You are on page 1of 3

The Unholy Connection

Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Waste Reprocessing and Nuclear Weapons

U.S. President Barack Obama’s vision of a nuclear weapons free world is indeed laudable as is his
treaty with Russia on weapons stockpile reduction and the communiqué issued at his April, 2010,
47-nation summit promising greater efforts to block "non-state actors" from obtaining nuclear
materials for "malicious purposes."

However, someone should tell him about the elephant in the room; that his encouragement and
financial assistance for the development of more nuclear energy in his own country runs directly
counter to his weapons-free world vision. (Some of the many negative aspects of nuclear energy
have been outlined in my “downsides” article).

You cannot build nuclear weapons without first having nuclear energy, which produces the
needed ingredients for atomic bombs. The world is already witnessing the frightening linkage
between nuclear energy and nuclear armaments in North Korea and Iran. The linkage is clear as is
the desire of additional countries to pursue nuclear energy development.

Referring to North Korea and Iran, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated that "Both
are countries whose actions contravene their international obligations. Both use violence and
intimidation to deprive their own citizens of fundamental rights. Both are serious threats to global
security. There is much at stake. If nuclear proliferation leads to the use of nuclear weapons,
whether by states or non-state actors, then no matter where the bombs are set off, the catastrophe
will be felt around the world." Absolutely! But, Mr. Harper should also be advocating the phase
out of nuclear energy, without which nuclear weapons development would not be possible.

Further proliferation of nuclear energy can bring the world even closer to the risk of nuclear bomb
making materials falling into the wrong hands. Nuclear energy expansion is likely to increase the
already dangerous potential for diversion of nuclear materials to unsavory terrorist groups around
the world. The more nuclear facilities–the more opportunities for nuclear terrorism.

And then, there is the unsolved problem of the irradiated fuel waste, which can be diverted to
nuclear weapons development. Producing more nuclear fuel waste without a truly acceptable
solution for its disposition is really quite unconscionable.

President Obama’s new “Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future.” is now in the
process of determining what to do about irradiated nuclear fuel wastes, now that Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, has essentially been eliminated as a potential underground repository site.

One option, the reprocessing of nuclear waste, will quite likely be a topic for discussion by the
Blue Ribbon Commission.
It is truly amazing how many nuclear energy advocates naively believe that all you need do with
nuclear waste is “recycle it.” to pave the way for a nuclear power “renaissance.” This simplistic
notion completely overlooks the harsh realities surrounding nuclear waste reprocessing.

Nuclear waste is anything but a nice, clean, green substance that can be recycled like yesterday
morning’s newspaper. Lethality and toxicity of this waste as well as its mind-boggling longevity
is well known. You cannot simply take the waste and easily convert it into fresh reactor fuel. You
cannot cool it off and stick it back into the reactor.

Reprocessing requires that you break up the deadly radioactive waste and extract the elements
you need, putting them through an unbelievably toxic “un-green” process to produce some
useable fuel for the reactor.

The process is well described by Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for
Nuclear Responsibility, CCNR. On his web site he says that “...separating plutonium from spent
fuel is a dangerous and a dirty business. First the fuel is chopped up, by remote control, behind
heavy lead shielding. These chopped-up pieces are then dissolved in boiling nitric acid, releasing
radioactive gases in the process. The plutonium is separated from the acid solution by chemical
means, leaving large quantities of high-level radioactive liquid waste and sludge behind. After it
has cooled down for several years, this liquid waste will have to be solidified for ultimate disposal,
while the separated plutonium is fabricated into nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons.”

As noted by Wikipedia, “reprocessing of civilian fuel has long been employed in Europe, at the
COGEMA La Hague site in France, the Sellafield site in the United Kingdom, the Mayak
Chemical Combine in Russia, and at sites such as the Tokai plant in Japan, the Tarapur plant in
India, and briefly at the West Valley Reprocessing Plant in the United States.”

Yes, some of those countries currently reprocess irradiated nuclear fuel rods. But it is becoming
increasingly apparent that the down sides of reprocessing far outweigh any of its perceived
advantages.

As Max S. Power (an analyst who worked on nuclear cleanup issues for two decades ), points
out, “...in the 1980s, (U.S.) Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment concluded ‘reprocessing’
which generates additional radioactive waste streams and involves operational risks of its own,
does not offer advantages that are sufficient to justify its use for waste management reasons
alone.’”

According to the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, “Reprocessing is the fundamental link
between a nuclear reactor and a plutonium bomb.” The Union of Concerned Scientists has noted
that “reprocessing would increase the ease of nuclear proliferation.”

Reprocessing is also responsible for considerable radioactive land and water pollution; for
example from the British and French reprocessing operations at Sellafield and La Hague
respectively. Originating from Sellafield sources, the Irish sea merits the dubious distinction of
being called the most radioactive body of water in the world. The Alliance for Nuclear
Accountability says that “France's reprocessing plant at La Hague routinely discharges into the
English Channel so-called low-level liquid radioactive waste which has contaminated seas as far
away as the Arctic Circle.”

Given these proliferation and environmental concerns, I hope that the President’s Blue Ribbon
Commission eliminates nuclear waste reprocessing from any serious consideration.

Most importantly, the Commission should recommend that further production of nuclear waste
itself be curtailed by the phase-out of nuclear energy, in favour of the many available truly
innovative renewable green energy and conservation measures.

The Great Canadian Nuclear Waste Saga: http://www.nukeshaft.ca

You might also like