Document Actions
4 iii.Nuclear Power
“For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program. And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal -- which is the real issue: coal -- then we'd have to put them in so many places we'd run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale. And we'd run short of uranium, unless they went to a breeder cycle or something like it, which would increase the risk of weapons-grade material being available.”
Al Gore. Source: www.grist.org/news/...
This section looks at:
- Waste
- Nuclear accidents
- Nuclear terrorism
- The illegal transfer of nuclear technology
- The economics of nuclear power
A. Waste
Nuclear power plants produce deadly nuclear waste. Some of it remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years. A typical power reactor produces 25-30 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel each year. With 442 operational nuclear power plants around the world, that equates to the production of between 11,050 to 13,260 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel globally each year.
Nuclear power plants produce about 200 isotopes. In her latest book, Nuclear Power is not the answer to global warming or anything else, Nobel Peace Prize nominee and Australian-born medical doctor, Dr Helen Caldicott, has presented information on the longevity and health effects of four of these:
| Isotope | Sources | Longevity | Effects |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plutonium-239 | Waste from nuclear power plants. Used in nuclear weapons, fuel for fast breeder reactors or stored as waste. | Half life: 24,400 years. Full radioactive danger: half a million years |
Highly carcinogenic. One millionth of a gram if inhaled will cause lung cancer. Leukemia, lymphoma, liver cancer, testicular cancer, genetic mutations in future generations. |
| Iodine-131 | Waste from nuclear power plants, released as a gas, either from routine or accidental emissions. | Half life: 8 days. Full radioactive danger: less than six months |
Very carcinogenic, especially thyroid cancer. Children are highly susceptible. |
| Strontium-90 | Waste from nuclear power plants | Half life: 28 years. Full radioactive danger: 600 years |
Very carcinogenic. Mimics calcium once in the body. Bone cancer and leukemia. |
| Cesium-137 | Waste from nuclear power plants | Half life: 30 years. Full radioactive danger: 600 years |
Very carcinogenic. Deposits in human muscle where it irradiates muscle cells. Causes very rare cancers. |
B. Nuclear Accidents
The Chernobyl nuclear explosion is the world’s worst nuclear accident. It happened in April 1986, just over 20 years ago, but the effects of the catastrophe are still unfolding.
Facts about Chernobyl:
The explosion released 100 times more radiation than the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
At the time of the accident, an area of 155 sq kms, home to about 7 million people, including 3 million children, was contaminated with hazardous levels of radiation.
About 5.5 million people - including 1 million children - continue to live in contaminated areas.
Five years ago, the Ukrainian government estimated that 8,000 people had so far died from the disaster.
Dramatic increases in childhood thyroid cancer, and increases in breast cancer and leukemia have been observed.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer conservatively estimates 16,000 thyroid cancers, 25,000 other cancers and 16,000 cancer deaths resulting across Europe by 2065.Vast tracts of land were poisoned from the radioactive fallout in Belarus, Ukraine and western Russia.
Hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest and former prime agricultural land have been seriously contaminated. Cultivated crops and wild food sources are in turn contaminated.
On 28 October 2006, the New Scientist reported that Norwegian sheep had to be slaughtered because they contained unusually high levels of radiation from the Chernobyl explosion. They had been feeding on mushrooms that were plentiful after wet weather.
The cost of Chernobyl is already hundreds of billions of dollars.
See: http://www.belarusembassy.org/humanitarian/...
See: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...
On the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl explosion, Greenpeace International released a report on the full consequences of the disaster. The report is written by 52 respected scientists and predicts approximately 93,000 fatal cancers.
See: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/...
Chernobyl was the worst nuclear accident in
human history, but it isn’t the only accident. Here are some recent examples of accidents and serious incidents:
July 2006 Sweden: a short circuit in one of Sweden’s ten nuclear power plants resulted in near nuclear meltdown and forced closure of the plant. This incident only narrowly avoided becoming another ‘Chernobyl’. Three other plants at risk in Sweden were also forced to close, because of similar design faults. See: service.spiegel.de/...
2003, Paks, Hungary: a serious incident occurred when 30 nuclear fuel rod assemblies kept in a cleaning tank became damaged, breaking many of the fuel rods. The damaged fuel required storage in the spent nuclear fuel pond until further action could be taken. See: www.iki.kfki.hu/radsec/nuclear/...
2002 Davis-Besse, Ohio, USA: severe corrosion of the stainless steel reactor vessel head meant only half an inch was left of a 6 and a half inch liner. This serious incident could have resulted in an explosion, setting in train a core meltdown. See: www.nirs.org/press/...
C. Nuclear Terrorism
"Nuclear terrorism is still often treated as science fiction - I wish it were. But unfortunately we live in a world of excess hazardous materials and abundant technological know-how, in which some terrorists clearly state their intention to inflict catastrophic casualties.”
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Madrid 10th Mar 2005. Source: news.bbc.co.uk/...
In 2004, Australian police believed a terrorist suspect was examining the nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights as a potential target.
The NSW Health Department has carried out a study into a major disaster at the reactor. These risks would increase dramatically if Australia were to construct one or more nuclear power reactors. See: www.health.nsw.gov.au/... ; www.theage.com.au/news/national/...
D. The Illegal Transfer of Nuclear Technology
On 2004, the father of Pakistan's nuclear power program - AQ Khan - confessed to having been involved in a clandestine international network of nuclear weapons technology proliferation from Pakistan to Libya, Iran and North Korea. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan
On 2 September 2006 a story broke in the media about Japan. Generally considered a safe and trustworthy nation on nuclear matters, the story revealed evidence of Japanese technology aiding nuclear programs in Libya, Iran and North Korea. Source: voanews.com/english/...
E. The Economics of Nuclear Power
Read a briefing paper on the economic risks of nuclear power, presented to Wall Street analysts: www.nirs.org/factsheets/....pdf
In mid-2006, the UK Chancellor Gordon Brown estimated that the cost of decommissioning the UK’s aging stock of nuclear plants would hit AUD$225 billion. For more information about the cost of decommissioning:
See: www.forbes.com/business/...
See: www.nda.gov.uk/...
In early 2006, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) released a report by Prof. John H. Gittus which claimed nuclear power would be competitive with gas and coal by 2011, under certain conditions. The conditions are:
- government support for capital and operating costs; or
- a government ‘insured’ loan, which shares the risk of cost blow-outs with the taxpayer.
See: www.ansto.gov.au/ansto/nuclear_options_paper.pdf.
The Prime Minister's nuclear report released on 29 December 2006 finds that nuclear power in Australia would be between 20 and 50 per cent more expensive than coal-fired power. This claim has been strongly criticised by the Energyscience.org.au coalition of concerned scientists, engineers and policy experts. Dr Mark Diesendorf of UNSW believes that nuclear power could be twice as expensive as coal-fired power. See: http://www.energyscience.org.au/
The PM's report also states that nuclear power could become economically competitive in Australia in the decades ahead if a price is put on greenhouse gas emissions.
Finally, the PM's report states that: "Even then, private investment in the first-built nuclear reactors may require some form of government support or directive." Put simply, the report says that nuclear power in Australia will never start up without government subsidies - courtesy of the Australian taxpayer.
