The nuclear age is aging

The debate over the merits and demerits of nuclear energy is as heated as ever (pun intended). Back in the 60’s and 70’s, I was aware that there were critics of nuclear power who spoke passionately about the dangers of radiation leaks, meltdowns, and severe health hazards, but who had other agendas that were not so praiseworthy.

The coal and oil industries, for example, knew that nuclear power could put them out of business. The best way to eliminate that competition was to get on the “safety” bandwagon to generate public and political opposition to nuclear power. They played a significant role in funding the anti-nuclear-power movement in those days.

Another example was the block of Leninist countries, led by the Soviet Union and, later, by China, who used fear of nuclear energy as a psychological weapon to cause the American people, themselves, to inhibit the ability of their own country to remain competitive on the world stage.

I learned that nuclear power was no more dangerous, and perhaps less so, than the generation of power by coal. That was hard to believe, at first, due to the fact that nuclear accidents are so much more sudden, dramatic, and visual than the unseen, slow deaths of thousands and thousands of cancer and lung-disease victims who succumb to the long-term inhalation of soot and invisible toxic gases – and have no idea they are victims of coal energy.

In more recent times, cleaner emissions have reduced this factor, but there also are newly developed measures, available at reasonable cost, to help people get rid of radiation toxicity, so the score is fairly balanced on that issue.

The nuclear-power industry is playing this game just as aggressively as its opponents. It has a long history of getting governments (tax-payers) to cover their investment risks and losses, and they shamelessly ignore real safety issues, knowing that, if they make the necessary repairs and upgrades, the cost must be paid by them but, if they wait until there is a disaster, the cost will be picked up by taxpayers.

The point here is, not that one type of power generation is better, safer, or more efficient than the others, but that most of the contestants in the arena have axes to grind that have little to do with safety or efficiency. They talk about these things and they produce reams of statistics to prove their points, but their primary concern is the money that will flow into their pockets.

There are three stories in this weeks’ news that touch on the hidden cost of nuclear power. I hope this brief analysis of the larger issues will put these stories into context of why things are unfolding as they are.

G. Edward Griffin
2016 April 29

Belgium: The government will distribute iodine pills to its population of 11-million people to help protect them against radiation in case of a nuclear-reactor meltdown. Germany has requested that two of Belgium’s aging nuclear reactors be shut down following a series of problems from defective pressure vessels, metal degradation, and fires. IB Times 2016 Apr 29 (Story) (Cached)

Defects in Israel’s nuclear reactor spark a secrecy dilemma. A recent study uncovered 1,537 defects in the decades-old core of the Dimona nuclear reactor, where it is believed that Israel produced its nuclear weapons. Israel has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would authorize it to build another reactor, but the government does not want to disclose what nuclear weapons it has, so it has chosen a calculated risk that could lead to a national disaster. AFP 2016 Apr 28 (Story) (Cached)

Kiev, Ukraine: In 1986, the Chernobyl nuclear plant was quickly embedded in a concrete sarcophagus to stop radioactive leaks following its meltdown. However, the leaks have continued and, now, the reactor building is getting a $1.5 billion containment shelter that will encase the old sarcophagus. [The significance of this story is twofold: (1) The building and placement of this gigantic structure is impressive, and (2) when considered in context of the enormous cost of patching up failed reactors at Fukushima and Three-Mile Island, we are mindful that the long-term cost of nuclear energy may be higher than the publicized figures indicate, which do not include the cost of inevitable disasters. This is especially important in the US where most of the nation’s aging reactors are operating long past the termination dates for which they were designed.] AFP 2016 Apr 25 (Story)