Artvoice: Buffalo's #1 Newsweekly
Home Blogs Web Features Calendar Listings Artvoice TV Classifieds Contact
Previous story: Taxing Beliefs
Next story: Tax Reform for Fairness Starts Here

Stop This Nuclear Insanity

Ben & Jerry's New Fukushima Crunch to hit supermarkets soon

Vermont, the Green Mountain State, is known for its wholesome agricultural products—things like maple syrup and Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream. Dairy is the state’s largest agricultural export, with 20 percent of the Vermont’s dairy farms now under organic management. Almost a quarter of the state’s fruit and vegetable crops are also certified organic. And Vermont produces nearly a quarter of our maple syrup. Though home to a major semiconductor factory, the state is more commonly associated with its cottage industries and small, family-owned businesses, manufacturing such staples as snowboards and teddy bears. The term “bucolic” comes to mind when we see Vermont’s green license plates. One of their two US senators is a socialist, and the state is in the process of opting out of the Obama corporate health model and instituting its own single-payer healthcare program. This is overwhelmingly popular with a cross-section of Vermont residents, many of whom transplanted themselves to Vermont in an effort to escape our WalMartized culture.

This week, bucolic Vermont was in the news because radioactive cesium-137 released by Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has found its way into the Green Mountain State’s milk and dairy products, both organic and inorganic, registering 1.9 picoCuries of radiation per liter. With a radioactive half life of over 30 years (meaning it will still be radioactive 200 years from now), cesium-137 accumulates in our soft body tissue, where it is a contributing factor to the formation of cancer cells. Fukishima radiation, in various forms, has also shown up in dairy products and drinking water across the United States. In Little Rock, Arkansas, milk samples are showing three times the EPA maximum recommended level of radioactive iodine-131. Philidelphia’s drinking water has iodine-131 counts that are approaching the EPA maximum.

The radiation levels that we are seeing are still currently low, and on their own, as the EPA optimistically puts it, may pose little health risk—that is, unless leaks continue on at Fukushima. Even so, according to the group Physicians for Social Responsibility, there is no acceptable level of cesium-137 or iodine-131 contamination of food or water, since both are contributing factors in cancer creation.

Safe or not, Fukushima contamination showing up in Vermont is a stark reminder that we all live on a little planet, and like it or not, there is no escaping this global society. Techno-fetishistic corporate arrogance—the reckless gall in building hellish poison plants upwind from the rest of the world—will, in the end, be felt on the organic farms of Vermont. We do live on what Buckminster Fuller termed “Spaceship Earth.” For better or worse, we share an ocean and an atmosphere—with neither turning out to be the boundless dumps we once thought them to be.

Japan so far has escaped the worst possible effects of its nuclear disaster, since the Japanese chose to site the Fukushima plant on the edge of the ocean, so that radioactive gasses are carried offshore by prevailing winds, and liquid radioactive leaks and dumps are carried away by sea currents. Whereas an inland plant would have poisoned much more of Japan, the seaside monster allows the Japanese government to rhetorically minimize the effects of its nuclear catastrophe, while the poisons swirl around the earth, waiting for untimely rains to drop them randomly on unsuspecting cities and farm communities.

In addition to the radioactive iodine and cesium that we are seeing in American water and agricultural products, the Fukushima monster has already belched out enough plutonium, if it were evenly and efficiently distributed, to kill off every person on the planet. This too gone to the magic land of “Away,” where it will show up as magic little cancer mines over the next several thousand years. Eating fish will now be like playing a game of Russian roulette, though perhaps with better odds.

In the global village, there is no magic land of “Away.” The fact is, because of this one nuclear power plant mishap, our world and the world of future generations will never be the same. Geiger counters that fishing boats will soon be as common as life jackets. And Ben and Jerry’s will plant little radioactive seeds in your thyroid. Currently there are 439 land-based nuclear reactors in operation, and more than 150 nuclear-powered naval ships and submarines plying the world’s oceans. In the US alone, there has been approximately one nuclear reactor leak per year since 1990. If we are indeed playing Russian roulette, the odds are turning against us. And neither Vermont nor any other place on this shrinking earth will ever again be bucolic. We’ve got to stop this nuclear insanity right now.


Reader Comments (posting new comments is closed!)

Bruce Beyer, member WNY Peace Center
14 Apr 2011, 09:10
"No nukes for me
cause I want my air to be,
free from radiation poison
falling over me.
These reactors that they're building
are a giant hanging tree.
Hanging tree, hanging tree.
Don't you build a hanging tree over me!"

--Pat Decou & Tex Lamountain Rainbow Snake Records

Lindia
14 Apr 2011, 20:17
Mr. Niman,

Thank you for your sobering reality check.

Everything is intertwined and nothing is exempt.

I must remark that this global catastrophe would be a really good reason for family planning.

Surely someone will call me out on this reasoning: Make love, not babies.

Fullers' Spaceship Earth is creaking under the load of overpopulation.

So, what do we do to get the NRC to shut down the oldest nuclear reactors in this country ?

ORGANIZE. I WANT TO HEAR FROM ANYONE WHO WOULD PETITION THE UTILITY GIANTS.
It's awful that we know we will have to fight for what is sane.

SO, LET'S GO FOR IT ! We could live without half the power we consume now. Does it not follow that we might live without half the nuclear reactors we have now ?


Bill Shakespeare
15 Apr 2011, 14:09
Great article. Nuclear power is just too dangerous.

Lindia - FYI: Overpopulation is a myth. There is more than enough space and more than enough food produced for everyone. The problem lies in getting the food to everyone who needs it. The population is about to plateu and then decrease. Many scientists have confirmed this. Overpopulation has nothing to do with the failure of nuclear plants. The spent fuel rods that were stored atop the facilities and the poor planning are the real worry. The heads of that plant need to be tried in a court of law.

Humanity is wonderful. We should encourage more reproduction, not less! The corrupt governments of the world are the real problem. The eugenics cult that pushes the depopulation agenda need to curtail their harmful, shameful rhetoric.

lindia
15 Apr 2011, 15:04
Wm.:
The perceived need to supply energy to a growing world population has created the monster nuclear power plants.
Of course overpopulation has nothing to do with the failure of nuclear plants !! Existence of, yes - failure of, no. A select breed of the population has to do with their failure.
The odds of one of the nuclear plants doing a meltdown would be increased by the number of plants, their age, and of course, the number of plants is dictated by an ever growing population.
Furthermore, the family planning concept ( no pun ) is in light of the fact that the future of a healthy environment for humans is dim, so out of compassion for future generations, it is a sad reality that less is more.
Yes, humanity is wonderful. Encouraging more reproduction is shameful rhetoric, in the present face of dwindling pristine environmental resources. You should adopt children, not birth all of them.

Mary
15 Apr 2011, 21:29
"What, if anything, might have happened if liquid-fluoride thorium reactors, or LFTRs (pronounced 'lifters') had been used instead of regular uranium-based light-water reactors [at Fukushima]? 'Short answer: My personal guess is that there would have been no concern at all about them after the quake.' " — From an interesting FastCompany article: http://www.fastcompany.com/1740010/is-safe-nuclear-power-possible

Lou Ricciuti
16 Apr 2011, 01:15
Thorium isn't the answer either. Thorium too is radioactive and while it's a different type of "canned" nuclear reaction, it still carries with it the chance and probability of contamination and eventual human and environmental disaster. Thorium is not as harmless as the nuclear industry would like for us to believe and all one need do is look up the long-lived dangers of fluorine-fluoride as a plain chemical material, mentioning nothing of what happens after it comes into contact with radioactive substances. Thorium is like "clean coal." There isn't any.

Another thing that is of importance here: listing only two or three of the radioactive isotopes that are being openly reported as "loose" does not begin to account for the 1000+ others that are also being released into the environment even as I write this. Cesium and uranium, plutonium and iodine are the ones that the industry apologists (think-tobacco lobby) wants to talk about as these are the simplest to explain away -- which is another industry dodge and machination when they're cornered during one of these disaterous events. Also look into the other isotopes and understand all of those half-lives too -- the billions of decays, each one carrying with it the possibility of triggering genetic abnormalities, illness, disease and death for generation upon generation yet to come. Then, study each of the characteristics of the individual isotopes such as transport mechanisms and their accumulation within the global biota, including in us, in our food and in our children. Only then will the bigger picture (lie) emerge that's been foisted upon us for the sake of "electric power," "economy," "global deterrence" etc ___________(add the reason/cause of the day to your own liking).

Get the old movie "On The Beach" and see what a worldwide extinction looks like at least in fictional terms, then, all one need to do is patiently wait for the reality of the nuclear industry to deal the final blow (Extinction Event), all the while telling us there is absolutely nothing to worry about. The mass outbreak that we now call cancer took it's rise and widespread entry into this world shortly after atmospheric testing began in the 1940's (yes, it was here before but not to the degree it is today) and loaded the planet with life-shortening, carcinogenic and killing particles. Since about 1975, childhood cancer has risen 20%. Of course not all radiation related but just the same.

I once read that you can judge a community by how they treat their children and the infirm. We're not doing so good on either of those two fronts now are we?

Regards,
Lou Ricciuti

Mary
16 Apr 2011, 08:58
Thanks, Lou. I agree. But I'm fatigued by oversimplified energy discussions. Every source has a downside, even renewables. And as we in WNY know, the new natural gas is not our father's natural gas. Likewise not all nukes are equal. As someone from a Kenmore family with two thyroid cancer cases, I am wary of all nuclear sources. But I still prefer detailed discussion of the issues. Also, conservation.

Bruce Beyer, member WNY Peace Center
16 Apr 2011, 17:49
If, in theory, one could build a "safe" nuclear power plant, we are still left with the problem of what we do with spent fuel and other nuclear waste. There is no safe dose of radiation which is why we don't x-ray pregnant women.

Excellent comment Lou!

Drew
18 Apr 2011, 14:51
The saying "there is no safe dose of radiation which is why we don't x-ray regnant women" is ridiculous. Bear in mind an ultrasound transducer is capable of cavitating a kids brain. Nuclear fuel expels energy (by definition) until it is harmless, but we get greedy and toss it in the pool when fission slows.

Lou Ricciuti
18 Apr 2011, 21:06
"Harmless" ?

Drew writes-
"Nuclear fuel expels energy (by definition) until it is harmless,..."
--


Half-lives of spent fuel to a "harmless" state are:
24,000 to 2 million years respectively for Plutonium and Neptunium (just two of the long lived isotopes from spent fuel). Hence, deep geologic repository and isolation for millennia has been studied. "Harmless" will not happen upon the surface of or underneath the earth for millions of years.

There is No Safe Dose Of Ionizing Radiation, including X-Rays, (EPA, BEIR VII Report, Natn'l. Academy of Sciences--ALL dose carries an associted risk of cancer) and that is why pregnant are advised to avoid X-Rays.

Mr. Beyer is correct.

Search G00GLE and "Pregnant Women X-Ray" for references and citation.

"Greed" may have a role in placing spent fuel in pools but more likely the reason is that the bundled rods accumulate unwanted highly-radioactive isotopes (as impurities) during the fission reaction itself, the reaction then becomes less stable in maintaining the wanted-designed fission rate within the reactor. Then, it's time for a fuel change. Roughy every 15 months to two years. That's how the rod bundles accumulate in the spent fuel pool. The greed, is in not finding suitably safe and cooled storage in a timely fashion and allowing these rod bundles to accumulate anywhere near people or spend time in the environment. See: NRC, DOE.

Regards,
Lou Ricciuti

Lindia
18 Apr 2011, 21:10
Om Shanti, Drew.

It is incredible that I have never thought of wasting energy in terms of discarding fuel rods that have not quite fissioned out. Ah, yes. The karma is clarified.

Lindia
18 Apr 2011, 21:22
Intellectualize as we may . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
My time machine goes with the Hopi Indians.
They may not have been nuclear physicists, but they were in touch with something essentially profound.
Generations of ancestral guidance in protecting and sustaining our precious mother earth.
Can we stop the bleeding ?

Mary
21 Apr 2011, 23:10
This is verbatim from an EPA press release this week: "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced a settlement with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to resolve alleged Clean Air Act violations at 11 of its coal-fired plants in Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The settlement will require TVA to invest a TVA estimated $3 to $5 billion on new and upgraded state-of-the-art pollution controls that will prevent approximately 1,200 to 3,000 premature deaths, 2,000 heart attacks and 21,000 cases of asthma attacks each year, resulting in up to $27 billion in annual health benefits."

Nobody is saying thorium reactors are foolproof, but it may be helpful to remember even the lesser costs of our current system. Thanks.