Nuke Fears
The truth behind the hype.

By Kathryn Jean Lopez, NRO Executive Editor
October 25, 2001 8:30 a.m.

om Randall is director of the John P. McGovern, MD Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs at the National Center for Public Policy Research's Chicago office.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: We keep hearing that we're "lucky" that terrorists hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon and not, say the Indian Point nuclear-power plant outside of New York City; that the damage would have been on the scale of Chernobyl. Is that true? What would have likely happened if a passenger plane from Newark to California hit Indian Point?

Tom Randall: We have reviewed the vulnerability of nuclear plants with experts around the country and found virtually no danger that terrorists could cause any kind of threat to a reactor. Experts have explained to us that even if a 757 airliner hit, as unlikely as that is in the case of a relatively low-lying building, it would probably not penetrate the containment vessel and even if it did, the reactor vessel would still be intact.

Some members of the press have issued sketchy reports about an Argonne National Laboratory study detailing how a jetliner could blow up a nuclear reactor. These appear to be highly sensationalized and misleading reports.

The allusion to Chernobyl is completely irrelevant. That incident involved a type of reactor that uses graphite to mediate the reaction and it was a graphite fire that released the radiation. Reactors of that type are not used to generate electricity in this country.

Lopez: Currently, should Americans be at all worried if they are anywhere near a nuclear power plant?

Randall: Absolutely not. Recent media scares are completely unfounded. There are tens of thousands of sites, which we need not name here, which are far more attractive targets for terrorists and would inflict much greater damage and loss of human life. These other targets would also be far easier to attack.

Lopez: How many working nuclear power plants are there in the U.S.?

Randall: I do not have that number but nuclear energy does produce approximately 20 percent of our electricity.

Lopez: What is the government doing to protect them?

Randall: That is classified but appears to be more than adequate since reactors really do not require much in the way of extraordinary protection. They are built in such a way as to withstand incredible forces and, in the case of failure of some part of the system; they shut themselves down safely — as was the case at Three Mile Island some years ago.

Lopez: There was an "alert" at Three Mile Island last week. What was that about? Most people probably thought that was out of commission?

Randall: TMI I is still in operation. TMI II was shut down. It is important to note that the TMI II incident resulted in a negligible release of radiation. Investigators found that, though operators of the plant made nearly every possible mistake in handling the incident, the plant safely shut itself down. Much was made of the inconsequential release of radiation at TMI. However, we never hear about the release of radiation from coal-fired generators which, over time, is far greater than that from nuclear plants. In fact, the radiation released by the granite statues in Statuary Hall in the U.S. Capitol is above recommended limits but nothing is ever reported about it. Why? Because in all these cases, the radiation is harmless.

Lopez: Has anything about our post-September 11th reaction regarding nuclear power plants surprised you? Concerned you?

Randall: Yes on both counts. I am surprised at the gross misrepresentations, made in the media by alleged experts, of the vulnerability of nuclear reactors. My concern about this stems from our need to expand nuclear energy use if we are going to meet our future needs for electricity. Phony scares could cause public opinion to irrationally turn against nuclear power.

I suspect the people who issue the scares about nuclear plants and oppose their construction are really opposed to electricity and our modern society as a whole.

Lopez: Should this war on terrorism make us rethink nuclear energy? Or make us need it more?

Randall: Greater reliance on nuclear energy would provide the U.S. with greatly increased security. It would enable us to divert other energy sources to different uses, reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. For example, we could use natural gas to power vehicles, instead of using it to generate electricity. It is important to note that we now operate our natural-gas-production facilities at nearly full capacity. We also run our refineries at nearly full capacity. We are urged by environmentalists to reduce our use of coal. Therefore, expanded use of nuclear energy to generate electricity is essential.

Most importantly, and contrary to what is reported by most in the media, nuclear energy is a safe, completely non-polluting, and virtually unlimited source of electricity. New reactors and reprocessing facilities under development not only produce far less waste material, the material cannot be used for weapons and need only be stored for a fraction of the time of waste produced by current plants. These new plants can even be run on plutonium from decommissioned warheads, greatly decreasing the chances of nuclear proliferation.