Nuclear Power Madness

[Norman Solomon]

Like every other president since the 1940s, Barack Obama has promoted nuclear power. Now, with reactors melting down in Japan, the official stance is more disconnected from reality than ever.

Political elites are still clinging to the oxymoron of “safe nuclear power.” It’s up to us -- people around the world -- to peacefully and insistently shut those plants down.

There is no more techno-advanced country in the world than Japan. Nuclear power is not safe there, and it is not safe anywhere.

As the New York Times reported on Monday, “most of the nuclear plants in the United States share some or all of the risk factors that played a role at Fukushima Daiichi: locations on tsunami-prone coastlines or near earthquake faults, aging plants and backup electrical systems that rely on diesel generators and batteries that could fail in extreme circumstances.”

Nuclear power -- from uranium mining to fuel fabrication to reactor operations to nuclear waste that will remain deadly for hundreds of thousands of years -- is, in fact, a moral crime against future generations.

But syrupy rhetoric has always marinated the nuclear age. From the outset -- even as radioactive ashes were still hot in Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- top officials in Washington touted atomic energy as redemptive. The split atom, we were to believe, could be an elevating marvel.

President Dwight Eisenhower pledged “to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma” by showing that “the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life.”

Even after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 -- and now this catastrophe in Japan -- the corporate theologians of nuclear faith have continued to bless their own divine projects.

Thirty years ago, when I coordinated the National Citizens Hearings for Radiation Victims on the edge of Capitol Hill, we heard grim testimony from nuclear scientists, workers, downwinders and many others whose lives had been forever ravaged by the split atom. Routine in the process was tag-team deception from government agencies and nuclear-invested companies.

By 1980, generations had already suffered a vast array of terrible consequences -- including cancer, leukemia and genetic injuries -- from a nuclear fuel cycle shared by the “peaceful” and military atom. Today, we know a lot more about the abrupt and slow-moving horrors of the nuclear industry.

And we keep learning, by the minute, as nuclear catastrophe goes exponential in Japan. But government leaders don’t seem to be learning much of anything.

On Sunday, even while nuclear-power reactors were melting down, the White House issued this statement: “The president believes that meeting our energy needs means relying on a diverse set of energy sources that includes renewables like wind and solar, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear power. Information is still coming in about the events unfolding in Japan, but the administration is committed to learning from them and ensuring that nuclear energy is produced safely and responsibly here in the U.S.”

Yet another reflexive nuclear salute.

When this year’s State of the Union address proclaimed a goal of “clean energy sources” for 80 percent of U.S. electricity by 2035, Obama added: “Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all -- and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.”

Bipartisan for nuclear power? You betcha. On Sunday morning TV shows, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell voiced support for nuclear power, while Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer offered this convoluted ode to atomic flackery: “We are going to have to see what happens here -- obviously still things are happening -- but the bottom line is we do have to free ourselves of independence from foreign oil in the other half of the globe. Libya showed that. Prices are up, our economy is being hurt by it, or could be hurt by it. So I'm still willing to look at nuclear. As I’ve always said it has to be done safely and carefully.”

Such behavior might just seem absurd or pathetic -- if the consequences weren’t so grave.

Nuclear power madness is so entrenched that mainline pundits and top elected officials rarely murmur dissent. Acquiescence is equated with prudent sagacity.

In early 2010, President Obama announced federal loan guarantees -- totaling more than $8 billion -- to revive the construction of nuclear power plants in this country, where 110 nuclear-power reactors are already in operation.

“Investing in nuclear energy remains a necessary step,” he said. “What I hope is that, with this announcement, we’re underscoring both our seriousness in meeting the energy challenge and our willingness to look at this challenge, not as a partisan issue, but as a matter that’s far more important than politics because the choices we make will affect not just the next generation but many generations to come.”

Promising to push for bigger loan guarantees to build more nuclear power plants, the president said: “This is only the beginning.”

Norman Solomon is president of the Institute for Public Accuracy and a senior fellow at RootsAction. His books include “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” He lives in Marin County.

[CSummer]

> Political elites are still clinging to the oxymoron of “safe nuclear power.”

Yes, it is truly an oxymoron. And if all the costs were included, we would see that it's an economic stupidity.

> It’s up to us -- people around the world -- to peacefully and insistently shut those plants down.

Nice thought - but how? I don't think the owners are going to allow anyone but their employees near the control switches!

[lynn]

..."Political elites are still clinging to the oxymoron of “safe nuclear power.”"...
-----------------------
I actually haven't been hearing that at all...
I've been hearing that there is always some risk in Nuclear energy, (some risk in almost everything we do)...But, it's still one of the sources we should continue to advance, and use...
This is a power plant that is 40 yrs. old or more...And maybe some bad planning designs there too...
Why don't we learn from our mistakes instead of making Nuclear energy a total horrible evil?...
That 'horrible evil' has been fueling our homes, and businesses for a long time...
Surgery on the human body was pretty crude, and horrible for a long time too...It's constantly improving...
Maybe the pro-nuclear people have some valid points...
-----------
I like this guys take on the situation....
https://www.electronichouse.com/arti...gy_efficiency/

[podfish]

Political elites are still clinging to the oxymoron of “safe nuclear power.” ..... There is no more techno-advanced country in the world than Japan. Nuclear power is not safe there, and it is not safe anywhere.

It'd be so much more realistic if the conversation just avoided the idea of 'safe' regarding any kind of technology. It's all a continuum. We seem comfortable accepting a staggering number of roadway deaths as a consequence of our transportation system - though if they're in car accidents, it seems less a problem than if they're from trains or god forbid airplanes. Those are scary. We accept slow deaths from pollution without too much concern, though there is some effort made to minimize those. And apparently in much of Asia there are pretty bad consequences for those living with the scraps of old electronics that end up in their dumps. But for some reason equally slow deaths from residual radiation that would blow over from a nuclear accident seems much worse. I don't get it. I guess it's because the pollution related deaths are either concentrated in poor communities back east near the coal-fired plants, or dissipated among the communities far from the smokestacks, while radiation deaths presumably would form a tighter cluster around the failed containment domes or leaky waste dumps.

[Barry]

So what's your plan your Energy Plan? What about carbon? How can renewables be made price competitive?

[djinthecountry]

Agree with your comments, Nuclear Power should be one of our top priorities.

[Barry]

Agree with your comments, Nuclear Power should be one of our top priorities.

Who's comment? What comment?

[CSummer]

Seems like they must already be price competitive, otherwise utilities and others wouldn't be making large investments in solar and wind power. If the vast amount of money that's been dumped into extremely hazardous nuclear energy were to go to these renewables and into conservation through increased efficiency, their cost would continue to drop and there would be no (zero) need for nuclear energy.

So what's your plan your Energy Plan? What about carbon? How can renewables be made price competitive?

[Hotspring 44]

Agree with your comments, Nuclear Power should be one of our top priorities.

Yes, I hope you meant; to completely eliminate Nuclear Power as a means of mass energy production; which absolutely, "should be one of our top priorities".

[Hotspring 44]

...How can renewables be made price competitive?

Campaign and vote for politicians that legislate in ways that will actually level the "playing field" by; equalizing the subsidies, land leases and tax exemptions that are given to the nuclear, oil, coal, natural gas, large-scale and inefficient agricultural based fuel (corn as an example) and all the"non-renewable" so-called "energy production".

Only then will we have a true representation of the investment viability of energy production like, wind, solar, and small scale farm-based local fuel-alcohol;...

...A couple of example's: both small; like residential and commercial rooftops in suburban areas in South West US for photovoltaic solar panels; and also some large-scale solar generation plants after adequate EIR's.

Also, geothermal, localized small scale farm co-production of food, animal feed and efficient "surplus" alcohol fuel that will make many local farms become virtually, if not completely fossil-fuel independent as well as local producers of liquid based fuel that will not be emitting excessive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere (comparatively to gasoline or diesel fuel derived from petroleum).

Also after correctly analyzing the environmental Impact of location, design and operation parameters of large-scale, wind turbine, power generation ("Wind Farms") so as to mitigate "Bird Kills" (particularly; raptor species) And "bat kills" ; those too.

FYI:

Man-made structure/technology	Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)
Feral and domestic cats	Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]
Power lines	130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]
Windows (residential and commercial	100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]
Pesticides	70 million [source: AWEA]
Automobiles	60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]
Lighted communication towers	40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]
Wind turbines	10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]

[Hotspring 44]

After the nuclear disaster in Japan, How many birds, fish, mammals, and people will be killed over the next 30 years or so due to the various radio active fallout emissions?
Are wind blades really that "bad" as compared to that!?

What about the 2 aging nuclear power plants (Diablo Canyon and San Onofre) in California located similarly as the ones in Japan which are melting-down now because of a very large earthquake and tsunami; that are near the one of the most populated areas in the USA? I don't know about you, but I am extremely concerned about that.

Did you know that if the nuclear energy pro entity's had their way there would be nuclear power plants in both Bodega Bay and Point Arena (Manchester beach area just North of Point Arena)?

The Bodega Bay Duck Pond When PG&E started pushing plans to build the reactors at Bodega Bay in 1958 a literal groundswell of opposition erupted during the next 6 years to stop them dead cold. The site they had chosen near the San Andreas Fault Zone was just a few miles from the epicenter of the Great San Francisco Quake where ground shifts of over 20 feet had occurred in 1906. PG&E's unethical plans to build the reactor is not new for this company, as they have a history of unfair tactics that goes back to the company's birth. Upon deciding that the Bodega Headlands would be an excellent site for the largest nuclear facility in the world, PG&E simply beat the state out in its plans to make the area a state park. The battle started in 1958 when the Santa Rosa Press Democrat published the first story on PG&E's plans. The company's ignored their own geologist, who had warned that the area was likely to be effected by strong shaking during a quake. Concerned citizens started getting involved as PG&E refused to acknowledge publicly that they were actually going to build nuclear reactors at the proposed site. The 1957 windscale accident in England, where a small reactor had burned out of control for more than a day, helped focus concerns about safety on this new idea of nuclear power. In 1961, after nearly 3 years of pushing their plan behind the scenes, PG&E announced plans to build the Atomic Park at the Bodega site. The ensuing battle and PG&E's nasty style started to backfire though as public concerns grew. Major opposition came from within the ranks of the Sierra Club, but the board refused to allow its active members the right to oppose the reactors on the issue of earthquakes. When it came out that PG&E had doctored fault maps of the site, all hell broke loose. One of PG&E's major claims at the time was that they could build reactors that would survive a great Earthguake. At one point they said that the reactors could survive a quake 50 per cent bigger than the O6' quake by floating the reactors on 3 feet of compressable material but when the public and the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) got a close-up view of the devastation from the air of the quake in Alaska during the spring of 1964, support for the reactor complex dried up. Opponents had "infiltrated" the federal government and were pushing for closure. With the disclosure of the AEC's WASH 740 report, which documented potential dangers to the bay area residents in case of an accident, opposition finally reached all government levels. California governor Pat Brown asked that PG&E abandon the reactors. Two days later PG&E caved in and called the project off. The battle ended in 1964 with a $7 million duck pond as a living monunent to the future. (It is still there today) This experience gave PG&E a deadly lesson on how to overcome public concerns at their next reactor site--Diablo Canyon.... ... Diablo Canyon... ... The Hosgri Fault Forces PG&E to Rebuild Diablo Again... ... The People Say NO... ...Point Arena: The failed Bodega atomic Park was then relocated another 50 miles north to the Point Arena area when PG&E announced plans to build two 1,130 megawatt reactors, the Sierra Club came out in opposition to the plans PG&E's initial press release claimed the site wasn't near the San Andreas Fault but when USGS experts asked far documentation they were Initially refused. After being mildly threatened, PG&E handed over documents that showed the likelihood of faulting on site. When the AEC asked for further fault studies the utility quietly withdrew its request to build the reactors. The elapsed time for Bodega II was six years, the final collapse taking place in November 1972. Much more of this article can be found @ https://www.energy-net.org/01NUKE/CALIF.HTM

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodega...ar_Power_Plant

BTW, Measure Radiation Levels in Near Real-Time:

This links to a site where people around the USA feed radiation monitor readings into a network that shows on a map. It updates every few minutes: https://radiationnetwork.com/ And one that monitors Japan: https://www.connormcarthur.net/aggnuke/ This site shows the jet stream: https://www.stormsurfing.com/cgi/display_alt.cgi?a=npac_250 This site shows a model of the plume leaving Fukushima: https://www.zamg.ac.at/pict/aktuell/20110315_fuku_Cs-137-glob_12.gif An updated report on the condition of the Fukushima plants from the Union of Concerned Scientists

Also:

We have had the nuclear power topic discussed in length here on waccobb in an earlier thread; (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?62964-gadzooks!!-IS-IT-MORE-NUKES-!-!-!-!&highlight=gadsooks+not+more+nukes!)

[Norman Solomon]

> Political elites are still clinging to the oxymoron of “safe nuclear power.”

Yes, it is truly an oxymoron. And if all the costs were included, we would see that it's an economic stupidity.

> It’s up to us -- people around the world -- to peacefully and insistently shut those plants down.

Nice thought - but how? I don't think the owners are going to allow anyone but their employees near the control switches!

True, the owners control the switches. But we can organize politically -- informing the public in the process -- to make the changes possible...
-- Norman

[Norman Solomon]

..."Political elites are still clinging to the oxymoron of “safe nuclear power.”"...
-----------------------
I actually haven't been hearing that at all...
I've been hearing that there is always some risk in Nuclear energy, (some risk in almost everything we do)...But, it's still one of the sources we should continue to advance, and use...
This is a power plant that is 40 yrs. old or more...And maybe some bad planning designs there too...
Why don't we learn from our mistakes instead of making Nuclear energy a total horrible evil?...
That 'horrible evil' has been fueling our homes, and businesses for a long time...
Surgery on the human body was pretty crude, and horrible for a long time too...It's constantly improving...
Maybe the pro-nuclear people have some valid points...
-----------
I like this guys take on the situation....
https://www.electronichouse.com/arti...gy_efficiency/

I first wrote about nuclear waste in the late 1970s (for The Progressive magazine and elsewhere). Officials were saying then that a solution for nuclear waste was right around the corner. Now the spent fuel pool near one of the Japanese reactors is near catastrophe.

A book I co-authored on health effects of the nuclear industry is posted online:
https://www.ratical.org/radiation/KillingOurOwn/

During the three decades since then, the proliferation of nuclear power has increased the dangers.

-- Norman

[Norman Solomon]

So what's your plan your Energy Plan? What about carbon? How can renewables be made price competitive?

Massive public investment in conversation, insulation, retrofitting, energy efficiency, wind, solar. "The cleanest kilowatt is the one that isn't used." ... Enrichment of uranium has a large carbon footprint because it requires enormous amounts of electricity. The massive subsidies from the federal government for nuclear power and the loan gauarntees now being pushed should all be plowed into renewables instead...

-- Norman

[Barry]

Massive public investment in conversation, ...

Well, I for one, am completely invested in conversation!

[CSummer]

True, the owners control the switches. But we can organize politically -- informing the public in the process -- to make the changes possible...
-- Norman

Yes, well, so the theory goes, and there have been those rare instances when democracy seemed to actually work in this country. I wish all the best to those who want to devote their life energy to trying to get politicians to try to get nuclear agency officials to try to get corporate managers to do what they should do. Perhaps the current catastrophe in Japan will encourage enough legislators to buck the lobbyists and respond to the large numbers of American citizens who will become quite disillusioned with nuclear energy.

Here's an article that might help:

DOOMSDAY SCENARIO AT FUKUSHIMA
By Marvin Resnikoff
Senior Associate, Radioactive Waste Management Associates
Huffington Post

[Gene]

How can we make renewable energy more competitive and get people to conserve ? Simple ! Raise the price of oil. A $3.00 or $4.00 per gallon tax with the money going towards loans for renewable production and public transportation should do it. Problem solved.

[Barry]

How can we make renewable energy more competitive and get people to conserve ? Simple ! Raise the price of oil. A $3.00 or $4.00 per gallon tax with the money going towards loans for renewable production and public transportation should do it. Problem solved.

There would be riots, not to mention inflation!

What I've always thought (at least since John Anderson ran for President) was a steadily rising tax, announced in ahead. So for instance, announcing that starting Jan 2010, the gas tax would rise 5-10 cents per month for at least 2 years. It will give time for many many things to adjust and provide that "certainty" that the republican's say they want, along with balancing the budget! It should also go along with increased public funding for mass transit which should cushion the blow to the low income folks.

[Gene]

The price is going up, it's just a question of when. We can tax it now and reduce demand or we can wait until the market raises the price. If we tax it, the money is ours. If we wait for the market the money goes to the middle east. The tax has to be spent on energy and public transportation. It is a self balancing cycle that way. More tax produces more energy and public transportation which lowers the demand for oil and the price. If we use the money towards deficit reduction or schools or anything else we need than we have created a revenue source but not a solution. People may riot but if they know it is going for clean energy and stable energy prices it may ease some of the pain. Real convenient affordable public transportation is required for this to work. The number of people who can't afford to drive will grow even if we do nothing. Not only renewables would flourish but insulation in homes and business would take priority. And, the improvement in air quality and the reduction in co2 emissions should be significant. On the down side I really don't think politics in the U.S.A. with it's corporate control make this possible, but I might be wrong.

[starjuna]

Does anyone else find it disturbing that in response to the Fukushima meltdowns the people of Ankara and Paris are are out in the streets protesting nuclear power and we in So.Co. are buying kelp?

[Louella]

True, the owners control the switches. But we can organize politically -- informing the public in the process -- to make the changes possible...
-- Norman

Nuclear energy is indeed outdated. Just like the old way we did surgery. IT needs to be replaced by green energy. The most abundant energy right now is solar. And we could hook are cars up to a solar energy source and drive cleaner cars and use much less gas. But to store solar energy we have to use batterys. Batterys have polutants in them but are not at least radio active. We still do not know what to do with the nuclear waste and it is piling up and bleeding into the earth everywhere. It won't go away for thousands of years.

But we need to make green energy affordable enough and profitable enough for the oil companies to abandon oil and invest more in alternative energy. Conosco-Philips and many other oil companies have already invested in green algae. Which can be made into refined gas and pumped into our cars. The Algae is being grown in the Imperial valley of southern California by UCSD scientists. And fields of algae are being planned in the midwest. The question is when will the rich decide when us dumped on middle class can get access to new energy sources? They are running the country now.

I think we should start small. And work our way up. Start with all of us that can afford it buying solar energy for our homes . I am saving up to get it in a couple of years. Then push Governor Brown and our state to help make California a leader in green energy. Obamas hands are tied by a defunt Senate and House. They keep vasilating from Democratic to Republican and getting little done (and then it gets undone when the new takeover occurs and they blame Obama.) Progressive candidates have a chance in our state. Did you know we are a very liberal state? Our state senate doesn't reflect this now. The majority of all people in California want to vote on a tax bill but the (few) Republicans are holding our state ransom and not allowing it. That' s not democracy.

[CSummer]

A gas tax would initially take money out of the economy, which I believe would be deflationary. If it were then re-invested in alternatives, there would be a neutral effect on money supply.

I'm guessing here. I am curious to know, Barry, why you think it would cause inflation. I do appreciate your approach - a gradually increasing tax. Now if I were King . . .

There would be riots, not to mention inflation!

What I've always thought (at least since John Anderson ran for President) was a steadily rising tax, announced in ahead. So for instance, announcing that starting Jan 2010, the gas tax would rise 5-10 cents per month for at least 2 years. It will give time for many many things to adjust and provide that "certainty" that the republican's say they want, along with balancing the budget! It should also go along with increased public funding for mass transit which should cushion the blow to the low income folks.

[daynurse]

Literally and figuratively!

Well, I for one, am completely invested in conversation!

[Sciguy]

Massive public investment in conversation, insulation, retrofitting, energy efficiency, wind, solar. "The cleanest kilowatt is the one that isn't used." ... Enrichment of uranium has a large carbon footprint because it requires enormous amounts of electricity. The massive subsidies from the federal government for nuclear power and the loan guarantees now being pushed should all be plowed into renewables instead...

-- Norman

Norman, you're right on but it's worth looking further. "Getting xxxx price competitive" is one of those canards that the right wing keeps trotting out because it works like a liberal killer ray gun. Instead of trying to slip out of its grasp, the bogus argument should be confronted. There is no need for solar power, wind power or tide power to be competitive in price with nuclear or fossil energy in the sense of what a consumer of energy is charged on his bill - no need at all! Nuclear and fossil fuels chew up the planet and turn it into spitballs while the right wing chortles. To the right wing, people's lives are worth nothing but money and property ownership are everything. The entire planet, as well as the human species is merely an externality to that kind of argument. Sure, if our species' future and the health of planet are worth zero, cost zero, then the quickest, most devious thief from the resources of the commons is going to win. That is what happens all the time. When commons resources are valued as zero, then the BP's of the world can destroy the ocean at no cost, they can stick a hypodermic into a pressurized cavern of oil and get the gushing contents at no cost, mining companies can win their 0.001% of gold in Australia's ore and leave the cyanided tailings for someone else to clean up, they can chew up poor communities to get their uranium, their contaminated employees and their wars and never pay for the human costs. But solar and wind are asked to pay for everything and then challenged when they can't ride into competitiveness on similar externalized costs. We need to reject this bogus free-market-based argument and demand that our children, our gorgeous and unique planet are worth more than a few cents on the unit of cheaper, stolen resources.

The same bogus arguments are used in my field of Zero Waste. "Reuse, repair, are too expensive" they say. "China can make a new part cheaper. Throw it away and buy a new one". Of course this bogus argument depends once again on externalizing the serious costs of resources. Destroy topsoil (no cost) but take the biofuel for sale. Destroy fisheries (no cost) but sell the hell out of the cod now. Destroy the Congo (no cost) but get the tantalum you need for your cellphone. But being careful to always be calling it competitiveness (thank you Tom Lehrer).

[Hotspring 44]

Does anyone else find it disturbing that in response to the Fukushima meltdowns the people of Ankara and Paris are are out in the streets protesting nuclear power and we in So.Co. are buying kelp?

Yes.

[79paul]

It's not so simple. Coal emits a lot of greenhouse gasses. It's global.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...st-year/72814/

["Mad" Miles]

https://www.salon.com/entertainment/...s_modern_world

[Sunshinehartfulofluv]

Does anyone else find it disturbing that in response to the Fukushima meltdowns the people of Ankara and Paris are are out in the streets protesting nuclear power and we in So.Co. are buying kelp?

my answer is YES, and here is my solution, I am organizing a march coming from Southern California to Sacramento. It shall be a peaceful protest covereing severall topics I find relevant. ONE, getting California to shut down the nuclear plants here, TWO, this is a peace WALK, riding bikes will be encouraged, but mostly walkers, SO organizing a gas strike is logical, THREE, we must needs to camp on the way, and protesting the rude way the homeless "campers" in california have been treated, harassed and givin extraordinary fines must come to an end somehow. We appreciate your moral and physical support in any way. we are putting together a kitchen in our converted school bus, painting and using as support vehicle to carry water, tents, packs etc.
I cant say exactly when we will be coming through Sonoma County, but we hope you will find us. Sunshinehartfulofluv

[Claire]

Does anyone else find it disturbing that in response to the Fukushima meltdowns the people of Ankara and Paris are are out in the streets protesting nuclear power and we in So.Co. are buying kelp?

Not at all.
There is a possibility that we will be downwind from a radiation "incident", of unknown degree.
The way I see it, you take care of the needs of the people who depend on you, and then you go out and fight the dragons.
When the Iraq war started and in the years since there have been hundreds, probably thousands of people from Sonoma County protesting, some in the streets, some through other venues.
Kelp is a good thing. and local.

[peggykarp]

It's a great comparison. We should buy kelp AND protest with all our might against nuclear power plants. Not just against building new ones--Fukushima has effectively killed that idea, thankfully--but shutting them all down and decommisioning them.