Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ooOoo
ISBN 0-9578946-5-1
There are other countries where their decision makers have been
overwhelmed by unscientific nonsense – sheer propaganda - from
the self-proclaimed gurus and spin doctors of the green movement
whose arguments are so weak they need to resort to lies and gross
distortions to get their anti-nuclear message across. Those
befuddled countries are sabotaging their own future prosperity.
Would you buy a car from a salesman who you caught out lying to
you? Aided by incompetent mechanics misrepresenting its
condition? And further abetted by a deluge of advertising hype
bulging with false claims? Surely you'd have more sense.
I'm writing this because I care for my five grandchildren and want
them to live in a prosperous Australia with abundant energy to
maintain a high standard of living and long life.
ooOoo
"Those participating in the Chernobyl clean-up
slowly but surely killed themselves." Excerpt
from an article "Chemical Food for Thought" by
Phillip Adams in The Australian newspaper
2000 April 15.
from regions of the old Soviet Union well away from Chernobyl
and the fall-out zone.
Again we quote the June 2000 UNSCEAR Report: "There is no
scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or
mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to
radiation exposure. The risk of leukaemia, one of the main
concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be
elevated, not even among the recovery operation workers."
When challenged, Phillip Adams candidly responded "You're right.
I was wrong. I quoted a usually impeccable source …".
Something that seems to happen in the media all too often.
ooOoo
ooOoo
8
ooOoo
9
Six months later, the same journal published this reply by Edwin
Norbeck, of the University of Iowa, who wrote “In reality, it is a
problem that exists only in people‟s minds.
“For the first 20 years or so of operation, a power plant stores
spent fuel underwater in a small pool. When the pool becomes full,
the older fuel – for which most of the radioactivity has decayed
away -–is removed from the water and stored in casks on site. An
area the size of a football field is adequate for storing the spent fuel
from hundreds of years of a power plant‟s operation. Considering
the huge number of kilowatt-hours that are produced, the problem
should be regarded as insignificant, rather than „intractable‟.
14
ooOoo
"High level nuclear waste threatens human life for
250,000 years." Statement by Giz Watson BSc
(Env. Sci.), Greens MLC, WA Parliament, 1999.
ooOoo
15
They couldn't all be wrong, could they? Well, they are definitely all
wrong. Let the facts speak for themselves.
As far as dangerous radioactive elements go, plutonium-239 is not
even in the top ten*. In soluble form two of the isotopes of radium
are 100 times more toxic than soluble forms of plutonium.
By inhalation, naturally occurring actinium-227 is the most
dangerous radionuclide, 16 times worse than plutonium-239.
Thorium-232, in fourth place among the ten most toxic, is very
common, especially in beach sand deposits. By ingestion, all
compounds of radioactive lead-210 are more than twice as
dangerous radiologically as the most toxic compound of
plutonium.
When it comes to toxic or poisonous chemical elements,
plutonium is scarcely in the running. In the massive Handbook of
Toxicology of Metals it does not rate a mention, except in passing
within the entry for uranium. One aspect rarely mentioned is that
non-radioactive elements have an infinite half-life - they never
decay away to become less harmful elements. Deadly elements like
thallium retain their toxicity forever.
Where chemical compounds are considered, cyanides are far more
to be feared. Then there are highly toxic organic chemicals, such as
the organochlorides. The herbicide and pesticide sprays found in
the average garden shed are more likely to cause harm than the
majority of radioactive substances. And as for 'natural' chemicals,
curare and hemlock will dispatch you when plutonium won't. Ask
Socrates.
ooOoo
"A single nuclear particle may initiate a cancer or
mutation." Dr Helen Caldicott, founder of
Physicians for Social Responsibility, states "… it
takes only one radioactive atom, one cell, and
one gene to initiate the cancer or mutation cycle."
From "Nuclear Madness". Jacaranda Press, 1978,
page 34.
