Forsythia from my folk's yard.
It seems, after much anticipation and waiting, that spring has finally arrived. The breeze flows in through the open patio door, and a branch of Forsythia blossoms on the windowsill. Aside from Vivaldi’s Four Seasons playing in the background, I am struck by the quiet that settles around me; the apartment is clean, and outside there are flowers blossoming. Lazily, I sip a cup of tea and scroll through the CNN newsreel, and I come across a figure that makes my heart stop: “Japan quake toll stands at 10,151, over 17,000 missing.” I look out the window, and try to comprehend the unfathomable nature of the horrific earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan on March 11th, 2011. I try to imagine the feelings of those in Japan who have lost everything, who now must pick up the pieces of their lives in an attempt to recover, and move on from pure devastation. It saddens me to my core, and I am even more disheartened when I think of the ongoing struggles that are being faced as a result of the meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. So much of this situation I can’t comprehend, or even begin to understand; the movements of nature are one thing, but the affects of man’s endeavors and ‘prosperity’ are quite another. Some would discuss nuclear energy as a testament to mankind’s capabilities; after all, we’ve learned to split atoms, some of the smallest components of matter- a truly astounding feat. However, I would argue the very simple point- that just because we can, doesn’t mean we should.
The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant: http://www.thepunch.com.au
In the days that followed the quake and tsunami, people across the globe watched in sadness and horror as the reality of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant began to sink in. With the countless hardships inflicted by two natural disasters of incomprehensible proportions, now came the effects of a compromised and terribly dangerous man-made system. First, the Pacific tsunami knocked out all power to the plant, which crippled the cooling of the fuel rods. When the backup generator didn’t work, pressure built up within the reactor vessel, which was then reduced by venting out steam. This steam contained hydrogen, which then reacted with oxygen, causing multiple explosions. As talk of radiation hitting the west coast of the United States spread, countless individuals scrambled blindly to get their hands on potassium iodine tablets in hopes of protecting themselves from the unthinkable consequences of radiation. As Japan began to pump in seawater in attempts to avoid a nuclear meltdown, so many sat in silence and fear as Japan tried to combat and control one of mankind’s most dangerous creations. The harsh realization is that the problems at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant will not be fixed by a simple clean up; they will continue to exist, they will continue to spread, and they will continue to cause problems. The latest development came on Friday, when scientists announced that water samples collected a quarter mile off the coast of Japan contained levels of radioactive iodine that were 1,250 times higher than normal. The fact that any level of radioactive substance was considered ‘normal’ troubled me enough, but 1,250 times that amount? I couldn’t even begin to figure out what that looked like. Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman for Japan’s Nuclear Safety Agency, had this to say about the findings: “This figure means that if you drank 500 millilitres of water containing this level of iodine it would reach the limit that a person can take in in one year, which is one millisievert.” In case you’re like me and can’t convert metrics in your head, 500 millilitres is equivalent to about 16 ounces- the same size as your morning grande from Starbucks. Whether via water or air, the understanding and knowledge that nuclear fallout and radiation will continue to spread has many in fear of the aftermath, and they should be. Though the severity of this disaster have been dramatically downplayed, the truth is coming to light: on March 18th, Japan announced that radiation was leaking at high enough levels to cause death. On March 19th, spinach grown 65 miles away from the plant was found to be contaminated and inedible. on March 24th, the tap water in Tokyo was deemed unsafe to drink- for pregnant women. As terrifying as this all is, I implore everyone to wake up and open their eyes- because we’ve all been here before, multiple times. If you’re in the United States, you’re likely right in the middle of a lot of it.
Nuclear Reactors in the United States: http://www.nrc.gov
I’ll be honest, I don’t know much about the ins and outs of nuclear energy or nuclear weapons. I am embarrassed to admit that my reference matter of the subject lies somewhere between Homer Simpson and K-19: The Widowmaker. Still, even with a a fundamental lack of understanding, the utilization of nuclear anything to me is a big no-no. Although to argue this point, I wanted to learn more about it. Luckily for me, someone I admire very much also finds the subject troublesome. Intrigued enough as she was, she focused her graduate studies on nuclear testing in the United States. I’d like to introduce you to my sister, Sarah Fox. Sarah graduated with a masters in history and folklore from Utah State University. The focus of her thesis work surrounded the testing and development of nuclear weapons in the American West, which she is currently turning into a book entitled Yellow Monsters and Mushroom Clouds: A Folk History of the Nuclear West. I’ll be sure to let everyone know when it comes out. Sarah was nice enough to discuss the topic with me, and answer some of my questions surrounding nuclear energy, and just how not sustainable it truly is.
______________________________________________________________
My sister Sarah and her husband Ryan in front of a cooling tower at the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant in Oregon.
I’ll be honest, I don’t really ‘get’ nuclear energy. Can you lay it out for me in laymen’s terms?
First of all, let me clarify: I’m a historian, not a scientist, so the finer points of nuclear science are out of my realm of expertise. But I’ll share my basic understanding. Bear with me for the science-y part. Nuclear weapons and nuclear power operate on a principle called fission. At the most basic level, every substance on earth is made of elements (remember the periodic table?), and those elements are made up of atoms. If you think back to high school chemistry, you’ll remember that atoms have a center, called a nucleus, and that nucleus contains protons and neutrons. About 90 years ago, it occurred to scientists that if they could somehow split the nucleus of the atom, that the component parts of the atom would be released, bumping into other atoms, theoretically causing them to split, and so on. Scientists realized that this process—fission— (aka, a nuclear chain reaction) would create a phenomenal amount of energy, which could either create an insanely powerful explosion, or theoretically, fuel a power plant.
You can’t just manufacture a chain reaction out of anything—you need fuel, a particular element that is volatile or unstable enough that its atoms will continue splitting and bumping into other atoms, causing them to split. Now, most elements are too stable to sustain a chain reaction, and early attempts to create such a reaction stalled out until scientists figured out that a particular isotope of uranium worked very well. So, uranium became the ideal fuel for nuclear chain reactions in nuclear weapons and later, nuclear power plants.
So, when you say that you need an element that is ‘volatile or unstable enough’ to be used as fuel for nuclear energy, what does that say about uranium?
Uranium is an element found in the earth. It’s found in rocks which you have to mine for, and then extract the uranium from them; this process is called milling. Because uranium is such a volatile, or unstable element, it emits radiation as it decays. Anyone mining or milling the uranium will be exposed to this radiation, and much of the material leftover after the process is complete—called tailings—remains highly radioactive. Tailings are usually discarded near the mines or mills, where they continue to emit radiation, which historically, often made its way into the water table and food chain. A major nuclear accident happened in 1979 when a tailings damn broke and released many thousands of gallons of radioactive tailings sludge into the Rio Puerco River, which then flowed into the Rio Grande River.
While there are some safety precautions that people working with uranium can use, most of the early uranium workers (from the 1940s and 1950s) weren’t informed about the risks, and consequently, many of them suffered radiation-related diseases and died of cancer, as did many of their family members who lived in proximity to the mines and mills. Many of their children were born with severe birth defects, and their families continue to suffer health problems from the still-radioactive debris that remains where former uranium mines and mills existsed. The federal government, which was the only authorized purchaser of uranium for many years, was aware of these risks, but felt the imperative of obtaining a nuclear weapon for national security purposes was paramount.
Through my research surrounding sustainability, I’ve come to understand and define the term as it relates to the sustained well-being of three factors: the environment, the economy, and communities. It is my opinion that they are tremendously inter-related, and the sacrificed quality of any one of these factors largely harms the others. Hearing that uranium mining, the essential element to nuclear energy, devastates landscapes, that it’s volatile enough to lead to fatal diseases, I just don’t understand how people can argue that nuclear energy is a sustainable choice.
The health of uranium workers and the environmental degradation which results from the uranium industry is a serious and completely unsustainable cost, particularly in the early part of the nuclear power cycle. While companies interested in resuming uranium mining for nuclear power insist they have new safety standards and improved methods that reduce environmental damage, it is seriously questionable whether it is actually possible to mine and mill uranium cleanly and safely. This reality deals a major blow to the idea that nuclear power is sustainable for communities. Additionally, uranium is a mineral which exists in the natural world in finite qualities, which means that even if we could mine it cleanly and safely, we’d eventually run out. So, that’s a major blow to the claim that nuclear is environmentally sustainable.
To address the third factor, what would you say the affects of nuclear energy are in regards to economic sustainability?
The next step in creating nuclear power is constructing and operating a nuclear power plant. Nuclear power plants are highly complex and expensive to build, so much so that most private banks have refused to finance them in recent decades, leaving the federal government as the only entity willing to guarantee the massive loans needed to construct nuclear power plant infrastructure. Nuclear power plants also tend to go bankrupt, because their operating and security costs remain high even when the price they can get for the electricity they generate fluctuates. Clearly, constructing and operating nuclear power plants is not economically sustainable. (Here’s an article on the subject with links to a study on the economic feasibility of nuclear power done by Citybank: Nuclear Does Not Make Economic Sense Say Studies). And, in the case of the unthinkable nuclear disaster caused by human error or environmental event such as earthquake or tsunami, the costs of handling that disaster can be exorbitant, particularly if the disaster (i.e. a meltdown) cannot be contained. Meltdowns aren’t out of the realm of possibility; there have been several serious meltdowns in the last 30 years—at Chernobyl, at 3 Mile Island, and now at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan.
Through casual chats I’ve had recently about nuclear energy, the subject of it being a preferable option to coal due to it being ‘cleaner’ has come up a couple of times, but from what you’re saying, nuclear energy doesn’t sound clean at all.
Many current advocates of nuclear power argue that it is “cleaner than coal” because it operates without the dense clouds of smoke or nasty runoff typical to other forms of energy production. Nuclear power plants do create waste; the average consumer just doesn’t see that waste. Spent nuclear fuel is highly radioactive, dangerous, and difficult to store safely. These qualities also make it exorbitantly expensive to deal with nuclear waste. It is so dangerous that many politicians have actively opposed nuclear waste facilities being sited in their states, because of the risk of a traffic accident and ensuing nuclear crisis during the transportation of nuclear waste to the facility. Nuclear power plants also create emissions, they’re just invisible to the naked human eye. Dr. John Gofman, one of the nation’s leading experts on radiation and medicine, once estimated that a nuclear reactor in an urban area would create adverse health effects “equal in the opposite direction to all the medical advances put together in the last 25 years.” So, once again, nuclear power isn’t sustainable for communities in terms of its real and potential impacts for human health, and its not environmentally sustainable either, when the question of nuclear waste is considered.
______________________________________________________________
Is this really what we want to subject our children to? Radiation testing in Japan: http://www.news.nationalpost.com
I’m really grateful to Sarah for shedding some light on the subject, one that I now find all the more horrific. (For the record, I think understanding the truth means being able to look it head on. I looked at images to include regarding the horrible affects of radiation on humans and animals [i.e. two headed animals] and it broke my heart. Normally, I’d show you the ‘not pretty’ stuff, but I couldn’t bear to put it on here.) What is evermore frustrating to me now, is that so many seem to view the selection of nuclear energy, coal energy, or fossil fuels as a lesser evil, that ultimately, we have no better choice, something we know to be fundamentally untrue. What I’m so terribly puzzled about, is why we’re consciously selecting these forms of energy when we know the harm they cause, particularly to ourselves. Why do we subject ourselves to such danger and hazardous conditions? Why do we subject our children to living on such a ravaged planet that we continue to compromise? Though pessimistic as this may sound, if the world hasn’t decided from the numerous disasters that we’ve experienced that nuclear exploration is not worth the costs, I fear we’ve condemned ourselves and our planet for a grim future.
However, if I may take the liberty of adding a post-script to this essay, the one thing that wasn’t affected by the quake in Japan was their wind turbines. Even the offshore Kamisu Wind Farm that lies only 186 miles from the epicenter of Japan’s largest quake in history, remains unharmed; and that my friends, gives me a glimmer of hope.
Turbine in Yokohama, Japan: http://www.grist.org
Emma Fox ∙ Design 