
"SOLARTOPIA! Our Green-Powered Earth" by Harvey Wasserman
“There is no safe dose of radiation.” So begins today’s guest, Harvey Wasserman, in a recent piece, “’Safe’ Radiation is a Lethal Three Mile Island Lie,” and it occurred to me that it is hard to find a statement that is simultaneously so obvious and yet so controversial.
With the caveat there are beneficial, targeted therapeutic uses for radiation, we are a long, long way from the pre-atomic age idea of a life enhanced by the presence of increased background radioactivity. There are not a lot of people out there saying “I wish I had more radioactivity in my life.” Yet, as the number of sources and the amount of radiation has increased, advocates, scientists, and regulatory bodies have set about determining safe levels of exposure.
Mr. Wasserman says there is no such thing.
Those who pioneered the health physics profession—towering greats like Dr. Karl Z. Morgan and Dr. John Gofman—set a definitive, impenetrable standard. A safe dose of radiation does not exist. All doses, “insignificant” or otherwise, can harm the human organism.
That has been repeatedly shown in major studies—done most notably by Dr. Ernest Sternglass, Jay Gould, Joe Mangano, Arnie Gundersen, Dr. Steven Wing and others—showing that among human populations near commercial reactors, infant death rates plummet once the reactors shut down.
Three decades ago, Wasserman interviewed those in communities around Harrisburg, PA, ground zero, so to speak, of the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear disaster. In addition to stillbirths, his research found increased incidence of Leukemia, hair loss, birth defects, and complaints of open sores that wouldn’t heal and persistent metallic taste (a common side effect of exposure to elevated levels of Iodine). And what Harvey Wasserman found was regularly in contradiction to what federal and state authorities were saying about the lingering effects of TMI.
Twenty-five years ago today, April 26, 1986, saw the beginning of what has been considered the worst civilian nuclear accident in history. The explosion and fire at the Chernobyl reactor in the Ukrainian SSR (now Ukraine) sent a periodic table of radioactive isotopes high into the atmosphere. Eventually (though days too late), the government evacuated some 135,000 from the surrounding area. To this day, an 18-mile radius around the reactor is accepted as uninhabitable. A plume of radioactive fallout drifted over Europe, and measurable amounts of radioactive Iodine and Cesium were detected in the US.
While the most conservative of official counts attribute something on the order of 6,000 additional European cancer deaths to Chernobyl, Wasserman cites a compendium of research that places global deaths resulting from the disaster at something now approaching one million.
But in recent weeks, the remembrances of these two reactor disasters have been modified by the inclusion of the still-evolving crisis in Japan. The earthquake and tsunami that hit the Fukushima Daiichi complex triggered another level seven nuclear accident (the highest category–Chernobyl being the only other accident rated such). As Wasserman wrote late last month:
Fukushima’s radiation is pouring into the air and water. The operators have reported radiation levels a million times normal, then retracted the estimate. Workers are being exposed to doses that are certain to be lethal. At least three of the reactors, and one or more of the spent fuel pools, hover at the brink of catastrophe.
Fukushima’s radiation has now been detected in Los Angeles and Sacramento, and has blown east across North America. It has also been detected in Sweden, which means it’s blowing across Europe as well.
….
Fukushima’s worst may be yet to come. Its collective emissions are virtually certain to exceed Chernobyl’s.
Questions abound. How is this new fallout being measured? Is there a government or independent agency effectively measuring or honestly reporting the results? If there are no safe levels, how do we assess our latest exposure levels? Is there any behavior modification that would realistically help our day-to-day health, and is this even the proper way to address the problem?
Join me now as we try to answer these questions—and maybe many others—with Harvey Wasserman, who joins us in comments under the name “solartopia.”
Harvey Wasserman edits the www.nukefree.org website, which has created a real time archive of the Fukushima accident since it began. He is author of SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, posted at www.solartopia.org. He is a founder of the global grassroots movement against atomic energy, and helped coin the phrase “No Nukes” in 1973. With Bob Fitrakis, Harvey helped break the major stories surrounding the theft of the 2004 presidential election in Ohio, about which they have published five books. Harvey’s books about History, energy and the passing of his elderly parents appear at www.harveywasserman.com.
[As a courtesy to our guests, please keep comments to the book. Please take other conversations to a previous thread. Thanks—G.]



115 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Welcome, Mr. Wasserman. Thank you so much for joining us today.
great to be with you!
Harvey, you have been at this a long time now. Can you talk first a bit about what made you decide to become an anti-nuke activist?
today is the tragic anniversary of chernobyl, & we find ourselves in the midst of a truly horrifying catastrophe in japan. the death toll will be staggering, but it’s a dead certainty the nuclear industry will do all in its power to deny the full extent of the medical & ecological disaster. it’s no accident it took almost 25 years for a full report to be published, showing nearly a million deaths, & now the industry & establishment are doing all it can to discredit that very solid piece of work.
