technologies have risks — wind can have blade ejection accidents and solar-PV plants can leak toxins.
While concerns are real and caution justified, we need a proper assessment of risk to objectively weigh costs and benefits and not appeal to fear when making judgments.
Brian Kiedrowski
Graduate Student, nuclear engineering
Public Outreach Coordinator
American Nuclear Society, UW-Madison Chapter
bckiedrowski@wisc.edu
Anonymous (March 26, 2008 @ 7:14am):
Nuclear energy is the way of the future. Disposing of nuclear waste is a lot better for the environment than all the pollutants released by coal. Solar and wind are nice, but not always reliable for obvious reasons.
Susanne Vandenbosch (March 26, 2008 @ 12:41pm):
It is not the volume of nuclear waste that is a problem . It is the radiactivity and the heat generated by the radioactive decay of fission products and transuranic isotopes produced in nuclear reactors that is cause for concern. Spent fuel from nuclear reactors remains radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years and must be isolated from the drinking water supply. If it is not isolated cancer causing materials will be ingested.
Anonymous (March 26, 2008 @ 1:45pm):
"It is not the volume of nuclear waste that is a problem."
True, but the small volume makes containment all the more achievable. There's no reason to believe that nuclear waste cannot be isolated and contained.
In fact, given the small amount of waste, it's conceivable that we could shoot it out into space on a collision course with a star. Not that I'm proposing this, just pointing out that there are solutions.
Anonymous (March 26, 2008 @ 1:51pm):
yet we're capable of isolating that spent fuel in such a way that it wont do harm to anyone for those hundreds of thousands of years and in fact are currently doing that quite successfully. the same can not be said about the byproducts of the burning of fossil fuels.
Jim Blair (March 26, 2008 @ 2:46pm):
Today the main objection to nuclear power is the waste. And the way we deal with that does need to be changed. After one pass, the fuel rods are being held under water waiting for a permanent repository to be found.
But a fuel rod is not removed from a reactor because its fuel is exhausted. It actually has MORE fuel after the first pass than it did before. It shuts down because of the build up of neutron absorbing reaction products. Nuclear fuel rods can be recycled (reprocessed) to remove to unwanted reaction products and utilize the remaining U-235 and also the plutonium that was created. By recycling, the existing spent fuel rods can yield up to 60 times more fuel than they did on their first pass, and the unusable remains become less radioactive than the original uranium ore after a few hundred years.
Two factoids on this:
1-Today about half of US nuclear power comes from decommissioned nuclear warheads (what better use for them?)
2-Near the end of their first pass fuel rods are getting about 1/3 of their power from the plutonium that was made in them rather than from the U-325 they started with.
So why dont we recycle our nuclear waste the way some other countries do? President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order prohibiting the recycling of nuclear waste. The idea was probably that the world would follow our example, and thus reduce the likelihood of nuclear weapons spreading to other countries. But other countries did not follow our lead, nuclear weapons have spread (China, India, Pakistan, probably Israel, etc.) and today Green House Gas and climate change are the biggest problems we face.
So I say legalize recycling and repeal the Wisconsin nuclear ban", and replace all coal fired power plants with nukes.
Anonymous (March 26, 2008 @ 4:20pm):
"President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order prohibiting the recycling of nuclear waste."
Man, that guy was no doubt the WORST President EVAR!
Anonymous (March 26, 2008 @ 4:27pm):
To the last comment - Carter did pass that ban, but it we repealed in 1982. What went (and is) in effect was a the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which imposes a tax--currently $1/MWh--on nuclear energy with the purpose of funding a geological repository (e.g. Yucca Mt).
By paying this tax, the government submits to dealing with the civilian used fuel (i.e., that the utilities paid the tax guarantees the used fuel will be deposited by Uncle Sam)
So, before recycling can happen, this tax must go up so much to make it worthwhile for utilities to pursue this option, or (less likely) society must actively pursue nuclear recycling much like they do any other variety of recycling.
I agree--lift the ban in Wisconsin.
Anonymous (March 26, 2008 @ 5:31pm):
"Historically, no deaths in the public are attributable to U.S. commercial nuclear power."
Well, this is a typical statement of nuclear proponents that contains a lot of imbedded unstated caveats, and is highly misleading.
First, "commercial nuclear power" glosses over the fact that historically there were and there continues to be a lot of government and quasi-government infrastructure involved in the nuclear enterprize.
Generally "public" means people not employed in some part of the industry. There have been considerable occupational deaths due to mining, milling and processing of uranium. There have been cancer deaths of workers likely due to decommissioning of a power plant or two. There have been deaths of the public due to unreclaimed uranium mines and mills, and the dispersal of uranium mill tailings in fill, buidling, road and etc.
"Attributable" is also and interesting way to fudge around the fact that mortality due to above-background radiological releases from the nuclear industry would occur 10-25 years from initial release. It would be difficult to pin any individual cancer death on commerical nuclear power, but it is possible to show through modeling how radiological releases raises the risk of cancer and death from cancer over a broad population.
Anonymous (March 26, 2008 @ 6:00pm):
People in the US don't "feel" that nuclear power is enviromental. On the other hand wind and solar "feel" very enviromental.
No amount of logic can change that illogical emotional response.
Anonymous (March 26, 2008 @ 7:13pm):
There is no doubt in my mind that fewer people would have died if nuclear power had replaced coal power years ago.
More radiactivity is released by mining and burning coal than equivalent uranium mining and nuclear power generation. The waste would also be easier to control.
Rod Adams (March 26, 2008 @ 7:26pm):
Susanne wrote "It is the radiactivity and the heat generated by the radioactive decay of fission products and transuranic isotopes produced in nuclear reactors that is cause for concern."
It is funny how an asset can be a liability if not properly understood. Most of us spend a lot of money buying "heat" in one form or another - fully 90-95% of the energy consumed in the world comes from releasing chemical or atomic heat. The business of properly capturing, distributing and using that heat is probably the world's largest single industry.
The heat generated by radioactive decay is only a liability if it is not properly used. As several people have pointed out already, the material that we currently remove from our second generation nuclear plants is just slightly used and can be recycled. It still contains about 95% of its initial potential energy.
The shorter lived, more intense radiation sources like Cesium and Strontium also have potential use for applications like irradiation of medical instruments or as heat supplies for radioisotope thermal generators designed to power remote sensors or underwater fiber optic cables.
Other fission product like paladium and ruthenium are rare, valuable materials with unique physical properties.
The biggest reason that most people fear atomic energy is that they have been carefully taught that it is something frightening. IMHO much of that teaching was sponsored by energy competitors who had a lot to lose if they let fission enter their markets without resistance.
Anonymous (March 26, 2008 @ 8:15pm):
The statement is not really misleading. Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be, "no one off-site has been harmed during the operation of a commercial nuclear power plant in the US."
Admittedly, people in the nuclear power industry have been seriously harmed or killed during routine work operations. However, this is true with any industry. I would be willing to bet if you did a side by side comparison with similar industries, nuclear would come out significantly better than the rest.
Either way, these are people who have willingly accepted employment in the industry and not bystanders that have nothing to do with it. This shows people in the general community who fear being harmed by nuclear power, have no reasonable basis to be seriously afraid. It is a very low risk.
Also, the issue of the increased mortality is completely false. First of all, the radiation released from a nuclear plant is almost insignificant, far less than a chest x-ray. If this were true, we would see a dramatic rise in cancers due to simple medical procedures. This is not the case.
Furthermore, radiation is very easy to detect. However, we have no measurements of releases that would cause any significant harm.
Just for argument, let us ignore this fact. Have there been rises in cancer? The study by Joseph Mangano claims so. However, when reviewed by numerous scientific and public health organizations, they have invariably showed his analysis invalid. Additionally, the place were we would expect the biggest rise, Three Mile Island, shows no statistically significant increase in the 20+ years it has been studied.
