Is nuclear power a solution to the climate crisis?
By Don Fitz
September 1, 2018 — Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal — Faith that
environmental catastrophe can best be avoided by technological gadgetry rather
than a change in social relationships received a big shot in the arm with the
May 2018 publication of Energy: A Human History by prolific author Richard
Rhodes. After completing 18 of his 20
chapters, Rhodes begins his exploration of nuclear power by comparing Rachel
Carson, Ralph Nader, and Helen Caldicott to anti-humanists such as Thomas
Malthus, Paul Ehrlich and followers of Adolf Hitler.This bizarre
connection is based on the writings of one obscure author who predated Carson
with a foreboding of destruction caused by the over-reproduction of
“undesirable people.”Rhodes claims that
the environmental movement unknowingly brought anti-humanist ideology into its
visions of a simpler world. By
advocating a society less dependent on complex technology, environmentalists
are supposedly condemning untold millions of impoverished humans to disease and
starvation.The author insists
that only nuclear power can save humanity from energy poverty and, thus,
rejection of nuclear power is anti-human. What about nuclear radiation
poisoning, which is critical to nuclear dangers? Rhodes presents a case which may well become
the next generation of pro-nuclear apologies. Reviewing theories of 1926, he accuses Herman Muller of committing the
original sin of radiation theory after his discovery that low doses of
radiation caused genetic mutation in fruit flies. Muller developed the
critically important “linear no-threshold” (LNT) model which postulates a
“linear” relationship between the quantity of radiation received and the
likelihood of cell damage, or, that there is no dose of radiation so small that
it is without negative effects.Before looking into
this frontal attack on LNT theory, let’s back up to the first 90% of Rhodes’
book. Much of it is a hodgepodge of
personality sketches of those having a role in scientific discoveries. In his most extensive story, the author
illustrates how greed can motivate discoveries that profoundly affect human
life as he tells how Thomas Midgley researched removal of the “ping” or
knocking sound of the first gasoline-powered cars.Midgley
devoted no fewer than six years of his life searching for a fuel additive that
would have a “no-knock” effect. He found
that corn alcohol would be too expensive. Benzene would also work, but it would be impossible to manufacture enough. Both oxygen and chlorine increased
knock. Aniline, selenium oxychloride and
tellerium worked, but produced an awful smell. Examining one element after another in a periodic table of the time, he
finally found a gasoline additive: tetraethyl lead. Since poisonous effects of
lead were well known, the product was labeled “ethyl gasoline.”Multiple
states banned sale of ethyl gasoline, prompting a retort from Midgley that car
exhaust contained far too little lead to cause concern. A vice-president of a new gas company
proclaimed that leaded motor fuel was a “gift of God” as Midgley told his
partner that they could make 3¢ from each gallon of leaded gasoline in the 20%
of the market they could corner. During
the next few decades, leaded gasoline caused immeasurable damage to human organ
systems as well as causing violent behavior from neurological impairment.Though this
description linking technological innovation to human suffering is the most
dramatic story in Rhodes’ Energy, others portray interactions between technology
and ecology. As more and more people
appreciated the beautiful blue flame produced by burning oil extracted from the
head chambers of sperm whales, whale hunting decreased their population. By the 1850s, whalers had to travel further
for a kill, increasing the price of the oil and decreasing its usage. His apparent understanding
that innovations can go wrong makes Rhodes’ trashing of the above-mentioned LNT
theory and its originator Herman Muller something to consider. But his attempts to discredit Muller have
disturbing characteristics. First, he bases his arguments on character attacks
against scientists and environmentalists. Next, he minimizes or ignores large
bodies of data. Third, his arguments lack internal consistency as he repeatedly contradicts
information from different parts of the book. For example, on p. 324 he claims nuclear power is “carbon-free energy”
but on p. 332 says nuclear power creates greenhouse gases during “construction,
mining, fuel-processing, maintenance, and decommissioning.”Rhodes borrows his
denunciations of Muller from an article by Edward Calabrese , who claims to have unearthed evidence that
Muller suppressed research in 1946. During his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Muller did not acknowledge
that he had received a paper that Calabrese thinks contradicted the LNT
theory. Calabrese’ charge, repeated by
Rhodes, is absurd, both because it is ridiculous to think that a Nobel Prize
speech would be changed due to one unreplicated finding and because Muller was
later instrumental in ensuring the publication of that paper.It is currently
Calabrese, rather than Muller, who is discredited, largely due to his increasingly
weird assertions that acceptance of the LNT theory was due to “falsifying and
fabricating the research record.” Calabrese’s objectivity is also called into question by his funding from the nuclear industry and
companies such as ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.Calabrese’s
hostility could also be due to the near-universal rejection of his “hormesis”
theory that small levels of radiation benefit human health. In 2006, Calabrese made arguments for hormesis to the international Committee on
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation which rejected them in favor of the
LNT model. The LNT model is accepted by a long list of agencies and health
organizations. Many researchers
have documented effects of low level radiation (LLR) from the various stages of
nuclear power production, background radiation, X-rays and CT scans. Increases in leukemia appears in research on over 110,000 workers cleaning up after the
Chernobyl disaster and 300,000 nuclear workers in the US, UK and
France.
Increases in leukemia among children living close to nuclear power plants shows
up in studies in the UK, France, Switzerland and Germany. Children are particularly susceptible to radiation
damage because their tissue is growing rapidly. Chronic exposure to radiation
is also linked to multiple myeloma, lung cancer, thyroid
cancer, skin cancer, and cancer of the breast and stomach.Accepting the view
that LLR causes no harm could lead to the elimination of regulations that many
argue are already too weak. This brings
up the “Precautionary Principle. ”It says that if there is doubt about the safety of a substance, the
burden of proof that it is safe lies with those who advocate it, rather than
burdening those who question it with the responsibility to prove its harm. In other words, “Better safe than
sorry.” The phrase “Precautionary
Principle” is not even included in the index of Energy, much less
discussed. Rhodes’ approach suggests a
“Throw-caution-to-the-wind Principle.”Rhodes glibly
dismisses Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima as accidents that need not
have happened had people been more careful. In other words, if humans did not behave as humans, there would be no
nuclear disasters. The author is either
ignorant of the Price-Anderson Act of 1957 or deliberately chose to sidestep
it. That legislation was passed to
encourage private companies to build nuclear power plants by limiting total
liability. Many currently worry that a
plant near them might melt down, causing damage far into the billions, with the
company not having to fully compensate its victims. If Rhodes truly believed his own claims
regarding the safety of nuclear plants, he would advocate the repeal of
Price-Anderson as unnecessary. “Price-Anderson” also does not appear the book’s index.Rhodes belittles
concerns regarding nuclear waste, proposing to bury it for 1000 years and let
our descendants cope with it. Rational
people do not want to encumber their grandchildren with the legacy of leukemia.
Again, the author forgets what he wrote in a previous chapter, that the half
life of U238 is 4.5 billion years. Rhodes seems unaware
that some types of radwaste can actually become more radioactive with the
passage of time, due to the production of daughter atoms with short half
lives. Radioactivity can initially
increase for thousands of years before it declines – that dangerous interval
can persist much longer than the lapse between the pyramids and today.Nor does he seem
aware that every nuclear plant must discharge enormous quantities of hot water
into an adjacent river or ocean, whose aquatic life is seriously harmed. Nor does he seems aware that earth itself is
unstable, subject to earthquakes, floods and other calamities, which is a
problematic issue for St. Louis dumps that house original wastes from the
Manhattan Project. That waste, and waste
from a conventional dump which is now smoldering, are inching their way towards
each other, which is a burning issue for those who live nearby.Many, many people
for many different reasons and living in different times (including the future)
do and will take issue with the irresponsible claim that nuclear waste is not
dangerous.It never occurs to
Rhodes to compare the potential horror from someone dropping a bomb on a
nuclear power plant to bombing a solar panel or wind installation. Worse, he advocates global proliferation of
nuclear power to states vastly less capable of guarding plants than are the
current nuclear powers. Rhodes seems to
forget what he wrote in earlier chapters directly linking the Atoms for Peace
program of the Eisenhower era to the expansion of nuclear weapons. Nor does he remember his earlier discussion
of the need to use a form of uranium fuel at that time which would “reduce the
risk of nuclear proliferation.” Rhodes profoundly
misses the connection between technology and class relationships when he
presents nuclear power as a socially neutral source of energy. He advocates massive build-up of nuclear
power plants in Africa as if it were a purely technological issue with no
ramifications for its domination by Western powers thirsty for the continent’s
vast minerals. The largest increase of
US military bases in Africa has occurred during the last 10 years and those
troops could be justified as necessary to protect an expanded generation of
nuclear plants.Proponents of
nuclear power may assert that the massive police force to guard those
facilities are an unfortunate “side effect” of the technology, but that is
gibberish. Far from being a “side
effect,” armed security is a raison d'être of the technology. Nuclear weapons are ostensibly to use against
a country’s enemies while nuclear plants create the need for a massive secret
police force to guard radioactive material (and can be used against the
populace as the opportunity arises).The failure to grasp
the central role of particular forms of production for subjugating people is a
characteristic of what can be called “ecomodern technobabble.” “Technobabble” stems from the dogma that technology
has nothing to do with relationships of power and can be used by anyone for
good or bad purposes.“Ecomodernism” is
the creed that problems of technological complexity running amok can be solved
by increasing technological complexity. Ecomoderns are fascinated by approaches that require huge projects by
corporations and/or governments, such as geoengineering, carbon capture and
storage, genetically modified organisms, and, of course, nuclear power. They are oblivious to the gruesome potentials
of these undertakings and despise those who caution against their dangers.Ecomodernism assumes
that providing for human needs can only be accomplished by infinitely
increasing the use of energy on a planet with finite resources. Their obsession
with technogadgets means that ecomoderns miss solutions to energy problems
which focus on producing less energy by changing what is manufactured. As John Bellamy Foster observes, “The larger part of production
is squandered on negative capitalist use values, in forms such as military
spending; marketing expenditures; and the inefficiencies, including planned
obsolescence, built into every product.” To this list could be added commodities designed to fall apart, urban
planning which forces people to use individual cars, and a medical system
driven by the insurance-pharmaceutical-hospital complex. In short, changing relationships between
people and people as well as relationships between humanity and nature are the
best way of approaching energy needs.In Energy,
Rhodes never pursues a dream such as this, and, instead, concludes his book by
swallowing the “Happiness = More Stuff” model hook, line and sinker. Failing to explore the potential of
conserving energy, Rhodes follows in the footsteps of those he criticizes. Like
Thomas Midgley’s portrayal of “fanatical health cranks,” he describes icons of
the environmental movement as “extremists.” Mimicking Calabrese’ characterization of consensus on the LNT radiation
theory as “not real but faked,” he describes the “disingenuosness” of
antinuclear activists. Rather than
pointing to a solution for climate change, his radiation denial mirrors Donald
Trump’s climate denial in its derogation of scientific research and its
personality attacks.The great
environmental challenge of our time is to understand that the many sources of
biodestruction are interconnected and must be confronted simultaneously, rather
than disparaging one danger to focus on another. The extreme threat of climate change will not
move closer to resolution by trivializing the menace of nuclear power. Rhodes’ book Energy does not chart a
path that humanity should tread but instead plunges into the abyss of ecomodern
technobabble. Don Fitz (fitzdon@aol.com) is on the Editorial Board of Green
Social Thought, which originally co-published this article with Monthly Review Online. He was the 2016 candidate of the
Missouri Green Party for Governor. His articles on politics and the environment
have appeared in Monthly Review, Z Magazine, and Green Social
Thought, as well as several online publications.
/https://public-media.smithsonianmag.com/filer/energy-nuclear-power-631.jpg){kind=spacer}