backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 134 comment(s) - last by Radeon99.. on Sep 12 at 5:10 PM


Sierra Activists Ann Harris and Linda Modica speak during a meeting they organized for area residents  (Source: Bill Jones, Greenville Sun)
...but will the public fall for it?

In rural Tennessee lies a small uranium processing plant. In operation since the 1960s, its primary activity today is converting nuclear warhead material into a form no longer usable for weapons, but suitable for nuclear power plants.

Last year, the facility experienced a leak in a transfer line, spilling some nine gallons of uranium solution onto a floor. The company took appropriate cleanup measures, and immediately notified the Nuclear Regulatory Committee, which investigated.

Their conclusions? Had the leak not drained onto a floor, but into some sort of bowl-shaped container, the fluid might have been able to amplify its own weak level of radiation. Had a worker not wearing protective gear been nearby at that particular moment, they might have received a dangerous, or even fatal dose. None of these events happened, of course, but even if they had, the risk to the public at large would still have been zero.

Zero. None.  Zip.  Nada. Zilch.

The NRC issued a reprimand to the plant operator, Nuclear Fuel Services Inc, and ordered the hiring of an outside team of experts for to review all safety practices. Ordinarily the action would have gone into the public record immediately. But because NFSI supplies fuel to the U.S. Navy, the DOE had previously required all documents sealed for further review.

You might think this is the end of an amazingly boring non-story.  Not so. A year later, that review finally happened, and the commission decided there was no national security threat from disclosing the event. And so our alarmist media learned of it.

Reaction was swift. "Uncontrolled Nuclear Reaction Possible!" screamed news stories. "Public Kept in Dark!" "Veil of Secrecy Must Be Lifted!" Papers in London and Paris even picked up the story, repeating the alarmist calls verbatim. While some of the more responsible journalists eventually admitted there was no risk to the public, they usually did so in the final paragraph of a lengthy story, ensuring most of their readers would not be burdened by that inconvenient truth.

Environmental groups were even more shrill. The Sierra Club's anti-nuclear task force went into immediate overtime, demanding to know why the company wasn't fined, or even shut down. A SWAT team of Sierra Club activists descended upon the site, where they promptly organized public meetings for "concerned citizens," and called for the NRC to hold public hearings to explain their actions. Combining innuendo and hand-waving, they attempted to convince area residents their property and very lives were at stake.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why clean, cheap, safe nuclear power is dead on the vine in this country. It's why we still burn millions of tons of coal each year, despite the horrendous cost in environmental damage and the thousands of lives lost to coal mining. It's why widespread use of electric cars will still result in enormous amounts of toxic emissions, and why the "hydrogen economy" can never be practical.

To those of you who care about the environment, I say this. If you want to do some good -- go and protest the Sierra Club. Demand more responsible, biased reporting by your news media. And let your government representatives know you're too educated to fall for such manipulative fear tactics.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Word
By ChoadNamath on 8/22/2007 12:51:51 AM , Rating: 3
I must have missed this story in the news, but it's really ridiculous how we're still fighting nuclear power despite advances in the past 25 years. It's sad how so many people in America think that it's dangerous or environmentally unfriendly because of Three Mile Island. Meanwhile the rest of the developed world has been refining nuclear technology while we sit on our asses and let NIMBYism retard our progress.




RE: Word
By Christopher1 on 8/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: Word
By James Holden on 8/22/2007 3:02:56 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, until we get fusion, Nuclear is dirty. It's not the dirtiest. Do you know that the coal burning plants in Illinois releas more uranium into the atmosphere than if we just took the nuclear pile out of TMI and dumped it into Lake Michigan?

Michael mentioned miner death. Hell, what about civilian death from the coal plants. That number is *huge*

I don't see anyone protesting that!


RE: Word
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/22/2007 3:50:07 AM , Rating: 2
I think that's true for Illinois, though I don't know the exact figures. There are definitely deaths attributed to coal plants, which is why Illinois is really pushing Zero-Emission Coal. Awesome idea if you consider like a third of IL sits directly on top coal.

As for the quote, let us read from the Book of Masher:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6266&...

If you live in a New England or Rocky Mountain state, you already have radioactive nuclear waste buried in your own backyard...waste left over from when Mother Nature made the planet. The first meter of topsoil in one acre alone contains 60 kg of thorium, 20 kg of uranium, 5 kg of radium, and 70,000 kg of potassium...all of it radioactive.

Lord Marshall of the U.K's Central Electric Generation Board once caused a furor by announcing that one of their electric plants had released a kg of uranium into the air the day earlier...and in fact had been releasing that amount daily for many years. When shocked reporters pressed for details, he named a coal -powered plant. The uranium released was that found naturally within the coal itself.


RE: Word
By 1078feba on 8/23/2007 4:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
Somebody pls help me with this:

IIRC, I read an article, in Nat Geo I think, about how our current process of nuke fuel enrichment and usage actually only uses approx 5% of the fuel available in the rod. That there are other, newer processes that use up to 97% of fuel available, thus when we discard what is left over, there is virtually no harmful radioactive elements left.

Jeez, I wish I could remember where I read that. Maybe it was linked at Instapundit, or in Pop Mech's...


RE: Word
By MachFive on 8/24/2007 9:24:57 AM , Rating: 3
This is what is called an Integral Fast Reactor, or a breeder reactor. If we build any nuclear power plants, they should be this type, and not the far less efficient but slightly safer "pebble-bed" design.


RE: Word
By noxipoo on 8/24/2007 11:24:59 AM , Rating: 2
pebble bed is slightly safer? it's pretty much meltdown proof.


RE: Word
By Jellodyne on 8/24/2007 12:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
It was a terrific Scientific American article. I found a copy online here:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsS...


RE: Word
By borowki on 8/22/2007 6:40:04 AM , Rating: 3
Well, at least storing nuclear waste in the desert is more sensible than the idea of storing liquefied CO2 in the bottom of the ocean.


RE: Word
By SandmanWN on 8/23/2007 10:05:42 AM , Rating: 2
And if push comes to shove with the US going back to the moon whats to stop us from building a nuclear waste facility on the moon? That would alleviate all concerns over left over nuclear waste. Drop a pod on the moon and pick it back up in a few thousand years when it has decayed enough. Just a thought anyway.


RE: Word
By Schrag4 on 8/23/2007 2:04:47 PM , Rating: 3
I think people's concern with trying to put our radioactive waste on the moon is that the rocket could fail and we'd basically end up dumping the waste in the form of rocket/waste-debris into the ocean. Maybe we would have a tolerance for that happening from time to time, I don't know.

Not only that, but what's the environmental impact of a rocket blasting off into space? Probably not the same as burning the coal that it would take to generate the electricity that was instead created in nuclear plants that created that amount of waste (confusing statement). But then again I'm no rocket scientist, I don't even know the components of the rocket fuel and what's left over when it's used.


RE: Word
By SandmanWN on 8/23/2007 2:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
I see your point. Perhaps when something like the proposed space elevator comes along and proves reliable it might become a more viable option.


RE: Word
By grenableu on 8/23/2007 2:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and we'd basically end up dumping the waste in the form of rocket/waste-debris into the ocean
And whats wrong with that? Do you know how much millions of tons of uranium and other radioactive elements are already in the ocean? As long as you launch so any accident occurs over deep water, there's no problem at all with a crash-landing.

But the REAL solution is even simpler. Glassify the stuff and drop it in some ocean trench miles deep. Problem solved.


RE: Word
By masher2 (blog) on 8/23/2007 4:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
Interestingly enough, the Russians have been dumping spent military reactors and nuclear waste into the Barents Sea and the Kara Sea for decades. This is a very unsuitable location, as the water is shallow and currents extend all the way to the ocean floor. But, though environmentalists often protest the actions, no ill effects have been noted.


RE: Word
By TheGreek on 8/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: Word
By TomZ on 8/23/2007 5:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
Are you asking masher2 to do all your research for you? Is your "google" broken?


RE: Word
By TheGreek on 8/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Word
By porkpie on 8/24/2007 5:29:13 PM , Rating: 2
You didn't ask him to note his sources, you asked a totally different set of questions. Learn the difference.


RE: Word
By