The bodies of the thousands of victims of Japanese tsunami weren't even cold yet when the anti-nuclear crowd and the old guard media started taking aim at the nuclear power industry and the U.S. government's renewed interest in it.
Of course, we still don't have any details on exactly what may have gone wrong, although everyone pretty much agrees the reactor survived the initial earthquake and resultant aftershocks.
Foreign media reports conclude that, ironically, it is the lack of electricity that is causing the failures in the plant. As a safety precaution, the generators shut down when the quake started and because they shut down there is no electricity available to run the cooling system, the reports indicate.
Now the plant is heating up and failing.
So, the rabid opponents immediately start yelling. Of course, they will seize any opportunity to beat their drum. Doesn't surpise me much.
But let me pose this question: if, God forbid, an earthquake caused the collapse of a huge hydro dam in China and forced the evacuation of thousands of people, would we be expected to decommission the St. Lawrence/FDR power project and give up on building another hydro dam?
Shouldn't we apply the same rationale to the situation in Japan?
If we can even be rational about nuclear energy, that is.
People won't be happy till we are burning bear fat for light and cooking over dried cow chips
ReplyDeleteI see that I am the first and only comment thus far on this particular blog and of the 15 comments on a previous nuke blog most were written before the current crisis in Japan. So, I'm a little confused by some of your comments about response being "unrelenting" and shrill.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I read today an article in the Courier-Observer regarding your opinion, as well as Mr. Hidy's, of people who disagree with your proposal to site a nuclear power plant in Massena. Those who oppose the plan are described as self-serving, uninformed, and insensitive to the plight of the Japanese people. Those who are proponents of the site are seen as progressive patriots who obviously know more about the science of nuclear power than their opponents. I'm not going to get into one of those "but I honor them more..." kind of arguments, because it's just silly to gauge sensitivity or patriotism in this way.
I would say that the only reason that Japan is so central to this debate is because you have mentioned several times that we are "behind" other nations in our utilization of nuclear power. If you would have us gauge our power policy by what other countries are doing, then you can't back away from it when it no longer serves your purpose. What happened in Chernobyl, and now in Japan, reminds us that there is a great deal at stake when determining whether or not to pursue nuclear power, and for all it's positives, the negatives cannot be downplayed.
Now, as far as the science goes...I know that you have ample science that supports your proposal. However, there is an equal (if not greater) number of articles, papers, and experts that refute your safety and efficiency claims.
I offered a site on an earlier blog posting and was lambasted for throwing my lot in with the "sky is falling" crowd. I was admonished that I should be ashamed. Well, I tell you what. When it comes to something this important, I want to make sure that although I have a point of view, I am being fair. So, I went back and re-read the article I had tagged as "interesting reading." It was written by the editor of the "Nuke Free" site that is dedicated to greener and alternative energy sources. Upon the second read, it was no more alarmist and "Chicken Little" than it had been on the first. As a matter of fact, the information in that article was repeated from a different source during an interview on the BBC the next morning. I have since read the same information regarding the California reactors in several other reputable sources.
It is foolish to throw out reasonable science and expert opinion because it doesn't support your proposal. And if I am to be ashamed for passing anti-nuclear information your way then you are to be equally ashamed for continuing to promote your project in light of it.
Personally, I don't see how shame factors into either side at this point in the debate. The differing viewpoints, expert opinions, and science must be presented and sifted through. A final decision should and must be decided upon by the people -- all the people -- whose lives might be enhanced or adversely affected by this project. I thought that was your original intention -- to gauge the support (or lack of) for your proposal.
At the risk of being "insensitive," I'm going to suggest a few more sites or articles that I think are germane to this discussion. I hope you will take the time to read them and consider their worth.
I applaud your efforts to bring jobs to the North Country and elevate this flagging economy. Please continue looking at energy alternatives like wind and solar. They are not perfect solutions, but they are safer.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/japan/110314/japan-nuclear-meltdown-disaster
Anon. 7:51, thanks for your comments. No one should be ashamed of his or her opinion. That's not what I meant to say. I meant that using the tragedy in Japan to promote a viewpoint was shameful.
ReplyDeleteWe really can't compare Chernobyl either. There were no fewer that seven human overrides of automatice shutdown attempts at that plant, according to a 60 Minutes story a while back.
As far as the reaction being swift and unrelenting, check Congress, the newspapers, the internet and all television "news" channels. They are full of opinion on how this is proof of the failings of nuclear power and a clear indication that the push for more US nuclear plants is now dead, etc., etc.
The Nuclear Power plant proposal in Massena will effect people within a 100 miles of the plant.
ReplyDeleteGM polluted the St. Lawrence River and eventually became a Superfund site.
No amount of money or jobs is worth the risk of endangering the lives of both American and Canadians and taking the risk of destroying the St. Lawrence River and the Adirondack Park.
Massena is on an earthquake fault:
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005NE/finalprogram/abstract_82009.htm
The 1944 Earth Quake:
http://www.greatdreams.com/ny/newyork_quakes.htm
"The largest earthquake recorded in New York, according to the USGS, was a 5.8
magnitude quake in 1944 that was centered in Massena, about 3 miles from the
Canadian border."
Please also take into account the possibility of human error. Technology alone cannot prevent a disaster.
Please see the following video from NBC News:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42106351#42106351
I for one will oppose any Nuclear Plant idea or plans in Massena.
I also am sure many in other communities will oppose this plant.
Please consider wind, solar, or other alternatives for job creation.
Make Massena a business friendly community and welcome people with open arms. Tax breaks for businesses will help create jobs.
If the Nuke Plant is ever built I will close my business and relocate to some other community or state to be away from any Nuclear facility. That is a promise.
People that are outside of the industry, that are looking at the events in Japan, and using this as a reason to discredit the safety of Nuclear Power in the US, are either misinformed, or using this as fuel for fear mongering to promote their anti-nuclear agenda, or news ratings.
ReplyDeleteThe horrible events that you are seeing on the news are at the Fukushima I‐1 power station. This is one of one of 54 nuclear reactors in Japan, that experienced the second worst earthquake in history. The other 53 of the units withstood an event that was fair worse than they were ever designed to withstand. The Fukushima station too withstood the earthquake, and shut down, automatically per design.
You can’t say that because Massena is on a fault line, or has had earthquakes in the past, as a reason that a plant could not be built. There are plants that are built on fault lines all over the world. When a plant is being designed, seismological studies are done that far exceed any study that has ever been done on an area. These studies will provide far more credible and specific data than a Google search that many are using as their source of information.
Based on what is found in this study, the plant would be designed to withstand far greater than the worst case scenario for any earthquake that could possible happen.
The events that are taking place at Fukushima I‐1 are due to the tsunami, not the direct result of the earthquake. This could not happen in Massena.
Yet even if it did (it couldn’t), any new plant that would be built in the US would take into account the worst case scenario for flood damage. Furthermore, if offsite power was lost, and the plant was in a SCRAM condition, current stations in the US have backup power systems that are capable of supplying power to critical systems for periods that far exceed those at Fukushima I‐1.
I am not going to be so arrogant to say that this event could not, or will not, turn into a much larger issue. But the current FACTS that we have at this time, are being given to the general public in a sensationalized way by the media to promote fear and ratings. And by the anti-nuclear groups to support their agenda.
You can have a huge headline in bold that reads “RADIATION LEVELS 300 TIMES NORMAL LEVEL” and then bury in the bottom of the article that even at 300 times the normal level they pose no threat to the population. Or you could just say that the levels are elevated, but far less does than you would receive by going to the dentist, or spending prolonged periods in the hot sun.
You can search all over the country and find some professor or doctor that will say that taking iodine tablets in California would be a good precaution against radiation sickness, or you could go with 99.99% or the people that know what they are talking about and say that talking tablets will probably do you more harm than good, and the idea that there is a radiation level issue in the US based on the events in Japan is preposterous.
It’s easy to sit back and shout “fix our energy crisis” for us. But when the smartest people in the world give you the solution, you can’t say “well we don’t like that, because we don’t understand it”.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteI dont agree with you on much but fully support this nuke plant. Nukes are built on fault lines all the time because.... there are fault lines all over the world. Build it for the worst case then add extra precautions. We have the infrastructure and right of ways in regards to the power lines that already run from the dam now lets build the plant. These are good jobs and a no carbon emission power source. Wind power is a great concept but looks like crap. Howabout the hundreds of nuke plants that have no problems...
Annon 1:39, I am completely on your side of this issue. However, I am 99% sure that your statement regarding the infrastructure and right away is probably incorrect. I have no actual knowledge of the existing transmission lines capacity or loading, but there is no way that they currently have enough capacity to bring a new plant online. Much the way that you shouldn’t plug 15 appliances into one outlet, but on a much larger scale. If a new plant was built, it would require a new circuit (either 115kV, 345kV, or 500Kv) to handle the added capacity. I never really took note of what the transmission towers look like, but I assuming that this would require all now towers. This could mean expanding the existing right of ways up to 100’. It would also require the addition of several large substations, or significant upgrades to the existing stations. This undertaking very well could cost close to the same amount as building the plant. Again, I am saying this on the “pro” side of this argument. I think this would be a great thing.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I would ask those running to embrace nuclear technology -- why don't you support wind or solar power? These are two emerging technologies that do not pose such an incredible risk and yet offer tremendous potential. We all want energy independence; but the cost cannot only be tabulated in dollars and cents.
ReplyDeleteI am not alone in thinking that wind turbines have a sculptural, other-worldly essence. I know people who drive miles out of their way just to see the wind farms. On the other hand, anyone who has ever been to Oswego will tell you that the sight of that nuclear behemoth gives them the willies.
That being said, I would not base our choice strictly on aesthetics, but rather upon the risk based on plant failure.
Someone sent me this link and asked me to publish it. I inadvertently deleted the post instead of publishing it.
ReplyDeleteI apologize to the submitter. If you would like to re-submit your comment I will publish that too.
He/she asked me to ask Mayor Jim Hidy to back away from his plans to continue to pursue nuclear power. I will forward that request but I will continue to agree with him and support his efforts.
Here the link that was submitted:
http://www.truth-out.org/the-lessons-fukushima68749
I would encourage Jimmy to continue to explore the possibility of build a safe and secure nuclear facility here. But the public is scared now and it will be harder to get public support. Obama had included nuclear energy in his plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and it was smart to explore the possibility of getting in on it. But TEPCO's lies about t5he Fukushima debacle were not reassuring.
ReplyDelete