EDITOR'S COMMENT:

On Saturday, you heard from John White and yours truly concerning the pros and cons of nuclear power plants. Shortly after our exchange, I created a forum on NHNE's Community Website where the rest of you could join the conversation. Jim Torson joined the discussion today. You can find Jim's comments posted there (and also reproduced below).

Do you have something you would like to share about this important topic? Now's your chance.

--- David Sunfellow

Previous posts:

HELP STOP NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY: NUKEFREE.ORG (10/13/2007):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/13609

READER FEEDBACK: NUKEFREE.ORG (10/13/2007)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/13611

------------

POSTED TO NHNE'S "NUCLEAR POWER: PRO & CON" FORUM
October 15, 2007
By Jim Torson

John,

I am glad to hear that you oppose federal subsidies for nuclear power. It seems clear to me that no new nuclear plants will be built without federal subsidies.

However, I am surprised at your claim that criticisms of nuclear power are based on "leftist politics, not science." Although some criticisms of nuclear power are certainly inaccurate, I have found that there is a substantial amount of evidence concerning nuclear problems that is technically and scientifically sound.

In 1969 I graduated with a degree in engineering. Despite being rather uninformed on nuclear issues, due to my technical orientation I was at the time very much in favor of nuclear power

However, in the mid-1970s I attended a talk by the very articulate and well-informed leader of an environmental group that was opposing the construction of a nuclear plant in the state. (The plant was being built on a geologic fault. Not just near a fault; the fault went right through the excavation for four reactors.) The presentation left me feeling rather bewildered. I just thought, "This can't be right. The problems of the nuclear industry can't possibly be that bad."

So, I began to intensively study the nuclear issue. (This was similar to the intensive study of climate change that I've done over recent years.) I ended up concluding that the problems were indeed as bad (or worse) than had been described. I also ended up becoming the Vice President of the group opposing the local nuclear plant. This included attending court hearings in Washington, DC, which gave me additional insight into the workings of the nuclear industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The Rocky Mountain Institute website contains a number of articles that discuss nuclear economics:

http://www.rmi.org/

Here's a couple that contain a fair amount of technical detail:

Nuclear Power: Economics & Climate-Protection Potential (pdf)

Nuclear Power: Economic Fundamentals and Potential Role in Climate Change Mitigation

The PowerPoint slides from Amory Lovins's 16 August 2005 invited testimony to the California Energy Commission (in .PDF format) outline why nuclear power's inherently high cost and slow deployment make it a counterproductive answer to climate change. The world market is instead buying end-use efficiency, decentralized renewables, and low-carbon fossil-fueled cogeneration faster and on a larger scale, and those superior investments will save more carbon sooner per dollar.

Although economic considerations alone are enough reason to reject the idea of building new nuclear power plants, there is a great deal of credible evidence concerning health and safety problems with nuclear power. The following is just one example.

Last year was the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident, so there have been articles by the nuclear proponents about the health effects of the accident. I have seen claims that less than a hundred people died. These articles are good examples of the sorts of misleading articles that are similar to those written by the climate change skeptics. Another view of the Chernobyl effects is provided by Dr. John Gofman, who was the founder and first Director of the Biomedical Research Division of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. I would suggest that you first take a look at Gofman's Curriculum Vitae.

Gofman wrote a brief summary of Chernobyl health effects on its 10th anniversary:

Chernobyl's 10th: Cancer & Nuclear-Age Peace Don't Be Deceived

Bottom line: Nearly a million cancers from Chernobyl, about half of them fatal.

I do not think that the work of Dr. Gofman or the work of Amory Lovins (and others) can be dismissed as "leftist politics, not science."

Jim Torson