The former chair of the Fresno Utility Commission, self-described as a left-liberal Democrat, is promoting the construction of a nuclear power plant in Fresno because it will reduce domestic violence. I’m not kidding. His argument is that “When guys don’t have jobs, they beat their wife and kids.” So if job opportunities increase, wife- and kid-beating go down. “And nothing creates opportunities like cheap electricity.” From a nuclear power plant, of course.
Electricity from nuclear energy is back in vogue largely as a consequence of the media and political attention paid to global warming. Although a majority of people still oppose nuclear electricity, that majority has fallen over the last two years. Although not enthusiastic about nuclear electricity, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi have it on their list for reducing greenhouse gasses.
True enough, a nuclear power plant does not emit carbon dioxide. But Ernest Sternglass, a nuclear scientist and long-time opponent, claims that radioactive materials do escape from nuclear power plants. He’s been collecting data that back him up. As you might expect, he’s ignored. So let’s consider the pollution, including carbon dioxide, and exposure to toxins from the mining, processing, and transportation of the uranium fuel. And, oh yes, there’s the little problem of disposing of spent fuel rods that, after 60 years, enthusiasts have yet to solve.
It’s a stupid idea. It’s stupid because it’s the wrong answer to the wrong question. The wrong question is “How do we add capacity to the electricity grid so that projected demand is satisfied?” The right question is “How do we provide the energy people need in a way that improves life, which includes minimizing or even reducing risks to health?” And “health” here means our health and the health of the generations that follow us.
This, of course, is the precautionary principle.
The technologies exist right now to provide the energy we need in a way that will improve life and reduce health risks. Think “buildings like trees, cities like forests”—a concept described in Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Michael Baumgart. Last year, McDonough said, “Don’t get me wrong: I love nuclear energy! It’s just that I prefer fusion to fission. And it just so happens that there’s an enormous fusion reactor safely banked a few million miles from us. It delivers more than we could ever use in just about 8 minutes. And it’s wireless!”
As a culture we tend to be enthralled by technologies, helped considerably by well-funded marketing departments. Our attention is diverted to technology as the solution, when instead it should be on how we care for ourselves as the question.
Last week saw several stories in the media about breast cancer screening. Women in their 40s won’t be pressured into annual mammograms, but other women will. Computer-enhanced mammograms produce results worse than mammograms alone. And for women at risk, an MRI should be added on top of a mammogram in order to detect possible cancers smaller that those detected by a mammogram alone. A mammogram is an exposure to ionizing radiation.
Proponents of all this technology claim it saves lives. There’s good evidence that isn’t true when compared to self exams. Do these technologies alleviate suffering better than self exams? Not based on the stories I’ve heard. In fact, it seems to be quite the opposite. Which is why a doctor wrote a book titled Should I Be Tested For Cancer? Maybe Not And Here’s Why.
Yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle reported on the shortage of glass baby bottles. With reports in the media of toxins in bottles made from hardened plastics, parents are switching to the older technology. The public relations departments of plastic manufacturers keep making noises to reassure the public that there’s no proof that using plastic baby bottles causes harm. The parents, concerned about their children’s health, aren’t rolling those dice. They want proof that the technology is safe. That’s the precautionary principle in action.
