Anti-Nuclear Hysterics, not Melted Reactors to Blame for Fukushima Health Impacts
Posted by John Wheeler in News on March 11, 2012
As is often the case, the passage of time yields clarity about events, and the nuclear power plant accident at Fukushima is no different. It has become clear that the misinformation and hysterics by anti-nuclear groups and individuals were mostly wrong. Their doomsday prophesizing actually worsened human suffering and environmental impacts by contributing to unwise decisions by political leaders in Japan and elsewhere to shut down nuclear plants. In contrast, bloggers and experts from within the nuclear community accurately predicted outcomes and human health impacts.
As was predicted on this blog and elsewhere, the multi-barrier reactor containment design protected the public. Contrary to claims by anti-nuclear groups, the melted cores did NOT burn through the reactor vessels. The containment structures remained virtually intact. The damaged reactor fuel remained inside the reactor vessels and containment systems.
Despite preposterous claims by Greenpeace and others, there were no chunks of plutonium scattered across the countryside. Only radioactive gasses escaped over the land, and most of that gas was short lived Iodine that has long since decayed away.
As reported on Bloomberg and other news sources, no one in the public was harmed by radiation from the damaged reactors. A small number of plant workers received higher than normal radiation exposures, without lasting effects. Any hypothetical future health effects will be immeasurably low and will be indistinguishable from normal disease rates within the general population.
No one, not even the “Fukushima 50″, was exposed to life threatening amounts of radiation. Journalists who flew across the Pacific to cover the story received more radiation exposure from cosmic rays in flight than they received from the reactors once on the ground.
The visually spectacular hydrogen explosions of the plant buildings, while providing great fodder for anti-nuclear rhetoric had little impact on the safety of the reactors, and harmed no one.
The unit 4 fuel storage pools did not empty of water and did not catch on fire. The fuel there remained safely submerged and suffered no damage of any consequence.
Finally, there was no need for the 50-mile evacuation zone ordered by NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko. His decision still has nuclear experts scratching their heads and wondering why. Jaczko’s actions demonstrated he lacks the experience and knowledge to ask the right questions at crucial moments. In addition, he lacked the wisdom to recognize other more credible information was available that contradicted his view. He needlessly rushed forward with an ill-advised decision that was horribly wrong.
This is not to imply there were no environmental or economic impacts from the reactor accident – of course there were! The expensive cleanup in surrounding areas will take years and will cost billions. This is but a small fraction of the total cost of recovery from the horrific earthquake and tsunami.
The earthquake and tsunami were responsible for untold human suffering and devastation. That is where the focus of the world should have been and should continue to be. The problems at the Fukushima nuclear plant accident have contributed needlessly to Japan’s economic burden by prompting the irrational shutdown of nuclear plants across the country. This has caused energy shortages and billions of dollars of additional costs from skyrocketing imports of fossil fuels. Of course, the fossil fuels providers are scrambling to rake in tens of billions of dollars in profits.
The health effects to Japan’s population were NOT from radiation, but from stress caused by the unfounded fear of future health effects. The responsibility for this lies squarely on anti-nuclear activists who relished in spouting fatalistic, exaggerated claims, and on an uninformed media who presented those claims as virtual facts while downplaying opposing views from true experts in the field.
Explore a Great Career in Nuclear Energy
Posted by John Wheeler in Myth Busting & Analysis, News on January 24, 2012
Note: this post also appears at the ANS Nuclear Cafe
What better way to celebrate National Nuclear Science Week than to acknowledge amazing career opportunities that exist for people interested in joiningthe nuclear renaissance. If you are a middle or high school student (or are the parent of one) considering college alternatives, you would be hard pressed to find a better investment than earning an associates or bachelors degree in nuclear-related science, engineering, or technology.
Opportunities for entry level positions have not been this rich at any time during the past three decades, and the nuclear industry is partnering with many schools to ensure graduates have the knowledge and skill for success as power plant engineers, operators, and technicians. Because of a combination of national and international trends, there have never been more opportunities for young people to begin careers in the nuclear industry.
About 120,000 people are currently employed in the U.S. nuclear industry. Over the next several years, many of these workers will retire. As a result, the industry will need to hire more than 25,000 new employees just to maintain the existing workforce. The economic slowdown over the past few years has caused many workers to delay their retirement.
Today retirements are once again on the rise because 401K balances have recovered and workers have earned additional credits in pension plans. For example, in 2011 about 2,000 workers retired from the 104 operating nuclear plants in the United States, prompting many utilities to increase hiring. Four new nuclear plants being built in Georgia and South Carolina will each add up to 2,400 workers during construction, plus 400 to 700 permanent jobs when each is operating. In addition, the nuclear industry is booming overseas with more than 60 plants under construction around the world and many more planned. All of this means ample opportunities for rewarding careers in many nuclear related fields.
The industry hires almost every type of engineer, not just nuclear engineers. The most common are mechanical, electrical, civil, and power systems engineers. Since there are engineering colleges and universities in every state that offer one or more of these degree programs, opportunities are plentiful. Earning a bachelors degree in these engineering majors opens the door to an entry-level engineer position with a starting salary of approximately $60,000 to $65,000.
Some of the positions in greatest demand at nuclear plants are power plant operators and technicians. These opportunities generally require an associate’s degree or equivalent training. Starting salaries range from around $45,000 per year to about $50,000. As workers gain experience, salaries can rise $20,000 or higher to an average of $65,000 to $70,000, and overtime pay often adds thousands more to annual income.
In the past, finding a college that offered education courses for future operators and technicians could be difficult, but this is no longer the case. Several years ago the industry began working with colleges across the United States to create new degree programs. Today there are more than 40 community colleges around the U.S. offering what is known as the Nuclear Uniform Curriculum (NUCP). The NUCP is a standardized associates degree program that prepares students for careers as nuclear operators and technicians. Students who earn a B grade or better in their core courses are awarded a transferable certificate that is recognized at all 104 nuclear plants.
For workers interested in advancing into leadership roles, these positions in engineering, operations, and other technical fields are excellent starting points for future management positions.
According to the College Board, the national average for community college tuition and fees is about $3,000 per year. Thus, for about $6,000 a student with a solid math and science background can attend an NUCP school for two years and earn an associates degree and a transferable credential. This would qualify them for an entry-level position as an operator or technician earning a starting salary of $45,000 to $50,000. This is certainly one of the greatest deals in education today!
More information on careers in the nuclear industry is available from theAmerican Nuclear Society, the Nuclear Energy Institute, and at Get Into Energy.
John Wheeler
Lack of Intellectual Integrity Harms the Case for Global Warming
Posted by John Wheeler in Myth Busting & Analysis on September 19, 2011
or “Why I’m Still A Climate Change Skeptic”
It must be great to be a climate change believer. You get to boldly declare your alignment with the “A” team, the smartest minds and greatest strategic thinkers of our time, or so we’ve been told. You get praise from big government (at least under the current US administration) and get to hang out with old hippies who sail up and down the Hudson River playing folk music and singing songs about Mother Earth and fighting the good fight.
Unfortunately, I can’t count myself in, but I’m not exactly out either. I’m on the fence and that’s a problem for me. My science and engineering education taught me enough about pv=nrt and the partial pressure law of gasses to know you can’t just keep dumping airborne crud and gasses into a fixed volume of anything without changing it’s composition. I’ve also been around long enough to see changes in the planet, but are those being caused by progressive man-made climate change or a normal natural cycle?
I know a lot of very smart people I admire greatly who are staunch climate change believers, and almost an equal number of equally smart engineers and scientists who swear it’s the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on modern humanity. I’ve been reading a great deal on the topic lately because I really DO want to understand both sides of the argument with the hope that it will become clear and I’ll be able to join one crowd or another.
I’ve come to realize a big reason I continue to be a climate change skeptic is I question the integrity and the motives of the most vocal climate change advocates. I simply do not trust they are telling the truth. This is why:
-
If the real goal were to reduce greenhouse gasses, then it would be logical that environmental leaders would advocate policies to reward low carbon behavior and penalize high carbon endeavors, regardless of the technology involved. Instead, environmental and political leaders have already chosen “winning technologies” of conservation, wind and solar energy. Insistence on these creates the impression that social redesign are the real goal, not saving the environment. If leaders were really serious about reducing carbon emissions they would create a technology neutral playing field that punishes carbon emissions and rewards low-carbon and carbon-free energy sources.
-
Many of the most vocal proponents of man-caused climate change insist on solutions that won’t work. Despite massive investment in solar, wind, and conservation, there remains not a glimmer of hope that these can provide sufficient energy to replace fossil fuels, much less accommodate the energy requirements of the world’s growing population. The math just does not work. This virtually assures growing emissions from oil, gas, and coal. These facts cause me to wonder if the environmental movement created climate change as a means to promote their social and political agendas.
-
The anti-nuclear movement creates a huge credibility problem for global warming advocates. Many of the same people who accuse “climate skeptics” of ignoring science are themselves ignoring facts that show nuclear fission is the safest form of large-scale energy production. They also continue to over state the dangers associated with radiation exposure even though growing evidence suggests old theories about the risks of low-level radiation exposure are flat out wrong.
-
Governments are using the climate change mantra as an excuse to increase taxes and regulation, while spending tax revenues in ways that have nothing to do with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In other cases they turn a blind eye to or even subsidize the worst CO2 emitters.
-
I know I’m getting away from science in my last reason, but emotions can be just as great a factor in our beliefs as facts. I confess: I have such huge distrust in Al Gore that I have a difficult time believing in anything he says. Gore preaches conservation yet lives a lifestyle that is hundreds of times more carbon intensive than the average American. He tells people to buy carbon credits without disclosing his financial relationship with a company that sells them. He flies around the globe on CO2 spewing private jets when commercial air travel could do just fine. Finally, he promotes the carbon reduction “wedge” strategy yet intentionally omits one of the most important wedges of all: expanding nuclear energy.
On a side note, fortunately whether or not I believe in man-made climate change has little bearing on my support for nuclear energy. Even without the risk of global environmental collapse from the buildup of CO2 in our atmosphere and oceans, there are plenty of reasons we should be building more nuclear power plants, including
-
Reducing air pollution that causes mercury poisoning, acid rain, and airborne particulates blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide each year.
-
Reducing reliance on expensive imported petroleum products, and the negative impact that has on our nation’s economy.
-
Reducing reliance on a fuel supply that will become increasingly scarce and in demand as world population explodes.
-
Good jobs for more people. Nuclear energy facilities employ far more people than power plants that burn coal, oil or gas. The expense of operating a nuclear plant is chiefly in the salaries of the people who work there. By contrast, most of the cost of operating a gas or coal plant is the cost of the fuel.
With this in mind, you can help me get off the fence on man-made climate change. Whether you are a climate change believer or a climate change denier, I’m interested in hearing from you. Please take a few minutes to post a comment here or on the Facebook fan page to share your thoughts – do you believe in man-caused climate change and why? If there was a turning point in your belief, what was it and how did it come about? When possible provide links to references that make the case supporting your position.
Thank you for your help!
John Wheeler
Powered by Qumana
Nuclear Plants and Grid Blackouts
Posted by John Wheeler in Myth Busting & Analysis, News on September 18, 2011
On September 8, 2011 the electrical grid in and around San Diego, California experienced a blackout that lasted for more than 12 hours. By some accounts more than 5 million people were effected. The initiating event was a human error that caused a large transmission line from Arizona to turn off unexpectedly. I recently discussed why a single failure as occurred that day should not have caused such a widespread grid failure, and how New York City will be much more susceptible to similar events if Indian Point Nuclear Plant is shutdown prematurely.
