THE TRUTH ABOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY

Journalist, novelist, Gwyneth Cravens, was an active opponent of nuclear power plants until she began doing research for her book, Power to Save the World.* As with many other technological issues facing society, a lot of miss-information has been promulgated about this subject. She addresses these in her book and seeks to show that nuclear power is the only efficient and clean way to meet our energy needs for the foreseeable future. Here are just a few interesting tidbits that I gained from reading her book:

In 2006, more than 435 nuclear reactors in 32 countries supplied 16% of the world’s electricity with a safety record far superior to fossil fuel or hydro-generation--and that is including the Chernobyl fatalities.

The US Navy has operated some 254 reactors in naval vessels and has never had an accident.

Worldwide about 39% of electricity is obtained from burning coal. Lets say that you obtained all your electricity from coal over your lifespan of 77 years, your mountain of solid waste would be 68.5 tons. If you obtained all of your electricity over the same lifespan from nuclear, your waste would weigh 2 lbs and fit inside a coke can.

A nuclear power plant producing 1000 megawatts takes up about ½ square mile. A wind farm would have to cover 200 square miles to obtain the same result, while solar arrays would need to cover over 50 square miles.

The annual exposure of a human anywhere on earth to background radiation from natural sources averages about 240 units (millirems) per year. In some places it is much higher like in northeastern Washington State where the annual average dose is about 1700 units. The annual exposure to the public permitted by the EPA for nuclear facilities is 15 units--less than a chest or dental x-rays. If you want to learn more, check out Power to Save the World.

*Alfred A. Knopf, NY 2007.

ANOTHER SCIENTIST'S VIEW OF HOW SCIENCE WORKS

Dr. Richard Feynman (1918 - 1988), an American physicist and multi-faceted scientist, said the follow about how science works in a lecture given in 1964: “Generally we look for a new law (of Nature) by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if the law we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation with Nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is--if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.”