GUEST COMMENTARY: Nuclear power — 70 years later

Thursday, December 6, 2012 | 11:30 a.m. CST; updated 9:34 p.m. CST, Thursday, December 6, 2012

Dec. 2 marked the 70th year since the first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction took place. This past weekend I attended an event at the University of Chicago, the location of the first experiment, to remember the day that ushered mankind into the Atomic Age, in a shroud of secrecy.

Reflecting on the lives destroyed over the last 70 years the Atomic Age is sobering. On Sunday, I heard a Japanese woman speak who survived the nuclear attack on Hiroshima. At least 140,000 Japanese were killed from the U.S. attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I listened to a Native American from the Sioux tribe in South Dakota. She and her ancestors’ waters, food and way of life have been contaminated by uranium mines, the cost of the nuclear fuel cycle. To come full circle we heard from a young woman from Japan who is working on the frontlines with communities contaminated by the Fukushima triple nuclear meltdown. More than 100,000 people still cannot return home more than 18 months later. Imagine evacuating the entire city of Columbia indefinitely. It’s daunting.

Missouri has cause to reflect on our own nuclear and radioactive history. In April of 1942, The Manhattan Project secretly contracted Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, located in St. Louis, to purify uranium on a commercial scale. Commercial purification lasted for 25 years in the region while the radioactive waste contamination will outlive all of us.

The Japanese were not the only victims of The Manhattan Project. Too many Mallinckrodt workers, because of purifying uranium and handling wastes, had years shaved off their lives. It was one employee’s daughter, Denise Brock, who tirelessly worked the legal and political system to finally win $150,000 to cover their incredible health bills. People who were unknowingly exposed to radioactive materials just because of where they lived, worked or played are still out of luck.

These people are real. They live in Hematite, near Gov. Jay Nixon’s hometown of De Soto, and are worried about health problems due to the nuclear fuel production facility that Westinghouse is paying $200 million to clean up. They are the 300,000 people who live in north St. Louis County whose water is threatened by tons of radioactive waste illegally dumped in the Missouri River floodplain in 1973. They are the kids who played in Coldwater Creek in St. Louis or near Weldon Spring in St. Charles who have died before their 20 year high school reunion.

Health concerns are valid. The National Academy of Sciences recognizes there’s no safe level of ionizing radiation exposure for humans. Increased exposure means increased health risk, plain and simple. For this reason, pregnant women don’t even get small doses of radiation, like x-rays.

Nuclear power, for weapons or commercial use, has real consequences. It’s great to be pro-jobs. I don’t know many people who aren’t. But at what cost and to whom? There’s a new proposed uranium mine along the Missouri River in South Dakota. If Callaway 1 receives a license extension or Ameren gets a small modular reactor, are we going to help the Sioux woman clean up at least one of the hundreds of abandoned uranium mines as a thank you for the fuel from her land?

Health problems aside, look to the history of nuclear power for an indication of the future. Wall Street stopped financing nukes decades ago. If the economics are as rosy as nuclear proponents say, and “small nukes” are really a $25 billion industry, then where are the bankers? If nuclear is good business then the industry shouldn’t need upfront taxpayer and utility customers’ money to build them 70 years after the birth of the technology. The “too cheap to meter” promise for commercial reactors in the 1950s is now too expensive for Goldman Sachs.

The nuclear industry has a history of minimizing risk (economic, health, accident) while marginalizing critics. Missourians overwhelmingly voted for renewable energy in 2008. Instead of safe energy, politicians and utility executives are trying to shove expensive nuclear power down our throats. I encourage you to consider the long-term costs of nuclear power. And in the short-term, watch out for state legislators, especially who are “anti-tax,” that want to increase your electric bill to subsidize nuclear power for monopoly electric utilities.

Ed Smith is the Safe Energy Director at the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, a 43-year-old independent, environmental nonprofit organization.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Charles leverett December 6, 2012 | 3:02 p.m.

This article isn't biased at all, I mean at least pretend to be fair and consider the other side.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 6, 2012 | 4:58 p.m.

Ed: Gee, I dunno.

When I think of all the lead, copper, cadmium, lithium, zinc, nickel, iron, and rare earth element mines that will be required for conversion to solar, etc., and the concomitant pollution and environmental problems, I'm not sure you're getting a good trade.

Are you willing to expand the lead mines in Missouri? After all, we have the richest in the WHOLE world and lead will be needed for batteries. Or, would you rather the problem be elsewhere in the world, perhaps in some low-pay undeveloped country where "Who cares what happens to them?"

Or, are you assuming that we truly have more than 92 elements in our chemical alphabet...we just need to find them since they are bound to be nontoxic?

Nuclear has it's problems, to be sure. One of the bigger ones is that the "anti's" don't know the difference between alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation. They are

PS: Basing much of your article on sins of the past is like saying human evolution CAN'T be true because of the Piltdown Man hoax. That dog don't hunt.

PSS: I don't mind the bias in the article. That's what opinion pieces are supposed to be. Hell, read this post again if you want bias...

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 6, 2012 | 5:41 p.m. for bewaring of the state legislators.

and to give back a bit of the "we-won-you-lost" sentiment.

Well, in Missouri, we won and you lost. We have a veto-proof legislature. It was a "Referendum!!!", as has been proclaimed elsewhere. To use those same expressed sentiments of others re: the Presidential no longer have a dog in the fight and you should just roll over and shut up. No griping allowed. Deal with it. Try again in 2 years. could just shut up with the we won, you lost crap. You didn't lose your voice in Missouri in the last election, and I didn't lose my voice in the US in the last election.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking December 7, 2012 | 2:41 a.m.

"Safe energy" is a popular euphemism for generation methods that are not what we currently use now. However, their adoption is not without significant problems, and the most serious one is related to the random nature of their operation.

Hawaii is a microcosm of this difficulty:

There, they have solar approaching 25% of total generating capacity (although only about 10% of actual energy generation). The grid can't handle more, and it's not because some evil power company is protecting its profits. There are fundamental physical reasons why we need dispatchable sources of energy on the grid.

If you want to advocate for wind and solar, you must also advocate that they be built in such a way that they do not destabilize the grid (this can easily double their cost). Further, power companies need to be allowed to collect the costs of operating their systems from net metering customers who are now getting a free ride. To not do so is to waste the resources put into renewable energy.

If CO2 footprint is important to you, you must advocate for nuclear as well as renewables. The damage the climate change can wreak is far greater than any nuclear accident, and we have been forced into these hard choices by our collective desire for abundant, cheap energy. To not do so will be to fail.


(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking December 7, 2012 | 6:45 a.m.

"The National Academy of Sciences recognizes there’s no safe level of ionizing radiation exposure for humans"

Here's the source for that:

However, for every person that might get cancer from a dose of radiation that's 33 times background, 41 people get cancer from other sources. Hardly any of this radiation comes from nuclear power plants - most comes from occupational or medical exposure (or natural background).

I imagine Mr. Smith drives, bathes, and climbs stairs. Cancer from radiation exposure (even in Fukushima) should be one of the last things he's worried about.

Nothing is risk free. Everything has a cost-benefit ratio. Since we really don't have a lot of viable options for low carbon energy generation, I think the balance is heavily in favor of nuclear. It's still the safest form of dispatchable power around.


(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.