The Clinton plant, in central Illinois,
has one nuclear reactor.
A second reactor is proposed.
Photo by Leah Missbach Day
February 2005
The New Nuclear Debate
Nobel Prize winner and Gaia Theory pioneer fall out over nuclear risks versus global warming
by Peter Bernard
The view from a plane flying into Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport at night can outdo most fireworks displays. Shining towers stand at the center of a massive hub of electric lights that shoot tendrils north, south and west from the shore of Lake Michigan. The electricity lights up countless shopping centers, office buildings and housing developments. Depending on whom you talk with, this sparkling electric beauty either hides a deadly secret, or the answer to the nation’s energy problems.
The metropolitan area is ringed by a crescent of nearly one dozen nuclear power plants, the largest number of any state in the nation. Currently, there are 103 nuclear power plants in the United States. Of those, Illinois has 11 functioning plants and three others that have been decommissioned, but still contain nuclear waste.
“Chicago is one of the most nuclear-dependent cities in America,” said Dr. Helen Caldicott, president and founder of the Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Policy Research Institute (NPRI).
“If just one of these plants had a catastrophic accident, prevailing winds could send a highly toxic plume of radioactive isotopes over the city, killing thousands within days and perhaps millions over the next several decades,” Caldicott said. “It would make 9/11 look like nothing.”
Caldicott said the threat is especially dangerous for infants and children, who, due to their rapid growth, are much more likely to experience genetic mutations at the cellular level if exposed to a nuclear accident.
Local anti-nuclear activists are now on high alert since Exelon Corp., the owner of all of the state’s nuclear power plants, is taking the initial steps to build in central Illinois what could be among the first new reactors to come on line in the United States since the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island power station near Harrisburg, Pa., in 1979.
Exelon has applied to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for an “Early Site Permit” to build a second reactor in Clinton, Ill. The proposal is indicative of a shift to embrace nuclear power again after it fell out of favor due to the Three Mile Island incident, and the deadly European Chernobyl explosion in 1986.
Nuclear War of Words
Nuclear power has even garnered support from the most unlikely of sponsors, one of world’s best-known environmentalists, James Lovelock of Britain. Lovelock, 85, gained renown in the 1970s for pioneering the “Gaia Theory” that presents the Earth as a living, self-regulated organism. He became a star of the environmental movement with his writings about the theory named after the Greek earth goddess. More recently, Lovelock drew ire from the same quarter when he began publishing papers espousing his belief that nuclear power is the only sensible answer to the world’s growing appetite for energy.
Basically, Lovelock said that global warming is putting the world at a bigger and more immediate risk than nuclear power plants.
In a May 24, 2004, article in the British newspaper The Independent, Lovelock championed nuclear energy as the solution to global warming problems caused by burning fuels such as coal and oil. In his article, Lovelock said he would like to see countries switch to renewable energy sources such as the wind and tides, but these sources can’t produce enough energy soon enough to combat global warming.
“If we had 50 years or more we might make these our main sources. But we do not have 50 years,” Lovelock wrote. “The Earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases that even if we stop all fossil fuel burning immediately, the consequences of what we have already done will last for 1,000 years.”
Lovelock said nuclear energy isn’t the menace presented by Caldicott and other anti-nuclear environmentalists.
“As a physician, I contend that nuclear technology threatens life on our planet with extinction,” Caldicott wrote in her book, Nuclear Madness. “If present trends continue, the air we breathe, the food we eat and the water we drink will soon be contaminated with enough radioactive pollutants to pose a potential health hazard far greater than any plague humanity has ever experienced.”
Such fears are “unjustified,” according to Lovelock, who wrote: “Nuclear energy, from its start in 1952, has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Even if they were right about its dangers, and they are not, its worldwide use … would pose an insignificant threat compared with … lethal heat waves and sea levels rising to drown every coastal city of the world.”
Lovelock is not without supporters. Among those who are embracing Lovelock’s philosophy is U.S. President George W. Bush who told the Wall Street Journal in a January interview that nuclear power plants may be the solution to problems posed by coal burning plants. This comment drew fire from Sierra Club officials, who quickly dashed off a release saying, “switching from dirty coal plants to dangerous nuclear power is like giving up cigarettes and taking up crack.”
The European-based Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy counts at least 6,000 members and supporters in 50 countries, maintains a Web site www.ecolo.org and contends that nuclear power can be “clean.” But anti-nuclear activists disagree. About 200 of them joined Caldicott at a symposium last fall at St. Scholastica school in Chicago entitled: “Nuclear Power and Children’s Health: What You Can Do.”
Anti-Nuclear Symposium
“We’re fighting a war against nuclear energy,” said Evanston resident Dave Kraft, a founding member of the Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS).
Instead of encouraging the use of conventional power plants that burn coal, oil and natural gas, Kraft yearns for the day when the world is powered by sustainable, non-polluting sources such as solar and wind power.
“If the nuclear industry cannot meet the threats of the 21st century, then they shouldn’t be open in the 21st century,” Kraft said, citing numerous safety violations at plants, ranging from the accidental discharge of radioactive gas and water, to aging plants that keep their NRC and Department of Energy operating permits in spite of visibly deteriorating infrastructures.
“It’s like if you’re driving a 1952 Chevy, you have to put money into it to keep it on the road,” Kraft said.
Speakers at the symposium warned that an accident at an Illinois power plant could cause massive deaths. They said there would be devastation throughout the Midwest as radioactive toxic chemicals contaminated food and groundwater, causing infant mortality rates and adult cancer rates to soar.
Besides Caldicott and Kraft’s groups, the symposium was sponsored by the Chicago chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility and the North Suburban Peace Initiative. It brought together experts ranging from epidemiologists to security specialists to concerned citizens.
“A lot of us are just moms and dads who are worried about the health of our children,” said Dick Tholin, a member of the North Suburban Peace Initiative. “We have questions like: Why is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission relicensing a lot of these plants for another 20-40 years when many of the older ones are literally crumbling?”
But Jan Strasma, public affairs officer and regional spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Illinois, called such crumbling nuclear infrastructure claims “an exaggeration.”
“We are issuing renewals of existing licenses only after ensuring that a plant can operate at existing safety levels,” he said, adding that his agency is carefully monitoring the plants to make sure they do not pose a threat to the surrounding communities.
“Our view is that current plants are operating safely, if they weren’t we’d shut them down,” he said. “It is true that there have been violations at plants, including the release of radiation, but there has never been an incident that posed a direct public health hazard.”
That is of course, with the exception of the Three Mile Island incident.
And if there is a problem, the NRC is quick to act, he said.
“We’ve shut down a number of plants for extended periods of time for safety violations, including the DC Cook Power Plant in Michigan, as well as several plants in Illinois, including LaSalle and Clinton, Strasma said. “Clinton was closed for almost two years so it could improve safety systems and properly trained staffed,”
According to information from Caldicott’s group, the NPRI, even on accident-free days, nuclear facilities discharge radiation into the air and water every day. The Dresden power plant in Morris, Ill., has been fined 25 times by the NRC for maintenance and safety violations, totaling over $1.65 million.
“I have no doubt that that is a true statement,” Strasma said. “In the late ’80s and early ’90s, a number of fines and levies were given to Dresden, but once again, nothing ever posed a hazard to public safety.”
History of Nuclear Power
Harnessing nuclear fission to create energy has been controversial since the United States worked to develop the atomic bomb during World War II.
It was at the Metallurgical Laboratory at the University of Chicago, housed under the grandstands of an abandoned squash court, that physicist Enrico Fermi and a group of scientists developed the first self-sustaining nuclear reaction on Dec. 2, 1942. The reaction created the first radioactive plutonium, possibly the most toxic element on Earth.
In August, 1945, the United States dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, killing about 110,000 people instantly and 230,000 more over the next five years. Since then, no nuclear bombs have been dropped in combat. Instead, controlled nuclear reactions have been used to generate power. The plants use controlled fission reactions to heat water to power steam-driven turbines, which in turn, create electricity.
Nuclear Generations
The United States now has generations of people who do not remember a time without nuclear power. Geoff Ower, 21, of Clinton, said since he grew up in the shadow of a nuclear plant he is disturbed by the presence of the existing nuclear tower in the central Illinois community.
“I grew up in Zion and the town’s entire tax base and revenue came from nuclear power,” Ower said. “But the two plants had a number of accidents and malfunctions when I was a kid, and we never had any emergency drills or were ever told if we were being contaminated with radiation.”
The two Zion plants were taken out of service in 1998, but will continue to serve as a repository for the plants’ spent nuclear fuel until at least 2013. Plans call for the spent fuel rods, like most nuclear waste stored on-site at power plants, to be transported cross country by truck or train to a permanent storage facility. The likely candidate is Nevada’s Yucca Mountain site, where plans call for the waste to be stored deep underground, where it is expected to remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years.
Caldicott said Zion’s spent, but highly radioactive fuel rods, sit in a spent fuel pool, where poisonous isotopes can leech into the ground water and air, causing abnormally high levels of thyroid and lung cancers, as well as leukemia and genetic mutations in children.
But Zion Mayor Lane Harrison said he was unaware of unusually high cancer rates in his community, which draws its drinking water from Lake Michigan.
“Our water filtration plant draws water out of the lake about a mile north of the [plant], and so does Waukegan to the south,” Harrison said.
Of much more concern to him was the financial impact of the plant’s closing.
He said the community’s tax revenue from the plant dropped from $245 million annually to just $5 million when the reactors went off line.
“Since the plant closed in 1999 we’ve been left in a no man’s land,” Harrison said. “I’d like to either see the spent fuel removed and have our lakefront back, or have them … re-commission the plants.”
Clinton, Illinois
About 140 miles southwest of Chicago, anti-nuclear activist Sandra Lindberg said she is gearing up for battle in Clinton once again.
“The power industry needs to realize that providing for our power needs isn’t just about building new nuclear power plants,” Lindberg said. “It’s about phasing out old facilities and developing alternative sources of energy.”
Amidst seemingly endless acres of farmland, the huge outer containment shell of Clinton’s reactor, covered in bright blue siding, looms above the treetops.
The Clinton site was originally supposed to house two reactors. Reactor One was well under way and foundations were being built for Reactor Two when the accident at Three Mile Island occurred.
Lindberg credits protests by herself and her friends as pivotal in the halt of the construction of the second reactor.
“That’s simply not true,” said Bruce Paulson, an on-site spokesman for AmerGen, the subsidiary of Exelon that owns and operates the Clinton Plant. “It was just unaffordable.”
Paulson said Illinois Power, another company, owned the plant when it first opened and, as a result of the Three Mile Island accident, changes were required in the original plans.
“The NRC came in during the construction of the first reactor and required a number of retrofits be made to the plant, even requiring the builders to reconstruct certain parts,” said Paulson.
The additional costs caused the construction of the first reactor to skyrocket to $4.25 billion, when the original budget for both reactors was $800 million.
The current plan to construct a second reactor in Clinton is far from a done deal.
“The company isn’t sure if they even want to build a second plant at Clinton,” said Paulson who added that the early site permit, “if granted, allows us to determine if a site is ideal for the construction of a new plant. The permit is good for 20 years, and is renewable for another 20 years.”
Pro Nuclear Support in Clinton
The first reactor is older than Clinton real estate agent Ryan Utterback, 24, who recalled a video he saw while in middle school that showed a simulation of a plane crashing into the plant to prove that the plant is virtually indestructible. He said he never thinks twice about boating along the Clinton Lake State Recreation Area located next to the power plant.
Utterback said a second reactor would be an added stimulus for the town. “It’d bring in more jobs and tax money, get some more tax money for the schools,” he said. “I wouldn’t mind if they converted it to some other kind of energy, but I wouldn’t want it to leave.”
Many residents, who have lived near the reactor for decades, said the plant is a strong asset in the economically depressed area.
“I don’t have a problem with it. I’ve lived here all my life,” said businesswoman Ruth Vogel, 53. “It brought a lot of workers to my area, a lot of families.”
Inside the Serenity Spa and Salon, Robbin Stoffer, 44, who was shampooing hair, said she has no concerns about nuclear power. Stoffer’s husband, Jeff, has worked in the nuclear power industry for 15 years.
“There are so many regulations and procedures they have to go through that it’s perfectly safe,” Stoffer said. “If I didn’t think so, I wouldn’t have built a log home three miles from it or raised my family here.”
Inside the Plant
The Clinton plant sits on a 143,000-acre tract, with administrative, support and training buildings crouched around the looming outer shell and turbine enclosure for the plant. Thanks to enhanced post-9/11 security measures, the plant’s perimeter is heavily fortified. Concrete blocks encircle the plant, followed by interwoven layers of chain-link fencing with razor wire on the top and bottom. The final barrier is a metal fence with razor-sharp spikes on the top of each fence post. Paulson declined to discuss how the plant is guarded on its lakefront perimeter.
Once inside, visitors face an immediate background check, a removal of all personal belongings and a walk-through scanner that checks for explosives and metal detectors, all under the watchful eye of heavily armed guards. Once clear, a passcard is issued and linked to a handprint scan taken on the spot.
Visitors are greeted by Richard Davis, a tall Texan with a booming voice who serves as Radiation Protection Manager. Davis issues visitors a small, pager-like device that measures radiation exposure by tenths of a millirem.
Davis guides visitors through the plant, insisting that safety controls are so strict that emergency training drills and inspections for potential radiation leaks occur daily. Areas and gauges where radiation is highest are monitored by remote cameras.
After a tour of the loud, hot turbine room, Davis leads visitors through two heavily shielded doors and everything becomes eerily quiet. There, in a deep pool of clear, blue-green water is a huge metal sphere, a pressurized container that, amidst other protective shells, contains the core of the plant.
“Not many people ever get the opportunity to see this, and to me this is one of the safest places in the world to be,” Davis said. “A tornado or even a commercial aircraft could hit the outer shell, and this core would be completely safe.”
But Caldicott contended that there is no safe place in a nuclear power plant, and there is no such thing as a “safe” dose of radiation.
“How can the industry call itself safe when the facts speak for themselves?” Caldicott asked. “About 200 man-made, radioactive isotopes are produced in a fission reactor, including Strontium 90, which remains toxic in the environment for 600 years.”
Peter Bernard is a freelance writer who lives in Evanston, Ill.
James Lovelock: Nuclear Fears are Irrational
![[Send]](http://consciouschoice.com/sendlink/send.gif){kind=small}
Recommend this page to a friend
Top Ten pages recommended to friends:
