Laugh me off as the idealistic son of a physician (which I am), but I still thought the doctor's ethos of "first do no harm" was a notion we could all agree on. Even in this hyper-polarized Era of the Screaming Red-Faced Partisan, I thought we would witness the recent Fukushima reactor meltdown or footage of Americans setting their tap water on fire and at least agree to stop pursuing energy policies that we know endanger our health and safety — if not out of altruism, then out of self-interest.
How embarrassingly naive I was. That, or I momentarily forgot that this isn't just any industrialized country — this is America circa 2011, a haven of hubris that has become hostile to the "do no harm" principle.
This makes us different than, say, Japan and Germany when it comes to nuclear power. Scarred by fallout, the former has canceled plans to build 14 new nuclear plants and has radically altered its energy agenda, now moving to pursue solar rather than atomic energy. Likewise, according to the Associated Press, the latter reacted to Japan's plight by "vot(ing) in favor of a ban on nuclear power from 2022 onward."
By contrast, in the days after the Fukushima disaster, the Obama administration not only reaffirmed its commitment to expanding nuclear power, but, according to ProPublica, also continued the policy of "routinely waiving fire rule violations at nearly half the nation's 104 commercial reactors, even though fire presents one of the chief hazards at nuclear plants."
Additionally, the Associated Press reports that two congressional lawmakers are now pushing the government to "back a new generation of miniature nuclear reactors" that would be sited throughout the country.
Incredibly, these moves come even as a nuclear reactor in Washington State just experienced a fire scare and even as a new study of U.S. Geological Survey data shows many of the nation's reactors sit near active fault lines.
The same story is playing out in the quest to find natural gas.
Over the last few years, more evidence has surfaced that suggests drinking water may be getting contaminated by fracking — a drilling technique that involves injecting toxic chemicals into the earth. This evidence runs the gamut from a new Duke University study into methane, to a New York Times report on fracking wastewater being dumped into rivers, to Pennsylvania gas companies acknowledging that fracking is contaminating drinking water, to those now-famous YouTube videos of combustible tap water.
In response, South Africa last month halted a major natural gas project and France's National Assembly voted to ban fracking outright. Both countries' governments cited the "first do no harm" rationale, saying more scientific research needs to be done before fracking can go forward.
Again, though, our own government has been going in the opposite direction.
Succeeding a Bush administration that exempted natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Obama administration has refused to forcefully back congressional legislation that would merely require gas companies to disclose their fracking chemicals. At the same time, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson is publicly insisting that she is "not aware" of any proof that fracking has harmed water supplies.
Meanwhile, the White House's one seeming tilt toward caution — its panel to study fracking — ended up being a sham, as six of the administration's seven appointments have direct ties to the energy industry.
It all adds up to a frightening divergence: As the world increasingly embraces "do no harm," we're doubling down on "do, regardless of harm" — and as most physicians will tell you, that kind of attitude often ends in tragedy.
David Sirota is a bell-selling author of the book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." he hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and is a contributing writer at Salon.com. Email him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
7 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Re: "Incredibly, these moves come even as a nuclear reactor in Washington State just experienced a fire scare..." It is, truly despicable that you would compare a fire in the turbine building which has nothing to do with the reactor core or reactor building whatsoever to the Fukushima reactor meltdown as part of a rant against nuclear power. In addition, the link to fracking causing tap water to catch on fire is juicy gossip but inaccurate. Methane gas, seeping into wells is the cause, not fracking chemicals. In the words of Don Henley, We can do the innuendo we can dance and sing when it's said and done we haven't told you a thing we all know that crap is king give us dirty laundry! People everywhere love dirty laundry.
Comment: #1
Posted by: David Henricks
Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:53 AM
|
|
|
|
With the reference to his father's code and memories of a time when fossil fuels reigned supreme, David is obviously pining for his lost youth. He can't accept the world changing, some people can't, you know, and wishes to return to the Ozzie and Harriet days of the 1950's. He is longing for an America that once was and is now gone. Good thing he is not older, have you ever seen a photograph of a big city just before the age of fossil fuels? Choked with smoke from wood and coal fires, horse urine and more drying on filthy, unsanitary streets. Man, those were really the days.
I would regard his last clause - "that kind of attitude often ends in tragedy." - but the last doomsday prediction I heard didn't pan out, so naturally I became a skeptic. Besides, kids from the 80's trying to explain the world we live in now is akin to a lecture at the feet of Jeff Spiccoli. One should have experienced a modicum of hunger before rendering Ludditic judgment on whole societies. Ah well, at least David has his memories to keep him warm on a cold night. Too bad if others might need more traditional methods.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Tom
Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:33 AM
|
|
|
|
Ah, yes. The usual strawman arguments and ad hominem personal attacks from the extreme right wing. When the facts aren't on their side, I guess that's all they can do. How pathetic.
Attacking the messenger isn't going to change the fact that our energy policy is determined by the Oil/Coal/Nuclear Industry, which doesn't give a damn about anything or anyone except it's own ever expanding, obscenely monstrous profits.
Comment: #3
Posted by: A Smith
Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:57 AM
|
|
|
|
1) If a fire, anywhere in or near a nuclear facility, damages the power supply to the reactor, hello meltdown. That's basically what happened in Japan. At U.S. reactors, power failures have been caused by culprits as mundane as squirrels playing on power lines. It wouldn't take much to cause a major catastrophy.
