I spent last few hours responding an Editorial of USA TODAY written by the Editorial Board of the Magazine: "Japan's nuke meltdown shouldn't close US plants":
The USA TODAY reader's comments are published via Facebook under the article commented and their Conversation Guidelines can be found here:
Perhaps by article was including too offensive speech towards nuclear industry or the words "environmental bullshit! (Sorry!)" was too heavy to be printed, or then for some other reason not familiar to me it was removed from the USA TODAY -site in a few minutes.
So because I believe I'm still living in a partly democratic country I decided to publish my responce (I'm glad I made a backup copy of the article I wrote) to that pronuclear Editorial here:
Ten antitheses for the Editorial Board's Editorial
1. Nuclear power has greenhouse gas emissions. The mining, enrichening of uranium fuel, building up the plants for years, keeping the plant in "safe" condition, taking care and storaging the used fuel, decommissioning the plants; it all takes enormously energy mainly made up with fossile fuels giving greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Wind, solar and other renewable forms of energy are NOT a long way to be able to carry the 24/7 load for the world needing safe energy solutions.
3. Nuclear power makes sense ONLY when one is looking forward to having nuclear weapons and exponentially growing group of other nations having them too, especially the quite poor developing countries. If we continue to use nuclear power, the only fuel available in a few decades is recycled MOX (mixed-oxide plutonium/uranium fuel). If you have couple of nuclear arms scientists available, you can make hundreds of a-bombs of the fuel needed to load only a few reactors. If everything is well planned, it takes about two weeks to make a working nuclear weapon of the recycled nuclear fuel.
4. Japanese regulators were warned of tsunamis and the consequences they could bring to nuclear facilities. It was too expensive andtook too much work for something that can be ignored too easily by reading the statistics: once in a thousand years, it won't be now...
When you think of the unthinkable it will cost money, much money, when dealing with the safety of nuclear power stations and spent fool pools!
5. Nobody knows the damage which was made to North Anna NPPs: the inner structures and hidden pipes can all not be examined. It's only a good guess to believe that the plant is safe and capable of facing next earthquake or other accident, perhaps more powerful and severe than the previous one.
6. Talking of NPPs and some hours without electricity is oldfashioned. Fresh studies show that terrorist attacs or violent solar storms can leave large areas without electricity for months, even years! According to a recent US study the propability of suffering a severe long blackout for a single NPP in the USA is about 33% during its economical life of 40 years (according to the report of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory). The scientists have estimated that during the next couple of years there will be several severe solar storms with geoeffects. It could mean 20 - 30 chernobyls or Fukushimas at the same time (on the US soil). But this is like speaking of tsunamis in year 2010 Japan, pure environmental bullshit! (Sorry!)
Link - IBTIMES.COM: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/194166/20110808/solar-storms-severe-solar-storms-earth-paralyse-carrington-event.htm
7.And talking about the Jaczko & Friends disagreement. It is not healthy but when somebody is willing to make things right it always turns out to be rough in nuclear industry (and circles around it, eating at the same table).
As far as I know having read the news reports and NRC emails published, Jaczko tried to warn US citizens of the severity of Fukushima accident and make NRC to move quickly forward to finding out obvious risks in US nuclear industry, unfolded by the Japan accident. The others may have acted more slowly. Perhaps there is no hurry in nuclear world to find out masses of new safety investment targets right now. After Wednesday we all may be wiser.
8. If history proofs anything, it's that nuclear power has caused tens of thousands - maybe hundreds of thousands americans and citizens of other countries to get cancer or some other radiation related illness (caused by the nuclear activities of americans). The testing of nuclear weapons made the way for "peaceful" nuclear power generating.
No, please don't get me wrong, there are other nations as well quilty of the same "crime": Russia, China, Great Britain, France....Iran. All the nuclear weapon producers. And also my own country, Finland, is running four reactors, the fifth is under construction. They are planning to build two more. Nobody worries about Finland being a nuclear weapon power. But when we'll get Olkiluoto 3 ready, then we can load it with MOX. Some fresh spare MOX fuel is always good to have in storage - and our army has something to smile about. We have plenty of good nuclear scientists...
I hope that is not the case, but coverups are quite common in nuclear industry.
9. Perhaps before building up new NPPs the Americans should have more information of the consequences of the Fukushima accident for the US territory: radioactive fallout doesn't respect any geographical borders. You should ask your officials for radiation information about fish being caught on US West Coast (for now and later on). Or taking samples of the soil at mountainious area where the fallout rained down at West Coast. And what to do with the radioactive water and polluted wood and masses of other floating waste of Japan Tsunami that is halfway sailing towards the USA.
10. Finally, I do agree with the writer that there's zero margin for (major) error in nuclear power.
Have you ever met a perfect human being?
(Neither have I)
P.S. Sorry for my pure English - I'm used to write Finnish!
If you want to discuss further of energy issues or ask for details you can visit my new, nonprofitable energy blog SOLARWINDPRONET