I have been trying to understand why nuke power elicits such intensity of partisan feeling, polarised so sharply into "camps" or "sides"
I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
I think it certainly has something to do with the unprecedented destructive power of the technology; inmediate severe damage in a short timeframe (very perceptible to humans as "disaster", more so than the slo-mo kind) and yet persistent, lasting damage over timeframes so long as to be almost transhuman. inherently Apocalyptic I guess -- poker doesn't get much more high-stakes than this; and it's not a private gamble, as so many people in the plume path found out when the Chernobyl team fumbled the ball. the risk from nuclear technology is willynilly shared by (imposed) on all, even if the benefits are more locally constrained.
this sense of having risk imposed on one against one's will (and risk of a high order) I think is a major component of contranuke anger and passion... much as nonsmokers can get really, really angry about being obliged to breathe others' cigarette smoke... nuclear particles are about as invasive as it gets, wandering right through our cell walls; a very intimate form of turf violation. only in the last few years are people beginning to understand the degree to which industrial chemicals generally have violated the skin boundary and taken up permanent residence in our bodies; I think the moment of political anger on that issue is yet to come... The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
The health risks from food additives and vehicle exhaust are probably higher and more widespread than those from nuclear power, excluding Chernobyl, but since they are mostly self-inflicted they're ok I suppose. Like the camel-smoking anti-capitalist Barbara met in Athens recently. And when it comes to accidents, in London we recently had this reminder of the price of gasoline addiction:
In May 2006 Three Valleys Water announced that it had detected the fire retardant perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), used in fire fighting foam, in a ground water bore hole close to the Buncefield site. It stated that no water from this well entered the public water supply and that a nearby well and pumping station had been closed since the fire as a precaution. The chemical is a known health risk and the UK government had been about to ban its use. However just prior to the announcement the Drinking Water Inspectorate announced that it was increasing the safe level of the chemical in drinking water. This prompted the Hemel Hempstead MP, Mike Penning to accuse the government of changing the rules to suit the situation in which PFOS levels in drinking water in the area may rise in the future. (wiki)
nuclear particles are about as invasive as it gets, wandering right through our cell walls; a very intimate form of turf violation
PET scanning is non-invasive, but it does involve exposure to ionizing radiation. The total dose of radiation is small, however, usually around 7 mSv. This can be compared to 2.2 mSv average annual background radiation in the UK, 0.02 mSv for a chest X-Ray, up to 8 mSv for a CT scan of the chest, 2-6 mSv per annum for aircrew, and 7.8 mSv per annum background exposure in Cornwall (Data from UK National Radiological Protection Board). (wiki)
