Bob Herbert's July 19 New York Times column rightly states that the harm from a meltdown at a nuclear power plant "would make the Deepwater Horizon disaster look like a walk in the park." Herbert also warns that systems needed to prevent a meltdown are not well developed. "Right now, we're not ready," he says.
The damage from the April oil well rupture which spewed into the Gulf of Mexico is still being calculated. It killed 11 workers and thousands of aquatic creatures. Recovery workers have become ill attempting to cap the damaged well. The ecosystem of a large body of water and coastline has been damaged. The economic losses are staggering.
But the Deepwater disaster still can't hold a candle to a nuclear accident.
Understanding why a meltdown would be so devastating is possible only after recognizing that nuclear reactors produce the same radioactive chemicals in atomic bomb explosions. Splitting uranium atoms produces a cocktail of 100-plus chemicals that are radioactive waste products, including Cesium-137, Iodine-131, and Strontium-90.
If water cooling a reactor's core or waste pools was removed, from mechanical failure or act of sabotage, huge amounts of toxic gases and particles would be released and breathed by humans. Many thousands would be stricken immediately with radiation poisoning, and subsequently with cancer. Infants and children would suffer most.
From 1945 to 1963, atom bombs were tested in the atmosphere in remote areas of the south Pacific and Nevada. But still, the fallout drifted long distances and contaminated the diet of all Americans. In 1999, the National Institute of Medicine concluded that up to 212,000 Americans developed thyroid cancer from the Nevada tests.
But reactors are not in remote locations. Most are near highly populated areas. One example is Indian Point, which is just 23 miles from the New York City border. The plant has three reactors; one has shut down, but the other two have been operating since the mid-1970s. Its aging parts are corroding, and several "near miss" meltdown situations have occurred in the past decade, according to a 2006 Greenpeace report.
If Indian Point experienced a meltdown, and an evacuation was attempted, New York area traffic would be far worse than its usual crawl. Radioactivity, carried by winds, would reach 21 million people living within 50 miles of the plant. Even among those evacuated, many would not be able to return to their homes, since their environment would remain contaminated.
Indian Point may be the worst case scenario for a meltdown, as New York is the most populated city in the U.S. But nuclear plants are situated on the outskirts of virtually every major metropolitan area in the nation.
Bob Herbert's warning that systems to prevent meltdowns at nuclear plants are insufficient was also a conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. One of the hijacked planes headed for Manhattan flew directly over Indian Point. Had the plane crashed into Indian Point's core or waste pools, the consequences would have been far worse than the loss of nearly 3,000 lives at the World Trade Center.
Safety systems exist at nuclear plants, but anything less than 100 percent effectiveness is dangerous. One flaw came to light in 2002 at the Davis Besse plant near Toledo Ohio. Boric acid had eaten through nearly all of an 8-inch a steel beam in the plant's ceiling, reducing it to less than half an inch at its thinnest part. Disturbingly, the problem was discovered accidentally, not from any routine safety procedure.
The meltdown scenario is disturbing, but there is more to the nuclear threat. Most radioactive waste is stored, but some is routinely or accidentally released into air and water from all 104 U.S. nuclear reactors. These enter our bodies through breathing, and also the food chain.
No government program has ever measured how much radioactivity from reactors enters our bodies, as officials call these amounts "negligible." But a landmark study, whose results have been published in five leading medical journals, has provided evidence to the contrary. Levels of Strontium-90 in nearly 5,000 baby teeth are 30 to 50% greater in children living closest to nuclear plants, and are rising over time. In the 1950s and 1960s, Strontium-90 was often cited as one of the most toxic chemicals in bomb fallout.
Tooth study results raise the question of whether reactor emissions have raised cancer rates near nuclear plants. Again, government officials dismiss this possibility. But near nuclear plants in New York and New Jersey, increases in Sr-90 in teeth were matched by similar increases in local childhood cancer rates a few years later.
Children suffer the greatest damage from radiation exposure, but adults are not exempt. Thyroid cancer is one of the most radiation-sensitive cancers, because radioactive iodine in bomb fallout and reactor emissions seek out the thyroid gland and destroy its cells. A 2009 scientific article reported the highest U.S. thyroid cancer rate in a small 90-mile radius. This encompassed eastern Pennsylvania, central New Jersey, and southern New York, where 16 reactors are located.
Other scientific reports have documented evidence that nuclear plant shut downs are followed immediately by dramatic reductions in local infant deaths and child cancers. This is similar to what happened nationally following the 1963 ban on above-ground atomic tests.
Proposals to build new reactors to replace carbon-producing coal plants are accompanied by claims that nuclear power is "clean." This could not be further from the truth. We should never forget that nuclear reactors are essentially controlled atom bombs.
As lessons of the Deepwater fiasco are learned, we must understand the hard truth that certain energy sources pose very high risks to our security and health. We must do all we can to prevent another massive oil spill, or a nuclear meltdown. But we should go further, by developing energy sources that are safe. Solar panels need no security precautions. Wind mills don't cause environmental catastrophes. We must be proactive and safe.
Samuel Epstein MD
Professor emeritus of Environment and Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois-Chicago School of Public Health and
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
Author of the 2005 Cancer-Gate: How to Win the Losing Cancer War and the 2009 Toxic Beauty books.
www.preventcancer.com
Joseph Mangano MPH MBA
Executive Director, Radiation and Public Health Project, New York
Author of the 2008 Radioactive Baby Teeth: The Cancer Link
www.radiation.org
Loading comments… 
Nuke waste is deadly for a million years....
oil spills are deathly for 10-30 years.....
Nuke waste is a million times more deadly than oil.
he nuclear power spent fuel rods,
can kill everyone on the planet,
about a billion times over...
Uranium is also toxic to mine and tailings dumps are problems in themselves
Nuclear power is not an option (I am just adding to the article).
In addition I know what radiation sickness is, albeit that mine came from radiation-
But it took over five years for my immune system to recover and for many strange side-effec
Believe me: even beneficial radiation is nasty, much like chemo-ther
As far as the toxicity of uranium mining, nearly all mineral extraction has an associated toxic waste stream. You should see the molybdenum tailings ponds from the Climax mine in Colorado. Uranium mines aren't the only ones that can pose a radiation hazard to its miners either. I was inside one mountain in New Mexico that had nothing to do with uranium extraction and when I emerged, there were over 3,000 dpm-alpha coming off my clothes from the radon. The HVAC system had been turned off so we couldn't spend much time undergroun
also see www.ucsusa
and the stealth nature of the cancers it causes.
only the fuel rods can be used as fuel, but general is not.
everything else, the building, pipes, processing wastes, 99% of the volume, has no value.
On the other hand, if used reactor fuel is not reprocesse
Both high-level waste and used fuel are very radioactiv
Whether used fuel is reprocesse
http://www
The Nuke industry has zero credibilit
Lead is more dangerous the nuclear fuel waste?
Nuclear is far safer (no one has EVER been killed by US commercial nuclear power operations
The uranium once through cycle is indeed a poor way to handle it, but "research" is exactly wrong - the once through cycle was adopted because it avoids the isolation of the best bomb material. And btw, it doesn't have to.
The US nuclear spent fuel "problem" is political, not scientific
P.S.
Beware of taking scientific opinions from people who use 6 exclamatio
with large centralize
The modern world's electric demands are highly variable.
We need dispatchab
Waste bio fuel powered turbines are the best.
NO deaths? another nuke industry lie.
People exposed, people die of cancer. FACT.
http://www
http://www
http://www
http://wap
Cancer: http://www
http://www
http://en.
trillion dollar nuke industry trying to white wash Chernobyl, but still multiple studies show over a million excess deaths.
Nuclear power and weapons cause the death of 65M people.
http://www
"Clean" and too cheap to meter. we remember your nukes industry lies.
The nukes power industry grow out of the bomb industry. That's why the Uranium once through cycle was adopted: it makes the best bomb material.
Nuke power industry has inherited all of the bad habits of the nuclear bomb projects: secrecy, deception, disregard for the safety of civilians, and a war desperatio
There are no Thorium reactors, it's another bait and switch.
Theoretica
Solar, Wind and Waste Bio Fuels is the ONLY energy solution that can provide all the world energy and fuel needs: clean, safe, cheap, soon and forever.
Wind 3-6 cents,
Solar as cheap as 3 cents (see my profile for proof.)
Waste Bio Char : cheaper than dumping.
That's rich, coming from someone so willing to cook numbers to say, "Theoretic
Yeah. 1000x as intense. At 1/1000th the mass. So same radiologic
Get a real job. Stop shilling for big solar.
Thorium fuel:
7. How does Lightbridg
1. Lightbridg
i. Reduces volume of used fuel by almost 50% and the weight of used fuel by about 70% compared to standard uranium fuel12.
2. Lightbridg
http://www
That's as good as your thorium magical reactor fuel can do,
still deadly for longer the any civilizati
And here is an article on the MANY technicals problems yet to be solved to build a LFTR
http://www
30 DOLLAR per KWH nuclear waste storage cost over a million years.
Waste Bio fuels can easily provide the dispachabl
more Base-load is a problem, because it cannot adapt to rapidly changing loads.
http://nuc
proliferat
http://map
waste dumps all over the world.
http://for
great world polutionma
http://map
http://new
. "Over 100 of these sites are so contaminat
http://www
The global volume of spent fuel was 220,000 tonnes in the year 2000, and is growing by approximat
http://www
The dying off of the numericall
http://www
that Russia (the former Soviet Union) has been dumping highly
radioactiv
http://www
I am what is known as a Nuclear Profession
http://www
http://www
http://www
http://web
I know it is much more likely that the carcinogen
everybody alive today,
the companies storing the nuke waste,
the countries that would regulate those companies,
even the memory of where the waste is,
will all be dead and gone,
The waste will continue to be deadly for another million years.
our children's
that will have to deal with nuke cr@p.
In just 50 years of 500 reactors, nuclear waste has been dumped all over the world, the Mob has gotten involved, and big company clearly just don't care. The Englishes channels and Somalia are huge nuclear waste dumps now. Radiation is invisible, and insidiousl
We all just watched BP murder the Gulf for save a buck.
Chu, Wake up! Think. Break the propaganda hold the Nuclear PR geniuses have on you.
Solar Wind and Waste Bio Fuels can provide several times the worlds energy needs, clean safe, cheaper in the long run 26$/barrel
Stop the insanity of nukes.
30 Dollars per KWH fror waste storage.
http://thi
Nuclear power plants release no carbon monoxide, no sulfur dioxide, no mercury, no arsenic, no carbon dioxide, contribute 100 times less to the radiation dose of an average American than coal fired plants. So yes it is CLEAN!
The "waste" is in the form of fuel assemblies
Please get better informed, don't listen to all that anti-nuke propaganda
5 new nuclear states from reactor proliferat
A major reactor accident rate of 20,000 accidents per million years = safe?
big business trusted not to dump waste all over the world = naive or dishonest. .
I guess we know how your nuclear brain works....
kinda makes you question how the completely unbiased, and objective scientific studies at TMI, Turkey Point, et al. (sarcasm) proved they were from radiation doesn't it.
http://djy
Epstein's tooth fairy and nuke plant cancer cluster studies are debunked here.
http://www
Note that Epstein in fantasizin
http://see
Dr. Epstein seems to forget that we've had a major meltdown of a reactor core here in the US. The loss of coolant and meltdown at TMI resulted in no deaths (other than those that may have been caused by automobile accidents when people were evacuating the area) and no loss of usable land. The only harm caused was to the bank accounts of the utility and to a lesser degree the pocket books of rate payers.
but those cancers are indistingu
the perfect mass murder....
people died.
"Specifica
Since the nuclear industry is well away of the long term cancer deaths caused by their wastes,
That's Murder.