Nuclear Crisis at Three Mile Island
Abstract
In March of 1979, just ten miles south of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the Nuclear Power Plant at Three Mile Island Unit 2 came close to nuclear melt down. Despite standards set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the plant ran for several years prior to the accident under poor conditions. Communication certainly played a role in this near tragedy, as two engineers had foreseen the consequences, but their advice went unheeded. Although most of the economic and social impacts of this incident were minimal, this unpleasant event ended the nuclear power industry in America.
Introduction
The plant at Three Mile Island was a headache from the start. The $700,000,000 project started out in New Jersey as Oyster Creek Unit Two for Jersey Central Power and Light. Unionized labor corruption, however, forced the parent company of Jersey Central, General Public Utilities, to move the site at a loss of 20 million dollars. The decision was made to move the plant despite the financial loss because the permit, which had taken ten years to obtain, would expire if the plant was not built soon. The plant would now reside just ten miles south of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania as Three Mile Island, Unit 2.
Every nuclear power plant is overseen by the NRC, which sets safety standards for all of the plants. But because of the “team player” atmosphere, safety regulations are often relaxed; testing deadlines are pushed back, and heads are turned when they probably should not be. So when Jim Creswell, an inspector at the NRC, notified his colleagues and superiors of the problems at Three Mile Island, he was told to give them more time to get things running smoothly. As time passed, though, thing...
... middle of paper ...
...
Perham, Christine. “EPA’s Role at Three Mile Island” EPA Journal October 1980 online www.epa.gov/history 4/22/03
Peterson, Cass. “Continuing Cleanup: $1 Bil. and Counting” Washington Post. Tuesday, March 28, 1989; Page A08
Presidential Commission. “Report on the Accident at Three Mile Island” 1980 online http://stellar-one.com/nuclear 4/22/03.
Talbot, Evelyn O., et al. "Mortality among the residents of the Three Mile Island accident area: 1979-1992." Environmental Health Perspectives, v.108, n.6, June 2000, pp. 545-552.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Committee (NRC). “Fact Sheet on Three Mile Island” 12/6/02 online www.nrc.gov 4/22/03
Wing, Steve et al. "A reevaluation of cancer incidence near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant: The collision of evidence and assumptions." Environmental Health Perspectives, v.105, n.1, January 1997, pp.52-57.
Three Mile Island should be shut down. The nuclear reactor was first built in 1968 but wasn't open
Clifford, Frank and Mary Beth Sheridan, Borderline Efforts on Pollution, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, June 30, 1997, 1.
Philip J. Landrigan and Jane B. McCammon. “Public Health Reports” (1974- ), Vol. 112, No. 6
City of Los Angeles Environmental Affairs Department. “L.A. Made a Difference!” Los Angeles, CA: US. 1998. www.cityofla.org/EAD/article3.htm
Dixon, Will. "Will Dixon's ECO 108 Site: Critical Analysis: The Case for Contamination." Will Dixon's ECO 108 Site: Critical Analysis: The Case for Contamination. Class Summary, Oct. 2010. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
"Estimated Exposures and Thyroid Doses Received by the American People from Iodine-131 in Fallout Following Nevada Atmospheric Nuclear Bomb Tests National Cancer Institute (NCI). 2002. June 2004.
US Enviromental Protection Agency. (2010, December 13). Retrieved January 20, 2011, from US EPA Human Health: http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=list.listByChapter&ch=49
“Respect for life.” Pamphlet by: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 2000. Student Resources in Context. Web. 9 Feb. 2014
Nuclear power is a relatively new method of supplying the ever growing population with the electricity that is required. Although the majority of people are unsure of how generation occurs, nuclear power provides roughly 17% of the world’s power. (Rich, Alex K...) This makes nuclear power a deciding factor in how the race progresses in technology and energy fabrication as it is able to produce mass amounts of electricity in short periods of time. The limit potential for nuclear power is unclear in not only energy but also weaponry and some medical uses. The fact that uranium and the radioactivity that comes with it are used in facilities and other inventions often lead people to distrust the inventions which, while not entirely un-called for, hinders progress and leads to fables and tales around nuclear energy, its creation, and the nuclear power plants that are springing up around the world. This causes nuclear facilities to slow in their development which only makes things worse because as things progress the facilities will only get increasingly safe as long as they are handled professionally. (Rich, Alex K…) Some of the slanderous fables around nuclear power include things like claiming that nuclear facilities cannot operate during droughts and water shortages. (Kharecha, Pushker…) While nuclear power is accompanied by several risks, it can also be the solution for various global strains and difficulties.
...nce World War II to the present day, the technology of nuclear power has increased significantly in terms of energy output and safety. The energy efficiency of nuclear power is far superior to its counterpart fossil fuel and renewable energy. Compared to fossil fuels, tiny amounts of fuel used by nuclear reactors is equivalent to a large sum of coal. This is a no brainer. Why mine a ton of coal when a little uranium can be used to gain the same amount of energy? Not only is it efficient, it’s safe to use. Used fuel is packed away in storage safely, so there isn’t any chance of radiation leaking out. In the present day, nuclear power incidents haven’t been occurring lately. Advancements in technology and equipment used have made nuclear energy a very reliable and safe source of energy. With today’s energy needs, nuclear power has the ability to keep up in the race.
Nuclear Energy has many proponents and much opposition. Many of the groups that oppose nuclear power have legitimate concerns, mainly with the dangers of nuclear material in relation with human health concerns and environmental troubles that are risked by allowing nuclear power plants to increase in number. Yet, many of these opposition groups have made outspoken and radical claims about the “hidden” motives of why nuclear power is promoted and subsidized by our federal government. For example, The Nuclear Information and Resource Service claim that the federal government has the intention of committing genocide against Native Americans because uranium mining is predominantly done on reservations. Another cry out by nuclear power opponents is the constant reliving of the few nuclear mishaps that occurred decades ago, at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. No doubt, past accidents have happened worldwide and are important reminders to not play around with nuclear material, but technology has improved as well, a fact opponents fail to consider. Many of these organizations feel that other sources should be used to supply America’s energy needs. These types of statements tag many opponents to nuclear energy as misinformed, out of touch with scientific facts, or just closed minded to the whole concept of nuclear power. On the other hand, the proponents of nuclear energy like President Bush see it as cheap, and environmentally friendly. As a result, President Bush passed the Comprehensive Energy Bill in 2005 that would increase production of all types of energy, including nuclear, by giving subsidies and tax breaks to nuclear power producers. Keeping safe America’s capabilities for generating electric power by way of nuclear e...
Magoc, Chris J. Environmental Issues in American History: A Reference Guide with Primary Documents. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2006. Print.
Undoubtedly the NRC is committed to protecting the public against nuclear products that may be inadvertently or deliberately released into the environment. To this end, the agency in collaboration with other governmental security agencies has invested tremendously in the security of nuclear plants within the United States. The agency has increased security at nuclear plants by upgrading the physical security plans of each respective nuclear facility, increasing security personnel and has heightened the restrictive access controls to all nuclear facilities (“Radiation and National,” 2014).
Max, N.E. 1969. Oil pollution and the law. Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
...i. "Environmental Pathways Of Potential Impacts To Human Health From Oil And Gas Development In Northeast British Columbia, Canada." Environmental Reviews 20.2 (2012): 122-134. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.