Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

MUST READ: The deep green meaning of Fukushima: nuclear power is based on lies

Expand Messages
  • Romi Elnagar
    Dear All, I have been reading a lot about Fukushima lately, and will probably send you something in the future about it.  But if I had to choose ONE article
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 15, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear All,

      I have been reading a lot about Fukushima lately, and will probably send you something in the future about it.  But if I had to choose ONE article about Fukushima that I have read so far, this would be it.  It may be the best I will read in the entire course of this project.

      I hope you will read it and ponder it, and let me know what you think...
      Best,
      Hajja Romi/Blue

      Nuclear Power is Based on Lies
      The Deep Green Meaning of Fukushima
      by DON FITZ
      Humanity must decrease its use of energy.  The
      decrease must be a lot (not a little bit) and it must happen soon.  A
      failure to do so will lay the foundation for the destruction of human
      life by some combination of climate change and radiation.
      How long will the disastrous consequences of Fukushima continue?  A good estimate is about 4.5 billion years ? the half life
      of uranium-238. [1]  The March 11, 2011 meltdown sounded alarms that
      environmentalists have rung for over half a century.  There is also a
      deeper green meaning: The limits of economic growth have long since
      passed and we need to design a world with considerably less stuff.
      Nuclear power is based on lies
      The industry claims that there is such a thing as a
      safe level of radiation and that nuclear production can be safe.  Both
      are profoundly untrue.
      The myth of a safe level of radiation is spread by
      comparing radiation releases to “background levels of radiation” and
      talking about “acceptable levels of radiation.”  The implication is that if radiation occurs in nature, it must be okay.  Not really.  Anyone
      who has walked through poison ivy can attest that substances which exist in nature may be toxic.  Background radiation is similar, except much
      more severe.  Since it can take generations for cancers and other
      diseases to show up, it is impossible to know the full damage of
      radioactive isotopes from Chernobyl and Fukushima. [2]
      Perhaps out of ignorance and perhaps intentionally,
      nuclear preachers confuse internal and external radiation when they
      compare plant meltdowns to X-rays and CT scans.  The latter pass through the body and do not leave radioactive particles in it.  Nuclear
      meltdowns, in contrast, spew particles that are breathed or ingested
      with food or beverages and become internal emitters as they migrate to
      the thyroid, liver, bone and brain. [3]
      The myth of safe nuclear production is based on often
      unstated assumptions that (a) other than three nuclear accidents, there
      have never been severe problems at nuclear plants and (b) the only time
      that radiation is released is during power plant accidents.  In fact,
      many, many articles have documented the lengthy list of accidents and
      near-meltdowns (which release radiation and are inherent to the
      technology). [4]  As if this were not enough, radiation is released
      during every phase of its production: mining, milling, “normal”
      operation of nuclear plants, transportation of nuclear materials, and
      storage of nuclear waste.
      One of the great lies of nuclear power is what Barry
      Commoner calls “linguistic detoxification.”  In order to manipulate
      public opinion the industry refers to its highly irradiated nuclear
      waste as “spent fuel.”  The term is clearly designed to give the
      impression that nuclear fuel is “used up” when, in fact, fuel rods come
      out of a nuclear plant more radioactive than when they went in.
      Advocates of nuclear power know that they are lying
      If the industry believed that nukes were safe, they
      would build them in the middle of big cities.  That would prevent the
      huge loss of energy through the construction and use of transmission
      lines (and reduce the need for more nukes). [5]  But since they know the true danger, they locate nukes elsewhere.
      The Price-Anderson Act of 1957 provides clear evidence that industry and government are holding back on what they know about
      nukes.  That legislation limited the liability of power companies in the event of a catastrophic meltdown.  The same politicians who support
      renewal of that act blather out the other side of their mouth how
      government must bow to free enterprise.  If they truly believed in free
      enterprise, they would repeal Price-Anderson and replace it with
      legislation requiring the owner of every nuke to purchase insurance on
      the open market which would cover all costs that could be potentially
      associated with an explosion and melt down. [6]
      The nuclear industry puts public relations before public safety.
      The supremacy of public relations is obvious from the
      very building of nuclear plants.  It was shown again at Fukushima when
      plant operators used helicopters to drop sea water on the plants,
      allegedly to keep them cool.  This was little more than a publicity
      stunt aimed at photo ops.  Salt water can lock up the valves on pipes,
      interfering with the ability of the system to regain functioning. [7]
      During both Three Mile Island and Chernobyl,
      governments repeatedly minimized what was happening, exposing people to
      greater danger by understating the need to leave.  Fukushima was no
      different.  Though the disaster was on March 11, 2011, it was not until
      May 24 that the owners finally acknowledged that a meltdown had
      occurred. [8]
      “Environmental particularism” poses an extreme danger to protecting the Earth.
      Most environmentalists realize the deep
      interconnectedness between biodiversity, toxins (including radiation),
      peak oil (and everything else) and climate change.  But some limit their vision to what they see as “my issue.”  We can call this
      self-limitation “environmental particularism.”  It is divisive in the
      extreme and plays directly into the hands of corporations.
      Were someone absorbed with the dangers that genetic
      engineering poses to biodiversity to belittle activism on toxins, that
      person would be ignoring the intense threat that toxic substances pose
      to plant and animal life.  Similarly, a colleague who I rely on for
      nuclear information once commented that toxins and radiation are true
      threats to humanity and we should get used to higher temperatures and
      stop worrying about climate change.
      Using the flip side of this illogic, both James Hansen and George Monbiot minimize dangers of nuclear power.  Hansen is
      perhaps the world’s leading authority on climate change. [9]  Monbiot, a British environmental columnist, is author of Heat, an outstanding
      documentation of the realities and catastrophes of climate change. [10]  After Fukushima, Monbiot became infamous for his rabid defense of
      nuclear power as the best alternative to burning fossil fuels.  His
      position became extreme as he penned articles confusing external and
      internal radiation and favoring industry falsifications of Chernobyl’s
      effects over the meticulous scientific compilation of Yablokov,
      Nesterenko and Nesterenko [11].
      Claims that society must choose between fossil fuels and nukes are 100% false
      Pretending to care about climate change, utility
      companies say that we must have more nukes to avoid increasing CO2
      levels.  Hansen and Monbiot parrot corporate propaganda when they
      present the false dichotomy: nukes or fossil fuels.
      Their tunnel vision on climate change interferes with
      their ability to perceive global warming and nuclear power as different
      manifestations of the same problem.  The mechanical connections between
      the two are clear.  First, climate change could increase nuclear
      accidents.  Warming raises sea level and intensifies storms, making
      plants more vulnerable. [12]
      Second, nuclear power intensifies climate change.  The industry argument that nuclear plants do not release CO2 conveniently
      ignores the large CO2 releases during mining, processing, transportation and storage phases of nuclear power.
      Monbiot’s Heat dramatically describes the horror that
      living through uncontrolled climate change would bring and Stan Cox
      explains the horror of trying to solve that problem with nuclear power.  According to Cox, a 60% cut in greenhouse gases (GHGs) based on
      replacing coal with nuclear power would require increasing the world’s
      current 350 nukes to 18,500 by 2050 (accounting for economic growth). 
      [13]
      Since there have been three catastrophic nuclear
      accidents during 32 years (Three Mile Island, 1979; Chernobyl, 1986;
      Fukushima, 2011), we might expect 158 catastrophic accidents every 32
      years with 18,500 nukes.  This would be one Fukushima every 2.5 months
      or 10 weeks. [14]
      In fact, neither a pure nuke nor a pure fossil fuel
      future is likely and the more probable path is a combined intermediate
      level of horror from each.  Yet these only reflect the obvious links
      between the two horns of the demon.
      The deep green connection between radiation and
      climate change is that they are both part of the lockstep march toward
      economic growth.  The question for both Hansen and Monbiot is what
      humanity will do when uranium ore is exhausted but the drive toward
      growth intensifies.
      Coal, oil, natural gas and uranium will run out at
      some time in the future.  None of them can ever be the basis of a
      sustainable economy.  The issue is not whether society will or will not
      have to do without non-renewables ? the only issue is whether humanity
      will stop using them prior to destroying the biological web of Life or
      whether humanity is forced to stop using them, either because it takes
      more energy to extract them than they yield or because our descendants
      have lost the mental or physical ability to process them.
      Solar and wind offer no alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power
      In a growth economy, solar and wind cannot replace
      fossil fuels and/or nukes, which they must depend on for their own
      creation and for making up energy short-falls.  As Ted Trainer and
      others have clearly demonstrated, solar and wind power are subject to
      conditions like how much sunshine and wind exist at a given time. [15] 
      An industry which is geometrically expanding must be drawn to fossil
      fuel and nukes because they are not subject to weather fluctuations and
      they can produce enormous quantities of energy for manufacture.
      Weather variability means that solar and wind power
      have a greater need to store energy than non-renewables.  This means
      solar and wind lose even more energy during storage and retrieval.  They also require considerable energy and resource extraction to produce
      associated technologies such as transmission lines and batteries.  These are not green attributes.
