I saw no commemoration of it here at dailykos. March 28, 1979, the nation was informed of a problem at the reactor at
Three Mile Island near Harrisburg Pennsylvania. I worked about 70 miles E - NE of the reactor, so while we not in the immediate danger zone, we were concerned if the containment building were breached that we would be downwind. It was frightening enough that I began smoking again, at least for a while.
I want to offer a very few thoughts and reflections, and then perhaps offer a question to ponder. I invite you take a few minutes to explore this event, of which some here will have no memory, and to think about the ways it has shaped our nation since.
Those of us concerned about nuclear reactors did worry about one in Pennsylvania, but it was not Three Mile Island. Further down the Susquehanna was another reactor, Peach Bottom, which was often described as an accident waiting to happen. There had been some difficulties with reactors, although there was little public knowledge - how many, for example, knew about the accident at the experimental reactor in
Idaho Falls in 1961 which lead to the death of 3 men who were so radioactive that they had to be buried in lead coffins?
Still, there was concern about the possibility of accidents, even though the industry tired to assure us that civilian reactors were safe. Perhaps we should have listened to the insurance industry, which was unwilling to provide on its own full coverage in the case of an accident at a nuclear reactor, and as a result we got the Price-Anderson Act which capped the maximum insurance on a reactor at $300 million with the Federal government having set up an additional funds, paid into by the reactor operators, to cover other costs up to a maximum.
Sometimes there is convergence of events which magnify an effect. A popular movie at the time, starring jack Lemmon and Jane Fonda, was The China Syndrome, about a problem at a mythical reactor in California. It was released only a few days before the incident. Fonda as a news woman had been visiting the site for a puff piece when there was a problem. Her cameraman - played by Michael Douglas, illegally kept filming. In a later scene he showed the film to someone who had previously worked in a reactor control room. What that man sees in the film is a possible problem with the coolant water. He explains what might happen if the reactor core is uncovered, that the core will heat up, melt through the floor. In theory it could melt all they way through the earth, hence the title, "The China Syndrome." In practice, it would burn down through until it hit groundwater, and would then spew out a massive amount of radioactive steam. In the movie when asked to describe the impact he says that it would contaminate an area the size of Pennsylvania. You can imagine the nervous laughter heard in movie theaters, especially for those of us who watched it in Keystone state.
Perhaps it was the coincidence of time between the movie and the incident, but shortly thereafter Fonda became an activist against nuclear power. That was used as a focus for a previously little known person to send out his minions and use her as the focal point to raise attention for their political causes. Soon we saw followers of Lyndon Larouche in the airports, often attacking Jane Fonda with two of her causes with signs like "Feed Jane Fonda to the Whales. Go Nuclear."
We were lucky. No significant leakage from containment occurred. Unlike at Chernobyl, there was no fire in the core, and the design of the site did allow all except a few noble gases to be contained. yes, there was venting of some radioactive gases, but human exposure was somewhat limited. But America was scared. It significantly cut support for nuclear reactors, people became concerned about how they would evacuate in the case of an incident in a heavily populated area. I note that this last point has become part of our current culture, as in this final season of The West Wing one key subplot has been a problem at a nuclear reactor in a heavily populated area of California, and the inability to quickly evacuate masses of people (something we also have seen with recent hurricanes).
The incident also struck a heavy blow against the nuclear power industry in this country. Let me quote a bit from the Wikipedia article linked to at the top of this diary:
There was also the psychological effect on the nation. Before the accident approximately seventy percent of the general public approved of nuclear power. After this accident, support for nuclear power across the country fell to about fifty percent, where it has remained.
The 1979 TMI accident did not, however, initiate the demise of the U.S. nuclear power industry. As a result of post-oil-shock analysis and conclusions of overcapacity, 40 planned nuclear power plants had already been canceled between 1973 and 1979. No U.S. nuclear power plant had been authorized to begin construction since the year prior to TMI. Nonetheless, TMI added a clearly strong impact on this demise: Of 129 plants approved at the time of TMI just 53 of those not already operating were ever completed. Federal requirements became more stringent, local opposition became more strident, and construction times were vastly lengthened.
There are others who contribute here far more qualified to discuss the technical issues of nuclear power. My training has been as a musician, a computer programmer and analyst, and as a teacher. Ironically, in my time functioning with computers I had a direct connection with TMI. At the time it happened I worked for what was then the world's largest vendor of project management software. One of our customers was General Public Utilities, the operator of the reactor. Another was Babcock and Wilcox, who build the containment vessel if memory serves, or perhaps it was the reactor itself. Whatever. I am as noted not an expert.
I do note that other countries get a far greater percentage of their power from nuclear than do we, that we potentially could cut our dependence on imported oil had we more electricity from non-petroleum sources and if a significant portion of our vehicle fleet was at least partially fueled by plug-in electric or plug-in/hybrid engines. I have heard arguments about how greater use of nuclear power could significantly decrease the amount of greenhouse gases our society produces. I am aware of the various kinds of destruction caused by heavy reliance upon coal.
Still, for many of us our attitude towards nuclear is heavily influenced by the two wellknown nuclear incidents, the domestic one at Three Mile Island, and the later catastrophe in April of 1986 in Chernobyl. We will soon face the 20th anniversary of that event, effects of which are still with us. Perhaps at that time someone with the technical and/or historical expertise to address the issue will be kind enough to devote a diary or two to the subject.
Meanwhile, I remain concerned about nuclear power. We still have not successfully addressed the issue of safe storage of radioactive waste, which is far more than the nonproductive elements of the core, it is also the brittle metal of containment vessels, it is all kinds of subsidiary stuff. I remember when the first nuclear plant, in Shippensport PA, was disassembled and the material put on a barge and moved out. As more and more reactors approach the end of their useful life, what will we do with them? Will we encase them in concrete and lead and entomb them onsite? Are we as yet prepared to replace their generating capacity, and if so with what?
Yesterday was an important anniversary. I did not want it to pass totally unnoticed.