Noel is wrong about nuclear energy's safety

By Eileen McCabe-Olsen and Pete Litster
Published: Monday, Feb. 6, 2006 8:48 p.m. MST
E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
We were appalled to learn that Rep. Mike Noel's amendment specifically advocating research into nuclear energy has been attached to HB46. While it is commendable that the House wants to explore alternative energies, nuclear power is not a credible alternative energy source. It is an immature technology that should be discontinued, not expanded in commercial use.

Noel cites that "nuclear energy is clean and it is safe." Neither is true. While nuclear power production does not emit greenhouse gases during its generation, it produces tons of toxic waste, for which there is still no acceptable storage or detoxification solution. Further, unlike coal, which is readily usable after being mined, uranium must be processed through several steps — milling, conversion to uranium hexafluoride, enrichment and fuel rod assembly — before it can be used in a reactor. All of these steps consume energy produced by conventional sources that do emit greenhouse gases.

Shundahai Network seeks to educate the public about all of the links in the nuclear chain, including their impacts on the health and safety of our communities and environment. Power generation is one of those links. Our media research has revealed that, in just the past 60 days, multiple situations of leaks from cooling pools have contaminated local wells near U.S. nuclear plants with the hazardous radionuclide tritium. Further, there has been admission of falsified safety inspections, including one that contributed to the near explosion of the reactor at Davis-Besse in Ohio. Other incidents have led to multiple reactor shutdowns.

Story continues below
It's certainly true that safety violations and accidents may happen with any kind of power production. However, nuclear power is unique in that accidents at other sources usually do not pose an immediate catastrophic risk to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people living near to or downwind or downstream from the vicinity. Building nuclear power plants does nothing to reduce our need for oil in either the short or long term. Nuclear plants do not fuel automobiles, the single greatest user of oil. Building nuclear power plants will do little to mitigate global warming, as the emissions from overall electricity production make up a tiny percentage of greenhouse gas emissions. Most of these emissions come from automobile exhaust and domestic power use. Nor is nuclear power a quick or expedient technology. Nuclear power plants take, on average, 10 years to plan, license and build, and billions of dollars. We do not have this kind of time or capital.

Noel has commented on uranium availability as a selling point for nuclear power generation in Utah. We would still need to purchase the uranium from private interests, some of them foreign, and would still need to ship the uranium to one of a handful of federal facilities for enrichment. Much of the uranium is located on Navajo lands, and the Navajo Nation has recently declared a moratorium on all uranium mining. Indeed, uranium mining has already imposed a disproportional burden on Navajo people, in terms of the health and safety. This goes for many other Native American communities.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.