As it was designed to do, the San Onofre nuclear plant automatically disconnected itself from the grid and shut down then the blackout occurred. This was done as part of the plant’s protective scheme to shield the plant from unintended consequences from the falling grid voltage and frequency. A similar thing happened to nine nuclear plants in the eastern USA during the blackout of 2003.
Why do nuclear plants trip off line when a blackout happens? Read the rest of this entry »
Only the Energy Impoverished Run Towards a Gasoline Spill
Posted by John Wheeler in Myth Busting & Analysis, News on September 14, 2011
There was a horrible accident in Kenya this week. More than 100 people were burned to death, and hundreds more were injured when a gasoline pipeline began leaking and then exploded. My heart goes out to the victims, and their families, and to all the people of Kenya who are dealing with the worst industrial disaster in their history. Eyewitnesses reported seeing burning people leaping into a nearby river trying to extinguish the flames that engulfed them. Rescue workers had to place a net across the river to catch the charred bodies of the dead so they would not wash down stream. The death toll continues to grow, and most of the 100+ injured including many children are not expected to survive.
The pipeline runs through Sinai, a Nairobi ghetto of corrugated tin and cardboard huts. When the pipe began leaking hundreds of people gathered around to scoop up the spilled gasoline. As the crowd grew a spark from a cigarette butt or some other heat source ignited the fuel. The blast incinerated scores of people nearby. Flames cascaded down on nearby huts then raced through the crowded slum. Read the rest of this entry »
The San Diego Blackout – Is New York City Next?
Posted by John Wheeler in News on September 10, 2011
California politicians and utilities were quick to assign blame for Thursday’s blackout of 6 million customers on a single unfortunate utility worker in Arizona. In reality, they need to look a lot deeper at the root cause of the major electrical system failure that lasted about 12 hours. Why? Properly designed, maintained, and operated electrical grids just don’t collapse when a single error takes place or a single piece of equipment fails. Read the rest of this entry »
TEPCO Did Not Adopt a Key Lesson Learned from the Accident at Three Mile Island
Posted by John Wheeler in News on July 10, 2011
Unlike their American counterparts, not all control room operators in Japan have access to plant specific training simulators. Instead, according to a report by NPR, they use “generic” simulators that are similar to, but not identical to their plant. This difference may have contributed to the difficulties operators had at Fukushima Dai-ichi when responding to complex events that followed the catastrophic earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011.
The differences between a generic simulator and a plant-specific one are often in precisely the systems the Fukushima operators were struggling with: electrical power supplies, cooling water, and building ventilation. These differences matter little when training for events within the design basis of the reactor, but when events stray outside the design basis, include “cascading” failures, and involve severe accident response, generic simulators can’t accurately model the events. When training for situations that exceed the capabilities of a simulator, instructors are left with fewer, less realistic options like classroom training or “table top” walkthroughs of operator actions. Read the rest of this entry »
Gas Speculators are Licking Their Chops in New York
Posted by John Wheeler in News on July 6, 2011
With New York Governor reaffirming his opposition to Indian Point, natural gas speculators are lining up to position themselves to fill the enormous energy gap that would be left if the plant shuts down.
One such 
speculator is a privately owned Swiss-based company, Advanced Power Services. They have begun preliminary work to build a 1000 MW gas fired power plant in Dutchess County New York, about 40 miles north of Indian Point. There was a front page article in the Poughkeepsie Journal today describing how shutting down the 2100 MW nuclear plant could help the local project gain traction.
News that Gov. Andrew Cuomo has issued his strongest statement yet in favor of closing the Indian Point nuclear power plant has improved the chances that a proposed plant in Dutchess County would be built.
I know something about Dutchess County, NY because I lived there for several years while working at Indian Point. In reading the story, I wondered if the editors of the Poughkeepsie Journal gave one moments thought to the fact that many of the people who work at Indian Point live in Dutchess County? There’s no mention in the article of the serious economic impact that would befall the county shold Indian Point be prematurely shut down. Read the rest of this entry »
