FOSSIL FUEL OR NUCLEAR? Neither!
An Expression of Intent from Everglades Earth First!

by Hope Freid

The main focus of Everglades Earth First!, as noted in the May-June 2007 issue of Earth First! Journal, has been stopping the construction of two fossil fuel power plants that Florida Power and Light (FPL) proposed building in the Everglades bioregion. Recently the coal-fired plant in Glades County was defeated, leaving EEF!’s full attention available to battle the Loxahatchee proposal, which has increased to a 3,800 Megawatt natural gas/oil proposal.

The West County Energy Center (WCEC), as it’s called, would be built less than a quarter of a mile away from the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. At maximum capacity, the plant it would emit over 12 million tons of CO2 and suck up more than 8 and a half billion gallons of water per year--water which would not be cleaned and cycled back into the ecosystem, but deep well injected into the ground, below the aquifer, as wastewater. This wastewater could cause severe harm to the pristine waterways that are flowing below the ground and may even compromise drinking wells in the region as well.

During the course of EEF!'s battle against the Loxahatchee plant, however, FPL announced plans to expand their nuclear facilities in Miami-Dade and Saint Lucie Counties.

We came to realize that by focusing solely on CO2 and fossil fuels, we were leaving the door wide open for nuclear power to creep in as a viable alternative. This is a deadly mistake--one that Al Gore, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Florida's very own Governor Charlie Crist aren't likely to admit to. By fighting greenhouse gasses politicians get to look like they care about the environment (in a time when such a thing is actually considered chic), and by switching from one form of toxic energy to another industry giants such as FPL don't have to worry about the decreased profits that would come from sincere attempts at promoting energy conservation.

Despite the jokes about two-headed manatees, nuclear power is starting to be seen as a cure-all, a way to maintain our massively-consumptive lifestyles and still feel good about it. But there's a problem: nuclear plants aren't safe.

One of the byproducts of nuclear power is a radioactive isotope called Strontium-90 (Sr-90). Sr-90 has a half-life of 29 years and generates beta particles as it decays. Exposure to strontium can occur by simply breathing air, eating food, or drinking water--you can even be exposed by eating food that was grown in contaminated soil. [source: The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry]

Because the human body absorbs strontium as if it were calcium, Sr-90 is considered one of the most hazardous bone-seeking elements created in the nuclear fission. When Sr-90 accumulates in the bodies of pregnant women it is transported with calcium into the embryo and fetus, where it can either kill or mutate it via the emission of high energy electrons or beta particles. When Sr-90 collects near a person's bone marrow there is an increased risk of leukemia and many other forms of cancer and autoimmune diseases, especially in newborn infants and elderly adults. [source: "Strontium-90 and Human Health."]

In 2003, the Radiation and Public Health Project released a study concerning the levels of Sr-90 found in random samplings of baby teeth from people living near nuclear reactors. The study found that "in each state analyzed [one of which was Florida], the average Sr-90 concentration is highest in counties situated closest to nuclear reactors." [source: The Radiation and Public Health Project, "An Unexpected Rise in Strontium-90 in US Deciduous Teeth in the 1990s", March 2003]

The energy industry went to great lengths to discredit this study, blaming the Sr-90 levels on Chernobyl and nuclear weapons testing, even though the study itself noted that Sr-90 levels are rising and represent "the first sustained increase since the early 1960's, before atmospheric weapons tests were banned."

Between 1981 and 1996 health investigators found 28 cases of brain and central nervous system cancer in children in the Saint Lucie area. It was referred to as a "cancer cluster" and FPL faced litigation from two families who claimed that their children were affected by the emissions. To date, the issues have not been fully resolved. [source: "Parents Question 2 Boys' Cancer", Palm Beach Post, Sunday, August 14, 2005]

The environmental impacts of nuclear energy are enormous. Due to the radioactivity of the ore, uranium mining is by far the most environmentally problematic of any mining activity. During the 1950s, uranium deposits were discovered on Navajo reservations. Many Navajos became uranium miners and developed lung cancer after exposure to Radon-222, a natural decay product of uranium. [source: Gottlieb, LS; LA Husen (1982-04-01). "Lung cancer among Navajo uranium miners"] After the mining activities ceased, hundreds of abandoned mines were left abandoned and never cleaned up.

In 1979, in Church Rock, New Mexico, a tailing dam burst, sending eleven-hundred tons of radioactive mill wastes and ninety-million gallons of contaminated liquid pouring into the Rio Puerco River. [source: "Mining, the Environment, and Indigenous Development Conflicts." Saleem H. Ali, 2003. The University of Arizona Press. ] The Church Rock disaster is the largest radioactive spill in U.S. history and, to this day, that water supply is unusable.

What about the nuclear waste that doesn't spill? After 30 years of nuclear power, our country still does not have a working plan for long-term storage or disposal of nuclear waste. Instead, these deadly products are stored ad hoc at various sites throughout the nation. Bear in mind that any damage nuclear material does to humans it most certainly does to plants and animals as well.

By allowing the industry to replace oil, coal and natural gas with nuclear energy, we are paving the way for an entirely different sort of catastrophe, one that might not be as immediately evident.

We hope that all anti-fossil fuel activists will give this topic the attention it deserves and join us in our efforts to broaden the battlefield. We're not asking anybody to give up the fight against fossil fuels--we're still embroiled against the West County Energy Center, after all--but by being as all-encompassing as possible we stand a far better chance of moving forward in defense of Mother Earth.