Three-Mile Island's Legacy

Comments on the March 27, 2008 Press release from the Union of Concerned Scientists titled:

“Three Mile Island 29 Years Later: Nuclear Safety Problems Still Unresolved”

This press release expresses safety concerns related to the recent momentum towards constructing new nuclear power plants in the United States. The drive to construct new nuclear power plants is strong due the United States current reliance on imported oil and the recent terrorist and geopolitical conflicts which relate to ensuring these resources. Through this press release the Union of Concerned Scientists (Union) is waving a red flag that improvements in the safety of the operation of our existing nuclear fleet of power plants has not met the needs made obvious by the Three Mile Island accent on March 28, 1979. The Union also focuses on proposed new construction noting that usually newly installed systems and aged systems propose the highest risk of failure.

My main comment focuses on details. I tend to be a “splitter” and not a “lumper”. I usually want to know much more about and item of interest I read. The level of detail I want is not necessarily conducive to an effective press release. In this case the press release should have provided links to unbiased historical information and current studies. The lack of detailed information makes release seem to be more emotional than technical. The fact that the release was posted on the Union’s Web Page does allow related information to be found. Despite this the press release should have contained more detail to grab the readers attention, we already known that many people are concerned about the safety of existing and proposed nuclear power plants – but considering the demands for energy, increased nuclear power use seems inevitable.

The press release could have cited a recent article or other source that demonstrated the current momentum for new power plan construction as a counter point and need for action. The release could also have reviewed some of important facts of the Three Mile Island accent. These include: (1) there have been repeated prior problems left unaddressed, (2) major damage to the system occurred in only about 2 hours, (3) there were few checks and balances at the site either in operation or in news of the crises, (4) accuracy and honesty of communication was so uncertain President Carter (a trained naval nuclear engineer) visited the site, and (5) facility was constructed in the middle of one of America’s largest rivers (downstream transport of contaminants would make an even worse accident here be far worse than the recent BP oil spill).

The Press release should have at least laid out some goals to improve safe operation of existing facilities and to ensure safe operation of new facilities. It may have even pointed out ones which should be phase out – i.e. Three Mile Island – due to special risks. Means to address conflicts between decisions for profit versus safety, the primary cause of deaths and pollution form the recent BP spill could have been worked into the goals.

My last comment has to do with coverage. My Google search only revealed 34 sites listing the title of this press release – and none was a major newspaper. I only got 3 sites where the Google search engine picked up specific unique phrases from the release. I am surprised that the story did not receive much wider attention, especially with the recent attention to non-fossil fuel energy sources and concerns about organized terrorism.