Nuclear Reactors 368 - Debunking Bogus Reasons That Liberal Environmentalists Reject Nuclear Power
Some environmentalists who have been against nuclear power in the past have decided that climate change is such a dangerous challenge to humanity that the problems with nuclear power must be overlooked and nuclear power must be utilized for "low-carbon" energy generation. I happen to vehemently disagree for reasons that I have posted elsewhere in this blog. See here. I recently came across a blog post from 2013 on the Scientific American website that presents five reasons that "liberal environmentalists" mistakenly reject nuclear power. I decided that I would dedicate today's blog post to dealing those "reasons".
1. Ignorance. The blog writer assumes that liberal environmentalists are just not informed enough about the dangers and benefits of nuclear power. On the contrary, I happen to think that proponents are not sufficiently educated about the dangers of nuclear power. I have not seen many of the problems on the list that I posted mentioned in discussions of the pros and cons of nuclear power in the media. There are so many different problems in so many different areas that even if some can be solved, not all of them can. There is not another source of energy that has so many negative aspects and dangers as nuclear power.
2. Bad psychological connections. The blog writer talks about connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. His position is that nuclear opponents are improperly associating nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Sorry, but they are associated. The term dual use refers to nuclear technology that can be used both for peaceful nuclear power programs and for nuclear weapons development. Countries such as India have already diverted technology supposedly imported for nuclear power development to their nuclear weapons programs. All standard nuclear reactors produce plutonium during operation which can be extracted and used to build nuclear weapons. He dismisses the dangers of nuclear proliferation as a "political" problem and not an "inherent problem" with nuclear energy. However, nuclear power is inextricably connected to nuclear weapons regardless of what he says. No other energy source produces products and uses technologies that can be used to construct such devastating weapons.
3. Waste. The blog writer admits that nuclear waste disposal does present problems but says that it would be better to reprocess spent nuclear fuel to recover plutonium than to bury it. While he assumes that such plutonium would be used for fuel, it can also be used for nuclear weapons. Large caches of weapons grade plutonium would be a tempting target for terrorists. And it turns out that long standing assumptions about ground water migration are incorrect and this increase the dangers of burying the waste. A great deal of spent nuclear fuel is piling up at reactors sites all over the world and some nuclear waste has already be illegally disposed of contaminating the landscape and endangering public health. Currently after fifty years of nuclear power development and use there is no permanent geological repository for spent nuclear fuel.
4. Damn them Republicans. The blog writer admits that many prominent Republican oppose nuclear arms treaties and support nuclear power. He assumes that liberals will reject nuclear power because Republicans support it. Referring back to his proposed confusion between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, he says that nuclear opponents need to separate scientific realities of nuclear science from the politics of proponents or opponents. My problem with that is that regardless of "scientific realities" a lot of Republicans seem to very ignorant of the dangers of nuclear power and nuclear weapons. And, with a Republican controlled Congress, the politics of members of Congress have a great impact on funding, regulation and support for expansion of nuclear power regardless of the realities of nuclear science. A Republican President would have the authority to use nuclear weapons in international conflicts.
5. Fear of the unknown. The blog writers says that a lot liberal environmentalists are just afraid of things they cannot see, as if they were superstitious primitives. However, in the case of nuclear power it is very logical to be afraid of what you cannot see, that being dangerous nuclear radiation. Invisible radiation from nuclear power plants and nuclear accidents can contaminate the landscape and cause illness and death after decades with no visible warning.
All in all, I find this blog writer to be arrogant, ignorant and condescending. There are many valid reasons to be concerned about nuclear power and his casual dismissal of those concerns is insulting.
