Page 8 - the NOISE January 2014

Nuclear Power: IS It worth the rISk?
said, “I think that nuclear power should be in the mix when it comes to energy.”
Proponents of nuclear power often classify this type of en- ergy production as “sustainable.” However, they generally use the narrow definition of sustainability as able to serve our en- ergy needs now and into the future. Perhaps, from this view- point, nuclear power fits. With enough reactors and enough uranium, nuclear power plants probably could provide an ad- equate amount of power for our nation’s current needs and for the needs of future generations. But this definition of sus- tainability is really incomplete.
According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, sus- tainable is defined as “able to be used without being com- pletely used up or destroyed; involving methods that do not completely use up or destroy natural resources.” Using this definition, nuclear power does not fit the bill.
One of the first things to consider about nuclear energy is its reliance on uranium. Uranium is a heavy metal that is ra- dioactive. It is mined as a fuel for nuclear power plants and weapons. It was isolated in 1789 by German chemist Martin Klaproth. Initially, it was used as a colorant in glass and pot- tery. After around 100 years, uranium was discovered to be radioactive. It took another few decades for people to realize that radioactivity poses health risks.
But it is precisely this radioactivity that makes uranium ideal for generating power. In a nuclear reactor, the split- ting uranium atoms produce heat that is harnessed to create steam which is generated into electricity. However, uranium’s radioactive instability makes it dangerous to mine and dif- ficult to handle and contain. Nobody knows these dangers more intimately than the people of the Diné (Navajo) Nation in Northern Arizona.
A recent Diné Policy Institute position paper entitled “Uranium and Diné Binitsekees: An Analysis of the Direct and
In-Direct Consequences of Uranium Using Navajo Principles” states that “the legacy uranium mining left on the Navajo Na- tion has been one of gloom and darkness. It has been esti- mated that from 1944-1989, 3.9 million tons of uranium ore was mined from the Navajo Nation. The consequence of this uranium mining has been felt locally and internationally. As of 1990, 500-600 uranium miners on Navajo Nation have suc- cumbed to death because of lung cancer and other illnesses associated with radon exposure. It has been estimated that at the end of 2000 another 500-600 miners had died. Further- more, the uranium ore mined had directly contributed to the development of the atomic bomb (through the Manhattan Project), the Cold War arms race and concomitantly to the present proliferation of nuclear arms.”
In addition, there can be far-reaching environmental con- sequences to uranium mining. Once the ore is released from the earth, it easily bonds with other elements like air, water, and dust particles. This means that contamination can spread outside even the most carefully monitored mines.
The Diné Policy Institute paper further states: “These health instances are not only confined to abandoned mines, but these mines have contaminated potable water sources for human and animal consumption. ‘Ingestion of contaminated water has been identified as the exposure pathway of great- est concern. EPA sampled 226 water sources in the vicinity of radiation sources for uranium ... of which, 90 water sources were found to pose elevated health risks’ [“Abandoned Ura- niumMinesontheNavajoNation,”EPA,2004]. Thesecontami- nated water sources pass radiation to humans and livestock.”
While the Diné have fought to ban uranium mining on their reservation, mines in and around the rez and Grand Canyon National Park still exist. The Canyon Mine is located six miles south of Grand Canyon on land within the boundaries of Red Butte Traditional Cultural Property, which was designated by the United States Forest Service (USFS) in 2010 as being of
“religious and cultural importance” to Indian tribes in the area, especially the Havasupai.
In November 2013, the Canyon Mine was placed in “stand- by” status for the second time since 1992. Citing economic reasons (uranium prices are currently at an all-time low in the global marketplace) and an agreement with the Havasupai, mine operations have been suspended. In March 2013, the Havasupai and several conservation groups sued the USFS for allowing the mine to open without consulting the tribe and without updating the federal environmental review of the mine that was done in 1986. The current closure will last until the pending district court decision is made or until December 2014.
Story by cINdy cole
Some argue nuclear energy is the future for the world’s power needs. As fossil fuels are depleted and the world’s population grows, proponents see it as the only viable way to go. But, in light of the Fukushima disaster — the effects of which are being felt in the United States more and more each day — the high costs of uranium extraction, and deadly waste byproducts, is nuclear power worth the risk?
Since the 1970s, the US has been in the throes of foreign oil dependency and several energy “crises” have led to wide- spread calls for alternative forms of power to sustain Amer- ica’s needs into the future. Disasters like Exxon Valdez and BP’s Deepwater Horizon have graphically illustrated the dangers of extracting oil from beneath the earth. Rising fuel prices, heavily dictated by OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), have increased America’s desire to be freed from the grasp of foreign oil.
Domestic oil supplies in the US are limited. Controversy over extracting oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) due to environmental concerns may not even be worth arguing about. According to a 2008 article from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies called “Myths and Facts about America’s Energy Crisis,” there really isn’t enough oil there to make drilling worthwhile anyway. It labels the idea that the US can gain independence from OPEC by drill- ing in ANWR as “Myth #4.”
According to the article, the truth is that “increasing our
IlluS by rIck lovelace
RVLovelace.com
supply of domestic oil will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but it will not end it. The Department of Energy estimate of the number of barrels in ANWR ranges anywhere from as little as 5.7 billion to as high as 16 billion. The US currently consumes approximately 7.5 billion barrels of oil each year — 5 billion of which are imported. Hypothetically, if the reserves in ANWR were to become available immediately, they would at best provide 2 years’ worth of oil consumption. However, immediate production is impossible. The economic relief that oil from ANWR could provide would be staggered over the course of a number of years, and thus minimized. As such, the Energy Information Administration estimates that ANWR exploration will likely only cut crude oil prices by 75¢ per barrel by 2025.”
In addition, President Barack Obama has stated “I strong- ly reject drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it would irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife ref- uge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernible impact on U.S. energy security.”
So proposed energy solutions in the US are increasingly turning elsewhere — away from oil and toward alternate fuels: solar and wind power, geothermal, and hybrid electric vehicles have all moved to the forefront of alternative tech- nologies. And along with them, there has been a resurgence of interest in nuclear power plants. In 2008, President Obama
8 • january 2014 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us