Atomic Insights Guest Columns and Papers

Web www.atomicinsights.com

Arranged in reverse chronological order. Where noted, some of the documents are stored in PDF format for portability and ease of printing.

This document is a transcription of President Ford's Statement on Nuclear Policy dated October 28, 1976. The scanned document used for this transcription effort can be found at http://www.nci.org/new/pu-repro/ford76/index.htm
Summary: Just a few days before the pivotal 1976 election, when President Ford was being challenged by former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter for the U. S. Presidency, President Ford issued this comprehensive nuclear policy statement. Unfortunately, only the parts that limited the expansion of nuclear power were actually implemented. Most of the statements about the importance of a vibrant and growing nuclear power industry were lost or ignored by the "nuclear trained" newly elected president. (President Carter dropped out of his nuclear training to go tend to the family farm before he ever operated a nuclear powered submarine or prototype.)

Summary: The 1986 April 26th Chernobyl event was the worst nuclear power accident - it killed 31 people. Its significance was exaggerated immensely because of the pervasive fear of ionizing radiation that has been indoctrinated in all of humanity. In reality, our environment includes radiation from natural sources, varying widely in intensity, to which all living things have adapted. The effect of radiation on organisms is primarily on their damage control biosystem, which prevents, repairs and removes cell damage. Low doses stimulate this system, while high doses inhibit it. So low doses decrease the incidences of cancer and congenital malformations; high doses have the opposite effect. Efforts by radiation protection organizations to lower exposures to (humanmade) radiation to as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) provide no benefit. They only create inappropriate fear - barriers to very important applications of nuclear technology in energy production and medicine.

This column was commissioned by a group that received the draft in February and then took so long to review it that they missed the deadlines imposed by traditional media outlets for publication during the "attention period" surrounding the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident. Though it may no longer qualify as "news" because it was a bit late, the information contained in the article is important, useful and interesting. Hope you enjoy it.

The ICRP-2005 recommendations are very similar to its 1990 recommendations. They are still based on the 50-year-old linear no threshold (LNT) hypothesis of radiation carcinogenesis (and congenital malformations), which is contradicted by the science of biology. Generally, living organisms do not respond to ionizing radiation in a linear manner in the range from 1 mGy to more than 300 mGy acute. Their response is bi-phasic. Beneficial health effects are apparent after low doses, and harmful effects are observed after high doses.

A change in our current course is appropriate in light of the projected shortage of generating capacity in Ontario and the August 14 blackout, which revealed to everyone that Ònothing works without electricityÓ. The signs of an approaching energy crisis are clear as oil supply and demand move out of balance, putting increasing pressure on the limited supplies of natural gas in North America. A solution to this problem in Ontario is the increased use of nuclear energy, and a very recent Ipsos-Reid/CNA survey indicates most Ontarians support this idea.

Large-scale tests and experience with nuclear accidents demonstrate that even severe accidents expose the public to only low doses of radiation, and a century of research has demonstrated that such exposures are beneficial to health. A scientific basis for this phenomenon now exists. PRAs are valuable tools for improving plant designs, but if nuclear power is to play a significant role in meeting future energy needs, we must communicate its many real benefits and dispel the negative images formed by unscientific extrapolations of harmful effects at high doses.

When compared on an objective basis to other potential energy sources, nuclear power wins. This small businessman gives his reasons why he is a strong supporter of building more nuclear power plants.

There are direct correlations between energy use and human health and prosperity. In this speech, originally prepared for delivery at the opening session of the 34th Japan Atomic Industrial Forum Annual Conference, Aomori City, Japan, 25 April 2001, Richard Rhodes discusses the importance of developing energy resources. He also quantifies some of the many advantages that nuclear energy has over its fossil fuel competitors.

Nuclear technology has taken quantum leaps that have dramatically decreased costs and increased safety and reliability. The arguments of nuclear opponents have simply been eclipsed by a quarter century of solid technological advances.

The irony of the California "deregulation" plan is becoming clear. Government run municipal utilities were allowed to retain ownership of their generating plants and to sell power to the Independent System Operator at market rates. Investor owned utilities were "strongly encouraged" to sell most of their power stations quickly, establishing a buyer's market. In addition, investor owned utilities were forced to sell the power from their remaining plants at a frozen price and to buy power from the ISO at a market rate. Surprise, surprise, the municipal utilities are flush with cash while the IOU's are billions of dollars in debt.

Unlike many politicians, Tom McClintock seems to have a deep understanding of the limits of government intervention into what should be a free marketplace.

Senator McClintock graciously gave us permission to reprint this column about what the electric power industry could look like with the right regulation.

There is a large body of evidence that shows that low levels of radiation are not only harmless, they acutally improve human health. Dr. Cuttler's report provides a summary of a recent gathering of scientists studying the data about the relationship between radiation exposure and health.