Good afternoon Harvey and welcome to FDL this afternoon. Good afternoon Gregg!
FWIW, I have no idea how much radiation I have absorbed over my lifetime. I had a lung disease when I was 7 years old and can recall receiving a lot of X-rays of my lungs. As far as I can remember, there weren’t all that many extra precautions then (late ’50s)
in response to your question above: i was living on a communal farm in western massachusetts in the early 1970s (the farm began in 1968) when the local utility company came into town & said they wanted to build at mega-nuke 4 miles from our house. at the time i was technically pro-nuke, having done a report on it in 9th grade. but the instant we saw the artist’s rendition of this monster imposed on a photo of the Montague Plains, we knew we would fight them. and win! and win we did!! the site is now a nature conservancy & the bulldozers never came!!
your x-ray experience was not unique. i worked in a shoe store where there was an x-ray device that showed your feet and what size we should wear. needless to say, we played with it a lot. but my does don’t (yet) glow in the dark.
Welcome Mr. Wasserman
What an amazing and heartening story. Do you think that fight would be harder or easier today?
woops…i meant TOES in the previous comment. but as you know, since the 1980s there has been agreement in the medical profession that pregnant women should not be xrayed. dr. alice stewart did the definitive study in the 1950s linking childhood leukemia to xray of pregnant mothers-to-be. the medical profession viciously attacked her & denied the findings for 50 years before finally acknowledging the reality that there is no safe dose for an embryo and fetus. but the deniers of the impacts of chernobyl, tmi & fukushima would still have us believe otherwise.
As a technical note, there’s a “reply” button in the lower right hand of each comment. Pressing the “reply” will pre-fill the commenter name and comment number being replied to and makes it easier for others to follow the conversation.
Note, some browsers don’t like to let the Reply function correctly if it is pressed after a page refresh but before the page has completed loading.
Hi Mr. Wasserman! Thanks for coming by!
Can you talk about the difference between ionizing radiation, like from a gamma ray source and say, radiation that you might encounter from an x-ray machine?
It seems to me that there is some difference based on energy of the particle is that true?
our fight in montague would today be easier. few people knew much back then, so we had a major uphill educational battle. what finally won it for us was the bad economics of the project. there were near-riots in PUC meetings in connecticut where ratepayers were going to get stiffed for this ridiculous thing. so the utility backed off. today they would be able to set foot in the area, which has been very well educated. in fact, wmass is a hotbed for folks trying to shut vt. yankee, which i think we’ll soon get done.
Harvey, have you taken into account the dangers of alternative sources of energy?
Indeed, there are plenty out there who will dispute even your most basic points (some will note that x-rays of pregnant women are not “banned,” just not recommended if there is no pressing need). Are they all somehow tied to a part of the nuclear industry? What other reasons might they have for protecting and promulgating the ideao f “safe radiation?”
bill—good article on chernobyl. thanks! there’s a tremendous range of difference in various forms of radiation, which is why it’s ridiculous to compare a “dose of radiation” from a nuclear plant with one from, say, an airplane flight. the air travel has to do with rays, whereas the fallout from nukes can be both rays & particulate matter. if the particulate matter—an alpha emitter or a beta emitter—enters the body, a whole new world of biological damage opens up that far transcends what comes with air travel or medical xrays.
Okay, so if I have it straight, a lower level type of radiation, say and X-Ray, is less damaging because it passes through and is one time (assuming one picture) where as a particle of plutonium is worse (I know it is toxic as well as radioactive) because it stays with the body and continues to emit. Is that correct?
Given the difference, should there be a different standard? Even for things that are less harmful than plutonium?
And thanks on the article.
gregg—what we’re seeing now is a highly organized campaign to downplay the health impacts of all these nuke disasters. the biggest lie yet is that “no one was killed at TMI”. i went into central pennsylvania & interviewed dozens of people who had lost loved ones or were dying themselves. cancer, leukemia, birth defects, stillbirths, hair loss, a metallic taste, glaucoma, emphysema, you name it. these people were denied a federal trial because the judge said not enough radiation escaped tmi to do any harm. but in fact no one knows to this day how much escaped, where it landed & who it harmed. it was a horrible lied, now being repeated at chernobyl & fukushima for purely corporate/economic reasons.
Hello, sir, and thanks for the work you’re doing.
My question is: Can you give, or does anyone have any idea about, some figures detailing how much background radiation has increased since the “Dawn of the Atomic Age” – and how much it increased after the major nuclear disasters?
there’s no way of knowing which is worse because it depends on the dose, where it hits, the age and biological strength of the victim, etc. radiation is a very complex killing agent. a dose of xray could destroy an embryo or fetus while a particle emitter may not cross the placenta. so when these apologists use the term “safe dose of radiation” they don’t know what they’re talking about.
I have an 80-year-old friend who lives in Tokyo and is in the process of dying from pancreatic cancer. To what extent will radiation from Fukushima speed her demise?
And, indeed, the economics of nuclear energy are still terrible. Without gov’t underwriting, tax breaks, and the feds assuming the burden of long term spent fuel relocation, I find it hard to imagine a single private plant surviving the decade. Yet, when an opportunity to back away like Fukushima presented itself, the US government instead used the moment to reassure the nuclear industry of a bigger role in the future.
Good point. It’s the difference between radiation and radioactivity. Light and radio waves are radiation. And your point about radioactive particulate matter is spot on, and that’s why coal fired power plants are so deadly– they spew radioactive particles into the air which settle in people’s lungs and cause cancer.
good question. the official measurement of “background radiation” has been climbing steadily since Hiroshima. it will clearly jump again after fukushima. the presumption among industry apologists will then be that this higher dose is ok because it’s “background”. but essentially we’re irradiating ourselves along the with the planet, and at some point a tipping point will be reached, if it hasn’t already.
the cockroaches will be just fine, however.
it’s hard to make a definitive statement about your friend with pancreatic cancer, but the doses from fukushima are substantial, and can’t be good. many many people will die there from this. the workers at the plant are essentially dead men walking.
Is there any epidemiological evidence for an increase in these areas around the TMI site? All the things that you cite in your comment are things that do happen to people.
We know for instance that there is a 400% increase in thyroid cancer around Chernobyl but we know that because it is a really rare cancer normally. Is there an increased instance of other cancers in PA?
So, with so many arrayed to downplay or disavow the dangers of Fukushima’s fallout, where can a lay citizen turn for dependable information about current risks?
coal fired plants are horrendous & do emit significant quantities of radium (which killed madame curie) along with much else. it’s ironic that the industry has jumped on this as an excuse to build more nukes. we do not accept a choice between coal and nukes. in SOLARTOPIA we talk about KING CONG (coal, oil, nukes & gas) as the beast that must be slain. the choice is between fossil/nukes versus solartopia, or all the good green-powered energy sources we now know work so well & are so much cheaper, cleaner, safer, quicker to install, more reliable than King CONG in all its deathliness.
Could you tell us whether the particles of radioactivity escaping from Fukushima today, or from Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, are single atoms or small clumps of atoms? Is that a relevant consideration? Does it make a difference in the uptake of the radioactive particles by plants or animals?
Can you quantify that at all, please (even as a guesstimate?) Is it 10% higher now? Much more? Considerably less? Thanks.
the work of steven wing, a prof. of epidemiology at north carolina, shows clearly the impacts. actually the numbers provided by maureen hatch’s study for columbia, whose text denied the likelihood of impacts, clearly show there were serious problems.
i think it’s pretty tough at this point to state with any real precision what’s being spewed from fukushima, but none of it is pretty. the industry will now pour in to say it’s not significant & won’t harm anybody. and they’ll do a great job of not doing any studies. but it’s not our job to prove these plants dangerous, it’s there’s to prove them safe. FIRST DO NO HARM!!!
How do you feel about fusion as an alternative energy source?
i’m not immediately conversant in the numbers surrounding the rise of official background radiation levels. it’s also true that the japanese are now raising the “acceptable” levels of radiation exposure for children there. see http://www.nirs.org for more detail on that.
I had no idea that green-powered energy was cheaper. In fact I always thought the cost was what was keeping us from developing those energy sources. I suppose you mean they’ll be cheaper after the initial investment required to build the plants to harness the energy?
with fusion it seems that every ten years they’re another 20 years away from taming it. cold fusion looked promising but doesn’t seem to be materializing just yet. i’d say we should stick with what we know will work, ie the solartopian technologies of solar, wind, tidal, geothermal (from non-food sources) ocean thermal, wave, increased efficiency & conservation….
I am glad you brought up Prof. Wing. WIng has brought up one of the stickiest issues for me right now. I have been trying to map out a strategy to minimize personal risk from increased radioactive fallout hitting the food chain, but Wing says there is no viable way to modify behavior to minimize risk from this disaster. He thinks it is misspent attention, and that we all should expend our energy in shutting down nuclear power.
What’s your take?
I heard an interesting concern with chernobyl is a big forrest fire. Now that lot of the radioactive particles have been “locked up” in the trees as they grow there is a potential for a lot to release into the air at once again due to a big fire.
actually, solar is cheaper now. solar water heating has ALWAYS been cheaper because heating water is VERY energy intensive & the solar methods for doing it are very simple. but the tipping point has also been reached with photovolatic cells, & we’re also very close with wind. utilities etc. hate renewables because they can be controlled by communiities & individuals, thereby putting them out of biz.
i agree with dr. wing on the inability of escaping radioactive fallout. i suppose there are a few precautionary measures to take. but they are marginal at best. the only way to protect ourselves is to shut all the reactors.
yes, forest fires are a big problem around chernobyl because so much radiation has been absorbed by the foliage, and is then release when it burns.
to check on the economics of renewables versus nukes go to http://www.rmi.org. amory lovins is the great guru on efficiency & green power & his work is extremely reliable.
And it is also good to take into account the total lifetime cost of an energy source. Long-term storage of spent fuel is not usually part of calculating the cost of nuclear, nor are the costs to our health system from uranium or coal mining.
for those of you who are interested we have posted a real-time chronology of major articles on fukushima dating back to march 11. it’s at http://www.nukefree.org. a friend called me at 2am that morning & it’s been 24/7 since.
Mr. Wasserman I am a concentrated solar power advocate. Whats you take on that? It seems to me we should be investing more in a technology than is “off the shelf” so to speak that photovoltaic if for no other reason CSP can generate power at night from stored heat in the form of molten salt.
Harvey, For what it’s worth, I wrote an anti-nuclear diary about a month ago.
For me, the waste disposal issue is right there with the ‘background’ radiation and such as well. We’re talking materials that will be toxic to humans for multiple times longer than we have a recorded human history.
It makes no sense to me.
gregg—the “hidden ancillary costs” of both fossil fuels & nuclear power should disqualify them from any sane choice on our energy future. with coal we have global warming, particulate matter and radiation, as well as serious mining and waste problems. with nukes have all the above, plus concerns about terrorism, melt-downs, explosions (which the industry said were impossible) and so much more. a true financial accounting would have shut both industries long ago!!!
Thanks for the link! I grew up in Colorado and I’m familiar with Amory Lovins.
I believe that the economics will eventually kill off the nuclear power industry, but with our govt rushing in to prop them up at every turn, that could take a very very long time. . . and that says nothing about what we do with the decommissioned reactors and spent fuel afterwards.
I definitely want to address best practices for organizing against nuclear power, but before I go there, you have interviewed so many who have suffered from fallout related illness, is there anything behavioral you would do today in light of Fukushima?
i like concentrated solar though there can be the usual unforeseen eco-impacts. to me the great future is in solar panels, shingles etc. that can be installed on individual buildings, including homes, offices, parking lots, etc. this has the advantage of eliminated transmission losses & grid expenditures. it also puts the utilities out of biz, which is why it’s so hard to get them.
That’s occurred to me. It’s difficult to imagine the level of heroism that would make someone do something like that. In an age where the word “hero” has been cheapened beyond recognition, these workers are the real thing.
Well, there’s a whole other story about how your particular villains deliberately herded fusion research into one particular money-sucking dead end, but that’s not my point.
Not to be too dramatic but we’ve already careened over a cliff and billions will die even if we were to go total alt energy… which our owners won’t allow.
So my question is this: what would be your reaction if someone were to present a working fusion alternative?
And I’ll load a follow-up: what if the fusion solution was one that could be ramped up faster and cheaper than the other alternatives you mention and thus could save many lives that would be otherwise be lost in the oncoming environmental and socioeconomic catastrophes?
amory lovins is great, & nobody knows the renewable cost calculations better than he does.
the workers at fukushima are making the ultimate sacrifice. the tragedy is they will never be fully compensated given the nature of how corporations work. think of the shabby treatment being given the 9/11 first responders.
so far i haven’t heard much that’s encouraging about a fusion reaction on this planet. of course we love the one 93m miles away.
in response to fuku, the govt should have established a reliable real-time national radiation monitoring system, with a real-time map for the internet showing what’s been coming down & where. it should also issue reliable information on what steps people can take. for example, avoiding milk or certain vegetables. but obama didn’t want to do this because it might reflect badly on the nuke power industry that support him.
ABOVE ALL we need to now defeat the $36 billion in loan guarantees proposed for new nukes in the 2012 budget. if we can stop that, we can make a huge difference, & maybe even save ourselves.
Hi Harvey and welcome,
Today a group of us did held a demonstration in downtown Austin outside the offices of NRG Energy to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of Chernobyl. There was a simultaneous demonstration in Houston, where NRG decided to hold its annual shareholder meeting today. What a date for them to pick! NRG has decided not to spend more money on adding two new nuclear reactors to the two we already have in South Texas. The exception is that they’re giving their partner Toshiba $20 million to continue to pursue the licenses, which they could then sell. They are also still seeking loan guarantees. And they want to relicense now the two plants whose licenses will expire in 2027 and 2028. The design of those two reactors wasn’t meant for more than the 40 years they will have operated by then.
My question is what advice can you give us to stop these efforts of NRG in the face of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (yet another captured agency) going full speed ahead with licensing and relicensing and also Obama (yet another captured entity) coming out a couple of days after the catastrophe at Fukushima started saying the U.S. government is going full speed ahead with nuclear?
the economics SHOULD kill nuke power, but won’t if the industry succeeds in getting billions of our taxpayer money. to that end they’ve spent more than $645m in the past decade.
now they have this $36b loan guarantee package in the 2012 budget. we MUST kill that.
we need to pour on the pressure in congress & the public against these loan guarantees. calling senators/reps not once, but EVERY DAY until they’re gone is what’s needed. public opinion has again shifted to our side & we need to push every lever to get this obscene technology buried asap.
good work in texas, by the way. note that the south texas nukes are on the gulf, & could easily “finish the job” of killing it that was started by BP a year ago.
On defeating the loan guarantees–absolutely. It is a real, necessary and immediate task. Are there coordinated efforts to do this? (I believe Greenpeace has a petition–what is the status of that?) Is there more that could be done. Who in the House and Senate would you target as allies & as vulnerable enemies?
This article distorts scientific terminology. There is “no safe dose” or radiation, because there is no way to prove a negative. Similarly, there is no safe dose for water, since everyone who drinks water eventually dies.
The more appropriate approach is to say that there has been no demonstration of harm for low doses of radiation. Everyone is continually being irradiated by the natural background – from solar radiation, cosmic rays and naturally occurring radioisotopes in the earth. These doses vary by altitude and local geology. There are, as far as I know, any studies comparing Denver (which receives higher doses of cosmic rays) and cities at sea level showing higher incidence of cancer or other diseases. Similarly, New England gets higher doses from its radioactive granite bedrock than does, say Louisiana. No demonstrable differences there either.
The response to radioactivity and radiation is more phobic than fact-based. The furor over radon is typical. When conservationists encouraged us to better insulate our homes to save energy, the air was replaced less frequently. As a result, natural radon gas concentrations increased. This led to the development of an entire industry based on fear of radioactivity. Remember, however, that our ancient ancestors lived in caves with virtually no air circulation, yet there is no evidence that their cancer rates were higher.
While there is no disputing the harm caused by significant radiation levels, the furor over low doses is out of proportion. We should respond appropriately and not be driven by non-factual panic.
errrrr……The question was:
You are presented with a working and economical fusion power plant… what would be your reaction?
I’m not pushing any particular solution. There several possible alternatives being worked on despite the roadblocks on research and investment capital.
What would be your reaction to a working fusion power plant?
overall it’s critical to understand that the no nukes movement has had a HUGE impact. rnixon said there’d be 1000 nukes by the year 2000, but we have 104. too many, but we can take much credit for those 894 that went missing. sometimes we don’t know exactly how or when we win, but we do.
in the long run, i’ll be on the survival instinct over the profit motive. but we have to do the work. just keep in mind that we have been winning all along.
when people ask me “WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NO NUKES MOVEMENT” i say WE WON!!!. now the industry is making a desperate leap from the grave, but i think we can stop them here. what worries me above all is china.
Thank you for being here today, Harvey and thanks to Gregg for hosting.
New and devestating news for Japan.
How many of the nuclear plants in the U.S. have similar defects in backup systems?
Has anyone seen Dr. Helen Caldicott’s YouTube?
She makes a good case of why we should never trust nuclear power.
defeating the loan guarantees is a tough job, but the path is generally known.
we need to focus constantly on the economics of it. the tea party should be with on this, & some of them are. it’s yet another govt handout to an industry that has had a half-century to stand on its own 2 feet, & can’t.
so we need to form our alliance & CONSTANTLY call senators & reps and make sure they join us in killing this ridiculous handout.
remember, this industry still can’t get significant private liability insurance, or deal with its waste problem, or compete in the market, or guarantee its safety, or show that it can help (rather than hurt) with global warming.
so the arguments are all on our side. the money is not, but that’s changing somewhat. the point is…do what feels most comfortable to you.
natural allies include sen. sanders, rep. kucinich & many more. but the “budget hawks” should logically be on our side & we need to keep hitting on that reality.
fusion does still emit tritium & i think a practical application is so far away that a serious discussion is moot. i don’t include it in a solartopian vision of what we need to survive economically & ecologically as well as biologically.
