Postcards from a Nuclear-Free Zone, Part 2

As I was looking through my notes from Helen Caldicott's book-signing last night, I remembered how many times she said the nuclear industry tells lies. She said, "In science, you can't lie" and "You can't use propaganda when it comes to people's health."

I agree wholeheartedly, which is why her book and last night's event stun me so.

One of the things that shocked me was her assertion that an incident in Sweden this past summer was "two minutes from meltdown."

That is patently untrue. As explained in the post linked above, two of the four emergency diesel generators failed to start automatically and had to be started manually after the unit was disconnected from the grid. Similar to U.S. designs, each generator is capable of providing at least 50 percent of the power to run the usual safety systems. And this is in addition to the other redundant safety systems that, when all else fails, can prevent the core from damage.

Through my activities with International Youth Nuclear Congress, I know several engineers and other professionals who work in the Swedish nuclear industry. Were they close to a meltdown? Absolutely not.

In fact, the only person who even suggested such a dire scenario was not a "former plant manager" as early media reports referenced him, but rather a fellow who had a beef with Forsmark over some contracts.

From Sweden, Caldicott took us to the hills of Pennsylvania and spent most of the rest of her time reading from pages 65-72 of her book. These pages cover her assessment of the Three Mile Island accident. We also took a detour through Ukraine to talk about Chernobyl.

I don't even know where to begin in correcting the misinformation. It is so vast that a line-by-line rebuttal would take years. For anyone who takes the time to read the propaganda and conjecture, I urge you to look carefully at some of the sources Caldicott cites for her more outrageous claims. Among others, she cites her own previous books, Paul Gunter of NIRS, David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists and Joseph Mangano of the Tooth Fairy studies, all of whom are well-known for their anti-nuclear bias. From there, read NEI's information here and here and look carefully at those references (more below).

Citing dubious sources, she claims that thousands of people suffered acute radiation sickness and that there is a marked increase in cancer in Pennsylvania from TMI and 8,000 people have thyroid cancer from Chernobyl.

Let me make a non-exhaustive list of some of the people and organizations that directly counter Caldicott's claims of the effects of TMI and Chernobyl: The Pennsylvania Department of Health (with studies in 1981, 1982, 1985, 1988, 1991), the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health (whose study in 2002, 23 years after the TMI event, covered the latency period of cancers associated with radiation exposure), Dr. Maureen Hatch (associate professor of epidemiology at Columbia University’s School of Public Health), Dr. Mervyn Susser (Professor of Epidemiology, also at Columbia), Dr. Jan Beyea (a nuclear physicist in the New York office of the National Audubon Society), U.S. Federal Appeals Court, the International Chernobyl Project (an advisory group of international experts including representatives of the Commission of the European Communities, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, and International Labor Organization), the WHO, the European Union, UNSCEAR, and the Chernobyl Forum (which is composed of experts from eight U.N. agencies and the governments of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine).

Now I know that Caldicott doesn't trust NEI, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Bush administration or the Pennsylvania Health Department, but doesn't it strain good sense to think that all of the abovementioned independent people and organizations are in a grand conspiracy with the nuclear industry?

I should add that when I asked Caldicott why she would choose to recognize such discredited sources as Mangano, she said that she didn't agree with him on his studies of baby teeth, but she liked his reports about TMI. If I had time to follow up (I wasn't allowed to ask more than one question) I would have asked her how one can trust any of the work of a person that so deliberately distorts facts and data.

More to come if my hands don't get too tired.

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog