Netflix is introducing a new documentary about the March 1979 Three Mile Island accident.
Cards on the table: I am a supporter of unpopular sides in energy debates: pro oil pipelines, pro nuclear power stations, pro aggressive electrification of the third world. Closing the gap on uneven energy (and thus cultural) development is to me the heart of what Lenin meant by his 1920 statement, "Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the entire country."
Before proceeding to some articles of historical interest from The Militant that discuss Three Mile Island, I want to encourage readers to check out a communist's review of "Chernobyl" (a 2019 mini-series in five parts on HBO/Sky), which can be read here.
Also of compelling reading interest are the weekly reports on the TMI accident and response from the 1979 issues of The Militant itself.
The April 1979 supplement of The Militant is a good place to start.
* * *
From 1986:
Cover-up at Three Mile Island
How Washington reacted to a nuclear disaster
BY Tom Leonard
Washington has cynically used the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant to launch an anti-Soviet propaganda campaign. At the heart of Washington's attack is criticism of the Soviet government's handling of the disaster.
But it would be hard to top the U.S. government's campaign of lies and cover-up when a near meltdown occurred at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Middletown, Pennsylvania, in 1979. Three Mile Island was the worst nuclear power plant accident in the United States so far. So blatant were Washington's lies that a New York Times/CBS survey at the time of the disaster found only 20 percent of those polled felt "public officials have been honest in telling the public all they know about the danger from the accident."
The night of March 29, plant managers also dumped 400,000 gallons of radioactive water resulting from the accident into the Susquehanna River. It was at this time that a member of the NRC repeated the liethat "the danger is over for the people off-site."
When asked about these new emissions and dumping of radioactive waste the following morning, March 30, the plant's management continued to cover up the danger. For example, when Metropolitan Edison's vice-president John Herbein was pressed for an answer by reporters, he arrogantly replied, "I don't know why we need to tell you anything we do."
That same morning three NRC commissioners were meeting to evaluate what was happening inside Three Mile Island. But their worries of a nuclear core meltdown were not made public until a partial transcript of their meeting was published nearly three weeks later on April14. All of them confessed to ignorance about what the plant's managers were doing to contain the potential meltdown. Commissioner Joseph Hendrie complained, "We are operating almost totally in the blind." Another meeting participant, Roger Mattson, was connected to the meeting by a phone from inside the plant. He complained about "too little information, too late unfortunately, and it is the same way every partial meltdown has gone."
It was March 30 by the time the NRC admitted in public that a meltdown was possible. However, after consulting with the White House, a press release was agreed to that played down the seriousness of the situation.
After the plant began to release radiation later that same day, the cover up began to be exposed. The new leak was followed by a statement from Pennsylvania Gov. Richard Thornburgh. He merely advised everyone within a lO·mile radius to stay indoors and keep windows shut. He also suggested pregnant women and children leave the area, but there was never an
organized evacuation. By this time, however, the extent of the danger was becoming generally known and many people wisely began to voluntarily evacuate. President James Carter visited the area. Parroting the lies of plant management, the NRC, and state officials, he said publicly that radiation levels were "safe for all concerned."
….weeks after the disaster began, the government admitted area residents would suffer from radioactive poisoning. On that day Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Joseph Califano told a Senate committee that as many as I 0 would die of cancer downwind from the plant.
Residents of nearby Harrisburg and people across the country and the world were outraged by the U.S. government's lies and complicity in the Three Mile Island cover-up. The disaster also convinced millions around the world to oppose the production of nuclear energy.
The lie that there are safe levels of radiation is still being peddled by the U.S. government. But as one anti-nuclear energy activist correctly pointed out during the events at Three Mile Island, "A little radiation is harmful. More radiation is more harmful."
This conservative estimate was challenged by many radiation experts. Prof. Ernest Sternglass at the University of Pittsburgh estimated that up to 2,500 deaths could result from radioactive krypton and xenon released at Three Mile Island. He also estimated that the rates of spontaneous abortions, birth defects, and leukemia would increase 20 to 50 percent.
This was evident after the disaster when 125,000 demonstrated in Washington, D.C. , on May 6, 1979, demanding "No nukes!" Prominent among the banners was a slogan that still holds true: "Uncle Sam lies about nuke safety."
Source: http://themilitant.com/1986/5019/MIL5019.pdf
* * *
From 1989:
Three Mile Island ten years later
BY Doug Jenness
Through the misty rain and leafless trees, the cooling towers of the nuclear power plant looked like phantoms. Only the yellow-blossomed forsythia on the riverbank seemed to offset the unreality of it all.
But it was real enough. A few days before, a meltdown in the core of one of the plant's two reactors had led to the worst accident in the history of the nuclear power industry in the United States.
Standing on the bank of the Susquehanna River on April 2, 1979, looking out at the Three Mile Island reactor, I and other Militant reporters couldn't see the radiation that had spewed out of those stacks or that had been dumped into the river. But in the 10 years since, the 700 percent increase in the cancer rate in Goldsboro, Pennsylvania, the nearest town to the damaged nuclear reactor, is testimony that it was there. So is the increase in deformed farm animals and misshapen vegetation in the surrounding area. Some 2,000 victims of cancer and other illnesses have sued the owners of the plant for damages.
The plant was crippled beyond repair, and even after 10 years and $1 billion dollars, the cleanup of the radioactive mess has still not been completed. And if the company gets its way, wrapping up the cleanup will mean leaving it in "monitored storage" for 90 years, not dismantling and removing the plant. It is also seeking Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval to get rid of 2.3 million gallons of mildly radioactive water by evaporation. This process, however, cannot remove radioactive tritium, which will be evaporated into the air with the water.
At the time of the Three Mile Island mishap, there were 72 operating nuclear plants, providing 11.4 percent of the country's electricity. Today there are 111, meeting 20 percent of electricity needs.
These figures, however, don't tell the whole story. All plants now running or approaching completion were or-dered six years or more before the accident, and there have been no new orders since 1978.
Widespread opposition to the hazards of nuclear energy has played a role in halting the expansion of nuclear powered plants. By forcing more stringent restrictions, construction of new plants has become very costly to the utilities owners.
But today the nuclear industry is preparing for a comeback. The U.S. Council for Energy Awareness, the industry's main lobbying group, recently stated, "Although initially seen as a major setback for commercial nuclear power, the accident in fact proved to be an impetus for change that has left the industry far stronger 10 years later."
Thomas Pigford, a professor at the University of California in Berkeley and a promoter of nuclear power, is even more blunt. "The accident," he wrote in a March 28 column in the New York Times, "was arguably a positive development. Without hurting anyone[!], it triggered a substantial change in nuclear utility management, emergency planning and, to a degree, regulation."
The 10-year hiatus in orders for plants, he said, "has given the industry time to evaluate the technical fixes mandated after the accident, refine designs for future plants and improve plant management. This means America's nuclear option potentially can be even stronger."
For this nuclear engineer, Three Mile Island was a victimless experiment, not the grim warning that awakened tens of millions around the world to the dangers inherent in nuclear-powered energy.
In the 10 years since that disaster, more than 26,000 accidents have occurred at nuclear plants in the United States, including some in which scores of workers have been contaminated by radioactive substances. While no accident has been as grave as the 1979 one in Pennsylvania, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency estimates that the chance over the next 20 years of another meltdown, or worse, is high.
Internationally, we have already seen a nuclear accident far more disastrous than Three Mile Island - the April 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl reactor in the Soviet Union….
Big business and their supporters, such as Professor Pigford, who are committed to nuclear power attempt to belittle the human costs of using this form of energy. But the stubborn truth is that nuclear reactors are exceedingly hazardous, and scientific knowledge and technology have not found any way, at least up until now, to make nuclear energy safe. The only course that can stop nuclear disasters is to shut down all the nuclear plants.
Source: http://themilitant.com/1989/5312/MIL5312.pdf
* * *
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments