McCain Mocks Nuclear Safety
On the radio, this morning, at a campaign rally, I heard McCain say this:
"You know, the other night in the debate with Senator Obama, I said his eloquence is admirable, but pay attention to his words. We talk about offshore drilling and he said he would quote, consider, offshore drilling. We talked about nuclear power, well it has to be safe, environment, blah, blah, blah."
At the sound of the blah blah blah, his audience errupted in enormous laughter and applause...
Apparently, the Republican activists on hand for the speech found "blah, blah, blah" to be absolutely hilarious. Where is the humour in this? What is their level of awareness?
My father worked on the propulsion engine for the first Polaris missile. Later, he set up the first nuclear weapons depot for the Atlantic submarine fleet. I worked on the North Anna nuclear power plant, back in the early 70's, actually manufacturing the high quality concrete required by the continuous reactor pour. 20 years later I was part of a team of Systems Analysts that electronically re-engineered the process for obtaining a license to possess nuclear materials, for the Nuclear Regulatory Agency.
Last time I flew to San Francisco, I sat next to one of the world's pre-eminent authorities on the effects of radiation on human health. He was a consultant to NIH who had lived and studied the population of Hiroshima for 20 years. At that time I worked for a major healthcare media company, and we had a long talk about radiation and health issues. So, throughout my life, I have been exposed to issues regarding radiation and public safety.
Bottom Line: Radioactive materials are poison. They stay in the environment for a long time. If you inhale a particle of Plutonium, and 20 years from now, develop lung cancer, and your remains are cremated--the radioactive particle of Plutonium goes up in smoke, is assimilated into the atmosphere, and will perhaps take up residence in some other poor soul, and so on and so forth, for the next 24,100 years. That is the half life of Plutonium. Pluto was the Lord of the Underworld. Apt name.
There is mine in the Congo called Shinkolobwe. It has been such a security problem for the Govt of the Congo that they have been attempting, in vain to seek help from the US, British, or French, to take over the mine, which has been closed to Uranium production for many years. It is one of the richest sources of Uranium in the world. This is where the Uranium came from that ended up as Plutonium in the air over Hiroshima and Nagasake. The locals, back in the day, used to smear the yellow clay on their bodies and attack their enemies by night, glowing in the dark. They were not a long-lived tribe. Today, valuable deposits of cobalt are intermingled with the Uranium, attracting the locals to come and mine the cobalt by hand, a certain death sentence 20 years down the road. Cobalt is very expensive, these days.
The security lifecycle on radioactive materials begins at birth, and must be sustainable until their death, which varies from compound to compound, but is longer than human recorded history, in the case of Plutonium. What if you came into this world and discovered your ancestors had been stacking up Plutonium waste for the past 24,000 years? How big a security force would be needed to control the waste? What about earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, and asteroids from outer space?
Yes, there have been breakthroughs in terms of sealing up nuclear materials in durable glass casings. This would prevent problem of ground water contamination or perhaps earthquake. But a determined terrorist could still crack open the glass canisters, given sufficient force. And absolute security must stay with nuclear materials at every stage of their journey and resting place from cradle to grave and beyond, for 24,000 years.
My whole point is this: the security requirements for the lifecycle of nuclear materials are very high. Frankly, they don't come any higher. Obama wants these safeguards to be carefully scrutinized.
Apparently, McCain does not believe in 'Safety First'. And if he can mutter blah, blah, blah in contempt, when someone raises the issue of public safety, then what does he believe in?
And what is the nonsense that his supporters believe in?
Is it possible, before we take Plutonium to the Altar, to have some nuclear wedding counseling before the fact? Because a nuclear wedding, in terms of human scale, is forever and ever, amen.





Amazing how the mcShame folks insist they are for "all of the above" when it comes to energy, until they want to blame Obama. These folks can't keep a message straight - nohow!
By the way c4Logic, my father worked on the guidance systems of missiles. Maybe they knew one another long ago.
