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.