I'm sorry, but the evidence for the claim of increased cancers around nuclear plants just is not there.
Anonymous (March 26, 2008 @ 10:22pm):
Again, nuclear proponents like to focus on one part of the nuclear fuel cycle in making statements about the significance of radiological issues. The cumulative effect of all releases throughout the entire cycle from mining to waste disposal is what is important to consider. "Recycling" of nuclear fuel only makes that cumulative effect higher.
That there is no "insignificant" dose of radiation has been settled by health physics. Even background radiation causes cancer. The statement that medical procedures which use radiation don't cause cancer is faith-based. It is settle science that these medical procedures cause excess cancers. A lot of innovation in medical physics has been to find ways to deliver medical scanning or therapy using less rediation and in a more focused way in order to reduce the unintended cancers.
There are differences about what model should be used to predict health effects. While radiation is relatively easy to detect, there are significant differences in the biological effect of various radionuclides due to their different metabolic pathways and type of radiation delivered.
Susanne Vandenbosch (March 26, 2008 @ 11:58pm):
Conservation is another alternative approach to the coming energy shortage. This includes better public transportation, better mileage vehicles, better construction of homes and other buildings and other conservtion measures. It may still be necessary to use more nuclear power but we should not use more than is necessary and before other options including conservation have been utlilized.
Anonymous (March 27, 2008 @ 1:10am):
"That there is no "insignificant" dose of radiation has been settled by health physics. Even background radiation causes cancer."
Well then you should probably never go outside or expose yourself to light. Otherwise you'll get cancer.
Anonymous (March 27, 2008 @ 9:12am):
"That there is no "insignificant" dose of radiation...Even background radiation causes cancer."
Then should we ban bananas or living at high altitude? These two are far more significant of an impact than the emissions from a nuclear power plant are.
The truth is when you look at data of natural background radiation from 100s to 1000s of mrem/year, there is no observable increase in cancer. Suppose a nearby nuclear plant gives a conservative additional 1 mrem/year, how does this compare to the additional 1000 mrem you get from natural background with no measurable effect? Do we get so cautious to the point where we take absolutely no risks no matter how small to the detriment of everything else?
Anonymous (March 27, 2008 @ 12:11pm):
"That there is no "insignificant" dose of radiation has been settled by health physics. Even background radiation causes cancer."
This is the standard environmentalist line that is supposed to give them carte blanche to shut down anything they want.
The truth is that quantity is everything. This is true of everything from pesticides to potatoes to water. If it were true that there is no insignificant radiation level, then life would be impossible.
Anonymous (March 27, 2008 @ 2:11pm):
"The statement that medical procedures which use radiation don't cause cancer is faith-based. It is settled science that these medical procedures cause excess cancers."
What medical procedures? Some use more radiation and some use much less. In fact, radiation is used to cure cancer!
By what standard do you claim that something "causes cancer?" Compared to what? When the doctor says there's a risk from some treatment, you have to ask "Compared to what?" Compared to the risk of dying from not having the treatment?
The risk from most medical uses of radiation is negligible. By what standard? By the standard of the benefit gained from using the treatment, like not having your teeth fall out, and the amount of radiation you get from other sources.
Nuclear power is 100 percent safe because the amount of radiation emitted is negligible. By what standard? By the standard of all other sources of radiation.
It's not valid to say some source of radiation causes cancer when the radiation is orders of magnitude lower than what you get from standing in your basement or other sources, and when the risk of cancer from even these sources is very very low.
Jim Blair (March 27, 2008 @ 3:35pm):
Hi,
An observation on the hazard of low level exposure to ionizing radiation. Residents of Denver Colorado receive about twice as much background radiation than people in New Orleans (because of the higher elevation plus the granite in the mountains). But they have about half the cancer rate.
Airline crews receive extra radiation (cosmic from elevation) than the general public but have no higher cancer rates.
If there were much of an effect it should show up in some of these comparisons.
But IF there were a harmful effect from low radiation exposure, that would be an arguement against both coal (uranium release) and natural gas (radon) rather than against nuclear power.
And from an earlier discussion:
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 12:33pm) says:
"Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT) 2003 study and a 2004 University of Chicago study concurred that nuclear power is much more expensive than natural gas or coal for electrical production (MIT's estimated cost of electricity for coal was 4.2kWh/ natural gas 3.8-5.6 kWh/nuclear power 6.7kWh)."
Hi,
Anonymous didn't give me enough information to find the original report, but in deriving those figures, how much was added to the cost of coal and natural gas to compensate for the CO2 they emit? That is, how much do they think climate change will cost?
I agree that if climate change is dismissed as a minor issue, or not related to CO2, then there isn't much of a case for replacing coal or natural gas with nuclear. We could get by with wind and solar supplimenting the existing power systems.
Anonymous (March 27, 2008 @ 5:33pm):
Cost is not the issue. It's up to individual consumers to decide what they are willing to pay. If I want to pay more (or less) for nuclear, then I have the right to do that. We don't need MIT studies to figure this out anymore than for the cost of soda.
Also, global warming is not the issue. The case for replacing coal or natural gas with nuclear is whether someone thinks they can make money selling nuclear. If nuclear is not a threat to anyone - which it isn't - then producers have every right to produce it and consumers every right to consume it. It's not a collective decision.
Anonymous (March 27, 2008 @ 10:08pm):
In regards to the MIT study, it is hopelessly outdated in such a short time. At the time of the MIT study, natural gas was $2 per unit, it is now $7-9 with a record price of $14. No analyst seriously expects it to go back below $5 per unit.
Since the fuel cost is very high for natural gas, this method looks far less attractive. So now we are left with coal and nuclear as the two baseload sources. Wind and solar might make up for peaking loads, but it will not be baseload with current technology.
Susanne Vandenbosch (March 29, 2008 @ 4:51pm):
Recycling separates the elements but does nothing to the radioactivity of the isotpes composing the elements. One particularly troublesome isotope is Neptunium 237 which has a half-life of 2 million years. Even the French who have used recycling for many years are looking for a geological repository.
Jim Blair (March 30, 2008 @ 11:19am):
Hi,
Like Plutonium, Np-237 is a potential nuclear fuel.
If we were to take climate change seriously (not likely), we would recognize the need to shut down all coal power plants (that provide half of our electric power) while at the same time generating enough additional power to run our cars and accommodate population growth. Doing this would require building nuclear plants.
We would then have the choice of worrying about "containing" the resulting Pu and Np isotopes for thousands of years, or of using them to produce additional power. To me, the choice seems clear.
Anonymous (March 31, 2008 @ 11:53am):
What you say is true Susanne, as far as it goes, but you gloss over some things that should be kept in mind.
1. fuel reprocessing will reduce the volume of waste. There is less of it to handle, which alone is a major boon. Taking something bad and making it smaller is good.
2. fuel reprocessing reduces the activity of the waste. Separated, the decaying products won't breed more isotopes, so the waste won't be as active as long.
3. many waste isotopes can have value in a variety of applications.
4. all this said, yes a repository of some sort is necessary. The fact that the waste is stored really is a good thing. We have a handle on the waste from nuclear power, which no other means of producing power can say. Yes, the waste must be handled with care, but we know it can be done. The military has successfully done geological storage of waste from sub and carrier reactors at their Nevada site for years.
ECA
Jim Blair (March 31, 2008 @ 9:23pm):
Hi,
Like Plutonium, Np-237 is a potential nuclear fuel.
If we were to take climate change seriously (not likely), we would recognize the need to shut down all coal power plants (that provide half of our electric power) while at the same time generating enough additional power to run our cars and accommodate population growth. Doing this would require building nuclear plants.
We would have the choice of worrying about "containing" the resulting Pu and Np isotopes for thousands of years, or of using them to produce additional power. To me, the choice seems clear.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
