At 4:00 AM on March 28, 1979, a reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear power facility near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, suddenly overheated, releasing radioactive gases.
Before the 1979 accident at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island, few had heard of the nuclear power plant on the Susquehanna River. But the crisis…quickly turned the plant and its giant cooling towers into icons in the long national argument over the safety of nuclear energy.
The initial information from the accident in the Unit 2 reactor was sketchy and contradictory. The utility company that ran the plant said the situation was manageable. But officials from mayor’s offices to the Oval Office worried about possible complications that would shower radioactivity on the small communities around Three Mile Island — or perhaps even farther. Government engineers feared that the reactor’s nuclear fuel would melt out of its thick steel and cement encasement, or that a hydrogen gas bubble in the core would explode.
In Harrisburg, less than 10 miles away, the state’s new governor struggled with conflicting advice on whether to begin an evacuation that might affect more than 600,000 people. In Washington, 100 miles south, federal regulators anxiously sought reliable information to guide local authorities and the president, former nuclear engineer Jimmy Carter.
In the two decades since Three Mile Island, the plant has become a rallying symbol for the anti-nuclear movement. But the nuclear power industry, which has not built a single new plant in the United States since 1979, says the accident showed that its safety systems worked, even in the most extreme circumstances.
There is a great deal of information about Three Mile Island on the net. The Washington Post published an extensive review on the 20th anniversary of the incident in 1999, from which the above is excerpted. Frontline has the 1996 ruling dismissing legal claims for radiation health hazards in the community. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a Fact Sheet on The Accident at Three Mile Island.
Having been a reactor operator on a nuclear submarine, and being very familiar with how that reactor worked, I can say that nuclear reactors can be built safely. The naval reactors are designed so that in the event of any type of malfunction they are automatically shutdown. There are triple and sometimes quadruple redundancy systems to ensure that is the case. Also the way they are designed just overheating causes the reactor to shut itself down. The reactor is completely contained and has very little or no waste. And this is all technology from the 70’s!
I think that if the public could get over their fear of nuclear power it would solve much of our energy problems. Then again I suppose the people in the position to change public opinion don’t want to solve any energy problems, it wouldn’t be profitable for them.
just my humble opinion
FYI: I work in the U.S. nuclear industry, where we see the effects of TMI every day – some good,some bad. My prinicipal concern when there is public talk of nuclear is that it is very difficult to understand the real industry unless you are on the inside. Proponents and oppponents both say some zany things about it. To help with the discussion, I’ve written a thriller novel looking at nuclear power – its people, its politics, its technology. The book is free online at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com – and readers seem to like it judging from their comments on the homepage. It’s also avaialble in paperback at online retailers, and has been endorsed by Stewart Brand, founder of The Whole Earth Catalog, internet pioneer, and noted futurist.