This Thursday, Earth Day, politicians and activists will shout more about “the climate crisis.”
I don’t think it’s a crisis. COVID-19, malaria, exploding debt, millions of poor children dying from diarrhea — those are genuine crises.
But global warming may become a real problem, so it’s particularly absurd that Earth Day’s activists rarely mention the form of energy that could most quickly reduce greenhouse gases: nuclear power.
When France converted to nuclear, it created the world’s fastest reduction in carbon emissions.
But in America, nuclear growth came to a near halt 40 years ago, after an accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania.
The partial meltdown killed no one. It would probably have been forgotten had Hollywood not released a nuclear scare movie, “The China Syndrome,” days before.
“People saw that and freaked out,” complains Joshua Goldstein, author of “A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change (with nuclear power).”
One of the people still freaking out is solar activist Harvey Wasserman. “I live in terror of the next accident,” he says in my latest video.
His anti-nuclear argument has basically won in most of the world. Nuclear plants are being shut down.
Why? I ask Wasserman. No one was hurt at Three Mile Island.
Wasserman replies that after the accident, he went to nearby homes and people showed him “their tumors, their hair loss, their lesions.”
“It’s bunk,” I tell him. “It’s been studied. People lose hair and get cancer and they attribute it to Three Mile Island, but it’s not true.”
“Having been there,” Wasserman responds, “It’s my clear assertion that people were killed.”
Actual scientists don’t agree. In fact, they find less cancer near Three Mile Island than in other parts of Pennsylvania.
But what about Fukushima? That was more serious. Today, clueless media quote Greenpeace claiming Fukushima’s radiation could “change our DNA!”
Also bunk. “There was heightened radiation, but it was all at this low level below what we consider to be safe,” explains Goldstein.
The low level of radiation released at Fukushima was hardly a threat. What killed people was the panicked response.
“Everyone freaked out and ordered a massive sudden evacuation. That caused suicide, depression… Fear of radioactivity really did kill people.”
One nuclear accident, Chernobyl, did kill, and its radiation may still kill thousands more.
But Chernobyl was built by socialists cutting corners to please dictators. No Chernobyl-like plant will ever be built again. And even with Chernobyl’s deaths, nuclear power’s safety record is better than that of coal, oil, and natural gas.
“But what about the nuclear waste!” shout the activists.
“It’s a small problem,” says Goldstein. “All the nuclear waste from all America’s reactors for 60 years would fit into a Walmart.”
While the anti-nuclear movement has stopped nuclear construction in most of the West, “other places are building them like crazy,” says Goldstein. “China puts a nuclear reactor on the grid every two to three months.”
America may soon finish… one. It took Georgia Power Company six years just to get permission to build a plant. Regulation is so heavy that, 15 years later, it still isn’t operating.
Wasserman is proud he played a role in that. “If you want to accuse us of having raised the cost of building new nuclear plants by demanding more regulation, I plead guilty.”
He claims countries can power themselves with rooftop solar panels and wind. Technology improvements did lower their prices, but what happens when the wind doesn’t blow? Or the sun doesn’t shine?
Store energy in batteries! replies Wasserman. “We are having a major technological and industrial revolution in battery capacity.”
Goldstein scoffs in response, “The idea that a miracle battery is going to come along and save us is completely untested.”
By contrast, nuclear energy has been tested. It could reduce greenhouse gasses, and provide reliable energy, if only we didn’t fear it so much.
“The whole regulatory system is crazy,” Goldstein concludes. “We’re regulating this energy source as though it were the most dangerous thing out there, and it’s actually the safest thing!”
Read more at Townhall
“..Though nuclear is safe and effective, it isn’t needed…”. i can’t be bothered discusing how to reduce/control man-made CO2. The earth is greening and the lawns a growing apace with the current CO2 levels. “..Warming is good…” YES..
A very good friend of mine is a nuclear engineer specializing in safety. He has been to Chernobyl. He said the reactor’s instruments were showing that something was drastically wrong. The operators didn’t believe the instruments so lost the opportunity to avoid the disaster. We can be sure that mistake won’t be made again as well as reactors with flawed designs won’t be constructed again.
I remember reading at the time the Three Mile Island accident exposed the surrounding residents to radiation was equivalent to three medical X-Rays. Yet, it was enough to essentially end the nuclear program in the US. The problem isn’t nuclear safety, but the hidden agendas. Many believe that the middle class life style is excessive and even sinful. Eliminating the use of fossil fuels without the use of nuclear will force a drastic reduction in our standard of living.
Though nuclear is safe and effective, it isn’t needed. The Russian climate model, INMCM5, matches real world data more closely than any other and only predicts warming of 1.4 decrees C. This is less than the IPCC goal of 1.5 degrees. In addition, other than the ice ages, the current interglacial period that we are living in is one of the coldest in earth’s history. Warming is good.
China is currently building about 20 nuclear plants, and many others around the world. They also recently completed the their largest coal transport railway … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaBWfyGPLS8&t=16s
Yes Chernobyl did kill and may still kill thousands more – big deal!
What about the alarmist press stampeding pregnant women into having abortions because of unfounded fears of birth defects.
Said to be about a million in Europe alone.
Regardless of your stance, the mainstream media were guilty of ending more lives (by a factor of thousands) than the explosion and meltdown at Chernobyl.
About 56 people died in the Chernobyl disaster (26th April 1986) and it’s immediate aftermath. Probably a further 90 or so from thyroid and other cancers since and a further 300000 were subject to excessive radiation. 350000 people were evacuated from Pripyat and over 600000 “liquidators” were cycled through the clean-up operation from military volunteers and conscripts. Nearly 4000 “liquidators” spent 90 seconds each clearing extremely radioactive materials off the roof and into the “pit” whilst being exposed to lethally high radiation levels – whilst most suffered radiation sickness, very few died subsequently – thought to be about 19 fatalities over the next 10 years.
Greenpeace persistently claim that 9000 people died at Chernobyl. The UN report states 50. The Russians stated 31 – but given the cover-up and secrecy it is far too low.
The 4000 “liquidators” were told that a 25rem exposure was the safe limit (about five times what is considered a safe lifetime dose in the West) all were issued with certificates of 24.x rem = all artificially lower than 25 – most were subjected to ±75rem on average. Most survived – some victims received 200+rem doses and survived.
A recent medical study of the persons affected by Chernobyl has found that the psychological damage has proven more damaging and debilitating then the actual effects (people have become withdrawn because they fear they or their children are going to die, are not having children for fear of birth defects etc. etc.).
The study finds that these people’s health has been more adversely affected by false information, lack of information and fearmongering than by the actual incident.
I am not trying to minimize how bad Chernobyl was – it was the stuff nightmares are made of (and still is) – but since fear and alarm sell copy it was hyped out of all proportion by the media – the various TV news programs estimated future mortalities from 300 000 to 3 000 000 persons.
Approximately one million unnecessary abortions across Europe were performed on women panicked by the alarmist news reports. That was real damage which can be laid at the door of alarmist news coverage rather than the disaster itself (it was however the trigger).
How curious, the press were responsible for thousands of times more “deaths” than the Chernobyl disaster itself.
There were even the 3 volunteers that waded and dived through highly radioactive reactor coolant and contaminated runoff from the firefighting operations on the open reactor. They did so in order to open valves essential to bringing the disaster under control.
It was presumed they had died – not so – all three survived – although all suffered from radiation sickness – two are still alive today (2020). These were the engineers Alexei Ananenko and Valeri Bezpalov and the shift supervisor Boris Baranov. Baranov died of heart failure in 2005 – all were awarded The Order For Courage – in 2018 – Baranov posthumously.
The mainstream media need to wield its power more responsibly to avoid further genocide by journalism.
Very busy but this is wrong on the simple facts that can easily be gained from the UNSCEAR report, regularly updated.
Round numbers… 30 people died as a result of the immediate conventional explosion and fires and intense radiation exposure resuting. Another 20 have probably died from the recurrence of treatable Thyroid cancer in the treated 6,000 cases attributed to Chernobyl, caused by the Russian government not warning their people not to drink local milk and not giving them iodine tablets to block I-131 uptake – a standard routine in more civilised countries. In the UK people around reactors are issued with Iodine tablets in case there is an accident, I assume the US follows similar rules?
So that’s 50 related deaths at Chernobyl in total. Thousands more not happening, and not expected to happen. By all the real “experts”. even the UN ones. How would they when people change their cells on a regular basis anyway?
No one has died from the quite elevated levels received in the clear up, its also below the safe threshold that the regulators impose on monitored radiation workers to keep their jobs, based on a no radiation is good regulation LNT principle, set when no one thought enough about the range of natural radiation or understood how radiobiology worked.
Now we know what is a safe cumulative dose threshold and dose rate they still won’t change the rules that give them their power over people and fancy gear to wear and scare.
Chernobyl was evacuated at around 6mSv pa. Fukushima at 20mSv pa. The people of Ramsar Iran receive >300mSv pa and a beach bum in Guapari BRazil nearer to 800mSv pa, with no epidemiological evidence of increased cancer related illness. The evacuations were stupid resonse of stupid people to a crisis the people in charge were not trained to understand and did not check the facts of before acting. They should have done the right thing afterwards, Japanese officials murdered thousands who would almost certainly have lived out their remaining life expectancy by forcibly evacuating them. It was a death march imposed by an uncaring and unknowing bureaucracy.
The rumours of disaster and hidden death still waiting to happen are simply invented by activists applying LNT on a statistical basis, pseudo scientists who are simply creating an irrational fear of radiation like mad Helen Caldicott and her fellow box of frogs lunatic the American osteopath “Doctor” Jeffrey Petersen – from Physicians for Social Responsibility. To be clear the pseudo science behind LNT, that such groups actively mis apply to create these numbers is overtly flawed and plain WRONG IN FACT. THere IS a threshold, and radiation damage is not linearly proportional to received dose below it. Even the UN agrees!
The basis for LNT is completely disproven. Activist predictions of thousands were simply made up with even less idea of how radiation exposure really works to affect physiology than the people who made the original regulations based on LNT. As with climate change, the best evidence is what happens in reality, the lack of bodies. Thousands are still not dying as advertised.
I worked in radiation protection when they didn’t know, and am happy the later science shows the many benefits of nuclear technology, and even elevated low level radiation as a medical treatment for the immune system improvement. Radiation is not only beneficial at low levels in some cases, it is certainly far less harmful than first feared, a minor risk compared to microwaves as e/m radiation, and other much more harmful natural toxins when considering ingestion and inhalation, ALL of which humans have evolved to tolerate at ambient levels in nature. Cave dwelling being a great start, BTW. Check it out.
Brian, Agreed – my point – which clearly I did not make well – was in spite of the catastrophe and the somewhat careless and cavalier regard to severe radiation, relatively few people died. In spite of being subjected to elevated levels and in many cases significantly raised levels.
I am a registered radiation worker and have worked in a “hot” core-catcher void beneath an active reactor – the drive to work was probably a million times more dangerous.
Nuclear power is safe.