COMMENTS: 84
Three Mile Island: Exposing the Government's Cover Up of Our Most Infamous Nuclear Accident
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.
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.
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: johnwinthrop on Mar 30, 2009 3:24 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I Love Nuclear: Clean, Green and Cheap(If Harvey will move his bod)
Posted by: orwellturns
» RE: I Love Nuclear: Clean, Green and Cheap(If Harvey will move his bod)
Posted by: Squarehead
» GET OUT OF THE WAY
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» The nuclear industry hires boiler rooms of bloggers
Posted by: PaulK
» RE: The nuclear industry hires boiler rooms of bloggers
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: The nuclear industry hires boiler rooms of bloggers
Posted by: jsong123
» I too have dealt with the nuclear trolls repeatedly, PaulK
Posted by: PaulC
» The fact that you consider anyone who disagrees with you a "troll" explains why...
Posted by: mjabele
» Interesting you jumped right in there, mjabele, seeing as you are one of the most egregious cases
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Interesting you jumped right in there, mjabele, seeing as you are one of the most egregious cases
Posted by: Squarehead
» That is fine, assuming his intent is to argue on the merits
Posted by: PaulC
» You couldn't have demonstrated my point better had I paid you.....
Posted by: mjabele
» Not clean, not green, not cheap
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Oddball Harvey aside, nuclear power has proven itself reliable and safe for many decades.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» You are either misinformed or a lying industry troll - wind and solar are competitiive now
Posted by: PaulC
» Obama, a pragmatist above all
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Lets Make A Deal
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» All uninformed bullsh*t
Posted by: PaulC
» Nuclear power is not safe in the U.S. or anywhere else
Posted by: PaulC
» Fire 'em up cause a carbon tax ain't gonna happen on Obama's Watch(he ain't Gore, TG)
Posted by: johnwinthrop
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Squarehead on Mar 31, 2009 3:40 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» against EVERYTHING just to be a part of the ANTI crowd
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» And since the Chinese manufacture the solar panels
Posted by: suprmark
» Both disingenuous arguments
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Both disingenuous arguments
Posted by: jsong123
» Some good points
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: And since the Chinese manufacture the solar panels
Posted by: Squarehead
» I know it makes liberals vomit, but billions around the world want what America has.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» I've travelled enough to know
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Now why are those immigrants here again?
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: Now why are those immigrants here again?
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Missing the point, entirely
Posted by: Urgelt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PeaceFlea on Mar 31, 2009 4:47 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: nothcountry on Mar 31, 2009 6:44 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Billions live near nuclear plants: How many have died? Few if any.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» Because cancer forms slowly and is difficult to trace to a source
Posted by: PaulC
» Thank you for your diligence.
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Because cancer forms slowly and is difficult to trace to a source
Posted by: Squarehead
» HaHaHa! You seem to be on a roll today Squarehead
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: HaHaHa! You seem to be on a roll today Squarehead
Posted by: Squarehead
» Insincerity is a form of dishonesty...
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 31, 2009 7:07 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Now, more than ever, a prosperous growing America needs Nuclear Power. I know our leader agrees.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: Now, more than ever, a prosperous growing America needs Nuclear Power.
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» The real killer of nuclear is its bad economics
Posted by: PaulC
» Another awesome post, vasumurti! n/m
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 31, 2009 7:07 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: symcokid on Mar 31, 2009 8:51 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Mar 31, 2009 9:38 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: markkernes on Mar 31, 2009 10:08 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: One Sign TMI Wasn't A Major Irradiator
Posted by: Squarehead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: frank69 on Mar 31, 2009 11:49 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
» U.S. reactors have nearly gone "Chernobyl" several times
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: U.S. reactors have nearly gone "Chernobyl" several times
Posted by: rickiey
» I know that TMI partially melted down and a reactor breach at Davis Besse would be far worse
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: I know that TMI partially melted down and a reactor breach at Davis Besse would be far worse
Posted by: rickiey
» Nuclear Heroism
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» Oh, nothing like wiping out everyone, civilians and all, to make your point.
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» And equally unpleasant. n/m
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Oh, nothing like wiping out everyone, civilians and all, to make your point.
Posted by: rickiey
» RE: Oh, nothing like wiping out everyone, civilians and all, to make your point.
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Oh, nothing like wiping out everyone, civilians and all, to make your point.
Posted by: rickiey
» Well, what do YOU propose to do with those tons and tons of nuclear waste...
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Oh, nothing like wiping out everyone, [In Sweden, the government and people arranged for storage
Posted by: Squarehead
» There are no wars that dont kill civilians: civilians is a meaningless term and always has been.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: There are no wars that dont kill civilians: [Why? What extra gain is achieved by 'maximum force
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Nuclear Heroism
Posted by: Squarehead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tony D on Mar 31, 2009 3:32 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Apparently you have a selective memory
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wagadog on Mar 31, 2009 6:17 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: I saw a baby with no arms born near there
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: I saw a baby with no arms born near there
Posted by: rickiey
» RE: I saw a baby with no arms born near there
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jimreeve on Apr 2, 2009 6:50 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: johnwinthrop on Mar 30, 2009 3:24 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I Love Nuclear: Clean, Green and Cheap(If Harvey will move his bod)
Posted by: orwellturns
» RE: I Love Nuclear: Clean, Green and Cheap(If Harvey will move his bod)
Posted by: Squarehead
» GET OUT OF THE WAY
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» The nuclear industry hires boiler rooms of bloggers
Posted by: PaulK
» RE: The nuclear industry hires boiler rooms of bloggers
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: The nuclear industry hires boiler rooms of bloggers
Posted by: jsong123
» I too have dealt with the nuclear trolls repeatedly, PaulK
Posted by: PaulC
» The fact that you consider anyone who disagrees with you a "troll" explains why...
Posted by: mjabele
» Interesting you jumped right in there, mjabele, seeing as you are one of the most egregious cases
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Interesting you jumped right in there, mjabele, seeing as you are one of the most egregious cases
Posted by: Squarehead
» That is fine, assuming his intent is to argue on the merits
Posted by: PaulC
» You couldn't have demonstrated my point better had I paid you.....
Posted by: mjabele
» Not clean, not green, not cheap
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Oddball Harvey aside, nuclear power has proven itself reliable and safe for many decades.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» You are either misinformed or a lying industry troll - wind and solar are competitiive now
Posted by: PaulC
» Obama, a pragmatist above all
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Lets Make A Deal
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» All uninformed bullsh*t
Posted by: PaulC
» Nuclear power is not safe in the U.S. or anywhere else
Posted by: PaulC
» Fire 'em up cause a carbon tax ain't gonna happen on Obama's Watch(he ain't Gore, TG)
Posted by: johnwinthrop
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Squarehead on Mar 31, 2009 3:40 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» against EVERYTHING just to be a part of the ANTI crowd
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» And since the Chinese manufacture the solar panels
Posted by: suprmark
» Both disingenuous arguments
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Both disingenuous arguments
Posted by: jsong123
» Some good points
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: And since the Chinese manufacture the solar panels
Posted by: Squarehead
» I know it makes liberals vomit, but billions around the world want what America has.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» I've travelled enough to know
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Now why are those immigrants here again?
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: Now why are those immigrants here again?
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Missing the point, entirely
Posted by: Urgelt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PeaceFlea on Mar 31, 2009 4:47 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: nothcountry on Mar 31, 2009 6:44 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Billions live near nuclear plants: How many have died? Few if any.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» Because cancer forms slowly and is difficult to trace to a source
Posted by: PaulC
» Thank you for your diligence.
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Because cancer forms slowly and is difficult to trace to a source
Posted by: Squarehead
» HaHaHa! You seem to be on a roll today Squarehead
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: HaHaHa! You seem to be on a roll today Squarehead
Posted by: Squarehead
» Insincerity is a form of dishonesty...
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 31, 2009 7:07 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Now, more than ever, a prosperous growing America needs Nuclear Power. I know our leader agrees.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: Now, more than ever, a prosperous growing America needs Nuclear Power.
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» The real killer of nuclear is its bad economics
Posted by: PaulC
» Another awesome post, vasumurti! n/m
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 31, 2009 7:07 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: symcokid on Mar 31, 2009 8:51 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Mar 31, 2009 9:38 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: markkernes on Mar 31, 2009 10:08 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: One Sign TMI Wasn't A Major Irradiator
Posted by: Squarehead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: frank69 on Mar 31, 2009 11:49 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
» U.S. reactors have nearly gone "Chernobyl" several times
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: U.S. reactors have nearly gone "Chernobyl" several times
Posted by: rickiey
» I know that TMI partially melted down and a reactor breach at Davis Besse would be far worse
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: I know that TMI partially melted down and a reactor breach at Davis Besse would be far worse
Posted by: rickiey
» Nuclear Heroism
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» Oh, nothing like wiping out everyone, civilians and all, to make your point.
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» And equally unpleasant. n/m
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Oh, nothing like wiping out everyone, civilians and all, to make your point.
Posted by: rickiey
» RE: Oh, nothing like wiping out everyone, civilians and all, to make your point.
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Oh, nothing like wiping out everyone, civilians and all, to make your point.
Posted by: rickiey
» Well, what do YOU propose to do with those tons and tons of nuclear waste...
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Oh, nothing like wiping out everyone, [In Sweden, the government and people arranged for storage
Posted by: Squarehead
» There are no wars that dont kill civilians: civilians is a meaningless term and always has been.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: There are no wars that dont kill civilians: [Why? What extra gain is achieved by 'maximum force
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Nuclear Heroism
Posted by: Squarehead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tony D on Mar 31, 2009 3:32 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Apparently you have a selective memory
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wagadog on Mar 31, 2009 6:17 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: I saw a baby with no arms born near there
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: I saw a baby with no arms born near there
Posted by: rickiey
» RE: I saw a baby with no arms born near there
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jimreeve on Apr 2, 2009 6:50 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
California Carbon Trading Allows Timber Companies to Sell CO2 Credits for Their Worst Logging Practices
How to Answer the Dumb Things Climate Deniers Say




