Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

  • Issues
    • Direct Action
    • Environmental Justice
    • Nuclear Power
      • Chernobyl
      • Fukushima
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • On The Bright Side
    • Radiation Exposure
    • Radioactive Waste
    • Renewable Energy
    • Uranium Mining
    • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Newsletter Archives
  • Resources
    • Nuclear Heartland Book
    • Fact Sheets
    • Reports, Studies & Publications
      • The New Nuclear Weapons: $1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and Fake Cleanups
      • Nuclear Power: Dead In the Water It Poisoned
      • Thorium Fuel’s Advantages as Mythical as Thor
      • Greenpeace on Fukushima 2016
      • Drinking Water at Risk: Toxic Military Wastes Haunt Lake Superior
    • Nukewatch in the News
    • Links
    • Videos
  • About
    • About Nukewatch
    • Contact Us
  • Get Involved
    • Action Alerts!
    • Calendar
  • Donate

March 7, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Fukushima: A Human-Made Disaster Brought on by Bad Faith

“Nearly seven years after the triple reactor meltdowns, this unique nuclear crisis is still underway,” Greenpeace International’s Shaun Burnie wrote in a blogpost last December. The word “unique” is an understatement but true. The March 11, 2011 meltdowns are the world’s first combined earthquake-tsunami-reactor catastrophe. Moreover, while other power reactors have run out-of-control, melted down and contaminated large areas, never before have three simultaneously suffered mass earthquake damage, station black-outs, loss-of-coolant and complete meltdowns.

The consequences of its meltdowns-cubed are uniquely over three times deeper, broader and more expensive than anyone was prepared to handle. In the days following the initial quake, tsunami(s), and explosions, the head of the emergency response said, “There is no manual for this disaster.” Managers have had to invent, design, develop and implement the recovery whole cloth. Evacuation was so haphazard that on August 9, 2011, one local mayor accused the government of murder.

The crisis is ongoing in many ways: radioactively contaminated water is still pouring into the Pacific Ocean (permanently contaminating and altering sea life which bio-accumulates and bio-concentrates the radioactivity); radioactive gases and perhaps even “hot particles” are still wafting out of destroyed reactor structures and waste fuel pools; the constant threat of earthquakes and tsunamis in Japan puts millions of gallons of radioactive waste (rad waste) water now stored near the shore in tanks at risk of spilling; and the dangerous work of collecting radioactive soils, leaves and tree trimmings from farmlands, school yards, parks and gardens continuously adds to vast collections of 1-ton radioactive waste bags.

The government estimates that 30 million cubic meters of this collected rad waste — a nearly unimaginable 29 million tons — will eventually require burial, incineration or reuse in road-building. The disaster is ongoing because the dangerous radiation exposures endured by the workers in these disaster response jobs is cumulative and irreversible — and the work will continue for 3 centuries or so. This is because: 1) cesium-137, one of the principle pollutants spewed by the meltdowns, takes 300 years to decay to other isotopes; and 2) in spite of the gigantic amount of contaminated material that’s been scrapped together and bagged — at over 1000 Temporary Storage Sites and elsewhere at 141,000 locations across Fukushima — the effort covers “only a small fraction of the total landmass of radioactively contaminated areas,” as Greenpeace’s Burnie reports. The “largest areas of significant contamination [are] the forested mountains of Fukushima,” Burnie notes, and will continue for three centuries to re-contaminate the soil down-wind and down-river, “through weathering processes and the natural water and lifecycle of trees and rivers.”

Fukushima’s endless radiation effects — from thyroid cancers, to contaminated sea food, from poisoned pregnancies to irradiated clean-up workers — should be the final insult from nuclear power and weapons. And they will be if the general public wises up to the unacceptable risks of continuing to operate nuclear reactors.

In “Fukushima Meltdown” author Takashi Hirose says, “The people responsible for the horror of this nuclear accident are the people who promoted nuclear power.”

In “Fukushima Meltdown” the first scholarly book to appear on the incident, author Takashi Hirose dashed off a grim warning after having published books and articles warning of the terrible danger of nuclear power since the 1980s. His cautions are more important now than ever, because commercial media will this week repeat the tragic-comic assurances that “no one died,” that Fukushima’s “released radiation was less than Chernobyl,” and that “nuclear power is clean.”

Natural disasters will never disappear, Takashi wrote, and there is no way of putting an end to earthquakes and tsunamis. “However, the Fukushima Disaster is neither a natural disaster nor ordained by fate. It is a human-made disaster brought about by bad faith.” In his terrifying 150 pages, Takashi methodically proves the case that the Fukushima catastrophe “was easily predictable and preventable.” In a nutshell, two principle government and corporate lies demonstrate how bad faith brought about the worst reactor accident in history. Exposing and rejecting these lies can prevent another meltdown.

Initially the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Tepco) asserted over and over that “there is no crisis” and even that “there will be no radiation release.” A month after the start of the disaster, the government admitted that radiation gushing to the sea and spewing to the atmosphere was at the same level as Chernobyl (the 1986 reactor disaster in Ukraine). Author Takashi calls this use of disinformation “as terrifying as what is happening at the actual site.” “From day one I had been saying that huge amounts of radiation were sure to be escaping.… From day one the situation had reached the highest level for nuclear accidents, Level 7, and from day one the government knew this, but it concealed that information from the people, thus causing far more people to be irradiated than otherwise would have been the case.”

The other glaring example of bad faith has been Tepco’s repeatedly saying, “We could not imagine that a once-in-a-thousand-years earthquake might come,” and further that “the tsunami was beyond our expectation.” These are lies. The destroyed Fukushima reactors were hit by an easily imaginable 14-meter tsunami. In 1896, the Meji-Sanriku quake’s tsunami reached 38.2 meters on the Iwate coast not far from Fukushima; the 1933 Hokkaido quake caused a 28.7 meter tsunami. Indeed, since the late 1970s experts have warned that a disaster like Fukushima was possible. In the late 1990s, seismology professor Ishibashi Katsuhiko at Kobe Univ. coined an explicit new term meaning “nuclear-power-plant-earthquake-disaster.” Because Prof. Ishibashi’s many books on the subject are well-known, “it is impossible that his warnings were unknown to the officials of Tepco,” who just want to dodge criminal charges.

The lessons for the 99 faulty reactors in this country and the other 300 around the world are clear enough. It’s absurd to put reactors near earthquakes or volcanoes or anywhere near the water. And, as Takashi says, “The people responsible for the horror of this nuclear accident are the people who promoted nuclear power.”

 

Filed Under: Fukushima, Nuclear Power, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste, Weekly Column

January 30, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Reactors, Bankrupting their Owners, Closing Early

On January 22, FirstEnergy Corporation announced that its faulty and nearly-self-destructed Davis-Besse power reactor east of Toledo, Ohio, will be closed well before its license expires. However, the shutdown is not because the reactor represents reckless endangerment of public health and safety and should have been closed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. FirstEnergy was fine with spinning the loaded gun. No, the old rattle trap can’t cover its costs any more, not with the electricity market dominated by cheaper natural gas, wind, and solar.

Davis-Besse’s shutdown date has not been announced, but CFO James Pearson of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., the corporate division in charge of the wreck, said it will close if lawmakers don’t approve a taxpayer bailout.

FirstEnergy had said the financial sky was falling in March 2017. Chief nuclear officer Sam Belcher [his real name] told the Toldeo Blade then — as the firm was floating the bailout measure (SB 128) through the Ohio legislature — “In the absence of something happening, [taxpayer-funded handout to the private, investor-owned firm] we’re going to have to make some tough decisions.” So far, state lawmakers have refused to save the decrepit reactor with state taxes. They cite old-fashioned market competition, and the failure of previous subsidies to save the mature, well-established reactor industry once led by the now bankrupt Westinghouse.

Serious accidents at David-Besse in 1977, 1985, 1998, and 2002 endangered its neighbors. The most hair-raising was the discovery in 2002 that corrosion had eaten through more than 6-inches of the reactor head’s carbon steel. The corrosion went undetected by federal and company inspectors for decades. Having gouged a hole in the reactor cover the size of a football, the corrosion left only 3⁄8 inch of steel holding back the high-pressure coolant. A break would have caused a massive loss-of-coolant accident and out-of-control overheating, resulting in catastrophic uranium fuel melting (known as a “meltdown”) and massive radiation releases.

Repairs took two years and cost $600 million, during which the Department of Justice penalized FirstEnergy over operating and reporting violations. FirstEnergy paid $28 million in fines. Yet the NRC allowed the company to restart David-Besse in 2004, and then to run the rust bucket for 40 reckless years, even after the company tacked on another $600 million in repairs in 2014.

With combined debt estimated at $3.5 billion and losses mounting daily, CFO Pearson said FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. will file for bankruptcy. Not just Davis-Besse, but the firm’s Perry reactor northwest of Cleveland, and Beaver Valley reactors 1 & 2, northwest of Pittsburg, will also likely be closed.

Reactors Shuttered by Bankruptcy or Accident Risk from Calif. to New Jersey

Elsewhere in nuclear power’s long “goodbye,” California utility regulators decided this January 11 not to save Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) from cheap gas, solar and wind, but to close the company’s two reactors at Diablo Canyon as early as 2020. Unlike the bribe-happy legislatures in New York and Illinois, nuclear power defenders were unable to convince California state law makers to fund a bail out of PG&E.

In 2013, Southern Calif. Edison, owners of the San Onofre reactors north of San Diego, abruptly decided to close them. Reactors 2 and 3 have been churning out high-level radioactive waste since 1983 and 1984 respectively. The hulks ran into trouble when massive repairs and upgrades failed inspections. In May that year, US Sen. Barbara Boxer said that the reactors were “unsafe and posed a danger to the 8 million people living within 50 miles. Boxer even called for a criminal investigation into Edison’s installation of faulty replacement steam generators.

The list of old age reactors shut down or closing soon keeps growing. Kewaunee in Wisconsin was shut in 2013, Vermont Yankee in 2014, and Fort Calhoun in Nebraska in 2016. Oyster Creek* in New Jersey will close at the end of this year, and Pilgrim* in Massachusetts will close in 2019 or sooner. Indian Point’s 1 and 2 near New York City will be shuttered by 2021. Exelon Corp’s FitzPatrick* near Oswego, New York, FE Ginna in Ontario, NY and its nearby Nine Mile Point* were all set to close in 2017, before the state legislature agreed to a $7.6 billion bailout. (This bailout law is being challenged in court by Nuclear Information and Resource Service whose lawsuit has survived its first motion to dismiss.) Exelon’s Clinton and Quad Cities* reactors in Illinois, might have shut down last year too, except for a state taxpayer bailout worth $3.5 billion adopted in 2016.

New reactor construction is being thwarted by similarly exorbitant costs. In 2016, two unfinished Bellefonte reactors in northern Alabama were cancelled. The two V.C. Summer reactors that were almost 40% complete in South Carolina were cancelled last July by its owners after the industry-shocking bankruptcy of the projects’ lead contractor Westinghouse Electric.

Next among dozens of shaky reactors on the chopping block, Xcel Energy’s 43-year-old Monticello* unit on the Mississippi River in Minnesota looks vulnerable, especially in view of a string of notorious accidents.

* These units are elderly clones of the General Electric “Mark I” reactors that caused a triple melt-down at Fukushima in Japan which began in March 2011 and continues to spread radiation to the atmosphere and to the Pacific Ocean. — John LaForge

Filed Under: Environmental Justice, Nuclear Power, Weekly Column

December 28, 2017 by Nukewatch 1 Comment

Japan Could Dump 1 Million Tons of Radioactive Water into the Sea from Fukushima

Winter Quarterly 2017-18

By John LaForge

The new Chairman of Tepco Holding, Inc., Takashi Kawamura, caused a public uproar in the coastal fish­ing community last April when he reportedly declared that almost 1 million tons of contaminated waste water stored in tanks onshore would be dumped into the ocean.

“The decision has already been made,” Takashi Kawamura, said in a recent interview with the foreign media, Japan Times. Newsweek also reported July 14 that, Kawamura told the media that “nearly 777,000 tons of wa­ter tainted with tritium …will be dumped into the Pacific Ocean.”

But the company faced an im­mediate backlash, especially among fishers whose livelihoods have been devastated since the March 11, 2011 catastrophe, and quickly reversed itself. The company now says it has “no plans for an immediate release” and can keep storing water through 2020 or 2023.

British newspapers reported Nov. 27, that “there are 900 tanks that could spill if there is another earthquake or tsunami.”The New York Times said last March there were “1,000 gray, blue and white tanks on the grounds… [that] already hold 962,000 tons of contaminated water, and Tokyo Electric is installing more tanks.”

In May 2015, the International Atomic Energy Agency urged Japan to dump the waste water in the ocean, and in Sept. 2016, Dale Klein, a former chair of the US Nuclear Regula­tory Commission, recommended ocean dumping too, telling Bloomberg News that ocean dumping “will not be a safety issue, but it will be an emo­tional issue.” Klein added, “I get nervous about just storing all that water when you have about a thou­sand tanks. You have all the piping, all the valves, everything that can break.”

Scientists have declared the three-reactor disaster the worst radioactive contamination of the ocean in recorded history.

About 300 tons of ground water rushes into three reac­tor basements through earthquake-destroyed foundations, mixes with the melted uranium fuel rods and becomes tainted with radiation. The waste water is then pumped out and filtered through an experimental process called Advanced Liquid Processing System. ALPS separates most of the dangerous isotopes but can’t remove tritium, the radioactive form of hy­drogen. It is this “tritiated” water that is stored in the large tanks.

Japan’s government and Tepco argue that since nuclear reactors routinely release tritium to the air and water, the ocean dumping of 1 million tons of tritiated water to the sea would not be harmful.

Tritium is Dangerous, Long-Lived Cancer Agent

Tritium concentrates in aquatic organisms including algae, seaweed, crustaceans and fish. With a radioactive half-life of 12.3 years (half its radioactivity will decay in 12.3 years) it persists in the environment for 120 years.

Christina Mills, a staff scientist with the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) notes, that “tritium can cross the placenta, become incor­porated into the embryo/fetus, and irradiate rapidly dividing cells, thereby raising the risk of malforma­tions and early failed pregnancies. Given that all of a woman’s ova get made while she is still in her mother’s womb, the risks can be multi-generational.”

IEER President Dr. Arjun Makhijani, reports that “Tritium is a highly radioactive isotope of hydro­gen…. Since tritium has the same chemical proper­ties as hydrogen, it can combine with oxygen to form water. Such tritiated water is radioactive, and has become one of the problem pollutants at many nuclear facilities. In some places it has contaminated groundwater and surface water and continues to do so. … Commercial nuclear power plants also dis­charge tritium into public water bodies.

“Since tritiated water is processed by plants, animals and humans like ordinary water, the tritium in it can become transformed into other chemicals, such as proteins needed by the body. It can become part of the DNA. It can affect developing fetuses.”

Makhijani reminds readers further that “The estab­lished science is, and has been for some time, that there is no threshold for cancer risk of radiation and therefore no level of exposure is ‘safe.’ While it is true that we all are exposed to natural background radiation, this does not mean that natural back­ground radiation is ‘safe.’”

—The London Independent, & the Metro online, Nov. 27, 2017; Japan Times, & Newsweek, July 14, 2017; New York Times, March 11, 2017; Bloomberg, Sept. 5, 2016; IEER Press Conference, Red Wing, MN, Feb. 8, 2012; IEER, “Statement on Tritium,” Feb. 6, 2006

Some of the 1,000 hastily-built tanks holding over 900,000 tons of highly contaminated cooling water at the Fukushima-Daiichi complex.

US Sailors Continue $1 Billion Class Action Against Tepco, General Electric

Dozens of Navy personnel who were aboard the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan and USS Essex when they went to Fukushima in March 2011 to render aid to survivors, have since suffered unusual health problems including fatigue, weight loss, swollen limbs, joint pain, stomach ailments and diminished eyesight.

Stonewalled by the Navy, 420 sailors have joined a $1 billion class action lawsuit in federal court in San Diego against Fukushima’s owners, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Tepco), and against General Electric which built the three destroyed reactors. Tepco and the Navy contend the sailors did not receive enough radiation exposure to have caused the illnesses. How­ever, Japan, South Korea, and Guam later declared the USS Reagan too radioactive to enter their ports.

The court case is moving slowly—it was filed in 2012. According to Courthouse News, eight of the sailor-plaintiffs have already died—most from can­cer—since the first case was filed. The sailors are represented by some high-profile attorneys, includ­ing, among others, former US Sen. John Edwards and his daughter Cate Edwards.

Cate Edwards told Courthouse News there are 23 plaintiffs living with cancer, many of whom served in Fukushima in their early 20s and some as young as 18. Beyond the group suffering cancer, many of the sailors have degenerative diseases, some have lost mobility, use of their arms and legs, some have back problems and eyesight loss.

A 26-month-old toddler born to a sailor-father who served in Fukushima died from brain and spine cancer. One female sailor opted to end a pregnancy after finding out the fetus had severe birth defects, Edwards reported. Another sailor, who was pregnant during the mission and her “Baby A.G.,” who was born in October 2011 with multiple genetic muta­tions, are also plaintiffs.

“Why are all these young, healthy, fit people getting cancer? Experiencing thyroid issues? It’s too strange to be a coincidence,” Edwards told Courthouse News. “That just doesn’t happen absent some exter­nal cause. All of these people experienced the same thing and were exposed to radiation at Fukushima. A lot of this is just common sense.”

No trial date has been set, but attorneys will argue a government “motion to dismiss” at a hearing Jan. 4. —Bianca Bruno, Courthouse News online, Nov. 29, 2017; Harvey Wasserman, EcoWatch/Nuclear, Feb. 26, 2014

Steel Maker Fraud Also Hit Reactors

For over 10 years, the Japanese manufacturing giant Kobe Steel falsified test data on certain substandard products to avoid the cost of massive do-overs. The scandal, in which the company faked data on the quality of aluminum, copper, wire and steel to cover-up unmet engineering standards, like strength. The fraud has impacted at least 500 industrial customers around the world where exacting safety requirements are vital, including builders of cars, bullet trains, aircraft and nuclear reactors. The country’s nearly collapsed nuclear power industry was also hit by the fraud. The Fukushima-Daini, on Japan’s northeast coast near the destroyed Fuku­shima-Daiichi complex, purchased some of Kobe Steel’s falsely certified copper piping. Tokyo Elec­tric Power Co. claims that the substandard piping was never installed but was in storage.—New York Times, Oct. 14, Oct. 20, and Nov. 11, 2017

Tepco Starts Installing Device to Remove Wrecked Fuel from Reactor 3 Cooling Pool

Six and a half years since the three-reactor disaster began, Tepco just began installing equipment to be used for removing waste fuel rods from the heavily damaged storage pool for reactor 3. The equipment, weighing 72 tons, was lifted by two large cranes.

The storage pool, located in the reactor building on a floor 36 meters [ten stories] above ground level, holds 566 used and unused uranium fuel assem­blies. Tepco plans to begin removing the fuel from the pool by the middle of next year. —The Japan Times, Nov. 12, 2017

Six Years Into Fukushima, Robots Finally Find Reactors’ Melted Uranium Fuel

The Great Northeast Japan Earthquake and tsunami in 2011 caused a total loss of cooling at Fukushima-Daiichi. Over-heating of the fuel went out-of-control at three reactors and melted uranium fuel burned hot enough to torch through steel containment structures “and even penetrate the concrete floors below,” Martin Fackler reported. Engineers laboring to find it repeatedly failed in attempts to photograph the wreckage with radiation-proof robots. This sum­mer, new models, redesigned after multiple failures, finally found the fuel in all three reactors. “I’ve been a robotic engineer for 30 years, and we’ve never faced anything as hard as this,” said Shinji Kawat­suma, a director at the Naraha Remote Technology Development Center. “Until now, we didn’t know exactly where the fuel was, or what it looked like,” said Takahiro Kimoto, a general manager for Tepco. Tepco executives said early on that no manual any­where explained how to confront three simultaneous meltdowns. —New York Times, Nov. 19, 2017

Filed Under: Environment, Fukushima, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter

November 8, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

The Case for Nuclear Power Fails Fact-Vs-Fiction Test

 

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: The Banana Comparison 

The nuclear industry often compares the radioactive wastes produced inside reactors with naturally-occurring radioactive elements like potassium-40 which is found in bananas. This disinformation is deliberately used to give the impression that consuming radiation is normal. “But this is a false comparison, since most naturally occurring long-lived radioactive elements, commonly found in Earth’s crust, are very weakly radioactive,” explains Dr. Steven Starr, the Director of the Clinical Laboratory Science Program at the University of Missouri. “Note that potassium-40 has a specific activity [radioactive strength] of 71 ten-millionths of a curie per gram. Compare that to 88 curies per gram for cesium-137, and 140 curies per gram for strontium-90 [both created inside nuclear reactors]. In other words, cesium-137 is 12 million times more radioactive than potassium-40…. Strontium-90 releases almost 20 million times more radiation per unit mass than potassium-40. Which one of these would you rather have in your bananas?” — Steven Starr, “The Contamination of Japan with Radioactive Cesium,” in Crisis Without End, edited by Helen Caldicott, The New Press 2014, p. 46.

With five works of fiction under her belt, novelist Gwyneth Cravens makes a case for nuclear power as a way to fight climate change in “Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy” (2007). The old fiction that nuclear power is safe and cool is presented her online PowerPoint lecture where Cravens lists items that convinced her to quit anti-nuclear work. The list is either an industry PR gimmick or just bad math, or both, but Cravens’ powerless points are easily rebutted.

Cravens: “Huge reserves of uranium, in geopolitically favorable places.”

This claim gives the impression of low price and easy access to uranium. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that the world faces uranium deficits between 2025 and 2035. This means the price goes up. The “politically favorable” spots for uranium mining are all overseas (ending hope of energy independence). Kazakhstan mines the most uranium — 24 times the US volume; Canada, 14 times the US; Australia, six times the US. Even with the Trump cabinet’s de-regulation- and pollution-happy agenda, the US must clean up from past uranium mining. There are now 15,000 abandoned uranium mines and mills in the American Southwest, mostly located on Indian Land. Uranium mine and mill tailings have been left in the open air of the desert — 190 million metric tons of them — so wind and rain spread the contamination.

Cravens: “Fuel can be recycled many times. Only 2% used on one trip through a reactor.”

If this were factual, if “recycling” waste reactor fuel was being done for a profit anywhere, the industry would be gobbling up the money at factories everywhere. Formally known as reprocessing (the PR dept. dubbed it “recycling”), was abandoned in the United States after decades of expensive, dangerous attempts. The process produces huge quantities of highly radioactive liquid wastes that can’t be contained, the sort that is leaking from hundreds of tanks at Hanford, Washington, and Savannah River, South Carolina. “Recycling” is being done by France, but only because a legal loophole allows the factory to pour one million liters (264,000 gallons) of liquid radioactive waste per day into the Irish Sea from its reprocessing. Studies by Dr. Chris Busby in England show that the dumped radioactive materials accumulating on local beaches have caused cancer in Irish children.

Cravens: “Mature technology with recent advances: inherently safe; large-scale hydrogen production; able to burn up nuclear waste.”

Nuclear power is mature alright. Most of the 447 reactors in the world are around 40 years old and near the end of their operational life. They provide about 6% of the world’s electricity. But scientists say that to have a minimum impact on climate change — and this is the whole point of Craven’s tour — nuclear would have to be 20% of the energy mix. This means that after today’s units are replaced, an additional 1,600 reactors need to be built — to get to 20%, not 6%. But this requires that three new reactors be built every 30 days for 40 years — and by that time climate change will have done its damage to us. “Inherently safe” reactors are unknown and untested except on drawing boards. Not one has been built. The dream of “burning up nuclear waste” hasn’t been demonstrated anywhere. Besides, the burning of waste adds heat, soot and ash to global warming.

Cravens: “US reactors operate at over 95% capacity.”

This is a verbal magic trick, helping distract the audience. What the word “capacity” distracts from is that nuclear reactors are about 33 percent “efficient,” according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. This means that “for every three units of thermal energy generated by the reactor core, one unit of electrical energy goes out to the grid and two units of waste heat go into the environment.” The gargantuan use of water by nuclear reactors is a problem that most people don’t realize. Dr. Jeremy Rifkin, the renowned economist, notes that 40% of all the fresh water consumed in France each year goes to cooling its nuclear reactors. “When it comes back it’s heated and it’s dehydrating and threatening our agriculture and ecosystems. We don’t have the water, and this is true all over the world,” Rifkin said in 2013.

The US Energy Information Administration says, “Most power plants do not operate a full capacity every hour of every day of the year.” Reactors are routinely shut down for re-fueling, for replacement of worn-out parts, and for “unusual events” and accidents.

Cravens: “Over 12,000 reactor-years passed in safety.”

The risk of catastrophic reactor disasters is permanent and makes us permanently unsafe. Dismantling and shipping the Three Mile Island reactor, destroyed in 1979, took over 25 years. The Chernobyl reactor has been in cover-up mode for 30 years, contaminating land, water, and air ever since 1986. Whenever wildfires ravage the “exclusion zone,” they re-suspend radioactive fallout spreading it again and again. Fukushima, Japan’s three destroyed reactors will continue to poison the Pacific Ocean ever day until groundwater stops moving; the owners will be at least 40 years in the “clean-up” mode.

Even without such reactor catastrophes, federal agencies in the United States all warn that there is “no safe exposure to radiation.” Every dose, no matter how small, carries a risk of causing illness or cancer, and the risks are far higher for women girls and infants than for men. Since nuclear reactors can’t operate without continuously venting and pouring radioactively contaminated liquids and gases (from the core, from cooling water circulation systems, and from the waste fuel cooling pools) into the environment, the government has set “allowable” limits to this radioactive pollution of the water and air. The industry calls these limits “safe” but in fact they are all dangerous and merely “allowable.” This venting and pouring of radioactive gases and liquids from operating reactors has caused the spike in childhood leukemias and infant mortality in communities downwind from operating reactors, as  documented in studies in Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands and the United States. The German studies were so convincing that the country decided to close all its 17 reactors by 2022.

Cravens: “Nuclear plant has small environmental footprint — less than a square mile.”

This claim ignores the mining, milling, processing, and fuel fabrication of uranium; the production of vast amounts of concrete and steel for reactors; and the vast quantities of cold water returned hot to oceans, lakes and rivers. It neglects to mention the acreage needed to transport, isolate, and manage 70,000 to 140,000 tons of highly radioactive waste fuel for up to one-million years, and the thousands of square miles of ordinary landfill space taken up by low- and intermediate level radioactive wastes.

Cravens: “Nuclear plant radiation emissions per year: less than you get from eating one banana.”

The New York Times’ Andrew Revkin debunked this absurdity in 2013 in a review of the pro-nuclear propaganda film “Pandora’s Promise.” Revkin wrote that the film “includes an interview in which the novelist Gwyneth Cravens claims that drinking one day’s tritium leakage from the Vermont Yankee plant in 2010 would have deposited no more radiation inside someone than eating one banana. Actually, it would have delivered about 150,000 times that much, calculates Ed Lyman.” A physicist, Dr. Lyman is the senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists and co-author of “Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster” (The New Press, 2014).

Cravens’ one banana’s worth of “emissions per year” overlooks the 400-500 pounds of plutonium created annually in the reactor core. This material and other fission products emit heat and radiation for 240,000 years, and must be isolated from the environment for at least that long. Craven’s  banana emission hooey  also neglects the millions of tons of reactor-heated cooling water that is dumped back into rivers, lakes and oceans after being used to cool the reactor cores and tons of waste fuel in cooling pools.

Cravens: “Lowest environmental impact of any large-scale energy resource.”

This zinger rivals the nuclear industry’s most bogus of fraudulent slogans: “Energy too cheap to meter.”

Anyone who’s spent even a month looking at US electric power usage knows that conservation and efficiency have the lowest environmental impact of any large-scale producer. Dubbed “NegaWatts” by the Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, conserving electricity can eliminate over 1/3 of current US usage.

The IAEA reported in 2014, that “avoided energy” or NegaWatts — the difference between the amount actually used each year and the amount that would have been used had there been no conservation since 1974 — is now equivalent to two-thirds of annual consumption. That is almost as much as the world’s output of oil, gas and coal combined, The Economist reported.

Nuclear reactors only provide about 19% of the electricity used in the US, so conservation and efficiency could replace them without cost (beyond public education), without pollution, and without much delay. — John LaForge

Filed Under: Environment, Nuclear Power, Radiation Exposure, Weekly Column Tagged With: bananas, nuclear power, potassium-40, radiation

November 3, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Power: Throwing Gas on the Fire of Climate Change

Nuclear Power

Novelist Gwyneth Cravens lectured at the College St. Scholastica in Duluth, Minn. last week, plugging a 2007 book that beats the dead horse of using new nuclear power reactors as a way to fight climate change. With five novels under her belt, Cravens’ “Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy” (2007), is yet another fiction that imagines nuclear power is safe and a future means of easing climate chaos.

Cravens’ assertion that nuclear reactor designs can cut carbon emissions is specious, since it ignores the CO2 produced by uranium mining, milling, transport and fuel rod fabrication; the thousands of billions of gallons of cooling water returned hot to rivers, lakes and seas; the carbon fuels burned during reactor construction, decommissioning, waste management; and the ozone-depleting CFCs emitted from uranium fuel fabrication factories in Kentucky and Tennessee (the only industry to win an exemption from the CFC ban). Cravens and the rest of the industry lobby make sure not to draw attention to the carbon burned for thousands of years packaging high-level waste and shipping it again and again to “temporary” dump sites. The worst failing of Cravens’ science fiction is the demonstrated mathematical impossibility of expanding nuclear power fast enough to fight the climate crisis; that and the fact that investing in new reactors steals resources from safer and cheaper systems that go on line faster. In respect to her 7-year-old story, I dug up a 7-year-old reply.

PETER BRADFORD: In “Why a Future for the Nuclear Industry Is Risky,” Peter Bradford, a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission member, declares, “the claims that nuclear power is a necessary energy source for displacing greenhouse gasses haven’t convinced investors that new nuclear power reactors will be safe and profitable investments.” Bradford’s list of reasons to reject nuclear power is startling: investing in new nuclear reactors remains very risky; Wall Street has expressed serious concerns; nuclear power reactors are stated terrorist targets; nuclear power will not reduce foreign energy dependence [most uranium comes from Kazakhstan, Canada, and Australia]; permanent storage of high-level waste remains unresolved; global warming increases the risks of operating reactors vulnerable to heated water unable to cool the core. (Peter Bradford and David Schlissel, “Why a Future for the Nuclear Industry Is Risky,” January 2007, 9 pages, http://a4nr.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Nuclear-Power-is-Risky-report.pdf)

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: A 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, “The Future of Nuclear Power,” noted that a “global growth scenario” of a base load of 1,000 gigawatts of installed capacity around the world by 2050, “would require a new 1,000 megawatt reactor to come on-line somewhere in the world every 15 days on average between 2010 and 2050.” (Brice Smith, “Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change,” 2006, pp. 5-10.)

GREENPEACE: Greenpeace International’s “Nuclear Power Undermining Action on Climate Change” (Dec. 2007), concludes not only that new reactor construction cannot be done soon enough to help, but that money devoted to nuclear power “deprives real climate solutions of funding.” Greenpeace found that, “Even if today’s currently installed nuclear capacity was doubled; it would lead to reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions of less than 5 percent and would require one new large reactor to come on-line every two weeks until 2030. An impossible task…” In stark contrast, “Proven renewable energy techniques are available now, can be constructed and brought on-line quickly and provide immediate cuts in greenhouse gases.”

There is an investment choice to be made. “The investment required to double global nuclear capacity, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by less than 5 percent, would be between two and three trillion dollars.” Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute calculates, “Each dollar invested in electric efficiency displaces nearly seven times as much carbon dioxide as a dollar invested in nuclear power, without any nasty side effects.” (Greenpeace International Briefing, “Nuclear Power Undermining Action on Climate Change,” December 2007; 7 pages, http://a4nr.org/library/globalwarmingclimatechange/12.2007-greenpeace [scroll down to “PDF Nuclear power”])

INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (IEER): Physicist Arjun Makhijani, IEER’s president and author of  Carbon Free and Nuclear Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy, says, “A technological revolution has been brewing in the last few years, so it won’t cost an arm and a leg to eliminate both CO2 emissions and nuclear power.” Dr. Hisham Zerriffi, an expert on electricity grids at the University of British Columbia, says, “What is really innovative about this ‘Roadmap’ is that it combines technologies to show how to create a reliable electricity and energy system entirely from renewable sources of energy.”

According to the Roadmap, North Dakota, Texas, Kansas, South Dakota, Montana and Nebraska each has wind energy potential greater than the electricity produced by all 103 U.S. commercial nuclear power reactors. The Roadmap recommends a “hard cap” on CO2 emissions by large fossil fuel users (more than 100 billion Btu per year). “The cap would be reduced each year until it reaches zero in 30 to 50 years. There would be no free emissions allowances, no international trade of allowances, and no offsets that would allow corporations to emit CO2 by investing in outside projects to reduce emissions. The emissions of smaller users would be reduced by efficiency standards for appliances, cars, homes and commercial buildings.” (Arjun Makhijani, “Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy, Institute for Environmental and Energy Research with Nuclear Policy Research Institute, June 2007. See 23-page summary at ieer.org/carbonfree

PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: In “Dirty, Dangerous & Expensive, The Truth About Nuclear Power” (Sept. 2006), the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize-winning PSR, says, “Given the urgent need to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible, the tremendously long lead times required for the design, permitting and construction of nuclear reactors renders nuclear power an ineffective option for addressing global warming. … Were an accident to occur [like the July 16, 2007 Japanese earthquake that shutdown three reactors, or the 2011 triple meltdown at Fukushima], it is likely that any planned nuclear power plants would be scrapped….  When the very serious risk of accidents, proliferation, terrorism and nuclear war are considered, it is clear that investment in nuclear power as a climate change solution is not only misguided but also highly dangerous.” (Physicians for Social Responsibility, “Dirty, Dangerous & Expensive: The Truth About Nuclear Power,” Sept. 2006, 4 pages, http://www.psr.org/resources/dirty-dangerous-and-expensive-the-truth-about-nuclear-power.pdf)

OXFORD RESEARCH GROUP (ORG): In their June 2007 report “Too Hot to Handle: The Future of Civil Nuclear Power,” the London-based think tank ORG analyzed the environmental and security risks of relying on nuclear power. The study concludes that, “For the nuclear weapons proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks to be worth taking, nuclear power must be able to achieve energy security and a reduction in global CO2 emissions more effectively, efficiently, economically, and quickly than any other energy source. There is little evidence to support the claim that it can.” (Frank Barnaby and James Kemp, Oxford Research Group, “Too Hot to Handle: The Future of Civil Nuclear Power,” July 2007, 22 pages;  http://www.nuclearconsult.com/docs/information/proliferation/TOOHOTTOHANDLE.pdf )

Member of Parliament David Howarth notes in the study’s foreword that, in Britain, “the potential for renewable power vastly exceeds current electricity consumption.” Like other analysts, ORG noted the impossibility of building enough reactors soon enough to reduce greenhouse emissions. After considering population growth and the parallel growth in electricity demand, the team found that “nearly four new reactors would have to begin construction each month from now until 2075” around the world. The authors point out that “In the UK it is expected to take at least 17 years from licensing to generating electricity.” Furthermore, “Between 1977 and 1993, 58 nuclear power reactors came into operation at an average of 3.4 reactors per year.” The study concludes, “A civil nuclear construction and supply program on this scale is a pipe dream.” — John LaForge

Filed Under: Environment, Nuclear Power, Radioactive Waste, Weekly Column

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • …
  • 94
  • Next Page »

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Categories

  • B61 Bombs in Europe
  • Chernobyl
  • Counterfeit Reactor Parts
  • Depleted Uranium
  • Direct Action
  • Environment
  • Environmental Justice
  • Fukushima
  • Lake Superior Barrels
  • Military Spending
  • Newsletter Archives
  • North Korea
  • Nuclear Power
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Office News
  • On The Bright Side
  • Photo Gallery
  • Protect the Water Close Xcel's Monticello Reactor
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • Social Issues
  • Sulfide Mining
  • Through the Prism of Nonviolence
  • Uncategorized
  • Uranium Mining
  • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • War
  • Weekly Column

Contact Us

(715) 472-4185
nukewatch1@lakeland.ws

Address:
740A Round Lake Road
Luck, Wisconsin 54853
USA

Donate To Nukewatch

News & Information on Nuclear Weapons,
Power, Waste & Nonviolent Resistance

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

© 2026 · Nukewatch