Anniversary of Three Mile Island Reminds Us, Nuclear Power is Still Not the Answer
Statement of Tyson Slocum, Director, Public Citizen’s Energy Program

tmi.jpg

Source: Public Citizen

Posted by: Elizabeth Fiend

WASHINGTON, DC -The anniversary of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident is a somber reminder of the fatal flaws of nuclear power and the unresolved dangers nuclear energy poses. However, despite the lessons learned from that catastrophe, the Bush administration is attempting to jump-start an industry that has been stagnant for almost three decades.

It’s almost as if the Bush administration forgot what happened March 28, 1979, when feedwater pumps failed at Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Harrisburg, Pa., leading to a partial core meltdown and the release of significant amounts of radiation. Prior to this event, mounting public concern and disastrous cost overruns led to the cancellation of most proposals for new reactors. Three Mile Island was the final blow.

Almost 30 years later, the flaws that halted interest in nuclear power have not changed. Cost, security, safety and waste proliferation are lingering problems that have yet to be resolved. Nuclear power is still dependent on taxpayer handouts for survival; plants still face safety shortcomings and lack of protection from terrorist attacks. Nuclear power is not a clean energy source, producing low- and high-level radioactive waste at every step of the process – from uranium mining to energy production.

What has changed since Three Mile Island? The nuclear industry has targeted not just ratepayers to bear the financial risk of these boondoggles, but is looking to saddle all taxpayers with the cost of guaranteeing the loans used to build new nuclear reactors.

Despite the president’s endorsement, nuclear power is not a solution to global warming. We have a 10-year window before global warming reaches its tipping point and major ecological and societal damage becomes unavoidable, says NASA scientist James Hansen. Even if a nuclear energy project was given government approval today, it would take about 10 years for the plant to start delivering electricity. The attempt to revitalize nuclear power is distracting us from cleaner, safer alternatives, such as renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Let’s remember Three Mile Island so that we don’t make the same mistakes. Written March 27, 2008

THREE MILE ISLAND a HISTORY

Source: Super70s.com

By Patrick Mondout

At four in the morning on March 28, 1979, a malfunction in the cooling system at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station led to the most serious commercial nuclear accident in US history and paved the way for reforms in the way nuclear power plants are operated and regulated. It also made Americans question the safety of nuclear power and helped make The China Syndrome – which had been released three weeks earlier – one of the biggest movies of the year.

About Three Mile Island

The Three Mile Island (TMI) Nuclear Generating station is located on 814 acres on an island in the Susquehanna River some 10 miles southeast of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania near some farmland. There are four separate generators at TMI and it was #2 that failed (it has been closed since then).

The Accident

There was nothing unusual about the early morning of March 28, 1979 at the Three Mile Nuclear Generating station. The weather was cold but not unusually so. But during routine maintenance, an automatically operated valve in the Unit 2 reactor closed when it should not have most likely due to either a mechanical or electrical failure. This shut off the water supply to the system that cools down the reactor core and prevented the steam generators from removing heat. Automated systems then shut down the reactor core. That should have been the end of the accident, but it was not.

A misreading by one of the engineers on duty compounded with a series of equipment and instrument malfunctions led to a dangerous loss of water coolant from the reactor core. As a result, the reactor core was partially exposed, which led to some radioactive gases escaping into the containment section of the reactor building. Though some of this radiation was released into the surrounding area, no immediate deaths or injuries occurred.

Media Circus

Reporters descending on the scene the next day were welcomed by sirens which were warning residents that radiation was being released, residents going the opposite direction with their belongings, and a proclamation by then-governor Richard Thornburgh urging pregnant women and those with small children to leave the area and calling for the closure of more than 20 local schools.

At the same time the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was hedging its bets by saying there might come a time when everyone had to be evacuated. For a time it seemed the environmentalist had been right all along about nuclear power. President Carter visited the area a few days later to assure the nation that the area was safe.

Meltdown?

According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s independent Rogovin Commission Report, we were a mere half an hour away from an irreversible meltdown as described in The China Syndrome. In fact, over 90% of the reactor core was damaged, 52% had melted down, and the containment building in which the reactor is located as well as several other locations around the plant were contaminated. In the end officials were able to restore enough coolant to the reactor core to prevent a complete meltdown and the #2 reactor at TMI was shut down permanently. The #1 reactor was also shut down and did not resume operation until 1985.

Aftermath

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued bulletins to all plants operating Babcock and Wilcox equipment (which is what is used at TMI) and many were temporarily shutdown. The clean-up at the #2 reactor took over a decade to complete. It would be six years before a power company again had the courage to ask for permission to build a nuclear power plant or even to add a reactor to an existing one.

The National Institutes of Health released a study about the effects on the population around Three Mile Island in 1997. The study was carried out by Professor Steven Wing and colleagues at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The study revealed that exposure to radiation after the 1979 nuclear accident at Three Mile Island may have increased cancer among some Pennsylvanians downwind of the plant. The data behind these conclusions were published in the Feb 24 1997 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

The new study involved re-analyzing data from a 1990 report that concluded the nation’s worst civilian nuclear accident was not responsible for excess cancers because radiation exposures were too low. However, the new analysis takes a contradictory position. Dr. Wing comments:

“Several hundred people at the time of the accident reported nausea, vomiting, hair loss and skin rashes, and a number said their pets died or had symptoms of radiation exposure. We figured that if that were possible, we ought to look at [the data] again. After adjusting for pre-accident cancer incidence, we found a striking increase in cancers downwind from Three Mile Island… I would be the first to say that our study doesn’t prove by itself that there were high-level radiation exposures, but it is part of a body of evidence that is consistent with high exposures.”

In 1996, U.S. District Court Judge Sylvia Rambo dismissed more than 2,000 damage claims filed against the power plant by nearby residents. Dr. Wing complained, “After she threw out the evidence that people had been injured by the accident, including part of our work, then she ruled that there wasn’t enough to proceed with the case.”

In Judge Rambo’s ruling, she writes: “The record presently before the court does not support the fundamental assumption made by Dr. Wing — that doses were significantly higher than originally estimated. In the absence of this assumption, Dr. Wing himself admits that he would be unable to make a causal interpretation based upon his findings. Because Plaintiffs have presented no evidence in support of this assumption, the court finds the Wing cancer incidence study does nothing to assist Plaintiffs in creating a material factual dispute or meeting their burden of proof.”

For a more technical analysis of this incident, see the NRC’s overview.

Category: Nuclear energy, Sustainable living, Environment, Alternative energy

 

4 Responses to “Nuclear Energy, Not the Way to Go”

  1. Red Craig Says:

    The world is facing a grim threat: continued use of fossil fuels is driving the environment in a direction that purely cannot be sustained. At this point we should be looking for the best possible information in deciding how to deal with it. To seek out and publicize the worst possible information sources, as was done here, can only cause harm.

    From the Editor: This comment was posted by a pro-nuclear energy web site. You can decide where you stand on this issue. For me, nuclear energy is BAD, dirty, dangerous. Love, Elizabeth Fiend

  2. Red Craig Says:

    Elizabeth, instead of seeking information that reinforces your preconceptions, you’d serve yourself better by looking for objective information sources.

    Are you aware that nuclear energy ranks with any of the renewable energy sources on safety and environmental effects? Please see http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/energy/pdf/externe_en.pdf, a comparison done by the European Commission?

    Are you aware that renewable energy depends on backup energy, and that the only backups available are nuclear and fossil-fuel?

    Consider what nuclear gets us:

    (1) An electricity source that doesn’t depend on wind or sunlight or the limited amount of energy storage available, and emits virtually no greenhouse gases. It could reduce CO2 emissions by 40%.

    (2) An energy-efficient way to produce hydrogen, which could be used directly in automobiles and trucks or added to biofuels to make their production higher by a factor of three. Presently, transportation accounts for about 33% of CO2 emissions; all of that could be eliminated through conservation, electrification, and alternate fuels.

    (3) A huge reduction in air pollution, lowered trade deficits, and freedom from Middle-East involvements.

    The simple truth is that we won’t shut down all the homes and businesses when there isn’t enough wind and sunlight to power them. We won’t make people stay in their cold, dark houses. If nuclear energy isn’t developed in a major way, the world will keep burning fossil fuels. Within fifty years nearly all the world’s people will live in severe hardship and the natural environment will have been irreversibly altered.

  3. Joe Archer Says:

    You guys are just latter-day Amish!

  4. Elizabeth Fiend Says:

    For another side on this issue check out what the Union of Concerned Scientists have to say about this issue.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/

    Love,
    ELizabeth Fiend

Leave a Reply