Nuclear power is not the only solution to Global Warming and our power needs for decades to come. In fact, it is a very risky solution and one that is in need of close inspection.
Let us, for example, examine the 1959 Rocketdyne reactor accident which may have caused hundreds of cancers from the article posted by Charlie Petitit Oct. 6 in "Health and Medicine Stories".
(Article taken from Knight Science Journalism Tracker - http://ksjtracker.mit.edu
URL to article: http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/?p=1344)
"A nuclear reactor mishap at Rocketdyne test site in 1959 near Simi Valley on the border of heavily populated Los Angeles County went almost unreported at the time. Its very existence did not begin to emerge with any detail for 20 years. It’s been a simmering issue ever since. On Thursday an expert advisory panel appointed by local public officials in response to community worries said the release of radioactive Iodine-131 may have been among the largest of any such incident in US history. A whiff of Cold War military-industrial political muscle and coverup is in the air."
"AP’s Robert Jablon calls the incident a 'nuclear reactor meltdown' without equivocation, and passes on a claim that the released radioisotope could have caused 260 cancers in a 60-square-mile area around the site of the plant. The Boeing Co., which now owns the site, retorts that there is no sign that actual cancer incidence rose among plant workers, who presumably would have been most heavily exposed. LA Times’s Amanda Covarrubias refers to the incident simply as a nuclear accident in her lede, but as a meltdown deeper. She writes that up to 1,800 cancers may have ensued."
"The story merits further, deeper digging into exactly what happened to the reactor — a small, sodium-cooled, high temperature, 20 megawatt machine — and why so little information came out at the time. Did the entire fuel bundle melt? Just a bit of it? What containment, if any, was on this graphite-moderated machine? A web search finds references to a 'partial meltdown'but that’s ambiguous. Who is on the advisory panel and how credible is it? Its co-chairman, a little checking reveals, is president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, an anti-nuclear activist organization. The panel members’ objectivity might be examined. Hmmmm."
Ralph, you call windfarms "ugly and useless" but I say they are beautiful and useful. They convert wind energy into electricity.
You say that at their maximum, wind generated power "wouldn't even begin to keep up with world population growth". I say that given the opportunity, wind power will continue to grow exponentially and develop into one of the most important industries of this century.
You say "stop wasting valuable time and taxpayer's money. Go Nuclear!" I say that nuclear is not the answer to our energy problems and we should Go Clean by developing not only wind power but Geothermal, wave, concentrated solar, PV, free river and ocean current hydro.
I also say that we have not and will not be using our taxpayer's money wisely if we continue investing in Nuclear at the expense of developing clean technologies.
Yes, Ralph. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" and the road we have taken with nuclear is taking us there. Just read the latest on the nuclear cover-ups in Germany.
See http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,494707,00.html
Here is the gist of the three part article:
First of all, as reactors age, they become more susceptible to system damage but no one seems to wish to take responsibility in reporting all the incidents. Only the major visible problems are normally reported.
Secondly, as more power demands are made from reactors, related systems are not accordingly beefed-up to compensate for the increased power output. Transformers have burned in both Japanese and German reactors.
Third, parts for old reactors are difficult to find since some manufacturers of those parts have gone out of business.
Fourth, it is difficult to find qualified personnel to train and run the reactors.
Nuclear plants and earthquake rift zones do not seem a good combination as evidenced by what happened in Japan recently. I think that Japan will have to look at other safer and more sustainable alternatives such as ocean current power conversion.
Yes, Ralph. Nuclear is producing power but is also accompanied by grave risks as at Cherynoble. It is a sword of Democrites that hangs over our heads suspended on a thread as we reap its benefits. One day we will be using renewable power that is truly clean and not sullied by radioactivity and its accompanying problems.
Premier sponsors include
Lead sponsors/partners include
All sponsors | All partners
Nuclear Power is at best a risky solution.
Submitted on July 19th, 2007 by InterestedReaderDear Ralph,
Nuclear power is not the only solution to Global Warming and our power needs for decades to come. In fact, it is a very risky solution and one that is in need of close inspection.
Let us, for example, examine the 1959 Rocketdyne reactor accident which may have caused hundreds of cancers from the article posted by Charlie Petitit Oct. 6 in "Health and Medicine Stories".
(Article taken from Knight Science Journalism Tracker - http://ksjtracker.mit.edu
URL to article: http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/?p=1344)
"A nuclear reactor mishap at Rocketdyne test site in 1959 near Simi Valley on the border of heavily populated Los Angeles County went almost unreported at the time. Its very existence did not begin to emerge with any detail for 20 years. It’s been a simmering issue ever since. On Thursday an expert advisory panel appointed by local public officials in response to community worries said the release of radioactive Iodine-131 may have been among the largest of any such incident in US history. A whiff of Cold War military-industrial political muscle and coverup is in the air."
"AP’s Robert Jablon calls the incident a 'nuclear reactor meltdown' without equivocation, and passes on a claim that the released radioisotope could have caused 260 cancers in a 60-square-mile area around the site of the plant. The Boeing Co., which now owns the site, retorts that there is no sign that actual cancer incidence rose among plant workers, who presumably would have been most heavily exposed. LA Times’s Amanda Covarrubias refers to the incident simply as a nuclear accident in her lede, but as a meltdown deeper. She writes that up to 1,800 cancers may have ensued."
"The story merits further, deeper digging into exactly what happened to the reactor — a small, sodium-cooled, high temperature, 20 megawatt machine — and why so little information came out at the time. Did the entire fuel bundle melt? Just a bit of it? What containment, if any, was on this graphite-moderated machine? A web search finds references to a 'partial meltdown'but that’s ambiguous. Who is on the advisory panel and how credible is it? Its co-chairman, a little checking reveals, is president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, an anti-nuclear activist organization. The panel members’ objectivity might be examined. Hmmmm."
Ralph, you call windfarms "ugly and useless" but I say they are beautiful and useful. They convert wind energy into electricity.
You say that at their maximum, wind generated power "wouldn't even begin to keep up with world population growth". I say that given the opportunity, wind power will continue to grow exponentially and develop into one of the most important industries of this century.
You say "stop wasting valuable time and taxpayer's money. Go Nuclear!" I say that nuclear is not the answer to our energy problems and we should Go Clean by developing not only wind power but Geothermal, wave, concentrated solar, PV, free river and ocean current hydro.
I also say that we have not and will not be using our taxpayer's money wisely if we continue investing in Nuclear at the expense of developing clean technologies.
Yes, Ralph. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" and the road we have taken with nuclear is taking us there. Just read the latest on the nuclear cover-ups in Germany.
See http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,494707,00.html
Here is the gist of the three part article:
First of all, as reactors age, they become more susceptible to system damage but no one seems to wish to take responsibility in reporting all the incidents. Only the major visible problems are normally reported.
Secondly, as more power demands are made from reactors, related systems are not accordingly beefed-up to compensate for the increased power output. Transformers have burned in both Japanese and German reactors.
Third, parts for old reactors are difficult to find since some manufacturers of those parts have gone out of business.
Fourth, it is difficult to find qualified personnel to train and run the reactors.
Nuclear plants and earthquake rift zones do not seem a good combination as evidenced by what happened in Japan recently. I think that Japan will have to look at other safer and more sustainable alternatives such as ocean current power conversion.
Yes, Ralph. Nuclear is producing power but is also accompanied by grave risks as at Cherynoble. It is a sword of Democrites that hangs over our heads suspended on a thread as we reap its benefits. One day we will be using renewable power that is truly clean and not sullied by radioactivity and its accompanying problems.
adrianakau2aol.com