By Patrick N. Allitt, Emory University
The nuclear power became a technological challenge for America in the late 20th century. In some ways, nuclear power is clearly superior to coal-fired or hydroelectric stations. The US government actively encouraged the utility companies to invest in nuclear power generation through the 1950s and 1960s. What were the consequences of making and using the nuclear power?
With time, the federal government realised that to set up a hydroelectric plant it had to flood valleys, usually the best farmland or scenic land. That proved to be a very unpopular step. The country’s coal-fired power stations employed thousands of people. It was probably the most dangerous job in American life, not only because of cave-ins, but also because of long-term lung disease amongst the miners.
People claimed that nuclear power was absolutely clean as it did not create smoke pollution as was the case with coal-fired power stations. The nuclear power was very potent indeed. Therefore, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act in 1957, sparing utility companies from liability in the case of a nuclear catastrophe, a meltdown. Gradually, through the 1960s and early 1970s, problems with nuclear power development began to emerge.
This is a transcript from the video series A History of the United States, 2nd Edition. Watch it now, on Wondrium.
Nuclear Power: The Beginning of the Challenges
The nuclear plants, built on riversides, created thermal pollution. In a nuclear plant, they took in cold water, turned it into steam, but then released it back into rivers. The water, however, was still very hot, with the result that it changed the local habitat, and often killed off creatures living in the rivers. Then the question arose: What do you do with the nuclear fuel rods once they’re no longer radioactive enough to be effective as fuel, but they’re still too radioactive to be just disposed of in the way you normally get rid of old metals?
Some of the nuclear power stations were poorly constructed, and there were some revelations that inspectors had been covering up deficient workmanship on the power stations. This led to widespread doubts about the industry in the 1970s.
A Nuclear Accident on the Three Mile Island
All the doubts were intensified by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. The controllers of a nuclear power station in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, lost control of what was happening inside the nuclear core’s reaction chamber, and they weren’t sure whether they were going to face an imminent explosion.
Luckily, they were able to shut the whole place down, and nobody was killed because of what had happened at Three Mile Island. After the incident, there was a rapid growth of the belief among American voters that nuclear power is just too dangerous.
The Public Reaction to the Nuclear Accident
As long as students are demonstrating, the political parties can manage that, but once households, mainstream middle-aged voters, are also protesting against the technology, the parties have to take notice. Building a nuclear power station was simply too politically unpopular, and the utility companies won’t take the risk of courting the opprobrium that would come to them if they were to try it. The banning of the nuclear power stations have continued to have its advocates right up to the present.
The death rate from nuclear accidents has been incredibly low, whereas the death rate from coal mining has always been very, very high. Certainly, if you compare the death rates thus far, nuclear power is the safest, but we don’t think about risks like that. Just as many people are afraid of flying but will get into a car, even though you are statistically more likely to die in a car accident than you are in a plane crash. Nevertheless, the catastrophic nature of the accident when it does happen makes people think about it in different ways.
Reagan’s Administration Vs. the Environment
President Reagan’s first secretary of the interior, James Watt, believed that industrial development was far more important than conservation. Watt was openly scornful of environmentalists, whereas President Carter, Reagan’s predecessor, had been very attentive to their needs.
Reagan tried to repair the damage by re-appointing William Ruckelshaus to the Environmental Protection Agency. President Nixon had originally appointed Ruckelshaus when the agency first came into existence. Ruckelshaus was a highly regarded figure on both sides of the political divide in Washington.
Watts’s unpopularity led to a mushroom growth in the membership of environmental organizations. After a couple of years, both Watt himself and his Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Ann Gorsuch, were forced to resign.
The Political Stance on Environment in the USA
In every election after 1984, both the parties and all the candidates have claimed that they are the environmental candidate. When George H. W. Bush was running for the presidency in 1988, he declared that he was going to be “the environmental president.” He attacked his opponent, Michael Dukakis, claiming that Dukakis as governor had permitted a ruinously high level of pollution in Boston Harbor.
Al Gore, the vice presidential candidate in the election of 1992, published a book called Earth in the Balance. He mentioned in the book, “There’s no issue more important in national life today than preservation and protection of the jeopardized environment.” He brought that concern into the Clinton White House.
It doesn’t mean that all these candidates were necessarily sincere, but they thought it expedient to say that they cared for the environment was itself a drastic change since 1960. After about 1975, a concern for the jeopardized environment had become a central issue in American political life.
Common Questions about the Use of Nuclear Power in the USA
James Watt was President Reagan’s first secretary of the interior. Watt believed that industrial development was far more important than conservation.
When George H. W. Bush was running for the presidency in 1988, he declared that he was going to be “the environmental president.”
People claimed that nuclear power was absolutely clean as it did not create smoke pollution as was the case with coal-fired power stations. The nuclear power was very potent indeed.
