Right-Wing Exposed

Due to the almost complete disappearance of full-service gas stations, we rarely say those words, “check the oil please”.  However, we should probably get used to saying them again because this planet’s oil reserves are rapidly declining.  Lester Brown’s book, “Plan B 3.0″, clearly documents the oil supply problems facing us in the immediate future. 

Brown’s book points out some interesting and ominous facts.  Ever since 1981 we have been extracting far more oil from the ground than we’ve been discovering.  And, the disparity is growing larger each year.  In 2006 we pumped 22 billion barrels more than we discovered.  Of course, this means that the world’s oil reserves shrunk by 22 billion barrels.

When this is coupled with the fact that, according to petroleum geologists, 95 percent of all the oil fields in the world have already been discovered, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that we are living on borrowed time when it comes to depending on oil to power our world.  Add to this already dubious combination the fact that 18 of the top 20 oil fields with the largest reserves have been pumped for between 40 and 90 years, which means that their reserves have been greatly depleted; we have a situation where the clock is ticking and time is running out regarding our continued reliance upon oil. 

Furthermore, this does not even take into account the always rising consumption of India and China, both of whom have huge populations desiring to “live the American dream”, which will exponentially increase the demand for oil to empower that dream.  By the year 2030 China alone could use up all of the oil being pumped throughout the world if they continue to modernize at their current rate.

Brown’s book makes it painfully obvious that we need a new primary source of energy to power our world, and we need it now.  Next week I will be writing about the most sensible and feasible solution in my “Energy Wednesday” blog.  This subject of where we will get a reliable energy source to cover the needs of our expanding, energy-using, world population is one of the most crucial issues of our time.  That is why I will be devoting every Wednesday’s blog to this topic.  Global warming, which is greatly impacted by the use of fossil fuels, is also one of the top issues facing us.  And, I will be dedicating each Tuesday’s blog to this issue.

I will also be writing about right-wing political issues on Thursdays, and about Evangelical mega church topics on Mondays.  Fridays will be a special segment titled,”Friday Truth”.  Thanks for checking in, but please also share your comments.   

Last week I wrote about the impending oil shortage and related energy crisis. And, I promised to discuss the most sensible and feasible solution to these problems in this week’s “Energy Wednesday” blog. The solution I’m recommending is not only the answer for the impending energy crisis, but is also the answer for getting us out of the Middle East and for avoiding a potential nuclear war over our presence on Islamic soil.

Conservatives will probably never admit it, but “oil” is the main reason that we insist on maintaining a military presence in the Middle East. If we could eliminate our need for oil, it would be much easier to leave. Moreover, our greatest threat for involvement in a nuclear war would also certainly have to be our military presence in and around Islamic nations. Leaving the Middle East would unquestionably decrease our chances of becoming involved in a nuclear conflict.

What is this “miracle answer” to so many impending and potential crises? Before I answer that question, I ask you to give me the “benefit of the doubt” regarding the solution that I’m suggesting. Over the next several weeks I will be “presenting my case” in my weekly “Energy Wednesday” blogs. I ask you to allow me to present all the facts before you reject my position. If you have been reading my blogs and listening to my podcasts over the past several weeks, you know that I am anti-war, concerned about global warming, and that I am opposing and exposing the Evangelical right-wing’s corruption and compromises. I am not one of those “wacky”, right-wing fanatics.

I would also like to point out that, although right-wingers are wrong about many things, no one is wrong about everything. Even a clock that is broken is still right twice a day. Why do I say this right upfront? Because many conservatives share my view on this particular issue. And, once again, although they are wrong about many things, I believe that they just happen to be right about this one. So, will you work with me on this and allow me to present my case over the next several weeks before you make your decision? That’s all I ask.

The solution that I’ve been referring to, which could get us out of the Middle East and resolve our impending energy crisis, is “nuclear power”. A new book written by Gwyneth Cravens, a liberal author who is against the Iraq War and is deeply concerned about global warming, reveals the scientific facts about nuclear energy. Her book is titled, “Power To Save The World”.

In my blog yesterday regarding global warming, I mentioned how right-wingers readily accept the scientific data that supports the use of nuclear energy, but then hypocritically reject the scientific data that supports global warming. You would probably agree that conservatives who do this are acting as hypocrites. However, wouldn’t those of us who believe in global warming and who accept the science that supports it, be guilty of the same hypocritical behavior if we reject the scientific data supporting nuclear energy without even bothering to examine it? We do not want to practice the same hypocrisy as right-wingers. We ought to take the “high road” and be consistent by being willing to examine the science that supports both subjects.

Cravens’ book reveals that 90% of scientists support the use of nuclear energy based on sound scientific data. Therefore, 90% of those 2500 respected scientists who have supplied us with the information that we trust regarding global warming, also agree on the science supporting the use of nuclear energy. If we are willing to listen to them about global warming, shouldn’t we also be willing to listen to them about nuclear energy?

Next week I’ll begin sharing some of the scientific data regarding nuclear power; its safety, efficiency, availability, feasibility and its impact on global warming.

Today’s post is the third in a multi-part series.  It is important that you read the first two posts in the “Energy Issues” archives before reading today’s post, if you have not already done so; otherwise you will not have the full picture, and may rush to judgement causing you to come to the wrong conclusion.  I also ask you to remember who I am; an anti-war, pro-global warming, Evangelical corruption-exposing, right-wing insider.  I’m not drinking the Republican “lemonade”.  And, the author of the thoroughly researched and scientifically documented book, “Power To Save The World”, from which this information is taken, is also anti-war and pro-global warming.  In fact, Gwyneth Cravens spent most of her life being strongly anti-nuclear in all respects, until she forced herself to do the research.  I also remind and encourage you not to follow the hypocrisy of Republicans who readily accept and quote the scientific data that supports the use of nuclear energy, but then automatically reject similar scientific data that supports global warming without even bothering to study the evidence.  If you and I do the same thing in reverse, by accepting the science supporting global warming, but then automatically reject the science supporting the use of nuclear power without having examined the evidence, we are guilty of the same hypocrisy.  We do not want to do that.  So, let us take the “high road” and study the facts before rushing to judgement.

Last week I shared that 90% of scientists support the use of nuclear energy.  Therefore, the vast majority of the same scientists that we are trusting regarding global warming statistics, also believe and support the scientific research regarding the importance of switching from fossil fuels to nuclear energy as being the best answer for reducing global warming and for solving our impending energy crisis.  Global warming is the number one threat to our planet, and the burning of fossil fuels to energize our world is the number one cause of global warming.  At present, less than one percent of the world’s energy is supplied by wind and solar power, and it is not possible for us to supply the remaining 99% by these means within the next several decades.  Currently the vast majority of earth’s power is supplied by fossil fuels, which are literally destroying our planet.  The second major source of energy is nuclear power.  And, nuclear power could completely replace fossil fuels within a couple of decades if we are willing to make the switch.  I believe that when you study the facts you will agree that it is the only logical and reasonable solution to both global warming and the impending energy crisis.  As the saying goes, “pick your poison”.  We will have to use either fossil fuels or nuclear power for at least several more decades to supply the majority of this world’s energy needs; remember, China and India are rapidly expanding their energy usage annually, and windmills and solar panels are not going to take care of their nearly three billion people who want to dream the American dream.  It’s nuclear or fossil fuels, period.  When Gwyneth Cravens studied the facts, the choice became easy for this formerly anti-nuclear stalwart, and the choice also became easy for me.  Using the “pick your poison” analogy,  fossil fuels would be 90% poison to our planet, whereas nuclear power would be 10%.  So, if we’re going to need to continue to take a little poison for the next few decades until we can provide better solutions, nuclear’s 10% certainly is better than fossil fuel’s 90%.

We are presently struggling to supply the current energy demands of our world, yet it is estimated that our total energy needs will double by 2030 (remember India and China).  If we try to supply this doubled need with fossil fuels we will choke this planet with carbon emissions, and rising seas will cover our coastal lands.  And, 90% of scientists agree that there is only one energy source other than fossil fuels that can supply this increased energy need, nuclear power.  Our choice is doubled carbon emissions and dramatically increased global warming, or a shift to nuclear power to replace fossil fuels.  Over the next several weeks on “Energy Wednesday” I will be sharing the scientific data comparing fossil fuels with nuclear energy.  If you’ve already read my “Check The Oil Please” article in my energy issues archives, you know that earth’s oil reserves are dwindling fast, which means that more and more of our fossil fuel energy will have to come from coal.  Coal, by the way, is the dirtiest source of energy used by man.  Therefore, in reality, our choice for supplying our doubled energy requirements over the next 25 years will be nuclear or coal.  If we choose coal, our carbon emissions will increase exponentially.  On the other hand, nuclear power doesn’t emit greenhouse gases when making electricity, contrary to the false claims of some extreme environmentalists.   Once again, 90% of scientists agree that nuclear power is both clean and safe.  Coal, however, is anything but clean or safe.  

Scientific studies estimate that 24,000 premature deaths are caused annually in America due to coal combustion.  And, pollution from coal plants is responsible for about 38,000 nonfatal heart attacks each year in our nation.  Most people are not aware that one 500 megawatt coal plant produces as much carbon dioxide as 750,000 cars.  Moreover, coal-fired plants produce dangerous emissions of sulfur, nitrogen and mercury each year, which endanger our children, lakes, rivers and fish.  China’s coal related problems are even worse, as it is estimated that 400,000 Chinese die annually due to coal pollution.  Furthermore, coal mining conditions are notoriously unsafe.  There were 154 coal-mining fatalities from 2002 to 2006.

Next week I will do some head to head comparisons on nuclear versus coal as we continue this multi-week series.  In the coming weeks we will also discuss safety, efficiency and feasibility issues, as well as Chernobyl  and Three Mile Island.  Please stay with me on this and hear me out.  Global warming poses a far greater threat than nuclear power.  We must stop burning fossil fuels if our planet is to survive.  And, we need a major source of clean energy to replace fossil fuels until we can come up with better answers.

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 brief introductory paragraph 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 next paragraph.  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. 

Last week I began a comparison of nuclear power with coal-fired power.  Gwyneth Cravens’ book, “Power To Save The World”, revealed that 24,000 Americans die premature deaths annually due to the poisons produced by coal-fired plants.  And, another 38,000 people suffer nonfatal heart attacks resulting from coal pollution each year.  Moreover, there have been 154  coal-mining fatalities from 2002 to 2006.  No such premature deaths, adverse health conditions or mining fatalities can be attributed to the use of nuclear power in America.

Most people are probably not aware that coal plants in America also produce far more radiation than nuclear plants; in fact, about 100 times more.  Each and every 1000-megawatt coal plant releases about 27 metric tons of radiological material into our atmosphere each year.  In 1999 coal combustion in America dispersed about 1000 tons of uranium and 2500 tons of thorium into the air, not to mention huge volumes of radon, according to the EPA.  Furthermore, living near a coal-fired plant exposes you to three times more radiation than living near a nuclear plant.  And, when it comes to the volume of waste products produced, a pop can weighing two pounds would contain your total, personal, nuclear waste if you had gotten all of your personal electricity consumption from nuclear power throughout your lifetime.  On the other hand, if you had used coal power to supply all of your personal electricity during your life, your personal waste products would weigh about 137,000 pounds.  Moreover, when it comes to efficient production of energy, one pound of pure uranium produces 400,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity, compared to one pound of coal producing a little over one kilowatt-hour;  that’s 400,000 times as much energy from equal one pound units!  In view of these drastic comparisons, why is our nation getting 50% of its energy from coal, but only about 17% from nuclear? 

It is truly a “no-brainer” when it comes to comparing fossil fuels with nuclear power.  The major reason we’ve continued to use oil and coal instead of nuclear has to be the powerful influence of lobbyists in Washington and the powerful politicians who have direct connections with the fossil fuel industry.  And, once again, although wind and solar power can help to supply more than the less than one percent they currently produce, they can not replace fossil fuels in time to save our planet from global warming.  As Cravens’ book clearly reveals, nuclear power is the only timely, realistic replacement for fossil fuels.

Next week we’ll take a look at the reasons used by those who are anti-nuclear, and examine the actual scientific facts regarding those reasons.  

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 brief introductory paragraph 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 next paragraph, but, if you have not read them, you really should read this opening paragraph.  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 in last week’s segment that I would cover the anti-nuclear community’s primary objections to the use of nuclear power in this week’s “Energy Wednesday” blog.  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.

What are the primary reasons used by the anti-nuclear community?  They say that the radiation produced by nuclear plants is dangerous and harmful; moreover, that cancer rates are much higher around these plants.  They say that nuclear facilities themselves are dangerous, and are just accidents waiting to happen.  They also claim that nuclear plants are easy targets for terrorists; furthermore, that the existence of these plants makes it easier for terrorists to get nuclear weapons.  And, they say that there is no way to safely dispose of nuclear waste.  Cravens’ book specifically, factually and thoroughly refutes each of these arguments.

The production of nuclear weapons has nothing whatsoever to do with nuclear power plants.  Nuclear weapons are not made with the kind of nuclear reactors used in these plants.  Special “production reactors” are used to produce plutonium-239 for use in nuclear weapons.  However, power plant reactors produce plutonium-240, which is extremely poor bomb material.  Furthermore, the uranium used in power plants is only enriched to about 4%, whereas weapons grade uranium is enriched to more than 80%.  As you can see, nuclear weapons have nothing to do with nuclear power plants.

Regarding the concern about radiation emissions from nuclear plants, most people are surprised when they learn the scientific facts.  As I mentioned last week, people living near coal-fired plants receive three times more radiation than those who live near nuclear facilities.  Furthermore, there is “natural radiation” being emitted all around us from a variety of sources such as rocks, soil, concrete, marble, bricks and granite.  Grand Central Station was built with granite.  A person who spent most of his time at Grand Central throughout the year would receive a radiation dose of 600 millirem annually.  However, anyone living near a nuclear plant can receive no more than 15 millirem per year of radiation emission from the plant because of strict EPA limits and regulations.  In other words, the person at Grand Central Station would receive 40 times more radiation than the person who lived near a nuclear plant.

Another prominent source of radiation is found in medical diagnosis and treatment, X-rays etc.  The average X-ray technician receives an annual radiation dose of 500 millirem, compared to the 15 millirem maximum exposure near nuclear facilities.  Therefore, the X-ray technician receives 30 times more radiation than a person living next to a nuclear plant.

There are, in fact, many areas in our world that have much higher natural radiation levels than those around nuclear plants.  People living in the Southwest in America receive 200 to 300 millirem per year, which is nearly twenty times the maximum radiation level near nuclear facilities.  Some parts of Brazil and India have levels nearly 400 times higher than our nation’s average.  In Ramsar, Iran radiation levels range as high as 26,000 millirem annually, which is 1700 times greater than those surrounding American nuclear plants.  And, it should be noted that people living in Ramsar are healthier than most other population groups.  Moreover, parts of Finland have natural radiation levels three times greater than today’s levels in Chernobyl!  Obviously, radiation emission levels from nuclear plants are nothing to be concerned about.

The remaining objections raised by those who are anti-nuclear will be answered over the next five weeks.  You will see that all of these objections are faulty, and are based on a lack of knowledge regarding the scientific facts.  The next three weeks I’ll discuss the facts concerning Hiroshima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.   

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 last week’s “Energy Wednesday” post I documented from Cravens’ book that the manufacture of nuclear weapons has nothing whatsoever to do with nuclear power plants.  And, I also shared Cravens’ statistics proving that radiation emission levels from nuclear power plants are minuscule, actually far less than emissions from many ”natural radiation” sources that are all around us.  What about the supposed dangers surrounding uranium itself, the key ingredient in the production of nuclear energy?  Most people are not aware that uranium was used to create many different colors in several commonly used products throughout the last century, such as glass and pottery products, including the popular orange-colored Fiestaware.  People regularly drank fluids and ate food from those colorful uranium-coated glasses and bowls.  What about the claims that even minimal uranium exposure causes cancer, and that there are so-called “cancer clusters” around nuclear facilities?  The thousands of people who ate and drank out of those uranium-coated vessels did not have any higher rates of cancer.  And, the National Cancer Institute did an epidemiological survey of people living near nuclear facilities in 107 counties in America, which revealed that there was no evidence of increased risk of cancer due to living near nuclear plants.

What about the related by-product, plutonium, which is present in the production of nuclear energy?  During the days of the famous “Manhattan Project”, there were 26 men who, due to their shielding being breached, were exposed to the highest doses of plutonium in our nation’s history.  What happened to them and their future children?  Most of these men lived into their eighties, and they all had normal children and grandchildren.  Only one of them developed cancer due to his extremely high exposure to plutonium.  As you can see, the cancer risks associated with uranium and plutonium have been hugely exaggerated, to say the least.

Even studies of survivors of the Hiroshima atomic bomb explosion done by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission and the Radiation Effects Research Foundation reveal statistics that would surprise most people.  It is true that people within one mile of the hypocenter of the blast perished almost without exception.  However, the cause of death for most of them was the intense heat and pressure shock of the blast.  Those who were more than a mile away from the hypocenter received low enough radiation doses to permit survival.  Studies done of 80,000 atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima revealed only a six percent increase of cancer above average cancer rates.  And, studies of their children and grandchildren revealed that birth defect rates were no higher than average rates of other population groups.  Now, it is true that gross deformities were experienced by some who were relatively near the hypocenter at the time of the explosion, which is certainly a human tragedy that must not be minimized.  It must be remembered, however, that these deformities were the result of the explosion of a nuclear weapon, and have nothing to do with the operation of nuclear power plants.

What about Three Mile Island?  This was America’s worst nuclear power plant accident in our nation’s history.  You could say that it was “our Chernobyl”.  The Three Mile Island plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania did experience a nuclear reactor meltdown, which is also what happened at Chernobyl.  However, despite the “urban legends” that still circulate about higher cancer rates and other radiation-induced illnesses, investigations done by Congress, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Health revealed that no excess cancers or other diseases occurred within the local population.  And, as we know, no one died from radiation emissions resulting from the Three Mile Island incident.  Think about it.  The worst nuclear energy facility accident in America’s history produced zero fatalities, and no increase in cancer among the local population!  Why was “America’s Chernobyl” far less severe than the Soviet Union’s?  Because America’s safety regulations for our nuclear plants are far more strict than those in the Soviet Union.

In next week’s “Energy Wednesday” segment we will take an in-depth look at Chernobyl.  You will be surprised to hear the real facts, minus the “urban legends”.

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.