Nuclear Power: Safe for the Environment?

There are many controversies about whether nuclear power is really safe for the environment or not. First look will be at the alternatives in America's power supplies: coal, natural gas, and oil. They are not environmentally sound, as some people believe. Some countries use nuclear power as a primary source of energy, and almost all countries use nuclear power on some level. Where there is nuclear power there is radiation. There has been a misunderstanding on how dangerous radiation is. What people don't realize is that they are exposed to radiation on a daily basis, but the radiation is so minimal that there is no medical proof that radiation is responsible for health problems. Nuclear reactors are the same way. No one has been able to prove that people become ill because they live near a nuclear facility. Other controversies are over the extensive nuclear waste that comes from power plants. Scientists have long known how to deal with radioactive waste, but so far, the U.S government hasn't implemented these recommendations. Nuclear power is not destructive to the environment as some people say, but has beneficial qualities for America's power supply needs.

Nuclear power is the most scrutinized power supply in the world. Environmentalists feel the use of nuclear power is too costly to the environment for humans to use. One allegation is that radiation leaks out of the reactor and into the air and water, causing thyroid disease. One fear was at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Richland, Washington. Researchers found that conclusions of 3,190 people who apparently had thyroid disease because of the release of radioactive iodine from Hanford were false. All of these people were born between 1941 and 1957 when Hanford was built. Researchers showed that Hanford was not the result of the thyroid disease.

Since nuclear reactors need lots of water, they are always located on major rivers. This is another suspected problem with nuclear power. Environ-mentalists think nuclear power plants heat river waters and damage the aquatic life. They conclude that this isn't only from nuclear power, but it is true from all sources of power manufacturing. The cooling water from these power plants heat rivers to temperatures where cold-water fish can't survive. The fish that are affected are Walleye, Yellow perch, white sucker, and fathead minnow. The temperature range is 84-88° F, which the Columbia is said to be just a few degrees off those temperatures. The water temperature also affects spawning as well. It puts so much stress on the fish and eggs that in some cases, there is 50% loss of newly hatched fish. When the fry hatch, they need aquatic organisms to eat. When the water temperatures rise, these organisms do not flourish, causing food shortages for the fish. Environmentalists conclude that the rise in water temperatures also creates an environment for algae, which could cause the water to be unsuitable for humans. However, if these allegations were true, we would see several changes in the rivers where these power plants are located. Environmentalists basically say that every year 50% of fish will not survive. If this were true, then why do we still have fishermen on the rivers? Wouldn't that eventually cause a complete loss in life in these rivers? Also, the algae would be so bad that the whole river would be affected. According to the environmentalists, trout and salmon would not be able to survive in rivers with power plants on them, and of course we know that's not true. They also mention that heated water makes fish weak and gives fish more of a chance to acquire diseases. However, the environmentalists don't seem to convinced because they say, "together, these may result in a significant loss of fish from disease, but in effect, the mortality is caused by a temperature that permits a normally low incidence of disease to become an epidemic." This gives the reader the understanding that they really don't know how heat effects fish, but they are willing to try to explain it.

Another concern people have, is the amount of radiation that is released by nuclear power plants. The Bureau of Radiological Health is responsible to keep reports on the amount of radiation released in the area of these power plants. A study done by the Bureau of Radiological Engineering Laboratory on a nuclear power plant in Illinois concluded that there was no external radiation exposure to the surrounding areas. They tested several different sources such as water, earth, cattle, and vegetation around the nuclear site. In the areas tested, only 5 millirem a year of radiation could be calculated. To put this in context, each human receives 85 millirem of radiation a year through natural sources. These natural sources consist of; sun, walls in houses, bricks or concrete, and even the TV. When someone goes in for an X-ray, they receive anywhere from 90 to 800 millirem per year. So that 5 millirem could be simply from the natural ground.

Everyone has heard of Three Mile Island in March 1979. It was plastered all over the news that radiation was leaking and we were going to see another Hiroshima. The truth is that the huge radiation leak was 1.2 millirem, which is no more than you get by watching TV. The other accident was at Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986. This was the only accident that released more radiation than people experience daily. There has been an accumulated 10,000 "reactor-years" in the history of the world, with one major radiation leak. Inspectors have said the Chernobyl has been known for it's unsafe practices, and is working to get better. A report done on Chernobyl concluded, "The Chernobyl accident has not brought to light any new, previously unknown phenomena or safety issues that are not resolved or otherwise covered by current reactor safety programs for commercial power reactors in other Countries." When building a nuclear power facility in the U.S., one quarter of the total cost goes to nuclear safety. One of the main safety features is the structure around the reactor, which is designed to keep radiation away from the environment. Another safety feature is how reactors are designed to shut down if an earthquake hits the area.

Nuclear hazardous waste has also been a concern with using nuclear power. A single nuclear power plant produces 35 tons of spent radioactive fuel each year. Environmentalists say that there is no way to get rid of this waste, which mostly consists of fuel used in the reactor. However, scientists say the majority of the fuel is capable of being reused, with minimal waste. The fuel would be dissolved in acid, which will separate 99.5% of the reusable uranium and plutonium. This would reduce the 35 tons of radioactive waste down to 1.5 tons of "high-level" waste a year. This "high-level" waste would then be made into one truckload of glass to be taken to a federal waste site to be buried. The U.S. Department of Energy is spending $200 million on trying to figure out how to get rid of the nuclear waste, which comes directly from energy costs. The cost of the glass waste program would only cost consumers $5 million a year, which would be roughly 1% of consumers electric bill.

