Many of our readers have contacted us after having read the NEI smear article, which was published after an AP article quoted Arnie Gundersen‘s findings on soil samples he took in Tokyo. The author obviously seems to have a problem with what the US Government KNEW, and discussed in great detail between national agencies.
The author also seems to be quite emotionally and personally invested in bringing Mr. Gundersen down by any means necessary, much akin to watching heated presidential debates, where there are no limitations to the amount of spin and careless accusations which can be used against any opinions which stand in the way.
A smear campaign is a deliberate and often baseless attack on a person or group’s reputation. Unfortunately it is such a powerful tool, it does not matter whether the accusations of a smear campaign have any merit or not, the campaign can have an impact on its target even if it only changes one mind.
Our research of the commercial nuclear industry has taught us a few things, people do make mistakes, the best design can easily be overshadowed by faulty construction, and radiation is extremely hazardous to your health.
Sad to say, the risk does not lie “somewhere else” in “other designs unlike ours”. The United States does not have standardized designs, we have sites with four reactors and each one is different. At the Fukushima Daiichi site there are 6 reactors and 4 different designs.
Similarly, every nuclear accident is different, and the impact cannot be truly measured for years. The government does not always tell the truth. Many will never return to their homes. Their lives will be divided into two parts: before and after Fukushima. They’ll worry about their health and their children’s health.
The government will probably say there was not that much radiation and that it didn’t harm them. And the government will probably not compensate them for all that they’ve lost. What they lost can’t be calculated.
This whole nuclear experiment is a failure, and sadly, the Fukushima disaster, and maybe even Chernobyl, might not be the worst example when all is said and done. Politicians and talking heads always minimize the dangers, presumably to avoid panic. If the radiation levels in the water is 10,000 times above normal. “Well ok, don’t get in the water.” That kind of attitude is unacceptable.
Government discussions related to radiological status on the ground in Japan
“On April 7th, officials spent much of a teleconference describing the current radiological status on the ground in Japan at the time. One call participant summarized the radiological impact as follows;
“The nuclear accident in Japan has resulted in widespread deposition of radioactive contamination throughout the northern part of Japan, including the metropolitan Tokyo area. Surface contamination levels in this entire region would be required to be posted as radiological area if they were at a U.S. licensed facility or DOE site.
Any materials leaving Japan have the potential for low levels of radioactive contamination. Thus, the discussion about materials in DOD possession is indicative of similar materials that are entering commerce from Japan.”
“Regarding the question of NRC or Agreement State licensing, either for import or possession of radiologically contaminated material of Japan origin, the members were not able to ascertain a clear answer. During the call, there was an initial statement that NRC would not be licensing such material. Later on the discussion included reference to potential licensing. The regulatory provisions cited by members discussed the regulatory aspects of normal commerce in radioactive materials.
It is not clear that these provisions would apply to widely scattered accident fallout that has placed low level contaminated material in the hands of many unregulated people and on material that will be entering commerce throughout the world.”
We do NOT have a safe way of disposing of or even storing nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is more than just the fuel rods; it is the radioactive water, pipes, turbines. Do you really want to be creating toxic waste that 100’s of generations of our children will have to deal with?
We all need to ask ourselves this question and think in the terms of our children’s children and ask yourself if you want to commit the crime of “Generational Tyranny” in passing on huge toxic waste problems to our a 100 generations after us.
When you are dealing with materials that remain lethal for millions of years, there is no such thing as “safe”.
Try estimating how much that is going to cost into the KW hour cost of nuclear energy.
Until serious prosecution of people who have BROKEN THE LAW occurs we can all expect more and more of these patterns to emerge – in industries that have smaller and smaller margins of error.
It is not hard to find people willing to deflect the issue by explaining that life is risky. That fact does not entitle government and big corporations to increase that risk exponentially, which is what they did and continue to do.
The handling and administration of the Fukushima plant been in gross neglect and dereliction of duty for far too long. Despite the fact that Fukushima has literally blown up in their face, we continue to hear defensive arguments for nuclear power, as some staunch supporters of nuclear energy still cling to the worn-out religious foundation of nuclear energy, that it can be operated safely.
Fukushima has exposed that it cannot, and even if it were possible, it would prove to be far too expensive, so the design and operation of commercial plant is “profit first and safety second”, no matter what they say in the open.
In any population, there will be a percentage of people, who will profess that they know, more than what they know, and that they should be believed without farther considerations. The danger today, more so than in the past, is the amount of power they may yield.
- Tags: Nuclear Reactor