# Still support nuke power plants? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2011, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647 "2011-03-14T11:56:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/141 "2011-03-15T06:07:45Z")
It was this one: [http://www.sar-net.org/upload/s2-6.pdf](http://www.sar-net.org/upload/s2-6.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/142 "2011-03-15T06:18:17Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [People Died at Three Mile Island | HuffPost Impact](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/people-died-at-three-mile_b_179588.html) Of course I do. But nuke fans reject anything that is negative. Not necessarily. If you could show medical statistics showing elevated leukemias in the vicinity of Three Mile Island, that would be data I’d accept. But not Harvey Wasserman’s third-party retelling: “In fact, the most reliable studies were conducted by local residents like Jane Lee and Mary Osborne, who went door-to-door in neighborhoods where the fallout was thought to be worst. Their surveys showed very substantial plagues of cancer, leukemia, birth defects, respiratory problems, hair loss, rashes, lesions and much more.” Were these _diagnosed_ cancers etc? Because then they should be in the medical records and show up in the stats. And from your own cite, Columbia University didn’t find anything in the health stats. Now that was contested by Stephen Wing and Arnie Gundersen, but to evaluate their contention I need to see what _they said_, not what Harvey Wasserman said they said. “A study by Columbia University claimed there were no significant health impacts, but its data by some interpretations points in the opposite direction. Investigations by epidemiologist Dr. Stephen Wing of the University of North Carolina, and others, led Wing to warn that the official studies on the health impacts of the accident suffered from “logical and methodological problems.” Studies by Wing and by Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry official, being announced this week at Harrisburg, significantly challenge official pronouncements on both radiation releases and health impacts.” I note that Arnie Gundersen is the same guy who’s been spouting off about “Chernobyl on steroids” regarding the Japanese reactors - hardly a non-partisan source. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/143 "2011-03-15T06:19:54Z")
> [@matt](#): > > It was this one: [http://www.sar-net.org/upload/s2-6.pdf](http://www.sar-net.org/upload/s2-6.pdf) Thanks. Above my pay grade, sadly; tried and failed to extract knowledge from the abstract & conclusion/summary. ---
**Author:** ![TravisFromOR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cc9497/32.png) [@TravisFromOR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TravisFromOR)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/144 "2011-03-15T06:31:48Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [People Died at Three Mile Island | HuffPost Impact](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/people-died-at-three-mile_b_179588.html) Of course I do. But nuke fans reject anything that is negative. Still waiting on the cite for the “core radiation” release that you alluded to earlier? Or do you retract that statement? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/145 "2011-03-15T07:16:41Z")
> [@matt](#): > > Not necessarily. If you could show medical statistics showing elevated leukemias in the vicinity of Three Mile Island, that would be data I’d accept. But not Harvey Wasserman’s third-party retelling: > > “In fact, the most reliable studies were conducted by local residents like Jane Lee and Mary Osborne, who went door-to-door in neighborhoods where the fallout was thought to be worst. Their surveys showed very substantial plagues of cancer, leukemia, birth defects, respiratory problems, hair loss, rashes, lesions and much more.” > > Were these _diagnosed_ cancers etc? Because then they should be in the medical records and show up in the stats. And from your own cite, Columbia University didn’t find anything in the health stats. Now that was contested by Stephen Wing and Arnie Gundersen, but to evaluate their contention I need to see what _they said_, not what Harvey Wasserman said they said. > > “A study by Columbia University claimed there were no significant health impacts, but its data by some interpretations points in the opposite direction. Investigations by epidemiologist Dr. Stephen Wing of the University of North Carolina, and others, led Wing to warn that the official studies on the health impacts of the accident suffered from “logical and methodological problems.” Studies by Wing and by Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry official, being announced this week at Harrisburg, significantly challenge official pronouncements on both radiation releases and health impacts.” > > I note that Arnie Gundersen is the same guy who’s been spouting off about “Chernobyl on steroids” regarding the Japanese reactors - hardly a non-partisan source. I originally saw a documentary about TMI which was about the people who went about gathering data, Lee and Osborne.. They lived there and knew from experiences that childhood cancers and other cancers seemed too common. They did the study. The government did not. Their data was convincing. I have encountered several stories written by experts who accepted the data over the last few years. I also know that studies done by the government or labs funded by businesses have come out differently. Data given to experts is like Abu Grebe prisoners. If you torture the data enough it will tell you what you want to hear. ---
**Author:** ![TravisFromOR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cc9497/32.png) [@TravisFromOR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TravisFromOR)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/146 "2011-03-15T07:37:34Z")
> [@TravisFromOR](#): > > Still waiting on the cite for the “core radiation” release that you alluded to earlier? Or do you retract that statement? So, you retract it then? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/147 "2011-03-15T11:56:42Z")
[A new summary](http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/15/fukushima-15-march-summary/) is available at a pretty good tech site which is pro-nuclear, so I imagine some will take it as biased. I think it is reasonably accurate and dispassionate. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/148 "2011-03-15T12:50:00Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I originally saw a documentary about TMI which was about the people who went about gathering data, Lee and Osborne.. They lived there and knew from experiences that childhood cancers and other cancers seemed too common. They did the study. The government did not. Their data was convincing. The data was collected by amateurs who quite likely had their own agenda and bias. That is not how sound public health data is collected. People who live nowhere near nuclear reactors can get cancer, miscarriages, and skin rashes. You have to compare the rate after an accident to the rate BEFORE it to get anything meaningful, because after an accident people will attribute anything and everything to the accident whether or not it could possibly be related. Several other groups - groups with MUCH more experience and much better equipped to perform sound research - have come to the conclusion the health impact of TMI is essentially non-existent. The Columbia study is considered legitimate because it compared rates of symptoms and disease before and after the accident. Lee and Osborne are a joke because they went door to door and asked if the people felt TMI had made them sick. The Wing from U of North Carolina study found cancer rates elevated a “whopping” 0.034% :rolleyes: with a 0.013 margin of error, so it might have been as low as 0.021%. That study, by the way, was commissioned by residents near TMI, not industry or government. In 2005 William R. Field from the University of Iowa pointed out that any study has to take into account the _naturally_ higher than average radon in the area that was present before anyone ever built the first nuclear power plant. Both a Pittsburgh study and the Columbia one turned up rates of childhood leukemia _lower than the national average_ around TMI. So yes, there have been some cases of childhood leukemia near TMI. You know what? Childhood leukemia is always occurring, and apparently it occurs more often in other places than the TMI area. It’s just that people always want to know “why” and if there’s a handy excuse like “accident at the power plant” people will just _assume_ that’s the reason and look no further. So, unless you think multiple indepent universities are all somehow involved in a vast conspiracy to bury the facts - about as likely as 9/11 being a controlled demolition - you’re wrong, **gonzomax**. TMI didn’t cause any deaths. None. Zero. Nada. Zip. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/149 "2011-03-15T13:19:43Z")
Seriously, “some people went door-to-door and asked if anyone there had cancer” is not a scientific study. Come on. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/150 "2011-03-15T15:09:03Z")
I’d rather have coal plants with co2 scrubbers than a nuclear plant next to me. I’d rather have nuclear plants than wind turbines next to me. I’d rather have solar THERMAL plants out in the desert by the hundreds and the power stored and transmitted around the country. I’d rather have wind turbines a mile out on the great lakes or a mile away from anywhere I don’t have to listen to or see their solar flicker. But what I’d really like is a government energy program that has a tiller. There is no damn reason why we can’t be energy independent and environmentally friendly now. It should already have occurred. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/151 "2011-03-15T15:58:54Z")
> [@](#): > > To produce the 25 tonnes or so of uranium fuel needed to keep your average reactor going for a year entails the extraction of half a million tonnes of waste rock and over 100,000 tonnes of mill tailings. These are toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. The conversion plant will generate another 144 tonnes of solid waste and 1343 cubic metres of liquid waste. > > Contamination of local water supplies around uranium mines and processing plants has been documented in Brazil, Colorado, Texas, Australia, Namibia and many other sites. To supply even a fraction of the power stations the industry expects to be online worldwide in 2020 would mean generating 50 million tonnes of toxic radioactive residues every single year. > > These tailings contain uranium, thorium, radium, polonium, and emit radon-222. In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency sets limits of emissions from the dumps and monitors them. This does not happen in many less developed areas. > > The long-term management cost of these dumps is left out of the current market prices for nuclear fuel and may be as high as the uranium cost itself. The situation for the depleted uranium waste arising during enrichment even may be worse, says the [World Information Service on Energy](http://www.wise-uranium.org/). > **[David Thorpe: The effects of uranium mining are disastrous. To minimise the...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/05/nuclear-greenpolitics)** > > David Thorpe: The effects of uranium mining are disastrous. To minimise the risks, the nuclear supply chain needs independent auditing ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/152 "2011-03-15T16:18:48Z")
I’m a very pro-tech, pro-science kinda guy. I really don’t believe I’m irrationally or superstitiously cautious around radiation. My problems with nuclear power are many though. I haven’t always felt this way, but it’s something that’s been developing in my head since global warming and renewable energy and oil and war and terrorism have all been big headlines. There are a few things I’d like, as a pro-tech guy: Larger and larger space colonies. Space shuttles. Nuclear power. Unfortunately, reality intrudes on my dreams. Space shuttles didn’t herald in a new age of economical, routine, safe space flight. They were incredibly complicated, expensive and even with the best of the best working on it, they weren’t "oh shit! proof. Our shuttles are gone, taxidermied into museum pieces. Nuclear power is too complicated, and too expensive. It’s cool as shit, as the space shuttles were. But it’s too complicated and expensive right now. We can argue about why that is, but we have to agree about the reality of it. Complicated and expensive. It’s the Space Shuttle of the renewable energy world. Someday we’ll have even cooler space ships. Someday we’ll have even cooler nuclear technology. Today, we need energy, and we need jobs, and in my opinion, nuclear power should be a very small, gourmet custom purpose portion of the energy and job pie. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/153 "2011-03-15T16:41:02Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > Seriously, “some people went door-to-door and asked if anyone there had cancer” is not a scientific study. Come on. Seriously ,it is numbers. If the government refused to do the study, the people had to. They did, and submitted the data to neutral sources who found it alarming. The data was compelling. Love canal was done the same way. Ignoring incidents is good business . The government does not want the people to think they are allowing unsafe plants to exist. They are. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/154 "2011-03-15T16:47:35Z")
I’m sure it was numbers. Lots and lots of numbers. What it wasn’t, was scientific. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/155 "2011-03-15T17:14:53Z")
I’m really disappointed in MSNBC’s coverage of the nuke plant story. They keep using vague terms like “low levels of radioactivity” and then alarming-sounded but not really useful terms like “100 times normal background radiation”. (I’d imagine that normal background radiation is pretty damn low, I have read that your average X-ray exposes you to hundreds of times normal background radiation with no ill effects expected.) I really have no idea what is going on as a result of watching it. I can’t imagine what Fox News is saying, I really don’t want to know. Meanwhile over on the Dope we got pro-nuclear guys who are saying, “Hey, no atomic fireball yet, kwitcherbitchin! I would live INSIDE a nuclear reactor, that’s how safe they are!” and anti-nuke guys saying “Hey if you SNEEZE one of those things can go off, Homer Simpson runs nuclear reactors for Ghu’s sake! Homer Simpson!” Really hard to get balanced info on this topic. But I mostly blame MSNBC, they are supposed to be a news organization. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/156 "2011-03-15T17:26:52Z")
Well, they can only rely on official releases from the Japanese government. And such news releases have to be guarded, for perfectly legitimate reasons: public panic. We need people to step away from the contamination, both the real and the potential. A mad scramble to run away from the contamination would likely be more destructive than the contamination itself. Open candor is usually better. But not always. ---
**Author:** ![TravisFromOR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cc9497/32.png) [@TravisFromOR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TravisFromOR)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/157 "2011-03-15T17:46:37Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Seriously ,it is numbers. If the government refused to do the study, the people had to. They did, and submitted the data to neutral sources who found it alarming. The data was compelling. > Love canal was done the same way. Ignoring incidents is good business . The government does not want the people to think they are allowing unsafe plants to exist. They are. > [@MsWhatsit](#): > > I’m sure it was numbers. Lots and lots of numbers. What it wasn’t, was scientific. Why would they submit the data to a neutral source? Why is that relevant? If they just made up the data, or something like core radiation being released, even a neutral source analyzing it would be able to come to a fair conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/158 "2011-03-15T18:14:10Z")
It is sad you guys don’t speak government. After the tsunami the government made a calming speech. They said the reactors were safe. Translation: they mentioned the reactors Oh oh, somethings wrong. Then they say there is a fire but under control. Translation: the fire is out of control Then there has been an explosion at the plant . But under control. Translation: an explosion is not under control. things are heading down rapidly. The trouble is at 4 reactors and we are releasing small amounts of radiation ,don’t worry. Translation radiation at levels of Xrays are not harmful, except you are getting an xray 24 hours a day. These reactors are on a 6 out of 7 on the danger scale. This could be a Chernobyl except in a heavily populated area. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/159 "2011-03-15T18:17:10Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Where is the evidence that astronomical carnage and destruction is a likely, or hell, even reasonably possible, event? Your comparison to other disasters is a good point However, if nobody dies but they lose significant land and seriously poison the ocean than the cost to Japan goes up considerably. They could destroy their economy which will kill them in the end anyway. We have land in the desert that could add to the safety level of a nuclear power plant. It would make sense to build them there to supply California. We cannot afford to lose a high density corridor on the East Coast to a melt down. It just can’t be allowed to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/160 "2011-03-15T18:28:31Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > It is sad you guys don’t speak government. > After the tsunami the government made a calming speech. They said the reactors were safe. Translation: they mentioned the reactors Oh oh, somethings wrong. > Then they say there is a fire but under control. Translation: the fire is out of control > Then there has been an explosion at the plant . But under control. Translation: an explosion is not under control. things are heading down rapidly. > The trouble is at 4 reactors and we are releasing small amounts of radiation ,don’t worry. Translation radiation at levels of Xrays are not harmful, except you are getting an xray 24 hours a day. > These reactors are on a 6 out of 7 on the danger scale. This could be a Chernobyl except in a heavily populated area. Funny - when I watched the NHK feed in my area they said: After the tsunami - the reactor emergency cooling is off line, we are working on the problem. There is a build up of hydrogen, there might an explosi- oh, we have a confirmed explosion witha small release of radiation. Radiation levels spiked, we are checking to make sure everyone is evacuated from around the plant. Yes, there is a fire, we are working to put it out. My recommendation is to stop watching Faux News. There are many other, less hysterical news sources from which to get information. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=9)