helen caldicott is really great, & what she says is very important. i definitely recommend her YouTube, website & writings in general.
thank you, we were adorable in our painter supply “hazmat” suits. two tv stations came to film and interview us. yes, the two existing nukes are 10 miles in from the coast. 100 miles from houston and 140 miles from austin. right on the colorado river, using about 50% of the flow of the river. in our intense drought, they’re using a backyard swimming pool’s worth of water every minute. did i mention we’re in a drought and seeing wildfires all over the state?
thanks for your idea of calling and calling and calling our senators and representatives to get the loan guarantees out of the budget. i hope all the firepups do that.
i understand rep markey of massachusetts is putting forth a bill calling for a moratorium on nuclear as well.
there’s not a single us reactor than can be trusted. we have about 2 dozen that are virtually identical to fukushima 1. we have many that are on or near earthquake faults. we have at least 4 (in CA) that are in tsunami zones. the lesson of fuku is that these are enormously complex & fragile machines—ALL OF THEM—and they all must shut down asap if we are to survive on this planet.
markey has also been very good on nukes. he represents the district in MA that’s closest to seabrook, over the border in NH. he’s smart & tough & knows the issue. he helped us defeat loan guarantees in 2007 & since, & should be aggressively on our side this time too.
obama has been absolutely terrible on this issue.
the enviro movement has been unified in its opposition to loan guarantees for new nukes. no major green organization supports them.
Mr. Wasserman, thanks for the information.
Do you have any comment on Dan Nocera (MIT professor) and his work with cobalt and nickel catalysts to split water into hydrogen and oxygen with solar power and then use the energy of recombining hydrogen and oxygen in a fuel cell to power our houses during the night?
Also, any comment about the interest of our former CIA directors in green technology?
Woolsey and Tenet at Gridpoint
http://www.gridpoint.com/board-of-advisors.aspx
and John Deutch at Sun Catalytix
http://www.suncatalytix.com/team.html
yes, the zombies being fed by taxpayer funded loan guarantees and a nuclear regulatory commission acting as the lobbying arm of the nuclear industry.
the news from fuku continues to be terrible. melt-downs still a possibility. apparent spent fuel fires. massive leaks into the oceans continuing. likely breaches in containment & pressure vessels. workers being continually exposed. reliable long-term cooling mechanisms very hard to reconstruct. in short, a disaster still in the making.
what’s really terrifying is what could happen next!!!! every reactor in the world—more than 440 now—is vulnerable to some kind of disaster. and clearly nobody is prepared to handle them.
{ Welcome, everyone! }
Blog it, greenwarrior! Hope you got photos and pictures.
Harvey, how does architecture need to change for Solartopia?
I just tweeted:
@pbj06
No socialist nukes! Call your Rep., Sens.: oppose $36bn in taxpayer loan guarantees to nuclear industry in 2012 budget!
it’s interesting how so many former govt operatives are finding their way into the world of renewables. i don’t think storage will be a long-term barrier to the solartopian transition. there are numerous alternatives out there & any number of them could take hold.
what will NOT happen, after 50 years, is an economic solution to the waste, safety, ecological, security or economic problems of nuke power. it is a dead end technology. we just have to kill it yet again.
actually, they are NATIONAL socialist nukes.
it’s hilarious how all these “free market” types love the french nuclear industry, which is a national socialist operation.
Unfortunately, Pres. Obama owes a sizable chunk of his campaign kitty to nuclear power. Exelon alone donated something like a quarter million dollars in 08. And the campaign is taking a big-donor, post-citizens united strategy to the trail in 2012, so I am not expecting a big change of heart from Obama any time soon.
Targeted radioactive seeding can be enormously beneficial in treating some tumors as you pointed out. One thing you don’t mention though are the benefits of irradiating food to prevent spoilage for people with no access to refrigeration. I have to say though that defense derived reactors such as those in use at Fukushima, (not to mention Three Mile Island and Chernobyl), have been pretty thoroughly proven to be unreliable, dirty, hard to maintain and even harder to safely dispose of. Fusion reactors are still a long way off unless somebody finds an abundant source of Helium-3. Have there been any serious efforts to explore safer fission reactor designs like pebble bed reactors for example?
Thank you for being here and taking our questions.
Have just called my Rep. and 1 Sen. (actually I’m not on Twitter now, but am still speaking twitterspeak), one Senator to go.
I just came up (or think I did; it’s probably been around for a while) with a good slogan:
No nukes is good nukes.
Not personally, but a buddy was videoing us. I’ll see what I can get of it and the photos that were taken. 3 of us were also on the radio on Friday for an hour talking about the issue and there should be a CD available of that as well.
