The movement to shut down Pilgrim nuclear power plant seems finally to be taking off. All 14 of the towns who have voted on it have voted to that effect. A poll shows a great majority of us afraid of Pilgrim. The May 19th demonstration in Plymouth was the largest so far.
If ever a region had the legitimate right to cry NIMBY, Cape Cod and the islands is it. If what happened in Fukushima were to happen here, we would all suffer the consequences of nuclear exposure. For the terrible meaning of this, look up Chernobyl and Fukushima online.
But unlike those tragic sites where hundreds of thousands had to be evacuated, if too late for many, evacuation would not be possible for Cape and islanders. Hence the black humor bumper stickers, “Evacuation plan: swim east.”
“Between the devil and the deep blue sea,” indeed.
And when eventually rescued by whatever means, it might be possibly never to return to a peninsula that, like Chernobyl and Fukushima, would be rendered indefinitely uninhabitable.
The chances of an accident here? Miniscule, reassures the NRC. Not to worry. Given the established track record of the Fukushima sort of reactor, which is also the Pilgrim sort: 4 in 34. (And presumably getting worse as these reactors age from 40-60 years.)
“Accident” of course needs an asterisk. Like oil spills and coal mine cave-ins, the infrequent but devastating meltdowns are not accidents in the usual sense but predictable consequences of choosing this sort of power, a cost of doing business. MIT scientists have estimated that at least four serious nuclear “accidents” would be expected over the next 35 years, an average of one every eight years worldwide.
But the insistence that Pilgrim be shut down goes way beyond NIMBY. Nuclear power has been p roblematic from the start. The issue of its viability is being fought worldwide.
On the one hand is France’s commitment to nuclear power as a way of achieving energy independence. Lacking much fossil fuel to abuse, France gets 80% of its power from nuclear plants and is going for more. They have decided to trust engineers to come up with a solution to the seemingly insoluble waste disposal issue.
Can 50 million Frenchmen be wrong? Maybe. Neighboring Germany is going in the opposite direction. They (like the U.S.) have never gotten past around 20 % dependence on nukes and since Fukushima they have committed to replacing that with alternative sources like solar, in which they have become a world leader.
The Cape and Islands’ own plight aside, the world has options.
The fact is, as Germany sees and France has chosen not to, we are not forced to accept the dysfunctional and frightening technology of nuclear power here or anywhere. As Sen. Wolf pointed out in a meeting in Wellfleet recently, we don’t really need Pilgrim’s 14% of all the commonwealth’s power. We are already committed to increasing the “green,” portion. What better motivation than to replace that 14 % with wind, solar and tidal.
A popular reason for learning to get along with nuclear power is the idea that nuclear power replaces fossil fuels and is therefore a good guy in the fight against climate change. But nuclear power is a “green” source only in a very perverted way of looking at it. The fight to shut down Pilgrim and the fight to combat climate change with benign, green alternatives are the same fight.
“Not in any backyard anywhere” would seem to be the logical, humane choice.
It comes down to how we want to live, here or anywhere else: Here the fear of what lies upwind (let alone an actual meltdown), when it begins to sink in, as it seems to be doing, changes everything. It is a pollution of our vaunted quality of life that makes another big box store seem a minor thing.
That most of us have lived apparently comfortably enough with Pilgrim for 41 years suggests a failure of imagination. It takes imagination to overcome denial, to think about the unthinkable. But also to imagine another alternative: a fear-free power source.
There is no logic to fearing something you don’t understand. It’s a fear based on ignorance. It very much reminds me of the old saw “When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.”
Reading the anti-nuclear propaganda tells you nothing of the measures that are in place to keep your worst fears from happening. When ever a nuclear plant has been taken to court and the rigor of jurisprudence has been applied to the arguments, the anti-nuclear arguments have never prevailed. You should ask yourself why this is.
You could attempt to inform the public rather than scare them. If nothing else, you should admit that you don’t know what you are talking about.