Nuclear risks as scary now as 32 years ago

Cary Brunswick

Related Photos

Cary Brunswick

Discussion

COMMENTING ON STORIES:

Welcome to our story comments feature. We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including the unpopular ones. We only ask that you keep your conversations clean, civil and on the topic of the story you are commenting on.

Coinciding with our websites redesign, we launched our new story comments feature through Disqus.

Disqus gives users the ability to log into our story comments feature so that they may be able to track their conversations, receive emails when their comments get a reply or to even have your comments update onto your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

For the time being, our story comments feature will continue to have the ability to post comments anonymously. We reserve the right to require registration in the future using your name and verified email address.

Not all comments are deemed printable. Some are disqualified at the newspaper’s discretion for a number of different reasons. Please follow our Online Rules of Conduct at all times.

RULES OF CONDUCT:

We reserve the right to remove comments that are unacceptable, to wit:

1. False and inacurate statements.
2. Personal attacks. Explicit name-calling.
3. Harassing, harmful, vulgar, obscene and defamatory language.
4. Threatening statements or statements that suggest violence.
5. Hate speech of any kind.
6. Intolerant comments on religion, race, age, gender, sexual preference or disabilities.
7. Accusations of criminal activity.
8. Content that is harmful to children and minors in any way.
9. References to any type of sexual activity and other private matters.
10. Random and inflammatory statements that are off topic.
11. Advertising of any kind.
12. Typing in all caps.

WE ENCOURAGE REASONABLE AND COURTEOUS COMMENTS THAT:

1. Create conversation on issues of interest and concern to fellow readers and local community members.
2. Express opinions and contrarian views.
3. Stimulate debate with respectful language.
4. Stay within the boundaries of these rules.

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO SUSPEND OR TERMINATE ACCESS FOR:

1. Violating any of these Online Rules of Conduct.
2. Deliberately disrupting discussions with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or spam.
3. Misrepresentation of identity or impersonating another user.

WE WELCOME:

1. Flagging violations of these rules that you observe to our attention.

MONITORING:

We monitor comments regularly Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Approval of comments outside of this time (including weekends) will be sporadic.

comments powered by Disqus

April 23, 2011

Nuclear risks as scary now as 32 years ago

Anonymous Daily Star The Daily Star Wed Jun 29, 2011, 10:15 AM EDT

A little more than 32 years ago, a small group of homesteaders huddled in a cabin on a Fingers Lakes hilltop on the day a nuclear emergency was declared at the Three Mile Island nuclear-power plant near Harrisburg, Pa.

The wind was blowing from the southwest, and we didn't know what the impact would be in our area or what to do about it. I was especially concerned because my wife was pregnant with our first child.

We were familiar with the Clamshell Alliance and the battle over the Seabrook plant on the New Hampshire coast, and also the nuclear-waste site at West Valley. But we realized we knew very little about the effects of radiation as it travels windward through the atmosphere.

The anniversary of the TMI nuclear accident, the worst ever in the United States, was March 28. On that date in 1979, the plant's cooling system failed, causing a partial meltdown. Tens of thousands of gallons of radioactive wastewater were released into the Susquehanna River, and there was a large release of radioactive gases, including iodine-131.

We lived about 170 miles from TMI, the way the eagle flies, and likely were either paranoid or naive about the danger to us. We decided not to flee to the north, but instead eat a lot of apples for the pectin that would help save our thyroids from the radioactive iodine.

While "TMI" has come to stand for "too much information," back then and to this day there remains anything but common knowledge about the effects of radiation.

The crisis at Fukushima has forced tens of thousands of people to evacuate, radiation leaks have contaminated crops and fishermen have been unable to sell their catches. But the government somehow has been able to tell people that radiation levels "do not pose an immediate or significant threat to the public."

The long-term issue, however, is the radiation that has entered the food chain, and the chances that it could cause cancer and other health problems.

Since radiation from Japan has been found in American drinking water, milk and rain, we can only hope that our experts have a greater grasp of possible impacts than they did back in the 1950s when North Americans were pummeled with fallout from nuclear bomb tests out West.

You can't help but wonder why my generation seems to be much more prone to cancer. Well, children of the '50s were told to drink lots of milk, and on occasion it easily was contaminated from bomb-test fallout. Radioactive isotopes accumulate in milk after falling to the ground in rain or dust and settling on vegetation or feed eaten by dairy cows.

According to data released by the Environmental Protection Agency on April 8, radiation from Japan had been detected in the drinking or rain water of numerous American cities, including Albany, and cesium-137 was found in milk from as close as Vermont.

It is clear now that radiation released into the atmosphere can be detected half a world away.

Against this backdrop, the future of this country's nuclear-power industry, lauded by President Obama as a means to cut back on fossil fuels, must be questioned. In fact, a recent Associated Press-GfK poll showed that 60 percent of Americans oppose building more nuclear power plants.

And not only that. The poll also found that most Americans have doubts our government is prepared to respond to a nuclear emergency such as the one in Japan.

Oh, great, you say. Just as the price of gasoline surpasses $4 a gallon, and with nuclear power offering a clean and efficient alternative to oil, this radiation accident had to occur.

Perhaps it is a good thing _ not for the Japanese, of course, but for our energy policy. While nuclear power is clean and efficient, the process of boiling water with the controlled heating of nuclear fuel rods is risky for a variety of reasons, not just earthquakes and tsunamis.

The U.S. should use the Fukushima crisis as a spur to more vigorously pursue other fossil-fuel alternatives, such as solar and wind. The president should recognize this and change his position on nuclear power.

Cary Brunswick, of Oneonta, is a freelance writer and editor of oneontatoday.com. He can be reached at brunswick@earthling.net.