Book Review: Dirty Secrets of Nuclear Power in an Era of Climate Change by Brugge and Datesman

Book Review: Dirty Secrets of Nuclear Power in an Era of Climate Change by Doug Brugge and Aaron Datesman (copyright 2024). Forward by Dr. Helen Caldicott

Reviewed by Sharon and Ace Hoffman

Dirty Secrets of Nuclear Power in an Era of Climate Change summarizes a wide range of evidence regarding the dangers of nuclear power. The authors (Doug Brugge and Aaron Datesman) explain why nuclear power is not a solution to climate change, why it has never been cost-effective (and will never be), why more -- and possibly worse -- nuclear accidents are inevitable, and why the continued accumulation of nuclear waste is foolhardy and irresponsible.

"Dirty Secrets" also examines the social impacts of nuclear power and nuclear weapons proliferation, including exploitation of indigenous communities throughout the nuclear fuel cycle – from uranium mining to nuclear waste storage.

Both authors are scientists, and their rigorous evaluation of evidence highlights the flaws in various pro-nuclear arguments. Each chapter concludes with summary points of the more detailed analysis in the chapter, and includes references for readers interested in learning more.

A recurring theme in Dirty Secrets is that "science" and "regulations" are not the same thing. For example, Linear No Threshold (LNT) is a well-established scientific assumption that there is no safe level of radiation. However, regulations that purport to be based on LNT invariably allow some level of radiation to be added to the environment. Making matters worse, the standard definition of “background radiation” has expanded to include fallout from nuclear testing, emissions from nuclear power plants, and medical radiation exposures.

Dirty Secrets makes a distinction between the environmental and medical concerns regarding background radiation in order to clarify an important point: The environmental portion of background radiation is unavoidable, but that doesn’t mean it's harmless. For example, none of us can avoid naturally-occurring radioactive Potassium-40 (about 0.012 percent of total Potassium), because our bodies require Potassium. But as the authors explain, the unavoidable Potassium-40 doesn’t mean regulations should allow comparable releases of other radioactive isotopes such as Strontium-90.

Readers will find clear information in every chapter of Dirty Secrets. For example, chapter 6 (Three Mile Island:An Unresolved Paradox) reexamines data collected in the wake of the Three Mile Island (TMI) meltdown.

Dirty Secrets points out that if official estimates of radiation releases are accurate, two additional cancer deaths would be expected from TMI. Residents near TMI tell a different story – people getting cancer at an early age, miscarriages and birth defects for humans and animals, and deformed plants. The book explicitly considers the official position that any excess health effects to humans were caused by panic and asks the obvious question: how could panic impact plants?

In the wake of TMI, two groups of respected epidemiologists looked at the same data and drew completely different conclusions. One group was headed by Dr. Mervyn Susser from Columbia University, and found excess cancer deaths, but did not attribute those deaths to radiation from TMI.

The other group was headed by the late Dr. Steven Wing from the University of North Carolina (to whom Dirty Secrets is dedicated). Dr. Wing’s team analyzed Dr. Susser’s data and came to a completely different conclusion: that TMI might have been responsible for observed increases in lung cancer.

Dirty Secrets suggests several reasons for the different conclusions, including the willingness of Dr. Wing’s team to consider anecdotal evidence of individual radiation exposure. For example, some residents reported symptoms such as sunburn-like skin damage, a metallic taste in their mouth, and/or nausea in the immediate aftermath of the accident (these are well-known effects of exposure to high radiation doses).

In attempting to resolve the paradox of the different epidemiology conclusions, the authors of Dirty Secrets became interested in cytogenic studies (examination of chromosomes for failed DNA repairs). Cytogenic studies of people potentially exposed to radiation from TMI were proposed by the Pennsylvania Department of Health in 1979, but the authors found no evidence the studies were ever done.

Some cytogenic analysis was done in the mid-1990s by a group headed by a Russian scientist, Dr. Vladimir Shevchenko. Because chromosome aberrations are stable over time, the authors of Dirty Secrets are currently (2024) participating in an investigation that looks at cytogenic results for people who lived near TMI in 1979.

Delving even deeper into potential causes for observed medical effects from radiation exposure, Chapter 7 (Protracted Exposures May Be Misunderstood) proposes the “shot-noise” hypothesis. This hypothesis offers a possible mechanism for the observed supra-linear response to low-level radiation (see below).

The shot-noise hypothesis focuses on the timing of radioactive decays from internal (inhaled or ingested) beta-emitters and how that timing may impact the resulting biological response. Aaron Datesman, who is the primary author of Chapter 7, provided additional context in his excellent talk for Nuclear Energy Information Service’s (NEIS: https://neis.org/) “Night With the Experts” on November 21, 2024. (We’ve summarized our own understanding of the shot-noise hypothesis below.)

Brugge and Datesman make it clear that the shot-noise hypothesis for low-level radiation is currently unproven. In his NEIS talk (which will be made available at the NEIS website), Datesman suggested an experiment that could disprove the shot-noise hypothesis. In doing so, Datesman is adhering to the standard scientific method of attempting to disprove a hypothesis as a tool for determining whether it deserves additional study.

The authors applied similar scientific reasoning to their analysis of other aspects of nuclear power. Throughout the book they made rigorous attempts to evaluate all of the evidence even if it did not support their conclusions.

Dirty Secrets contains a lot of information that can be used to counter people who promote nuclear power as a solution to the climate crisis. In addition, it presents new theories that might explain some of the biological impacts of radiation, and provides important information about lesser-known studies concerning radiation damage in the wake of the TMI accident.

We highly recommend reading Dirty Secrets and using the book’s information to counter arguments from people who believe nuclear power has a role in slowing climate change.

The digital version of Dirty Secrets of Nuclear Power in an Era of Climate Change is available at no charge through Springer:

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-59595-0

---

Shot-noise Hypothesis (as interpreted by Sharon and Ace Hoffman)

The shot-noise hypothesis proposes that the supra-linear response to low doses of radiation from internal beta-emitters occurs because of several related factors:

Each beta decay is a high-energy event that lasts for approximately 1 nanosecond. The length and energy of beta emissions can help explain the mechanism for the shot-noise hypothesis.

OH radicals (aka HO or hydroxyl radicals) are one of the primary mechanisms for damage from internal beta emissions.

The shot-noise hypothesis theorizes that timing ("temporal effects") might account for the supra-linear response at very low levels of radiation exposure. According to Dirty Secrets, it takes the human body about two hours to repair a double-strand DNA break. If multiple beta decays occur in a small area during this period (which can occur when radionuclides are inhaled or ingested) the damage might not be repaired before another beta decay causes more damage.

The phrase “shot-noise,” used to describe this hypothesis, is based on the concept of shot-noise in electronics, where it describes random fluctuations in electrical flow that are observed in Direct Current (DC) circuits. These fluctuations result because electrons are actually discrete charges, and therefore, DC does not produce a continuous flow of electricity. Shot noise was discovered by Walter Schottky in 1918. Beta particles are high-energy electrons or positrons.

The shot-noise hypothesis relies on data from studies done immediately after the TMI accident, as well as the biological response to OH radicals, and specifics concerning how Xenon concentrates in the body.

---

Background on the Supra-Linear Response to Low-Level Radiation

A single radioactive decay can destroy or damage cells, which indicates there is no lower threshold for radiation damage. The supra-linear response to radiation at very low dose levels does not negate LNT at higher levels. Early researchers disagreed about whether there was a supra-linear response at low levels of radiation. Most notably, in 1969 former Manhattan Project scientist Dr. John W. Gofman disagreed with Dr. Ernest Sternglass about the extent of low-level radiation damage. (One of the authors of this review (Ace) spoke extensively with Gofman and also with Sternglass (and many other radiation experts) beginning in the 1970s.)

In 1969, Sternglass wrote an article asserting that fallout from bomb tests was responsible for 400,000 excess infant deaths in the United States during the 1950s and early 1960s. When asked to review Sternglass’s results, Gofman and his colleague Dr. Arthur Tamplin calculated 4,000 excess infant deaths from fallout. The Atomic Energy Commission tried to convince Gofman and Tamplin to refute Sternglass’s results without publishing their own estimate, which Gofman and Tamplin refused to do.

Over the next few decades, as more and more evidence about low-level radiation exposures became available, Gofman changed his mind about the supra-linear response. In an interview, he said: “I’ll say today—ten years later—the new evidence coming out suggests to me that Sternglass may have been right.” (https://ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/nwJWG.html)

In his 1990 book, “Radiation-Induced Cancer From Low-Dose Exposure” Gofman wrote: “The new A-bomb evidence shows, when all ages are considered together, that the cancer-hazard per dose-unit is more severe at LOW doses than at intermediate and high doses; the dose-response curve is supra-linear.” (https://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/chp3F.html)

---

San Onofre's ongoing tritium issues: Are they a significant health risk?

The nuclear industry refuses to understand the risks from radiation. This is, of course, intentional. The reality is that there is no such thing as a "trivial" release, all radiation damage is cumulative. Extremely low doses are almost certainly MORE dangerous relative to higher doses on a per-dose basis. This is known as a "supralinear" effect (see page 6 of my Code Killers book (free pdfs online, this is not a sales pitch!)). Supralinearity hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt yet because the effects of extremely low doses are hidden by all the other "assaults" on life from chemicals, diet, variations in people's health to begin with, and nobody has been able to design a proper test for it yet. However, the thing that convinces me it's correct is that the "minimum" radiation dose from any radioactive release (alpha, beta, gamma, neutron) is massive compared to the strength of any chemical bond in the body.

One emission from Tritium, which the industry (in the attached article, for example) ALWAYS describes as an "extremely low-dose beta emitter" (or words to that effect) will destroy thousands of chemical bonds when it occurs. When that tritium atom was originally part of a water molecule, it leaves behind an OH free radical, which does even more damage to the body and actually probably causes more damage than the beta emission itself. (But I'll talk more about the beta emission here anyway.)

First of all: The whole idea of calling ANY beta emission "low energy" just because its energy level might be a thousand times lower than a "high energy" beta emission is PURE PROPAGANDA. Why is this so? Let me explain:

A beta particle is a CHARGED PARTICLE. It's basically just an electron, with a negative charge of -1 like all electrons. That's enough charge when it passes by other electrons at high speed ("high speed" being a relative term, as I'll explain) to knock those other electrons out of their orbits. Thousands of electrons can be knocked away by a single beta emission. ANY beta emission, whether it's a low-energy emission or a high-energy emission. How does that work?

Here's how:

When ANY beta particle is emitted, whether a so-called low energy emission or a high one, that particle is traveling at about 99.7% the speed of light -- far faster than an alpha particle emission, for example, which "only" is about 98% the speed of light.

The beta particle (or "ray" if you prefer) is a charged particle, extremely small, and traveling very fast when first emitted. So it PASSES BY other atoms so fast that it's not near other atoms for very long, and DOESN'T have much or ANY effect on things it passes UNTIL it slows down. That's when virtually ALL the damage occurs. It would still be going very fast by "terrestrial" standards, but nothing like the 99.7% the speed of light.

Imagine passing a magnet over a bunch of nails. If you do it very, very quickly, the magnet won't pick up ANY of the nails or even move them around at all. But if you pass the magnet slowly over the nail, it will affect them all. It's basically the same thing for charged particles passing other charged particles. At nearly the speed of light, the beta particle (or "ray" as some prefer to call it) passes other atoms so quickly that nothing significant happens.

So both high and low-energy beta particles do more or less the same amount of damage because virtually ALL the damage is done at the end of the track, when the particle has slowed down significantly.

The nuclear industry NEVER mentions tritium without calling it a Low Energy Beta Emitter. And that's BS. Nuclear propaganda. The vast majority of workers in the nuclear industry have no idea what I'm talking about, but of course, this comes from experts I've talked to many times, including three Manhattan Project scientists. (At least two of them, specifically about Tritium, and the third founded the Health Physics Society.)

The small creatures of the world -- that our lives depend on (plankton, bees, everything in the food chain) are far more at risk from tritium than larger animals, and diluting the releases does nothing to prevent tritium from harming something or someone, it just spreads the danger out, as with all radiation releases that they "dilute" to "safe" levels. There are no safe levels of any radioactive substance. That said, I've had half a dozen CTs and PETs, mostly in the last five years. The doses were tens of thousands of times higher than anything I'll absorb from SanO. If there were no other safer, cheaper, better ways to generate electricity, society might choose to use nuclear power IF the operating releases were the only problem. But there ARE safer, cheaper, better ways to generate electricity, and the "spent" fuel that is left over is millions of times more hazardous that the "fresh" fuel that went into the reactor. In other words, SanO operated as a manufacturer of the most deadly poisons on earth for many decades, but fortunately, SO FAR, has only released what they call "trivial" amounts over the years. It's all the other stuff, in those canisters by the beach, that scares me the most.

One small fraction of one canister contains more radiation -- that can be released into the environment at any moment -- than all the continuous releases from SanO add up to, starting from Day One, Unit 1, the first day Unit 1 operated for the first time.

Lastly, let me address the question: Is your individual risk from SanO's tritium releases worth worrying about? Basically no.

If you smoke tobacco, that's far more likely to kill you than all the tritium releases from SanO, diluted as they are before they get to anyone. If you drive regularly any great distance, that risk of death or injury is far higher. If you are significantly overweight or don't exercise, your risk is far higher than whatever you've recieved or will recieve from all the tritium that SanO has ever released. Dilution as a solution to pollution does have its benefits (for locals, anyway)!

Is the radiation from a single cross-country airplane flight more dangerous than the cumulative effects of SanO's releases to local residents? Probably -- although exploding packages put on planes by terrorists is probably an even greater risk these days. Suicidal pilots have crashed several planes as well in the past few decades (not just on 9-11).

I worry about the spent fuel, and the possibility of an airplane crashing into it, a terrorist attack on it, or tsunamis and earthquakes far more than about the tritium releases -- but there is no EXCUSE for the lies the nuclear industry propagates about tritium or about "low level" radiation dangers generally.

I hope these comments help and I apologize for the length of this response. It's not a simple topic -- nothing about radiation damage is simple, that's why they've gotten away with releasing so much from bomb tests, and from the nuclear industry. Dilution has always been their solution to pollution, and it just doesn't work. We need the plankton and the bees to survive, too. Only a tiny amount of tritium is produced naturally.

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA
November 25, 2024

Review of Arjun Makhijani's 2023 book Exploring Tritium Dangers:
https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2024/11/book-review-exploring-tritium-dangers.html

---

Tritium exit sign (from NRC web site)

My 2007 essay on tritium:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/tritium/2007/ItsAllAboutTheDNA.htm
My 2006 essay (includes a glossary and some background):
http://animatedsoftware.com/environment/tritium/2006/EPATritiumStandard.htm
My first tritium essay (2004):
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/2004/TritiumComments%2020041223.htm

Book review: Exploring Tritium Dangers by Arjun Makhijani reviewed by Sharon and Ace Hoffman

"Exploring Tritium Dangers: Health and Ecosystem Risks of Internally Incorporated Radionuclides" by Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D. is a concise book packed with facts and figures.

Tritium is a radioactive form of Hydrogen with a half-life of 12.3 years. Tritium is easily absorbed and ingested as Tritiated water which is created when Tritium replaces one or, very rarely, both of the Hydrogen atoms in water (H2O) creating HTO/TTO. "Exploring Tritium Dangers" focuses on Tritium in the bodies of pregnant women, embryos, and fetuses.

Tritium decays by emitting a beta particle with an average charge of about 5.7KeV (5.7 thousand electron-volts (maximum about 18.6KeV)). Because it is a charged particle, a beta particle can disrupt other charged particles, such as electrons. The resulting damage can ionize atoms (i.e., knock an electron completely away from its atom), rearrange molecular structures, and/or break chemical bonds. A single Tritium decay can destroy thousands of chemical bonds.

The nuclear industry describes Tritium as a "weak" beta emitter, meaning Tritium's energy level is low compared to the energy level of most other beta emitters. For example, a Plutonium-239 beta particle has an average energy level of about 5.245 MeV -- nearly 1,000 times the average energy of a Tritium beta particle.

However, the idea that a "weak" beta-emitter causes proportionately less damage than a "strong" beta emitter is false, as described to this author by a retired scientist from Lawrence Livermore Labs. Here's how that happens: The affect of a beta particle on other charged particles is similar to the affect of a magnet passing quickly beneath a piece of paper covered with iron filings, but on an atomic scale. If the magnet is moved very very quickly, the filings on the piece of paper will hardly be disrupted at all. Similarly, the faster a beta particle is moving, the LESS likely it is to disrupt other charged particles.

The initial speed of a beta particle, around 99.7% the speed of light, is directly related to its energy level. But for both a high-energy beta particle and low-energy beta particle, most of their damage is done after they have slowed down, near the end of their track.

Because of this, when a Radiation Absorbed Dose ("RAD") is measured by total amount of energy released, Tritium actually causes MORE damage than a "stronger" beta-emitter! For one plutonium beta particle emitted, about a thousand tritium beta particles are emitted for the same total energy released.

According to the US EPA (https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-basics) "Beta particles ... can be stopped by a layer of clothing or by a thin layer of a substance such as aluminum. ...beta-emitters are most hazardous when they are inhaled or swallowed...".

As Exploring Tritium Dangers explains "Tritiated water...is chemically indistinguishable from ordinary (non-radioactive) water, which is the majority of the mass of animals and plants." Animals can consume Tritiated water in food and liquids. They can breath in Tritium gas and Tritiated water vapor, and absorb Tritium gas, Tritiated water, and Tritiated water vapor through their skin. Animals may also be exposed to beta particles emitted by organically-bound Tritium. For example, a person's bicep muscle or a vegetable that a person eats might contain organically-bound Tritium.

Exploring Tritium Dangers points out that "Tritium has a long enough half-life, 12.3 years, that it persists in the environment for decades (in diminishing amounts as it decays); yet its half-life is short enough that it is extremely radioactive. For a given mass, it is, for instance, about 150,000 times as radioactive, in terms of disintegrations per unit time, as Plutonium-239."

Exploring Tritium Dangers also warns about other types of damage Tritium can cause: "One of the ways that ionizing radiation ... damage living cells is by creating an excess of oxidants....In the specific case of Tritium, its beta particle emissions ionize molecules, including water, [which results in] the “hydroxyl radical” (OH), which is the most reactive of reactive oxygen species [ROS].... The 2006 National Academies report, BEIR VII, notes the potential for ROS to damage mitochondria ...".

All of these factors make Tritium one of the most dangerous radioactive elements. Therefore, controlling Tritium in the environment is an important public health issue. Exploring Tritium Dangers makes these concerns, and especially their impacts during pregnancy, frighteningly apparent.

As Exploring Tritium Dangers explains, one of the particular dangers of radionuclides during pregnancy is that the concentration of a radionuclide in the fetus may be significantly different than the concentration in the mother's body. These concentrations vary by radionuclide and by when the radionuclide is ingested by the mother. Different concentrations of specific elements in the mother and the fetus are impacted by multiple factors, including the highly selective transfer of elements across the placenta.

For Tritium, the concentration in the fetus is approximately 1.6 times the concentration in the mother's body regardless of whether the Tritium was ingested before or during pregnancy. The most obvious reason for this difference is that a fetus can be up to 90% water (depending on the stage of the pregnancy) while an adult human is approximately 60% water. In addition, the concentration of Hydrogen ions (some of which may be Tritium) differs between maternal blood and fetal blood.

Another factor impacting the potential damage from Tritium during pregnancy is that heavy metals such as lead and mercury can cross the placenta. Exploring Tritium Dangers points out that radioactive damage may interact with other types of damage and that "...precautionary standards ... for chemicals and radiation combined is a critical and urgent matter for public and environmental health."

Exploring Tritium Dangers includes an analysis of the damage that can occur when an embryo or a fetus is exposed to Tritium, and how the potential impacts, such as miscarriages, birth defects, future disease, and multi-generational damage, vary at different times during a pregnancy.

The nuclear industry likes to emphasize that Tritium is a naturally occurring radioactive substance. However, as Exploring Tritium Dangers explains, the vast majority of Tritium on Earth is the result of nuclear bomb tests and nuclear reactor emissions:

“The equilibrium natural inventory is about 3 kilograms, that is roughly 30 million curies.”

“The Tritium remaining from atmospheric testing is about 20 kilograms – or roughly 200 million curies ...”

“...the inventory of Tritium in the nuclear weapons ... is likely to be much larger than the natural and weapons testing amounts combined. ...some of this Tritium may leak into the environment.”

“...for U.S. reactors, Argonne National Laboratory estimates the annual production in a typical reactor to be 2 grams or about 20,000 curies.”

Whenever nuclear power plants release water -- in any form -- some Hydrogen atoms will be radioactive Tritium. As Exploring Tritium Dangers points out "a tightening of drinking water standards is urgently needed, especially for Tritium, which is ... routinely emitted and discharged ... from commercial nuclear facilities ... a tightening of the drinking water standard ... is all the more needed in view of the long neglect of protection of pregnant women and the embryo and fetus.".

Exploring Tritium Dangers is highly recommended.

Review by Sharon & Ace Hoffman
July 6, 2023

(Quotes are from Exploring Tritium Dangers unless specifically attributed to a different source.)

###

Every Nuclear Waste Factory and Nuclear Waste Dump Should Be Surrounded by Wind Turbines...for protection!

Think about how the terrorists on 9-11 flew the large commercial airliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Horizontally. The fourth plane was undoubtedly supposed to make an attack on the Capital itself, but was nearly taken over by several heroic passengers, so the terrorists simply dove the plane into the ground near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Thousands of suicidal Japanese kamikazi pilots during World War Two did it the same way: Diving only if they had to because the situation required it due to "ack-ack" (anti-aircraft fire coming up from the target area) or Allied fighters. Given a choice, it was always a horizontal attack on a ship.

Think about what kind of accuracy you would need to dive a commercial jetliner vertically into a reactor. You'd need practice to perform the maneuver, and you'd still need a good bit of luck to hit your mark, since you couldn't possibly practice in real life, with real wind and thermal conditions. Terrorists don't have the resources to rely on luck for their desired outcomes and must plan more carefully.

Because of these considerations, there is no BETTER way to protect nuclear waste factories (aka "reactors") or nuclear waste dumps (aka "Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations" or ISFSIs) from terrorist or even ACCIDENTAL airplane strikes...than surrounding the reactors or ISFSIs with...wind turbines! Who would have thunk it?

These wind turbines would have no effect on normal commercial flights, which are well above even the tallest wind turbine -- not that I have anything against tethered wind turbines that "float" in the upper atmosphere, which most certainly COULD be in the way of commercial airline traffic...except that traffic is all on preplanned routes, first of all, and second of all: We all need speedy cheap long-distance ground transportation.

Dedicated track national transportation systems are far safer per passenger mile than airplanes will ever be able to achieve, use far less energy, and you can't do any external damage (damage to other things) by hijacking a train -- especially an electric train that can be shut off remotely and might not even have a live operator on board! Have you ever tried to intimidate or threaten a machine?

By Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA

Why Change A Name? (re: Crane Clean Energy Center aka Three Mile Island)

Many years ago, after a mentally deranged and heavily drugged Congressman named Randall Cunningham (MY Congressman at the time) attempted to commit murder-suicide by smashing the car he was driving head-on into the one my wife and I were in, a friend noted that the assailant had five victories in his F4 Phantom jet while in Vietnam, and that I had thus beaten America's last "ace" pilot in a very deadly "game." (Shortly thereafter the San Diego County Supervisor was injured and the other person killed in a head-on collision.)

In his mind, Cunningham might have thought I was a North Vietnamese enemy pilot or something. (The full details of the event and the aftermath (such as it was) is available online under the title "Seven Seconds in San Marcos.")

After a friend pointed out that Cunningham had been an "ace," I changed my first name to "Ace" but I never thought about changing my last name. My father was a grunt under Patton in the Battle of the Bulge during WWII (he started in the Italian campaign, about six months before D-Day). After telling him the details, I had his permission to change my name, his wife's (my stepmother's) permission, my mother's permission and, of course my wife's permission as well. They all thought it was a reasonable thing to do under the circumstances.

There are far less reasonable circumstances someone might change a name, though. For example, in 1957 the nuclear reactor core caught fire at Britain’s Plutonium production facility, known as Windscale. It was one of the world's worst nuclear accidents ever. Despite massive ongoing cleanup efforts, Windscale is still contaminated, and continues to release radiation into environment.

But it is now known as Sellafield, to hide its horrible past.

There are now plans to rename Three Mile Island (TMI) as Crane Clean Energy Center, in at least as egregious an effort to whitewash America's own worst nuclear accident.

At the same time, they're trying to glorify a nuclear propagandist who made tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars promoting nuclear power.

Chris Crane was chief nuclear officer and later CEO of Exelon, the former parent company of CONstellation Energy, which is attempting to restart TMI Unit 1, which as been closed "permanently" due to its poor economics. Crane was also the former chair of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) and of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).

What are these organizations?

INPO is a nuclear-industry association formed in the wake of the TMI accident that monitors and evaluates “appropriate safety standards … at nuclear facilities”. Put another way, INPO insures that serious problems are discussed within the industry itself, but NOT among regulators and the public. That includes "problems" such as how to deal with known leakage issues, known deterioration issues, and...known activists who are stirring up trouble about something, be it a simple name change or a serious safety issue they'd rather ignore (such as rising sea levels, stronger hurricanes spawning dozens of tornadoes, cheaper alternative energy sources and so on).

Similarly, NEI is the nuclear industry’s lobbying organization, and its home page unabashedly proclaims: “NEI and its members promote the benefits of nuclear power … and educate lawmakers on industry issues.”

After Chris Crane’s death in April 2024, his legacy of pushing nuclear power is being used as an excuse to rename TMI, the site of one of the biggest environmental disasters in American history.

The authors of an article published by PennLive.com (see link below) think CONstellation has a re-branding problem, when in reality the company is attempting to rewrite history. It’s a CON job. The Nuclear Regulatory Agency describes the partial meltdown of TMI Unit 2 on March 28, 1979 as “the most serious accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history.”

No wonder the company wants to change the name!

The TMI accident was an unmitigated disaster caused by poor design, shoddy workmanship, poor training, and poor communication. During the accident, problems suddenly developed from a stuck valve, which ultimately caused a meltdown that didn't have to happen.

The nuclear industry wants people to forget that only a few specifics of the 1979 TMI accident are unique. A different sequence of events could happen at any nuclear reactor, anywhere in the world, any time with similarly catastrophic (or even worse) results.

According a 2019 article in World Nuclear News (WNN), the reasons for closing TMI Unit 1 (the reactor CONstellation is planning to reopen) were: "… economic challenges and the failure of the market to recognize the environmental and resiliency benefits of nuclear generation." (WNN is published by the World Nuclear Association, a nuclear-industry organization with an avowed purpose of facilitating " … the growth of the nuclear sector".)

WNN’s assessment denies the fact that nuclear power offers no net environmental benefit. The nuclear fuel cycle produces massive amounts of carbon effluent and radioactive contamination in every community involved in mining, enriching, and manufacturing reactor fuel. In addition, the reactors are built using massive amounts of concrete (a very carbon-intensive material) and other materials, and constantly release radioactivity into the environment.

Most importantly, nobody has a solution to storing the highly toxic nuclear waste. Whatever is eventually done with the waste, will inevitably also be bad for the environment. The idea that there are ANY "environmental benefits" of nuclear generation is truly ludicrous.

Nor is nuclear power resilient, as shown by the accident which permanently closed TMI Unit 2 a few months after opening, as well as hundreds of other unplanned shutdowns at U.S. reactors lasting from days to years and costing from millions to billions of dollars.

It’s commonly assumed that the accident at TMI is responsible for convincing U.S. corporations to turn away from new investments in nuclear power, at least for a while. However, according to “Dirty Secrets of Nuclear Power in an Era of Climate Change” by Doug Brugge and Aaron Datesman (copyright 2024), the economics of nuclear power, rather than fear of another accident may actually be responsible for the post-TMI slowdown in reactor orders. Brugge and Datesman suggest that "TMI simply gave the industry cover for its economic failure."

Whatever the reason for the downturn of nuclear power after the TMI accident, or for the recent efforts to revive the nuclear industry, we shouldn’t trust CONstellation to put safety ahead of profits. Nor should we trust the nuclear industry to do the impossible: Operate safely. Accidents will continue to happen, and when accidents happen to a nuclear reactor, radiation contaminates the environment. It's the basic definition of an accident at a nuclear facility.

The nuclear industry (both so-called commercial nuclear power and nuclear weapons) has a long history of propaganda – and of covering up accidents rather than cleaning them up. Perhaps the most famous attempt at propaganda is the "Atoms for Peace" program from the 1950s, which spread nuclear reactors (and, inevitably, nuclear weapons) worldwide.

There are thousands of contenders for the title of "most flagrant failure to properly clean up a nuclear accident."

Nuclear energy is not clean, nor is it carbon-free or cheap. It will not solve climate change, and nobody knows how to safely handle and store the nuclear waste -- including the remains of TMI Unit 2. According to the NRC:" “ … the reactor fuel and core debris [from TMI Unit 2] was shipped to the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory." Shipping part of the waste elsewhere doesn’t answer the question of what to do with the waste; it just moves part of the problem from Pennsylvania to Idaho.

Changing the name of TMI is the same sort of shell-game as shipping the waste to a different location. It doesn’t solve anything, it just makes it easier for the nuclear industry, captured regulators, and hoodwinked reporters to pretend that the problem doesn’t exist.

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA

---

Advertisement run by Commonwealth Edison after the TMI accident:

---

Link to PennLive.com article (subscription required for full text): (https://www.pennlive.com/news/2024/10/the-site-of-the-worst-nuclear-accident-in-us-history-is-poised-to-get-a-rebranding.html)

---

Below are my [mostly] unedited notes from the NRC hearing, up until just after some of the "interested parties" were invited to make two-minute comments.

---

How will the project help Pennsylvania's grid when all of the power is being sent to Microsoft?

The name change has already happened. Criminally. Not formally. They started using it anyway.

All timelines are tentative...

It was shut down for "economic reasons."

They then state they had "over 1,000 "mostly union" workers. (Apparently only 600 were "permanent" jobs). Renewables would higher more per dollar.

No mention of what the alternative energy options might be.

Spent fuel (about 1600 fuel assemblies in 46 casks) the ISFII is at the south end of the island, ready to pollute the entire river downstream.

CON man Liam O'Donoghue:

Reactor coolant removed but not from the reactor itself "for radiological reasons."

The main generators "look good."

A lot of parts were "opened to the atmosphere" so they're going to replace "the main transformers" which they've already ordered for delivery in 2025 / 2026.

When they shut down, they DID NOT expect to restart. Some systems were "abandoned."

The SGs were upgraded and the Alloy 690 they used is supposed to be better.

They tested all the SG tubes that were still available and they all seemed fine.

Some wear, as expected, was found in the SGs, but they felt it was normal wear.

NRC staffer Kerri Kavanagh wants to know who the contractors were for the SG replacement.

Liam has "over 30 years experience, most of that at TMI..." He says more than 100 people who worked there when the plant was running are still there and supposedly know the plant. They have monthly safety meetings and a strong safety culture, he says. And CONstellation has a large fleet to support them. Buried pipe "ISI", fire protection, etc.. they have experts in the company they can contact.

Peach Bottom upgrade was successful so there. CON can do anything. They did a refueling outage in 15 days (so they know how to rush jobs).

"For Three Mile Island excuse me Crane Clean Energy Center..."

"We know how we shut it down and we know how we can restart this."

"We have about eighty-eight system groups that we're evaluating for restarting."

They're walking around the systems and looking at them. "We want to get the plant back running, we want it to be safe..."

"We have an ISFSI now...that will need some changes..."

"Deficiencies due to abandonment...24 inch lines that were crushed...fuel oil tanks... polar crane...a list of things that have to be restored..."

NRC guy asks about abandoned projects that were scheduled to be repaired.

"We're looking at all that..."

NRC guy asks if they've looked at other reactor sites that have tried to restart... "Yes, we've looked at that...we've kept up with the industry...kept up with the fleet...we're absolutely reviewing it..."

One priority is "restoring" the reactor operators: finding, hiring, training... but they can hire back former employees, other people from the rest of CON...they've seen "a lot of interest" from former employees who want to come back, and lots of other CON employees want to come help, they say. Much of the "senior team" has been selected already...

"Indoctrination training...will be implemented throughout the organization..."

Restoration and training is being "done with INPO..."

Restoration of the simulator "is in progress and we're working to get it to certification condition...we're looking at May of next year..."

They invented the RQAP = Restoration Quality Assurance Program and they intend to submit the restoration plan to the NRC.

Mel Gray, NRC: "How to you benchmark your return-to-service process...?...You may have an aging management problem..."

"We have a process...we've been involved with EPRI...we are connected with Holtec and learning from their experience with the Palisades plant and incorporating that into our process..."

Yamir Diaz-Castillo: "What are your QA plans for transition to operation?"

"Our final QA plan will probably be submitted..."

"What you're submitting this month will be a bridging document...?" "Yes..."

...

Michael Norris (NRC) wants the emergency response plans to be turned in as soon as possible.

"We're aware..." "Okay, thank you."

"Decommissioning trust funds will NOT be used for restoration...(except for site restoration to a greenfield status)..." "We are continuing to use our trust fund money for spent fuel security costs..."

...

NRC: "Will Microsoft be your only customer?"

"We're not in a position to knowledgeably answer those questions."

That and the comment about 2009 SG manufacturers are the only "actionable items" the CON men identified from the hearing thus far.

The union guy then "rest assured" them they'd be coming back happily and "committed to seeing this project through." He then said they need nuclear to reach "carbon free" status in Pennsylvania. He then talked about how much generation the state will lose, and claims it will stabilize the grid for "16 states" and enable moving to a "carbon neutral" future. And that they have "confidence" in CONstellation.

---

The Nuclear Waste Administration Act (H.R.9786): Don't be fooled by its apparent purpose!

by Sharon and Ace Hoffman
October 17, 2024

Representative Mike Levin is sponsoring bill H.R.9786 - Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2024 (hereafter NWAA 2024). The bill seeks to create a new federal agency called the “Nuclear Waste Administration” (hereafter NWA).

NWAA 2024 is a blatant attempt to circumvent the rules forbidding interim storage of nuclear waste until a permanent repository is established. Note the terminology: “pending completion” in the following quote from SEC. 102. Purposes:

“… to provide for one or more Federal storage facilities for nuclear waste pending completion of a repository …”

Levin’s bill ignores the fact that nobody, anywhere in the world, has a viable solution to storing nuclear waste for the millennia it will remain dangerous to living things. The only reasonable approach we’ve heard is rolling stewardship as described by Dr. Gordon Edwards:

1. Stop making more waste.

2. Store the existing waste in retrievable storage.

3. Plan to retrieve and repackage the waste on a regular basis.

4. When in doubt, refer back to #1.

Dr. Edwards anticipates that waste would be repackaged approximately every 10-20 years, and points out that the goal is preemptive maintenance, not waiting for a leak to contaminate the environment.

Levin’s bill proposes an entirely new government structure to “plan” for nuclear waste disposal. His bill will make it easier to license new nuclear plants, extend the licenses of existing plants, and reopen plants that have been closed such as Palisades and Three Mile Island.

The proposed new agency greatly increases the number of people whose jobs depend on nuclear power’s continued existence. Instead of two agencies (the NRC and the DOE) we will have three. Instead of one politically appointed commission (the five NRC commissioners) we’ll have two (the NWA will have its own 5-person Nuclear Waste Oversight Board).

Instead of acknowledging that the first step is to stop making more nuclear waste, Levin is misleading his local constituents, who desperately want to remove San Onofre’s spent nuclear fuel from the dangerous location it is currently at, on the Pacific coast in an earthquake zone. Perhaps Levin’s bill will succeed in removing San Onofre’s spent fuel, but only at the cost of allowing the continued creation of more nuclear waste. This is not just selfish, it is short-sighted.

All of the current attempts at “consent-based” nuclear waste storage translate directly to “Not In My Backyard” (“NIMBY”). People have recognized that NIMBYism is an elitist attitude since at least the 1970s, and should see Levin’s bill for what it is. (Despite this fiasco, we are in Levin’s district and will continue to vote for him, because the alternative candidate is much worse.)

NWAA 2024 also muddies the water concerning when a site can begin accepting waste. Consider the following from SEC. 103. Definitions:

“The term “emergency delivery” means nuclear waste accepted by the Administrator for storage prior to the date provided in the contractual delivery commitment schedule [and] may include, at the discretion of the Administrator, nuclear waste that is required to be removed from a Department of Energy facility … to eliminate an imminent and serious threat to the health and safety of the public or the common defense and security.”

Apparently, the Administrator of the new NWA will have the power to store nuclear waste outside of the terms of a legally-binding contract. What does that mean for the communities where the waste would be stored? This definition seems to allow the NWA to unilaterally move nuclear waste, from a DOE facility for instance, to a proposed consent-based site before a contract has even been signed.

NWAA 2024 also includes the following attempt to redefine spent fuel in SEC. 104. Rule of construction:

“The use of the term “nuclear waste” in this Act to mean high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel does not mean (and shall not be construed to mean) that spent nuclear fuel is, or should be, classified as or otherwise considered to be “waste” or “radioactive waste” for purposes of this Act or any other law, including the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) (commonly known as the “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976”).”

One possible interpretation of these verbal gymnastics is an attempt to reclassify spent fuel so that it does not have to meet the requirements for storing radioactive waste, which is ridiculous. A more likely and far more dangerous interpretation is that spent fuel has some “useful” purpose and therefore is not waste. This obviously is referring to Plutonium 238 for nuclear weapons.

Bad as Levin’s bill is, we did not expect to find a hidden agenda aimed at encouraging reprocessing of spent fuel. President Carter banned reprocessing of spent fuel from commercial reactors in 1977. Although, this ban has been rescinded, there are currently no commercial reprocessing sites in the United States.

Nobody should be deceived by distinctions the bill tries to make between interim and permanent storage. The fine print of NWAA 2024 includes clear indications that the prohibitions against creating interim storage before a permanent repository exists will disappear as described in SEC. 306. Repositories:

“In selecting sites for site characterization as a repository, the Administrator shall give preference and priority to sites determined to be suitable for co-location of a storage facility and a repository.”

Reopening the entire question of where to site a “permanent repository” basically resets the clock and allows the nuclear industry to continue producing waste by pretending that at some (unknown) date in the future, the government will provide a way to store that waste. This is exactly how the false promise of Yucca Mountain enabled the nuclear industry for decades. While Yucca Mountain was the supposed solution, one of the rules governing scientific studies was that no other site could be considered. Levin’s bill will make all sites (with the possible exception of Yucca Mountain) eligible again and every attempt will be made to have the waste end up on Indigenous land.

Another concern with NWAA 2024 is who gets to decide where to put the waste. The bill repeatedly references three groups the NWA Administrator will need on his or her side:

* The Governor of the State in which the site is located

* The governing body of the affected unit of general local government

* The governing body of any affected Indian Tribe

We should be particularly worried about governors being considered as decision-makers in this context. Giving any governor this much power subverts the state government and potentially lets a very small number of people decide something that will impact everybody (including people outside the state that is the potential waste site).

The definition of “the affected unit of general local government” is also vague at best. Could this mean the mayor of a small town? The board of county supervisors? A homeowners association? A group of neighbors in an unincorporated area? What is the minimum number of people who can “approve” a nuclear waste site under this legislation?

NWAA 20224 also further blurs the line between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The following text is a red-flag that so-called commercial nuclear waste will be co-located with Defense Department waste. From SEC. 309. Defense waste:

“The Secretary [of Energy] shall arrange for the Administrator [of the NWA] to dispose of defense waste in a repository developed under this Act; and may arrange for the Administrator to store defense waste in storage facilities developed under this Act pending disposal in a repository. … The arrangements shall be covered by a memorandum of agreement between the Secretary [of Energy] and the Administrator [of the NWA].”

In case anybody is under the impression that a nuclear waste repository will be available soon, or that a waste disposal site anywhere could not impact people everywhere, consider the following text from SEC. 310. Transportation:

“The Administrator shall provide financial and technical assistance to a State or Indian Tribe … at least 5 years before the anticipated date on which the transport of nuclear waste through the jurisdiction of the State or Indian Tribe is to begin. ... monetary grants and contributions in-kind to assist States and Indian Tribes through whose jurisdiction the Administrator plans to transport nuclear waste for the purpose of acquiring equipment for responding to a transportation incident involving nuclear waste.”

Just what does it mean to provide equipment and training in case of a “transportation incident”? The nuclear industry has long ignored the reality that transportation accidents are inevitable, and clean-up is virtually impossible. What kind of equipment or training would be useful when a nuclear waste transport vehicle is trapped in a fire like the one that occurred in a Baltimore tunnel in 2001? What type of transport casks could survive a collapse such as the one that occurred on the I-35W bridge over the Mississippi River in 2007?

Even if the rest of Levin’s bill made sense, how long would it be before the first ounce of nuclear waste would be moved to a new site? Several decades seems like a very conservative estimate, and in the meantime, all the existing nuclear plants and new nuclear plants the government is determined to build will be producing more waste.

Mike Levin’s bill assumes that the Nuclear Waste Administration can do three things nobody else has done in the past 80 years: Find a place to safely store the waste, a technology to safely store the waste, and a way to safely move the waste (as specified in SEC. 504). Mission plan: “ ... operation of ... a storage facility not later than December 31, 2034; and a repository not later than December 31, 2060;”

NWAA 2024 mandates an operating interim storage facility in just over 10 years, and a permanent repository in less than 40 years. The initial date is obviously designed to convince people that nuclear power can play a role in meeting 2035 and 2050 climate-change milestones. The nuclear fuel cycle has no role in mitigating climate change. Furthermore, financial commitments to nuclear reduce available funding for clean energy technologies.

The bill’s timeline is unrealistic and ridiculous, but it’s also dangerous. The timeline enables the nuclear power and nuclear weapons industries to continue producing nuclear waste. It also lets the nuclear industry pretend there is a solution to an impossible problem and that the waste is a resource.

The very last section of NWAA 2024 tells us that Levin and his co-conspirators do not expect any limit to the production of nuclear waste. From SEC. 509. Application of volume limitation:

“The volume limitations described in the second and third sentences of section 114(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10134(d)) shall not apply to any repository to the extent that the consent agreement applicable to the repository provides for the disposal of a greater volume.”

The bill text is available here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/9786/text/ih

---

On November 26, 2024 a local concerned citizen recieved the following email from Mike Levin's staffperson. It is utterly ridiculous! I have trouble thinking anyone in government believes Mike Levin's bill can accomplish any of these claims. All it can do is keep the nuclear power plants producing waste for another umpteen years:

---

From: "Shafer, Amanda"

Subject: Responding to Your Questions on the Nuclear Waste Administration Act

Date: November 26, 2024 at 2:05:36 PM PST

[recipient name removed]

Cc: "Gilbert, Jonathan" , "Krahel, Kyle"

Hi ...,

Thanks for reaching out and sharing your thoughts on the Nuclear Waste Administration Act. Rep. Levin passed me your questions so that we can be sure to address them as we evaluate the legislation going forward.

Regarding your concerns about liability, right now, the federal government is liable for nuclear waste management and has failed to uphold its contractual obligations to take title to the waste, leaving it stranded at sites like SONGS all across the country. This failure has led the utility companies to sue the federal government every single year, leading to taxpayers having paid $11.1 billion to the utilities already and being on the hook for an estimated $37.6 billion in remaining liability. These taxpayer funds are paid to the utility companies because the federal government has failed to develop a workable solution. The legislation corrects this issue by developing that federal solution which would allow us to finally remove the waste from SONGS. It does not change who is liable.

Additionally, the bill would not allow for the government to take title to the waste while it remains at current sites, nor is the government currently authorized to do so. The intent is for the federal government to remove the waste from the nuclear power plants. Under the bill, the Nuclear Waste Administration would take ownership of the waste once there is a facility for it to be stored at. The Nuclear Waste Administration would also be responsible for siting and managing a permanent repository as part of an integrated waste management plan. This legislation would also enshrine into law a consent-based process for siting nuclear waste facilities, to ensure that communities are part of the collaborative process for identifying a site. It would also ensure that an integrated waste management plan includes adequate planning for the safe transportation of nuclear waste. The bill also creates an Oversight Board to ensure transparency and accountability to the public.

One of Rep. Levin’s top priorities in Congress is removing the waste from SONGS as quickly and as safely as possible. The legislation, as recommended by the SONGS Task Force Report, would help us achieve this.

I hope this helps answer your questions. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving!

Amanda Shafer

Senior Legislative Assistant | Rep. Mike Levin (CA-49)

---

World War III won't be nuclear...will it?

The answer is: It depends... It depends on who you ask. It depends on when you asked it. And it depends on what you meant by the question.

If you were listening to a broadcast from Tokyo in August, 1945, you wouldn't know what you were hearing. Nobody had ever dropped an atom bomb on anyone before. This is what Tokyo Radio reported after Hiroshima was bombed (right, top, from Fighter pilot Pierre Clostermann's 1952 book about WWII):

The horrors from the first two nuclear bombs were heavily censored for many years...

Eventually, even with knowledge of the horrors, nuclear war became normalized in the public's mind...even expected...

...and practiced. And studied. And America blew off over 1,000 nuclear bombs just so that, IF they ever got the chance to actually use one in war (again)... sometime... somewhere... they'd know the exact, or at least most probable, diameter of the fireball.

But that hasn't happened...at least, not yet.

No matter how much they practiced, they couldn't make "atomic" bombs big enough, so they made hydrogen bombs. Too big to explode on the continental United States (too many people would be shocked by how massive the blasts are, and many would have been directly impacted almost immediately by the radiation debris).

Ivy Mike was the first "full-scale" test of a thermonuclear device, or hydrogen bomb.

But bigger nuclear bombs weren't of any use in war anyway, and theatening them can't keep the peace either (it only caused Russia to explode the Czar Bomba, the largest thermonuclear device ever exploded at about 50 Megatons). Thermonuclear bombs are extremely filthy to test. Atmospheric testing was mostly halted in 1963, but "accidental" ("careless AND inevitable" is a much more appropriate description) venting of underground tests went on for decades afterwards. Testing continued by the United States until 1992, China and France until 1996, the Soviet Union until 1990 and the United Kingdom until 1991. Atmospheric tests by France ended in 1974. India and Pakistan haven't tested nuclear weapons since 1998. North Korea's last nuclear explosion was in 2017, by Donald Trump's bestie, Kim Jong-un, Supreme Leader of North Korea.

Some researchers realized that there was no place safe from nuclear war...which meant there were no safe nuclear installations of ANY sort...anywhere on earth.

But one thing could ALWAYS be said: The jobs paid well. And that worked out well for the nuclear navy, because they could promise their reactor operators high-paying jobs in the civilian nuclear industry after their tour of duty.

Unfortunately, their training didn't always apply, for example the Three Mile Island nuclear meltdown was caused, in part, because civilian nuclear reactors do not operate precisely the same as naval reactors. (Briefly, so-called "commercial" nuclear reactors are built for peak efficiency at producing megawatts of electricity, and they can be shut down for refueling or maintenance whenever they can't operate at peak efficiency (or more accurately, at peak profit). The nuclear navy reactors -- especially the submarine reactors -- are desgined and built for steady operation under all circumstances, come hell or high water (so to speak), including war.)

But mistakes happen with distressing regularity in the nuclear industry -- as in any industry, but mistakes in the nuclear industry can result in much more serious consequences than anywhere else.

The U.S. Navy has lost two nuclear submarines at sea. (Russia has lost seven...so far.)

Everywhere we turn, and every time we turn around, there is another nuclear nightmare.

This is the world we've earned...by pushing nuclear solutions for ANYTHING all over the world and jumping the gun (so to speak) on their use in the first place.

The author I quote at the beginning of this post flew fighter planes in World War Two and saw the worst weapons could do in a pre-nuclear world. I have both his books, and wasn't expecting to find anything about nuclear bombs when suddenly I came upon the section quoted. In short, the bombs didn't win the war. Period.

Look at the difference between the development and use of laser weapons and our use of nuclear weapons. We've made absolutely no attempt to deploy laser weapons. Laser GUIDED weapons -- yes -- ever since they got hold of a workable aiming system they could combine with a heads-up display for the cockpit (since both are necessary to make the system work).

But NOT laser weapons, where the laser itself is the weapon.

Why not? Maybe because we know what a horror that would be for the world. Suddenly everybody would have them, and use them, and war would become even far more ghastly than it always has been. Just like what happened with nuclear weapons, except it hasn't quite happened yet: Various countries stockpile nuclear weapons, but no one dares to use them because everybody knows the most likely result. Chaos that nobody wins.

Laser weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons...everybody wants to leave them off the table. One would have thought exploding cell phones would have stayed off the table too. Can anyone trust their own phone or electric car not to be remotely exploded now?

Of course we've been assured those were special devices that had gunpowder in them (and I assume it's true), but we've all seen modern phone batteries expand...and nobody can know for sure. What will this do to the electric car market? If Israel manages to explode any of those, the whole world WILL rethink electric vehicles, as they are currently wondering about their phones.

The "brave new world" keeps becoming more and more challenging for sane people to navigate. As if gun violence in America isn't bad enough all by itself.

There are a lot of war hawks in government. But within the military itself, there is far greater caution, and undoubtedly a gut feeling that billions of dollars are wasted each year on weapons that should never be used under any reasonably foreseeable circumstances. And even in a "worst case scenario" we have far more nuclear weapons than needed for any job except total annihilation of the planet.

Claiming nuclear weapons won World War II was all propaganda. Everything about nuclear anything is propaganda. Nuclear weapons don't make us safe from attacks against our own nuclear facilities, which produce nuclear waste we have no solution for.

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA October, 2024