topics

Threads - Unsafe Nuclear Industry

On 26/6/2003, Rob Olsen posted:

The New York Times of 25.06.2003 carried a scary story on the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for a proposed new plutonium manufacturing facility in the USA

("U.S. Predicts Cancer Deaths at Proposed Plutonium Plant", By MATTHEW L. WALD, NY Times: National, 25.06.2003, at: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/26/national/26NUKE.html?tntemail1).

The NYT story says that the draft EIS forecasts, on average, one worker will die of radioactivity-related disease for each 4.5 years of the plant's operation. There is no reference to risk to people living in the vicinity (as with the risk to the locals near Windscale in the UK or the French reprocessing facility in Brittany).

Even scarier was the response from the US Energy Department that such a death rate was really low for a nuclear facility:

"A spokesman for the Energy Department, Anson Franklin, said the calculation of nine deaths over 40 years was "a statistical contortion that should not obscure the fact that that's a very conservative standard for radiation exposure." (ibid) So if one death per 4.5 years is conservative, what is the risk in reality? What are the death rates at current nuclear facilities?

Why does Shrub want the new plant? It is for his program of new "tactical" nuclear weapons (so-called "bunker-busting nukes") for the US military to actually use in future wars like Iraq 2003. His intent is to actually use the nukes, not just stockpile them as in the Cold War.

What does this have to do with us in Australia?

I appreciate the nuclear waste dump the federal Government wants in South Australia does not involve plutonium. However it is worrying when a Government appears likely to proceed with a nuclear project that is forecast to kill a number of its workers in the usual course of its operations. Given the Howard Government slavishly follows the Shrub (junior Bush) Administration, I am concerned that it may mirror the Shrub approach in Howard's nuclear projects in Australia. We have the instance of the "fly-by-night, she'll-be-right" Argentinean company given the job of supplying a new nuclear reactor for Sydney. What is the safety record of the Argentinean company? What is its safety record for its operational reactors wherever it has installed them?

The track record of the Howard Government towards international treaties hints, I believe, at the possibility of it bending our strategic arms treaty obligations to suit its dubious nuclear intentions.

There is a risk, I believe, that the Howard Government could consider buying some of the new US tactical nukes for future Australian involvement in US military adventurism. As with the proposed nuclear power station for Jervis Bay back in the late 1960s, dumps and power stations could help prepare the way for nuclear weapons. Recently released Australian Government cabinet papers from the 1960s show the then conservative government flirted with getting nukes for Australia - the Government selected the F111 aircraft for the RAAF, at that time, as the intended nuke delivery system.

I know the nuclear scientists in Australia have been demanding a new reactor for years. Perhaps it does have some civilian/tertiary-educational use. I understand their enthusiasm for the dump and the new Sydney reactor. However I hope such scientists would be socially responsible enough to denounce any attempt to acquire tactical nukes for Australia - or to convert
the new reactor & dump to supporting/producing tactical nukes. I hope also such social responsibility would extend to warning the public if the new reactor or the dump pose health risks to populations either living near the reactor site in Sydney or living adjacent to transport routes for moving nuclear materials.

I would appreciate the views of Science matters forum members on the issues I have raised.

Zero Sum replied:

<snip>

There is no reference to risk to people living in
> the vicinity (as with the risk to the locals near Windscale in the UK or
> the French reprocessing facility in Brittany).

Were not the deaths and cancers around Windscale found to be due to the population influx of foreign workers and new transport routes?

> Even scarier was the response from the US Energy Department that such a
> death rate was really low for a nuclear facility:

What is the death rate for a conventional facility. Including those death attributable to chemical pollution and the radiactive fallout from burning fossil carbon?

Until you answer this question we have nothing to compare with. Or do you suggest shutting down all industry?

> "A spokesman for the Energy Department, Anson Franklin, said the
> calculation of nine deaths over 40 years was "a statistical contortion
> that should not obscure the fact that that's a very conservative
> standard for radiation exposure." (ibid) So if one death per 4.5 years
> is conservative, what is the risk in reality? What are the death rates
> at current nuclear facilities?

Or conventional ones...

> Why does Shrub want the new plant? It is for his program of new
> "tactical" nuclear weapons (so-called "bunker-busting nukes") for the US
> military to actually use in future wars like Iraq 2003. His intent is
> to actually use the nukes, not just stockpile them as in the Cold War.

Possibly. Depends on the type of plant.

> What does this have to do with us in Australia?

We will probably help fuel it.

> I appreciate the nuclear waste dump the federal Government wants in
> South Australia does not involve plutonium. However it is worrying when
> a Government appears likely to proceed with a nuclear project that is
> forecast to kill a number of its workers in the usual course of its
> operations. Given the Howard Government slavishly follows the Shrub
> (junior Bush) Administration, I am concerned that it may mirror the
> Shrub approach in Howard's nuclear projects in Australia. We have the
> instance of the "fly-by-night, she'll-be-right" Argentinean company
> given the job of supplying a new nuclear reactor for Sydney. What is
> the safety record of the Argentinean company? What is its safety
> record for its operational reactors wherever it has installed them?

Every major project has a an 'expected' or 'predicted' number of deaths associated with it. Would you prefer to ignore the fact that we live in an imperfect and dangerous world rather than try to contain its dangers?

> The track record of the Howard Government towards international treaties
> hints, I believe, at the possibility of it bending our strategic arms
> treaty obligations to suit its dubious nuclear intentions.
>

Who would trust them with anything now?

> There is a risk, I believe, that the Howard Government could consider
> buying some of the new US tactical nukes for future Australian
> involvement in US military adventurism. As with the proposed nuclear
> power station for Jervis Bay back in the late 1960s, dumps and power
> stations could help prepare the way for nuclear weapons. Recently
> released Australian Government cabinet papers from the 1960s show the
> then conservative government flirted with getting nukes for Australia -
> the Government selected the F111 aircraft for the RAAF, at that time, as
> the intended nuke delivery system.

If Australia were to have nukes for defense, it would be one of the few countries in the world that could honestly say they had them as a deterrent because we have far too small a population to occupy another
country and are therefore no threat.

The danger lies in having such weapons and having allies that could or do, threaten other people.

I would not have an ultimate problem with a nuclear Australia provided that we eschewed any military involvement with other than the UN.

> I know the nuclear scientists in Australia have been demanding a new
> reactor for years. Perhaps it does have some
> civilian/tertiary-educational use. I understand their enthusiasm for
> the dump and the new Sydney reactor. However I hope such scientists
> would be socially responsible enough to denounce any attempt to acquire
> tactical nukes for Australia - or to convert the new reactor & dump to
> supporting/producing tactical nukes. I hope also such social
> responsibility would extend to warning the public if the new reactor or
> the dump pose health risks to populations either living near the reactor
> site in Sydney or living adjacent to transport routes for moving nuclear
> materials.

See above.

> I would appreciate the views of Science matters forum members on the
> issues I have raised.

Well, you got mine but it probably wasn't what you wanted to hear.

"Were not the deaths and cancers around Windscale found to be due to the population influx of foreign workers and new transport routes"

Zero Sum answered:

> The greatest difference between the nuclear industry and any other is
> that the others do not threaten to poison the environment, to the point
> of extinguishing all life, for potentially thousands of years (the
> half-life of plutonium, as I have read it but do not guarantee that I
> have it right).
>

Hmmm... Industries that threaten to (or have) poisoned the environment to the pointof extinguishing all life include agriculture, animal husbandry. You exagerate the danger from one industry and minimise the danger of others. You have not yet produced a case for the nuclear industry to answer.

> While there is the occasional death in the non-nuclear power industry,
> the deceased do not have to be buried in lead-lined coffins - unlike,
> for example, the women workers of the "Radium Clock Company" of the USA.
> I do not know how the Russians managed the dead from Chernobyl (the
> fire crews, the helicopter crews dumping concrete to encase the mess,
> etc)
>

Radium clocks have little to do with the nuclear industry as you represented it. The levels of radium used in old clocks was dangerous. The newer ones, not so (I've worn one for thirty years). You cannot compare then and now in the nuclear industry any more than you can compare then and now in the asbestos industry.

If you are going to argue a case it has to be from solid ground not argued by changing the meaning of the terms.

There was a yankee who built a breeder in his back yard. Contaminated a fair area.

> Certainly coal-fired power stations pose greenhouse gas emissions
> problems. But no coal-burning station has ever had the impact of
> Chernobyl. And Chernobyl did not involve plutonium.

You state that as fact. I doubt the case. Chernobyl effects were concentrated and localised. The effect of fossil fuel powerplants is global. You would have to run the numbers before you could decide either way.

I would point out that nuclear power plants are a naturally occuring phenomenon.

> You mentioned the risk to Windscale district residents:
>
> "Were not the deaths and cancers around Windscale found to be due to the
> population influx of foreign workers and new transport routes"
>
> Please pardon my ignorance, but how do foreign workers and transport
> routes cause cancer to local residents?

Many cancers are caused or induced by viruses. I don't recall the details but I believe that more than one epidemilogical study was done and that nothing untoward was found. The increases in cancer rates (and that of other maladies) were in the 'only to be expected' area. I suggest to you that 'Windscale' may be an urban legend. It certainly matches all the charatristics.

> Of course, I do not advocate shutting down all industry. in the
> non-nuclear workplaces there are risk reduction, occupational health &
> safety, etc, activities/training/safety measures that offer scope for
> minimising the risk. Those involved do not have to wear anti-radiation
> full body suits, nor do they have to be decontaminated - nor is there
> any risk to their unborn children.

Yet the improvements in nuclear occupational health and safety is what you criticised in the first place....

Point of fact. Early radiographers had a reduced lifespan due to exposure. Modern day radiographers can look forward to a slightly decreased occurance of cancers and immune maladies due to the slightly higher than normal radiation to which they are exposed. It is a health benefit. The phenomena is called hormesis. Try a google.

There are plenty of dirty and dangerous jobs in this world with very nasty consequences. Why single out one which may actually be a complete furphy? As with radiographers, power plant operators may gain a health benefit.

> It is the scale of the risk of nuclear disaster, compared to other
> industries, that sets it apart. This, I believe, is why it must be
> subject to far more stringent regulation and environmental control than
> any other industry.

That sets it apart from what? The space industry? The aviation industry? The rest? Few do not need some stringent regulation.

> In these days of Government sponsored and promoted mass hysteria about
> "the risk of terrorism", surely we should not increase community fear
> by engaging in nuclear industry which, according to the tabloid media,
> attracts terrorists like flies around a jam tin. This alone is reason
> enough for the Howard Government to have nothing to do with "tactical"
> nukes. Like the neurotic city slicker fortifying his suburban home, the
> more obvious security you put up in plain sight (the national equivalent
> of bars on windows, massive security doors, security flood lights and
> midnight-wailing burglar alarms) the more attention you attract from the
> very bunch you are trying to keep out.

This paragraph makes little sense to me. I've had my domicile robbed twice and I didn't like it much at all. Securitity (of all sorts) is important, but nuclear/not nuclear doesn't have much to do with it.

Toby Fiander added:

I don't like the idea that nuclear technology is ruled out on ideological grounds, but risk assessment is always incomplete.

Rod said:

> Certainly coal-fired power stations pose greenhouse gas emissions problems.
> But no coal-burning station has ever had the impact of Chernobyl. And
> Chernobyl did not involve plutonium.

Nuclear reactors like those of Chernobyl and not built anywhere in the world anymore, and were only built in the Soviet countries for a relatively short time. Shutting this style of reactor down with the emergency procedure made the impending problem worse. The problem was known at least in principle, but not known to the operators, who were not reactor people. It would have been possible to modify the reactor to prevent the problem from occurring, and other similar reactors had been.

It does not seem reasonable to label a complete technology unworkable because it has been badly applied in the past. The same logic would result in abandonment of most technologies. In spite of what you might think, a lot of technologies have the potential to cause mass sickness and death. I live about 5km from an industrial area which has within it enough dangerous chemicals to several kinds to damage most of the western Sydney half of Sydney if there was a serious enough fire or an earthquake. The area's emergency plan for water pollution control, of which I have seen only part, makes rather harrowing reading.

I think I would like to have a nuclear reactor somewhere in NSW, the Port Kembla site had a lot to recommend it. It is probably not accessible now, due to the National Park. There are also some excellent desert sites, too. Some of the best waste technology ... etc... etc....

So why do we have to limit ourselves to technologies for electrical power which are eventually going to lead to serious climate problems?

>
> While there is the occasional death in the non-nuclear power industry ...
>

George wrote:

> There have been at least hundreds of tons of this long lived stuff that can
> form dust of 0.1micron spread across Iraq, Baltic countries, and who knows
> how far these particles travel on the wind.

Try this american government produced video. (I think the "realplayer" version is clearer).

The preamble includes;
"" Between October and December 1995, the U.S. Army's Depleted Uranium (DU) Project completed a series of training videos and manuals about depleted uranium munitions. This training regimen was developed as the result of
recommendations made in the January 1993 General Accounting Office (GAO) r eport, "Army Not Adequately Prepared to Deal with Depleted Uranium Contamination."

The training materials were intended to instruct servicemen and women about the use and hazards of depleted uranium munitions. In addition, the training regimen included instructions for soldiers who repair and recover vehicles contaminated by depleted uranium.

Throughout 1996, these videos sat on a shelf, while U.S. soldiers continued to use and work with depleted uranium munitions. In June 1997, Bernard Rostker, The Department of Defense (DoD) principle spokesperson for their
investigation of Gulf War hazardous exposures, stated that the depleted uranium safety training program would begin to be shared by a limited number of servicemen and women in July 1997.""

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article3581.htm

snip,
> Keep nuclear 'progress' out of Australia

Strangely, the west seems to use "progress" in referring to itself, in the same way it uses "developed".

http://www.exploratorium.edu/nagasaki/

Toby Fiander responded:

I am not a military strategist, but I think this policy of forward deployment was thought to be dead until recently. So, as there is no waste from uranium enrichment to be conveniently diverted to munitions in Australia, there was no need to have training for working in areas where DU weapons have been used. On the basis that commanders are generally prepared to fight the last war not the current one (cf. debacle about anthrax vaccination), I assume that training for working in a radioactive environment will be given a few years after they have returned to Australia.

For the ordinary army units, I understand that the radio systems and a lot of the other equipment used by the Australian forces is incompatible with US gear. But this is not so with the SAS, which has systems compatible with others... which is why these are the troops that get sent everywhere and why they are overworked. I suppose eventually the SAS blokes turn up with stress-related illnesses, of which Gulfwar syndrome is just one.

There is more to learn about the aftermath of using DU weaponry, but it seems likely that the concentration of U235 varies from the average figure shown in literature, which is actually fairly high anyway. As you point out there are places where this can be done with some ease now. When last we discussed this, it was pointed out that long-term exposure would be difficult to document in a population like Iraq where the medical infrastructure has been so degraded and populations float to some extent.

> Just proves again that Shrub (little Bush), Attila the Blair,
> and "the Honourable John Winston Howard MP" are
> ethics/morals free zones.

I offer no substantive argument really, except to note that each of the current leaders is yet to face an election.

snip,
> If ever the US and the UK impose peace in their military occupation of
Iraq....

snip,
> there will be any amount of doctoral research opportunities for med staff to
> study the impact of DU exposure on Iraqi civilians, and over time, to their
> as yet un-born children. Amazing how many pollution disasters Western
> technology has set up in developing countries for Western medicine to study
> the insidious effects on populations over time (is this why they do it
> because they cannot get away with polluting large areas of Western countries
> with their disgusting, dangerous muck and so miss out on studying the long
> term effects?).

snip,
>Just proves again that Shrub (little Bush), Attila the Blair, and "the
>Honourable John Winston Howard MP" are ethics/morals free zones.

Gary-Peter Dalrymple commented:

I would like to see FOUR Nuclear Reactors in NSW.

One at Blackheath (the home of the six fingered handshake), where the already impressive local background rate of mutations would more than mask any incidental mutations, while at the same time providing the local 'born agains' with actual evidence of ongoing Evolution.

One under Kirribilli House or the Lodge would be next, a 'Nuclear issues sensitive' PM would be good to have and this might tend to encourage a willingness for timely leadership and government change (PM/Treasurer with a half-life anyone?).

One at Kings School, on one of their many spare playing fields.   Lets see some of that money from-Universities-to-Private schools going into actual science/research.   The Kings School at Parramatta is a low enough population density area.   Of course the reactor itself would have to be run by the boys and girls of James Ruse Ag. High, on the grounds that you would entrust this sort of thing only to the best and brightness.   This would have the side effect of a wave of Private/Selective Schools promoting their Nuclear Technology and other 'High' Technology syllabi.

Security could be entrusted to the Kings School cadets rather than ASIO, on the grounds that not everyone can get into Kings?

One planned but never built over that swimming pool thing opposite the (Sydney) Australian Museum, the greenhouse gas emission savings from protesters being able to train in for the demos would be considerable, rather than them having to drive their fume spewing 'clunkers' and four wheel drives all the way down to to Sutherland.

and:

I have a significant investment in Centennial Coal company and I eagerly look forward to reading of business page reports of Australian Coal miners filling the Chinese and Indian markets for coal.

Australian coal is high carbon black stuff, as opposed to the frequently 'brown' coal extracted and burnt locally in China (and to a lesser extent India).    It enters at ports with modern efficient infrastructure and is not extracted with prison camp labour.   I.e. it does the job that two or three times as much (allowing for inefficient local distribution under corruptable local administrations etc.) of the local stuff.

The most recent 'declared' annual death rate (accidents only, not counting long term industrial health issues and shortening of exminers lifespans) that I have heard of (year 2000?) among Chinese coal miners is about 4,000 P.A., I.e. every one percent of market capture of the Chinese Coal market by Australian coal miners could save 40 lives.

This in mind I can have some sympathy for proponents of the Three Gorges Dam project while still being opposed to it in principle.   In the developing world some 'Green House' decisions have to be tempered by current and local life or death decisions.