Nuclear Sense

2001-9-8 04:57:00

I want to clarify a point as I begin. Whenever one mentions that he is supportive of nuclear power the typical environmentalist will stand back in judgment and assume that he is anti-environment. One thing that irritates me about many who call themselves environmentalists is that they have a checklist of about a dozen items and if you do not agree on all such items you are considered anti-environment. Talking to such a zealot is very similar to talking to a Christian Fundamentalist. They also have a checklist of about a dozen items that they put me through and if I answer one incorrectly, then I am not "a Christian."

Well I have news for both of these extremists. I am an environmentalist and I am a Christian and I'm willing to defend my position against the best of either party.

I find it amusing that the guru of (orthodox) environmentalism, Al Gore, is supportive of nuclear energy. He stated:

"Nuclear power, designed well, regulated properly, and cared for meticulously, has a place in the world's energy supply." [The lesson of Chernobyl] "is not that we should retreat from new technology. Technology used for humane reasons, in humane hands, holds the promise of improving the quality of our lives."

(Source: Nuclear Energy Insight, August 1998)

I do not always agree with Al Gore, but in this case he makes sense.

If we had the same mentality about going to the moon as we currently have toward nuclear energy and other technology we would have never gotten there. A couple years before the moon landing there was a terrible accident where the Apollo capsule caught fire and three astronauts lost their lives. Many thought this would put and end to the silly notion of going to the moon, and if it happened today the anti-moon people would have taken to the streets in protest and the press would have given them prime time coverage. It would have only taken a few weeks for public opinion to shift, lawsuits to materialize and paralyze the quest to the moon. Miraculously, back then the program proceeded without delay.

I never thought I would live to reflect on the good old days. In this case the good old days were a time when a project could suffer a calamity and yet continue to progress toward the goal. Instead of being paralyzed with fear, doubt and lawsuits, this was a time when we learned from experience, believed in ourselves and moved ahead.

Our first nuclear reactors were far from perfect and Chernobyl was an older design operated by an inefficient central totalitarian regime, but today we have made much progress and the reactors are much safer. Fifty years from now if we put our mind to it, the reactors (or whatever form of nuclear energy develops) should be as safe a solar power.

In this time people worry about nuclear waste, but I read a fairly impressive statistic on this. The waste created by supplying (with nuclear energy) all the electrical needs of a family of four over a period of twenty years would be equal in size to a cigarette lighter.

Yet there are many who are scared to death that we cannot effectively dispose of a couple ounces of material per family of four over a twenty year period.

Our family just disposed of hundreds of times that amount of garbage material just today.

Compare this to a 1000 MW coal fired generating plant which must find a storage location for about 1500 tons of coal ash (enough to fill 33 train cars) every single day.

Also consider this benefit:

Since 1973, nuclear power replacing coal has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 2.5 billion tons, more than any other electricity source.

So far the good from nuclear energy has far outweighed the bad.

Benjamin states:

"I think that the history of the roughly 60 years since DK dictated those words has demonstrated that the positive impact he foresaw has not developed. Perhaps in time it will. In the meantime, there are serious concerns about nuclear energy as it is being applied in the present. These concerns should be addressed in the present and not according to the expectations hoped for 60 years in the past. I believe the Masters are intelligent enough to know that conditions change, and plans must be changed accordingly. In fact, I believe that whatever plans are made 'on high' are subject to modification at any time. The Masters have grown beyond attachment to the past, as have many of us mere mortals."

JJ:

Circumstances change, but principles do not. If the Masters up to the Planetary Logos Himself, who promote and endorse it, could not foresee the principle behind atomic energy then we are in big trouble. We need to disband all hierarchies and have each individual fend for himself.

The understanding of principles had nothing to do with attachment to the past. A principle is true in the past, present and future.

Before I even read Alice A. Bailey I concluded through my soul that the principle behind nuclear energy is good and that nuclear power can indeed benefit mankind, indeed it already has, but it will take over a hundred more years to manifest the full vision the Great Ones have in mind.

Benjamin asks where I received the following data:

"The fact is that most of the radiation from nuclear waste is gone after 60 years and after 1000 years it reaches the level of radiation similar to uranium ore which exists all over the world naturally."

I received it from Dr. Aaron Oakley. I am enclosing the article below where this originated.

The truth of this is quite obvious however. Almost all the radioactive waste has a half life of 30-40 years so after 60 years most of the hazard is eliminated and it would follow that it would become relatively harmless as natural ore after 1000 years.

SEA-US Lies To Australians

By Dr. Aaron Oakley
No. 139, 25 - 31 October 1999

"I have said it before and I'll say again. Anti-nuclear activists cannot be trusted to tell the truth about the nuclear industry. In this article I expose the barrage of lies, distortions and falsehoods coming from the Sustainable Energy and Anti-Uranium Service. The misinformation purveyed on this web site is so bad, I estimate that it would take a document ten times the size of the original web site to fully expose the sheer anti-nuclear bigotry of its author(s). Nevertheless, the main canards can be put to rest briefly.

"Myth 1: Nuclear Energy is not clean - All parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to reprocessing, contribute to the creation of long-lived radioactive wastes.

"This statement grossly distorts the facts. Nuclear energy is much cleaner than other forms of large-scale energy generation. While technically some wastes may be long lived, the long lived components pose minimal risks, and their volume is extremely small. Nuclear energy is substantially cleaner than other large-scale energy generation means such as coal based ones. The amount of waste produced by a large nuclear generator producing electricity for a city of a million people would fit inside six filing cabinets.

"Myth 2: Nuclear energy is not cheap - In many places renewable energy sources are as cheap as or significantly cheaper than nuclear energy. When the electricity utilities were privatized in the United Kingdom the market refused to purchase or support nuclear utilities.

"This is false. Nuclear energy is much cheaper for large scale energy generation compared to wind, solar and other so-called 'renewables.' These renewables can only compete in remote locations where large-scale electricity generation is unfeasible. They do not have a hope when it comes to large scale energy generation. The situation in the UK is not a result of the cost of nuclear energy, but a result of political and other factors.

"Myth 3: Nuclear energy is not the answer to global warming - Extensive studies have shown that each dollar invested in end-use energy efficiency displaces nearly seven times more carbon that a dollar invested in nuclear power.

"The above statement grossly distorts the facts. While some greenhouse emissions can be saved by increasing end-user efficiency, there is still the problem of limited energy supply, given rising energy demands. During their operation, nuclear power plants produce zero emissions, making them a very good solution to the supposed greenhouse problem. Some anti-nuclear types, such as Giz Watson, have claimed that nuclear energy is no solution to the 'greenhouse problem' because uranium enrichment is a fossil fuel intensive process. Yet the main 'fact' behind this shoddy argument is that US enrichment (the least efficient in the world) uses old military equipment, uses about 0.7 per cent of the US electricity to yield about 19 per cent of its electricity.

"Myth 4: Nuclear power is not safe - Nuclear reactors routinely release radiation into the surrounding environment. Incidents, accidents, releases and leaks plague the industry in every country where it operates.

"The above statement is a blatant lie. The safety record of nuclear electricity is unparalleled compared with any other large industry. The death toll of the nuclear energy industry of the western world is currently zero. I defy the author of the above statement to name the so-called incidents, accidents, and leaks which supposedly plague the industry. The small number of accidents, such as the one in Tokaimura and Three Mile Island pale into insignificance when compared with other industrial accidents, and themselves would be regarded as non-events if is wasn't for the media hype and environmentalist hysteria.

"Myth 5: Uranium mining is not safe - According to the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, uranium mining has been responsible for the largest collective exposure of workers to radiation. One estimate puts the number of workers who have died of lung cancer and silicosis due to mining and milling alone at 20,000. It is widely agreed that there is no safe level of radiation exposure.

"The above statements are made up of lies and half-truths. While mining is inherently risky, the current safety standards for uranium miners are very high. Direct radiation and dust are controlled and there is no likelihood or evidence that any uranium miners (at least since the 1950s) suffer any ill effects. Workers stay long-term and lifetime statistics are kept by ARPANSA, who process all the monitoring badges worn by all radiation workers (of whom Uranium miners are a minority). The statement that 'It is widely agreed that there is no safe level of radiation exposure' is totally false. Many scientists agree that small doses of radiation are beneficial.

"Myth 6: The problems of nuclear waste have not been solved - Despite industry assurances, nuclear waste remains a very real and very potent danger. They need to be isolated from people and the wider environment for up to tens or even hundred of thousands of years.

"The above statement is another blatant lie. Nuclear waste, as we have seen does not need to be stored for those time-frames. Most of the radiation is gone after 60 years, and after only 1,000 years the radioactivity of the waste is similar to that of the ore from which it was derived. Storage of waste in geologically stable repositories is associated with very little risk despite what the anti-nuclear parakeets say.

"When reading the anti-nuclear propaganda of the dishonest people at SEA-US, I often find myself asking the question: If the nuclear industry is so bad, why do its opponents distort the facts and lie about it? The answer, I think, is that the anti-nuclear monkeys oppose it for ideological and emotional reasons. They have made up their minds that nuclear energy is evil and now only seek arguments that fit with their ideological world view. I enjoin readers to make up their own minds.

"Public perception of environmental risk -- and the way it is portrayed by green activists -- is an interesting topic. As a case in point, nuclear energy is one of the cleanest and safest forms of electricity production, but environmentalists (with the help of a mass media hungry for sensation) have succeeded in portraying it as the dirtiest and unsafest endeavour in town. A common canard thrown out by the anti-nuclear industry is that high level nuclear waste threatens life and must be stored for a quarter of a million years. Like almost all statements from the anti-nuclear howlers, it is rhetorically impressive but not particularly meaningful. These folks, having whipped themselves into an ideological frenzy, have convinced great swathes of people -- including scientifically illiterate politicians -- that this reason alone makes nuclear energy and waste intolerable.

"This article seeks to put nuclear waste in perspective by examining the actual risks posed by the stuff. High level nuclear waste (HLW), when it comes out of the reactor, is composed of many radioisotopes (radioactive atoms), each with their own half-lives. The half-life of an isotope is the amount of time taken for half of the amount to decay. This means that for any particular isotope, after one half-life, half the amount remains, and after two half lives, one quarter remains, after three, one eighth, and so on.

"It requires only high school mathematics to see that the amount of radioactivity for any radioisotope will decline very steeply at first, and then trail off. And this is the crux of the issue. The 250,000 year figure parroted by the anti-nuclear parakeets is the time taken for all the radioactivity of HLW to reach background levels. This is the time frame that the nucleo-phobes claim that the stuff must be isolated from the biosphere. Yet let us look at this in the light of the following observations. After only 40 years, the radioactivity of HLW is about one thousandth of the original level, and after 1,000 years, it is the same as the mineral from which the original ore used to produce nuclear fuel was mined. Yet this ore is not isolated from the biosphere by any stretch of the imagination.

"An important fact deliberately overlooked by the anti-nuclear thought-police is that the isotopes with the shortest half-lives produce the most radiation but are not around for very long. Conversely, the isotopes with the longest half lives stick around for longer but produce less radiation. Thus plutonium, claimed by some anti-nukes to be the most dangerous substance known to man, has a half life of about 24,400 years. It is partly because of the long half life, it isn't as dangerous as they would have us believe. Radiation expert Prof. Bernard Cohen, went so far as to volunteer to eat as much plutonium as environmental activist Ralph Nader would eat caffeine in an effort to expose the fatuousness of that particular claim.

"Fortunately, the most dangerous components of HLW do not stick around for very long. Strontium-90 and Cesium-131, produced in considerably quantity during the fission process are relatively dangerous but short-lived. Cesium-131 poses a health risk because it produces penetrating gamma rays. Strontium-90 produces less penetrating beta rays but can be absorbed into bones because it is chemically similar to calcium. Yet both these isotopes have half-lives of only about 30 years! After 600 years, the radioactivity of these isotopes is only one millionth of their original activity.

"It can easily be seen that the anti-nuclear activists claim that HLW needs to be isolated for hundreds of thousands of years is quite erroneous. One can only claim that HLW needs to be isolated for 250,000 years by grossly exaggerating the health risk it poses. But that doesn't stop the anti-nukes from making it. This kind of falsehood is stock-in-trade for the typical green. Having put up the straw man suggestion that HLW must be stored for this time frame, it is very easy to knock it down by saying that no containment system will last that long. Having examined the above facts, let us now expose the various folks who have repeated the fallacy that HLW needs to be isolated for literally hundreds of thousands of years. The Sustainable Energy Anti-Uranium Service and Australian Conservation foundation have repeated this fallacy:

"'The problems of nuclear waste have not been solved. Despite industry assurances, nuclear waste remains a very real and very potent danger. It needs to be isolated from people and the wider environment for up to tens or even hundreds of thousands of years,' and: 'The radioactive wastes generated in nuclear power production must be isolated from the biosphere for in some cases hundreds of thousands of years before they cease to be dangerous.' From the Australian Conservation Foundation: 'The reactors produce long-lived wastes, in spent fuel rods and from production of radioisotopes, remaining hazardous and requiring containment in the order of 250,000 years.'

"Instead of isolating HLW from the biosphere, perhaps we should be isolating anti-nuclear zealots from the media.

"Western Australian MP Giz Watson has repeated this falsehood, in her own fashion: 'Plutonium has a half life of 25 000 years. It takes 25 000 years for the radioactive level of half of that material to drop to a safe level, which leaves the other half of the material. As this material decays it will be about 500,000 years before it drops below a significant health danger.'

"And: 'People have never created containers that they expected to last for 500 000 years. In fact, the proponents in their own literature estimate the life of containers to be only 1 000 years. It is a significant claim but it goes nowhere near the 500 000 years that would be necessary.' Even someone who should know better, J.J. Veevers, from the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Macquarie University, made statements along those lines: 'Plutonium-239 (half-life 24,400 years) should be stored for 250,000 years and Americium-243 for 74,000 years.'

"Really? And plutonium is not much more toxic than caffeine by ingestion! If the enviro's are successful with their anti-nuclear jihad, I wonder if they will go on an anti-caffeine jihad. Saying that Plutonium-239 should be stored for 250,000 years is like saying that coffee should be banned because it is too toxic to drink! Exploding Anti-nuclear Myths, Part 2 -- 'High Level Nuclear Waste Threatens Human Life for 250,000 Years'

"Copyright 1999 - Oakley Environmental Research. Permission to reproduce this article is granted provided that attribution to the author is given and that this notice is reproduced. If you observe anyone repeating this myth, please email me and they will be added to this page.

"Visit our homepage:
"oer.earthdome.com
" http://oer.homestead.com/ANM_Part2.html "