 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
| |
 |
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel The Wisconsin Legislature is considering AB 346, a proposal that would end restrictions on building new nuclear reactors in the state. Some legislators want to revoke the 1983 law, viewing nuclear reactors as a clean source of electricity because they do not release greenhouse gases. But nuclear reactors are far from clean, creating huge amounts of more than 100 radioactive chemicals - the same toxic mix in fallout clouds from atomic bomb tests years ago. Some of these chemicals disappear quickly, but others last many years and must be kept from humans. Nuclear waste was supposed to be stored at a permanent site by now, but the federal government's selection of Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been slowed due to safety concerns. Many believe Yucca will never open. In the meantime, each nuclear plant must store the equivalent of hundreds of Hiroshima bombs indefinitely. Radioactivity in the reactor's core and waste pools must be constantly controlled with cooling water to avoid a meltdown. Mechanical errors like those at Chernobyl or an act of sabotage like the Sept. 11 attacks could make this scenario a reality. A meltdown would release a huge mass of radioactive gases and particles into the air, which would be propelled by winds and breathed by humans. Safe evacuation would be impossible, and many thousands would suffer from radiation poisoning or cancer. In Wisconsin, three reactors at the Kewaunee-Point Beach sites (five miles apart) near Green Bay are still operating. At 33, 35 and 37 years old, they are among the oldest in the United States. Their parts are corroding, raising the chance of a meltdown. A recent report cited seven "near miss" meltdowns at the reactors since 2001, more than any U.S. nuclear plant. In addition, in 2004-'05, they were closed more than 21% of the time for repairs, double the U.S. average of 10%. The Kewaunee-Point Beach reactors are approaching the end of their license period of 40 years (reactor parts were not expected to last more than 40 years without problems). But recently, federal regulators extended the two Point Beach licenses for another 20 years and are soon expected to do the same for Kewaunee. Keeping aging reactors running adds more radioactivity to the plants and the environment. In the past, Kewaunee-Point Beach may have harmed local residents, since all reactors must routinely release a portion of radioactivity into the air. Humans ingest it through breathing and the food chain, raising the risk of cancer, especially in the young. Most of the 370,000 residents of Brown, Door, Kewaunee and Manitowoc counties live within 35 miles of Kewaunee and Point Beach. There are no obvious health risks in this area; the percent of non-English speakers and poverty rate are below Wisconsin averages, while educational achievement is similar. In the past quarter-century, the local death rate for infants, children and adolescents for all causes is 3% below the rest of Wisconsin but 36% greater for cancer. With 171 local youngsters dying of cancer since 1979, this pattern is statistically significant. Are radioactive emissions from local reactors to blame? Many factors can contribute to cancer - including radioactivity - and the matter deserves further study. Given the concerns raised by reactors, it would be sound policy to keep the ban on new reactors. Because the 20% of the state's electricity produced by (the relatively old and small) Kewaunee-Point Beach reactors will be lost when they eventually close, a truly clean energy program should be pursued. This should include conservation, efficient products and safe/renewable energy sources. In articular, wind power - the fastest-growing source of energy - could be developed offshore to serve the many Wisconsin residents living along Lake Michigan. Joseph J. Mangano is executive director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, a research and education group based in New York. View this article at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel site by clicking here. |
|||