2) The methane gas argument is just a distraction to confuse people, but in fact it only proves how dangerous fracking is: "The study by scientists at Duke University found high levels of methane in drinking water wells within a kilometer of gas wells in Pennsylvania and New York, compared with water supplies up to three km away. On average, the report says, methane concentrations were 17 times higher in water supplies near fracking operations"
3) Mr. Sirota never claimed he wants to return to the 50's. Project much? In fact, I'd bet he'd argue that it's the Republican's who want to return to the 50's (1850's as well).
4) The last prediction of rain Tom heard from his local weather forecaster didn't pan out so he doesn't carry an umbrella any more. His house wasn't destroyed when a Tornado Watch was issued he's stopped paying attention to those warnings too. He also hasn't caught cancer from second hand smoke so he will take up smoking just to stick it to those no-nothing doctors and scientists! He's never seen the Earth from space so he think's the world is flat. And since gravity is just a theory, he's going to start floating in the air!
To act like a typical Republican, I would just reply with another strawman argument or ad-homonym attack like "David Henricks and Tom are so propagandized by the corporate media that they think that it's OK for gas flames to shoot out of people's faucets. They must have been brain-damaged by fracking chemicals as children!" But I value the truth too much and would rather discuss facts and solutions to problems rather than get in childish pissing matches with school-yard bullies who never grew up.
Comment: #4
Posted by: A Smith
Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:09 AM
|
|
|
|
Why isn't this being talked about on the corporate "news" channels I wonder?
----------------
Electrical Fire Knocks Out Spent Fuel Cooling at Nebraska Nuclear Plant
Wednesday 15 June 2011
by: John Sullivan, ProPublica
A fire in an electrical switch room on Tuesday briefly knocked out cooling for a pool holding spent nuclear fuel at the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant outside Omaha, Neb., plant officials said.
The safety of deep pools used to store used radioactive fuel at nuclear plants has been an issue since the accident at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant in March. If the cooling water in a pool is lost, the used nuclear fuel could catch fire and release radiation.
As ProPublica reported earlier, fire safety is a continuing concern at the country's 104 commercial reactors, as is the volume of spent fuel piling up at plants.
-----------
No Fly Zone Over Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant Due to “Hazards”
Posted on June 14, 2011
The Federal Aviation Administration issued a temporary flight restriction over the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant until further notice due to “Hazards”. This would normally be a precautionary measure after an electrical fire disabled cooling for the spent fuel rod pool as outlined below. The question is why is this still in effect?
Comment: #5
Posted by: A Smith
Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:06 AM
|
|
|
|
So who's most to blame? Those who generate the harm or those who generate the victims? Are we all morally obliged to be fruitful and multiply? Given current conditions it seems like bad manners to gamble on the life of another person without first getting that person's permission.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Art Weber
Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:26 PM
|
|
|
|
Three U.S. Nuke Plants At Risk To Wildfire And Floods
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 9:02AM
By Kenneth R. Bazinet
Anti-nuclear activists are having the biggest “We told you so moment” since the earthquake and tsunami caused a meltdown at Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi reactors earlier this spring as Mother Nature puts scare intro three U.S. nuclear facilities.
The Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico will be closed for a second day today as a raging wildfire remains a threat, while floodwaters from the Missouri River are keeping two nuclear power plants under siege in Nebraska.
As of now authorities in both states say the natural disasters do no pose a threat to the public at any of the three nuclear facilities.
About 12,000 people have been evacuated from the area surrounding Los Alamos nuclear weapons testing and developments facility since Sunday, authorities said. The site was home to the Manhattan Project, which developed the atomic bomb in 1945.
“No other fires are currently burning on lab property, no facilities face immediate threat, and all nuclear and hazardous materials are accounted for and protected,” the Los Alamos National Laboratory said in a statement.
The combination of brisk winds and scorching hot weather are the main concerns at this point for firefighters battling the blaze around the lab.
The Las Conchas fire burned across nearly 44,000 acres and came within about a mile from the lab last night. A one-acre spot fire ignited on lab land, but was knocked down by airborne firefighters, CNN reported.
“Air crews dumped water at the site within the Lab's Technical Area 49 and brought the blaze under control,” a statement from the lab said.
In Nebraska, workers at the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant raised catwalks to access the facility after two feet of water surrounded the site. The floodwater has not reached any radioactive materials, the utility company said. An 8-foot temporary berm protecting the plant collapsed over the weekend.
“There is no possibility of a meltdown,” the Omaha Public Power District's CEO Gary Gates told The Associated Press. “The floodwaters are outside of Fort Calhoun, not inside.”
The biggest threat is a loss of power that would keep the plants from cooling the nuclear materials, triggering a meltdown, as was the case in Japan. There are at least nine backup power sources in place in Nebraska, including two diesel generators.
The other threat to public safety are lies and deceptions, as was also the case in Japan as the utility company's executives continuously lowballed the thereat of radioactivity.
“Not everything is fine,” said Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's energy program. “We're inches away from a nuclear plant being flooded. It's already an island. And we still have a very real possibility of flood levels rising.”
Slocum told The Progressive, “There's always the possibility of the situation escalating, especially when we don't control all the variables. That's what happened in Japan.”
Floodwaters are slowly creeping toward the Cooper nuclear power plant, but that facility sits on higher ground and the wrath of Missouri River so far is being kept at bay.
Comment: #7
Posted by: A Smith
Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
