Nuclear Power Still A Deadly Proposition

Posted on Monday, March 28 at 10:22 by Vera Gottlieb
Also, a consortium of 10 U.S. utilities has requested funding from the federal government for the construction of new reactors based on a European design, and they hope to receive government approval by 2010. This is a major policy change since no new nuclear reactors have been ordered in the United States since 1974. Nevertheless, the claims of the Mr. Cheney and the nuclear industry are false. According to data from the U.S. Energy Department (DOE), the production of nuclear power significantly contributes both to global warming and ozone depletion. The enrichment of uranium fuel for nuclear power uses 93 percent of the refrigerant chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gas made annually in the United States. The global production of CFC is banned under the Montreal Protocol because it is a potent destroyer of ozone in the stratosphere, which protects us from the carcinogenic effects of solar ultraviolet light. The ozone layer is now so thin that the population in Australia is currently experiencing one of the highest incidences of skin cancer in the world. CFC compounds are also potent global warming agents 10,000 to 20,000 times more efficient heat trappers than carbon dioxide, which itself is responsible for 50 percent of the global warming phenomenon. But nuclear power also contributes significantly to global carbon dioxide production. Huge quantities of fossil fuel are expended for the "front end" of the nuclear fuel cycle -- to mine, mill and enrich the uranium fuel and to construct the massive nuclear reactor buildings and their cooling towers. Uranium enrichment is a particularly energy intensive process which uses electricity generated from huge coal-fired plants. Estimates of carbon dioxide production related to nuclear power are available from DOE for the "front end" of the nuclear fuel cycle, but prospective estimates for the "back end" of the cycle have yet to be calculated. Tens of thousands of tons of intensely hot radioactive fuel rods must continuously be cooled for decades in large pools of circulating water and these rods must then be carefully transported by road and rail and isolated from the environment in remote storage facilities in the United States. The radioactive reactor building must also be decommissioned after 40 years of operation, taken apart by remote control and similarly transported long distances and stored. Fully 95 percent of U.S. high level waste -- waste that is intensely radioactive -- has been generated by nuclear power thus far. This nuclear waste must then be guarded, protected and isolated from the environment for tens of thousands of years -- a physical and scientific impossibility. Biologically dangerous radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and plutonium will seep and leak into the water tables and become very concentrated in food chains for the rest of time, inevitably increasing the incidence of childhood cancer, genetic diseases and congenital malformations for this and future generations Conclusion: Nuclear power is neither clean, green nor safe. It is the most biologically dangerous method to boil water to generate steam for the production of electricity. Helen Caldicott, a pediatrican, is president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and author of The New Nuclear Danger, George Bush's Military Industrial Complex (The New Press). She lives near Sydney, Australia.

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:10 am
    Australia's skin cancer is more likely the result of their sun worshipping lifestyle and shrinking beachwear fashions rather than anything happening in the stratosphere. But I live in Canada where a few degrees warmer would be nice. Then it would only average -43 during our six months of winter. And maybe the snow would melt off faster too, maybe by June. Lucky I'm from the temperate part of the country. I'm to cold to re-locate.

  2. by avatar Milton
    Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:17 pm
    Gee John, could you be any more obtuse? Good post Vera.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.



Latest Editorials

more articles »

Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news