In early 2008, the Carter-era moratorium on construction of new energy plants based on nuclear fission technology appeared to be over, and nearly all the viable candidates in the presidential campaign were including nuclear power as one facet of any clean energy alternative to fossil fuels. I was still a graduate student at Kansas State University studying towards a doctorate in special education, and also happened to be subscribed to ENVIRONMENT@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU, where I posted a link to an opinion from "Jack Straw" titled "Choose My Poison? I Prefer None, from a great online newsletter "Common Sense 2: A Journal of Progressive Thought," published at that time by Chuck Brown. A K-State student in nuclear engineering responded to my post, and I relayed his answers to "Jack Straw," who generously provided counter-arguments to each of the engineering student's concerns. Their exchange is shown here.

The Student's Initial Reply to "Jack Straw" (Monday, February 4th, 2008, 2:36 PM)

Hey listserv!

After reading this article I felt obligated to present some scientific facts about nuclear power (since I am majoring in Mechanical/Nuclear Engineering) as opposed to the multiple opinions given by Jack Straw.

1. The entire world is already "low-level" poisoned.

The entire world receives a massive dose of radiation every day from the cosmos. This radiation causes ionization in the upper atmosphere, but the atmosphere attenuates most of the radiation energy, just as the lead shields attenuate all but a negligible amount of the radiation produced inside of a nuclear reactor. Alpha and beta particle emissions deposit all of their energy in a very short distance in the air, while gamma rays travel further in air. Since the radiation is attenuated by the lead shields of the nuclear reactor the escaping products have such a small energy it is very unlikely that they will make it ten meters past the shields, much less outside of the compound. There are many precautions taken (e.g. no food inside) so that no poisoned substances are taken outside of the compound by employees.

2. It's amazing how much in radioactive poison emissions is considered acceptable for nuclear power plants already in operation.

I think that this is referring to spent fuel, so I will respond with that in mind. Recycling spent fuel is a no brainer, but for some reason the U.S. is the only major country that doesn't recycle its spent fuel, but hopefully in the near future the government will come to its senses. Also, much research is being conducted on reactors that use very low enriched uranium to even further reduce the dangers of spent fuel.

3. A lot of dangerously radioactive materials reach us from nuclear energy and from nuclear manufacturing industry facilities, equipment, and supplies. A lot reach us from medical, food processing, and other industries.

Radiation is all around us, and that is not so much due to human actions as it is due to the nature of our world. The white paint on your walls emits gamma rays, the ceramic plate you eat off of emits alpha particles, the list could go on and on. Radiation is not only caused by nuclear reactors, but by nature every nanosecond of every day.

4. The public is systemically exposed to radioactive fuels, by-products, waste, and recycling because (to mention only several) a) radioactive gold recycled into metal for jewelry, dental, etc.;

The energies of these radiation emissions are not even strong enough to penetrate human skin, so unless you eat multiple gold rings, you are perfectly safe.

b) the ionizing polonium hidden in household smoke detectors.

Once again, the energy of the particles emitted by these detectors have a range of less than one foot in air, and are not powerful enough to cause any harm unless you decide to eat a smoke detector.

In closing, I do believe that solar and wind power present two of the greatest possibilities to solve our energy problem, but calling for a stop to nuclear and thermonuclear technologies is just illogical. The scientific research into the quantum mechanics of nuclear physics has and will continue to provide us with immense gains in technology (thank quantum physics for the computer you are reading this on) and in the understanding of the physical world around us.

Thanks for your time,

S.S. [Editor's note: Student's full name was included in the original listserv comments.]

"Jack Straw" presents counter-arguments (February 4th, 2008, 11:23 PM)

I really appreciate S.S.'s partial critique of my "Choose my poison?..." article on the dangers of nuclear technology, because it shows he has taken the effort to read the article and thus face and consider uncomfortable features of our nuclear age. Just about every statement in my article has lots of support and discussion information accessible on the web and in print, and I meant it to stimulate not only argument but investigation and study leading to action. I'm glad S.S. is thinking about these topics, because we will need top minds like S.S.'s in mechanical and nuclear engineering, to help us safely and thoroughly wind down and clean up after the 20th century's nuclear adventure.

As a scientist myself, I agree with S.S. that quantum mechanics, physics, computers, are wonderful tools and indispensible sources of understanding, and thus of opportunities for progress. I'm sure most of us would include Mom and apple pie in that list. Yet genuine progress presupposes robust provisions for safety, and a deep regard for health and for the earth as habitat for all living species. Or deepest concern in this discussion must be with safety implications of technological choices. S.S. closed his parade of familiar rationales (aka "scientific facts"), with an appeal to logic. Indeed we must all seek logic, facts and humane values in considering the gravity of our current, radioactively contaminated circumstances, and what to do about them.

~ Jack Straw

PS: That was my short courteous response to S.S. and for benefit of the listserve. To stimulate thought though I may not have time to return for further discussion, I offer the listserve a quick run through those few parts of my article that S.S. comments upon, showing in sequence: my statement, then his comment(s) on it, and sometimes an added comment or two of my own. S.S., please excuse that I've rephrased our comments for clarity.

SS: A statement by S.S.
JS article: a statement from my article
SSA#: One of S.S.'s answers to a statement in my article
JS: a new comment by me

JS article: The entire world is already “low-level” poisoned due to past and ongoing production and distribution of radioactive contamination from nuclear development, weapons, and industry.

SSA1 The entire world receives a massive dose of radiation every day from the cosmos, and our earth protects us from it.

JS: Our earth does not protect us from radiation emitted by radioactive contamination originating in our development and application of nuclear technologies.

JS: Just because there is substantial background radioactivity in our lives and habitat, doesn't make the radiation sources and exposures we add into the mix welcome or safe.

SSA2 Lead shields attenuate all but a negligible amount of the radiation produced inside of a nuclear reactor...

SSA3 There are many precautions taken...so that no poisoned substances leave the [reactor] compound.

JS: What's still inside adequate lead shielding, or still controlled by careful handling, may not yet threaten us. And I'm not even addressing reaction controls, just the radioactive materials themselves. However, huge quantities of dangerously radioactive nuclear byproducts (including but not limited to spent nuclear fuel and radioactive fallout deposited across the entire world and especially across nuclear weapons development sites and across very very broad regions downwind of those sites) are already contaminating large areas of our earth. There are also storage facilities of spent fuel, decommissioned but still radioactive reactor coolants, construction materials, etc. present on the premises of every nuclear energy plant.

JS article: Amazing amounts of radioactive poison emissions are considered acceptable for nuclear power plants already in operation.

SS: I think that this is referring to spent fuel...

JS: No, I'm talking about how current regulations allow high levels of everyday direct into the environment emissions, of radioactive materials, especially (deuterium) in liquid and gas phases, from power generating plants -- not to mention accidental "releases," "leaks,""escapes," etc., and how this has been going on all over the world, for decades. Most of these emissions of environmental poisons are not recoverable, and some are designed into the technology. But please, go ahead with your comments.

SSA4: Recycling spent fuel is a no brainer, it's unwise not to regenerate or enrich spent fuel.

JS: Recycling spent fuel, eg enrichment, "breeder reactors," etc. does not eliminate the spent fuels. Rather, it produces plutonium for reactor and weapons uses, and depleted uranium for weapons uses, and slightly reduces the need for mining and processing of uranium -- these are the only useful products. Recycling spent fuel leaves a great proportion of the spent fuel as useless, dangerous radioactive waste.

SSA5: It is hoped that new types of nuclear reactors now in development will use very low enriched uranium and thus reduce the dangers of spent fuel.

JS article: Let's not throw good money after bad. It's already going to be very expensive just to clean up after and phase out past and existing nuclear technology.

SSA6, rephrasing SSA1: Ionizing radiation is all around us,

SSA7: Ionizing radiation all around us is more due to the nature of our world, than it is due to human actions.

SSA8 White paint on walls, and ceramic plates, and many similar things, are emitters of radiation and are radioactive because of nature, not because of human actions, eg not because of how we make and use these radioactive household items.

SSA9, again rephrasing SSA1: Radiation is not only caused by nuclear reactors, but by nature every nanosecond of every day.

JS article: The public is systemically exposed to radioactive medical technology, energy producion fuels, various nuclear industry products and by-products, waste, and recycling...

SSA10: The energies of these radiation emissions are not even strong enough to penetrate human skin, so...you are perfectly safe [from these radioactive materials recycled into our lives].

JS: Gold tooth fillings and crowns are inside our bodies. Radionuclides injected for heart imaging, etc., or implanted for cancer treatment, last for weeks inside patients' bodies, and affect not only the patients but the people they associate with too. We live in buildings, and drive cars, and use appliances and furniture made with recycled metals from many sources, unfortunately including radioactive metals decommissioned from nuclear industries and sold for recycling.

JS article: Radioactive polonium [now add: amerianium and thorium, etc. once or still manufactured into built into ubiquitous household items like incandescent lightbulb filaments, fluorescent lamps, smoke detectors, antistatic brushes...] in smoke detectors is dangerously radioactive.

SSA12: The radiation emitted by these detectors is not powerful enough to cause any harm unless you are very near to them or unless you ingest the polonium.

JS: One of our difficulties here is that for the most part it is the nuclear industry and nuclear medicine who set the thresholds, the allowable / not allowable radiation exposure standards. SS concedes it's dangerous to be within a foot of the radioactive polonium in household appliances like smoke detectors, and that it's dangerous to ingest the radioactive polonium or americum. There is no effective control of smoke detector distribution or their disposal, destruction or recycling, so tiny specks of polonium oxide, like plutonium compounds from past weapons testing, may follow circuitous or direct paths to human environments and to inhalation or ingestion by humans.

SS: Scientific research into the quantum mechanics of nuclear physics has and will continue to provide us with immense gains in technology (thank quantum physics for the computer you are reading this on) and in the understanding of the physical world around us.

JS: I agree.

SS: Calling for a stop to nuclear and thermonuclear technologies is just illogical.

JS: Thanks for thinking about these issues.

Additional comments by "Jack Straw" appended to his counter-arguments

A couple of interesting resources:

An annotated Periodic Table of the Elements at http://elements.wlonk.com/ElementUses.htm shows uses of the radioactive elements, atomic weights 84 (polonoium) and heavier. Virtually the only uses are for nuclear fuel, nuclear weapons, nuclear medicine, other nuclear industry, smoke detectors (americum, maybe not polonium), and scientific instruments.

Some of these applications we may well consider indispensible for now and thus in need of improvement, at least until alternative technologies are strengthened.

Professional physicists, mostly well-disposed toward nuclear technology, answer questions about radioactivity in everyday life at : http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/cat40.htmlinterested [Appears to have been a now inactive earlier version of this current article - http://hps.org/documents/radiation_and_risk.pdf]

Read between the lines.

~ JS

Edited by Robb Scott
editor@multilingualadaptive.net

2020 The Multilingual Adaptive Systems Newsletter