In This Article
30-Second Summary
Headline Link: ‘The Nuclear Option’
Video: ‘Kroft’s Reporter’s Outlook’
Background: Fallout over Chernobyl disaster reporting
Historical Context: ‘On this Day: Nuclear Meltdown at Three Mile Island’
Opinion & Analysis: Weighing the risks
Related Topic: ‘Bush Calls for Action on Climate Change’
Reference: Lovelock’s books
Subscribe to Science Updates
Climate Change Refuels Nuclear Energy Debate
by
findingDulcinea Staff
Some prominent environmentalists have reversed previous convictions and now endorse nuclear power. They face resistance from a skeptical public.
30-Second Summary
In December 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in his “Atoms for Peace” address that nuclear fission had the potential “to provide abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world.”
But rising costs and concerns about safety put a damper on America’s enthusiasm for nuclear power stations. The Three Mile Island disaster of March 28, 1979, reinforced perceptions that this form of power was inherently dangerous.
The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 weakened nuclear energy’s appeal even further. Greenpeace reported in 2006 that the accident was responsible for more than 90,000 deaths. However, after investigation, the World Health Organization concluded that only 56 people died.
The best-selling author and environmental scientist James Lovelock argues that the dangers of nuclear power have been exaggerated by misinformed green activists and timid politicians.
“A fact about Chernobyl that is rarely mentioned because it is so contrary to perceived wisdom is the unscheduled appearance of a wild life park in the land nearby considered too radioactive for people to enter,” wrote Lovelock in 2005. “The animals and birds of the Ukraine find the absence of humans more than offsets the potential harm from radiation and they live and breed there more successfully than on the uncontaminated ground outside their enclave.”
Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore has since echoed Lovelock’s assessment: “Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce [carbon] emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.”
But rising costs and concerns about safety put a damper on America’s enthusiasm for nuclear power stations. The Three Mile Island disaster of March 28, 1979, reinforced perceptions that this form of power was inherently dangerous.
The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 weakened nuclear energy’s appeal even further. Greenpeace reported in 2006 that the accident was responsible for more than 90,000 deaths. However, after investigation, the World Health Organization concluded that only 56 people died.
The best-selling author and environmental scientist James Lovelock argues that the dangers of nuclear power have been exaggerated by misinformed green activists and timid politicians.
“A fact about Chernobyl that is rarely mentioned because it is so contrary to perceived wisdom is the unscheduled appearance of a wild life park in the land nearby considered too radioactive for people to enter,” wrote Lovelock in 2005. “The animals and birds of the Ukraine find the absence of humans more than offsets the potential harm from radiation and they live and breed there more successfully than on the uncontaminated ground outside their enclave.”
Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore has since echoed Lovelock’s assessment: “Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce [carbon] emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.”
Headline Link: ‘The Nuclear Option’
Mother Jones writes that the shift in political opinion with regards to nuclear power has begun a trickle of applications for new nuclear power plants. “Last year, UniStar submitted an application for a new nuclear reactor to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the first to cross the agency's desk since Jimmy Carter was president. Four more followed, and 14 separate companies have notified the agency that they will file applications in the next year.”
Source: Mother Jones
Video: ‘Kroft’s Reporter’s Outlook’
Steve Kroft, correspondent for CBS News program “60 Minutes,” examines the recent resurgence in interest in nuclear energy as an environmentally friendly source of energy and the questions of safety.
Source: CBS News
Background: Fallout over Chernobyl disaster reporting
The WHO conducted a three-year study, the results of which were published in September 2005. It concluded that only 56 people died as a direct result of the Chernobyl disaster. There was an increase in the number of thyroid cancer cases, due to radioactive iodine being absorbed into grass used as cattle feed. The iodine was then passed to children through milk.
Source: Flat Earth News
Greenpeace puts the total mortality rate from the Chernobyl disaster at more than 90,000. This number was based on one study, which included “high levels of speculation and general uncertainty.”
Source: Flat Earth News (PDF document)
Historical Context: ‘On this Day: Nuclear Meltdown at Three Mile Island’
On March 28, 1979, the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant experienced a partial meltdown. It was the worst ever commercial nuclear accident in U.S. history.
Source: findingDulcinea
Opinion & Analysis: Weighing the risks
Pro
Physicist Jim Al-Khalili laments that the debate over nuclear energy in Britain has been a matter of “’should we’ rather than the technological question of ‘could we’. The answer to the latter question is only likely to be found in a multidisciplinary effort involving scientists from a wide range of fields.”
Source: The Guardian
Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, writes that in the 1970s, he “believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust.” But some 30 years later, he feels that the environmental movement should change its opinion on nuclear energy. “Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce [carbon] emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.”
Source: The Washington Post (free registration may be required)
James Lovelock, who came to international prominence in the scientific community as the author of “Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth,” is a proponent of nuclear power as a way to combat carbon emissions. He writes, “Nuclear energy is now from an economic and an engineering viewpoint a well tried, safe and sensible source of energy. But public fear of it is widespread and sustains a climate of ignorance, which artificially inflates the cost of nuclear energy and of waste disposal.”
Source: Environmentalists for nuclear energy
Contra
A 6.7-magintude earthquake caused pipes to burst and radioactive waste to spill at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear energy plant in Japan last July. Said local resident Kiyokazu Tsunajima, “Whenever there is an earthquake, the first thing we worry about is the nuclear plant. I worry about whether there will be a fire or something. We have no information, it's really frightening.”
Source: Fox News
A leak at Japan’s Tokiamura nuclear energy plant in 1999 caused radiation readings to rise to a level 15,000 times higher than normal. Two years earlier, the same plant was the site of Japan’s most dangerous nuclear accident when 35 workers suffered contamination poisoning. The plant was not shut down until 14 hours after the leak was discovered, sparking rumors of a cover-up.
Source: The BBC
The Nuclear Energy Information Service, which describes itself as “Illinois' nuclear power watchdog for 25 years,” writes that “we currently possess a great deal of the technological know-how needed to begin creating an energy future that will be BOTH carbon free, and nuclear free.”
Source: Nuclear Energy Information Service
An editorial in the Los Angeles Times argues that by the time infrastructure for nuclear plants is improved, it may be too late for them to have any noticeable effect in curbing global warming. Recycled fuel presents a security risk. “Reprocessing involves separating plutonium from other materials to create new fuel. Plutonium is an excellent bomb material, and it's much easier to steal than enriched uranium.”
Source: Los Angeles Times (free registration may be required)
Related Topic: ‘Bush Calls for Action on Climate Change’
The president unveiled a plan on April 16 to cap emissions by 2025. However, developing nations and observers question his motives.
Source: findingDulcinea
Reference: Lovelock’s books
James Lovelock’s book “Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth” (1979) hypothesized that our planet behaves like a homeostatic device or, to put it another way, like an organism that operates to maintain a balance among its various organs. If its equilibrium is disturbed, say by through excessive pollution, then it will respond to recover its previous state.
Source: Dulcinea Media Store
In 2007, Lovelock published “The Revenge of Gaia: Earth’s Climate Crisis & the Fate of Humanity,” a gloomy account of the state of the global environment and what it means for humanity.
Source: Dulcinea Media Store
Most Recent Beyond The Headlines
© 2012 Dulcinea Media, Inc.
