Nuclear power began with great promise to generate power free of the need to burn large quantities of coal, "too cheap to meter". But as people began to become more aware of the dangers and costs mounted, environmental campaigners in particular began to oppose it. Anti-war campaigners also became aware of a link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. But few understand these links, or the reasons why nuclear power is dangerous in general. Campaigners should have some understanding of this, at least to be able to counter the arguments of the pronuclear lobby. This is particularly important now that the Blair Government is openly discussing the building of new nuclear power stations, explains MARK FINDLAY Three-mile island, scene of one of the worst accidents before Chernobyl Mile Island in the USA and
Windscale (now Sellafield) in Britain. This propensity to disaster is the
first of the reasons why nuclear power is inherently
dangerous.
But this is just the most obvious problem. Far more insidious is the waste that results from the operation.
There are several sources for this. Firstly, each Uranium or Plutonium atom splits into two smaller atoms. These are usually
also radioactive, and some of them, such Iodine,
Caesium and Strontium, can
easily be absorbed by living beings.
As time goes by, these build up in the fuel rods. These have to be removed and "re-processed" to get TIa of these viciously radioactive contaminants.
The fuel rods have to be transported to a site where
re-processing can take place.
There have been many protests against the passage
of the nuclear waste trains that carry the rods to Thorp in Cumbria and similar operations in France and Germany. In practice, the
capacity to reprocess the fuel rods has never been sufficient and many of the waste rods are simply stored.
A side-effect is the transof another kind (or "isotope") of Uranium, 238, into Plutonium. This is also a nuclear "fuel" but can also be used in nuclear
weapons. In fact, the main
SOULCO of weapons-grade plutonium is precisely this
nuclear waste trom power stations. This must be one of the central L casuus why socialists should oppose nuclear power. waste is the ceaseless irradistruction of this and ation of the other materials with reactor such as the steel of costs, both financial and
containment allowed a runaway plumbing. This makes them cannot imagine a socialist radioactive. When nuclear and break apart the power stations reach the end power into the future, other of their lives, they cannot just be scrapped. Large parts of the structure will more or less radioactive.
The cost of disposing of these massive structures will air) sent clouds of bewith us for decades. Even future socialist governments will have to figure these costs into their plans as nuclear power can't just be abolished or switched off. If more stations are built, there will be more to dispose of.
The dangers of radioactivity are well known, and include long-term cancer risks (the radiation damages genetic material causing the mutations that can start cancer) as well as birth deformities. More intense radiation can cause radiation sickness.1
It is important to realise that there is no way of stopping radioactivity. Radioactive isotopes remain radioactive however they are combined chemically.
The vast quantity of waste radioactive material from reprocessing and old nuclear plants will need to be stored. While the most intense radiation decays relatively quickly over time (over 40 years, 99.9% of radiation in spent nuclear fuel disappears)2, some radioactivity will remain for thousands (in some cases millions) of years.
The debates over this storage are wide-ranging and some of the ideas are frankly daft. Put it into space? Shoot it into the sun?? But ideas more seriously considered include dumping in deep ocean trenches (so that the geological process of subduction will gradually draw it into the Earth's crust) or deep burial.
But no one knows how safe these sites will be. Again, any future governments will have to consider how to guard the sites where these things are put. In 10,000 years, will anyone know what the symbols we use for radioactivity mean?
We can imagine that most industrial processes can be harnessed safely given a sufficient degree of regulation, Another source of nuclear and ultimately workers control. But nuclear power has that make up the nuclear such horrendous long-term and environmental, that world making use of nuclear than running down existing operations.
Socialists should oppose any expansion, both because of the inherent risks and because of its role in making the raw material for making nuclear weapons. 1 Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Radiation_sickness 2 Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Nuclear_waste)