Science & Reason: End the Nuclear Age
Science & Reason
End the Nuclear Age
Louder and clearer the chorus grows, to end the age of nuclear woes... The Prophet Neb Naba Lamoussa Morodenibig spoke to us in Chicago about how funny it is that people set the stage for their own destruction and when it happens, call it a disaster, implying that they had no control over it. He also spoke of his surprise that more people weren’t speaking out against nuclear.... Well, this may be the loudest chorus you haven’t heard, with so much being said at one time by so many, it seems we can be sure that distraction is a strategy. I mean that the many things presented in the media distract us from the destructive reality of the nuclear age. And the willingness of people to be distracted by an endless array of entertainment has led to a public that doesn’t speak about this nuclear age. I am writing this to provide some history and some examples of how we continue to be the only species responsible for nuclear disasters.
The nuclear age began in the early 20th century with the scientific discovery that some natural elements are radioactive, such as Radium, and release immense amounts of energy. This inspired the idea of an endless energy- source. However, due to the short-lived nature of intensely radioactive elements, considered half-lives, any means of harnessing such energy was deemed impractical by very early nuclear physicists such as Ernest Rutherford, who called it ‘moonshine.’ Thus, pursuit of the use of radioactive elements for energy purposes languished for many years.
Beginning in 1932, and using more sophisticated scientific instruments, the neutron was discovered by James Chadwick, who won the Nobel Prize in physics for this discovery in 1935. The neutron is theorized as a subatomic particle with no electric charge and a mass slightly larger than a proton. Most people have been taught that protons and neutrons are bound within a nucleus and a nucleus can be found within an atom, or atomic particle.
Following the neutron discovery, a theory of nuclear reaction was developed and proposed in 1933 by Hungarian scientist Szilárd Leó. His theory was based on the concept of a chemical chain reaction and the possibility that a nuclear reaction produced neutrons, which then caused additional nuclear reactions, leading to a self-perpetuating process. This self-perpetuating process could provide a constant energy source that could be harnessed (heat). Szilárd Leó’s first attempts to create a nuclear chain reaction with various elements failed.
However, it was another discovery that led to Szilárd Leó’s success and this discovery was of nuclear fission (the splitting of a nucleus). Nuclear fission was realized, or demonstrated, by scientists such as Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann in 1938. Lise Meitner and Otto Robert Frisch wrote on the theory of nuclear fission following the discovery. Then, in 1939, scientists Szilárd Leó and Enrico Fermi, who had both immigrated to America, discovered neutron multiplication in the element uranium, proving that a nuclear chain reaction by this mechanism was possible. It was then that they produced the infamous Chicago Pile-1, considered the first man-made reactor. This ultimately led to uranium enrichment, plutonium, nuclear weapons, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, civilian reactors, nuclear proliferation and the current crisis of how to manage nuclear materials.
For a better understanding we need to consider the social dynamics, or human-reasoning side of the history we just reviewed. The 1930’s were a lead-up to World War II, and there was a pervasive fear that a Nuclear weapon may be developed by Nazi Germany and used against the Allied forces. The English, under Winston Churchill, were the strongest proponent of militarizing nuclear energy, with America on the sidelines until the bombing at Pearl Harbor. Additionally, several key scientists were Jewish and immigrated to America because they feared Nazi persecution both personally and the aforementioned notion of Nazi Germany developing such a weapon.
As we say, hindsight is 20/20, and even Albert Einstein is on the record as saying that if he knew that Nazi Germany would not have developed a nuclear weapon, as they didn’t, he would have done nothing to support the creation of such weapons by the U.S. government (Einstein had written a letter to President Roosevelt recommending government involvement). It was soon after the creation of the Chicago Pile-1 and Einstein’s letter when the U.S. government took over the Leo and Fermi project and continued the research and development at military base locations like the well-known one in Los Alamos, NM. The nuclear weapons development and testing undertaken by the U.S. government at Los Alamos, NM and Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands are largely forgot- ten today but continue to be uninhabitable due to the radioactive fallout.
There is a horrible human history to these sites as well, which had been inhabited by traditional people until their displacement by the U.S. government. On Bikini Atoll, for example, the native population was asked to temporarily relocate while the nuclear weapon testing was conducted. Eventually, when told they could return to their homeland, natives who did return to Bikini Atoll suffered extremely high rates of cancer and birth defects due to radiation exposure. The island was once again deserted and essentially remains so to this day.
For the U.S. government, the expense of nuclear research and weapons testing was very costly and development of a civilian nuclear power industry was the justification. In other words, the taxpayers who paid for the weapons development should get something in return, in this case civilian reactors, which could provide electricity to those same taxpayers at little or no cost. It was an idea that the public brought into at the time but was never fully realized. This is because all civilian nuclear reactors are now owned/operated by private companies and the consumer pays market rate for the cost of electricity. In addition to the promise of cheap nuclear energy for civilian use being unfulfilled, an even greater danger to the public now exists as a result of the business of nuclear energy.
For example, in March of 2014, reports came out in several business news outlets that Exelon had threatened to close three of its six nuclear reactors in Illinois. Exelon is one of the United States leading nuclear energy suppliers with 17 reactors in 10 nuclear power plants and operates regulated utili- ties in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Maryland. It is a major energy supplier in North America and is one of the largest competitive U.S. power generators with approximately 35,000 megawatts of owned capacity. The 35,000 megawatts generated at Exelon facilities is from multiple sources, reportedly: 55 percent nuclear, 24 percent natural gas, 8 percent renewable including hydro, 7 percent oil and 6 percent coal. Although Exelon has not closed any nuclear facilities in re- cent years, it has canceled the construction of a new nuclear station in Texas citing low natural gas prices that have made nuclear generation uncompetitive as the reason.
News of these possible closings, reported in the Chicago Tribune business section and Crain’s Business Chicago, comes from sources who say that Exelon CEO Chris Crane, along with Exelon lobbyists, have been meeting privately with elected officials. Those officials, Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan and Illinois Senate majority leader John Cullerton among them, were quick to point out that “no requests were made” of them by Exelon officials. The talks were described as pertaining to the economic woes of several Illinois reactors and the possibility those reactors might be closed. However, documents that Exelon have circulated among lawmakers and interested parties clearly reveal that they will be asking for financial help, Crain’s reports. According to David Kolata, executive director of Chicago- based consumer advocacy group Citizens Utility Board, “It’s hard to think of anything (the state can do to help Exelon) other than impose higher consumer charges for the nuclear plants.” In other words, for the consumer to pay higher energy prices by choice, in order to keep unprofitable nuclear reactors from being shuttered.
In an analysis done by Julie Wernau and Alex Richards, Chicago Tribune reporters, all six of Exelon’s nuclear reactors in Illinois have failed to turn a profit in each of the last five years. In their article they report two quotes from Exelon Chief Executive Chris Crane, who said, “Despite our best-ever year in generation, some of our nuclear units are unprofitable at this point in the current environment, due to the low prices and the bad energy policy that we’re living with,” and, “A better tax policy and energy policy would be the clear answer, but if we do not see a path to sustainable profits, we will be obligated to shut units down to avoid the long-term losses.” These shutdowns are being presented in the media as a negative for the local communities that depend on the plants for employment and local taxes. In other words, Exelon and Illinois politicians may be working toward a solution that keeps these nuclear plants operating by charging higher rates for electricity and ‘saves’ these communities.
How the media portrays the argument as ‘whether to save these communities or not’ is what can be considered spin. Well, what about saving the world from nuclear contamination? If Chris Crane is speaking honestly when he states that a bad energy policy is one where natural gas and renewable energy sources replace nuclear reactors, I wonder what planet he lives on. The dangers of nuclear contamination are so serious and prolific that the only logical argument is to bring about an end to the nuclear age. For more evidence to support this argument we can look at the history of Exelon itself. In the Chicago metropolitan area, home to nearly 10 million people, Exelon’s Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station had spilled millions of gallons of water containing tritium, which is a radioactive form of hydrogen, over a 10-year period, reportedly beginning in the early 1990’s. When this information was disclosed in 2006, 14 years after the contamination, Exelon apologized and reported that any risk was ‘minimal’.
Another example of people setting the stage for their own destruction is the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima Nuclear Generating Station. The contamination is also being downplayed in media reports since taking place in March of 2011. Designed by General Electric, the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is situated on a Japanese coastline known for Tsunami activity and was overcome by a Tsunami wave, which flooded the facility. The water knocked out all of the facility’s power including the back-up generators, which were located below ground level and became submerged. On the day following the flood, the power plant’s backup battery power died out, shutting down the cooling system and allowing the core to heat up.
In light water nuclear reactors such as the ones at Fukushima, water is used to keep the fuel from overheating and melting through its containment system. If there is no power to cool by circulating water around the reactor, a meltdown occurs, which is what happened to three of the six reactor cores at Fukushima, the other three reactors were not in operation at the time of the accident. In these reactors the containment system is what protects the rest of the world from the highly radioactive elements within. However, the containment system failed, as was the case in the incidents at Three Mile Island in New York and Chernobyl in Russia.
These systems were designed to be safe, to contain the fallout, but in each case the system failed. In response to this reality, there have been new reactor and reactor containment designs that have been engineered and given the designation ‘inherently safe.’ I wonder how this kind of designation comes about because it illustrates an important point that even though a nuclear reactor may be believed to be designed in an ‘inherently safe’ manner, they are not. It is still a nuclear reactor that has inherently dangerous waste and an even more dangerous potential to cause nuclear fallout. To call a nuclear reactor inherently safe means that your kids should be able to play with it... While it is true that a few of these nuclear disasters were simply too large for the media to ignore, the fallout from these and other nuclear accidents has not been publicized. Do you know how nuclear fallout is affecting you?
