Abstract
The history of commercial nuclear energy, a dramatic shift from the technological marvel of the 1960s to the technological failure following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, is now being painted with a sparkling new face. Proponents proclaim a nuclear “renaissance,” but given nuclear energy's past difficulties, are we witnessing historical amnesia?
Few observers are more qualified than Matthew Wald, a longtime New York Times reporter and a close observer of nuclear developments, to provide an evenhanded assessment of the question (“Getting Power to the People,” September/October 2007 Bulletin). He appropriately delineates the changed circumstances favoring a nuclear revival as well as the legitimate technological challenges.
However, virtually absent from his report is a discussion of the social acceptance factor, which was ignored during the first wave of nuclear exuberance and proved to be highly influential in nuclear energy's past misfortunes. It appears that neither nuclear proponents nor those committed to credible analyses, such as Wald, have learned from past mistakes.
Wald's only mention of public opinion is to cite data from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the industry's trade association and a promoter of nuclear power, which not surprisingly show a positive attitude. Contrary to NEI findings, results from a March 2007 Gallup national probability sample, asking whether the public favors or opposes building new nuclear plants, are nearly a dead heat, with favorability exceeding opposition by bare statistical significance (50 percent to 46 percent). More telling are the results from a second March 2007 Gallup poll asking whether one would support “the construction of a nuclear energy plant within 20 miles of your home” to reduce global warming, which shows 62 percent opposed and only 34 percent in favor. This gives some hint of why the majority of expected nuclear license applications in 2008-2009 will be for plants at current facilities. For the nuclear industry to proclaim a renaissance in view of this evidence maybe premature.
Department of Sociology Washington State University
Matthew Wald's analysis of energy sources and their market status is welcome and thorough, especially when read with H. A. Feiveson's review of Bob Alvarez's report on radioactive waste and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (“A Wasteful Endeavor,” September/October 2007 Bulletin). Wald is quite good on the difficulties of building and paying for new nuclear reactors and dealing with their waste. But nowhere does he address their inherent problems of proliferation. He also leaves out the most dangerous problem, the susceptibility of nuclear plants and their waste to terrorist attack. Which would you rather see targeted, a nuclear power plant or an offshore wind farm?
Wald is also less than generous to re-newables. He should carefully read reports such as “Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.” from the American Solar Energy Society and “American Energy: The Renewable Path to Energy Security” from the Worldwatch Institute and the Center for American Progress. They make convincing cases for the huge potential of renewables.
Wald notes opposition to the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound, but doesn't say that its NIMBY opposition has been countered by growing citizen and environmentalist support around Massachusetts and the nation. The steep upward curves in sales and investments in wind and solar are also attracting political support. That can influence markets. Like politics, markets reflect the preferences and psychology of people. By relying too much on Energy Information Administration projections, which neglect social movements and politics, Wald misses the chance to describe just how much renewables can grow. It is time to give them two wedges in Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala's useful and popular framework for carbon reductions, and skip the nuclear plants.
Program in Global Environmental Politics, American University
More Risks with Nuclear Power
Brice Smith was well trained at the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, as demonstrated in his interview (November/December 2007 Bulletin). However, the interview did not address radiation injury, which is an additional risk associated with nuclear proliferation. This is when risk becomes reality.
Since 2001, the United States has paid $1 billion in compensation to uranium miners and Nevada Test Site “down-winders” who had a cancer diagnosis. But what about other deadly diseases known to result from radiation injury? Paralysis is recognized as one of the rare diseases caused by low-level radiation.
Stable cesium–and its radioactive isotopes–are byproducts of nuclear fission that persist in the environment. Cesium is also a neurotoxin capable of causing progressive skeletal muscle paralysis. This effect is evident in clusters of people with motor neuron disease who are found in Japan and Guam where radioactive fallout is known to have occurred.
Elevated cesium concentrations have also been found in red blood cells from patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease). In fact, many of the molecular targets found in ALS are radiation markers; thus, a correlation between concentrations of cesium and the disease progression of ALS is theoretically plausible.
Current research into this rare disease implicates a few heavy metals as well as ionizing radiation, but nothing has been proven. As scientists delve deeper into the microscopic level, my fear is that we will not recognize the connections between existing published data.
