ENVIRONMENT  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 84

Three Mile Island: Exposing the Government's Cover Up of Our Most Infamous Nuclear Accident

We mourn the deaths that accompanied the biggest string of lies ever told in US industrial history.
March 30, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

People died -- and are still dying -- at Three Mile Island. 

As the world marked the thirtieth anniversary of America's most infamous industrial accident this week, we mourn the deaths that accompanied the biggest string of lies ever told in US industrial history. 

As news of the accident poured into the global media, the public was assured there were no radiation releases. 

That quickly proved to be false. 

The public was then told the releases were controlled and done purposely to alleviate pressure on the core. 

Both those assertions were false. 

The public was told the releases were "insignificant." 

But stack monitors were saturated and unusable, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission later told Congress it did not know -- and still does not know -- how much radiation was released at Three Mile Island, or where it went. 

Using unsubstantiated estimates of how much radiation was released, the government issued average doses allegedly received by people in the region, which it assured the public were safe. But the estimates were utterly meaningless, among other things ignoring the likelihood that high doses of concentrated fallout could come down heavily on specific areas. 

Official estimates said a uniform dose to all persons in the region was equivalent to a single chest x-ray. But pregnant women are no longer x-rayed because it has long been known a single dose can do catastrophic damage to an embryo or fetus in utero. 

The public was told there was no melting of fuel inside the core. 

But robotic cameras later showed a very substantial portion of the fuel did melt. 

The public was told there was no danger of an explosion. 

But there was, as there had been at Michigan's Fermi reactor in 1966. In 1986, Chernobyl Unit Four did explode. 

The public was told there was no need to evacuate anyone from the area. 

But Pennsylvania Governor Richard Thornburgh then evacuated pregnant women and small children. Unfortunately, many were sent to nearby Hershey, which was showered with fallout. 

In fact, the entire region should have been immediately evacuated. It is standard wisdom in the health physics community that -- due in part to the extreme vulnerability of human embryos, fetuses and small children, as well as the weaknesses of old age -- there is no safe dose of radiation, and none will ever be found. 

The public was assured the government would follow up with meticulous studies of the health impacts of the accident. 

In fact, the state of Pennsylvania hid the health impacts, including deletion of cancers from the public record, abolition of the state's tumor registry, misrepresentation of the impacts it could not hide (including an apparent tripling of the infant death rate in nearby Harrisburg) and much more. 

The federal government did nothing to track the health histories of the region's residents. 

In fact, the most reliable studies were conducted by local residents like Jane Lee and Mary Osborne, who went door-to-door in neighborhoods where the fallout was thought to be worst. Their surveys showed very substantial plagues of cancer, leukemia, birth defects, respiratory problems, hair loss, rashes, lesions and much more. 

A study by Columbia University claimed there were no significant health impacts, but its data by some interpretations points in the opposite direction. Investigations by epidemiologist Dr. Stephen Wing of the University of North Carolina, and others, led Wing to warn that the official studies on the health impacts of the accident suffered from "logical and methodological problems." Studies by Wing and by Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry official, being announced this week at Harrisburg, significantly challenge official pronouncements on both radiation releases and health impacts. 

Gundersen, a leading technical expert on nuclear engineering, says: "When I correctly interpreted the containment pressure spike and the doses measured in the environment after the TMI accident, I proved that TMI's releases were about one hundred times higher than the industry and the NRC claim, in part because the containment leaked. This new data supports the epidemiology of Dr. Steve Wing and proves that there really were injuries from the accident. New reactor designs are also effected, as the NRC is using its low assumed release rates to justify decreases in emergency planning and containment design." 

Data unearthed by radiologist Dr. Ernest Sternglass of the University of Pittsburgh, and statisticians Jay Gould (now deceased) and Joe Mangano of New York have led to strong assertions of major public health impacts. On-going work by Sternglass and Mangano clearly indicates that "normal" reactor radiation releases of far less magnitude that those at TMI continue to have catastrophic impacts on local populations. 

Anecdotal evidence among the local human population has been devastating. Large numbers of central Pennsylvanians suffered skin sores and lesions that erupted while they were out of doors as the fallout rained down on them. Many quickly developed large, visible tumors, breathing problems, and a metallic taste in their mouths that matched that experienced by some of the men who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, and who were exposed to nuclear tests in the south Pacific and Nevada. 


Harvey Wasserman has been writing about atomic energy and the green alternatives since 1973. His 1982 assertion to Bryant Gumbel on NBC's TODAY Show that people were killed at TMI sparked a national mailing from the reactor industry demanding a retraction. NBC was later bought by General Electric, still a major force pushing atomic power. This article originally appeared at http://freepress.org.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: nukes, nuclear power, three mile island, nuclear accident


Comments are closed-

I Love Nuclear: Clean, Green and Cheap(If Harvey will move his bod)
Posted by: johnwinthrop on Mar 30, 2009 3:24 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nuclear is far safer than coal fired electricity. solar won't heat or power the magnitude of homes and businesses a modern giant like America (or EU, Russian, China, etc0 requires. Wind is undependable; ;useful in a few regions, useless in most. we need to start up a massive nuclear program. since three mile island, there have been improvements in nuclear power. concerns about "proliferation" are absurd: look at pakistan and iran. israel. anyone who wants to build nuclear bombs and has a few smart nuclear physicists can build them. harvey is a good and concerned guy, but he has a gene that blocks him from uttering the words NUCLEAR IS GOOD. I don't believe in manmade global warming, but for those of you who do, jump on the nuclear bandwagon cause folks, it's the only train leavin the station that is gonna keep the lights on and the jobs a comin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» GET OUT OF THE WAY Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Not clean, not green, not cheap Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Obama, a pragmatist above all Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Lets Make A Deal Posted by: johnwinthrop
» All uninformed bullsh*t Posted by: PaulC

Comments are closed-

Missing the point, entirely
Posted by: Squarehead on Mar 31, 2009 3:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The pro nuclear enthusiasts are missing the point, entirely.

There are ~ 500 nuclear stations possible, over the next 20 years. (For reasons of complexity, relatively small number of companies who could make them, etc.)

We NEED the equivalent output of 9,000 generating stations, to supply our energy.

The only source that can give that kind of energy, 15,000 Terawatt/hrs, for the whole of the planet, is the sun.

Solar energy, from that big fusion reactor in the sky, (at a nice safe distance) provides several thousand times more energy than we use; it's all a qestion of how to harvest it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Missing the point, entirely Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: Missing the point, entirely Posted by: Squarehead
» Some good points Posted by: PaulC
» I've travelled enough to know Posted by: Bliss Doubt

Comments are closed-

Can't agree with this article
Posted by: PeaceFlea on Mar 31, 2009 4:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to disagree with this article. I lived in the shadow of TMI from 1980 to 1990. I never had or heard of any of these problems, never saw any of these types of things. I still know many people living in that region and have never heard any reports of any kind of health problems like this.

Do I think the government probably lied about what actually happened in reactor 2? You bet. Should we be much more careful about nuclear power? Absolutely. There the author and I fully agree.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What government will tend to do Posted by: Bliss Doubt

Comments are closed-

lived there too
Posted by: nothcountry on Mar 31, 2009 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Contrary to other 'lived there', I was 6 miles SW of TMI when it blew, and my first exposure to the truth of our corporation of $america$. A mountain of health issues from exposure were NEVER released. The author's words of birth defects, animal deformites and vegatation anomalies are 100% accurate. I saw them for myself. I am a first hand witness how the government, health officals and local media perpetrated their steady stream of deception. 'Everything is fine' was /is the catch phrase, the spin of covert SOB's who had all to lose, and made a choice to sacrifice the lives of the expendable public to 'keep on keeping on.'
Nukes are death, plain and simple. No ammount of ill conceived rational about other forms of 'unrelieable energy' changes that single truth. Take a good look at the corporate deal for new nukes. We pay for them, we pay to clean them up and we have no recourse when 'stuff' happens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you for your diligence. Posted by: Bliss Doubt

Comments are closed-

nuclear power is a disaster
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 31, 2009 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory scientists estimate that if the U.S. became as energy efficient as Japan, it would save $220 billion per year on its energy bill. Nuclear power has proven to be a disaster: 116 plants have been canceled in the United States since 1973 and no new plants ordered since 1978. This has been an economic waste of more than $50 billion.

Nuclear power suffers from uncontrollable expenses due to construction, operation, maintenance and radioactive waste management. The nuclear waste that comes from nuclear power generation is deadly, and contains isotopes that remain toxic for up to 220,000 years. There is no safe way to dispose of it.

In June 1989, the citizens of Sacramento voted to shut down the Rancho Seco nuclear plant after 15 years of operation. The plant may be converted to solar power. The New York’s Shoreham nuclear plant will never operate due to public opposition. The nuclear industry ignored the public outcry, and it now costs the taxpayers and the industry $6 billion.

The nuclear power industry is an industry plagued with safety hazards, routine radiation releases, mismanagement, cost overruns, increased maintenance costs, extended outages and a dependence on federal subsidies. Forbes magazine has called the failed nuclear power program “the largest managerial disaster in U.S. business history,” costing as much as the space program and the Vietnam War combined.

According to the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, moving from fossil fuel to nuclear power on a global level would require building a new reactor every one to three days for the next 40 years, at a cost of $200 billion per year. This would result in 300,000 tons of radioactive waste in the United States alone.

Reasonable alternatives exist. Solar energy is abundant, non-polluting and dependable. Electricity-producing wind turbines exist in 95 countries, with an installed capacity of 1,450 megawatts. They can be installed alone or in clusters. A coal or nuclear plant can take a decade or longer to plan or construct, whereas wind turbine clusters have been built in under 90 days. New wind systems generate power at six to nine cents per kilowatt hour, while electricity from new nuclear power plants costs 13 cents per kilowatt hour.

According to United Nations energy statistics, hydroelectric power supplies 21 percent of the world’s electricity, more than nuclear power. Hydroelectric power provides the most efficient, most reliable and lowest cost source of electricity, with production costs generally one-tenth those of nuclear power. Geothermal energy projects cost less than half the cost of nuclear reactors, and can be built in one-fifth of the time.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, nuclear power has become the least competitive of conventional electricity sources. Costs of $2 to $3 billion per plant are now commonplace, with some plants costing upwards of $5 billion. In contrast, while the price of electricity generated by solar energy is not yet as low as that from coal-fired plants, some technologies are already cheaper than nuclear-generated electricity.

The average output of nuclear plants is only about 60 percent of designed capacity, because many plants are forced to shut down frequently for repairs and maintenance. In the 1980s, the time required for construction of a nuclear reactor typically ranged from 8 to 14 years. The real roots of this problem lie in faulty and incomplete design work, inadequate quality control during construction and poor management.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

nuclear power is a disaster (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 31, 2009 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
General safety issues plague the nuclear power industry. These include the capability of safety control systems to survive fires, earthquakes or hydrogen explosions; the capability of reactor systems to respond to an emergency shutdown command; and the capability of a plant to withstand the loss of power needed to operate safety systems.

A typical nuclear power plant generates over 30 metric tons of highly radioactive material, which remains hazardous to humans for thousands of years. There is no easy solution to the disposal of nuclear waste.

According to Greenpeace, a 1989 Lou Harris poll found 62 percent of U.S. citizens strongly opposed to nuclear power. Like the environmental movement, the antinuclear movement has grown in past decades from a radical fringe element into a mainstream public concern. Questions to ask proponents of nuclear power are as follows:

1) How will the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) define safety standards for new reactors?

2) Will the quality of construction be better than in the past?

3) Where and how will the additional nuclear wastes generated by new plants be disposed of?

4) Will the nuclear industry be more willing to accept stringent regulation and enforcement than it has been in the past?

Until these questions are answered satisfactorily, nuclear power remains a risky solution to the energy crisis. Making use of energy-efficient systems, conserving energy, recycling, vegetarianism, and becoming energy and environmentally conscious, however, are steps we can all take towards a sustainable world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Why even bother -----
Posted by: symcokid on Mar 31, 2009 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
twenty years after the fact to bring this unfortunate little mishap to the forefront. Throw the Nuclear Plants up like the the Convenience Stores, Taverns, Churches and Wind turbines - one on every corner. Everything has gone to hell anyway and now Socialism is here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Grotesque
Posted by: willymack on Mar 31, 2009 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How else can you describe what horrors are possible when pathologically greedy criminals are allowed free reign? The nuclear power industry is but one facet of the overall degradation of morality and accountability in the business community. To say that nuclear power plants have been a horrible mistake would be a gross understatement. If the adverse effects of TMI were so slight, why the coverup, even to this day? I'm old enough to remember the dirty lies promoting nuclear power, lies such as "too cheap to meter", "absolutely safe", and the worst one of all "although there is NO SAFE WAY to dispose of spent nuclear fuel rods at present, in 30 years, research into this will surely have solved the problem". Thirty years is the expected lifetime of a nuclear power plant. No mention was made of the necessity of also disposing of the intensly radioactive containment buildings at all, and NO RESEARCH was ever conducted during that time. That would've cut into profits, and we can't have that, can we? Grotesque. How else can you describe our self-inflicted horrors?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

One Sign TMI Wasn't A Major Irradiator
Posted by: markkernes on Mar 31, 2009 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recall reading in the Phila. Inquirer that shortly after the accident, scientists collected dozens of rolls of unexposed film from local drugstores and developed them, looking for any indications that they had been affected by radiation from TMI. The film showed nothing more than background radiation; nothing that would affect the population.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Nuclear Stupidity
Posted by: frank69 on Mar 31, 2009 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I give you Hiroshima, Nagasaki, TMI, Chernobl. Need we go on? Nuclear power sucks! Period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nuclear Stupidity Posted by: rickiey
» No one got hurt at TMI Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Nuclear Heroism Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: Nuclear Heroism Posted by: Squarehead

Comments are closed-

Anthony D'Auria Medical Microbiologist
Posted by: Tony D on Mar 31, 2009 3:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is important to recognize that although the fuel did melt and the emergency core cooling system failed,the fuel did not melt through either the steel reactor vessel or the concrete containment building. However some of the water that cooled the fuel leaked into the concrete containment building, and radioactive gases dissolved in this water made the interior of the building very radioactive. In order to prevent pressure from building up, some of this gas was purposely leaked to the outside environment by the operators. The radioactivity from this leakage was minimal and the number of expected cancers was estimated to be 1/50,000 people living in the area.

It is interesting that people who lived in the immediate area bought Geiger counters and when measuring the radioactivity discovered that the reading was 30% higher than the national average. This finding caused some concern until they discovered that the radioactivity from the plant was far too small to account for it. It was finally determined that the high level was characteristic of the natural radioactivity in that area. This was proven to come from the uranium in the local soil, which decays to radioactive radon gas. For the 50,000 people who lived near Three Mile Island, such natural radioactivity would lead to an estimated 60 death.

It should be recognized that this accident happened soon after the movie The China Syndrome and many people thought the accident was as terrible as the one pictured in the movie. I am afraid that the anecdotal reports of cancer has to be directed to the field of medicine: cancer of unknown causes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

I saw a baby with no arms born near there
Posted by: wagadog on Mar 31, 2009 6:17 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My first husband's cousin's.

Conceived "5 miles from 3 mile island" -- not long after the accident there.

10 fingers and 10 toes -- but the 10 finger stuck directly out of little Caleb's shoulders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The risk associated with N-Power can't be calculated.
Posted by: jimreeve on Apr 2, 2009 6:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
N-Power can't get investment money unless it is cosigned by the Feds. No private sector insurer will insure N-Power. This is because the engineering and actuarial risk calculations don't work. The calculations keep saying "Build no nucs."
I did metallurgy on some parts for reactor pumps and it scared the crap out of me.
As a result of my having this inside knowledge, I don't want to live on the same continent with a nuclear reactor. Leave the Uranium in the ground.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

I Love Nuclear: Clean, Green and Cheap(If Harvey will move his bod)
Posted by: johnwinthrop on Mar 30, 2009 3:24 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nuclear is far safer than coal fired electricity. solar won't heat or power the magnitude of homes and businesses a modern giant like America (or EU, Russian, China, etc0 requires. Wind is undependable; ;useful in a few regions, useless in most. we need to start up a massive nuclear program. since three mile island, there have been improvements in nuclear power. concerns about "proliferation" are absurd: look at pakistan and iran. israel. anyone who wants to build nuclear bombs and has a few smart nuclear physicists can build them. harvey is a good and concerned guy, but he has a gene that blocks him from uttering the words NUCLEAR IS GOOD. I don't believe in manmade global warming, but for those of you who do, jump on the nuclear bandwagon cause folks, it's the only train leavin the station that is gonna keep the lights on and the jobs a comin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» GET OUT OF THE WAY Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Not clean, not green, not cheap Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Obama, a pragmatist above all Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Lets Make A Deal Posted by: johnwinthrop
» All uninformed bullsh*t Posted by: PaulC

Comments are closed-

Missing the point, entirely
Posted by: Squarehead on Mar 31, 2009 3:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The pro nuclear enthusiasts are missing the point, entirely.

There are ~ 500 nuclear stations possible, over the next 20 years. (For reasons of complexity, relatively small number of companies who could make them, etc.)

We NEED the equivalent output of 9,000 generating stations, to supply our energy.

The only source that can give that kind of energy, 15,000 Terawatt/hrs, for the whole of the planet, is the sun.

Solar energy, from that big fusion reactor in the sky, (at a nice safe distance) provides several thousand times more energy than we use; it's all a qestion of how to harvest it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Missing the point, entirely Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: Missing the point, entirely Posted by: Squarehead
» Some good points Posted by: PaulC
» I've travelled enough to know Posted by: Bliss Doubt

Comments are closed-

Can't agree with this article
Posted by: PeaceFlea on Mar 31, 2009 4:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to disagree with this article. I lived in the shadow of TMI from 1980 to 1990. I never had or heard of any of these problems, never saw any of these types of things. I still know many people living in that region and have never heard any reports of any kind of health problems like this.

Do I think the government probably lied about what actually happened in reactor 2? You bet. Should we be much more careful about nuclear power? Absolutely. There the author and I fully agree.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What government will tend to do Posted by: Bliss Doubt

Comments are closed-

lived there too
Posted by: nothcountry on Mar 31, 2009 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Contrary to other 'lived there', I was 6 miles SW of TMI when it blew, and my first exposure to the truth of our corporation of $america$. A mountain of health issues from exposure were NEVER released. The author's words of birth defects, animal deformites and vegatation anomalies are 100% accurate. I saw them for myself. I am a first hand witness how the government, health officals and local media perpetrated their steady stream of deception. 'Everything is fine' was /is the catch phrase, the spin of covert SOB's who had all to lose, and made a choice to sacrifice the lives of the expendable public to 'keep on keeping on.'
Nukes are death, plain and simple. No ammount of ill conceived rational about other forms of 'unrelieable energy' changes that single truth. Take a good look at the corporate deal for new nukes. We pay for them, we pay to clean them up and we have no recourse when 'stuff' happens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you for your diligence. Posted by: Bliss Doubt

Comments are closed-

nuclear power is a disaster
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 31, 2009 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory scientists estimate that if the U.S. became as energy efficient as Japan, it would save $220 billion per year on its energy bill. Nuclear power has proven to be a disaster: 116 plants have been canceled in the United States since 1973 and no new plants ordered since 1978. This has been an economic waste of more than $50 billion.

Nuclear power suffers from uncontrollable expenses due to construction, operation, maintenance and radioactive waste management. The nuclear waste that comes from nuclear power generation is deadly, and contains isotopes that remain toxic for up to 220,000 years. There is no safe way to dispose of it.

In June 1989, the citizens of Sacramento voted to shut down the Rancho Seco nuclear plant after 15 years of operation. The plant may be converted to solar power. The New York’s Shoreham nuclear plant will never operate due to public opposition. The nuclear industry ignored the public outcry, and it now costs the taxpayers and the industry $6 billion.

The nuclear power industry is an industry plagued with safety hazards, routine radiation releases, mismanagement, cost overruns, increased maintenance costs, extended outages and a dependence on federal subsidies. Forbes magazine has called the failed nuclear power program “the largest managerial disaster in U.S. business history,” costing as much as the space program and the Vietnam War combined.

According to the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, moving from fossil fuel to nuclear power on a global level would require building a new reactor every one to three days for the next 40 years, at a cost of $200 billion per year. This would result in 300,000 tons of radioactive waste in the United States alone.

Reasonable alternatives exist. Solar energy is abundant, non-polluting and dependable. Electricity-producing wind turbines exist in 95 countries, with an installed capacity of 1,450 megawatts. They can be installed alone or in clusters. A coal or nuclear plant can take a decade or longer to plan or construct, whereas wind turbine clusters have been built in under 90 days. New wind systems generate power at six to nine cents per kilowatt hour, while electricity from new nuclear power plants costs 13 cents per kilowatt hour.

According to United Nations energy statistics, hydroelectric power supplies 21 percent of the world’s electricity, more than nuclear power. Hydroelectric power provides the most efficient, most reliable and lowest cost source of electricity, with production costs generally one-tenth those of nuclear power. Geothermal energy projects cost less than half the cost of nuclear reactors, and can be built in one-fifth of the time.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, nuclear power has become the least competitive of conventional electricity sources. Costs of $2 to $3 billion per plant are now commonplace, with some plants costing upwards of $5 billion. In contrast, while the price of electricity generated by solar energy is not yet as low as that from coal-fired plants, some technologies are already cheaper than nuclear-generated electricity.

The average output of nuclear plants is only about 60 percent of designed capacity, because many plants are forced to shut down frequently for repairs and maintenance. In the 1980s, the time required for construction of a nuclear reactor typically ranged from 8 to 14 years. The real roots of this problem lie in faulty and incomplete design work, inadequate quality control during construction and poor management.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

nuclear power is a disaster (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 31, 2009 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
General safety issues plague the nuclear power industry. These include the capability of safety control systems to survive fires, earthquakes or hydrogen explosions; the capability of reactor systems to respond to an emergency shutdown command; and the capability of a plant to withstand the loss of power needed to operate safety systems.

A typical nuclear power plant generates over 30 metric tons of highly radioactive material, which remains hazardous to humans for thousands of years. There is no easy solution to the disposal of nuclear waste.

According to Greenpeace, a 1989 Lou Harris poll found 62 percent of U.S. citizens strongly opposed to nuclear power. Like the environmental movement, the antinuclear movement has grown in past decades from a radical fringe element into a mainstream public concern. Questions to ask proponents of nuclear power are as follows:

1) How will the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) define safety standards for new reactors?

2) Will the quality of construction be better than in the past?

3) Where and how will the additional nuclear wastes generated by new plants be disposed of?

4) Will the nuclear industry be more willing to accept stringent regulation and enforcement than it has been in the past?

