LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  July 2007

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE July 2007

Subject:

Re: Reasons Not to Glow

From:

Eric Entemann <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:08:27 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (159 lines)

"If these facts haven't dissuaded this person sitting next to you, try 
telling him or her that most mined uranium-about 99.28 percent-is fairly 
low-radiation uranium-238, which is still a highly toxic heavy metal. To 
make nuclear fuel, the ore must be "enriched," an energy-intensive process 
that increases the .72 percent of highly fissionable, highly radioactive 
U-235 up to 3 to 5 percent."

U-235 is not "highly radioactive".  It has a half-life of over 700 million 
yy.  Significantly shorter than the 4.5 billion yy for U-238, but still very 
long.  Enriching natural uranium to fuel-grade (5% U-235) increases the 
radioactivity by about 22%.

I may be old-fashioned, but I feel it is important for antinuclear activists 
to have their facts straight.  Did she not have the article proofed by a 
scientist?

----Original Message Follows----
From: Phil Gasper <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List              
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Reasons Not to Glow
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:32:22 -0500

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/316

From the Faraway Nearby

Reasons Not to Glow

On not jumping out of the frying pan into the eternal fires

by Rebecca Solnit
Published in the July/August 2007 issue of Orion magazine

Chances are good, gentle reader, that you are going to have to sit next to 
someone in the coming year who will assert that nuclear power is the 
solution to climate change. What will you tell them? There's so much to say. 
You could be sitting next to someone who hasn't really considered the 
evidence yet. Or you could be sitting next to scientist and Gaia theorist 
James Lovelock, a supporter of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, which 
quotes him saying, "We have no time to experiment with visionary energy 
sources; civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear-the one 
safe, available, energy source-now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted 
by our outraged planet."

If you sit next to Lovelock, you might start by mentioning that half the 
farms in this country had windmills before Marie Curie figured out anything 
about radiation or Lise Meitner surmised that atoms could be split. Wind 
power is not visionary in the sense of experimental. Neither is solar, which 
is already widely used. Nor are nukes safe, and they take far too long to 
build to be considered readily available. Yet Stewart Brand, of Whole Earth 
Catalog fame, has jumped on the nuclear bandwagon, and so has Greenpeace 
founding member turned PR flack Patrick Moore. So you must be prepared.

Of course the first problem is that nuclear power is often nothing more than 
a way to avoid changing anything. A bicycle is a better answer to a 
Chevrolet Suburban than a Prius is, and so is a train, or your feet, or 
staying home, or a mix of all those things. Nuclear power plants, like 
coal-burning power plants, are about retaining the big infrastructure of 
centralized power production and, often, the habits of obscene consumption 
that rely on big power. But this may be too complicated to get into while 
your proradiation interlocutor suggests that letting a thousand nuclear 
power plants bloom would solve everything.

Instead, you may be able to derail the conversation by asking whether they'd 
like to have a nuclear power plant or waste repository in their backyard, 
which mostly they would rather not, though they'd happily have it in your 
backyard. This is why the populous regions of the eastern U.S. keep trying 
to dump their nuclear garbage in the less-populous regions of the West. My 
friend Chip Ward (from nuclear-waste-threatened Utah) reports, "To make a 
difference in global climate change, we would have to immediately build as 
many nuclear power plants as we already have in the U.S. (about 100) and at 
least as many as 2,000 worldwide." Chip goes on to say that "Wall Street 
won't invest in nuclear power because it is too risky. . . . The partial 
meltdown at Three Mile Island taught investment bankers how a 
two-billion-dollar investment can turn into a billion-dollar clean-up in 
under two hours." So we, the people, would have to foot the bill.

Nuclear power proponents like to picture a bunch of clean plants humming 
away like beehives across the landscape. Yet when it comes to the mining of 
uranium, which mostly takes place on indigenous lands from northern Canada 
to central Australia, you need to picture fossil-fuel-intensive 
carbon-emitting vehicles, and lots of them-big disgusting diesel-belching 
ones. But that's the least of it. The Navajo are fighting right now to 
prevent uranium mining from resuming on their land, which was severely 
contaminated by the postwar uranium boom of the 1940s and 1950s. The miners 
got lung cancer. The children in the area got birth defects and a 1,500 
percent increase in ovarian and testicular cancer. And the slag heaps and 
contaminated pools that were left behind will be radioactive for millennia.

If these facts haven't dissuaded this person sitting next to you, try 
telling him or her that most mined uranium-about 99.28 percent-is fairly 
low-radiation uranium-238, which is still a highly toxic heavy metal. To 
make nuclear fuel, the ore must be "enriched," an energy-intensive process 
that increases the .72 percent of highly fissionable, highly radioactive 
U-235 up to 3 to 5 percent. As Chip points out, four dirty-coal-fired plants 
were operated in Kentucky just to operate two uranium enrichment plants. 
What's left over is a huge quantity of U-238, known as depleted uranium, 
which the U.S. government classifies as low-level nuclear waste, except when 
it uses the stuff to make armoring and projectiles that are the source of so 
much contamination in Iraq from our first war there, and our second.

Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel was supposed to be one alternative to lots 
and lots of mining forever and forever. The biggest experiment in 
reprocessing was at Sellafield in Britain. In 2005, after decades of 
contamination and leaks and general spewing of horrible matter into the 
ocean, air, and land around the reprocessing plant, Sellafield was shut down 
because a bigger-than-usual leak of fuel dissolved in nitric acid-some tens 
of thousands of gallons-was discovered. It contained enough plutonium to 
make about twenty nuclear bombs. Gentle reader, this has always been one of 
the prime problems of nuclear energy: the same general processes that 
produce fuel for power can produce it for bombs. In India. Or Pakistan. Or 
Iran. The waste from nuclear plants is now the subject of much fretting 
about terrorists obtaining it for dirty bombs-and with a few hundred 
thousand tons of high-level waste in the form of spent fuel and a whole lot 
more low-level waste in the U.S. alone, there's plenty to go around.

By now the facts should be on your side, but do ask how your neighbor feels 
about nuclear bombs, just to keep things lively.

The truth is, there may not be enough uranium out there to fuel two thousand 
more nuclear power plants worldwide. Besides, before a nuke plant goes 
online, a huge amount of fossil fuel must be expended just to build the 
thing. Still, the biggest stumbling block, where climate change is 
concerned, is that it takes a decade or more to construct a nuclear plant, 
even if the permitting process goes smoothly, which it often does not. So a 
bunch of nuclear power plants that go online in 2017 at the earliest are not 
even terribly relevant to turning around our carbon emissions in the next 
decade-which is the time frame we have before it's too late.

If you're not, at this point, chasing your poor formerly pronuclear 
companion down the hallway, mention that every stage of the nuclear fuel 
cycle is murderously filthy, imparting long-lasting contamination on an epic 
scale; that a certain degree of radioactive pollution is standard at each of 
these stages, but the accidents are now so many in number that they have to 
be factored in as part of the environmental cost; that the plants themselves 
generate lots of radioactive waste, which we still don't know what to do 
with-because the stuff is deadly . . . anywhere . . . and almost forever. 
And no, tell them, this nuclear colonialism is not an acceptable sacrifice, 
since it is not one the power consumers themselves are making. It's a 
sacrifice they're imposing on people far away and others not yet born, a 
debt they're racking up at the expense of people they will never meet.

Sure, you can say nuclear power is somewhat less carbon-intensive than 
burning fossil fuels for energy; beating your children to death with a club 
will prevent them from getting hit by a car. Ravaging the Earth by one 
irreparable means is not a sensible way to prevent it from being destroyed 
by another. There are alternatives. We should choose them and use them.


An antinuclear activist in Nevada from 1988 to 2002, Rebecca Solnit just put 
up a clothesline in the backyard and will get around to installing the solar 
panels any day now. National Book Critics Circle award-winner Solnit's most 
recent book is Storming the Gates of Paradise.

_________________________________________________________________
http://liveearth.msn.com

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager