Fifty years ago when the first commercial power was being generated from atomic sources, one could not be faulted for being skeptical of the long-term health effects of atomic energy. But here we are, fifty years later having the same discussion.

Literally thousands of men and women have worked millions of man hours inside of these facilities.

Epi studies aside, just think for a moment… If nuclear power is SO carcinogenic, then wouldn’t you expect that the actual workers who spend 8 to 12 hours per day, 50 weeks per year, living inside these facilities to be dropping like over-ripe grapefruits? Where is the nuclear industry hiding the bodies?

I mean: think about it. What’s protecting the employees of these power stations? For that matter what protects the members of the US Navy when they live 24/7 INSIDE of a nuclear powered submarine or aircraft carrier for months at a time?

Don’t take my word for it. To see the actual studies that have been performed, Google Search: Johns Hopkins nuclear shipyard workers study

As for fuel failures, the radioactivity from such events is very low as it gets filtered out through the resin bed filters in the plants.

Ionizing radiation is not the only phenomenon that causes DNA double strand breaks (although radiation does result in a greater percentage per incident than chemical equivalents). Still, natural processes such as respiration (i.e., the free radicals from the oxygen reaction) create an overall greater number of DNA double strand breaks than current levels of background radiation.

I am not saying that plutonium is a breakfast food, only that our perceptions of radiation can get the better of us while we ignore greater dangers in society.

As for Kerala — you might be interested in the work being done in Europe on the difference between fission product radiation (typically has a “boom boom” pattern where the initial decay is followed by a secondary decay) — differing from the thorium and other “natural” radiation sources at Kerala and elsewhere… Dr. Chris Busby has published a book on the difference between “androgenic” radiation (my term) and naturally occuring — called The Wings of Death — 1995 — Green Audit. It is controversial - but so should be the messing with the genetic treasury of EARTH on a daily basis — it is not only the DNA of Homo sapiens that is at risk!

I also read the Scientific American article. I have stated before that if energy storage and advanced transmission (e.g., Smartgrid) can be built and installed inexpensively, then an all renewables economy will follow. Replacing our current grid will not be a quick or cheap task either.

Nuclear power has killed people in the US — we are having a cancer epidemic — how much of it is due to nukes? Prove that none of it is! Every radiation dose carries the risk of fatal cancer — even doses so small they do not register! Risk means there is a hazard. The radiation standards in this country are a “grand bargain” that essentially allows a cancer “bag limit” on us — with no enforcement! Yes coal kills — and yes, nukes kill too.

And that waste — nuclear power makes more than 95% of the radioactivity in all the waste in the US — nuclear weapons and all other industrial, research and medicine combined is less than 5% of the radioactivity — this waste is the PRIMARY, enduring product of that atom bomb with the clutch… and will “bless” the next 11,000 generations to come…essentially a new body burden for this Blue Planet. The waste is also thermally hot, has to be stored in liquid for at least 5 years.

Folks can claim that it is “recyclable” but only 1% of that highly radioactive used fuel rod is re-usable — and that is PLUTONIUM — yes indeed folks — if re-used as fuel it is twice as deadly in the event of an accident(Mixed Oxide, MOX — is North Anna still under DOE contract to take experimental plutonium fuel?). Other wise that plutonium is ready to roll for anyone who wants to make a nuclear bomb. Is the commercialization of plutonium the “model” that the USA wants to give the world as we are teetering on the brink of a total loss of any semblance of nuclear non-proliferation — heading for a nuclearization of the Middle East?

Really, think about — ! And that other 99% of the really hot fuel rod? Well, its still waste — only now liquid and caustic and a huge hassle! France and England have dumped large percentages of this into the ocean — contaminating the Irish sea and from Burgundy up to Scandinavia — talk about contamination — don’t eat Lobster from those areas — or hang too long on the beach! French children who hang on the beaches near the French “recycle” site have 4x more leukemia.

In contrast — concentrating solar energy is poised and ready to go at $3000 an installed KW while nuclear is at $7500 per installed KW and rising. No additional fuel costs for solar — and much lower insurance — and no need to worry about airplanes or other assaults! What have we got to loose, except maybe a little nuclear arrogance! Check out A Solar Grand Plan — January Sci Am on-line at:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

This article busts the myth of “baseload” — the sun is 24/7 — just the rotation of the planet means that we must get smart and store power!

Since most uranium comes from outside the USA — it is solar that will give us a true Energy Independence Day! Let’s stop this quibbling about poisons and work together for a really healthy really green future that does PUT EARTH FIRST! — GO BREF!

I’d encourage you or anyone else here to take a tour of North Anna Nuclear Power Station. Unit one just celebrated its 30th anniversary of supplying clean and reliable, 24/7 power to the state of Virginia. And all of the waste (what little there is of it) is packaged neatly on site, ready for recycling.

Thanks again, and happy Independence Day to you too!

A lot of activists are not only interested in making the largest amount of 24/7 power with the least impact. Many of the activists I have encountered are also very interested in using the changes in energy technology to foster social change. The issues of energy technology vs social change certainly will have an impact on the carbon debate. Sounds like a good topic for our friend Rod Adams.

In the meantime Michael, have a great July 4.

Please.

Nuclear power is the most regulated source of power in the United States. As a result of previous “hog wild” mentalities, there is a federal inspector on site each and every day at EVERY nuclear site in the United States. That’s like driving around with a state trooper in your car.

Existing plants have many redundant safety systems and a containment structure that can withstand the impact of a fully loaded 747. And the coming generation of nuclear stations have benefitted from decades of engineering, making them far safer than the existing ones.

As for the waste, what do you mean that it’s “far more serious in terms of contamination”?

Each and every time you eat a fish out of the ocean, you’re consuming mercury. So much in fact, that pregnant women are encouraged to limit their intake of seafood. And where do you think that mercury comes from? It’s a direct proportion to coal burning.

People living near nuclear power stations are enjoying clean air. And the waste from over 30 years of commercial operation is safely contained and stored on site. The “contamination” you’re referring to is a result of Department of Defense sites - NOT commercial nuclear power.

BIG difference.

Don, we have a serious problem on our hands. The US will have a shortage of electricity as soon as 2010 in some areas of the country - especially the north east. We need conservation and renewables, but with an expanding population that is relying more and more on electricity coupled with the need to remove many of the dirtiest coal power plants from the grid (not to mention plug-in hybrid electric cars), we’re going to need new electrical generation. If people spread unfounded fear about nuclear energy, they’re not doing anyone any favors.