Here the weasel word 'may' is very significant because the chances
are so extremely small. Cancer induction is a complex process with,
in general, at least three stages of initiation. So a single particle can
only be responsible for a cancer if the predisposing events (not
necessarily radiation related) have occurred at the same site. This
is not surprising. The odds for exposure to a single extraneous
nuclear particle causing a cancer have to be exceedingly low
because every minute roughly one third of a million nuclear
particles zap us internally from the decay of the radioactive
constituents (mainly potassium) of our bodies. Adding to that we
must also contend with exposure from external sources such as
cosmic rays, radon and other normal environmental radioactivity.
In fact we live out our lives in an ocean of nuclear radiation and
would be blissfully unaware of it if it were not for nuclear science.
18
ooOoo
"The Sellafield reprocessing plant is a danger to
babies and pregnant women." This claim
appeared in 1994 in a Greenpeace advertising
campaign.
OoOoo
21
ooOoo
ooOoo
“The (uranium) enrichment facility at Paducah,
Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two
1000-megawatt coal-fired plants. “… this
(Paducah) facility and another at Portsmouth,
Ohio, release from leaky pipes 93 percent of the
chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the US.”
Assertion by Dr Helen Caldicott in the Higher
Education Supplement to The Australian, 2005
April 13.
ooOoo
IT MAY BE TOO HOT TO HANDLE
"… terrorist groups will construct atomic bombs
from stolen nuclear materials, …" Statement in
the book "Nuclear Madness" by Dr Helen
Caldicott, Jacaranda Press, 1978, page 23.
ooOoo
27
This claim is not heard so much these days because the sheer
extent of the unsuccessful efforts by the Iraqis and others to build a
bomb is now better known. Fabrication and quality testing of the
precisely lensed explosives of two different detonation
characteristics would be next to impossible in a home workshop.
Then the required timing accuracy of the detonators and the
production of an initiating neutron source would defeat the would-
be terrorists unless they could obtain restricted electronic
components and various scarce materials. What's more there are
many other daunting problems in making a successful nuclear
weapon as anyone trying would soon find out.
A far easier option, and one to be much more feared, would be the
theft of an existing nuclear weapon.
More to the point of this discussion, using non-weapon-grade
plutonium from a civil nuclear electricity reactor would be quite
useless for the construction of any home-made nuclear explosive
device.
ooOoo
"The MOX industry is heavily reliant on
reprocessing to produce plutonium". From an
article "British Nuclear Fools" by Jim Green in
the Green Left Weekly, 2000 April 5.
This is misleading to say the least. The MOX process employs
reprocessing to salvage the plutonium remaining in spent reactor
fuel. Such plutonium has a mix of isotopes rendering it useless for
nuclear weapons, but, being more precious than gold, it is well
worth recycling as far as possible. MOX stands for Mixed OXides of
28
uranium and plutonium for use as reactor fuel and has been used
without problems since the 1960s. The MOX process is also a
sensible way to get rid of weapons-grade plutonium and the
Russians plan to utilise it to reduce their military stockpile. The
first MOX fuel elements incorporating US weapons plutonium are
due for loading into an American power reactor in mid-2005.
ooOoo
"… condemnation of the transport of 230
kilograms in weapons-usable MOX fuel." From an
article by Larry Schwartz in "The Age"
newspaper, Melbourne, on 2001 January 28.
OoOoo
"… plutonium, a substance which has no purpose
other than to be made into nuclear weapons."
From a 1984 brief to the British Columbia
Government by Dr Elinor Powell, of the group
Physicians for Social Responsibility.
ooOoo
"Plutonium is … impossible to dispose of." Extract
from the entry for plutonium in the 1995 edition
of the best-selling Hutchinson Encyclopedia.
ooOoo
"A core meltdown…. Would spread a health-
threatening cloud of radioactive gas up to 80km
from Lucas Heights." This appeared in 2000 in a
brochure to residents from the Mayor of
Sutherland Shire where the reactor is sited.
ooOoo
"Australia could import (medical) isotopes."
Title of a letter from Tracie Sonda, Sutherland
Shire Mayor, Sydney Morning Herald, 2000
November 11.
This and other emotive claims made by Mayor Sonda were refuted
in a letter published two days later from Professor Helen Garnett,
then Head of ANSTO, who argued that the claims were not true.
A more persuasive response came from a former cancer sufferer,
Susie Camp, (SMH letters, 2000 January 29) who was cured
through the prompt delivery of radioactive isotopes from the Lucas
Heights HIFAR reactor. She was understandably grateful.
So what are the facts? Suitable accelerators can produce tiny
quantities of those medical isotopes that are neutron deficient. The
high neutron flux from a reactor is good for producing ample
amounts of those isotopes that are rich in neutrons. Therefore both
accelerators and reactors have a role to play in producing isotopes
for both diagnosis and treatment in modern medicine. Examples of
isotopes that cannot be produced by accelerators and have half
lives too brief for ready importation are samarium-153 for the
palliative treatment of secondary bone cancers, potassium-42 for
diagnosing some problems with coronary blood flow, and copper-
64 for studying genetic afflictions such as Wilson's and Menke's
diseases.
It is hardly surprising how strong anti-nuclear views are often
turned around after medical isotopes are employed for diagnosis
and then radiation therapy cures the revealed condition.
33
The revenue from electricity sold must amortise the capital and
meet running costs of the station or a power reactor would not be
commercially viable. In most countries the cost of generating
nuclear electricity is competitive with the cheapest alternative.
On the question of pollution, every single kilogram of nuclear fuel,
from mined ore to eventual waste disposal, must by law be
rigorously accounted for. That is why it is so non-polluting.
Until fusion power becomes a reality there is no proven alternative
to nuclear fission reactors for generating base-load power if
polluting gas emission targets are to be met and fossil fuels
conserved as vital feedstock for future chemical, plastic and
pharmaceutical industries.
ooOoo
“Nuclear power is far more expensive than any
other form of electricity generation.” Claim by Dr
Helen Caldicott in the Higher Education
Supplement of The Australian newspaper, 2005
April 13.
costs are low and most of the higher capital cost of nuclear power
has been amortised. Natural gas power generation is cheaper than
nuclear only in those fortunate countries with ample natural gas
reserves, and hydro-electricity likewise where there is suitably
elevated water storage available.
Keith Alder, former General Manager of the Australian Atomic
Energy Commission, in his book "Australia's Uranium
Opportunities", observes that had the Jervis Bay 600 MWe power
reactor project gone ahead (in the early 1970s) it would have
produced the cheapest electrical power in Australia during its
operating lifetime.
As for wind power, the country with the greatest proportion is
Germany. At nearly ten percent of their power generating capacity
the unavoidable variability of wind threatens the stability of their
power grid. Furthermore the running costs climb because standby
generators must be kept spinning to make up for sudden shortfalls.
The cost of doing so is forcing the Germans to reconsider their
earlier politically-inspired plan to phase out nuclear power by
2020. It is very expensive to have power stations idling at reduced
load while waiting to be cranked up to full load whenever the wind
power dwindles. Or, shock horror, to be forced to import French
nuclear electricity.
The cost of intermittently imported electrical power is, by the law
of supply and demand, so high that it makes wind power decidedly
uneconomic. So much so that Denmark announced they would rely
no more on wind power farms which have given them the most
expensive electricity in Europe despite assistance from the Nordic
power pool. They are constructing no more wind farms, either
onshore or offshore, but they will continue to manufacture wind
turbines for sale to whoever wants them (Jyllandsposten, Danish
Newspaper, 2004 February).
India 9
China 8
Japan 6
South Korea 5
Russia 5
Others 8
The figures quoted above have been drawn from Nuclear Issues Briefing
Paper 19, dated 2005 April, courtesy of the Uranium Information Centre.
40
Acknowledgements:
The author wishes to thank the many friends and colleagues who
provided helpful suggestions and freely gave moral support for this
work. There are more pro-nuclear energy people around than one
might be led to believe
Lilley, John, “Nuclear Physics – Principles and Applications”, John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester, England 2001. ISBN 0-471-97936-8
Wilson, P D (ed.), "The Nuclear Fuel Cycle - From Ore to Wastes", Oxford
University Press, Oxford 1996. ISBN 0-19-856540-2
Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the material
presented in this booklet. If an error is detected the author would
be pleased for it to be drawn to his attention and be advised of a
more authentic source. Should the error be upheld the author will
be grateful and an amendment incorporated in future printings.
Inside back cover
ISBN 0-9578946-5-1