Increasing public acceptance of the urgency of climate change is refocusing the nuclear debate. As Ontario debates changes to its Mining Act, here are two, well-informed, passionate views on the topic. Against uranium mining, and everything associated with it, are two Ontario doctors, Dr. Cathy Vakil and Dr. Linda Harvey. Human Health Implications of Uranium Mining and Nuclear Pow is their paper on the health effects of the nuclear industry. Arguing for nuclear power is lifelong environmentalist, Stewart Brand, editor of the Whole Earth Catalog and one of the early drivers of California’s environmental and clean air initiatives. In a world with no risk-free choices, both are well worth listening to, but Brand seems to have a better grasp of the big picture.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
You suggest Brand has a better grasp? Huh? We've seen in recent months how unaffordable nuclear is. Renewables are not only cheaper, they're more flexible, safer, less risky, more reliable, and have no deady long-lasting wastes to bequeath to future generations.
I'd like to address just 3 of his assertions.
Myth: Nuclear power is green.
Fact: Nuclear power plants produce extremely toxic radioactive wastes such as plutonium 239 which remains radioactive for half a million years. Even though nuclear power has been operational for nearly fifty years, the nuclear industry has yet to determine how to safely dispose of this deadly material. Producing long-lived radioactive wastes with no solution for its disposal will leave serious and irreversible environmental damage and degradation for generations to come, which is contrary to the principles of sustainability.
Furthermore, there are 200 million tons of sand-like uranium tailings in Canada, mostly in Ontario and Saskatchewan. These radioactive wastes will remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. They contain several of the most powerful carcinogens known: radium, radon gas, polonium, thorium and others. Storing these materials in a safe undisturbed state for thousands of years will be extremely difficult and is something we have zero experience doing.
Myth: Nuclear power plants have nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
Fact: Nuclear power plants are essential atomic bomb factories because they produce plutonium and other by-products that are essential ingredients of nuclear bombs. Any country with a nuclear reactor can in theory produce a nuclear weapon. CANDUs produce the isotope plutonium 239, making the production of nuclear weapons relatively easy for host countries. India manufactured nuclear weapons from Canadian nuclear technology in the 1970s. As well, depleted uranium is a by-product of the uranium enrichment process, and is used in weaponry including nuclear weapons.
Myth: How are we going to deal with climate change without nuclear?
Fact: Investing in nuclear energy to deal with climate change is like smoking cigarettes to lose weight – it’s a dangerous distraction.
Nuclear is the slowest and most expensive solution for addressing climate change. With its high cost, long construction time, high environmental and health risks and problems resulting from waste management, it is clear that nuclear power does not offer a viable solution to climate change. Tackling climate change through the development of nuclear power just swaps one serious problem for several others.
While electricity generated from nuclear power entails no direct emissions of CO2, the nuclear fuel cycle does release CO2 during mining, fuel enrichment and plant construction. Uranium mining is one of the most CO2 intensive industrial operations, and as demand for uranium grows, CO2 emissions are expected to rise as core grades decline.
The solution to climate change is a mixture of energy efficiency and renewable energy that offers a quicker, more realistic and sustainable approach to reducing CO2 emissions.
excuse me!!!!!!!!!? nuclar energys good?
nuclear energy s not good it contains radio active waste .he only way to get rid of his highly radio acive waste is to bury it.and if its dug up can give waves of radioactivness
and if there is ever a nuclear melt down it can expose the world to high doses o radio
active waves.did u know i can cause cancer,and genetic mutation?