How the “Peaceful Atom” Became a Serial Killer—The nuclear myth melts down.

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/03/nuclear-power-nrc-dangers

How the “Peaceful Atom” Became a Serial Killer

The nuclear myth melts down.

— By Chip Ward

Thu Mar. 24, 2011 1:36 PM PDT
This http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175371/">story first appeared on the http://www.tomdispatch.com/">TomDispatch website.

When nuclear reactors blow, the first thing that melts down is the truth. Just as in the Chernobyl catastrophe almost 25 years ago when Soviet authorities denied the extent of radiation and downplayed the dire situation that was spiraling out of control, Japanese authorities spent the first week of the Fukushima crisis issuing conflicting and confusing reports. We were told that radiation levels were up, then down, then up, but nobody aside from those Japanese bureaucrats could verify the levels and few trusted their accuracy. The situation is under control, they told us, but workers are being evacuated. There is no danger of contamination, but stay inside and seal your doors.

The First Atomic Snow Job

The bureaucratization of horror into bland and reassuring pronouncements was to be expected, especially from an industry where misinformation is the rule. Although you might suppose that the nuclear industry's outstanding characteristic would be its expertise, since it's loaded with junior Einsteins who grasp the math and physics required to master the most awesomely sophisticated technology humans have ever created, think again. Based on the record, it's most outstanding characteristic is a fundamental dishonesty. I learned that the hard way as a grassroots activist organizing opposition to a scheme hatched by a consortium of nuclear utilities to park thousands of tons of highly radioactive fuel rods, like the ones now burning at Fukushima, in my Utah backyard.

Here's what I took away from that experience: the nuclear industry is a snake-oil culture of habitual misrepresentation, pervasive wishful thinking, deep denial, and occasional outright deception. For more than 50 years, it has habitually lied about risks and costs while covering up every violation and failure it could. Whether or not its proponents and spokespeople are dishonest or merely deluded can be debated, but the outcome—dangerous misinformation and the meltdown of honest civic discourse—remains the same, as we once again see at Fukushima.

Established at the dawn of the nuclear age, the pattern of dissemblance had become a well-worn rut long before the Japanese reactors spun out of control. In the early 1950s, the disciples of nuclear power, or the "peaceful atom" as it was then called, insisted that nuclear power would soon become so cheap and efficient that it would be offered to consumers for free. Visionaries that they were, they suggested that cities would be constructed with building materials impregnated with uranium so that snow removal would be unnecessary. Atomic bombs, they urged, should be used to carve out new coastal harbors for ships. In low doses, they swore, radiation was actually beneficial to one's health.

…

[AndyTiedye]

1. The Fact That it is an INVISIBLE Killer Provides an Overwhelming Incentive to Cover It Up

Since we cannot see radiation, and can only detect it with expensive equipment,
it is simply too easy for the operators of a plant to cover it up.

We have seen this pattern regardless of whether the plant is in the public or private sector.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. I believe a serial killer kills multiple people over a period of time

I don't believe anyone is hoping for more deaths in Japan, but let’s not pretend that there haven’t been deaths in the past.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/10/chernobyl-nuclear-deaths-cancers-dispute

Chernobyl nuclear accident: figures for deaths and cancers still in dispute

• Suspected infant mortality rise difficult to prove
• Predicted deaths range from 4,000 to half a million

John Vidal , environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 10 January 2010 18.15 GMT

…

But proving that infant mortality hundreds of miles from the stricken nuclear plant has increased 20-30% in 20 years, or that the many young people suffering from genetic disorders, internal organ deformities and thyroid cancers are the victims of the world's greatest release of radioactivity, is impossible.

The UN's World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people have died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually.

…

But other reputable scientists researching the most radiation-contaminated areas of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are not convinced. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus.

Meanwhile, the Belarus national academy of sciences estimates 93,000 deaths so far and 270,000 cancers, and the Ukrainian national commission for radiation protection calculates 500,000 deaths so far.

…

[wtmusic]

5. Interesting how the numbers of the "reputable scientists"

get more inflated the closer you get to Chernobyl. Think there's some government money available?

With any kind of realistic assessment there have been 1/100 the number of deaths there have been from coal - in the nuclear age alone.

Where's the outrage? :eyes:

[intaglio]

6. Perhaps because the inflation coal deaths by the nuclear industry.

Apologists, ya gotta love 'em.

[wtmusic]

7. Yeah that "coal smoke causes cancer" meme is pretty obvious.

Got a light? :shrug:

[wtmusic]

8. Can you believe these "World Health Organization" shills?

"Worldwide, outdoor air pollution contributes to:
~ 800 000 deaths per year
~ 4.6 million healthy life-years lost per year"

www.who.int/ceh/capacity/Outdoor_air_pollution.pdf

What a joke! "World Nuclear Organization", more like it!

Hey...got a light? *hack* *sputter*

[intaglio]

9. I don't trust WHO shills

But I despise Nuclear Lobby Shills. You know the ones who lie about the deaths caused by Chernobyl because those deaths will never be fully accounted until 1,000 years or more have passed. Will coal power stations still be causing cancer, birth defects and systemic damage in 1,000+ years? Chernobyl will.

2 weeks ago I supported nuclear power, despite my partner coming from near Windscale/Seascale/Selafield and subjected to the documented, but undiscussed, emissions from that blot on the landscape. 2 weeks ago I would have thought your comments to be hyperbole but justified, now I regard them as deceit and in some cases, though not yours, paid deceit.

[wtmusic]

10. Coal and radiation

Something you may or may not be aware of.

"Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

The popular conception of nuclear power is straight out of The Simpsons: Springfield abounds with signs of radioactivity, from the strange glow surrounding Mr. Burn's nuclear power plant workers to Homer's low sperm count. Then there's the local superhero, Radioactive Man, who fires beams of "nuclear heat" from his eyes. Nuclear power, many people think, is inseparable from a volatile, invariably lime-green, mutant-making radioactivity.

Coal, meanwhile, is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn't supposed to spawn three-eyed fish like Blinky.

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

A couple of points: 1) Though I've been critical of Scientific American for sensationalist headlines, the articles are generally impartial and accurate 2) Most coal plants filter fly ash from their stacks these days, but where does it go after that? What about the tons of radioactive waste from coal mines that ends up in West Virginia streams every year?

Below is a graph of radioactive decay from Chernobyl (blue line). Though it's true that fission products from that disaster will remain in the environment for millions of years, literally 99% of the radiation is gone in 2011.



This is not an attempt to minimize the (likely thousands) of deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima, but to show nuclear is still far safer than coal per MW generated. I don't believe anyone changes anyone's mind by anger or insult, but if I try to bring accuracy to the debate I can hopefully clear up misconceptions about an important subject.

[intaglio]

11. Pity you live in a country so unregulated

It's bad enough in the UK.

On the subject of Chernobyl you should be aware that it was over 20 years before some Cumbrian sheep were permitted to be marketed as food due to the Russian accident. You want worse? 5100 holdings in Wales are still restricted from selling their sheep as food due to radio cesium contamination. You see there was a matter of concentration and re-concentration due to local soil types and vegetation. This sort of environmental effect means your pretty graphs mean damn-all.

I am not particularly frightened of radiation, if I want to worry about radiation damage, however, all I have to do is to walk in the door to my house; living in Cornwall radon gas is an ever present hazard. If I want to see long term environmental damage, I go outside. The Porthtowan valley still carries the scars 150 years after production ceased . Local streams remain unfit to drink because of copper, lead and arsenic pollution, although a few minnows do seem to have developed tolerance. Cornwall is gorgeous with flourishing fauna and flora but the whole county dreadfully is scarred by man. It is because I live in a place so damaged that I do not wish to see further damage or to risk further additional exposure to radioactivity.

I agree, fly ash is a problem and coal should not be used as a combustion source, but accidents like Fukishima are warnings about the danger of nuclear fueled power plants. Chernobyl was only ameliorated by the actions of men. It could have been far worse but for the men who died and were scarred by the direct radiation. Many others were damaged by high level exposure to radio-nucleotides but the insidious damage of low level exposure happens over a far longer period and in ways hardly measurable in a general population.

What you forget is that in addition to the cancers there are non-lethal abnormalities; miscarriages and embryo re-absorbtion; the damaged immune systems, gastric problems and neuropathy; all of which were spread across Europe in the plume from that damned place.

And now Fukishima risks polluting the whole, damn Pacific Ocean, Japan, China and Korea and it is getting worse.

[wtmusic]

12. On the insidious damage of low level exposure

I agree 100%. By several orders of magnitude, global exposure comes more from coal than Chernobyl.

When nuclear plants fail, there is a localized, hi-profile disaster. We have an ongoing global disaster that is far more insidious but doesn't make headlines.

The pretty graphs mean a lot, actually. The fact that Cumbrian sheep are now being sold again also means that radiation in 1,000 years will be an asterisk there. Whether the human race will survive 500 years due to runaway global warming is the pertinent question.

[intaglio]

13. Pity the poor bloody Welsh then

you are not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you