COULD THERE BE MORE FUKUSHIMAS? YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO BET AGAINST IT . . .

  
    
     HAS HUMANITY DUG ITSELF INTO A NUCLEAR PIT with little or no way out? Is the day of that great advance in physics, nuclear-powered electricity, nearing its end? Are many nuclear scientists, after all, not exactly the brilliant brains we once thought they were?

     Many such questions are being framed in the minds of people everywhere in the aftermath of Japan's nuclear disaster -- which still threatens to become a catastrophe. These are eminently worthwhile questions,  I believe most people will agree, and must be debated.

     Although it could be that politicians and the nuclear power industry will not do much more than launch vast public relations campaigns aimed at calming public concerns, the pressures created by those concerns, we must believe, will have to have at least some influence on future approaches to nuclear power development.

      I'd expect Canadians above all are worried about the status of nuclear generation of electricity, because Canada is a huge player in the field of nuclear electricity production, and has been for nearly half a century. Canada has 18 operable reactors, most of them in Ontario, according to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), which represents the nuclear industry.

     The exact number of "operable" reactors is hard to pin down, since reactors require shutdowns from time to time for maintenance -- or repair of leaks, as with one in Pickering, Ontario! It seems the total for Canada could be as much as 22 if all are operating at once. In addition, Canada has two reactors under construction, three are planned, and three more are proposed, says the WNA in a March 2, 2011, listing of worldwide reactor distribution.

     CANADA'S ROLE IN THE NUCLEAR WORLD has involved renunciation of any nuclear weapons development or use. We have determined that no uranium exported from Canada can ever be used in the production of nuclear weapons, and insist on that before issuing export permits.

     Whether that prohibition is totally effective, I cannot say; one might expect some of the exports could possibly, somehow, get diverted to nefarious use. At any rate, we intend to be pure, we will not add to the already thousands of thermonuclear bombs that exist in, and are a grave hazard to, the world, and that's it.  Canada will use the atom for peace, we will concentrate instead on research, and build and use nuclear reactors for electricity production. All very peaceful, right? -- all very nicely-nicely Canadian, yes? Well, now we know it's not exactly quite like that.

     Now we know -- as I heard one unidentified nuclear-power critic say on TV the other day -- that probably there is no such thing as a "fail-safe" nuclear power reactor, anywhere. If Three Mile Island in The United States, in 1979, and Chernobyl, in Ukraine, in 1986, were not enough in the way of disasters, then (many people are saying) the last straw has now been presented to the world by Japan.

      The nuclear power industry, quite naturally in its own interests, is arguing that we shouldn't panic, that there are specific elements in the Japanese disaster which suggest that we shouldn't blame the event on what is called the inherent instability of nuclear reactors. Instead, they say, we ought to blame the combination of natural disasters -- the huge earthquake and subsequent tsunami; the true cause of the horrible event.

    The argument then develops into: Yes, the real fault lies in nature's unpredictability and, admittedly, in the human error that led, to begin with, to the construction of the Fukushima reactors in an earthquake-prone nation. There we have it -- it's human error.

    Hmm. Let's see -- wasn't human error a factor in Three Mile Island? And, oh, yes, it was a major element in the Chernobyl catastrophe. But we must ponder this too: Japan, again according to the World Nuclear Association list, has a total of 55 nuclear power reactors, has two under construction, plans 12 more, and is thinking of building one more. How can this make sense, now?

    ARE WE TO TAKE FROM THIS POINTING TO HUMAN ERROR the idea that we mustn't fault the nuclear-reactor industry, or the nuclear power plant owners and operators? Well, a huge part of the multi-billion-dollar nuclear power industry (and I mean mega billions), including plant designers and equipment providers (like the huge General Electric Corp.), has private ownership, and operation, at times under lax government regulation. And isn't it true that private industry must aim at maximum profit? Does this not mean the possibility of cutting corners, economically, in operation and oversight, and thus, perhaps, fewer carefully applied safety measures against extremely dangerous radiation? Some say yes, some say no. I'm personally inclined to say yes.

     This means the public is forced to accept risks that should be unacceptable. Anti-nuclear groups, like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, have called for an end to heavy government subsidization and tax breaks for the nuclear power industry, claiming that the industry could not survive (thankfully, they would say) without these breaks.

     They also have made this point: "Canadian reactors produced about 35,000 tonnes of high level radioactive waste (spent fuel) by the end of 2000. Despite a 10-year study, and the expenditure of $700 million for research, a national environmental assessment in 1998 failed to support the nuclear industry's proposal for deep-rock storage of radioactive waste. The waste will be hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years."

     See what I mean about getting into the nuclear reactor pit and not being able to escape from it? You can build and operate these things, if you have the unbelievably high sums required, but the problem of radioactive-waste disposal is a great challenge. You bury it, or you dump it in the sea or some other body of water -- yet those methods, the critics say, are not foolproof. Hundreds of thousands of years of hazard, indeed!

     Organizations like Greenpeace have been on top of the inherent dangers in nuclear reactors for a long time. Eleven years ago they and the Sierra Club argued for shifting from such expensive and dangerous ways of producing power to more environmentally friendly ways, such as wind power and solar power, and more efficient use and management of hydro-power. They refer to Canada's nuclear power industry as representing 50 years of failure, and emphatically point to the problems the industry had by then -- eleven years ago -- experienced, outlining a list of "devastating accidents" that had plagued Canadian CANDU reactors. (In recalling the situation back then, they say today that little has changed in the interim.)

     ONE OF THOSE DISASTROUS ACCIDENTS threatened a horror at Pickering Reactor #2 in 1994. That event started with a major-loss-of-coolant accident that spilled 185 tonnes of heavy water. "The emergency core cooling system was used for the first time ever at a CANDU reactor to prevent a meltdown," say Greenpeace and Sierra. (My italics.)
      
     I wonder whether a man like the prospector-miner Gilbert Labine, who made Canada's first discovery of economic uranium in 1930, ever dreamed of such scenarios when he was mucking about in the region of Great Bear Lake, Northwest Territories? I'd guess not, but as things turned out he goes down in history as the man who turned Canada onto its modern nuclear path. The Great Bear Lake is where he discovered the Port Radium deposit. As the Canadian Encyclopedia notes, it was originally exploited for its radium content.

     The exploration for this substance picked up pace, with other discoveries, in the 40s, of big deposits  in the area of what is now called Uranium City, northern Saskatchewan, and, in the 50s, in the Elliot Lake region of northern Ontario.

     So if you think Canada is not a major nuclear power, better think again. We not only have lots of nuclear reactors (none in this Blog's province of British Columbia, I'm thankful to be able to report) -- we  also produce some 22 per cent of the world's uranium, the key element in nuclear reactions. We are in second place among leading uranium producers; we were first for a long time, until overtaken in 2009 by Kazakhstan.

     We can say, however, that without Canada's production, the world likely would not be as nuclear-reactor infested as it is. Our uranium production businesses have a stake in the use of their product in the rest of the world's building and operating of nuclear power reactors. Contrary to popular belief, then, Canada's hands would not seem to be so clean when it comes to nuclear energy -- at least to those worried about proliferation of power-producing reactors.

     What I'm trying to say in all of this alarm over nuclear reactors is, I suppose, that while the nuclear focus right now is upon Japan, and will be no doubt for at least several weeks, and perhaps much longer, we should not limit our nuclear thinking to Japan (or, for that matter, to Canada). We should be thinking about the entire globe's nuclear reactor involvement. There's lots of it, and there are big plans for expansion.

     I DON'T WISH TO UPSET PEOPLE,  but facts are facts, and I do think everyone should be alerted to the following information from the WNA. (Note that the following is completely separate from the world's manufacture of thousands of thermonuclear weapons. It more than underlines the reality that we live in a very heavily nuclearized world, and with all of its accompanying dangers.)

     Our Earth has upon its surface a total of about 440 operable civilian nuclear power reactors. (The number was 443, until those earthquake-tsunami problems occurred in Japan and shut down at least three  reactors, with three more turned off, meaning all six of Fukushima's reactor units out of action.)

     The nation with the largest number of operable reactors is, no surprise, The United States of America, with 104. The WNA says the U.S. also has one reactor under construction, nine planned, and 23 proposed. All of these figures and plans, I must note again, were on the WNA list prepared as of March 2, a week before the Fukushima blowup; since Fukushima, the issue of nuclear reactor expansion has grown quickly into something politicians in the U.S., and everywhere else, are finding they now have to look at with great care.

     In second place, with 58 reactors, is France, with one under construction, one planned, and one proposed.

     No. 3, as mentioned earlier, is Japan, with 55.

     Russia is next, at 32, with 10 under construction, followed by South Korea at 21. India has 20 (with five under construction, 18 planned and 40 proposed), the UK has 19, and Canada is next with its 18, closely followed by Germany at 17. China has 13 reactors, with 27 under construction, another 50 planned -- and a breathtaking 110 proposed.

     Ukraine has 15 operable reactors, Sweden has 10.

     And we must not forget Iran. It is listed as having one reactor under construction, two planned, and one proposed.

     In total, the World Nuclear Association lists 47 nations as having either operable nuclear reactors, or  reactors under construction, definite plans for reactors, or simply proposing some.

     The most telling statistic of all, and let me shout it this time, is the fact that the world has some FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY operable nuclear reactors. And worldwide there are also 62 under construction, 158 planned, and -- 324 proposed! Whew! This definitely sounds like a nuclear-reactor race to me.

     How many of those reactors now operating are likely to have really big problems, and I mean really BIG  problems (since practically all of them have "little" problems from time to time) -- that is, big,  fatal  problems like those at the complex known as Fukushima?

     I'm not sure I'm qualified to say. But one doesn't have to be a nuclear scientist to toy with the idea that-- well, perhaps using the nuclear scientist allusion isn't such a great choice right now . . . so I'll just say that one doesn't have to be excessively bright to regard the nuclear power reactor as terribly and tragically problematic for the world.

     WE'VE JUST GOT TO BELIEVE, IT SEEMS, that the headlong charge to a greater nuclear reactor future will moderate. But will the politicians and nuclear industry mouthpieces give us much more than talk?  Will anything really change? Who can say?

     The outlook isn't promising. There was a story in the paper just today, with the headline, "Ontario to spend $33 billion on reactors." The Ontario energy minister, who made the announcement, was quoted as also saying that, of course, all kinds of public input will be sought on the construction of two nuclear reactors at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Clarington, Ont., about 85 kilometres east of Toronto. The new reactors will replace aging nuclear plants, the story said. Mindful of the Japanese disaster, he assured everyone that Ontario's nuclear plants are and will continue to be terribly safe.

     So the prospects for cranking back nuclear things don't seem good.  Perhaps our only answer is that most of us have to trust, have faith; we have to believe that the nuclear reactor world will reconsider its activities, and phase itself out, and sooner rather than later.

     As crazy as it might appear, I'll say it again: We've got to believe -- but back up that belief through application of pressure from the public on the dim-sighted (and/or misguided) politicians.

     After all, we can argue that a lot of nuclear scientists truly do accept their responsibilities. In the past they've sounded constant alarms over thermonuclear weapons and the need to eliminate them because those weapons are absolutely inhumane and genocidal by their very nature. The nuclear-war clock is winding down, or up, at least some disarmament is afoot, etc. Quite a few nuclear scientists seem to be stepping forward now in the current reactor controversy.

     Also encouraging is the fact that respected and responsible public organs like the Los Angeles Times are more and more in the fray. It recently ran an editorial on nuclear reactors, some of which merits repeating (which this area's Vancouver Sun has done, and which I now also will quote, because The Times spoke very much to the point).

      The LA Times, commenting on Fukushima, took a dim editorial view of nuclear reactor expansion, saying that such power plants "are so expensive, and their risks so extreme, that private investors are reluctant to fund them, even with huge government subsidies and loan guarantees."

     The paper said plans to build a "national repository" for waste in Nevada had been shelved, "meaning radioactive waste is being stockpiled at individual plants in a way that is unsustainable. And then there's the threat of a Japan-type disaster."

     The LA Times said the U.S. gets 20 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power plants (the like figure for Canada, I should note, is about 16 per cent).

     Concludes The Times: "There are more cost-effective ways of weaning the country off climate-warming fossil fuels, namely improved energy efficiency and more renewable power. In the cost-benefit analysis, nuclear doesn't add up."

     Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and all Canadians concerned about the proliferation of nuclear reactors will agree with that.


                                           ---------------