Monday, August 4, 2008

Safe, Clean Nuclear Power


A key portion of Senator McCain's Energy plan revolves around what he calls "safe, clean nuclear power." Just how safe is nuclear power?

Pretty safe.  It's been quite a while since the world has experienced a serious nuclear accident. We're doing OK.  No worries.

So why do liberals block efforts to revive nuclear power? Do we like fossil fuels better? No. Do we hate cheap electricity? Hardly. Remember, liberals don't have much money... we like to save a buck. Do we hate America? No, we like it just fine.  

So what's bothering us about nuclear power? We all agree that nuclear power has been pretty safe for the last 40-50 years. What's the big deal?

The problem is, when we're talking about nuclear power, "pretty safe" isn't good enough.  Not by a long shot.  

Below is a list of problems*, both real and potential, involved with nuclear power generation... a list that ought to scare the bejesus out of you, whether you're in the Jack Kemp fan club or a card carrying member of Move-on.org.

1. Nuclear Waste: The entire nuclear fuel chain, from mining to milling, processing, enrichment, and fuel irradiation in reactors generates radioactive waste. This includes 20-30 tons of high-level radioactive waster per year per reactor.  Some of the most intensely radioactive waste has short half-lives, up to a few weeks.  Other types of waste remains deadly for tens of thousands of years.  And that is the big problem.  How do we securely store vast amounts of a substance that can  leak into the water table and/or the atmosphere and kill millions of people until the year 10,207? And what fail-safe method exists for transporting the stuff near our cities and across our countryside to distant waste dumps? Nobody, repeat, nobody has an answer to this question.

2. Theft by terrorists of nuclear materials usable in even a "dirty bomb" would substantially increase if nuclear power is expanded.  This could result in a level of destruction hitherto unimagined.  Reactors themselves are terrorist targets and current ones are not even defended to the level of the 9/11 assault.  19 men in four temas, including air attach scenarios.  Thirty-two US reactors have fuel pools on the upper levels of the reactor building, shielded only by sheet metal... an open invitation to air attack.

3. Accidents: You're right, we haven't had a serious one in quite a while.  But that is no guarantee that we won't have one next week. New reactors, like old ones are most vulnerable to accidents. Existing evacuation plans in major population centers have been found to be unrealistic. The Price-Anderson Act ensures that the liability of an accident to a utility is capped at $10.8 billion.  A serious reactor accident could cost as much as $600 billion, the balance of which would likely be paid by taxpayers (the ones that are still alive).  Goodbye, tax cut!

4. Routine radiation releases: All reactors release radiation into the air, water and soil and cannot be described as "emissions-free".  Even in small quantities, these releases increase the incidence of cancer, especially in children.

Safe, clean nuclear power.  It sounds so good.  But it's neither clean nor safe.  If Senator McCain honestly faced facts, he would call it "frighteningly dangerous, potentially devastating nuclear power".   


*List courtesy beyondnuclear.org


No comments: