It is rare, though not unheard of, for me to use my column to
take issue with another columnist. I find much to appreciate from
the energy that Robert Benich supplies to this community. Now I
find that I do need to register my reaction to his recent nuclear
power perspective as it appeared in the Morgan Hill Times.
It is rare, though not unheard of, for me to use my column to take issue with another columnist. I find much to appreciate from the energy that Robert Benich supplies to this community. Now I find that I do need to register my reaction to his recent nuclear power perspective as it appeared in the Morgan Hill Times.
Benich’s March 30 Guest View contains two fundamental flaws in its analysis of the real life application of nuclear technology to the production of electricity, both of them errors of omission. One is the over simplification of the safety concerns and the other is the question of cost. These are closely connected as the level of safety that we require will be very expensive to an industry that already requires heavy governmental subsidy to be even marginally profitable.
In the first, most serious case, Benich equates nuclear safety with the operation of a nuclear reactor and makes reference to the two most well-known nuclear incidents: Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Benich fails to consider that uranium in any state, no matter which isotope, presents a serious health risk to people who are exposed.
Stefanie Raymond-Whish, a researcher at Northern Arizona University, has spent years studying the effects of uranium on the human body. Many believe that the danger is only from radioactivity. Would that it were so. According to Raymond-Whish’s published study, uranium acts in the human body as if it were estrogen, causing abnormal cell growth and cancers.
Raymond-Whish is a Navajo from the eastern portion of that large reservation, the site of most of the uranium mining that fed the initial nuclear development in the United States, both for weapons and for peaceful uses. Her motivation to become a researcher comes from the fact that most of the women in her family have had breast cancer.
The conclusion of Raymond-Whish’s study are published by the National Institute of Health at PubMed.gov.
“Our data support the conclusion that uranium is an endocrine-disrupting chemical and populations exposed to environmental uranium should be followed for increased risk of fertility problems and reproductive cancers.” This is elemental uranium and totally divorced from the highly radioactive nature of enriched uranium.
It is most certainly incumbent on the nuclear industry to take precautions from the time that uranium is first removed from the ground until it is disposed of. If our government’s primary duty is to provide for the health and safety of the public, then they have failed many, especially the women of the Navajo.
We need enforceable guidelines that provide a chain of custody of uranium from the time the uranium ore is extracted until the spent uranium is disposed of. Currently, the focus of nuclear safety is only on enrichment process and its use in energy production. It is convenient for nuclear advocates to ignore the effects of mining and transportation of uranium, but that blindness has real consequences on real people who get sick.
The nuclear industry requires massive subsides from the federal government to be competitive on cost. The Obama Administration recently approved an $8.3 billion loan guarantee for just two power plants to be built in Georgia. Accepting the financial responsibility to provide end to end custody of the uranium will make costs escalate. Our government is still paying a for the care of those who fell ill or died from the affects of earlier uranium mining.
The reason that new nuclear plants have not been built in recent years has less to do with environmental opposition than with economic realities. All over the world, in Turkey, in Finland, new nuclear power plants are being canceled because these countries have cheaper solutions to their needs.
You will not find much disagreement about nuclear energy from any of the major Senatorial candidates. While Republican Chuck DeVore is a nuclear hawk, all of the major Senatorial candidates have strong pro-nuclear positions including the incumbent, Sen. Barbara Boxer, often labeled as a “radical enviro” but not on this issue.
Only Green Party candidate Duane Roberts seems to understand the real risks. “What positive affects – if any – nuclear power has upon global warming is greatly outweighed by the fact that it happens to be one of the most expensive and dangerous sources of energy ever created.”
This worries me. In some manner, we have learned to equate nuclear safety with reactor safety. It is a habit of thinking common to those most used to dealing with a small part of the problem and especially of those who, like Robert Benich or Sen. John McCain, have experience with the safe operation of nuclear power system in the military. I wonder how many of them are willing to have the women in their families drink ground water from four corners region. Should we not bottle this water and hand it out to members of Congress as they determine our energy future? Put an appropriate warning label on that product and maybe they will understand.
Wes Rolley is a Morgan Hill artist and concerned citizen. He is Co-Chairman of the EcoAction Committee, Green Party.
