March 1, 2005
YOU CAN PURCHASE JANETTE SHERMAN'S GROUNDBREAKING BOOK ON BREAST CANCER
LIFE'S DELICATE BALANCE:
CAUSES AND PREVENTION OF BREAST CANCER
ONLY $10 at her site
A dangerous gamble: Nuclear power, earthquakes and tsunamis
by Janette Sherman, M.D.
Radiation and Public Health Project
Though 60 people died and 500 homes were destroyed by the Dec. 26 tsunami in the adjacent employees' township, the Times of India reported two days later that the Kalpakkam nuclear power plant is safe and not leaking radiation.
There is a push to revive the use of nuclear energy, given increases in oil prices and problems with war-torn countries sitting on oil reserves. The increasing likelihood of a terrorist attack upon a nuclear reactor, or its spent fuel depot, seems not to deter development, but the recent earthquake and subsequent Indian Ocean tsunami ought to provide reasons to stop nuclear power development.
The Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami
The earthquake and subsequent tsunami in the Indian Ocean directly killed close to 300,000 people. It is not known how many more will die as a result of injuries, disease and starvation over the long run.
Unknown are long term effects from the tsunami on the Kalpakkam nuclear complex, located on the south coast of India, 80 km from Chennai, a city of 7 million, the fourth largest metropolis in India. At the complex, some 500 homes were destroyed, 60 people killed in the employees' township and another 250 killed in the rest of the area. Given the military nature of all nuclear sites, information on nuclear releases related to the tsunami is hard to get.
We do know that prior to the tsunami, for the period May to October 2003, multiple cancers of the blood and bone in the age group 15 to 50 was 3.0 per 100,000, slightly less than twice the national average, which was 1.7 per 100,000 (J.S. Raman, sriraman_j@yahoo.com).
Whether the decision by the Indian government to reject all foreign aid is dictated by its own reserves of funds -- hard to believe, given the grinding poverty of most of India -- or is a way to limit access to critical areas such as the nuclear power plants damaged by the tsunami is in question.
The Madras Atomic Power Station in Kalpakkam, near Chennai in the state of Tamil Nadu, is a comprehensive nuclear power production, fuel reprocessing and waste treatment facility that includes plutonium fuel fabrication for fast breeder reactors. Two pressurized heavy water reactors at Kalpakkam started commercial operation in 1984 and 1986.
They were designed, built and operated with indigenous expertise, establishing Indian capabilities in the design, construction and operation of nuclear power plants. Construction of the waste immobilization plant in Kalpakkam started in 1983, with commissioning in 1993. An interim storage facility is also located in Kalpakkam.
Plutonium for nuclear weapons, which is also the fuel for the second stage reactors of the Indian nuclear power program, is obtained from spent uranium fuel from the pressurized heavy water reactors. Fuel reprocessing aims at recovering the reusable fissile and fertile component of the spent fuel (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/india/kalpakkam.htm). Plutonium emits powerful alpha radiation and is one of the most dangerous elements, with a half-life of 500,000 years.
An earthquake at a nuclear plant has the potential to kill millions of people and contaminate land and water for centuries. Many nuclear facilities are built near earthquake faults and close to major bodies of water. An earthquake can easily destroy backup safety equipment, preventing the shutdown of a nuclear plant, disrupt the integrity of a containment structure, rupture spent fuel rod storage pools and allow highly radioactive material to escape into the surrounding land, water and air. Compounding the force of an earthquake with that of a tsunami increases the damage and spreads further the deadly radioactive materials.
Nuclear power plants situated near large bodies of water
The San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant in California is situated between the ocean and Route 5, a major six-lane highway connecting San Diego and Los Angeles. Los Angeles County, with its population of 9.5 million, is located within 100 miles of the reactor.
The Davis Besse Nuclear reactor is located on the shore of Lake Erie, close to Cleveland, Ohio, and Detroit, Mich. If the recent damage to the Davis-Besse containment vessel had eroded all the way through, there was the likelihood that release of nuclear materials would contaminate the Great Lakes from Lakes Erie and Ontario to the St. Lawrence River and on to the Atlantic Ocean.
When we comprehend that the Richter scale is a log scale, which means that an earthquake of 7 is 10 times as strong as a quake of 6, and a quake of 8 is 100 times stronger than a quake of 6, we can appreciate the fact that nuclear power installations sited near earthquake faults and large bodies of water are a threat to humanity and the health of the environment globally.
Nuclear weapons testing to resume in the U.S.
In order to restart underground nuclear testing in Nevada and estimate the risk of seismic damage to high dollar Las Vegas property, the U.S. Department of Energy recently spent $25 million for its "test readiness program":
"Finding no structural harm from 150 kiloton blasts, scientists are trying to help the US Department of Energy's (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) with a scientific and political question: At what explosive yield will most people have no perception of a nuclear test at all? ... There are hints that the NNSA might consider dropping its explosive test yields to as little as one-tenth of the limit, or 15 kilotons, to avoid any human perception and lessen local political resistance to testing" (Oakland Tribune, 1/04/05, http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/ci_2508598).
In other words, perception is the watch word. According to John Louie, University of Nevada seismologist and associate professor, "It's a far easier public relations problem for the DOE if the tests are not felt" (Ibid.).
The problem of nuclear waste disposal
The U.S. government has indicated plans to entomb nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Yucca Mountain is located in an earthquake-prone region. Only California and Alaska surpass Nevada for dangerous, life-threatening tremors. Scientists at the University of Nevada in Reno indicate that Las Vegas ranks seventh among cities outside California for potential property losses due to earthquakes. The greater Las Vegas area rests on at least eight earthquake faults (ibid.).
U.S. "national sacrifice" zone
It appears that the perception of risk takes precedence over actual harm from an earthquake in an area with tons of radioactive debris left after nuclear bomb tests, or from the future release of radioactive materials during new tests. And perception can be controlled by public relations and secrecy.
The DOE's stated mission is to do the impossible, in an active volcanic and tectonic region, which is to make the Yucca Mountain storage facility "safe" for 10,000 years. Compounding that difficulty, the half-life of plutonium alone is 500,000 years. Few of us have a concept of life 100 years ago; how can we possibly envision conditions 10,000 years in the future? What right do we have to leave such a toxic legacy to our children and grandchildren for centuries to come?
There are safer, less costly and some renewable ways to generate electricity. These include solar, wind, natural gas and hydroelectric power. Currently, solar power is safer, non-polluting and initially more costly than other forms of energy, but those involved in solar energy development have not reaped the millions of dollars in subsidies which have been handed out to nuclear energy corporations.
Conservation is part of the answer
Lastly, conservation is perhaps the most important factor in the energy issues and an option that citizens can implement themselves. Some 15 to 20 percent of U.S. electrical power comes from nuclear plants.
It is very likely that if the public understands the contribution of nuclear power to cancer and other radiation related diseases in children and adults, including infant mortality and foetal losses, most citizens would be more than willing to cut their use of electrical power by 20 percent to prevent the illnesses and losses that so many are currently bearing. After all, California consumers have already demonstrated that they can.
California electricity consumers voluntarily cut energy consumption by 20 percent in the first three months of the California energy crisis in 2001. When energy costs tripled in that short time, it came down to a choice for many of eating or turning on the lights.
John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., has called nuclear contamination "random murder." If we continue to manufacture and test nuclear weapons in civilian settings, continue the illegal use of depleted uranium weaponry in war zones and continue to operate nuclear power plants … does anyone have a better definition of widespread radioactive pollution than "random murder"?
Janette D. Sherman, M.D., specializes in internal medicine and toxicology. Her website is www.janettesherman.com.
This article was published originally in the San Francisco Bay View, February 16, 2005 sfbayview.com
Email:
editor@sfbayview.com