Right-Wing Exposed

Because this is a multi-part series and there are new visitors to this website each week, I need to begin each “Energy Wednesday” segment with the same two brief, introductory paragraphs so that new readers can have a clear and balanced perspective of my position and reasoning.  However, if you have already read the previous articles in this series, you can just skip to the third paragraph, but, if you have not read them, you really should read these two opening paragraphs.  Our world is facing an impending energy crisis.  Our oil reserves are rapidly depleting, as documented in my “Check The Oil Please” blog in the energy issues archives on this website.  Global warming is the greatest threat to our planet, as I have also been documenting in my “Environment Tuesday” blogs.  Wind and solar power currently provide less than one percent of our world’s energy, and they can’t possibly replace fossil fuels within the next several decades.  There is only one energy source that could completely replace fossil fuels within twenty years, and which does not contribute to global warming by producing greenhouse gases; thereby providing the solution to both global warming and our impending energy crisis.  I will thoroughly document that this energy source is clean, efficient, feasible and safe during this multi-part series.  I only ask that you give me the opportunity to present all of the facts before you rush to judgement.  I am anti-war and pro-global warming.  I oppose and expose the compromises and corruption within the religious right-wing on this website.  In other words, I’m not drinking the right-wing lemonade.  The author of the book from which this information comes is a liberal, anti-war, pro-global warming activist who was  anti-nuclear in every respect for most of her life.  The energy source I am advocating is nuclear power.

I mentioned previously that I would cover the anti-nuclear community’s primary objections to the use of nuclear power. I understand that there are a small number of scientists who are anti-nuclear, and they are quoted by those who oppose nuclear energy.  I only ask my anti-nuclear friends to be consistent.  The vast majority of people who are anti-nuclear believe the science supporting global warming, because it is endorsed by the great majority of scientists.  The small number of ”lone ranger” scientists who reject global warming are viewed as being in denial of the scientific facts embraced by most of the scientific community.  Shouldn’t we be consistent when it comes to nuclear power and how it is viewed by most scientists?  Gwyneth Cravens’ book, “Power To Save The World”, reveals that 90% of scientists endorse the use of nuclear power as the best answer for our impending energy crisis, and also as the best solution for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  If we listen to the majority of scientific opinion when it comes to global warming, shouldn’t we do the same when it comes to nuclear power?  If we reject the opinion of the “small number” of skeptics in the scientific community who deny global warming, shouldn’t we also reject the opinion of the “small number” of anti-nuclear scientists?  If we’re not consistent, we are biased and not credible.

Last week we took a look at the facts regarding Hiroshima and Three Mile Island.  As I mentioned at that time, Three Mile Island was “our Chernobyl”, because both accidents involved the complete meltdown of a nuclear reactor.  However, due to our much more stringent safety regulations in the nuclear power industry in America, there were no fatalities whatsoever related to the Three Mile Island incident.  All nuclear reactors in America are not only surrounded with a thick protective shield to contain the radiation, but are also kept in a special containment structure shielded with an additional several feet of steel and concrete.  Unfortunately, that was not the case in the Soviet Union. 

This week we’ll examine the facts surrounding the greatest nuclear power plant accident in history, Chernobyl.  Gwyneth Cravens’ book, “Power To Save The World”, documents the hard evidence regarding the true impact and results of the Chernobyl incident.  The combination of the initial gross exaggerations of casualties and fatalities by Soviet sources seeking for billions of dollars of aid, and numerous “urban legends” told and retold since the 1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl, have created assumptions that are wildly inaccurate.  And, a predominantly anti-nuclear media has been reluctant to set people straight concerning actual facts that have since been well documented by major worldwide scientific and health organizations.

What are those facts?  In 1989 the World Health Organization was invited by the Soviet Union to send in a four-person team to investigate and document the adverse effects upon the local population resulting from the nuclear accident at Chernobyl.  After two weeks the team concluded that there were no great increases in radiation related illnesses resulting from Chernobyl, which caused Soviet officials, who were hoping to receive mega-bucks in foreign aid, to oust the World Health Organization representatives.

A short time later the Soviet Union invited the International Atomic Energy Agency to bring a team of health and science professionals to the Chernobyl area, hoping for different results and conclusions than those of the World Health Organization team.  The new investigative team was headed by an American, Fred A. Mettler.  Mettler was the U.S. representative on the United Nations Scientific Committee On The Effects Of Atomic Radiation, and also served on the Centers For Disease Control committee on guidelines regarding radioactive materials associated with terrorism, as well as being listed in the publication, “The Best Doctors In America”, in the fields of radiation accidents and nuclear medicine.  In other words, he knows his stuff when it comes to anything nuclear related.

What did Mettler’s international team of 400 science and medical professionals find?  Pretty much what the World Health Organization team had concluded; that, other than a relatively small number of immediate responders at ”ground zero” in Chernobyl, there were no noticeable increases in radiation related illnesses among the local population.  How many people actually died as a result of Chernobyl’s nuclear meltdown?  Of the 1000 emergency personnel and/or plant  workers who were present the first day of the accident, a couple perished immediately and 28 others died within a few weeks.  As of today, less than 60 people have died due to radiation exposure resulting from Chernobyl’s nuclear disaster.  In fact, only 134 of the 1000 emergency workers present on the first day needed treatment for acute radiation sickness.  And, studies done on the 226,000 ”liquidators” involved with cleaning up the 19 mile zone surrounding Chernobyl, have revealed no increase in cancer rates or premature deaths among them, when compared to the regular population.

These are the actual facts concerning Chernobyl, which have been verified by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund in London.  Later studies done in 1996 by the United Nations Scientific Committee On The Effects Of Atomic Radiation and the Organization For Economic Cooperation And Development, also agreed with the findings of Mettler’s international team.  In other words, numerous international, science and health organizations have certified Mettler’s original findings to be true.

This is the bottom line; the worst nuclear power plant accident in history resulted in the death of less than 60 people.  Coal-mining accidents and chemical plant accidents, such as Bhopal, have killed many times more people than Chernobyl; yet we still build and operate coal and chemical plants throughout the world, which also produce greenhouse gas emissions that impact global warming, whereas nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse gases.  Nuclear power has unjustifiably received all of the negative publicity, while the real culprits, coal and chemical plants, have evaded our attention.

In next week’s segment of “Energy Wednesday” we will focus on the safety of nuclear power.  I believe that you’ll be surprised at what you discover.  

Because this is a multi-part series and there are new visitors to this website each week, I need to begin each “Energy Wednesday” segment with the same two brief, introductory paragraphs so that new readers can have a clear and balanced perspective of my position and reasoning.  However, if you have already read the previous articles in this series, you can just skip to the third paragraph, but, if you have not read them, you really should read these two opening paragraphs.  Our world is facing an impending energy crisis.  Our oil reserves are rapidly depleting, as documented in my “Check The Oil Please” blog in the energy issues archives on this website.  Global warming is the greatest threat to our planet, as I have also been documenting in my “Environment Tuesday” blogs.  Wind and solar power currently provide less than one percent of our world’s energy, and they can’t possibly replace fossil fuels within the next several decades.  There is only one energy source that could completely replace fossil fuels within twenty years, and which does not contribute to global warming by producing greenhouse gases; thereby providing the solution to both global warming and our impending energy crisis.  I will thoroughly document that this energy source is clean, efficient, feasible and safe during this multi-part series.  I only ask that you give me the opportunity to present all of the facts before you rush to judgement.  I am anti-war and pro-global warming.  I oppose and expose the compromises and corruption within the religious right-wing on this website.  In other words, I’m not drinking the right-wing lemonade.  The author of the book from which this information comes is a liberal, anti-war, pro-global warming activist who was  anti-nuclear in every respect for most of her life.  The energy source I am advocating is nuclear power.

I mentioned previously that I would cover the anti-nuclear community’s primary objections to the use of nuclear power. I understand that there are a small number of scientists who are anti-nuclear, and they are quoted by those who oppose nuclear energy.  I only ask my anti-nuclear friends to be consistent.  The vast majority of people who are anti-nuclear believe the science supporting global warming, because it is endorsed by the great majority of scientists.  The small number of ”lone ranger” scientists who reject global warming are viewed as being in denial of the scientific facts embraced by most of the scientific community.  Shouldn’t we be consistent when it comes to nuclear power and how it is viewed by most scientists?  Gwyneth Cravens’ book, “Power To Save The World”, reveals that 90% of scientists endorse the use of nuclear power as the best answer for our impending energy crisis, and also as the best solution for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  If we listen to the majority of scientific opinion when it comes to global warming, shouldn’t we do the same when it comes to nuclear power?  If we reject the opinion of the “small number” of skeptics in the scientific community who deny global warming, shouldn’t we also reject the opinion of the “small number” of anti-nuclear scientists?  If we’re not consistent, we are biased and not credible.

In this seventh and final segment of Energy Wednesday’s “The Solution” to global warming and the impending energy crisis, we shall answer the remaining “safety concerns” of the anti-nuclear community.  Most people are not aware that, aside from Chernobyl, 12,000 cumulative nuclear reactor years have passed in safety throughout the world, as documented in Gwyneth Cravens’s book, “Power To Save The World”; moreover, as documented last week, even Chernobyl’s actual total fatalities are less than 60 as of 2007.  Furthermore, the U.S. Navy has been operating 254 nuclear reactors on Navy submarines for more than 40 years without any deaths or accidents.

The truth is, that nuclear power is safer than it’s ever been, as new styles of reactors have been developed that are virtually impossible to meltdown, such as the “pebble-bed modular reactor” and the “modular high temperature gas reactor”.  In fact, reactor testing done in Idaho intentionally caused every failure possible on today’s modern reactors without any critical results.  They even puposefully blew up a reactor without any release of radiation because everything stayed within the special containment structure surrounding the reactor, just as it is supposed to do.  I’d say it must be pretty safe when you can do everything wrong on purpose, and still can’t cause a radiation leak.  The majority of people probably have no concept of the size and location of a nuclear reactor.  As Cravens’ book points out, the average reactor is 12 feet by 12 feet and could fit in most home kitchens.  It is enclosed in a carbon steel pressure container with a thick stainless steel liner and has walls of dense concrete surrounding it.  But, that’s just the first layer of protection.  Then, this container is itself contained within another huge containment building 19 stories tall, with more than 100 feet of the structure underground where the reactor is anchored in bedrock.  This containment building has a steel shell covered with several feet of concrete reinforced with steel bars, and is negatively pressurized to contain any explosion or leak.  That’s why the Three Mile Island reactor meltdown resulted in no fatalities or injuries, because U.S. regulations require the additional containment building, which contained all of Three Mile Island’s radiation within this structure.  And, the Three Mile Island reactor was an older style, whereas, as previously mentioned, newer reactor models are virtually impossible to meltdown to begin with.

Nuclear waste is another subject that is misunderstood by most people.  Nuclear weapons and/or nuclear energy has been around in America for more than 40 years, thereby producing nuclear waste over the past 40 years as well.  In spite of all of the “misinformation” circulating regarding nuclear waste, there has not been one single death or injury in America resulting from the storage or transportation of nuclear waste.  When nuclear waste is transported, it is stored in a special cask whose shell is 15 times thicker than the shell on a gasoline tanker.  All shipments of nuclear waste are monitored by global positioning satellites, and are escorted by heavily armed personnel.  The trucks have special locking devices that are almost impossible to breach.  We could only wish that hazardous chemical shipments had the same safety regulations.  As I will discuss later, they are the real risk, not nuclear waste storage and transportation.  There is also an incorrect understanding concerning the actual volume of nuclear waste produced by nuclear energy.  The entire amount of nuclear waste resulting from 40 years of nuclear energy usage in America would fit on one football field stacked 15 feet high.  The amount wanting to be stored at Yucca Mountain is about 25 feet by 25 feet stacked 10 feet high, and would fit in most studio apartments.  That’s what all of the Yucca Mountain fuss is about.  And, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico has already been storing weapons grade nuclear waste for years without any problems.  In fact, scientific calculations done at this site revealed that the mathematical odds of any kind of failure in safe storage of nuclear waste at the New Mexico plant are close to one in a billion.  Once again, I’d say that’s pretty safe.

What about safety against terrorism at nuclear power plants?  Gwyneth Cravens visited a typical, American nuclear plant.  To get inside you must pass a special palm print identification scan, which can not be faked in any manner, but that’s the easy part.  Before you ever get to the palm scanner, there are numerous cameras and motion sensors that detect any unauthorized people or vehicles, which also initiate loud sirens warning of intruders.  Then, there are hydraulic pop-up barriers that are able to stop a semi going 60 miles per hour in its tracks.  These are accompanied by gravel berms and long concrete blockades, not to mention three parallel chain fences with razor sharp edges standing 20 feet high.  If someone miraculously manages to get past the barriers, berms, blockades and fences, they will face dozens of armed guards with assault weapons.  If they again miraculously get past the small army of soldiers, they must find a way to get into the special containment building, which has a tornado-proof steel door with multiple locks.  This containment building can withstand the blast of an atomic bomb, or the impact of a fighter jet crashing into it at nearly 500 miles per hour.  Once again, we could only wish that our hazardous chemical plants had this kind of safety procedures.    In fact, the “Center For Strategic And International Studies” conducted a national security exercise in 2002 called “Silent Vector”, in which they analyzed our nation’s greatest vulnerabilities to a terrorist attack.  They studied nuclear plants, chemical plants, dams, gas and oil refineries and storage facilities etc.  They concluded that terrorists would probably go for these other targets before nuclear plants due to the extreme safety, security and protective measures at nuclear facilities.

What about natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and floods?  Couldn’t they cause a radiation leak at a nuclear plant?  As a matter of fact, one of the worst hurricanes in American history, Hurricane Katrina, plowed directly into three nuclear plants as it made its way through Mississippi and Louisiana.  One of these facilities was near New Orleans.  And, while chemical plants were breached and released toxic substances throughout New Orleans, all three nuclear plants were left intact and unharmed, as documented in Cravens’ book.  Moreover, don’t forget the tornado-proof doors and earthquake-proof structures surrounding nuclear reactors in America.  Here again, nuclear plants are not the danger, but rather hazardous chemical facilities.

The nuclear energy industry is much safer than other energy-producing industries.  The hydroelectric industry has seen 1000 deaths caused by dam failures over the last century in America.  The coal industry has had 154 mining fatalities during the last six years, and there are 24,000 premature deaths caused annually by the toxic wastes put into our air by coal-fired plants.  The “U.S. Chemical Safety And Hazard Investigation Board” reported 25 fatalities and 199 injuries from chemical plant accidents between 2003 and 2006 in our nation, whereas there have been no deaths or injuries at America’s nuclear facilities.  And, most of us remember the Union Carbide chemical plant accident in Bhopal, India that killed 3849 people and permanently disabled 100,000 more.  By the way, there is a nearly identical chemical plant as that one in Bhopal operating in America today.  That is where the real risk lies for a terrorist attack, not at our superbly protected nuclear power plants.

And, when it comes to the health and safety of its workers, no industry performs as well as the nuclear industry.  According to the “U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics”, it is safer to work at a nuclear plant than in the manufacturing industry, or even than in a bank or a real estate office.  And, the “Mailman School Of Public Health” at Columbia University did a study that revealed that employees at nuclear facilities were less likely to die of cancer or other diseases than the general population.  Also, studies of sailors on nuclear submarines, where they live right next to the nuclear reactor on board, also reveal that their overall health is better than the general population as well.

The bottom line is that nuclear energy is the only safe, clean, feasible and readily available energy source to replace fossil fuels within the next 20 to 30 years, and which will not contribute to global warming because it produces no greenhouse gases.  France is already getting nearly 80% of its energy from nuclear power.  Switzerland is getting 37%.  So, why is America only getting 17%, while getting 51% from coal, the dirtiest source of all.  However, it should be noted that Connecticut, New Jersey and Illinois get 50% of their energy from nuclear power.  If we could get the rest of our states up to 50% from nuclear as well, we would significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and would become a model for other nations to follow, as with France and Switzerland.

Before concluding this series, I need to dedicate a paragraph to expose the folly of another energy misadventure currently being used in America and elsewhere to replace fossil fuels.  With more than 5 million children dying from starvation annually throughout the world, and millions more hungry and malnourished, who came up with the insane idea to burn food for fuel?  Lester Brown’s book, “Plan B 3.0″, reveals that ethanol, which is grain converted to fuel, used up 20% of America’s entire grain harvest in 2007.  And, in 2008, we will use close to 30% of our nation’s harvest for ethanol.  This is at a time when world grain production has been less than our consumption of grain for seven out of the last eight years, thereby dropping world inventories of grain lower than at any other time in the past 34 years.  Where is the wisdom in burning our grain when world food supplies are in serious decline and millions are dying of starvation; moreover, when the amount of grain required to fill an automobile tank one time, would feed a starving child for an entire year?  This is not only foolish, but also immoral.  As Lester Brown puts it, “there are no alternatives to food for people, but there are alternatives to using food-based fuels”.  His book documents that the entire amount of fuel being provided by ethanol in America, could be surpassed several times over by simply raising automobile fuel-efficiency requirements by 20%.  Furthermore, burning ethanol still produces greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.  As you can see, burning food for fuel is not the answer. 

If significant and timely steps are not taken, global warming will destroy our planet.  And, the number one contributor to global warming is the burning of fossil fuels.  Therefore, the solution is obvious.  We must replace fossil fuels with another energy source that does not produce greenhouse gases as soon as possible.  Although wind, solar and hydro-power are clean energy sources that can help, they can only provide a small percentage of the energy currently generated by fossil fuels.  And, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, ethanol is an inadequate, foolish and immoral alternative.  If we want to mean business about getting rid of fossil fuels soon enough to stop global warming before its too late, nuclear power is the only realistic solution.

In conclusion of this seven-part series, I strongly encourage you to get a copy of Gwyneth Cravens’ book, “Power To Save The World”.  It will revolutionize your thinking concerning nuclear energy.