Until these questions are answered satisfactorily, nuclear power remains a risky solution to the energy crisis. Making use of energy-efficient systems, conserving energy, recycling, vegetarianism, and becoming energy and environmentally conscious, however, are steps we can all take towards a sustainable world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Why even bother -----
Posted by: symcokid on Mar 31, 2009 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
twenty years after the fact to bring this unfortunate little mishap to the forefront. Throw the Nuclear Plants up like the the Convenience Stores, Taverns, Churches and Wind turbines - one on every corner. Everything has gone to hell anyway and now Socialism is here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Grotesque
Posted by: willymack on Mar 31, 2009 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How else can you describe what horrors are possible when pathologically greedy criminals are allowed free reign? The nuclear power industry is but one facet of the overall degradation of morality and accountability in the business community. To say that nuclear power plants have been a horrible mistake would be a gross understatement. If the adverse effects of TMI were so slight, why the coverup, even to this day? I'm old enough to remember the dirty lies promoting nuclear power, lies such as "too cheap to meter", "absolutely safe", and the worst one of all "although there is NO SAFE WAY to dispose of spent nuclear fuel rods at present, in 30 years, research into this will surely have solved the problem". Thirty years is the expected lifetime of a nuclear power plant. No mention was made of the necessity of also disposing of the intensly radioactive containment buildings at all, and NO RESEARCH was ever conducted during that time. That would've cut into profits, and we can't have that, can we? Grotesque. How else can you describe our self-inflicted horrors?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

One Sign TMI Wasn't A Major Irradiator
Posted by: markkernes on Mar 31, 2009 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recall reading in the Phila. Inquirer that shortly after the accident, scientists collected dozens of rolls of unexposed film from local drugstores and developed them, looking for any indications that they had been affected by radiation from TMI. The film showed nothing more than background radiation; nothing that would affect the population.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Nuclear Stupidity
Posted by: frank69 on Mar 31, 2009 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I give you Hiroshima, Nagasaki, TMI, Chernobl. Need we go on? Nuclear power sucks! Period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nuclear Stupidity Posted by: rickiey
» No one got hurt at TMI Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Nuclear Heroism Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: Nuclear Heroism Posted by: Squarehead

Comments are closed-

Anthony D'Auria Medical Microbiologist
Posted by: Tony D on Mar 31, 2009 3:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is important to recognize that although the fuel did melt and the emergency core cooling system failed,the fuel did not melt through either the steel reactor vessel or the concrete containment building. However some of the water that cooled the fuel leaked into the concrete containment building, and radioactive gases dissolved in this water made the interior of the building very radioactive. In order to prevent pressure from building up, some of this gas was purposely leaked to the outside environment by the operators. The radioactivity from this leakage was minimal and the number of expected cancers was estimated to be 1/50,000 people living in the area.

It is interesting that people who lived in the immediate area bought Geiger counters and when measuring the radioactivity discovered that the reading was 30% higher than the national average. This finding caused some concern until they discovered that the radioactivity from the plant was far too small to account for it. It was finally determined that the high level was characteristic of the natural radioactivity in that area. This was proven to come from the uranium in the local soil, which decays to radioactive radon gas. For the 50,000 people who lived near Three Mile Island, such natural radioactivity would lead to an estimated 60 death.

It should be recognized that this accident happened soon after the movie The China Syndrome and many people thought the accident was as terrible as the one pictured in the movie. I am afraid that the anecdotal reports of cancer has to be directed to the field of medicine: cancer of unknown causes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

I saw a baby with no arms born near there
Posted by: wagadog on Mar 31, 2009 6:17 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My first husband's cousin's.

Conceived "5 miles from 3 mile island" -- not long after the accident there.

10 fingers and 10 toes -- but the 10 finger stuck directly out of little Caleb's shoulders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The risk associated with N-Power can't be calculated.
Posted by: jimreeve on Apr 2, 2009 6:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
N-Power can't get investment money unless it is cosigned by the Feds. No private sector insurer will insure N-Power. This is because the engineering and actuarial risk calculations don't work. The calculations keep saying "Build no nucs."
I did metallurgy on some parts for reactor pumps and it scared the crap out of me.
As a result of my having this inside knowledge, I don't want to live on the same continent with a nuclear reactor. Leave the Uranium in the ground.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS