EFN - Green Opposition to Nuclear Energy was a Historical Mistake

["Stabin, Michael" <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>]

The latest EFN newsletter. Copied with permission.



Mike



Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP

Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

Vanderbilt University

1161 21st Avenue South

Nashville, TN 37232-2675

Phone (615) 343-0068

Fax   (615) 322-3764

Pager (615) 835-5153

e-mail     michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu

internet   www.doseinfo-radar.com



  

EFN - NEWS

Newsletter of EFN

Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy

29th July 2004





This document is archived on the internet and can be consulted at the

following address: http://www.ecolo.org/archives/archives-nuc-en/





Green Opposition to Nuclear Energy was a Historical Mistake 

Environmentalists now consider nuclear energy as clean



by Bruno Comby 



As a dedicated environmentalist, I consider it paradoxical to see some

environmental groups opposed to nuclear energy. Green opposition to

nuclear power plants is in fact a major historical mistake. Their

announced concerns are for health, safety, and the protection of nature.

In these respects nuclear power is by far superior to the alternatives -

burning fossil fuels (coal, petroleum and gas) which pollute the

atmosphere, wind turbines or the use of solar photovoltaic cells for the

production of electricity, and biomass (growing crops to be burned and

burning crop residues) which alter the landscape and produce only minute

amounts of energy.

It is a fundamental fact that population growth and increasing standard

of living are precipitating an energy crisis which is not being met, and

which cannot be met in the long term, say in the lifetime of our

children and grandchildren, without recourse to nuclear fission.

Well-designed, well-constructed, well-operated and well-maintained

nuclear energy is very clean, safe, durable and economical.

It produces little carbon dioxide, and no sulfur dioxide or nitrogen

oxides; these are produced in vast quantities when fossil fuels are

burned, and they are injected (dumped) into the atmosphere.

Unlike solar cells, wind turbines and growing biomass which cover large

areas, a nuclear power station is very compact; it occupies typically

the area of a football stadium and its surrounding parking lots.

While a little carbon dioxide is emitted in construction (but the same

can be said of windmills and photovoltaic cells), none is emitted in

operation; thus nuclear power makes a minimum contribution to the

greenhouse effect.

Nuclear power produces a very small volume of waste, which is completely

contained and decays spontaneously.

On the other hand, many industrial wastes are chemically stable and

eternal, not contained properly, and produced in great quantities. In

general, industry could greatly benefit the environment by applying to

industrial and chemical wastes the methods currently applied to the

management of nuclear wastes.

Renewable energies should not be excluded from our consideration. It

should be recognised that they have important niche roles to play,

although their industrial potential is only a small percentage of the

global demand in energy which must be met otherwise.

Fear of the unknown is the merchandise of the anti-nuclear

organizations. They preach fear of radiation in general, fear of

radioactive waste in particular, fear of another major accident such as

Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, and fear of nuclear weapons

proliferation. Their campaigns depend upon the fact that the public is

inadequately informed of the true health effects of radiation, and of

the fact that radiation is present everywhere in the environment. They

take advantage of a widespread but mistaken interpretation of the

studies of the health of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki

bombing (the LNT hypothesis), that every ionizing event is deleterious

to the health, and the related concept of collective dose. A moderate

amount of irradiation is beneficial, if not essential, to life.

There are those who have fallen in love with the pristine beauty of

solar cells and wind turbines but refuse to accept the observation that

they are quantitatively incapable of supplying a significant share of

the energy required by an industrial civilization.

There are those who profess conservation, which in the face of

population growth can delay the crisis by a few years at most.

And there are those who seek a "simpler" life. The lifestyle in

developed countries (North America, Europe, Japan) could indeed evolve

to become less energy-intensive and still maintain a good standard of

living, but this evolution requires time (decades at least) and in the

meanwhile large amounts of energy will still be necessary to face the

increasing needs of China, India, Brazil, Africa, and other developing

countries.

The only serious argument against nuclear power is the fear of nuclear

weapons proliferation, that is, that some separated military-grade

plutonium, or some highly enriched uranium may fall into mischievious

hands, and be fashioned into a bomb. But at this point in history, it

can be observed that not even one of the States possessing nuclear

weapons reached that condition by the use of commercial nuclear power

plants. However we should remain vigilant in this regard, and the IAEA's

non-proliferation missions should be reinforced.

It is difficult to attribute the anti-nuclear position of the greens to

ignorance. We have spoken briefly with one of their principal science

advisors following his public statement that "we must reduce the

emission of carbon dioxide by all means possible"; We asked him whether

that included nuclear energy, and he quietly said "We're not all

stupid." His smile was almost audible over the telephone wire.

Trends are changing. An increasing number of environmentalists now join

EFN, the association of Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy

(www.ecolo.org) which already gathers over 6000 members and supporters

in 48 countries. A new paradigm is appearing as time passes : the

old-fashioned anti-nuclear trend is plunging, and pro-nuclear

environmentalists are now in the headlines. Recently, Pr. James Lovelock

(FRS), a member of EFN, author of the Gaia theory which considers Gaia

(the Earth) as a self-sustained living organism, unanimously respected

in the environmental community as the father of the development of

environmental consciousness since the 1960's, was on the front pages in

the international press (including "The Independent" in the UK, "Le

Monde" in France, "Insight" in the United States...) saying that

"Nuclear power is the only green solution".

The opposition of the environmental movement to civilian applications of

nuclear energy is fading away, and will in the future be revealed as

among the greatest mistakes of our times.

Bruno Comby, EFN founder and president (http://www.ecolo.org ), is the

author of 10 books published in 15 languages on environmentalism and

healthy living including the bestseller "Environmentalists For Nuclear

Energy" (published by TNR Editions). He is a graduate of the Ecole

Polytechnique in France, and holds a postgraduate qualification as

nuclear physicist from the Superior National University of Advanced

Technology in Paris (ENSTA). For more information on the author visit :

http://www.comby.org





  

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/