      During the opening of his seminal expos? of renewable
      energy, Trainer points to turf where solar and wind proponents dare not
      tread: The issue is not merely whether solar and wind can provide for
      the industrial needs of a modern economy ?it is ridiculous to suggest
      that they could provide energy needs of a global economy which is 60
      times its current size.  Trainer calculates that bringing all the world
      up to consumptive standards of the overdeveloped countries, maintaining a 3% annual GDP growth rate, and reaching a population of 9.4 billion
      would require a 6000% increase in the economy between 2007 and 2070.
      The mechanical impossibility of infinite solar and
      wind power leads to a deeper green problem: They reflect the same fetish on things as do non-renewables.  Switching from one fetish to another
      in no way rejects the thingification of human existence.  It is this
      worship of objects which is the core of the problem.
      Failure to challenge the endless manufacture of
      artificial needs and the continual shrinkage of the durability of
      commodities means that no combination of nukes, fossil fuel, solar,
      wind, and other energy sources can ever satisfy bottomless greed. 
      Seeking to replace human caring, sharing and community with object
      glorification will always result in feelings of emptiness and craving
      for more and more objects.  Object addiction can never be satiated ?
      even if those objects are “green.”
      Stan Cox notes that a huge expansion of fossil fuel
      use would be necessary if solar and wind were to increase enough to
      replace nukes. [12]  Creating this solar and wind infrastructure would
      result in massive emissions of CO2.  Thus, in a growth economy,
      renewables are no more separable from non-renewables than climate change is separable from radiation.
      Recent increases in solar and wind power has resulted
      in lawsuits to protect native lands and sensitive species. [16]  How
      many more valleys must be transformed into ugly wind farms and how many
      more deserts must be covered with solar collectors just to enable
      landfills of discarded junk to expand to the moon?
      Why grow?
      The ideology of growth is the bedrock of nuclear
      power.  Growth requires the expansion of energy.  As Robert Bryce
      demonstrates, “America’s energy consumption has grown in direct
      proportion to its economic growth.” [17]  Between 1913 and 2005, the
      300-fold increase in oil imports was paralleled by a 300-fold increase
      in US economic output. [18]
      As energy sources have gone from wood to coal to oil
      to nukes, there has been a steady increase in the total amount of energy available.  During most of this progression economic growth has meant
      an expansion of goods which people need.  By the end of World War II
      this was no longer the case as there was enough to provide basic needs
      for everyone.
      More than ever before, production for need gave way to production for militarism, for obscene wealth, for throw-away goods and for marketing to take precedence over utility.  Nuclear power became
      the cornerstone of both militarism and the seemingly limitless energy
      necessary for planned obsolescence.  Nuclear plants were born as a
      physical manifestation of social relationships underlying growth without need.
      Fukushima shows the disastrous consequences of
      increasing production simply because people want useless items ? or
      because corporations want people to want items so they can make money. 
      In the era of Fukushima, further increases in piles of garbage will not
      improve our lives today but it will expose future generations to the
      misery of toxic mine tailings, a reduced number of animal and plant
      species, unbearable heat waves, and leaky nuclear waste containers
      oozing radiation across the globe.
      Is anti-growth feasible?
      “Anti-growth” means that people will have better lives if society produces fewer things that are useless and dangerous.  It
      assumes that the total quantity of things needed to make everyone’s
      lives better is vastly less that the total quantity of current negative
      production.
      “Anti-growth” can be contrasted to “de-growth,” which
      has become synonymous with trying to change the economy by tiptoeing
      through the tulips.  The phrase “anti-growth” aims to dismiss two myths: (a) the belief that a decrease in production requires people to suffer; and (b) the belief that lifestyle changes can substitute for social
      action. (Though altering individual lifestyles is important to show that a new and different world is possible, it does little to bring about
      the scale of needed changes.)
      The corporate line on reversing growth is that it
      would bring agony worse than nuclear radiation and is therefore
      impossible.  Sadly, many progressives (including environmentalists,
      anti-war activists and even “Marxists”) swallow the line.
      Let’s not confuse an increase in provision of basic
      needs like housing, clothing and education with overall economic
      growth.  Reducing unnecessary and destructive production (such as
      military spending) can be done at the same time as increasing preventive medical care.  Reducing the advertising of food, packaging of food,
      long-range transportation of food and animal protein can occur
      simultaneously with increasing healthy food.  Nobody’s quality of life
      is going to deteriorate because they have a simple coffee pot that lasts for 75?100 years rather than one with a mini-computer designed to fall
      apart in six months.
      To reiterate: The economy can shrink while the amount
      of necessary goods expands.  Anti-growth is not too complex to fathom. 
      The idea that we should make more good stuff and less bad stuff is so
      simple that anyone except an economist can understand it. [19]
      Unfortunately, many advocating a smaller economy shoot themselves in the foot by rejecting anti-corporate struggle.  These
      include Richard Heinberg, Pat Murphy and Ted Trainer, who have all made
      enormous contributions to the understanding of the ecological crisis.
      [20]
      All three conclude that the major source for change
      should be in individual life styles.  I call it the approach of “Consume less so the military can consume more.”  Neither they nor the growing
      Transition Movement grasp that social gluttons will eagerly expand their own consumption to fill whatever void is created by ecological Puritans living exemplary lives. [21]  Despite their insights, their writing
      detracts from and undermines the building of mass social and political
      movements necessary for the changes they advocate.
      A radical rethinking
      Will the nuclear industry learn from its horrific
      disasters and change its ways?  Yes and no.  The industry will
      definitely learn how to lie more subtly and control government and the
      media more tightly.  That is merely extrapolating from the past to the
      future.
      But if the question means “Will the industry learn how to avoid dangerous shortcuts and become safe?” the answer can only be
      “No.”  The very existence of nuclear power is a safety shortcut ?but the nuclear industry is incapable of learning that.
      Imagining safer nukes at a time when sea levels are
      rising and weather extremes are becoming worse is a bad hallucination. 
      Looking at the energy industry as a whole, we see ever and ever greater
      risks from renewed deep sea oil drilling, hydro-fracking for gas, and
      increased exploitation of Earth-destroying tar sands.  There is zero
      possibility that nuclear can put itself outside of the risk-taking
      frenzy.  Purchasing politicians and regulatory agencies is so-o-o much
      more cost effective.
      The survival of humanity is at not only odds with
      right wing politicians and “free market” economists who preach growth by engorging the rich.  Human existence is simultaneously threatened by
      “liberal” politicians and Keynesian economists who promote growth by
      governmental intervention.  Preserving a livable environment is likewise at odds with “environmentalists” who advocate growth via purchasing
      green gadgets.  “Socialists” and wooden “Marxists” walk less than a
      shining path when they demand a planned economy for the purpose of
      “unleashing the capitalists fetters on production” (i.e., unlimited
      growth).  Planetary extermination under workers’ control does not
      fulfill dreams of Karl Marx.
      In the wake of Fukushima many scream that we must
      abandon nukes as rapidly as possible.  Yes, yes, and yes.  Join their
      screams and demand a halt in the production of new nukes and a rapid
      shut down of those that exist!
      We must do the almost the same for fossil fuels, with a rapid reduction to 90% of current levels, then 80%, and so on until we
      level off at perhaps 10% of where we are at now.  If and only if this
      reduction is made can solar, wind and geothermal (along with a very
      judicious use of fossil fuels and biofuels) meet energy needs in a sane
      society.
      But all of us, especially environmentalists, must
      abandon the illusion that solar, wind and geothermal can be a source of
      infinite economic growth.  And all of us, especially social justice
      activists, trade unionists and socialists, must abandon any misplaced
      belief that a massive reduction of energy requires any sacrifice in the
      quality of life.  We must affirm if we change our values, change our
      society and change our economy, we can have great lives by focusing on
      people rather than the eternal accumulation of objects.
      Don Fitz teaches Environmental Psychology at
      Washington University in St. Louis.  He is editor of
      Synthesis/Regeneration: A Magazine of Green Social Thought and can be
      contacted at fitzdon@...
      Notes
      1. A better estimate might be 45 billion years, or 10
      half-lives.  The Earth probably has been around for 4.5 billion years, a good comparison figure for how long nuclear waste will exist.
      2. Caldicott, H. (April 30, 2011). Unsafe at any dose. New York Times. Retrieved June 17, 2011 from
      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01caldicott.html
      3. Caldicott, H. (April 12, 2011). Attack of the
      nuclear apologists. Retrieved June 18, 2011 from
      http://www.counterpunch.com/caldicott04122011.html
      4. For example, Chris Williams documents that there
      were at least 14 “near misses” in US nuclear plants in 2010. (April 12,
      2011). Why nuclear power must go. The Indypendent. Retrieved June 17,
      2011 from
      http://www.indypendent.org/?pagename=author_search&a=Chris%20Williams.  For documentation of at the Indian Point nuke 24 miles north of New
      York City, see Anthony Dimaggio’s (March 24, 2011) What lessons can the
      U.S. learn from Japan’s crisis?
      zcommunications.org/the-nuclear-connection-by-anthony-dimaggio. For a
      list of nuclear accidents in Japan, see J. Green (March 16, 2011). Is
      Australian uranium fuelling Japan’s looming nuclear disaster? Retrieved
      June 18, 2011 from http://links.org.au/node/2213
      5. Takashi, H. Nuclear power plants for Tokyo. Cited
      by Douglas Lummis in introduction to Takashi, H. (March 22, 2011). What
      they’re covering up at Fukushima. Counterpunch.
      6. This would ring the death knell for the nuclear
      industry, since no insurance company would have assets to cover
      trillions of dollars of loss, which proves the financial non-viability
      of nukes.  Congress reviews Price-Anderson every so often and the
      current liability limit for utility companies is $12.6 billion, a
      fraction of potential damages.
      7. Takashi, H. (March 22, 2011). What they’re covering up at Fukushima. Retrieved March 23, 2011 from
      http://counterpunch.com/takashi03222011.html
      8. Digest?3 Meltdowns Confirmed. (May 25, 2011). St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. A5
      9. Hansen, J. Sato, M., Ruedy, R., & Lo, K.
      (2010). If It’s That Warm, How Come It’s So Darned Cold?  Retrieved
      January 10, 2011 from
      http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100127_TemperatureFinal.pdf
      10. Monbiot, G. (2007). Heat: How to stop the planet from burning. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
      11. Yablokov, A.V., Nesterenko, A.V. & Nesterenko, V.B. (December 2009). Chernobyl: Consequences of the catastrophe for
      people and the environment. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
      1181.
      http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1
      12. Kenward, A. (March 24, 2011). Sea level rise
      brings added risks to coastal nuclear plants. Retrieved June 18, 2011
      from
      http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-level-rise-brings-added-risks-to-coastal-nuclear-plants
      13. Cox, S. (2011, in press) It’s always too soon for
      nuclear power?and already too late. Synthesis/Regeneration: A Magazine
      of Green Social Thought.
      14. Taking into account that the nuclear era began
      prior to 1979 would result in adjusting down the estimate of 1
      catastrophic accident every 10 weeks; but adjusting for the increase in
      the number of nukes between 1979 and 2011 would adjust the estimate up.
      15. Trainer, T. (2007). Renewable energy cannot
      sustain a consumer society. The Netherlands: Springer.  Also see R.
      Heinberg, (September, 2009). Searching for a Miracle: Net Energy Limits
      & the Fate of Industrial Society, Post Carbon Institute &
      International Forum on Globalization.
      http://www.postcarbon.org/report/44377-searching-for-a-miracle
      16. McBride, S. (Jan 5, 2011) Sierra Club sues over
      California solar plant.  Retrieved March 7, 2011 from
      http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/05/us-solar-idUSTRE70432N20110105
      17. Bryce, R (2008). Gusher of lies: The dangerous delusions of “Energy independence,” New York: Public Affairs.
      18. “Decoupling theory,” a current fad among
      economists, maintains that energy usage can be separated from economic
      growth.  The argument ignores the fact that this occurs in overdeveloped countries by outsourcing energy-intensive manufacturing to poorer
      countries.
      19. In the early years of the 21st century, human
      suffering has no more to do with inadequate production than hunger has
      to do with insufficient food.  Hunger is caused by domination of market
      forces.  When it is more profitable to drive people off their land and
      produce exotic food to fly across the globe than it is for people to
      grow what their ancestors have grown, hunger results.  There is already
      an abundance of food which is not distributed to the hungry.  Increasing the quantity of food will do nothing to end hunger.  Food production is a microcosm of the entire economy.  Increasing production will not
      provide more people with the necessities of life.  Rather than producing more, we must produce differently [and, of course, less].
      20. Richard Heinberg has taught many environmentalists that the approach of peak oil threatens a lunge toward other, even more destructive forms of energy. [See R. Heinberg, R. (2005). The party’s
      over: Oil, war and the fate of industrial societies. Gabriola Island,
      BC: New Society Publishers and R. Heinberg. (2004). Powerdown: Options
      and actions for a post-carbon world.. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society
      Publishers.  Many of Heinberg’s writings are at
      http://www.postcarbon.org] Pat Murphy meticulously illustrates the
      massive sources of energy waste in the overdeveloped world. [See P.
      Murphy. (2008). Plan C: Community survival strategies for peak oil and
      climate change. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.]  Ted
      Trainer gives perhaps the most thorough documentation that solar, wind
      and geothermal cannot meet energy demands of societies on a suicidal
      rush to infinite growth. [See note 15]
      21. In transition. (2009). Transition Media: The
      Transition Network.  See
      http://transitionnetwork.org/support/publications/transition-movie

      http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/06/27/the-deep-green-meaning-of-fukushima/

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.