When Forbes magazine gleefully
headlined its recent article on the re-emergence of nuclear power
“The Silence of the Nuke Protesters,” it was, in a way,
taunting the complacency of Springfield. “Atomic power is
making a comeback,” read the accompanying blurb, “and
you hear only muffled squawks from the usual opponents. Could that
have something to do with the price of oil? Or maybe global
warming?” The example cited in the article as evidence that
opposition to nuclear power is fading was a December hearing by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission in nearby Clinton, Ill. Few spoke in
opposition to plans to build at Clinton the first new U.S. nuclear
reactor in 25 years.
Consider this another muffled squawk from one
of the usual opponents, if you will. But another Nuclear Regulatory
Commission hearing in Clinton is coming up on April 19, and there
are plenty of reasons for people concerned about a safe environment
and a sane energy future to show up and speak up. Although the NRC
recently announced that its initial study has concluded
that no environmental problems stand in the way of a second reactor at
Clinton, anybody who knows nuclear power understands that this is a
conclusion based on narrow considerations about the Clinton site by
regulators who promote nuclear power by ignoring huge environmental
problems with the industry as a whole. If nothing else, pointing out
the known environmental dangers may keep national business magazines
from crowing about our silence and implying our stupidity.
Some who are concerned about the environment
may have bought into the industry’s claim that nuclear power
is a clean-air alternative to coal-burning power plants. But that
argument ignores the fact that greenhouse gases are produced in the
processing of uranium fuel, and the amount will increase
drastically when current supplies of higher-yield uranium ore run
out, forcing the industry to use less efficient grades. While
nuclear plants are legally permitted to emit only low levels of
radiation, there is no safe level of radiation exposure, which can
cause cancer or miscarriage. Recent research has also indicated
that chronic exposure to lower levels may be far more harmful than
previously thought, questioning the wisdom of permitting even more
exposure until this issue is resolved.
Nobody denies that nuclear-power generation produces a waste product that is among the
deadliest substances known or that this spent nuclear fuel remains
highly radioactive for thousands of years. All agree, therefore, that
nuclear spent fuel must be isolated from the environment practically
forever. The nuclear industry touts the safety of its storage casks and
assures us that the U.S. government can be trusted to guard the stuff
in a repository being prepared deep in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain.
But the people of Nevada, and others who care for the earth, think it
unwise and irresponsible to continue to manufacture waste that is so
lethal for so long. An earthquake or an enemy attack a thousand years
from now could bring devastation that would make it clear that the
21st-century nuclear-power industry was the height of folly and greed.
It is difficult to get Americans to focus on
the environmental problems they are leaving to future generations,
but the threat of terrorism hits closer to home. Since 9/11 the
nuclear industry has beefed up security at its operating power
plants, although it has kept its new measures secret. This is
understandable; interviews of captured al-Qaeda operatives have
revealed that reactors are among their potential targets. The
National Academy of Sciences recently recommended that reactors
store their spent fuel in dry casks rather than in swimming pools to make it less vulnerable to
terrorist attack. The Nuclear Energy Information Service says some
older-style reactors operated by Exelon Corp. in Illinois — at
Morris, LaSalle, and the Quad Cities — store their fuel on top of
their reactors, outside the containment structure, making them
particularly vulnerable to airplane attack. Exelon says it has no plans
to change its storage method, and the NRC dismisses airplane crashes as
“unrealistic scenarios.”
Plans to expand the U.S. nuclear-power
industry, beginning in Clinton, Ill., are going on right now in our
own back yard. So far the proposal to give fast-track approval to a
second reactor at Clinton has had little opposition. Forbes is right to
ask, “Where are the protesters?”
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s
hearing for public comment on the Clinton environmental report is
scheduled for 7 p.m., Tuesday, April 19, at the Vespasian Warner
Public Library in Clinton. Persons who wish to speak must register
by Wednesday, April 13, by calling 800-368-5642, ext. 3835, or by sending an e-mail to eis@nrc.gov.
They may also register at the Clinton library
at least 30 minutes before the start of the meeting.
This article appears in Apr 7-13, 2005.
