Nuclear power

It’s the bomb

By Philip Kahn and Jessica Mintz
From the December 2005 Print Edition

This winter, millions of Americans will be footing the bill for the tremendous rise in energy costs that we have recently experienced. Nearly six years into the 21st century, this country continues to rely on the primitive energy sources of the past; the costly combustion of hydrocarbons — coal, oil, natural gas — accounts for nearly 87 percent of electric energy generated, spewing thousands of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gases into the environment. The supply of these resources is limited and an alternative energy source is necessary. If you think the answer to this crisis is solar or wind power, you are wrong. These sources are far too dilute to provide the massive amounts of power our civilization requires and are promoted primarily for political purposes or as tax dodges.

The real solution has existed for more than fifty years. Many other countries in the world have embraced this technology, including much of Europe and Asia, but the United States lags dangerously behind. This “new” source of energy is clean, efficient, and significantly cheaper than the methods we rely on now. Why then have we, an environmentally conscious and economically successful country, suppressed it for so long?

Utter “nuclear” and watch as those around you gasp, immediately and ignorantly citing Chernobyl and the atomic bomb, thoughtlessly propagating the fear that surrounds the word. If you are one of these people, you have been misled. It is easy to dispel the negative image associated with nuclear power by simply educating people about how it really works.

Nuclear power generation is simply the splitting of uranium. The split releases energy that can be easily collected and converted to electricity. Nuclear reactors use only fissionable material of critical or sub-critical mass, meaning that as long as the laws of physics are obeyed — and they always are! — a catastrophic explosion is impossible.

A ridiculous claim that opponents of nuclear energy make is that any exposure to radiation is bad. Gruesome statistics regarding those affected by the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem to support this claim. At low levels, however, radiation can even enhance health. In Taiwan, recycled steel that was accidentally contaminated with radioactive cobalt 60 was used to construct housing complexes in which more than ten thousand people lived for nine to twenty years. The cancer mortality rate for this sample of people was significantly less than for the general population. This is an example of radiation hormesis, which in an organism is an over-response to radiation stress in a way that actually improves overall health.

Even with this in mind, the radiation afforded by a nuclear power plant, even right in your backyard, is not even enough to provide the health benefits, let alone cause you physical harm. Living next to a nuclear plant for an entire year increases your radiation dose by only one millirem, something so small most of us never have to learn the word. The hazards of nuclear waste generated by these reactors is even less of an issue, as it is buried deep in the ground and unlikely to be disturbed for thousands of years. For comparison, background radiation that we all receive such as that from the sun, or even a nice ripe banana rich with potassium 40, accounts for an annual dosage of 300-15000 millirem per person.

Economically, nuclear energy is superior. The cost per kilowatt-hour is very inexpensive: roughly one-quarter that of oil and natural gas, and is today about 14 cents less than coal. This is mainly due to the extraordinary efficiency of nuclear reactors. In 2002, an average US nuclear plant had an efficiency of 91.9 percent. Coal came in at 68.7 percent, natural gas at 49.2 percent, and solar energy an abysmal 21.6 percent. In addition, one uranium pellet, the size of the tip of your little finger, produces as much energy as two hundred thousand cubic feet of natural gas. Thus, fuel costs are low. Environmentally, the only waste generated by nuclear power is in similarly small quantities and does not pollute our air or water like the combustion of other fuels.

So what are the implications of this information? Why would environmentalists oppose this technology so vehemently when it is so safe and clean? The answer lies in the politics of fear. The lefties, lawyers, politicians, and pseudo-environmentalists manufacture this fear in order to prevent you from reaping the benefits of cheap, clean and abundant energy. These groups rely on your dependence to sustain them. Pointless regulations on nuclear energy merely further their cause, increase your costs, and stifle the creativity and efficiency of the scientists and engineers who are trying to do their jobs and improve your standard of living.

No technology comes without risks … millions of people climb into automobiles and airplanes every day even though their risk of death in those vehicles far outweighs the risks of exposure to radiation. Why then, should we not confidently accept this minor risk for the sake of the future of the quality of human life?

Demand that the politicians lift the regulations on nuclear power, educate yourself, and make nuclear energy a priority issue in your future. Burn your fear with the last of our fossil fuels. We can do better, and we can do it cheaply and safely.

“Americans’ Average Radiation Exposure” Yucca Mountain Project. July 2000. © 2004 Yucca Mountain Project. < http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0337.shtml>.

“Chernobyl: Ten years after” Greenpeace Archives. April 1996. © Greenpeace 1996. .

"Coal," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2004. © 1997-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved. .

“CRS Report- Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal” National Council for Science and Environment. 30 July 2001. © 2004 National Council for Science and Environment. < http://ww w.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Waste/waste-2.cfm?&CFID=12104232&CFTOKEN= 24844986 >.

Dr. Greg Bothun. “The Problem of Nuclear Waste Disposal” The Electronic Universe. © 2003 University of Oregon, Eugene. < http://zebu.uoregon.edu/disted/ph161/l19.html >.

“Nuclear Facts” Nuclear Energy Institute. © 2003 Nuclear Energy Institute. .

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Reactor Decommissioning” 10 September 2003. © 2003 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. .

Roy Smith. “Nuclear Power: Energy for Today and Tomorrow” © 1999 Roy Smith. .

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot