The dirty, dangerous, and medically disastrous truth about Nuclear Power

In recent years, the administration as sought to revitalize the nuclear power industry by exploiting growing concerns regarding global warming and energy insecurity to promote nuclear power as a clean, safe, and affordable alternative. We are tricked into believing this will curb our emissions of greenhouse gases, as well as reduce our dependence on foreign energy resources. Despite the claims of the administration and industry proponents, a thorough examination of the full life-cycle of nuclear power generation reveals, SURPRISINGLY, nuclear power to be a dirty, dangerous, and expensive form of energy that poses a number of serious risks to human health AND national security. From the 2,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste and 12 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste produced annually in our country alone, to the serious risk of nuclear accidents and nuclear terrorism, as well as to the billions of dollars in handouts received in subsidized form (tax breaks/limited insurance liability), it is clear to see where the mistake lies.

Nuclear power is touted by its advocates as a clean, emissions-free source of energy that can help to mitigate global warming. Yet, each year, ENORMOUS quantities of radioactive waste are created during the nuclear fuel process. The production of 1,000 tons of uranium fuel (less than two percent of annual global consumption) generates approx. 100,000 tons of radioactive tailings and nearly 1 million gallons of liquid waste carrying heavy metals and arsenic IN ADDITION to its radioactivity. Further, more than 54K metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel has already accumulated at reactor sites around the U.S. for which there is currently no permanent repository. Even without any new nuclear production, the inventory of commercial spent fuel in the U.S. would already exceed the 63,000 metric ton statutory capacity of the controversial Yucca Mountain repository by its early possible opening date in 2017.

Although its TRUE that the actual general of electricity through the process of nuclear fission does not produce greenhouse gases, while keeping in mind that while life cycle estimates of GGE from nuclear power generation vary considerably, to state that nuclear power produces zero emissions is on base with falsenesses. From ore mining and enrichment of uranium to processessing and storage of nuclear waste, the nuclear fuel cycle requires tremendous amounts of energy, most of which is derived from fossil fuels that produce significant quantities of global warming gases. Additionally, the materials and processes involved in both the construction and decommissioning of nuclear power plants also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Growth of the nuclear industry would actually cause the greenhouse gas intensity of nuclear power production to rise by exhausting the earth’s LIMITED SUPPLY of rich uranium ores. As plant operators are forced to use power quality ores, the energy required to extract and refine the uranium will increase, AS WILL the associated global warming emissions.


The 1986 Chernobyl disaster is one of the most frightening examples of the potentially catastrophic consequences of nuclear accident. With statistics rolling at 31 deaths, and 220,000 physical displacements, the long-term effect of exposure to radioactive fallout from this Ukrainian disaster is expected to cause between 14,000 and 17,400 fatal cancers in Europe and the former S.U. Likewise, the Three Mile Island accident left hose living downwind to the damaged reactor to be up to 10 times more likely to contract lung cancer or leukemia than those living just upwind of the radioactive fallout. The dangers of nuclear power have been underscored more recently by the near miss of a catastrophic meltdown at the Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio in 2002, which in the years preceding the incident had received a near-perfect safety score.

Climate change may further increase the risk of nuclear accidents. Heat waves have forced the shut down of reactors in France, Spain, and Germany just two years ago, as well as during the European heat wave in 2003.

THEN…there is the inextricable link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons—perhaps the greatest danger of nuclear power. The same process used to manufacture low-enriched uranium for nuclear power production also can be employed for the production of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. As it has in the past, expansion of nuclear power may lead to an increase in the number of both nuclear weapons states as well as cause progression for the ‘threshold’ of nuclear potential states. This proliferation scenario already has played out once in South Africa in the 1980’s with the fear that it is now playing out in Iran. Additionally, expanded use of nuclear power would increase the risk that commercial nuclear technology will be used to construct clandestine weapon facilities. This was the proliferation route taken by Pakistan, very same country which remained outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty despite its nuclear weapon capability. More widespread deployment of nuclear power also may facilitate efforts by terrorists to acquire materials for the production of a radioactive ‘dirty’ bomb and raise the threat of direct attacks on nuclear facilities. According to the Congressional Research Service, “nuclear power plants are not designed to withstand attacks using large aircrafts, such as those used on September 11th, 2001.” A well-coordinated attack could have extremely severe consequences for human health and the environment; a study by the UCS concluded that a major attack on the Indian Point reactor in New York could results in 44,000 near-term deaths from acute radiation sickness and more than 500,000 long-term deaths from cancer amount individuals ONLY within 50 miles of the plant.

50 years go today, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission promised that the nuclear industry would one day provide energy too cheap to meter. Yet, tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies later, nuclear power remains prohibitively expensive. Even amount the business and financial communities, it is widely accepted that nuclear power would be economically unviable without federal support. Despite poor economic performance, the federal government has continued to pour money into the nuclear industry - the Energy Policy act of 2005 alone included more than 13$ in subsidies, tax breaks, and other incentives for nuclear power. Loan guarantees of nearly 9$ are included in the administrations FY09 budget as an incentive for more plants. No other fuel source receives this type of inventive along will the billions of dollars in guaranteed insurance provided by the Price-Anderson act. A fairly important truth is that the human psyche causes individuals to become attached to glamorized ideas. Once we become aware of that, will we focus on the alternatives.

On Skinny Bitch

Don't just buy into every word of the latest vegan diet-swathe-masquerading-as-expose-nonfiction. That said, I strongly prefer to agree upon, correctly, the many flaws in our immediate food and agriculture system (e.g., monoculture and factory farms), in well-reasoned, thoroughly researched fashion (let's not pretend that the many footnotes to PETA in "Skinny Bitch" are the equivalent of real research). Pollan, author of the Omnivore's Dilemna, sums up his latest, "In Defense of Food" thusly: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." And that is sound advice. Unlike the propagandists of "Skinny Bitch," we should point out that human populations have thrived on many types of foods for millennia--but only until the advent of highly processed, government-subsidized food did we see the rise of widespread diseases of affluence such as Type II diabetes, atherosclerosis, and other obesity-related health problems. The authors of the "Skinny Bitch" screeds, however, advocate eating precisely the types of fake foods (vegan Canadian bacon, anyone? No? How about fake cheeseburger tofu with authentic beef smoked flavor) that contribute to ENVIRONMENTAL and HEALTH problems. Not to mention their unkind, condescending tone. Foods injected with hormones, environmental toxins, and other chemicals which damage the earth upon which we live are the VERY foods that vegans promote to consume.

Tree huggers should sit in trees to save them from the loggers instead of using them as paper to write upon and houses to live within. Like animals, all plants have valuable souls, and just because a tree is grand and noble DOESN'T make it any better than a cornstalk. What, you'll lash yourself to a tree to save it but it's OK to kill and eat a cornstalk? Just because one is more attractive than the other? I think not. You can't claim trees have souls and then eat other plants, even ones that are smaller or less attractive.

BE A BREATHERARIAN. Only minerals on tap. And air. And water. It's the only way to live a morally pure life.

SO: Instead of veganism, a brand of thought which supports the idea of fake meats, psychiatric illness, unhealthy offspring, environmental damage, birth defects, child-laboring, with a side of bad, bad, and more bad, PLEASE support animal kindness and good heartedness. Have people kindness too. Stop wearing save the earth tees that you bought for 65.99 to support children tailoring in third-world countries. It breaks my heart to see child-laboring factories grow by the weeks. Save your money and help support those who need help. Not just in third-world countries, but even in poverty-stricken communities next to you.

There is no such thing as veganism. Especially not for lipstick drawn, dependent thinking, and insecurely loud vegans. PLEASE, LEARN THE FACTS. IE. The damaging affects of soy on the envrionment. Monsanto anyone? I meant to say: GLOBAL EUGENICS ANYONE? Poor families across south america are raising more and more children with birth defects JUST so you can enjoy your vegan based products while you google more PETA events on your fancy Iphone. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joweZ6uM5iY). Get real. Where's your heart? Step out of the fad, step out of your need to stand-out, STEP OUT OF THE INSECURITIES. Be independent. And ACTUALLY help the environment.

"It has often been claimed that avoiding red meat is beneficial to the environment, because it lowers emissions and less land is used to produce alternatives.

But a study by Cranfield University, commissioned by WWF, the environmental group, found a substantial number of meat substitutes – such as soy, chickpeas and lentils – were more harmful to the environment because they were imported into Britain from overseas.

The study concluded: "A switch from beef and milk to highly refined livestock product analogues such as tofu could actually increase the quantity of arable land needed to supply the UK."

The results showed that the amount of foreign land required to produce the substitute products – and the potential destruction of forests to make way for farmland – outweighed the negatives of rearing beef and lamb in the UK.

An increase in vegetarianism could result in the collapse of British farming, the study warned, causing meat production to move overseas where there may be less legal protection of forests and uncultivated land.

Meat substitutes were also found to be highly processed, often requiring large amounts of energy to produce."