Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-2h6rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-20T06:33:45.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hazards of Nuclear Fission Power and the Choice of Alternatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

John T. Edsall
John T. Edsall
Affiliation:
President, VI International Congress of Biochemistry; Member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences; Professor of Biochemistry, Emeritus, Biological Laboratories of Harvard University, Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Nuclear fission reactors are widely regarded as the chief energy source of the future. This article holds that the hazards of such reactors, in comparison with other prospective energy sources, are unacceptably high. The biological effects of ionizing radiations, as analyzed in the recent BEIR Report (1972) of a committee of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, are briefly reviewed; the effects include genetic mutations, induction of cancer, and developmental abnormalities. Hazards are encountered at many stages in the process of nuclear power production: in the mining and processing of uranium, in the design and operation of the reactors, and in the handling, shipping, and storage, of the huge quantities of radioactive wastes produced by the reactors. Grave questions have been raised concerning the safety of the emergency core-cooling systems of present reactors; and the planned breeder reactors, which will contain great quantities of plutonium-239, are likely to be even more hazardous. Storage of radioactive wastes, away from all risks of environmental contamination, in order to be acceptable must be secure for about half-a-million years. No place on Earth has yet been found for which such safety can be guaranteed. Hazards of theft, sabotage, and war, are formidable threats to the future of nuclear fission power.

Use of fission power is not compulsory; present supplies of coal are adequate for two or three centuries, though its mining and use will require drastic steps to protect the environment, thereby raising costs. Alternative, and far less dangerously polluting, sources of large-scale energy production exist or can be developed: notably solar energy and probably nuclear fusion, where intensive research gives high promise of adequate systems for large-scale energy production within 20–30 years. Geothermal energy, though more limited in amount, is also promising. Great savings can also be made by reducing the extravagant use of energy, especially in such countries as the United States; and various conservation measures are indicated.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , Spring 1974 , pp. 21 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alfvén, H. (1972). Energy and Environment. Science and Public Affairs (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists), 28(5), pp. 5–8.Google Scholar
BEIR Report (1972). The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Report of the Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, Division of Medical Sciences, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Washington, D.C.: xiv + 217 pp.Google Scholar
Edsall, J. T. (1972). Nuclear Energy [with a reply by A. M. Weinberg]. Science, 178, p. 933.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ford, D. F. & Kendall, H. W. (1972). Nuclear safety. Environment (St. Louis), 14(7), pp. 2–9 and 48.Google Scholar
Ford, D. F. & Kendall, H. W. (1973). An Assessment of the Emergency Core Cooling Systems Rulemaking Hearing. Union of Concerned Scientists, P.O. Box 289, M.I.T. Branch Station, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139: [216] pp. [numbered separately for each chapter], duplicated from a typed original.Google Scholar
Ford, D. F., Hollocher, T. C., Kendall, H. W., Mackenzie, J. J., Scheinman, L. & Schurgin, A. S. (1973). The Nuclear Fuel Cycle. A Survey of the Public Health, Environmental and National Security Aspects of Nuclear Power. Union of Concerned Scientists, P.O. Box 289, M.I.T. Branch Station, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139: vi + 207 pp.Google Scholar
Gillette, R. (1972). Nuclear safety. [A series of four articles in] Science, 177, pp. 77–16, 867–71, 970–5, 1080–2.Google Scholar
Glaser, P. E. (1972). Solar Energy—an option for future energy production. Physics Teacher, 10, pp. 443–9.Google Scholar
Glueck, N. (1960). Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev. Grove Press, New York: xvi + 303 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Gofman, J. W. & Tamplin, A. (1972). Epidemiologic studies of carcinogenesis by ionizing radiations. Pp. 235–68 and discussion pp. 269–77 in Cam, Le et al. (q.v.).Google Scholar
Gough, W. C. & Eastlund, B. J. (1971). The prospects of fusion power. Scientific American, 224, pp. 50–64.Google Scholar
Hammond, A. L., Metz, W. D. & Maugh, T. D., II (1973). Energy and the Future. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.: xii + 184 pp.Google Scholar
Hickel, W. J. (1972). Geothermal Energy. Report ‘obtainable from the U. S. Government Printing Office,’ but author has so far been unable to obtain a copy.Google Scholar
Hirst, E. & Moyers, J. C. (1973). Efficiency of energy use in the United States. Science, 179, pp. 1299–1304.Google Scholar
Hoffman, A. R. & Inglis, D. R. (1972). [Review of] ‘Low-level Radiation’ by Sternglass, E. J.. Science and Public Affairs (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists), 28(10), pp. 45–52.Google Scholar
Holdren, J. & Herrera, P. (1971). Energy. The Sierra Club, San Francisco & New York: 252 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Lapp, R. E. (1973). The ultimate blackmail. New York Times Magazine, 4 February.Google Scholar
Le, L. M. Cam, Neyman, J. & Scott, E. L. (Eds) (1972). Proceedings of the Sixth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. Effects of Pollution on Health. University of California Press, Berkeley: xviii + 599 pp.Google Scholar
Lovins, A. B. (1972). The case against the fast breeder reactor. Science and Public Affairs (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists), 29(3), pp. 29–35.Google Scholar
NSF/NASA Panel, Energy (1973). Solar Energy as a National Resource. Report obtainable from the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland: vi + 85 pp.Google Scholar
Post, R. F. (1971). Fusion power. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (US), 68, pp. 1931–7.Google Scholar
Sternglass, E. J. (1972 a). Environmental radiation and human health. Pp. 145–232 in Cam, Le et al. (q.v.).Google Scholar
Sternglass, E. J. (1972 b). Low-level Radiation. Ballantine Books, New York: x + 214 pp.Google Scholar
Tinker, J. (1973). Breeders: risks Man dare not run. New Scientist, 57, pp. 473–6.Google Scholar
Tompkins, E. A., Hamilton, P. M. & Hoffmann, D. A. (1972). Infant mortality around three nuclear power reactors. Pp. 279–89 in Cam, Le et al. (q.v.).Google Scholar
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (1957). Theoretical Possibilities and Consequences of Major Accidents in Large Nuclear Power Plants. A report of 32 typed pages with 9 appendices: not a publication, though the author has been able to obtain a copy personally.Google Scholar
Weinberg, A. M. (1972). Social institutions and nuclear energy. Science, 177, p. 27.Google Scholar
Zeller, E. J., Saunders, D. F. & Angino, E. E. (1973). Putting radioactive wastes on ice: a proposal for an international radionuclide depository in Antarctica. Science and Public Affairs (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists), 29(1), pp. 4–9 and 50–52.Google Scholar