Comments on Helen Caldicott's New Book: Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer

[Guest guest]

S

Tue, 8 Aug 2006 02:01:33 -0700 (PDT)

Comments on Helen Caldicott's New Book: Nuclear Power Is Not

the Answer

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on Helen Caldicott's New Book: Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer

Stephen Lendman

 

 

August 7, 2006

 

No one writes with more passion, commitment and knowledge about the

immense dangers of nuclear technology in all its forms than Australian

physician and nuclear expert Helen Caldicott. Since writing her first

book (must reading for everyone), Nuclear Madness, in 1978, Dr.

Caldicott has worked tirelessly to expose the real threat this

technology from hell poses to human survival. In her first book she

wrote: " As a physician, I contend that nuclear technology threatens

life on our planet with extinction. If present trends continue, the

air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink will soon be

contaminated with enough radioactive pollutants to pose a potential

health hazard far greater than any plague humanity has ever experienced. "

 

Dr. Caldicott has now written 6 important books on nuclear technology

and its dangers. Her latest just published is Nuclear Power Is Not the

Answer. In it she's written a carefully documented account of the

reasons why. Like her other books, this one, too, is must reading, and

those doing it will never forget its vital message. The book is a

basic text on all things wrong with commercial nuclear power and why,

as Dr. Caldicott explains, this technology must be abandoned before it

destroys us as it surely will if its use and proliferation aren't

halted everywhere. This book is about commercial nuclear power in

contrast to her last one, The New Nuclear Danger, that was a powerful

and convincing indictment of the military-industrial complex and its

addiction to nuclear weapons of mass destruction and the Pentagon's

intent to use them as needed preemptively.

 

In her new book, Dr. Caldicott makes her convincing case in 10

chapters, each one covering a separate crucial issue about commercial

nuclear power. Eight of them explain in detail its dangers and

problems, and the two final ones propose sensible and urgently needed

solutions so far largely unaddressed. But she begins in her

introduction with a clear statement that our government has now

embarked on a disingenuous and sinister campaign to sell the

acceptability of the use and expansion of commercial nuclear

technology to the US public long turned off on it by the near disaster

at the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania in

March, 1979 and the catastrophic Chernobyl meltdown and explosion in

the Ukraine in April, 1986. She begins her detailed account that,

contrary to government and industry propaganda, nuclear power is

neither efficient, reliable, cheap, clean or safe. It's a very

sophisticated, expensive and dangerous way to boil water, turn it to

steam, which then turns a turbine to generate electricity.

 

Dr. Caldicott explains, contrary to government and industry

propaganda, that the generation of nuclear power causes the discharge

of significant emissions of greenhouse gases as well as hundreds of

thousands of curies of deadly radioactive gases and other radioactive

elements into the environment every year. It also requires huge and

unjustifiable government subsidies including protection against

catastrophic accidents to make it attractive to investors. In

addition, and most disturbing, there's the real threat of an attack

against any of our 103 nuclear power plants in blowback retaliatory

response to hostile US acts against other nations in the past, the two

current illegal aggressions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan,

our one-sided support for Israel's long-running conflict with and

current aggression against the defenseless Palestinians and people of

Lebanon, and our possible intent to spread the present Middle East

conflict to Iran and Syria with the preemptive use of nuclear weapons.

US nuclear power plants are notoriously inadequately protected and are

thus vulnerable easy targets to strike if a committed antagonist

wished to do so. If it happens, the result will be a catastrophic

disaster irrevocably affecting the area struck and people now living

there.

 

Adding further to the danger, these plants are atom bomb factories. A

1000 megawatt nuclear reactor produces 500 pounds of plutonium

annually, only 10 pounds of which is needed as fuel for a bomb

powerful enough to devastate a large city and make it unlivable

essentially forever. Dr. Caldicott explains all this and much more in

her book, and her mission in writing it and her others, as well as her

role as President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute is to

counteract the false rhetoric of governments worldwide and the nuclear

power industry touting the so-called benefits of nuclear technology.

In her duel roles, she's become perhaps the world's leading advocate

for the abolition of a technology too unsafe to be tolerated any

longer. She spends all her time dedicated to writing and speaking out

around the world telling the public the truths they never hear in the

mainstream about this dangerous and unacceptable form of producing

energy to get them to demand it be abandoned.

 

Below is an account of the clear evidence Dr. Caldicott explains and

documents, chapter by chapter.

 

Chapter 1 - The Energetic Costs of Nuclear Power - It Takes Fossil

Fuel Burning Power to Produce Nuclear Energy

 

The American nuclear industry's task of selling its technology to the

public is the responsibilithy of its trade association - the Nuclear

Energy Institute (NEI). They do it through a false and misleading

campaign of deception to convince the public that nuclear energy is

" cleaner and greener " than conventional sources of generating

electricity. The truth, however, is quite different. Although a

nuclear power plant releases no carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary

greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere causing global warming, it

requires a vast infrastructure, called the nuclear fuel cycle, which

uses huge and rapidly growing amounts of fossil fuels. Each stage of

the cycle contributes to the problem starting with the largest and

unavoidable energy cost to mine and mill uranium fuel which requires

fossil fuel to do it. It continues with the problem of what to do with

the mill tailings produced in the uranium extraction process that

require great amounts of these greenhouse emitting fuels to remediate

when this process is undertaken as it always should be. Other steps in

the nuclear fuel cycle also require the use of fossil fuels including

the conversion of uranium to hexafluoride gas prior to enrichment, the

enrichment process, and the conversion of enriched uranium

hexafluoride gas to fuel pellets. In addition, nuclear power plant

construction, dismantling and cleanup at the end of their useful life

require large amounts of energy. But the process and problems don't

end there. The contaminated water that cools the reactor core must be

dealt with, and the enormous problem of radioactive nuclear waste

handling, transportation and disposal/storage remains unresolved.

 

Chapter 2 - The True Economic Costs of Nuclear Energy - The Price in

Dollars and Cents

 

Nuclear industry and government propaganda notwithstanding, nuclear

power is expensive, and when an inevitable catastrophic meltdown

eventually occurs near or in a US city we'll know in grim detail just

how much so. The industry falsely claims nuclear power costs 1.7 cents

per kilowatt hour to produce compared to 2 cents for coal and 5.7

cents for natural gas. But a report by the New Economic Foundation

titled " Mirage and Oasis - Energy Choices in An Age of Global Warming "

calculated the true cost to be three times the industry figure if all

costs, including capital ones, in the nuclear cycle are included. And

even these costs exclude the additional ones of managing pollution,

accidents that occur, insurance and security to protect against an

attack or internal sabotage.

 

The true costs and risks of nuclear power are so unattractive to

investors that this industry couldn't exist without the many billions

of dollars of government spending support it gets including most of

the $111.5 billion on energy R & D spent from 1948 - 1998. But heavy

government funding will now become even greater as a result of the

2005 Energy bill that's part of an attempt to jump-start this moribund

industry. This outrageous bill offers a lavish array of " cradle to

grave " subsidies that include tax credits and breaks, loan guarantees,

R & D help and risk insurance. It also assures the government will

cover the cost of the complex infrastructure needed to transport and

store nuclear waste, provide military protection against potential

blowback attacks and more. In addition, it reauthorizes the current

Price-Anderson Act that will make taxpayers and not the industry pay

98% of the cost in case of a worse case nuclear meltdown that's sure

to occur one day. It's part of the same scam that's in place for all

other major US industries. It's called socialism for large

corporations that write the legislation serving their interests

guaranteeing them huge government subsidies and other benefits and

capitalism for the rest of us who must pay for them through our taxes.

 

One of the major and most egregious provisions of the 2005 Energy bill

is the repeal of the important Public Utilities Holding Company Act

(PUHCA) passed in 1935 as a cornerstone of New Deal financial reform

that corrected the abuses of utility holding companies that scammed

ratepayers. Now it's again open season for giant power monopolies and

other dominant corporations to own nuclear power plants and exploit

the public free from regulatory oversight or competition to restrain

them. It's all part of a business-government scheme to develop a

dangerous industry, largely free it from regulatory oversight, make it

profitable for giant US corporations to own and dominate, and get the

public to assume all the risks and foot the bill at inflated prices.

 

Chapter 3 - Nuclear Power, Radiation and Disease - The Unaddressed

Human Toll

 

The overall cost of nuclear energy rarely, if ever, includes the very

significant toll it takes on human health. Those paying the price

include uranium miners, nuclear industry workers and potentially

everyone living close to these operations. Also affected are residents

in areas close to nuclear power plants that routinely or accidently

emit toxic radioactive releases that can cause illness, disease and

death over time. Chicago is a prime example of what may go wrong. The

city is surrounded by 11 nuclear power plants, many of them aging and

all of them with histories of safety violations caused by aging and

shoddy maintenance. Even if accident free, these facilities (and all

others everywhere) discharge enough radiation daily in their normal

operations to contaminate the food we eat (even organic food), water

we drink and air we breathe into our lungs. But if a core meltdown

ever occurs at any of these plants (a real possibility no one is

prepared for) and Chicago is downwind of the fallout, the city and

suburbs alone would become uninhabitable forever and would have to be

evacuated quickly with all possessions left behind and lost (including

people's homes) except for what could be carried in suitcases or

family vehicles.

 

Two other groups especially also have and continue to pay an

overwhelming and largely hidden price from the toxic effects of

radiation poisoning - the people of Iraq and US military force

invaders and occupiers who now serve there, have served or will in the

future as well as those participating in the 1991 Gulf war. Most of

them have potentially been exposed to the deadly effects of so-called

depleted uranium (DU) poisoning because of the extensive use of DU

munitions by the US military in both Iraq conflicts. These weapons

were first developed for the Navy in 1968 and tested by Israel in the

1973 Yom Kippur war under US supervision. Except for that test, they

were never before used by any country prior to the US Operation Desert

Storm in 1991. Since then, the US has used them freely, routinely and

with deadly consequences to those affected by their fallout.

 

DU is part of the radioactive waste resulting from the enrichment

process used to produce enriched uranium fuel for nuclear reactors.

When the Pentagon discovered that solid " dense metal " (1.7 times the

density of lead) DU projectiles in all forms (missiles, bombs, shells

and bullets) greatly increased their ability to penetrate and destroy

a target, they knew they had a new technology they could use

advantageously in combat and now have done so for the last 15 years in

four wars. Despite their effectiveness as a weapon, however, DU

munitions have a serious and deadly side effect. In all their forms,

they're radioactive and chemically toxic after striking, penetrating

and incinerating inside a target after which they aerosolize in a fine

spray which then contaminates the air, soil and water around and

beyond the target area. The toxic residue is permanent and those

ingesting this ceramic uranium oxide have a permanent dose that

potentially can cause many diseases including cancer, leukemia, birth

defects and ultimately death or at least a shorter, more painful life.

 

No one has kept track of the precise toll DU poisoning has had on the

Iraqis although it's known the cancer rate in the country is far

higher now than before 1991. But much is known about how DU toxicity

has affected the US military who served in the Gulf war. Thirty

percent or more of them are now on some kind of disability or have

died from a serious illness likely the result of their military

service in the Gulf. We're also just beginning to learn that those

serving in Iraq since March, 2003 are reporting disturbing symptoms.

Over time, it's likely they'll multiply greatly, affect a greater

number of our forces than those serving in the Gulf war because of

longer and repeated deployments to the region and eventually cause an

even greater number of serious illnesses and deaths because the DU

weapons now used contain plutonium, neptunium and the highly

radioactive uranium isotope U-236. A UK Atomic Energy Authority 1991

study found these latter two isotopes were 100,000 times more

dangerous than the U-238 used earlier in DU munitions. By any

interpretation of the appropriate Hague and Geneva Conventions banning

the use of all chemical, biological or any other " poison or poisoned

weapons " in war, the US use of DU munitions constitutes a war crime

that has and will continue to take an immense and tragic toll on those

individuals exposed to them.

 

The danger to human health from the use of nuclear power in any form

is unavoidable even under the best of circumstances outside of a war

zone. But whenever serious accidents happen, as they have and will

again, the consequences can be calamitous. The link between radiation

exposure and disease is irrefutable dependent only on the amount of

cumulative exposure over a long enough period of time. Dr. Caldicott

explains that " If a regulatory gene is biochemically altered by

radiation exposure, the cell will begin to incubate cancer, during a

'latent period of carcinogenesis,' lasting from two to sixty years. "

As little as a single gene mutation can eventually turn out to be

fatal and too often is. No amount of radiation exposure is safe, and

it's thought that 80% of known types of cancers are environmentally

caused by such exposure combined with the potentially carcenogenic

effects of about 80,000 different inadequately or untested chemicals

in common use acting synergistically in our bodies to harm us.

 

But just the combined effects of routine allowable radiation from

nuclear power plants, uranium mining and milling operations, uranium

enrichment, and fuel fabrication can be devastating to all those

exposed to any of their effects. Add to that the insoluble problem of

radioactive waste disposal/storage and the certainty of devastating

nuclear accidents, it's no exaggeration to say the human species is

playing an insane game of nuclear Russian roulette it can't win and

that will eventually have a disastrous and possibly fatal ending if we

can't stop it in time.

 

Chapter 4 - Accidental and Terrorist-Induced Nuclear Meltdowns - A

Devastating Nuclear Event is Certain

 

Many experts agree it's only a matter of when and where, not if, a

devastating meltdown will occur in one or more of the 438 nuclear

power plants located in 33 countries worldwide. It may result from

human error, a plant owner's unwise or unsafe attempt to minimize

operating costs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) imprudent

accession to industry pressure to allow 20 year operating extensions

to plants designed to run only for 40 years, the effects of a tsunami

or high enough magnitude earthquake in areas vulnerable to them or

from a deliberate attack or internal sabotage. When this does happen,

if it's near a large city and its full impact is felt and known, the

world may never be the same again. But it will be too late for the

residents in and around that city (which could be New York, Chicago or

Paris) who'll lose all their possessions, be forced to evacuate their

homes, and never again be able to return to them because of the

permanent irremediable toxic radiation there.

 

Dr. Caldicott explains that " Every US power plant is moving into the

old-age cycle " because no new ones have been built here since the TMI

accident in Pennsylvania in 1979. As a result, the number of

near-misses and near-meltdowns has increased mostly resulting from

human error, aging equipment and inadequate maintenance and regulatory

oversight. With the dangers so high and inevitable and the supposed

benefits totally without merit, why would the leaders and residents of

any community ever be willing to allow the construction or operation

of a nuclear power plant near enough to them to destroy their lives

should a catastrophic nuclear event happen as it surely will

potentially at any of the world's nuclear plants.

 

Chapter 5 - Yucca Mountain and the Nuclear Waste Disaster - This

Congressionally Chosen Area for Storage is Known to Be Unsafe

 

For a geological nuclear waste storage site to be safe, it must be

able to prevent any leakage and seepage into the environment for at

least 500,000 years. The chosen Yucca site can't achieve this mandate

for many reasons. It's close to groundwater that will be contaminated

from leakage from corroded casks that will spread to spring water

irrigation areas used for farming and by protected species. Yucca is

also located in an active earthquake zone where in 1992 a major 7.4

Richter measured quake occurred followed two days later by an

additional 5.2 quake that caused $1 million of damage to the

Department of Energy (DOE) building located six miles from the Yucca

site. Yucca Mountain was thought to be waterproof as its soil must be

dry to prevent corrosion. But much more water inside was discovered

there than originally estimated meaning this site is far too dangerous

for a permanent home for nuclear waste storage. In addition, this site

is located close to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada where new military

jet aircraft are tested, war exercises are held and crashes happen

that may have serious and unacceptable consequences.

 

Finally and crucially is the issue of radioactive waste transport from

around the nation to this one site on highways and by rail. It will

take 30 years to move the 70,000 metric tons of civilian and military

spent fuel Yucca is authorized to store from its temporary sites

around the country to this one location. Currently there's no

prohibition on the shipping of this waste through highly populated

areas nor during periods of bad weather like severe snow storms making

driving hazardous. But it's been predicted as many as 50 accidents a

year may result, three of them involving serious releases of toxic

radiation that will contaminate the surrounding environment. In

addition, and compounding the problem, all 11 of the storage casks

currently approved and used by DOE for radioactive waste transport

have been found to be defective. But none of these concerns have

diminished the Bush administration's determination to proceed with the

Yucca storage plan. Clearly, it has no concern whatever for public

safety. For those in the administration, only corporate profits matter

along with their plan for world dominance to enhance them.

 

Chapter 6 - Generation IV Nuclear Reactors - They Will Increase

Operational Risks and Are Unacceptable

 

The majority of the world's operating nuclear power reactors are

so-called Generation II types. But there are serious and potentially

fatal problems associated with them, and yet the industry wishes to

move ahead to new designs that promise to be even more dangerous.

Currently there are Generation III reactors operating in the US only

slightly different from the Generation II ones. A 2005 Greenpeace

study of nuclear reactor hazards showed most of these newer versions

to be little different than their dangerous predecessors despite false

industry claims about their added safety. Still about 20 different

Generation III designs are now under development which the industry

expects to be built and operational by 2010.

 

The Generation III and a so-called III+ design represent " evolutionary

changes " from their predecessors despite the dangers associated with

them. Undeterred, a newer Generation IV " revolutionary " design is

under development that relies on fuel and plant performance standards

that have not been tested and may turn out to be unachievable. Despite

the danger involved, and with the public footing the bill and risk,

the industry has made the outrageous and unproved claims that these

reactors are ideal fuel providers, safe, proliferation resistant,

economically competitive and free from greenhouse gas emissions. Dr.

Caldicott debunks all these notions and calls them as " baseless today

as (the absurd) 'too cheap to meter' (claim) was fifty years ago. " She

goes on to explain that " People with an intimate understanding of the

nuclear industry are severely opposed to a nuclear renaissance "

because of the unacceptable risks and most all other falsely claimed

benefits associated with it. Dr. Caldicott concludes that so-called

Generation III and IV reactor designs " are controversial and

contentious, and seem not be be based upon sound economic,

environmental safety, or proliferation-resistant principles. " Based on

the industry/government's long-standing record of lies and deception

in promoting the safety and benefits of nuclear power, one can hardly

disagree with her.

 

Chapter 7 - Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation - This is

Madness and An Unacceptable Risk

 

Experts who know, explain that the nuclear arms supermarket and the

dissemination of nuclear technology is vast, growing and dangerous.

It's likely only a matter of time before a rogue nation or element

obtains and makes one or more crude highly-enriched uranium nuclear

bombs and sets one of them off in a major city probably located in the

US. New York and Washington, DC are clearly the most obvious likely

targets, and if it happens, those cities will be have to be evacuated

and will be uninhabitable forever if the bomb is large enough and

strategically placed.

 

The chance of that happening will increase if, as proposed, 2,000

nuclear power plants are built in countries wanting them in the

decades ahead. Those plants in operation would produce an inventory of

about 20,000 metric tons of plutonium, the most deadly of all toxic

substances known (as little as one-millionth of a gram is a

carcinogenic dose), dwarfing the current amount in the world today and

increasing the potential danger from it enormously. Dr. Caldicott

calls this " plutonium madness. " Twelve years ago, the National Academy

of Sciences called the US and Russian military-derived plutonium

stockpiles alone " a clear and present danger to national and

international security " because of the chance of any of it falling

into rogue hands. If a vastly larger stockpile is produced in so many

places, it would be much harder to secure or keep track of. It's

generally accepted that it takes just five kilograms (11 pounds) of

weapons grade plutonium or 8 kilograms (17.6 pounds) of reactor grade

plutonium to make a nuclear bomb. With so much of this substance

around, and much of it likely inadequately secured, the temptation to

do it would be enormous.

 

The danger is even greater because today 18 countries have uranium

enrichment facilities enabling them, if they wish, to produce fuel for

nuclear weapons. Nine of these countries are now known to possess

nuclear weapons, and the IAEA estimates that within 10 years as many

as 40 or more nations may be able to make them, and many likely will

to have available at least in self-defense. In addition, 70 countries

now have legally acceptable small nuclear reactors, mostly fueled by

highly enriched uranium. These reactors also manufacture plutonium,

and both fuels can be used to make nuclear bombs if elements in any of

these countries have the know-how and wish to do so. Many of them will

be forced to do it in response to threats posed by hostile neighbors

and especially by the US that openly claims the right to use nuclear

bombs preemptively in any future conflict for any reason it claims is

justifiable and certainly will unless restrained. If this happens,

it's only a matter of time until a nuclear bomb is set off on US soil

with all the devastation that will follow from it.

 

Chapter 8 - Nuclear Power and " Rogue Nations " - Those Having Nuclear

Weapons or Threaten to Use Them Are the " Rogue " Ones to Fear

 

Two nations clearly are at the head of the " rogue " nuclear pack - the

US and Russia that combined have 97% of the total known arsenal of

about 30,000 nuclear bombs. Because these two nations maintain

thousands of these weapons on " hair-trigger " alert, a nuclear exchange

between them would cause a nuclear winter and likely end all life on

all or most of the planet. It could happen despite the end of the cold

war as relations between the two countries have become more frosty and

Russia's early warning system is hopelessly outdated, flawed,

inadequate and subject to false alerts with only moments to react

before it's too late. In addition, other countries having nuclear

weapons or sure to develop them in the future, will certainly respond

with them (if able) if they're attacked with these weapons or possibly

even by conventional ones. Responsible leaders of any nation are

likely to develop and use whatever weapons they have in self-defense

if forced to do so. It's a very real and dangerous possibility and

reason enough to argue for the abolition of this technology from hell

that may destroy all human life if left unchecked.

 

The case of Iran stands out at this time as it's become a target of

the Bush administration for regime change which the Iranian government

knows and realizes it must act in its own self-defense to prevent.

Iran is pursuing a nuclear option it claims is for commercial use

only. The country is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Treaty (NPT) and, as far as known, is in full compliance with it while

India, Pakistan and Israel (all having known nuclear arsenals) are

not, haven't signed it and don't comply with it. There is no way to

know what Iran's intentions are, but it would be irresponsible for its

leaders not to be undertaking all measures it can to prevent a hostile

attack or deter one if it occurs. The Iranian President Mahmoud

Ahmadinejad pointedly observed in September, 2005: " Every day they

(the Americans) are threatening other nations with nuclear weapons. "

He added that Western countries were " relying on their power and

wealth to try to impose a climate of intimidation and injustice over

the world. " It's logical and likely to assume most or all nations with

concerns for their security will take whatever measures they can to

protect themselves and retaliate if attacked. But it must also be

pointed out that no nation ever has or is now or in the near future

likely to threaten the US with a hostile attack - not Iran, North

Korea, Syria, Venezuela or any other. It's quite clear to them all and

to the West that if any did, the US would destroy them.

 

Only one nation above all others is a threat to world security and

peace, and that nation is the most " roguish " of all. It's the US, and

all other countries know it. The US is now waging two illegal wars in

the Middle East and Central Asia, unconditionally supports Israel's

right to do the same against the defenseless Palestinians and Lebanese

and is threatening additional conflicts against Iran, Syria, Venezuela

(to remove a three-time democratically elected President loved by the

great majority of his people), and possibly North Korea. In addition,

the US claims the right and intent to preemptively use nuclear weapons

if it wishes and went to great lengths to undermine the Nuclear

Non-Proliferation Review conference at the UN in May, 2005. It

happened under the aegis of the thuggish US Under Secretary for

Disarmament at the time John Bolton (now UN ambassador) who

deliberately sabotaged the meeting by refusing to participate in

meaningful discussions. Other nations at the conference were outraged

and disgusted with his actions and the nation he represents - to no

avail, especially after Bolton assumed his UN role and prevented any

disarmament discussions in that capacity. Even UN Secretary General

Kofi Annan, who nearly always is unreservedly submissive to US

authority, uncharacteristically expressed his disgust calling the US

action a " real disgrace " as it surely was. Nonetheless, because of the

total US dominance over the UN and its actions, no progress on nuclear

disarmament and non-proliferation has been made nor is any likely to

be at least as long as the Bush administration remains in office, and

probably much longer. Can the world afford to take a chance and wait,

hoping for the best that may never come without forceful action?

 

Chapter 9 - Renewable Energy: The Answer - Alternatives Exist but Are

So Far Unaddressed and Insufficiently Developed

 

Dr. Caldicott makes an impassioned plea throughout her book and her

others to free the planet from the scourge of the nuclear threat that

may destroy us. In this chapter she states: " there is no need to build

new nuclear power plants to provide for the projected energy needs of

the future......it would be possible, using other forms of electricity

generation to close down most of the existing nuclear reactors with a

decade. There is enough wind (power) between the Rocky Mountains and

the Mississippi River alone to supply three times the amount of

electricity that America needs. "

 

There are other alternatives as well to the use of nuclear power that

hold some promise including the conversion of coal to a synthetic

fuel. Dr. Caldicott, however, concentrates on renewables in this

chapter. She mentions that today that about 2% of electricity in the

US comes from this safe and clean source whereas nuclear power

supplies 20%. However, if hydroelectric power is included in the mix,

about 9% of our electricity came from renewables in 2004 and 18.6% of

it worldwide. Clearly, the rest of the world is far ahead of us, and

the main problem in this country is the power of the fossil fuel and

nuclear industries that have a stranglehold on US policy making and

the politicians who make it. Unless they decide it's profitable to

move to renewables, it won't happen and we'll continue down the same

destructive road to an inevitable bad ending.

 

Those on opposite sides debate whether alternatives alone can solve

this nation's electricity needs. However, the respected journal, The

New Scientist, recently wrote that the combination of wind and tidal

power, micro-hydro, and biomass make renewable power increasingly

practical. It said wind power and biomass are now almost as cheap as

coal, and wave power and solar photovotaics are becoming more

competitive. A report from the New Economics Foundation supports these

conclusions. It said renewables are easy to build, cheap to harvest,

economical to use overall, safe, flexible and clean.

 

Despite industry resistance and support for it by complicit

governments, especially in the US, the mounting evidence of the

destructiveness of carbon emissions and nuclear proliferation dictates

the urgent need to implement safe alternative solutions to our energy

needs and do it now. The threat of global warming is the most obvious

one, and that issue has entered mainstream discussion to some degree.

It's now clear the planet is becoming warmer, the number and intensity

of destructive storms are increasing, and the phenomenon of

catastrophic environmental events are becoming more common. Still, the

US pretends it isn't so as evidenced by its refusal to sign the Kyoto

Protocol in 2001, weak and ineffective as it is. It's now up to the

public and individual states to act in lieu of the federal government

and hope a future administration may be more responsible than this one

- a faint hope given the power and influence of energy industry that

so far refuses alternatives to its interests and has been able to get

its way. But the public can't stop trying because the alternative is

catastrophic and mustn't be allowed to happen if at all posssible.

 

Chapter 10 - What Individuals Can Do: Energy Conservation and

Efficiency - If the Government Won't Do It, People on Their Own Can

 

Western Europeans are able to maintain a high living standard similar

to people in the US using half the amount of energy we do. If they can

do it comfortably, so can we, but we need the urging and mandating of

reduced energy standards by government at the state and local levels

combining to pressure the federal government to do the same. Dr.

Caldicott lists a menu of ways we can live responsibly using

energy-efficient technologies that have been available for many years

and are becoming more sophisticated and cost effective all the time.

They range from what we can do in our homes, the type of cars we drive

and way we use them to how new buildings are constructed and much

more. The key is the urgency to act, and the goal is energy efficiency

and safety and the benefits to be gained from them.

 

Everyone needs to be involved and many cities, states and businesses

already are if only for the cost savings achieved by acting

responsibly. A 2004 study by Synapse Energy Economics titled " A

Responsible Electricity Future, " offered a pragmatic and workable

plan. It concluded that energy efficiency can reduce US electricity

demand by almost 28% by 2025; nonhydro renewable energy, including

geothermal, landfill gas, biomass, solar thermal, solar power

generation, and especially wind power can provide 15% of US

electricity needs by 2025; combined heat and power generation will

produce 10% of it; oil, coal, and gas-fired generators can be retired

after fifty operating years; and no new nuclear plants need be built

and all old ones can be closed after 45 years of operation.

 

The net result of this plan is many billions of dollars saved, a

reduction in global warming, and a cleaner and safer environment free

from the destruction guaranteed by the continued use of fossil fuels

and nuclear power. Can it be done, and is there still time to do it?

Some experts claim no on both counts, and they may be right. But

that's no excuse for giving up and allowing a fate too frightful and

devastating to allow to happen without a concerted effort to prevent

it. Hope sustains us and when combined with commitment and enough

effort by those of us willing to expend it, anything is not only

possible, it quite likely can be attained. We have no time to waste

because we've already wasted so much of it.

 

Everyone should read Helen Caldicott's important new book and her

previous one The New Nuclear Danger. The two combined clearly explain

how threatening the military and commercial use of nuclear technology

is to human survival. It's no exaggeration to say either we must

destroy it or it will destroy us. Albert Einstein, whose theories led

to the development of atomic power, knew this well and believed the

splitting of the atom changed everything and threatened us all. In

1946, he said, after he understood the horror of Hiroshima: " Our world

faces a crisis as yet unperceived by those possessing the power to

make great decisions for good and evil. The unleashed power of the

atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we

drift toward unparalleled catastrophe. " Einstein believed and was

saying that unless nuclear technology is abolished, we face the real

threat of our extinction. Helen Caldicott in her new book and her

others is saying the same thing. Are we listening, do we understand,

and will we act in time to save ourselves and our progeny?

 

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at

lendmanstephen. Also visit his blog site at

sjlendman.blogspot.com .