Rates of motor neuron disease in women continue to increase in the United States. Yet, the counties with populations that are at risk from exposure to high levels of cesium deposition are not being monitored. We cannot justify nuclear expansion when we are not willing to be accountable for all of its consequences.
Arlington, Virginia
As we all know, the world faces twin crises: global warming and peak oil. I am thus disturbed by the Bulletin's recent interview with Brice Smith. The clear suggestion is that the Bulletin is against nuclear power as much as it is against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, the interview generated few facts but a lot of opinion. For instance, when asked whether nuclear power could ever be acceptable, Smith simply replied, “Many alternative technologies will be available within the next 10 years.”
Smith may have lived in the shadow of the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons facility, but so have others who reach entirely different conclusions. Readers may be interested in The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear (1977), by the late Petr Beckmann, who debated Ralph Nader on the safety of nuclear power, or Nuclear Fear, a History of Images (1989) by Spencer R. Weart.
I encourage the Bulletin to solicit an article by a supporter of nuclear power, especially since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expecting 17 more applications in 2008 and 2009 to build new units.
Boulder, Colorado
Remembering Panofsky
W. K. H. “Pief” Panofsky will be remembered as an outstanding contributor to, and leader of, great advances in our understanding of the fundamental physics of particles and matter that have marked the past century. He was also conscious of his responsibility as a scientist to serve his government on matters of science policy. He devoted much of his life and energy to advising U.S. governments and leading commissions of the National Academy of Sciences on matters related to nuclear weapons policy, persistently advocating policies designed to reduce global nuclear arsenals and the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. defense policy.
The November/December 2007 Bulletin contained an article by Pief (“Peace Talk: My Life Negotiating Science and Policy”), in which he puts forward a policy of “prohibiting” the use of nuclear weapons.
He advocates the “prohibition” of nuclear weapons as an alternative to their “elimination,” since “nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented.” “Pleas for eliminating nuclear weapons lack reality, but prohibiting them is within the range of feasibility,” Pief argued.
I think it worth stating that although the prohibition of nuclear weapons would be a big step toward solving the global dangers posed by nuclear arsenals, it cannot be considered a definitive solution. The possibility that arsenals could be used would remain, and the problem of proliferation would not be solved. To the extent that other nations feel bullied by the nuclear weapon states, they cannot be expected to relinquish their nuclear ambitions to reduce this gap. I am afraid that the only “realistic” solution to the nuclear weapons problem is their global elimination.
European Organization for Nuclear Research Geneva, Switzerland
Limits of Risk Analyses
“The Danger Equation” (September/October 2007 Bulletin) presents the relationship between scientists and the public in overly simplistic terms. According to author Jennifer Ouellette, experts know it all and can determine the risk associated with a technology with near god-like accuracy. The public, on the other hand, appears to be stubbornly irrational and prone to panic.
My experience from 30 years' work in the field of nuclear safety and security indicates that this is simply not so. Risk studies never provide accurate and comprehensive results. Uncertainties can span orders of magnitude (regarding seismic hazards, for example). Furthermore, there are some influences for which it is impossible to calculate meaningful probabilities of occurrence (as for malicious human acts, or unforeseen physical or chemical phenomena).
Thus, the results of risk studies only provide indicators that can be useful when comparing power plants of the same type (light water nuclear reactors, for example), analyzed with the same methodology. But they should never be taken as absolutes, and extreme care is required when comparing different technologies. As a rule, methodologies will differ, as will uncertainties and the scope of factors which cannot be quantified.
In other words, the public is well advised not to trust statements such as, “the probability of a severe accident is one in a million per year.” They have little meaning in absolute terms, and they do not say all that much about the acceptability of a given technology. In my view, the public often understands one crucial issue very well: Be skeptical when scientists claim they can reliably and accurately determine the risk of a technology.
Scientists should not complain about the public's lack of trust. They should be glad about this critical attitude. It can help them not to forget the inherent limitations of their analyses and keep their feet well on the ground.
Hanover, Germany
The Bulletin welcomes letters to the editor 0/250 words or less. Send your letter to Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60602; by fax to 312.364.9715; or via email to