cat1616 Jan 2004 01:38 pm
I have been working in Camp Hill, PA for the last couple of weeks, and have been driving past Three Mile Island twice a day most of the time. I had always though that there had been a huge disaster at Three Mile Island and perhaps hundreds of people had died or gotten horribly ill. This article disputes those assumptions and quotes quite a bit of science to back up his assertions. It is an interesting read if you (like me) are to young to remember much of what went on in 1979.
January 18th, 2004 at 8:55 pm
I disagree with the author’s assessment of Three Mile Island on several counts.
(1) Three Mile Island was the second nuclear-power accident in North America. Over a decade earlier, there was a meltdown at the Chalk River facility in Ontario, Canada — and there were significant casualties resulting from long-term exposure to the radiation there.
Experts were aware of the potential health hazards based on the Chalk River accident, and reacted with appropriate caution. However, Jack Raso doesn’t even mention Chalk River in his article — this is a serious omission because he fails to acknowledge that the experts had a real and legitimate basis for treating the situation seriously.
(2) Over 140,000 people were evacuated within hours of the meltdown. At the time the evacuation was ordered, the amount of radiation that had been released was not yet known. Governor Thornburgh erred on the side of caution and of protecting his citizens. What if he had waited a few extra days and *then* found out the situation had been dire?
(3) It’s unfair of Jack Raso to call the media coverage ’sensationalized’ because in retrospect the event turned out to be minor (compared to, say, Chernobyl). To do so is analogous to calling the coverage of the Oklahoma City bombings sensationalized because 9/11 turned out to be even worse. *In context*, Three Mile Island was a pretty big deal.
January 19th, 2004 at 9:56 am
I wasn’t old enough to comprehend what was going on, but to me it seems that TMI should not keep us from replacing the aging Nuclear Plants in the country with safer newer technology.
Definetly interesting to see the perspective of someone with a lot more info on the matter than me! Thanks Heath.