W: Make America More Vulnerable to Radiological Attack
Today, Bush pushed for the construction of new nuclear power plants on US soil. With the track record of current US nuclear facilities (see below), this is like planning to leave a basket full of grenades at a daycare center and walking away. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl both happened without the help of terrorists--just imagine the horror that an intentional attack could bring! New Democrat Language: Bush is planning to make the US more vulnerable to domestic radiological attacks.
This is not fearmongering. This is fact.
We have known since 2003 that Al Qaeda has specifically targeted US nuclear energy plants for attack. Were they to succeed, it would be worse than a nuclear bomb:
Considering the fact that a nuclear plant houses more than a thousand times the radiation as released in an atomic bomb blast,the magnitude of a single attack could reach beyond 100,000 deaths and the immediate loss of tens of billions of dollars.Such an attack would probably not result in a Chernobylesque meltdown, but rather a much more devastating release of radiation from the spent fuel rods that sit in relatively-unprotected pools next to the concrete-domed reactor. Said Bob Alvarez, a former senior advisor to the Department of Energy who worked on emergency preparedness:
This is the most consequential vulnerability of nuclear power in the country, and that is not a secret. They could release 5 to 10 times more radioactivity than a nuclear reactor meltdown.10 Times More Radiation Than a Meltdown? But There's Security, Right?
Astoundingly, no. There isn't. Earlier this month, Massachusetts Democratic congressman Edward Markey described his recent investigation of the Seabrook Nuclear facility:
The fence is broken [and has been for months], the security cameras don't work, and some required security analysis hasn't even been performed. It seems the plant motto is 'see no evil, hear no evil, maybe no evil exists.'Think that's an isolated incident?
It's not. There have been over 120 documented incidents of intentional, internal sabotage at US nuclear power plants. As for external threats (i.e., terrorists):
In exercises conducted by the NRC between 1992 and 1998, guards at 27 of 57 nuclear plants failed to keep mock intruders from inflicting simulated damage sufficient to put the nuclear core in jeopardy-this despite the fact that reactor owners got 6 to 12 months' advance notice of the visits, and until recently were allowed to beef up their security staffs to respond to the attacks. (One intruder bypassed the detection system seven times simply by crawling or jumping past a checkpoint.)Read that again. They were told a year in advance when to be ready--a courtesy I doubt terrorists are likely to extend--and were allowed to hire temps for the mock attack, and they still failed!
So perhaps we should store the spent fuel in a safe place? Unfortunately there isn't one--this stuff stays radioactive for millennia--longer than any man-made structure on the planet has existed. The current idea (and by current, I mean 1978) is to build a storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but to this day construction hasn't even started. And how does the government plan to get this incredibly dangerous material to Nevada? By highway, on trucks. (In 2000, there were 5,275 fatal truck accidents in the US - PDF).
Do you live within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor (or within 50 miles of a major highway)? If so, you should already be concerned. If not, you might find yourself with a new nuclear neighbor if Bush's plan for plant construction is successful.
Update: Please don't tell me we NEED to use nuclear technology. Over two-thirds of US oil consumption is for transporation. I've not seen many nuclear-powered cars lately. (Thanks, Anna)
posted at 11:50 AM Permalink
|
This is not the Democratic Planks Homepage!
Go there now for the latest updates.
