The Top 10 ProNuclear Arguments... Answered

Image Gallery TVA's Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant (above) has one of the only two atomic reactors that have?up to now?been fully licensed since the accident at Three Mile Island.

Article Tools

Image Gallery

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

Do some of the arguments of nuclear power supporters "feel" wrong to you, even though you have trouble pinpointing the fallacies in them? Then you'll be glad to read . . .

Despite the fact that nuclear power plant construction has slowed since the accident at Three Mile Island, America's conflict over the peaceful use of atomic energy goes on. Indeed, smarting from the wounds inflicted by the near-disaster outside of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the proponents of nuclear energy have "come out swinging" with magazine and television advertisements, traveling speakers, literature, and even airport advocates who loudly promote their point of view.

Well, there's nothing wrong with people's expressing their opinions, of course. On the other hand, though, the folks here at MOTHER feel there's nothing wrong with rebutting such propositions ... especially when the arguments seem to us to be either subtly misleading or downright incorrect. So we spent some time seeking out the strongest and most commonly used pronuclear statements we could find. Then we sent the arguments off to Dr. John Gofman, chairman of the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility and one of our country's most prominent opponents of nuclear power. The following, then, are ten of the arguments most often used by proponents of nuclear power . . . and Dr. Gofman's replies.

ARGUMENT 1: We receive more radiation sitting in our living rooms than is given off by nuclear power plants. A brick wall puts out 3.5 millirems of radiation per year, but a nuclear power plant releases only 0.3 millirem in the same time period. In fact, you can stand right next to a nuclear power plant and receive no radiation at all.

GOFMAN: First, let me agree that certain building materials do give off enough radiation doses to deserve consideration. Let me also agree that there is a very low dose of radiation emitted at the fenceline of a nuclear power plant that is functioning normally. If this were not the case, workers couldn't park their cars nearby, or even approach such utilities at all.

However, the "no dose at fenceline" statement doesn't consider the radiation people can receive from the entire nuclear power fuel cycle. We need to take into account all of the steps that make up the atomic energy process, including the production of mountains of uranium tailings (unshielded piles that are continuously releasing radioactive radon) . . . the inventory of radioactive poisons—such as cesium 137, strontium 90, and iodine 131—that "leak" or "puff" into the atmosphere when a power plant is not functioning normally ... the quantities of radioactive wastes being moved in fallible vehicles that can (and do) leak . . . and the so-called burial sites which have also been shown to leak and spread their material into the environment at large.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print