{"id":46777,"date":"2019-04-21T03:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-04-21T11:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/opinion\/opinion-doing-nuclear-energy-right-requires-global-paradigm-shift\/"},"modified":"2019-04-21T03:00:00","modified_gmt":"2019-04-21T11:00:00","slug":"opinion-doing-nuclear-energy-right-requires-global-paradigm-shift","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/opinion\/opinion-doing-nuclear-energy-right-requires-global-paradigm-shift\/","title":{"rendered":"Opinion: Doing nuclear energy right requires global paradigm shift"},"content":{"rendered":"
“The next generation of nuclear systems — known as advanced reactors” could help “feed the world’s appetite for energy with no emissions,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski claims in an opinion piece<\/a>.<\/p>\n Joshua S. Goldstein, Staffan A. Qvist and Steven Pinker think it can “save the world.” For them all to be right, we need a new model of cooperation between governments of the world, industry and the people both are supposed to serve.<\/p>\n First let me say Murkowski added another star to her independent streak. In a March opinion co-authored by Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, she acknowledged there’s “no question that climate change is real or that human activities are driving much of it.” She said advanced nuclear energy systems are among the “game-changing” technologies to mitigate it.<\/p>\n Goldstein et al had their views published in The New York Times three weeks ago. They argue that by replacing most of their fossil-fueled power plants with nuclear, France and Sweden have already proven “rapid decarbonization with economic and energy growth” is possible. But the high cost of building new plants and “an irrational dread among the public and many activists” are preventing that from happening in America.<\/p>\n [Opinion: Alaska welcomes EPA’s action plan on contaminated drinking water]<\/a><\/ins><\/p>\n New technologies like advanced reactors might overcome that first hurdle. But the second is complicated by justifiable mistrust of government officials and power plant owners. Neither have had public health and safety at the very top of their agenda.<\/p>\n The problem for the government stems from 20 years of nuclear weapons testing. About 100 atmospheric tests were conducted at the Nevada Proving Grounds. The Marshall Islands were the site of another 23. Throughout the test period and for years afterwards, the U.S. government denied that exposure to the radioactive fallout drastically increased the risks of cancer, leukemia and birth defects.<\/p>\n Similarly, people living in the vicinity of the Hanford, Washington nuclear weapons production site were never told of the risks from radiation exposure during routine operations, accidents and in some cases, intentional releases.<\/p>\n Nuclear power plants are obviously becoming safer, but operators haven’t always been honest when accidents have occurred.<\/p>\n