Editor’s note: This commentary is by Howard Shaffer, PE, who is a retired nuclear engineer who worked on the start-up at Vermont Yankee, and again later through Yankee Atomic Electric Co., Nuclear Services Division. He is a member of the American Nuclear Society and was their 2001 Congressional Fellow.
[A] recent commentary “Vermont’s plans to dump on Nevada” illustrates the extremes of the political debate over climate, energy, nuclear power and Vermont Yankee. Two different beliefs underlie the political debate about nuclear power and radiation safety. These beliefs are polar opposites. Those who believe in each idea interpret everything in the light of their idea. As in all political struggles there is a great deal of emotion, particularly when the struggle has been prolonged.
One side of the radiation safety debate says that any amount of radiation is dangerous. Their actions seem to prove they are very afraid. When the object of fear is not acknowledged as a genuine danger, some become angry, and some of the angry grow to hate those who oppose them, and say so.
Those who believe radiation is safe to use say they understand that it is very powerful, and can do great good, or great harm if misused. It is like fire, which humans have used for thousands of years, yet we still have to have fire departments. They believe demanding perfection is unrealistic. As one who has lived with nuclear reactors 24/7 (submarines) I know the care required to ensure safety.
The debate has raged for years. Those scared of radiation often bring in outsiders to provide more scare stories. I think the pro-nuclear people need to say, “Yes, we know you are scared, and we are ‘scared’ too, but the way we ‘do’ scared is to fix the problems, when the alternatives to not using radiation are not acceptable.” Those afraid tell scare stories about medical and dental X-rays as well as nuclear power, and all radiation. What do the opponents suggest be done for a broken leg? Before X-rays lots of legs were set poorly.
The debate could also be characterized as “The battle of the N’s” — one side calls “Names” and the other relies on “Numbers.”
As the debate continues, some opponents revert to extreme statements that aren’t factual. The commentary on Vermont planning to dump on Nevada is an example. Vermont Yankee’s used fuel will soon all be in dry casks, where it is air-cooled by natural circulation — no power required. The used fuel will become the property and responsibility of the federal government. The most Vermont can do is complain and sue for injunctions to stop transportation, etc., but the state can’t have any independent plans. Blaming Vermont’s member of Congress for voting to advance the storage site in Nevada makes no sense, as it is a step toward getting the used fuel out of Vermont, by having a place for it to go. It seems to me that some opponents in their fear and anger just oppose everything that seems like progress and might be a positive step for nuclear power in the public’s eyes.
The government panel that was charged with reviewing radiation standards after World War II was very concerned about atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. The panel set an unreasonable basis for radiation standards. The objective was to get the public to be against atmospheric testing. The effect of the “regulate as if any amount of radiation is dangerous” was to unnecessarily scare part of the public. We don’t have atmospheric testing any more, but many are still emotionally against radiation and nuclear power.
