Nuclear Power Madness
Like every other president since the 1940s, Barack Obama has promoted nuclear power. Now, with reactors melting down in Japan, the official stance is more disconnected from reality than ever.
Political elites are still clinging to the oxymoron of “safe nuclear power.” It’s up to us -- people around the world -- to peacefully and insistently shut those plants down.
There is no more techno-advanced country in the world than Japan. Nuclear power is not safe there, and it is not safe anywhere.
As the New York Times reported on Monday, “most of the nuclear plants in the United States share some or all of the risk factors that played a role at Fukushima Daiichi: locations on tsunami-prone coastlines or near earthquake faults, aging plants and backup electrical systems that rely on diesel generators and batteries that could fail in extreme circumstances.”
Nuclear power -- from uranium mining to fuel fabrication to reactor operations to nuclear waste that will remain deadly for hundreds of thousands of years -- is, in fact, a moral crime against future generations.
But syrupy rhetoric has always marinated the nuclear age. From the outset -- even as radioactive ashes were still hot in Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- top officials in Washington touted atomic energy as redemptive. The split atom, we were to believe, could be an elevating marvel.
President Dwight Eisenhower pledged “to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma” by showing that “the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life.”
Even after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 -- and now this catastrophe in Japan -- the corporate theologians of nuclear faith have continued to bless their own divine projects.
Thirty years ago, when I coordinated the National Citizens Hearings for Radiation Victims on the edge of Capitol Hill, we heard grim testimony from nuclear scientists, workers, downwinders and many others whose lives had been forever ravaged by the split atom. Routine in the process was tag-team deception from government agencies and nuclear-invested companies.
By 1980, generations had already suffered a vast array of terrible consequences -- including cancer, leukemia and genetic injuries -- from a nuclear fuel cycle shared by the “peaceful” and military atom. Today, we know a lot more about the abrupt and slow-moving horrors of the nuclear industry.
And we keep learning, by the minute, as nuclear catastrophe goes exponential in Japan. But government leaders don’t seem to be learning much of anything.
On Sunday, even while nuclear-power reactors were melting down, the White House issued this statement: “The president believes that meeting our energy needs means relying on a diverse set of energy sources that includes renewables like wind and solar, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear power. Information is still coming in about the events unfolding in Japan, but the administration is committed to learning from them and ensuring that nuclear energy is produced safely and responsibly here in the U.S.”
Yet another reflexive nuclear salute.
When this year’s State of the Union address proclaimed a goal of “clean energy sources” for 80 percent of U.S. electricity by 2035, Obama added: “Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all -- and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.”
Bipartisan for nuclear power? You betcha. On Sunday morning TV shows, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell voiced support for nuclear power, while Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer offered this convoluted ode to atomic flackery: “We are going to have to see what happens here -- obviously still things are happening -- but the bottom line is we do have to free ourselves of independence from foreign oil in the other half of the globe. Libya showed that. Prices are up, our economy is being hurt by it, or could be hurt by it. So I'm still willing to look at nuclear. As I’ve always said it has to be done safely and carefully.”
Such behavior might just seem absurd or pathetic -- if the consequences weren’t so grave.
Nuclear power madness is so entrenched that mainline pundits and top elected officials rarely murmur dissent. Acquiescence is equated with prudent sagacity.
In early 2010, President Obama announced federal loan guarantees -- totaling more than $8 billion -- to revive the construction of nuclear power plants in this country, where 110 nuclear-power reactors are already in operation.
“Investing in nuclear energy remains a necessary step,” he said. “What I hope is that, with this announcement, we’re underscoring both our seriousness in meeting the energy challenge and our willingness to look at this challenge, not as a partisan issue, but as a matter that’s far more important than politics because the choices we make will affect not just the next generation but many generations to come.”
Promising to push for bigger loan guarantees to build more nuclear power plants, the president said: “This is only the beginning.”
_______________________________________
Norman Solomon is president of the Institute for Public Accuracy and a senior fellow at RootsAction. His books include “Killing Our Own: The Disaster of America’s Experience with Atomic Radiation” (1982), co-authored with Harvey Wasserman.




Do What Do We Do Instead?
By Ward, Roderick at Mar 18, 2011 15:17 PM
So what exactly is being proposed? Switching to more coal? If not, then what?
Reply this comment
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
By Bertoe, Olivier at Mar 15, 2011 22:42 PM
> few anti-nukes who don't care about the facts feel good). Nuclear
> power is by far the greenest big energy system -- by far.
[...]
> Solomon calls his organization the Institute for Public Accuracy.
> What an inaccurate name!
I find no evidence of exaggeration, hysteria or inaccuracy in Norman's piece. You rightly underline the importance of facts. How about you provide some ?
> Maybe the problem in Japan will turn out to be more serious than
> Three Mile Island, it is too early to tell. Up to the time of writing, it
> certainly has not been.
Even by the parsimonious few facts that have so far trickled out of official Japanese channels alone, this catastrophe is already way beyond TMI and has been for some time. Three (!) runaway reactors, one uncontained. Others we don't now. Exposed debris, some of which may be burning as we speak, again uncontained. A situation that, in the very best of cases, will take months to return even remotely to normalcy. The simple fact that nobody knows or has known in the past days, with any serious probability, just how far this will go should be cause for serious alarm and completely wipes away your claim.
If anything, as Norman writes, this tragedy again reveals what seems to be a defining aspect of the nuclear industry: it's extreme cultish nature that protects it from even the most modest public scrutiny. Here in france, watching the endless comments of arrogant, deeply dishonest and irrational pundits on the unfolding events is almost as jawdropping as the disaster itself. Norman's quotes indicates that the same is at play in the US. If there ever was a caricatural example of coordinator class at work, this must be it. I have a strong interest in the sciences and feel deep shame about this.
You say:
> I wonder what [Solomon's] attitude to Obama and all the other hundreds
> of thousands of mildly pro-nuclear politicians, bureaucrats, and
> scientists is? He really has only two choices: He has to think of them
> as massively incompetent, idiots almost, or as deeply immoral and
> corrupt. Me, I don't think that they are either. On this issue, I think
> that they are mostly right.
The incompetence is on display right now, both in Fukushima and in the worrying state of nuclear plants elsewhere. Plenty of skeletons are falling out of the closet again. There is plenty of immorality and deep corruption, certainly, in the willingness of pundits to downplay both the developing disaster and the growing public scrutiny of the nuclear industry.
The question, of course, remains. How would the many tens of billions potentially affected by this industry decide given a choice and, as you note, factual assessment?
> Even though it is highly unlikely that any other nuclear power nation
> would have situated a reactor on a site having the characteristics of
> the Japanese site
Yes, Japan has been hit exceptionally strongly by natural disaster. Insisting on the exceptional nature, however, completely misses the many valid points raised by the critics, to give just a few:
First, in Japan of all places, why have nuclear plants obviously not been hardened enough against quakes and floods?
Second, in the rest of the nuclear world, how well would nuclear plants actually cope in the face of forseeable events, much less to unforeseen ones or combinations thereof?
And, finally, is it worth it?
The latter should definitely not be answered only by the "hundreds of thousands of mildly pro-nuclear politicians, bureaucrats, and scientists".
Reply this comment
Andrew Brook
By Brook, Andrew at Mar 15, 2011 20:55 PM
Solomon calls his organization the Institute for Public Accuracy. What an inaccurate name! I wonder what his attitude to Obama and all the other hundreds of thousands of mildly pro-nuclear politicians, bureaucrats, and scientists is? He really has only two choices: He has to think of them as massively incompetent, idiots almost, or as deeply immoral and corrupt. Me, I don't think that they are either. On this issue, I think that they are mostly right.
Reply this comment
Nuclear Meltdown
By Andrews, John at Mar 16, 2011 10:08 AM
You come across as a nuclear lobbyist. Please enlighten me as to how Canada and a couple of other countries have solved the problem of what to do with nuclear waste; we certainly have not in the UK - we just keep burying it in the hope that future generations will sort it out. A somewhat shit legacy methinks.
If Japan, probably the most technically capable nation on earth, cannot sort this one out then what hope the rest of us? The French nuclear giant, Areva, have been pushing their wares in India to name but one place. As is the norm, the Indian government have gone against local opinion in the state of Maharashtra and are hellbent on more nuclear reactors just as they were with Big Dams a few years ago. Now I mean no disrespect to India at all, but it is not a structured, disciplined society in the way that Japan is. They already have a ageing fleet of nuclear reactors of questionable design; is another generation of reactor the answer to their energy needs? Would they be able to cope with a nuclear accident? I doubt if we in the UK could cope with a nuclear accident and I have no reason to believe that the USA would fare any better. Could we be looking at another Bhopal but 10 or 100 times worse?
You seem to be down-playing the current incident. The reactor produces power for export but it also needs power for its own cooling system to function so it imports power from the transmission / distribution network. At Fukushima, the reactors shut down but so too did the electricity network as a result of the earthquake and tsunami. The standby diesel generators failed to operate as they had been damaged, again by the quake and tsunami. This control sytem is not exclusive to Fukushima - it applies to all nuclear reactors. An aeroplane crashing into a nuclear power station may not destroy the reactor but it most certainly will destroy the substation bringing electricty in to the reactor cooling system and who is to say that it would not damage the on site standby generation? You do not need earthquakes and tsunamis to take out 'fail safe' control systems!
The Japanese people tortured by radiation poisoning from the 1945 genocide now face radiation poisoning from the Fukushima nuclear power station. It is time that the the world woke up and phased these monstrosities out once and for all.
Best wishes
John Andrews
Reply this comment
I agree very much with Norman Solomon's astute assessmernt about the madness of depending on nuclear power with an ongoing nuclear accident that is turning out to be the worst nuclear accident since the Chernobyl nuclear accident that occurred in the Ukr
By patterson, george at Mar 15, 2011 19:52 PM
Reply this comment