On edit: this was for mzchief.
Great. Thanks to them that tweets!
Some forms of fusion do use tritium but it’s burned as a fuel. The tokamak-based ones such as ITER, fpr example… the current official dead end.
But not all forms of fusion involve tritium or any other radioactive fuel. Indeed, a few intend to operate via aneutronic fusion of boron.
The average fusion startup, if they succeed, expects results in 3-10 years depending on the particular method used.
That could get survival power to people far faster than the other alternatives you favor.
So the question we’ve been dancing around: given a working fusion alternative… will you fight fusion the way you feel you must fight fission?
it is not the reponsibility of the opposition to prove radiation dangerous. it’s the duty of your industry to prove these emissions are safe.
the ban on xray of children is key. the comparisons of radiation in various areas are spurious because of the widely varying nature of the exposures that are imposed.
where are your detailed epidemiological studies of the people around TMI & chernobyl that show no health effects?
And, of course, they also don’t have a solution to their nuclear highly radioactive waste that must be stored for thousands and thousands of years.
He’s been absolutely radioactive on this issue.
duke power is also ponying up $10m for the national dem. convention in 2012
Bring it all on by (radio program link too)!
For “that” to happen, Harvey, the shutting down of nuclear power, one very important thing first must occur, human beings, by a vast and insistent majority must come to understand AND insist that life, the possibility and opportunity of it, is THE most important reality on THIS planet.
Frankly, “looking forwardy”, as we, as a nation AND as a society, will not look back nor honestly examine our present dilemma (which is quite grim) it appears that only unmitigated and widely shared disaster will suffice, as reason, understanding, and humanity are all considered to be easily manipulated and expendable.
Like the question of organized mayhem, some call it “war”, a true understanding only occurs when it comes “home” and is felt in its crushing immensity and horrifying consequence.
As long as the majority of Americans believe themselves “comfortable” and “safe” from the “consequences” we readily unleash upon others, the process will be slow, but steady, one heart, one mind at a time.
I thank for your constant and articulate effort toward such understanding.
DW
Oh come on! That’s not even analogous. Because everybody dies of something isn’t evidence that low doses of radiation are safe. As for background radiation: that’s not always safe either. If there was a gamma ray burst within a few thousand light years of us, we wouldn’t be around for me to say “I told ya so”.
no dancing here. i do NOT support further work on large-scale fusion. i don’t think it’s appropriate or necessary for the planet. there’s no way around some radioactive waste, & i’m not comfortable with starting another nuclear fire on our fragile planet. let’s use what Mother Nature sends us!!
Helen Caldicott’s latest book is fabulous for understanding just how dirty nuclear power is: Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer.
thanks, DW. i think, all things considered, we’ve done ok. the initial promises of nuke power were transcendent. it’s a lot to give up.
the 8 green steps to solartopia include the abolition of waste & war; the winning of social justice & true democracy; the remaking of the corporation & the empowerment of women. there can be no pure techo solution without a political/cultural shift of epic proportions. but we have no choice, & i believe our species is capable of doing it!!!
Harvey, there’s a concern I have about nuclear power that no one seems to talk about. I’m thinking that one of the reasons the U.S. government is so dead set on nuclear is as a cover for nuclear weapons manufacture. If I understand correctly, plutonium is a by product of nuclear reactor fission and plutonium is used in nuclear weapons. Is this a concern of yours as well?
Harvey, you have ben extremely generous with your time, and I want to thank you for joining us here at FDL today.
Since you have an account–solartopia–you are of course welcome to post diaries at MyFDL and comment wherever and whenever you like. I look forward to checking in with you again regarding the fallout from the fallout, as well as the effort to kill of the government guarantees.
Thanks to everyone for making this a great chat. We hope to have more soon on this topic, so don’t forget to check in with Radiation Nation for coming events.
Solar power is fusion!
Our species HAS no other honest task, Harvey, else we trundle off to extinction – sooner rather than later.
It is narratives such as those you share, which shall make the crucial difference.
Namaste
DW
the vision of a green-powered earth is compelling & real. the technological capability is now with us. the biological imperative is unavoidable.
but the only way we get there is by stopping nuke power, & more particularly these loan guarantees.
it’s do-able, NOW, so let’s get it done,.
if you want to hear pete seeger & dana lyons singing about it, come to http://www.solartopia.org. they are great.
no nukes/4 solartopia!!!
yes, weapons production is always a factor when discussing nuke power. there is ultimately no separation in the killing power of these deadly siblings.
gregg…
thanks so much! you’ve been a great host. this is a great website.
folks can come see us at http://www.nukefree.org for all the latest on nuke power.
at http://www.solartopia.org for the vision of a greenpowered earth.
& at http://www.harveywasserman.com for my other books.
keep the faith!!! see you again soon! no nukes/4 solartopia….harveyw
thank you, harvey, for playing with us today and thank you, gregg, for hosting.
Gregg, your post are always to the heart and the soul.
I thank you, from mine.
Namaste.
DW
I like the idea of green power and sustainability but I don’t think we should abandon research like fusion just because it has the word “nuclear” in it. Deuterium/tritium burning reactors produce some radioactive waste while helium-3 produces very few neutrons. I accept that fission is probably too dirty to keep. I like solar power too but I guess I don’t look at energy production as a zero sum game. It doesn’t have to be, (nor has it ever been), an “either/or” thing. Technology isn’t evil, only the people who sometimes exploit it.
Thank you, I appreciate your answer.
errrr… not quite.
For tokamaks, there is vastly less waste and the waste is less intense and shorter lived than anything fission-based. But toks are currently a dead end… even though most people think only of them when they think of fusion power.
Other forms of fusion plants would actually burn existing nuclear waste as part of the reaction and thus reduce the amount of overall waste.
Aneutronic fusion plants, if successful would produce no waste. Period. And their power could still be used to eliminate existing waste cheaply.
And our lords and masters have insured that no fusion startup will get loan guarantees so that’s not an issue.
As an aside we went solar in late 09 with a 10.8 Kw roof top system we have generated 29,023.33 kWh since then…more than enough to run everything in the house during the day and still turn the meter backwards..
NPR had on some clown this morning, spouting off about how no one really understands the physical ill-effects of radiation, and touting how it really isn’t as bad as all that…blah, blah, blah… I immediately shared with my partner that I had read something about an NPR broadcaster having recently said that when off the job, she listens to Glenn Beck and Rush.
When will NPR ever recover from the GOPullution of the airwaves caused by Tomlinson, during the Bush hayday?!
No it doesn’t, and have I stopped beating my wife?
Does the auto industry have to prove it is safe? The coal industry? These kill thousands annually and are generally accepted by society.
Low levels of radiation, on the order of natural background radiation, have not been shown to have any deleterious effect on humans. That is the best that a scientist can say. (An activist is not bound by the logic of the scientific method or by facts.) The best estimate of fatalities, short and long term, caused at TMI is zero. Chernobyl is another story; and involved significantly higher radiation levels.
BTW, I am not in the nuclear industry, although I did work briefly for the naval nuclear program in the lats ’70s. I do, however, have a Ph.D. in nuclear physics. Of course, in today’s environment, having detailed knowledge of a subject makes you “biased,” since opinions are more valuable.
This is one of my favorites;
There’s no evidence that their cancer rates were lower either, in fact I’d wager there’s no evidence concerning their cancer rates at all.
Takes all kinds…
Margaret,
Please see my answer to solartopia above [110].
It is impossible to prove something is completely safe even water. All we can say is that studies of exposure to low-level radiation have produced no evidence that they cause harm.
You do raise a good point. Solar flares and gamma burst in cosmic rays do increase exposures and there is nothing to be done about them. We need to weigh the total costs of nuclear against the alternatives in a scientific (rather than emotional) manner. All technologies have risks and negative effects, including geothermal (possible increases in seismic activity) and large-scale solar (changes in microclimates.)
You are correct, there is no evidence, but the levels must have been many times higher than our current “maximum exposure.” (BTW, the comment was intended to be ironic.)
On a serious note, their cancer rates were probably zero, since their life expectancy was so low. Cancer can be considered a side effect of the elimination of other major diseases. The primary cause (other than smoking) of increased cancer rates is that we are living long enough for cancer to kill us.
I’m not one for utopian thinking, solar or otherwise, but the Fukushima disaster illustrates one great drawback to such thinking… when one speaks of nuclear waste one is not speaking of some abstract that will magically go away if we all “go solar.”
Nuclear waste is, among other things, the many thousands of tons of spent fuel assemblies scattered across the world… including those in the pools at Fukushima.
That’s what nuclear waste is… a hundred thousand Chernobyls waiting for a coolant failure.
And the alternative sources in a no-fusion future don’t even have the power to save the lives that fusion could save… much less the power to safely dispose of the waste.
If you let the oligarchs define fusion for you as tritium-fueled tokamaks that are always 50 years away then you will be helping them cut all our throats. It will be little consolation that they’ll die with us.
Remember… their collective state of mind is quite psychopathic by definition and they don’t think much beyond perpetuating their own power.
I know this is over, and I know this is not keeping on topic of the book, but I feel this information needs to be shared. Sent from a friend in LA:
A Nuclear Incident “Worse Than Three Mile Island”
livingonearth.org