As a first grader in 1956, a routine classroom drill was “duck and cover,” i.e. how to respond to a nuclear apocalypse. Hiding under our desks to protect us from deadly radiation was obviously worthless and irrational. But “irrational” has been the constant companion of the nuclear industry since our government sprinkled Utahns with radioactive fallout nearly 1,000 times. And it still is, despite the latest cheerleading from nuclear lobbyists and Utah politicians.
Nuclear reactors were originally developed by the military to create plutonium for nuclear weapons. When the American public began questioning the sanity of nuclear weapons or “nuclear” anything, the Eisenhower Administration launched a PR campaign, “Atoms for Peace,” to soften public opposition toward “mutually assured destruction.” That’s when the idea emerged that nuclear reactors could generate electricity, “too cheap to meter.” Nuclear power was born as an afterthought of manufacturing nuclear weapons. It should remain an afterthought.
There are numerous reasons to oppose nuclear power, and they are the same ones that have existed for decades. Nuclear power is essentially one of the government’s biggest proverbial welfare queens. It’s the most expensive and dangerous way ever devised to boil water — over three times more expensive than renewables.
John Rowe, former CEO of Exelon, America’s largest owner of nuclear plants, said, “I’ve never met a nuclear plant I didn’t like ... (but) it just isn’t economic, and it’s not economic within a foreseeable time frame.” Claims that small modular reactors (SMRs), nuclear reactors in a shiny new mini box, will change the cost equation have been made for 15 years and are still disputed by numerous nuclear experts.
Those experts say SMRs will be even more expensive than large reactors per kilowatt of electricity produced. Initial capital and materials costs, secondary containment, control systems, instrumentation, and emergency management all increase as reactor size decreases. Uranium resource requirements and hence fuel costs and radioactive waste are expected to be higher than large reactors, and they would carry increased risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.
SMRs will not be safer. In fact, in scavenging for cost savings, the industry is proposing eliminating numerous standard safety features. Water consumption will still be intense, about the same as a coal-fired power plant and almost the same as large nuclear reactors, per kilowatt of electricity.
But the biggest reason for pouring cold water on this recurring nuclear fantasy is this simple scientific fact. There is no safe level of radiation exposure. Period. Radiation damage is cumulative — each successive dose builds upon the cellular damage and disease potential of previous exposures. Any exposure to radiation increases the risk of damage to key biologic infrastructure — tissues, cells, DNA, mitochondrial DNA and other essential subcellular structures — with the capability of causing genetic mutations, cancer, leukemia, birth defects, impaired brain development and reproductive, cardiovascular, endocrine and immune system disorders. Across all age groups, the most rapidly dividing cells are those most at risk for damage. Fetuses, infants, children and women are particularly vulnerable.
When millions of people are exposed to even slight increased risk, thousands of new victims are created. Radiation is released and public health is harmed by every phase of the nuclear fuel cycle, from mining uranium to radon-emitting mill tailings to routine operation of a nuclear plant to management of the waste and eventually to the decommissioning of the plant. Water vapor vented from the plant and the cooling water discharged to nearby water bodies contaminate air, water, soil and the food chain. Even without nuclear accidents, we are exposed in numerous ways that are being ignored by nuclear lobbyists.
Worldwide, people living near nuclear plants have increased rates of cancer and other diseases. For example, in Massachusetts there is an increased risk of cancer inversely proportional to the distance of a residence from a nuclear power plant. At 2 kilometers away, the increased risk varied from 52% to 253% depending on the sex and age of the residents. So when Utah Gov. Spencer Cox says he wants a nuclear power plant in Brigham City, maybe the residents should have a say about increasing their cancer risk.
Dr. John Gofman, an original Manhattan Project physicist who became one of the nation’s top cardiovascular researchers and arguably the nation’s most qualified person on the risks of nuclear power, said, “Each added amount of radiation causes damage to the health of human beings all over the world … The entire nuclear power program was based on a fraud — namely that there was a ‘safe’ amount of radiation, a permissible dose that wouldn’t hurt anybody.”
It’s still a fraud, even in fun size.
Ducking and covering won’t save us from the poor choices of our politicians. Instead, call them up and tell them what you think about more unnecessary, self-inflicted radiation exposure, making us victims once again of the nuclear industry.