October 27, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could be, could be. Did your father work at the Lockheed Martin Skunkworks, by any chance? It was weird growing up in a nuclear household in the 50's and 60's. Every year on Halloween I had to go as a missle. Every year the Nosecone got more evolved. My Dad would paint, 'when you care enough to send the very best' on the side. He would say, what is scarier than a Hydrogen ICBM? Every day I would get a report on where we stood on the nuclear war threshold, during dinner.
I think this gives a child a distorted world view. I used to beg him to help me build a fallout shelter. He said, the ones who survive the initial blast are the unlucky ones. A fallout shelter only assures a slow lingering death without medical aid as your tissues slough off and you begin to hemmorage from within. As a child, I never expected to reach adulthood.
But that was before the Merry Pranksters came to town! ;-)
October 27, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
We never had a fall-out shelter either. Couldn't have done. My dad was at Cape Canaveral - and in Fla you can't dig in the ground! (I guess I must have just repressed those fears. Sorry to hear they plagued you so much as a kid.)
You have my sympathies about the Halloween costume. Actually my dad took the security clearance so seriously that he never told anyone what he really did - till long after the fact. (The Apollo program put me through college.)
In the early years of missiles my dad went to White Sands a lot. I think different people from different companies went to watch the rockets go off.
But your blog here is serious business. We should focus on the serious. (Though anxiety is serious. Right now I'm feeling a bit anxious about the election, given so much nastiness about.)
October 27, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I only knew what my dad did from eavesdropping on my parent's conversations. Funny how some grownups don't think children are paying attention. I always thought the grownups had more interesting stuff to talk about. I was always hanging around pretending to be absorbed in play, but actually spying on them.
October 27, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, my parents weren't the type you could "spy" on. But I can understand why you'd do it, if you felt they were keeping things from you. My dad simply never talked about his work. At one point, and this was back in the 50's, a neighbor asked my mother if he was involved in organized crime or something. Because he went away on business a lot (to White Sands) and never talked about anything related to work. This became kind of a family joke.
Isn't it sad that your blog has only 7 rec'ds and that blog slamming MsJoanne has 21 now? Sorry to be even more off topic here, but it's posted on all three boards - and the woman has no way at all of defending herself due to comments disabled. That really does bother me, for her sake. (or anyone's really - unless they have over and over proved themselves to be trolling - but even then, you'd leave it open for comments)
Oh, well... life's a beach sometimes.... just glad it's not nuclear beach.
October 27, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nevile Shute...On the Beach. I saw the Stanley Kramer movie when it came out in '59 and was freaked for years. As a kid I was really familiar SF in the 50's, and that scene where the submariners get out at the Embarcadero and walk around a totally empty SF is sooo creepy. I still get choked up everytime I hear Waltzing Matilda. It always reminds me of nuclear holocaust.
"You'll never catch me alive, said he."
October 27, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was waiting for the movie to end with the pocket of humanity in Australia surviving - but, NO!
Also, I was impressed with Fred Astaire's performance.
October 27, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, at least, 'Alas Babylon' gives you a sense of hope for survival. Not very realistic, that. On the Beach was probably much more accurate. Sad, sad, to talk about getting cynaide pills for your baby so they don't have to die an agonizing death from dissolving internal organs. My favorite Nuclear Apocalypse story is still 'A Canticle for Liebowitz'. That book is leavened with a little wry irony.
October 27, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain seems to get excited about nuclear power because the Navy uses it. First of all, McCain was an aviator and had nothing whatsoever to do with ship board nuclear power systems. Secondly, the Navy has, rather obviously, unique military requirements for vessel power which necessitate nuclear power systems - the absolute safety of such systems, while important, is secondary.
What McCain SHOULD be referencing are Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island. I'd bet that McCain, as with many nuclear power advocates, would not live within 20 miles of a nuclear power plant, and wouldn't live within 100 miles of a spent fuel repository.
October 27, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US Navy DOES(at least theoretically) provide cradle to grave security on radioactive fuel components. There is probably no other organization on the earth with more experience with small pile reactors. But then again, the Air Force moved nuclear warheads halfway across the country without anyone's approval or awareness. Sure, heads ended up rolling, but that is cold comfort.
If users of nuclear materials were required to buy an insurance policy that would provide for full life cycle security for the materials in the event of the demise of the license holder--that would dramatically alter the economics--but if the license holder is NOT required to assume responsibilty for 24000 years of security--then WE the public are being FORCED to assume responsibility--without sitting in during the licensing process. Is that right? Is that fair?
How would you feel, about discovering, upon reaching maturity, that you had to pay taxes to take care of toxic waste left behind by your ancestors 1000 generations ago?
October 27, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The scariest part of that 24,000 year half-life is that, after all that time, the probability is that half of the plutonium has not decayed. Even after six half-lives, 144,000 years, some three percent is still around.
October 27, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. We are talking about time scales that are Geologic in scope.
October 27, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had attributed Bush's recklessness and inability to think in terms of the future to a brain whose frontal lobes had been damaged by substance abuse.
But it is in fact a generalized contempt for rationality that induces this army of fools to behave as if their brains were in the same condition as Phineas Gage's after a railroad spike went through it.
October 27, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you guys know about the new reactor designs that encase the nuclear material in graphite balls? I have had this described to me (by a very liberal physicist) as a potential solution tot he possibility of meltdown. Not sure how it affects storage waste. It's an MIT design, I think. Anyone?
Also I wonder why no one ever posed the question to McCain if he thinks creating a waste storage facility outside of Phoenix would be a good idea.
October 27, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
4th generation reactors? Pretty technical stuff. South Africa has a Pebble Bed Modular Reactor that is a high temperature gas cooled reactor that is supposedly melt down proof. There are also accelerator driven systems that combine accelerator technology with fission reactors to transmute long lived radioactive wastes. This is still in the works, Then there are fast neutron reactors, heavy water reactors, light water reactors--all of which address problems seen with earlier generation reactors. To the best of my knowledge, which is very limited, the accelerator systems are the only approach I have seen that has a strategy to deal with the problem of waste.
There is a lot of work being done today on these new designs--and they may yet prove to be very good ideas--but anybody who mocks the relevance of public safety or worker safety, to these systems should be kept as far from policy making as is humanly possible.
October 27, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Living one hour away from Hancock, the worst contaminated nuclear site in the US, I'd like them to first figure out how to deal with the existing mess. For some background, I'll point t to this diary written by someone over at the Daily Kos on Hancock..
October 27, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 586-square-mile Hanford Site is located along the Columbia River in southeastern Washington State. A plutonium production complex with nine nuclear reactors and associated processing facilities, Hanford played a pivotal role in the nation's defense for more than 40 years, beginning in the 1940s with the Manhattan Project.
Physical challenges at the Hanford Site include more than 50 million gallons of high-level liquid waste in 177 underground storage tanks, 2,300 tons (2,100 metric tons) of spent nuclear fuel, 12 tons (11 metric tons) of plutonium in various forms, about 25 million cubic feet (750,000 cubic meters) of buried or stored solid waste, and about 270 billion gallons (a trillion liters) of groundwater contaminated above drinking water standards, spread out over about 80 square miles (208 square kilometers), more than 1,700 waste sites, and about 500 contaminated facilities.
See, this is what I am talking about. We started down this path, making commitments we had no idea we were making, and leaving it to the unborn to deal with. 2,300 tons of plutonium is enough to give cancer to every form of life on this planet. And this is just one site. And yet John McCain says: Blah blah blah--to the issue of public safety.
People who are this callous about safety should not even be given a license to drive, much less elected to the Senate. Anyone who would vote for such a socially irresponsible bonehead is a bona fide idiot.
October 28, 2008 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink