The question of nuclear power is a fascinating one. Nuclear power is a technology distinctly of the modern era. It fits well into the progression of history – water power gave way to coal power, which is logically followed by nuclear power. Each shows the harnessing of a “deeper” form of energy – first kinetic energy and momentum, then potential energy found in nuclear bonds, and finally the potential energy of nuclear binding. Each step along the way has introduced new dangers and poisons, but has also yielded greater rewards. But nuclear power hasn’t quite lived up to its predecessors in terms of economic revolution. Nuclear facilities have made themselves a significant part of our power supply, but not in the way various fossil fuels have. And with no new power plants since the 1970s, their position in the American power industry has stagnated.

Are the risks too great for the rewards? Although Chernobyl-type disasters are not thought possible with American reactors, the public doesn’t understand this. The real dangers of nuclear power are more subtle, and often poorly explained. Our Monday debate on nuclear power did a good job of going over them – the risks exist mostly in small-scale radiation leaks, the age of the reactors we currently have, and the need for constant vigilance.

So far the United States (and most of the world) has done well in dealing with these problems. Our largest nuclear incident resulted in no deaths. But as infrastructure ages, risks grow. There will come a time when we will have to decommission our nuclear plants and transition to another source of energy, but the question is when. At the debate I wasn’t convinced one way or another that the time to decommission Indian Point is now. It is true that the money of energy production could be redirected towards retrofitting houses for greater energy efficiency, as well as research for solar power. But in the meantime, New York will burn fossil fuels to make up the energy difference.

There are other options for improving efficiency. We could modernize the electrical grid, or encourage more people to move to cities, or make investments in public transit. In fact, it seems like it would be wise to pursue all of them, if we had the money (isn’t this where public works deficit spending would be most useful?). But until that happens, we’ll probably have to choose.

The most important priority seems to be the investment which will have the greatest return in the future, which is probably technology. With greater technology all of our future possibilities are expanded and amplified. In light of that, it’s a numbers game. Let’s assume there is nowhere else in the government’s budget to save money for technology, and assume that 2020 is when we will have retrofitted enough homes to break even in terms of carbon emissions from where we are now. If we invest the rest of the saved money in solar energy research, we need to improve our technology enough that we can make up for increased CO₂ emissions from 2012-2020.

This is all short term of course, and I hate to think in the short term. But from what I’ve read in the news lately, we need to start thinking about the short term, because the time of irreversible danger will not be part of the long term for much longer. The time for investment is coming to and end, so we’ve got to do as much as we can with the time and money we have left to us. Soon we will have to implement the best survival and adaptation strategies that we have, however crude or insightful they may be.

Ben, Dan, Demetra and Simon provided a riveting and contentious debate on the current state of affairs at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant.  The debate started off with Ben and Dan against nuclear power as a means of energy and Demetra and Simon for nuclear power.  However, as the debate went on the two sides came closer and closer together, rejecting portions of the opposing sides’ arguments, while slowly coming to accept others.  I rather liked seeing the open mindedness in the debate that allowed for the concession of some points and the redevelopment of each group’s initial stances.  Although this was a pleasant difference from other debates I have seen, especially in the past month, I would have liked to see both sides stick to their guns a little bit more and come out of the debate with more concrete stances on what the proper course of action should be currently.  Neither side seemed particularly set in their arguments, and while it can be said they were open minded, it can also be argued that they were weak in standing behind their platforms.  This confusion led to an overall interesting discussion, and I believe that as I said in class, both sides can agree that regardless of whether or not they support nuclear power as a source of energy, something needs to be done about the present state of affairs at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant.  As Jackie informed us, the power plant funds an annual fireworks show for the residents nearby the power plant.  Right off the bat that raises my suspicions about the power plant, and what is happening at Indian Point.  With all due respect to Demetra and Simon, after hearing the debate if I were to choose a side, I would have to side with the anti-nuclear power group.  What seems to be the only pertinent issue in the debate is the lack of proper care taken in the Indian Point plant, as it has seen a number of problems that have resulted in the shutting down of the plant.  Now, while it might be extreme to compare it to the events in Japan, it is relevant that information because it is important to examine the worst-case scenario in any issue like this.  What I gathered from the debate is that the Indian Point plant is not run as effectively, nor as safely as it should be run.  I am not sure that I am entirely against nuclear power on the whole, as France seems to have it together in this respect, but certainly we do not.  I believe that the plant should be shut down, at least for the time being, as it does not meet the standards that we as Americans should set for such plants.  Seeing as there are alternative and more advanced models of power plants, it seems almost stupid to continue to operate a power plant that is decades outdated, and has even the potential to risk the lives of any Americans, let alone (as Ben and Dan stated) so close to the largest metropolitan are in the United States.  With all these failures in the power plant, it is clear why Jackie gets her fireworks each year, as a form of bribe to hope the people around the plant do not fight the existence of such a volatile plant.

Reva McAulay

MHC 200 Weekly Response #12

11.26.12

I missed class Monday too, so since I missed the nuclear power debate I figured I’d just write about nuclear power.  Personally I think nuclear power sounds like a good option since its cleaner than fossil fuels but cheaper and more viable than renewable energy.  In all likelihood it would take nuclear and renewable sources to completely replace fossil fuels.  The danger of nuclear power does not really seem that large, as accidents are actually extremely rare. There have only been three ever, and only one was actually what I would consider a disaster.  Three Mile Island had an partial nuclear meltdown that was entirely contained, and if nuclear plants can be operated such that accidents are extremely rare and can be managed to the point of no damage, that seems entirely safe to me.  The Fukishima Daiichi accident in Japan last year resulted in several deaths and some high exposure to radiation, but was not a widespread problem.  Also, there are some ways to avoid such accidents, including not building in earthquake prone areas or designing plants to withstand strong earthquakes.

The Chernobyl accident really was a disaster, but part of that could be attributed to the design of the plant.  So newer plants would be safer, and the likelihood of a similar event would be much smaller. The way this describes it: (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/chernobyl.html) it looks like there were additional technological flaws that were responsible for the meltdown, like graphite tipped control rods.  All of the plants designed this way were changed after Chernobyl to avoid these.  There was also a human element to Chernobyl, but that was somebody actively making bad decisions, not an accident. That could be avoided by stricter guidelines or just hiring better people.  The article says that this accident could not have happened in the nuclear power plants used in the US due to the fact that US reactors have to be stable against a loss of water and increase in temperature, and to have a containment structure.

The big problem with nuclear power is that it ends up with all this radioactive waste.  It still might be a good short term solution, but if it were to go on long term there would be too much waste to dispose of safely.  Luckily nuclear power has a set timespan as the government only gives permits for plants to run for a certain amount of time, usually 30 to 40 years.

Ideally, a number of power plants could be built to help transition away from fossil fuels, and then by the time those plants were old enough to no longer be safe, alternative energy would be able to take over.  Because basically, putting in a massive amount of renewable energy right now might be possible but is extremely unlikely because it would require a huge amount of money and research, and nobody seems to be willing to invest in even a moderate amount of solar, wind, geothermal, or hydropower.  Nuclear power is known to work, so governments would be more willing to invest in it.

And as compared with coal, nuclear has the definite side effect of creating radioactive waste, and the highly unlikely side effect of a nuclear disaster.  Whereas coal has the definite side effect of causing a lot of pollution and health problems, and the likely side effect of causing global climate change.  As I said, it would only be a short term solution, but that works since nuclear power plants are only built to work for around 40 years.  After that long, hopefully other types of energy would be ready to take over.

            Opposition to nuclear power  in my opinion  seems to come from two sources: sensational emotions of the uninformed and an unwillingness to spend for the long term, whether the decision is prudent or not. While historical nuclear accidents are hard to forget, it is worth noting how rare the events are when factoring in the mass use of nuclear power, as well as the flawed systems where  the accidents actually occurred . Although the story of Chernobyl is absolutely chilling, it should be seen a reminder of the catastrophic potential of great negligence rather than the typical outcome of the use of nuclear power. While the potential for such events does need to be taken into account, it simply means the focus on properly funding and monitoring nuclear power operations must be paramount, not that nuclear power is inherently flawed.

            Of the renewable energy options currently available, nuclear energy is by far the most practical. While solar power may be a clean and safe alternative, current solar technology is too expensive for widespread application. Wind energy is simply a pipedream at the moment. Nuclear energy, however, is a safe, affordable and green energy source when done correctly. Although I can understand the rationale in shutting down existing nuclear power plants for being unsafe, I am on the side of improving them to safe levels, or if impossible issuing debt to build new safe ones, for as long as they are approached in a careful and logical manner they will be a worthwhile investment down the line.

            Though Ben and Dan gave an equally impressive argument as Demetra and Simon, and I took their issues into account when trying to make my own decision, I simply think that from a logical and long-term perspective, the pros of nuclear power outweigh the cons. I can fully understand and even argue Ben and Dan’s points, their solutions, such as re-equipping houses, simply did not seem to adequately address the grand scale of the problems facing us. In the specific case of Indian Point, while the plant has a mixed history, the problems do not seem overwhelmingly difficult to resolve.  A problem such as operator sleep deprivation seems like a relatively straightforward issue to address in comparison to the diminished air quality that would result from using sources such as coal to make up the energy production difference from closing the plant.

            For the foreseeable future, nuclear power seems like the most practical and logical option currently available to us, though I want to make sure to clarify that I do not see it as an ultimate solution. Once energy sources, such as solar energy or even hypothetically fission, are practical nuclear energy should be exchanged for even safer options, but for now it is the best we have available to us.

Alda Yuan

Professor Alexandratos

MHC 200

Week 12 Response

As to the debate, both sides did a great job of parsing words and defending their positions in a way that made it very hard to argue against. They used a strategy of giving in on certain points in order to take a stand on the more defensible ones. Interestingly enough, the result was that they ended up with positions that sounded so close together that had this been a real debate over a legislative matter for instance, a compromise could easily be reached. That to me says that the debate was carried out in a more constructive and meaningful way than most people go about the process of hashing out a dispute.

In general, nuclear power, whenever it is brought up, always causes controversy and heated discussion. It is hard to have a balanced debate for something so wrought with emotion on both sides of the question. It is hard additionally because there is a lot of evidence, both sensational and otherwise that each side can cite. For those who advocate in favor of nuclear energy, there are certainly a slew of studies and data supporting the position that it can solve all of our most pressing problems. Not only is it more efficient than fossil fuels, adopting nuclear energy on a large scale can drastically cut back on carbon emissions within a fairly short amount of time. The other side has only to point to incidents like that at Three Mile Island or of course, Chernobyl in order to generate support and muster up sympathy for their arguments. Just because it is a fairly obvious plea to emotion does not mean the argument possess no merit and just because it is mentioned so often does not mean that it does not remain a valid argument.

Indeed, it is important to note that nuclear energy, whether harvested to power homes or used to level cities, can be a real threat to human life.  It is certainly valid to compare our plants and safety regulations favorably to those in place in the Soviet Union and Japan but at some level, these do not address the real problem. The real issue is that there will always be human elements we cannot account for and accidents we did not see coming. Airtight lines of reasoning can their loopholes, foolproof plans can be foiled, fail safes can themselves fail. But most of the time, a breakdown along these lines will not have catastrophic consequences. Despite the many mechanisms in place, it is nonetheless possible for one small mistake to harm the lives of a huge amount of people. Of course, in most instances, it will be calculated that the odds of such mistakes occurring are low. And indeed, it might very well be but even low odds have to be considered when the costs could be so high.

Despite this, I am of the opinion that nuclear power can be a useful alternative, but only if it is thought of and designed to be a temporary solution to the permanent problem of high energy demand from countries both developed and otherwise. While it is true that other methods, like the retrofitting of homes, can be used to something of the same effect, they lack the concrete financial incentives of allowing private companies to help build, run and oversee nuclear plants. This is one area in which I think bureaucracy would be a boon. Having a variety of supervising committees and groups providing oversight will help to ensure maximum safety.

Old facilities like Indian Point should be phased out in favor of newer plants, ideally in areas as far away from population density as possible. This of course also becomes a monetary issue, as all things will. But if we are to indeed employ nuclear energy, no corners can be cut and no shortcuts taken for the potential costs are too high.

Seong Im Hong

November 26, 2012

‘Tis a Time for Reflections: Gasland and Emotional Engagement

            I missed class on Monday before Thanksgiving due to oversleeping, so wasn’t sure what to write about. Hence, on Thanksgiving after dinner, I watched Gasland by Josh Fox, the documentary that was mentioned while we were talking about hydrofracking. It was a bit long but definitely fascinating and powerful. (Robin, my foster mom, found the documentary so convincing that she got up midway through to shut off our gas-operated fireplace.) Looking back, there were many things that made this movie powerful—the visuals were striking, as was the narrative the director used to give the documentary a sense of flow and purpose.

One of the most powerful effects, however, was the use of personal stories. There was story of a woman whose father died of Pancreatic cancer after he spent a whole summer drinking from a contaminated spring. (The companies told them of the contamination months after it actually happened.) There were stories of towns across America that complained of water contaminated enough to be flammable and allegedly be harmful to people, causing migraines and dizziness. Of course, correlation does not equal causation. Maybe those maladies were incidental and/or were actually caused by the nocebo effect, kind of like the so-called Wind Turbine Syndrome. But the flammable water, at least, is an indicator that these complaints ought to be taken seriously.

By emotionally engaging the viewers, Fox definitely helped to put this issue on the table. With this documentary, he helped to redistribute this concern toward hydrofracking from the bourgeoisie New Yorkers (I’m still hung up on the implications of that Mark Ruffalo video, sorry!) to all Americans, whether they are celebrities in New York or they are those strapped for jobs in Nevada. As the film says toward the very end, my land is your land through the intricate network of streams and rivers that connect us all to each other. Even if I lease my parcel of land to hydrofracking, we are still affecting those who live outside those arbitrary boundaries.

And this (not your land is our land thing, but the whole emotional engagement bit the paragraph before) made me think: the greatest thing I learned from this class is to be less skeptical and a bit more engaged.

I remember that in the very first journal, I criticized Professor’s choice in comparing McDonald’s burger to rainforest after showing us the nasty vomit clip from Supersize Me. I still think that was a very deliberate emotional engagement/manipulation, but I understand now that if we think of the first lesson as part of an arc rather than an isolated class, the comparison was an effective “hook”. How else do you engage a class of 20-or-so 20-or-so-year-olds and leave a lasting impact with a required seminar class? Obviously, I didn’t have the benefit of hindsight then, so in the very beginning, I was a bit miffed by the emotional aspect of the lessons. (Oh Professor, could you ever forgive me for such sins?)

I can think of various moments throughout this year when I realized my growing tolerance/acceptance of emotional engagement. (I don’t know why I had so much trouble accepting the role of emotion. I suspect, though, this may be a result of my search for an identity. The easiest way to be something is to NOT be the opposite. In this case, I may have mistakenly thought emotional engagement the opposite of logic. But I’m not sure if they are truly opposites. And even if they are, they are better served together than separately.)

For example, I read the New York Times feature on Rachel Carson a couple of months ago. I remember reading this paragraph:

Carson knew that her target audience of popular readers included scores of housewives. She relied upon this ready army of concerned citizens both as sources who discovered robins and squirrels poisoned by pesticides outside their back doors and as readers to whom she had to appeal. Consider this indelible image of a squirrel: “The head and neck were outstretched, and the mouth often contained dirt, suggesting that the dying animal had been biting at the ground.” Carson then asks her readers, “By acquiescing in an act that causes such suffering to a living creature, who among us is not diminished as a human being?”

I think if I were reading this same paragraph a semester ago, I would have responded with distaste. Pshaw, I would’ve thought, emotions are cheap tools!

When I read it a couple of months ago, though, I was surprisingly more tolerant to the slightly purple hue to Carson’s prose. Emotions may be common tools, but they certainly don’t have to be cheap when it’s tempered by facts.

And, I think, this is the greatest and most lasting lesson I will take from this class so far. I may forget what RCRA stands for in another decade[*], but I doubt I will forget the value of emotional engagement any time soon.

I thought the debate was very interesting and engaging. Ben and Dan did a great job backing the case to shut down the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant while Simon and Demetra did an equally impressive job of saying why the plant should remain open. After listening to the intense discussion and reflecting on it for a few days, I think I support the use of nuclear power and believe the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant should remain open. I do believe however, that changes should be made to the facility to improve safety and security measures to help reduce the chances of incidents.

I am particularly wary about the human element of it all. I was told in my intro to psychology class that the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island disasters were caused by mistakes (poor judgment) made by sleep-deprived workers. More alert workers would not have made these mistakes. I think more measures should be taken to ensure employees are doing well psychologically and that they are alert. Perhaps installing random alertness/reaction time tests on the computers the employees are working on in the wee hours of the morning.

It was mentioned in the debate that the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant was rated the second worst nuclear facility in the nation. I was curious to see what was rated the worst, so I looked into it. As of 2012, Indian Point is now considered the worst and most dangerous nuclear facility. Second on this list is San Onofre in California. The third most dangerous facility is in Limerick, Pennsylvania. Interestingly, two of the three most dangerous nuclear facilities are located on the East Coast in fairly close proximity to one another.

Although I support the use of nuclear energy now, I am hopeful that we can develop safer, alternate forms of energy that would eradicate the need for nuclear power. I keep hearing and believing that our future lies in solar energy. We need to start harnessing the renewable power of the sun to provide our energy. Basically, the reason I support the continued operation of Indian Point is that I do not see any particularly feasible alternatives. That being said, I do agree that we should employ retrofitting to new homes. Why not try to limit our energy consumption? We should be looking to limit our energy output regardless of what type of energy we are relying on.

Going back to the point of sleep-deprived workers, sleep deprivation is becoming a huge problem. It seems that people are becoming less and less efficient and are suffering from health problems stemming from sleep deprivation including depression, diabetes, and hypertension. I am currently doing an internship where we enroll patients in studies in the emergency department of St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital, and I recently proposed a study looking at these possible problems stemming from sleep deprivation. Hopefully, this study will be implemented and correlations can be found in the emergency department population between these health problems and sleep deprivation and whether or not people are aware of what is happening. Many people think it is possible to work at maximum efficiency off of 5 hours of sleep a night, but in reality, you really need 8 hours a night.