Now lets look at the other power supply alternatives. People are always looking at different solutions to America's power needs. One possibility is solar power. That's easy; all we need is the sun. Wrong! Solar power can only be used somewhere where the sun is out all the time. There has been a proposal to build a solar power facility in Nevada's deserts. The plan is to build a 10,000 square mile plantation of solar panels. Then there must be the power storage facility to have power at night. These facilities consist of numerous batteries, which are full of extremely hazardous chemicals ready to leak into the ground. In Mike Oliver's book Environmentalism Gone Berserk, he states, "a single 30 megawatt nuclear power plant requires much less total material than a 30 megawatt solar energy farm."

The next power supply option is coal power. After the Three Mile Island accident, 51% of America's power needs were contributed by Coal. Coal power works much like nuclear power does. It heats up large amounts of water, which creates steam, which in turn, turns turbines to produce electricity. The problem with coal burning to cause electricity is that it emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which affects the ever so popular "greenhouse effect." These greenhouse effects could cause serous changes in weather climates. Acid rain is also a side effect to burning coal. It can affect everything from crop growth to damaging fish in lakes and rivers. So you have to ask yourself, is coal environmentally safe? If not, what is?

Maybe oil would be the suitable solution to America's energy crisis. Along with coal, oil has to be burnt to produce electricity. It also creates carbon dioxides and acid rain, but besides these problems, there are additional environmental hardships to deal with. One source of oil for America comes from the Middle East. This oil supply is extremely limited. Offshore platforms are also a source of oil. Due to weather, several thousands of gallons are spilled into the ocean. Moreover, there are numerous human deaths to be considered when working on a platform. Then the oil has to be shipped by freighter ship to port of origin. In recent years, several thousands of gallons of oil have been spilt into waterways just to have billions of dollars spent on the cleanup. The problem with oil is that once it enters water there is virtually no way to get it all out, thus an environmental disaster.

Finally, there is Natural Gas; the sure solution. Natural gas also burns creating CO2 and acid rain. Natural gas is highly flammable and is consistently under pressure. In Washington State alone, there have been three gas line explosions in the past ten years. Natural gas lines also require lots of energy to function. The gas lines in Alaska require two thousand megawatts of energy to operate the pumps necessary for distribution. Another words, in order to get natural gas for electricity; electricity needs to be output to get input. An Energy Resource International study concluded that because of nuclear power, 219 million tons of sulfur dioxide and 98 million tons of nitrogen oxides have been prevented from entering the atmosphere since 1973 from the burning of fossil-fuels.

Almost everyone has heard of a nuclear power plant accident, thus most people don't really want a nuclear site near their homes. They have heard about the effects on humans around nuclear sites from the media, which are always hyped up scares. In reality, there are 430 nuclear power plants in the world, none of which have had an accident. Nuclear power contributes one quarter of the world's power from various countries. Bernard Cohen stated in his book The Nuclear Energy Option that, "In 1988 nuclear power provided 70% of the electricity used in France, 66% in Belgium, 49% in Hungary, 47% in Sweden and Korea, 41% in Taiwan, 37% in Switzerland, 36% in Spain, Finland, and Bulgaria, 34% in West Germany, 28% in Japan, 27% in Czechoslovakia, 19% in the United States and United Kingdom, and 16% in Canada." Out of all these countries, why is the United States on the lower end of the usage scale? Nuclear power supporters believe that if nuclear power plants were closely observed, nuclear power would be the cleanest power source. What is amazing is the fact that nuclear power plants are closely supervised and that there hasn't been adverse affects on the environment aside from the waste solution. In 1995, there were 109 nuclear reactors producing 110 million kilowatts in the U.S. This same year the U.S. accomplished a record of 673 billion kilowatt hours accounting for 78% of the power supply needs for this country. In 1974, 226 reactors were scheduled for completion in the next 20 years. This number is 117 reactors short of the projected goal. Part of the reason for not completing these 117 reactors is the need for electricity has not been as dramatic as expected. Also, the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents have made people more leery about building more reactors until they learn about the long term effects of the reactors. Energy planers say that nuclear power plants are too expensive to build and are not as efficient as other power supplies. However, Gerald Garvey says in his book Nuclear Power and Social Planning that one nuclear power plant would produce enough electricity to pay itself off and bring in enough money to build six more power plants in 30 years of life. He said that in this time span, a nuclear power plant will produce 1000-megawatt, which is at 60% of it's potential.

Nuclear power plants have been by far the cleanest power supply facilities available in history. The only waste is the fuel and the core of the reactors. However, this doesn't seem to be the main problem with building more nuclear sites. Most of the reason is the propaganda from the media and environmentalists. They preach about a total meltdown and mass destruction of communities in the area of these reactors. These statements are not true though. It has been proven that through all the reactors in the world there have only been two accidents, which one of those accidents didn't release any more radiation than what would be absorbed naturally. The waste issue has been solved if planers would use the information given. By and large from all other power supply facilities, nuclear power is the safest.