‘Experts' Spin Nuke Safety Fairy Tale

By Morton S. Skorodin

The legislative season is over and pro-nuclear bills that were to be a shoo-in instead had to be tabled for next year's session for fear by their sponsors that they would be squashed.

Last February, I availed myself of the opportunity to present brief comments to the Energy and Utility Regulation Committee of theOklahoma House of Representatives in opposition to bills smoothing the way for nuclear power.

I had requested to present my understanding of the facts and their relevance as an expert witness based upon my training and many years experience as a physician with certification in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, and with special qualification in critical care. This request was denied, without a direct answer, but I was allowed to speak briefly as a member of the public.

The experience was an eye-opener, since I'd never spoken before a legislative entity. There were not enough seats for all the citizens present who wanted to observe. The meeting was organized by the Republican leaders. They had official witnesses on the pro-nuclear side. The people who oppose nuclear power were allowed none.

NUKE OPPONENTS CUT SHORT
During the public comment period both sides were to be allowed 10 minutes. The anti-nuclear people spoke first and were abruptly cut off at 8½ minutes without the courtesy of an explanation or apology. Then the very same witnesses for the pro-nuclear side spoke once again.

One of their witnesses stood out, Associate Professor Raman P. Singh, of the OSU-Tulsa Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering School. He was expressionless and spoke only briefly with vague and offhand comments and yet at the same time came across as authoritative. He acknowledged that he had grants from the Department of Energy[that's the cabinet-level department responsible for nuclear weapons, such as A-Bombs, H-Bombs, radioactive shells, etc.].

Professor Singh went on to state that he designed nuclear plants but also windmill blades. He said that he did not care whether we have nuclear energy, but we would have to have energy. In reality,Oklahoma actually exports energy.

Another inconvenient reality: Professor Singh has had recent funding of $418,430 for research projects based upon and requiring nuclear power to perform. He is a member of the American Nuclear Society.

NO SAFE DOSE OF RADIATION
He was on almost everything I said like a turkey on a June bug. [I say almost because he had no reply to the fact that nuclear radiationcauses abortion.] For example, I pointed out that the National Academy of Sciences declared that there is no safe dose of radiation no matter how low and this has been verified repeatedly.

He claimed, however, that the National Academy of Engineering had a position that low doses are safe. Think about that one. Would you go to an engineer for a hernia repair or high blood pressure treatment? In defense of the National Academy of Engineering, I have not been able to find any statement to that effect on their website.

In speaking to the legislators, I emphasized the role of radiation in causing the cancer epidemic, including the less common but increasingly significant thyroid cancer. Specifically, an epidemic occurred due to the Chernobyl disaster in what was formerly called the Soviet Union. Professor Singh indicated that this was due to political mistakes by the Soviets. That is, there is a simple, safe, and very inexpensive antidote for the airborne poison from nuclear power plants that can cause thyroid cancer. It's known as potassium iodide (KI), and the Soviet government did not provide it.

MAKING ANTIDOTE AVAILABLE
Here poor Professor Singh has unwittingly wandered into a thorny thicket. Though most European countries, capitalist and Stalinist, failed here, one country's government did come through here. InPoland, approximately seven million doses of this antidote, KI, were administered in time to prevent a thyroid cancer epidemic. Whatever else the Stalinists did in Poland, this has to be counted on the side of the angels.

But this is far away and long ago. What does this have to do with us?

Plenty. Right now, in theory at least, the U.S. government should make this antidote available for people living near nuclear power plants. There is such a program, sort of. However, it is not publicized, out of fear of panicking the public, and the responsibility is left to the states and Native American governments. See for yourself in that charming official U.S. government bureaucratic style:http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/ emerg-preparedne ss/protect- public/potassium -iodide.html. Or, http://tinyurl. com/ld3otn

TECH, NO LOGIC
Specifically: "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has revised a section of its emergency preparedness regulations. The revised rule requires that States* with a population within the 10-mile emergency planning zone [EPZ] of commercial nuclear power plants consider including potassium iodide as a protective measure for the general public to supplement sheltering and evacuation in the unlikely event of a severe nuclear power plant accident. *When used in this Web site, State includes Native American governments." This is worth emphasizing, as Native Americans are affected far out of proportion to their current numbers. Are you getting the idea about Professor Singh's approach? It's technologic, as in: TECH, NO LOGIC.

One final example will do. One of Professor Singh's arguments was that nuclear power is OK because the world's worst industrial disasterwas the Bhopal catastrophe, a chemical rather than nuclear event. That is like saying you won't take aspirin on a doctor's advice to prevent a heart attack because you might get cancer instead!

OUTRAGED BY FALSEHOODS
I discussed Professor Singh's comments with noted Indian researcher and writer Arun Shrivastava. He was outraged by Professor Singh's callous and untrue statements and, in particular, criticized the policy of the government of India with regard to its nuclear program.

He quickly outlined six reasons, in addition to the illnesses causing unnecessary
suffering and early death, why nuclear power must be rejected:
1] nuclear weapons proliferation [being inseparable from nuclear power];
2] no reactor is 100% safe and the potential for large-scale accidents can't be ruled out;
3] the nuclear waste problem will never be solved;
4] the financial risks including the requirement for government-provided insurance;
5] degradation of the fresh water by thermal, radioactive and chemical pollution; and
6] cheaper, cleaner and safer options for electricity generation are available and scalable with shorter gestation period.

Professor Singh, you are clearly accomplished and industrious. We like for
such people to come to Oklahoma. But don't come here to deceive and abuse us. There is a word for that: carpetbagger. Make it right with a sincere, contrite, and public apology to the people ofOklahoma.

- The author is a physician living in Stillwater