Skip to main content

The Conversation the Director of Meltdown Doesn’t Want to Have About Nuclear Energy

Tom Kauffman
The following is a guest blog post by Tom Kauffman, NEI's Director of Media Relations.

Over more than three decades since the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear accident, claims that radioactivity from the plant caused negative health effects have been refuted time and time again. In over twelve studies, not one found any detectable impacts. Any claim that cancer or other diseases have been caused by the accident doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.

That holds for the industry as a whole too. In research conducted for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Dr. James Hansen concluded that the use of nuclear energy has saved 1.8 million lives that otherwise would have been lost due to burning of fossil fuels.

Despite this compelling scientific evidence, a former resident of the area, Jill Murphy Long, is trying to distort the truth with a new film, Meltdown. In her conversations with the press, Long has said, "I think this conversation needs to happen. I'm not a lawyer; I'm not a scientist. We'll introduce people who need to talk. That's what I am, a facilitator of conversation."

If Long really wants to have a conversation, I’m ready for it. I’ve been a resident of south-central Pennsylvania my entire life. For 39 years I have lived in one of the counties adjacent to the facility, and from 1977 to 2000 I worked at TMI. During the accident I lived in Dauphin County where the plant is located. Today I live in a house in York County that is adjacent to TMI and can see the plumes of water vapor rising from its cooling towers.

I was at TMI Reactor Unit 2 the day of the accident on March 28, 1979. That morning, for hours, I was within a hundred feet of the reactor. I worked at the plant throughout the ten-year accident recovery. After 12 years in operations, I shifted to site communications working from a building right beside the plant.

My total radiation exposure over the 23 years I worked at TMI (including the accident) was less than a person would get from three CAT scans. The risk of cancer associated with that low level of exposure is next to nothing. And if you compare risk factors, traveling to and from work is by far the most dangerous thing I’ve done associated with more than 30 years working in the nuclear industry.

After more than a half-century of radiological monitoring and medical research, there is no evidence linking any U.S. nuclear energy facilities to negative effects on the health of the public or workers. Claims that radioactivity from TMI caused negative health effects have been debunked by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which concluded that no deaths or long-term health effects were connected to it.

More than a dozen independent studies came to the same conclusion including: the National Cancer Institute; a commission appointed by President Jimmy Carter; a commission established by Pennsylvania Governor Dick Thornburgh; the National Institute of Health; the Columbia University School of Public Health; the Committee on Federal Research into the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation; the Pennsylvania Department of Health; and others supported by various state and federal agencies.

Cancer is a horrible disease, one that has taken the lives of many millions of people. I know others who are struggling against it, and they deserve not only our sympathy, but our help. But that help needs to start with medical and scientific research, research that has already shown that radiation from nuclear power plants has had nothing to do with the development of the disease.

I’m sure that Ms. Long feels she’s doing the right thing in making Meltdown. But the fact is, she’s not going to help anyone. If she convinces the public of this untruth, she will harm the expansion of a source of energy that has already proven to have saved many lives, and has the potential to save millions more here and around the world.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I’m sure that Ms. Long feels she’s doing the right thing in making Meltdown.

Why do we always have to throw in these kinds of platitudes and give these people the benefit of doubt? They sure don't give any such consideration to us. The fact is, we don't know their motives. They could be malevolent just as well as altruistic. I for one am tired of giving quarter when we receive none. Let's tell it like it is. There are those out these who bear us no kindly will.
Scott Medwid said…
The thing is this, there is money and notoriety in making claims that scare people into solidifying opposition to nuclear power. Obfuscation works when most of the public knows little about science, physics, engineering or history. Greens know this and those invested in fossil fuels depend on this for their portfolios.
Dolf Johnson said…
Thank you, and well stated.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …