Global Chernobyl

There is an interesting article this morning in Zaman, a Turkish online newspaper. The possibility of an energy crisis in Turkey inspired them to speak with four nuclear experts. The questions (and answers) are very general, but what gets to me is that they only spoke to experts who are clearly pro-nuclear. All four repeatedly say that nuclear energy is very safe and clean and completely understate nuclear waste and the possibilty of accidents. Professor Lefteri Tsoukalas, head of Purdue University's Nuclear Energy Department said:

"Chernobyl was the worst nuclear accident that could have possibly happened. It is very well studied and understood. Overall, we can say now, nearly 20 years after it happened, on the basis of Science, not myth, that its consequences were primarily local and rather limited. There is NO GLOBAL environmental impact from Chernobyl."

This is a flat-out lie. Chernobyl could have been far worse. And saying that there is no global impact is completely ridiculous. Not only was fall-out from the accident detectable globally, but the costs for clean-up and the damage done to the Russian economy are astronomical. And, in our current global economy, it is felt by everyone. The fourth reactor is still emitting dangerous amounts of radiation and building a new, effective sarcophagus is going to cost an estimated $2 billion. Not to mention the figurative cost of all who lost their homes and lives in this disaster. How can anyone possibly say that nuclear energy is cheaper.

Nukes aren't so bad...right?

The Mail and Guardian Online from Africa has an interesting piece about the international climate of acceptance regarding nuclear energy. Here's the problem: instead of taking Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as serious warnings of the danger of nuclear energy and working to find alternate energy sources, we've dragged out feet for two decades. We haven't developed any other viable energy options so, now that the fear (which is not illogical) that we all felt in the 80s and 90s has abated some and we think, "Oh, nuclear isn't so scary. We've got new technologies. It's completely safe." And what we're going to do is radiate ourselves right out of existence.

The Peaceful Putin

Putin has released a statement on his views of nuclear energy:

We need to create the prototype of a global infrastructure that will give all interested countries equal access to nuclear energy, while stressing reliable compliance with the requirements of the non-proliferation regime, of course...

Nuclear Opinion

This article from the International Herald Tribune has an interesting overview of general opinions on the use of nuclear energy around the world:

"The biggest obstacle to nuclear energy is public and political acceptance. There is a need to overcome fear and anxiety from people who think that anything nuclear is very dangerous." - Peter Haug, Foratom's Director General

I find comments like that so strange. People have a very good reason to be afraid of anything nuclear. It is volatile and unsafe. There is not one good reason to expand our use of nuclear energy. Not one. It's more dangerous, more expensive and the materials used to create it are going to run out just as fast as fossil fuels. We need to find alternate energy forms that do not cause cancer, poison land and ruin lives. Haug is not asking people to overcome fears, he's asking them to overcome common sense.

Will People Never Learn?

In 2008, construction will begin on a nuclear power plant in Belarus. Belarus is one of the areas most affected by the fall-out from the Chernobyl accident. There is a brief story here.

Taking Iodine-131 for the Team

The reigning Miss Nevada, Crystal Wosik has taken a very interesting standpoint for her state. She is completely in favor of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, calling it the "best-built facility in the country." Which is a really odd way to put it, in my opinion. It makes me think that perhaps she wasn't quite prepared to discuss her opinions on nuclear energy. What makes me sure that she wasn't thinking was her response to "What if people die?": Crystal said, "We just have to take one for the team."

Crystal's mother proved herself equally brilliant when she said: "It's a tragedy that we have nuclear waste, but it's got to go somewhere." So it might as well be transported from all over the country and placed in a mountain 100 miles from a major U.S. City? And am I the only one who thinks that the entire Yucca Mountain operation is a Heinlen novel just waiting to happen?

I could go on for days about how irresponsible and ignorant Wosiks statement was, but I think Citizen Alert's Peggy Maze Johnson put it beautifully: "Before she gets up there and starts representing the state of Nevada, she needs to find out more about what the issues are. Instead, she's shooting from the hip with a ridiculous statement that feeds into many people's idea that Miss America contestants are bimbos".

Words for Pripyat

We've stood over our ashes;
now what do we take on our long journey?
The secret fear that wherever we go
we are superfluous?
The sense of loss
that revealed the essence
of a strange and sudden kinlessness,
showed that our calamity is not
shared by those who might, one day,
themselves face annihilation?
. . . We are doomed to be left behind by the flock
in the harshest of winters . . .
You, fly away!
But when you fly off
don't forget us, grounded in the field!
And no matter to what joyful faraway lands
your happy wings bear you,
may our charred wings
protect you from carelessness.
-Lyubov Sirota, To Pripyat, Part 3

Sirota has a beautiful collection of poetry that can be read in English translation here. There are also some photos of Pripyat taken by her son which are, as are all photos of the abandoned city, quite haunting.

Happy New Year

We are approaching the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster in April and it seems that a large percentage of the world has forgotten about it completely. Or, if they haven't forgotten, they've at least decided it wasn't nearly as bad as everyone thought it would be. Apparently irradiated produce, children suffering from cancer and uncountable other costs aren't major issues. Where do I get this idea? Perhaps from the fact that 80% of Swedes, about half of the British and obviously those in power in the United States all seem to support nuclear energy as a clean, cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels.

Here's an older article from the BBC that has a lot of really good points on both sides of the debate.