Will We See Nuclear Progress in Japan?
Japan has been on everyone’s mind, and some of the discussions I’ve heard have surprised me. Or, more accurately, what I haven’t heard has surprised me. When the talk turned toward Japan in my morning meetings this week, it was about the loss of life, the tremendous cost, and the opportunity to support nuclear power, make it safer, and make it work better. How about getting rid of it? That didn’t come up. The assumption was that nuclear was here to stay and that it was the future.
I hope not.
Now I know that Thomas Friedman of the New York Times is a fan of nuclear power, because he calls it a breakthrough in clean energy production. In a 2009 editorial he wrote that France was dealing just fine with its nuclear waste issues, and that a nuclear waste storage dump in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain was “totally safe.” Because he writes for the Times, he must be right, huh? I happen to know he’s flat out wrong. A couple of years ago I wrote and produced an hourlong documentary for The History Channel about all things nuclear. I went into nuclear missile silos, visited a reactor, and probably inhaled a few barium molecule or two at Livermore Labs. I also read a lot of what Robert Oppenheimer wrote, studied interviews with Edward Teller and Albert Einstein, and looked into was going on at the Yucca Mountain site. Was it “totally safe?” I wouldn’t use the term “totally safe” in relation to radioactive material leaking into groundwater. But don’t take my word for it, check out what Greenpeace has to say, and Counterpunch. The Obama administration has been working on terminating the Yucca Mountain program.
There hasn’t been a nuclear power plant built in this country since the Three Mile Island accident. That was 1979. But President Obama is talking about building new ones, massive gigawatt-sized reactors, and even smaller ones that would use thorium, rather than uranium-235. Thorium nuclear batteries are supposed to be the best, new green way to make power. I hope not.
I think of progress as forward motion, moving ahead into new territory and fresh concepts. But the spiritual view, on the other side of things, looks at progress as going inside, claiming a deeper self that we might have neglected or forgotten. Progress, in that view, isn’t always “forward.” It may even seem backward, anti- or pre-technology. Caroline Myss, in her latest newsletter, wrote, “only a fool would tamper with nuclear power without the assistance of a holy guardian, shaman, or priest.” I don’t agree with that, because it assumes that the shaman or priest may know more than the scientist. The real key to progress is mutual respect. Scientists need to listen to the shamans, and shamans should not run away from science or think they are better than scientists. Progress isn’t always forward, but it is always inclusive.
Will the future of power generation be nuclear? I hope not. Will the future of science involve truly respecting the Earth? I hope so.
Lee,
I see what you mean about nuclear power: no matter what the safeguards it’s a ticking bomb on many levels as Japan’s experience shows. But what can we do? We can’t turn the clock back a century and do without electricity. Burn more coal? The atmosphere is already mega-polluted, as are the oceans from the smokestacks (try to find tuna, or any large fish, that isn’t glowing with mercury and PCBs).
I realize the sentiment Myss expressed. But spirituality hasn’t much to do with the technical end of supplying power to a consuming world. That’s way too New Age; as though shamans or priests of any stripe can solve our energy problems. Their solution would be to turn the clock back, and we know that won’t happen.
It’s odd; people have the idea that the past was some sort of bucolic, pastoral paradise. I was a history major–for most of human civilization 50% of the population died before the age of five; female mortality in childbirth was rampant due to complications and hygienic neglect; starvation was always around the corner; plagues and diseases now curable with a handful of antibiotics killed millions; and life expectancy hovered around 40.
That being said, we are paying a heavy price for all our advancements. And it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
What’s happened in Japan is truly a tragedy. They’re estimating 10,000 people dead, and the destruction to the country is incredible. It will take years to rebuild, and we still don’t know the extent of the radiation problem that will be left.
That being said, I do believe that it’s possible to build safe nuclear power plants, and it’s a viable source of energy. Japan has unfortunately had a history of cover-ups and corruption around nuclear power plant incidents and construction problems. Safety issues were ignored or downplayed in some cases due to the costs, or mistakes that were made and then covered up.
We can do a lot more to develop alternative energy sources (wind, solar) and we should, but I do believe with proper design and management that nuclear can be clean and safe.
My two cents.
I totally agree on the idea of “can’t turn back the clock.” The genie is out of the bottle, etc. There’s a cost-benefit analysis to do on progress and what I’m looking for is a balance between the Jetsons – in other words, a world where all technology is good – verses the kind of cult thinking that allows gurus to preach against technology. (Yet those gurus probably have iPods.)
With good engineering, anything is possible. But sometimes scientists and engineers become hyper-focused on solving problems related to the task at hand and forget to consider larger implications. I know that nuclear can be a viable source of energy – it already is in satellites and nuclear subs. But if we’re going to put power plants near oceans or near people, the containment and waste problems have to be addressed – and in a larger way of thinking than they have so far. We know we need alternatives to oil – that’s for sure! Thanks for commenting.