The first (known) meltdown of a nuclear power generator in the U.S.A. occurred in July of 1959 at the Santa Susana Field Laboratories in Simi Valley, CA. Since this accident pre-dated any regulation of the nuclear industry, no one will ever know how much radioactivity was strewn around as a result. Reasonable people guess the released amount was comparable to what happened at Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, but much less than the ongoing disaster at Fukushima.
The Simi Valley reactor was an experimental "fast-breeder" type, bizarrely cooled by liquefied metallic Sodium, a substance which will explode when doused with water, and burst into flame when exposed to air. Thousands of pounds of this laboratory curiosity remain unaccounted-for. Obviously it has all long since oxidized, and remains in the biosphere as Sodium ions, the familiar Sodium part of Sodium Chloride, table salt.
Except, of course, for such Sodium as absorbed a fast-moving neutron from the fast-breeder, turning into radioactive Sodium 24, which in view of a half-life measured in hours, has long since decayed to the radio stable Magnesium 24.
The point is, this was an experiment that only a national government had sufficient resources to undertake, that has already had disastrous results. And all this is exemplary of the "atomic cowboy" culture of the Santa Susana Laboratories, in which flammable materials, placed in barrels would be dropped into a pit and then ignited by being shot with rifles, a practice which continued, at least sporadically, into 1994.
The point is all commercial nuclear industries are also experimental. Whether it is nuclear power generation or nuclear detonation all nuclear industry is experimental. I refuse to go along with the status quo of painted euphemisms and call such a thing that can kill all life on the planet, a plant. No nuclear facility is a plant, they are all experiments.
Will top management of utility companies, people whose focus seldom reaches beyond the balance sheets of current quarter and perhaps one subsequent quarter, exercise an appropriate level of control on wastes that will be dangerously radioactive for dozens of thousands of years? Will the American nucpublic remain gullible enough to allow this nuclear experimentation, with all of us as subjects, and if so, for what fraction of those dozens of thousands of years? It's all part of the experiment.
For these reasons and myriad others, nuclear power and the nuclear industry are hereinafter referenced as nuclear experimentation and should be labeled nuclear experimentation by the scientific community and any analytical minds who might think accurate language is good and decent.
Every time a new discovery is made concerning nuclear experimentation it is found that it is even less sustainable business practice than ever portrayed. It becomes increasingly obvious that nuclear experimentation is more dangerous, more insidious, than ever portrayed; that the whole industry is based on lying about how costly it all is economically, environmentally, and for that matter, ethically. With hindsight it is also undeniable that the nuclear experimentation industry is based on lying about how costly it all is. If they can, they will obfuscate truth entirely. The works at Santa Susana laboratories didn't even tell their families downwind there might be something problematic in the air. Major fires went unreported as did the 1959 meltdown. Only after a similar meltdown at Three Mile Island was the extent of the Santa Susana experiment revealed.
Already nuclear experimentation has resulted in the destruction of a significant portion of Japan and a region in Europe through accidents alone at what is euphemistically called "plants.' The Fukushima inevitability of nuclear power generation has permanently altered the planet, some areas drastically. There have been two thousand nuclear detonations above and below ground, in the air and in the water, nowhere on the planet is untainted some areas have been devastated than others. You are in an experiment.
Even without further war and without further mechanical complication of nuclear power generation experiments, the process of containment of materials is actually impossible. Hanford, Washington is a leaking disaster zone simply because the radioactive materials cannot be handled and contained safely. The materials for the first nuclear detonations were developed there. Nuclear experimentation promises devastating consequences to future stability of life on the planet. If nuclear experimentation is not ceased, it could cease all life as we know it. This is not wild deduction, but actual fact. Nuclear experimentation promises devastating consequences for the future of all life on this planet. The gross amount of toxicity already constitutes an existential threat. In 1964, the Santa Susana laboratories launched SNAP-9A, which, "Failed to achieve orbit," and burned up while falling back into the atmosphere. Its plutonium reactor released toxins and poisoned life on the planet, poisoned us all, and added another little enhancement to the toxicity and carcinogenicity to our global environment. Several years ago, NASA launched a space vehicle that depended on a "slingshot maneuver" using the Earth's gravity to carry it deeper into space. It contained enough Plutonium to kill all of us or at least to give almost everyone a really bad case of cancer.
The time, energy and resources that have been invested into nuclear experimentation are likely incalculable. It is an industry of inhuman lies and practices, one which voids all consideration of clean air, clean water and healthy food. Where humanity would be today without nuclear experimentation is impossible to say, but without it, surely the planet would be less toxic and polluted. I submit that, simply because necessity is mother of invention, if it were not for nuclear experimentation humanity could already have free, or for all extents and purposes endless and harmless, power sources. Because we have nuclear power, because we have been induced to believe it is modern technology and not totally experimental and deadly, there has not been the impetus for the last sixty seven years to search out less deadly energy sources. Moreover, because of the oligarchical collectivism exhibited in the nuclear experimentation industry, from the subsidization of the Price Anderson Act onward, it's not so wild to suggest that energy alternatives are suppressed, since these subsidies of nuclear experimentation necessarily also act to suppress more desirable alternatives.
And I'm not talking about the conspiracies of suppression of solar power capability and suppression of electric vehicles, it's much bigger than that. There are ocean currents, not far offshore of the East Coast which could spin underwater "windmills' and turbines to generate enormous amounts of power, without dangerous repercussions. This power facility would indeed be "too cheap to meter', a slogan from the early days of nuclear experimentation. And harnessing energy from currents is just scratching the surface. But hell, why bother, when you got nuclear power? Wind, wave, solar and water power sources belittle nuclear experimentation, for they are safe and endless. Any source of power is better than nuclear experimentation, however none is as oligarchical.
The dangers of nuclear experimentation have always been belittled, while the benefits of nuclear experimentation have always been exaggerated. It is an industry of truth omission. It is the industry which most frequently states "there is no immediate danger to the public" and it is the one which most frequently lies about the public dangers it poses, to all life on Earth.
1 | 2