Guest post By Alan Caruba
The Environmental Protection Agency is using its power to advance the objective of the environmental movement to deny Americans access to the energy that sustains the nation’s economy and is using the greatest hoax ever perpetrated, global warming—now called “climate change”—to achieve that goal.
“This standard isn’t the once-and-for-all solution to our environmental challenge,” said Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, “but it is an important commonsense step toward tackling the ongoing and very real threat of climate change and protecting the future for generations to come. It will enhance the lives of our children and our children’s children.”
This is a boldfaced lie. Its newest rule is based on the debasement of science that is characterized and embodied in the global warming hoax. It will deprive America of the energy it requires to function.
Since the 1980s the Greens have been telling everyone that carbon dioxide was causing global warming—now called climate change—and warning that CO2 emissions were going to kill everyone in the world if they weren’t dramatically reduced. The ball was put in motion with the United Nations 1997 Kyoto Protocols when many nations agreed to this absurd idea and carried forward by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ever since.
The Environmental Protection Agency was created to clean the nation’s air and water where it was deemed that a hazard existed. Like most noble ideas and most Congressional mandates, the initial language was vague enough to be interpreted to mean anything those in charge wanted it to mean. Add in the global warming hoax and you have the means to destroy the nation.
Now it means that the source of fifty percent of all the electricity generated in the United States is being systematically put out of business and please do not act surprised; that’s exactly what Barack Obama said he intended to do if elected President.
This is evil writ large.
Shutting down utilities that use coal, an energy source the U.S. has in such abundance that it could provide electricity for the next hundreds of years, and ensuring that no new ones are built fits in perfectly with all the Green pipedreams about “renewable” energy. Solar and wind presently provide about two percent of the nation’s electricity and, without government subsidies and mandates requiring their use, they would not exist at all.
How stupid is it to not build more nuclear power plants when this form of power doesn’t emit anything but energy?
How stupid is it not to use coal when the U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal?
How stupid is it to begin to find reasons to regulate and thwart fracking, the technology to access trillions of cubic feet of natural gas that has been in use for decades?
How stupid is it to cover miles of land, far from any urban center, with hundreds of solar panels or huge, ugly wind turbines that kill thousands of birds every year?
The sun does not shine all the time, nor does the wind blow all the time. In the event of overcast skies or a day without wind, traditional plants—those using coal, gas, nuclear or generating hydroelectric power—have to be maintained as a backup. Take away the coal-fired plants and there were be huge gap in the national grid.
Darkness will descend and Americans will begin to live with blackouts and brownouts that will undermine every aspect of our lives. It’s bad enough when a town or even a city briefly loses power because of a storm, but imagine that occurring on a regular basis because there just aren’t enough utilities generating power!
What kind of people stand by idly while its own government conspires to take away the primary source of energy that everything else depends upon? The answer? You. The answer is the many elected politicians that have done little to rein in a rogue government agency intent on undermining the nation by denying it the ability to generate power with the least expensive source of electricity, coal.
The EPA, an unelected bureaucracy, has just ensured that all Americans, industries, small businesses, and individuals will begin pay far more for electrical power.
Richard J. Trzupek, the author of “Regulators Run Wild” and an environment policy advisor for The Heartland Institute, said of the new rule, “With around 50,000 megawatts of coal-fired power set to be forcibly retired in the next few years—thanks to the draconian policies of Obama’s EPA—this rule ensures that no new modern, efficient coal fired power plants will be built to fill the gap.”
In a triumph of crony capitalism, Trzupek notes that “The big winner will be Obama’s good friend, GE Chairman Jeff Immelt. Since solar and wind cannot fill a 50,000 megawatt baseload gap, the only way to ensure continued reliability of the grid is to build a lot of natural gas-fired plants quickly. And who is the biggest supplier of natural gas-fired combustion engines? GE of course.”
If you think that environmental organizations like the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, among many others, are seeking to “protect” the Earth, you are seriously mistaken. They have been among the leading opponents of coal and they have had allies in Congress such as the Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, (D-NV) who has said “Coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick.”
NO! Coal provides the engine of our nation’s electrical power and oil provides the energy that fuels our transportation and is the basis for countless products that enhance and improve our lives every day.
We are witnessing the destruction of the nation by the environmental movement and the EPA has just provided you with the most dramatic example of that plan.
“Basically it is the feminine brain demanding that the masculine brain fixes a 100% risk-free society.” –pmwikeroy says:
“I resemble that remark!” –Gail Combs
ROFLMAO! Best one-liner in a long time!
Thanks for all the links, Gail, here and elsewhere; you’re an awesome one-woman research centre.
@ur momisugly fredb says:
March 28, 2012 at 10:20 pm
” Massive exaggeration. The legislation does not shut down utilities that use coal … existing ones can continue as per usual. ”
FredB, you are basing your opinion on falsehoods, specifically the claim that existing plants can continue as usual. This behavior of yours is way worse than exaggeration. You are actually stating something that is the opposite of the truth.
Many existing coal fired plants are going to be shut down in 2015 solely due to EPA regulation compliance overheads. These shutdown plans are publicly available right now on the very websites of the companies running these plants – all it takes is that you bother to look.
I think she may have delivered a death blow to the EPA’s foot.
FactChecker says:
March 29, 2012 at 1:39 pm
@ur momisugly fredb says:
FredB…This behavior of yours is way worse than exaggeration. You are actually stating something that is the opposite of the truth.
———————————-
It may just be that I’m misreading things, FactChecker, but could you be actually implying, or maybe even suggesting, that fredb, our fredb, is lying like cheap rug again? Naah, no way.
u.k.(us) said, ” It must suck,being the 4th largest gun-maker,and having missed the biggest gun sales market ever ?,due to lack of workers. Talk about an upside-down economy.”
I wouldn’t say they missed it. Just can’t quite keep up. Been good for their stock. A problem a lot of companies would love to have. So Smith & Wesson is moving now. Business should stay good right to and throughout the austerity measures that are coming eventually. This has been a very profitable trade.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=RGR+Basic+Chart&t=my
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SWHC+Basic+Chart&t=my
He never was a “Professor”, of any grade. An assistant lecturer, part-time. And his only Constitutional expertise and involvement were in advising protest groups how to obtain “social justice” by harassing selected representatives of the evil banks that wanted only qualified borrowers, etc. As always, much less than and critically different from what meets the eye …
“by harassing selected representatives of the evil banks”
Are you implying, in a Limbaugh tone, that some banks are not evil? What does he have to do to convince everyone that the Democratic Party is the Party of the Big Banks? Since Obama lies all the time, why isn’t he lying when he says he’s for the people, not the corporations giving him money?
I always wanted to ask Rush Limbaugh that last one, and watch his head explode like the robot “NOMAD” in the old Star Trek show. “Does not compute! Does not compute!! [smoke, sparks]”
Ed Mertin says:
March 29, 2012 at 2:02 pm
==============
Time to bet (hedge), they have seen their peaks ??
Or make an easier pick in another sector.
To u.k.(us) , wish I had a crystal ball to be able to say. Smith & Wesson is improving earnings. Guns were never a problem, it was the self defense side of the business, which may soon be sold to concentrate on manufacturing guns. Never liked chasing a stock, especially with the tendencies to sell in May and go away for a while. They were an easy pick last fall. But for now there seems to be a lot of folks taking the opportunities to buy on any dip.
This continues to be one of the most impressive bull runs I have ever seen. The large gains generated over such a long stretch of time without a real pullback is simply incredible.
The market needs a new catalyst to make a break higher or lower.
• It will be higher if economic news and corporate earnings keep showing growth.
• It will be lower if the above falters or headlines about Europe, China or Iran stoke a flight to safety trade.
I have been doing some trimming of other things and am ready and willing to go bearish if that’s in the cards. I’m watching Olin (OLN) looking to build a position.
I can definitely tell you to stay away from this sector.
TAN Technical Analysis | Guggenheim Solar ETF Stock – Yahoo! Finance
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=TAN+Basic+Tech.+Analysis&t=5y
Regarding responses to my “Ken McMurtrie says: March 29, 2012 at 3:50 am”
I have reblogged this WUWT post because it supports the continuation of “fossil” fuel combustion, it shows that to do otherwise, at this stage, means certain ruination of the US economy (actually cement the ruination, might be more accurate), and of any other country implementing the green agenda.
I am agreeing with Alan Caruba, that “The Environmental Protection Agency is using its power to advance the objective of the environmental movement to deny Americans access to the energy that sustains the nation’s economy and is using the greatest hoax ever perpetrated, global warming—now called “climate change”—to achieve that goal.”
My added opinions that alternative energy sources did not deserve certain criticisms, and that support for nuclear power generation does deserve some criticism, were met with interesting and emotive reactions. I suggest that the reactions are a bit OTT.
richardscourtney says: (March 29, 2012 at 4:26 am )
“Ken McMurtrie:
I gasped in astonishment at the gall you display in your post at March 29, 2012 at 3:50 am. In case there are any readers who may have been misled by it, I provide this rebuttal. ” and so on.
Geez!. I only said that wind power generators looked good to me and HV distribution towers were an eyesore. Part-time ‘free source’ energy was useful and reduction of “fossil” fuel use was worthwhile. Solar energy might be much more efficient in the future. All related to the possible future need to supplement or perhaps eventually replace coal and gas energy sources. So, Richard, it costs more. That is the sole reason for criticising wind and solar energy generation. Please leave me in peace with my enjoyment of these worthwhile power sources. I run a “second home” facility in the bush isolated from the grid and I love it.
That brings us to nuclear power as an energy source. I am critical of it for reasons of radiation safety and waste disposal dangers. Anyone who cannot agree that these dangers exist is not thinking straight. The degree to which they exist is then a matter of opinion. It is my opinion that they make nuclear power generation undesirable. Am I not permitted to publish my opinion?
harrywr2 says:
(re Ken McMurtrie)
“nuclear would be better left alone until we develop safer systems.
AP1000 Document –
http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/AP1000_Plant_Description.pdf
Predicted core damage frequency of 2.4E-07/yr is well below the 1E-05/yr requirement, and
frequency of significant release of 1.95E-08/yr is well below the 1E-06/yr requirement.
Is 100 times safer ‘good enough’?”
Maybe we should ask the Chernobyl and Fukushima victims, past, present and future, their definition of safety.
Gail Combs says: (March 29, 2012 at 12:27 pm)
“The safer system is almost ready if we can manage to kick DOE and EPA in the rump. Energy Secretary Steve Chu has said he’s a big fan of small nuclear reactor technology… So he is half way there. ” and so on.
Thanks Gail, for something sensible and constructive! I hope everyone reads that.
Every time I hear “common sense” these days it tends to prove what an oxymoron that is.
When are some people commenting here going to get it?
Nobody is out to ruin anybody else. Nobody is out to destroy the country. Nobody is out to perpetrate a nefarious plot to ruin the economy and turn us into troglodytes in the service of a world government. Absolutely nobody.
If you really believe this stuff, I can only recommend that you take your meds.
Again, as a liberal I am already a climate change skeptic, as I consider warmist arguments hysterical and unfounded. When someone begins his or her discourse by calling an opponent a socialist liar, I just have to stop reading, for the same reason.
Ken McMurtrie:
Your post at March 29, 2012 at 7:55 pm is even more disingenuous than your original post..
My rebuttal (at March 29, 2012 at 4:26 am) of your first post (at at March 29, 2012 at 3:50 am) was NOT “emotive” as you assert. Your post made assertions, and my post explained why those statements are wrong. Facts are devoid of emotion.
This thread is about the EPA regulating against use of coal-fired power stations which supply the US electricity grid. I assumed your original post was talking about that, and I addressed why your claims about ‘wind and solar’ are plain wrong for that purpose. Indeed, your original post said it was about your desire to “reduce the use of fossil fuels”. But you now say you it was not about that but you were talking about your experience of living in a “second home” which is isolated from a grid in “the bush”.
It is unreasonable for you to claim I made a mistake by assuming you were writing about what you said you were. The errors are
(a) your claim to have been talking about reducing the use of fossil fuels,
(b) your failure to mention that you were talking about your holidays living as a hermit, and
(c) your failure to mention that you were not considering the subject of this thread.
And you lie when you assert that I said wind and solar “costs more” is “the sole reason” for rejecting them. In fact anybody can read my post which says;
“And there is no reason – none, zilch, nada – to adopt “solar and wind power” as a method to reduce the use of fossil fuels: in fact there are many good reasons not to adopt them (most notably their high cost because of their intermittency).
“Many good reasons” are NOT a “sole reason”.
Your request that I “leave [you] in peace with [your] enjoyment of these worthwhile power sources” is an offensive falsehood. You were the one supporting the EPA ruling to reduce the use of coal-fired power generation, and I pointed out the errors of your suggestion that there is “nothing wrong” with ‘wind and solar’ as replacements. I made no suggestion of any kind that you should be deprived of anything in response to your claim that Americans should be deprived of cheap and reliable grid-supplied electricity.
And you wrote;
“nuclear would be better left alone until we develop safer systems (IMHO).”
I pointed out that the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan had demonstrated the extreme safety of nuclear power plants. I concluded by asking you;
“How much safer do you want nuclear power stations to be, and why?”
Your response to my question says;
“That brings us to nuclear power as an energy source. I am critical of it for reasons of radiation safety and waste disposal dangers. Anyone who cannot agree that these dangers exist is not thinking straight. The degree to which they exist is then a matter of opinion.”
Contrary to your assertion, I did NOT suggest those dangers “do not exist”. Everything has “dangers” (getting out of bed risks injury from falling). Your unfounded assertion that I made such a suggestion is merely an evasion of my question.
And you are extremely offensive when you write;
“It is my opinion that they make nuclear power generation undesirable. Am I not permitted to publish my opinion?”
YES, you are entitled to publish your opinion, and I take umbrage at your suggestion that I implied otherwise. Importantly, anybody – including me – is entitled to explain why your “opinions” are disingenuous bunkum.
Richard
More Soylent Green! says:
March 29, 2012 at 1:08 pm
@Bill Tuttle says: March 29, 2012 at 12:11 pm
A state government can require you to buy something (as long as that requirement does not violate that state’s constitution, of course). The federal government, with enumerated and limited powers, cannot.
Absolutely correct. And even in the example of the colonial and post-Revolutionary militia, the individual colonies (and later, the individual states) did *not* require a militiaman to own his own long gun. They encouraged and facilitated individual ownership, but didn’t make ownership mandatory for the simple reason that not everyone subject to callup either had one as a family heirloom or could afford to purchase one outright.
Torgeir Hansson says:
March 29, 2012 at 8:32 pm
When are some people commenting here going to get it?
Nobody is out to ruin anybody else. Nobody is out to destroy the country. Nobody is out to perpetrate a nefarious plot to ruin the economy…
You haven’t been paying attention over the last three years.
Again, as a liberal I am already a climate change skeptic, as I consider warmist arguments hysterical and unfounded. When someone begins his or her discourse by calling an opponent a socialist liar, I just have to stop reading, for the same reason.
Unwarranted namecalling is always suspect. However, when a politician repeatedly talks about “social justice” and wealth redistribution (i.e., giving someone a “bigger share of the pie”), that’s grounds for saying he’s a socialist (because those are socialist talking points), and when that politician is also noted for most of his statements being out-and-out lies, you’re justified in calling him a liar.
Let’s say that you stopped at a market an purchased a dozen oranges. On the way out, your local mayor stopped you, declared that it was unfair that you had a dozen oranges while his two friends had none, and that (in the name of justice, of course) he would take six of your oranges to give to his two friends — then he removed eight oranges from your bag, gave four to each of his friends, then said, “Oh, wait — I said I would only give three to each of them,” whereupon his two friends each handed one orange back to the mayor.
The mayor’s friends then walk off, the mayor thanks you for helping to fundamentally re-make the village into a more “just” place to live, and then turns to ambush the next customer leaving the market.
I guarantee that “socialist liar” would be the mildest epithet you’d call him…
+1
Thanks, Bill.
/Mr Lynn
@Mr Lynn March 30, 2012 at 7:08 am — Thank *you*, sir!
Cameco sees restart of some Japan reactors soon | Business | The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/10164586
* Just one of 54 reactors online in Japan, restart plan unclear
* Cameco says Japanese utilities not selling excess uranium
* Japanese partners still committed to mine development
* Sees some reactors restarting in near future
* Cameco eyeing “near-production” takeover targets in U.S. (Adds details)
… Japan’s final operating reactor is scheduled to shut down in May and the timeline for restarts remains unclear. Stress test results are currently being reviewed by the country’s nuclear regulator; then the government will need to green-light restarts based on public and political support. Despite the lingering uncertainty, Cameco sees strong uranium growth going forward as China, India, Russia and Korea push ahead with aggressive nuclear build-outs.
For its part, China should have some 40 reactors online by 2015 and another 20 or 30 in operation by 2020, said Gitzel.
“We see the long term fundamentals of the business as very strong,” he said. “We see 96 net new reactors by 2021. That’s the best growth we’ve seen in the business since the 1970s.”
U.S. POWER With 104 reactors, the United States is the largest consumer of uranium in the world and Cameco is the top uranium producer in the country, producing some 2.2 million pounds in 2011 from its mines in Wyoming and Nebraska. “We’re in a good space down in the United States and we think it’s an important place for us to be,” said Gitzel. “Our estimate for the U.S. is four to six new reactors by 2020.” …
Marches on Washington have taken place with mega issues like this.
@ur momisugly Richard.
Things I have said:
“I have reblogged this WUWT post because it supports the continuation of “fossil” fuel combustion, it shows that to do otherwise, at this stage, means certain ruination of the US economy (actually cement the ruination, might be more accurate), and of any other country implementing the green agenda.”
“That brings us to nuclear power as an energy source. I am critical of it for reasons of radiation safety and waste disposal dangers. Anyone who cannot agree that these dangers exist is not thinking straight. The degree to which they exist is then a matter of opinion.”
“My added opinions that alternative energy sources did not deserve certain criticisms, and that support for nuclear power generation does deserve some criticism, were met with interesting and emotive reactions. I suggest that the reactions are a bit OTT.”
Things you have said:
“I gasped in astonishment at the gall you display in your post at March 29, 2012 …”
“Your post at March 29, 2012 at 7:55 pm is even more disingenuous ”
“your “opinions” are disingenuous bunkum”
[Are these not emotive?]
” You were the one supporting the EPA ruling to reduce the use of coal-fired power generation”
[Incorrect!, this is precisely the opposite of the truth. (see above)]
“I pointed out that the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan had demonstrated the extreme safety of nuclear power plants.”
[Now, who is being disingenuous? Not many people are likely to agree with you that the Fukushima incident demonstrates the safety of nuclear power stations]
Conclusion: This debate between you and I, is non-productive and, in many ways, illogical.
I bid you Adieu! 🙂
Gary Pearse says:
March 30, 2012 at 11:38 am
Marches on Washington have taken place with mega issues like this.
_______________________________________
You are correct. http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/obama-faces-mores-death-threats-then-any-other-president-why/question-1746431/
http://www.mining.com/2012/02/14/why-not-thorium/#disqus_thread
… There are at least seven types of reactors that can use thorium as a nuclear fuel, five of which have entered into operation at some point. Several were abandoned not for technical reasons but because of a lack of interest or research funding (blame the Cold War again). So proven designs for thorium-based reactors exist and need but for some support.
Well, maybe quite a bit of support. One of the biggest challenges in developing a thorium reactor is finding a way to fabricate the fuel economically. Making thorium dioxide is expensive, in part because its melting point is the highest of all oxides, at 3,300° C. The options for generating the barrage of neutrons needed to kick-start the reaction regularly come down to uranium or plutonium, bringing at least part of the problem full circle.
And while India is certainly working on thorium, not all of its eggs are in that basket. India has 20 uranium-based nuclear reactors producing 4,385 MW of electricity already in operation and has another six under construction, 17 planned, and 40 proposed. The country gets props for its interest in thorium as a homegrown energy solution, but the majority of its nuclear money is still going toward traditional uranium. China is in exactly the same situation – while it promotes its efforts in the LFTR race, its big bucks are behind uranium reactors. China has only 15 reactors in operation but has 26 under construction, 51 planned, and 120 proposed.
The Bottom Line
Thorium is three times more abundant in nature than uranium. All but a trace of the world’s thorium exists as the useful isotope, which means it does not require enrichment. Thorium-based reactors are safer because the reaction can easily be stopped and because the operation does not have to take place under extreme pressures. Compared to uranium reactors, thorium reactors produce far less waste and the waste that is generated is much less radioactive and much shorter-lived.
To top it all off, thorium would also be the ideal solution for allowing countries like Iran or North Korea to have nuclear power without worrying whether their nuclear programs are a cover for developing weapons… a worry with which we are all too familiar at present.
So, should we run out and invest in thorium? Unfortunately, no. For one, there are very few investment vehicles. Most thorium research and development is conducted by national research groups. There is one publicly traded company working to develop thorium-based fuels, called Lightbridge Corp. (Nasdaq: LTBR). Lightbridge has the advantage of being a first mover in the area, but on the flip side the scarcity of competitors is a good sign that it’s simply too early.
Had it not been for mankind’s seemingly insatiable desire to fight, thorium would have been the world’s nuclear fuel of choice. Unfortunately, the Cold War pushed nuclear research toward uranium; and the momentum gained in those years has kept uranium far ahead of its lighter, more controllable, more abundant brother to date. History is replete with examples of an inferior technology beating out a superior competitor for market share, whether because of marketing or geopolitics, and once that stage is set it is near impossible for the runner-up to make a comeback. Remember Beta VCRs, anyone? On a technical front they beat VHS hands down, but VHS’s marketing machine won the race and Beta slid into oblivion. Thorium reactors aren’t quite the Beta VCRs of the nuclear world, but the challenge they face is pretty similar: it’s damn hard to unseat the reigning champ…
Current global uranium demand is about 180 million pounds a year, with mine output accounting for about 140 million pounds of that. The remainder comes from stockpiles and downgraded or decommissioned weapons-grade uranium.
Ken McMurtrie says:
March 30, 2012 at 6:15 pm
@ur momisugly Richard.
“I pointed out that the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan had demonstrated the extreme safety of nuclear power plants.”
[Now, who is being disingenuous? Not many people are likely to agree with you that the Fukushima incident demonstrates the safety of nuclear power stations]
The installation withstood an earthquake greater than the specifications called for, but the tsunami took out the backup generators — the walls were designed to protect the installation against a tsunami 6 meters high, but the water peaked at twice that height.
If you design your protections against reasonably-predicted threats, you can consider yourself reasonably safe. But you can never protect *anything* with 100% surety — to think otherwise is unrealistic.
@ur momisugly Bill Tuttle,
I have said goodbye to Richard but am moved to respond further, to yourself.
Our processes of logical thought and understanding of the word ‘safe’ differ in the extreme.
How is it possible to classify nuclear plant meltdowns, explosions and massive nuclear radiation emissions and contamination as in any way, ‘safe’. Neither my logic nor imagination are able stretch even in that direction, let alone that far.
To use this as an example of safety boggles my mind completely.
I agree that safety is relative, and nothing can be 100% safe. But to describe something catastrophically lethal that has actually occurred, in Richard’s words, as “a demonstration of safety”, sorry Bill, I have to disagree strongly with this aspect of your support of Richard.
Sure, one can design a system having a degree of safety considered to be acceptable to the designer, the operator and the authorities. That is the way of of our world.
BUT, if it does fail, as happened in this case, no matter what the reason, it cannot be logically argued that it was safe. Failure does not equate to safe!
Nor can any future possibility of failure, that exists in the case of existing and future nuclear plants, be regarded as safe, only relatively safe.
Maybe worth the risk, maybe not. The relativity (is it worth the risk?), of the safety level is in the eye of the beholder. If the beholder happens to die or be maimed by radiation poisoning, they would understandably have a different viewpoint.
Ken McMurtrie says:
March 31, 2012 at 1:45 am
….Our processes of logical thought and understanding of the word ‘safe’ differ in the extreme.
How is it possible to classify nuclear plant meltdowns, explosions and massive nuclear radiation emissions and contamination as in any way, ‘safe’. Neither my logic nor imagination are able stretch even in that direction, let alone that far…..
_________________________________________
But Ken, that is not what happen. The Fukushima incident DOES demonstrates the safety of nuclear power stations. The station was old and it STILL withstood a natural catastrophe it was not designed to withstand. If it had the correct backup power system there would have been no real problem. The key issue is NO ONE DIED of RADIATION!
However anyone with half a brain would rather move to Thorium. (I can see a nuclear plant cooling tower out my window BTW)