HOW DANGEROUS IS RADIATION?

The most important breakdown in the public's understanding of nuclear power is in its concept of the dangers of radiation. What is radiation, and how dangerous is it?

Radiation consists of several types of subatomic particles, principally those called gamma rays, neutrons, electrons, and alpha particles, that shoot through space at very high speeds, something like 100,000 miles per second. They can easily penetrate deep inside the human body, damaging some of the biological cells of which the body is composed. This damage can cause a fatal cancer to develop, or if it occurs in reproductive cells, it can cause genetic defects in later generations of offspring. When explained in this way, the dangers of radiation seem to be very grave, and for a person to be struck by a particle of radiation appears to be an extremely serious event. So it would also seem from the following description in what has perhaps been the most influential book from the opponents of nuclear energy1:

Some Other Way To Keep Your Environment Clean

With the ever increasing use of technology and industries flourishing the amount of pollution in our environment is increasing at a rapid pace. Keeping our environment clean is a very important part of our lives in these days. It is important to focus on this as we have to make sure that the environment is preserved for future generations. Water pollution and litter are considered to be two of the main cause of the environment being dirty.

In order to clean the environment there are 5 steps that we can follow:


The 3Rs are considered to be the most important and easiest way to keep our environment clean and refrain it from pollution. Reduce, recycle and reuse are the famous 3 Rs that can keep our environment clean. By reducing the usage of harmful materials, and recycling items such as paper and glass and at the same time reusing goods that can be reused will reduce the pollution levels in the air and keep the environment clean.
Planting more trees increase the oxygen level in the atmosphere. This way there is an increase in the total oxygen level thus resulting in cleaner air to breathe and keeping environment clean.


Many people tend to litter. This is a bad habit as littering causes a rapid increase in pollution levels. Instead of throwing garbage on the roads, there should be recycling bins on every corner of the road so that people do not litter. This will help in keeping the environment clean.
Cigarettes are another harmful item that increases the air pollution as well as the well known health benefits.
By using eco friendly and biodegradable cleaning items the environment will be a better and cleaner place for humans to live in and by the continuous use of these products the environment will improve for future generation.
These tips are helpful in keeping our environment clean.

Top 10 Eco-Friendly Ways to Clean the House

Choosing environmentally friendly cleaning products — and removing toxic ones — goes a long way towards ensuring a home with fresh, clean air. Clean air renews and rejuvenates; it doesn’t pollute our lives or the environment. Living in a less toxic home, removed from neurotoxic chemicals, improves sleep and concentration, makes babies less fussy, and gives a sense of well-being. Your household’s toxic burden on the environment will be significantly reduced by following these steps, and this too can bring peace of mind.


1. LOOK UNDER YOUR KITCHEN SINK: Remove toxic products
WHY: Almost everyone in the world has a cupboard full of poisons under their kitchen sink. Wasp spray, oven cleaner, waxes and polishes—the place is full of chemicals that display the words poison, danger, warning, or caution. Small amounts of the poisons drift from, and leak out of bottles and spray bottles, which then waft around the kitchen. Household poisonings are one of the highest threats to the health of children.


HOW: Place products with signal words in a locked cupboard in storage for your community’s next Household Hazardous Pickup Day (see next tip); replace all hazardous products with safer versions in the future.


HIGHLIGHTS: No chemicals wafting into your household; safer environment for kids.


2. ABOUT HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PICKUPS: Take toxic products
WHY: Hazardous materials shouldn’t be poured down the drain or thrown away in the trash as they can cause serious pollution problems in the waste stream.


HOW: Call your local recycling center, town or city hall. Most communities have at least one Household Hazardous Waste Pickup Day a year.


HIGHLIGHTS: There will be fewer toxic materials leaching out of landfills, burning in incinerators, and being washed into the waste water stream.


3. REPLACE TOXIC PRODUCTS: Choose non-toxic, biodegradable substitutes


WHY: Help reduce the toxic burden of manufacturing, your home, and the waste stream.
HOW: Read “Signal Words” on labels. The signal words poison, danger,warning, or caution, found on the label of products such as pesticides and cleaning products, are placed there by order of the federal government and are primarily for your production. In some cases these signal words are on the label because of the potential impact the product can have on the environment. Poison/danger denotes a product of most concern, one that is highly toxic, and ingesting small amounts—in some cases a few drops—can be fatal. Warning means moderately toxic, as little as a teaspoonful can be fatal; and caution denotes a product that is less toxic, one in which it would be necessary to ingest between two tablespoons and two cups to be fatal. Corrosive products can damage skin and mucous membranes, and a strong sensitizer is a chemical that can increase allergies.


HIGHLIGHTS: Labels provide information by which you can protect yourself, your family, and the environment.


4. LEARN NON-TOXIC CLEANING BASICS: How to use kitchen cupboard
ingredients


WHY: Save money, protect your health, reduce your use of valuable resources of the earth, avoid petroleum products and other non-renewable resources.


HOW: Learning to clean from scratch—making homemade recipes—can truly work if you take time to understand a bit about the chemistry behind how the materials work. Here are the five ingredients that Annie (the author of Clean & Green among other books, and Care2′s Healthy Living channel producer) finds to be the safest, most effective, and useful for cleaning.
The Five Basics for Non-Toxic Cleaning
Make sure to keep all homemade formulas well-labeled, and out of the reach of children.
Note how to safely reduce four airborne allergens in the home with these simple steps.
HIGHLIGHTS: Establish a safe, cheap and simple lifestyle.


MORE: Visit Care2.com’s Healthy Home category for many non-toxic cleaning tips. Just scroll down to Non-Toxic Cleaning.


5. OF MOPS, SPONGES, RAGS, AND OTHER ACCESSORIES: Natural, reusable


WHY: Reduce your use of non-renewable resources; avoid products with potentially harmful ingredients such as sponges with antibacterial ingredients; reuse old shirts as rags and more. Use cloth rags instead of paper towels to save trees. Save money!


HOW: Look at your purchase of mops, paper towels, sponges, buckets, vacuums, and more with an eye towards their durability, health and environmental impact. If you must use paper towels buy recycled, unbleached paper.


HIGHLIGHTS: Reusable mops, rags instead of paper, safe sponges, HEPA vacuums all work towards providing your home and environment with fresh, clean air, and reduce your consumption of nonrenewable resources.


6. LEARN ABOUT YOUR WATER: Is it hard or soft?
WHY: With hard water you will most likely need to clean with a detergent instead of a soap to avoid soap scum.


HOW: Read here about when and why to choose a detergent or a soap


HIGHLIGHTS: Choosing the right product for the right job reduces time and resources.


7. DISINFECTANTS? CHLORINE BLEACH? Look for alternatives
WHY: Just as antibiotics are causing drug resistance, so too are disinfectants. Chlorine bleach can cause cancer causing chemicals to form in the waste water stream. Here is more information about chlorine and the home.


HOW: Make a safer antibacterial spray by using these suggestions. Read here about toxic sponges.Visit your natural food store and ask for their recommended chlorine beach alternative. Seventh Generation and other brands offer alternatives that work.


HIGHLIGHTS: A healthier home and healthier environment.


8. CONSERVE WATER


WHY: Clean water is one of our most precious and diminishing resources and we don’t want to waste it.
HOW: Don’t run the water unless you are using it or catching it in a bucket for use; sweep instead of wet mop when possible; put a tracking matt at the door to collect mud and dust so you will need to wash the floor less; etc. Use common sense.


HIGHLIGHTS: Do your part to preserve the earth’s precious resources.


9. CLEAN INDOOR AIR WITH PLANTS


WHY: Plants have been found to reduce indoor air pollution!


HOW: Here are the top 10 plants that clear indoor air.


HIGHLIGHTS: Plants clean the air and provide more oxygen too!


10. USE YOUR SENSES: Smell, feel, hear


WHY: If you use your nose you will know when food is rotten, when dog beds need to be cleaned, when toxic chemicals may be leaking from old product bottles, and more. If you use your sense of touch you will know when doorknobs are sticky, the floor needs washing, etc. If you allow your senses to be your guide you will stay on top of cleaning jobs that need to be attended to.


HOW: Listen to what your senses are telling you.


HIGHLIGHTS: Cleaner indoor air, alert to potential toxic exposures.

Tips to Make Your Environment Clean and Healthy

Heavy Industries are always considered one of the major causes for the hazardous and ever increasing chemical pollution. Homeowners also contribute a lot in polluting the environment and rivers. To make our environment clean and healthy, we should opt for natural cleaning solutions. These are certainly the best measures for germ free existence.


Vinegar is one of the widely used multipurpose cleaning service providers. It is easily available in local store and is a complete non-toxic. Vinegar is used for varied purpose, such as application of vinegar with a little amount of water will easily cleanse floors, cabinets, sinks, countertops, appliances. This finest natural cleaner is also a good flavor enhancer.


Another widely used natural cleaning-solution is Baking Soda, which is cheap and cleanse effectively. Application of Baking soda paste will easily scrub away all the tough stains of oil leaks, fuels and various other chemicals.


Application of lemon juice with baking soda easily removes tough stains as well as soap scum in your bathroom. Mixture of lemon juice and olive oil is a great cleaning solution for furniture cleaning. If you believe in self cleaning, it would be advisable to avoid harsh chemical cleaning solutions, which will surely leave a bad impact over the environment. Thus, you can go for natural product cleaning solutions and make your environment as well as home safe and healthy.


In case, you do not have much time for cleaning your home then you can go for professional cleaning services. They are pocket friendly and smart investment too, as they mainly use eco-friendly and advance cleaning equipments!

20 Practical Way To Help The Nature

Concerned about the environment but feeling overwhelmed by all the issues out there? Feeling discouraged about how you as an individual can really make a difference? Not to worry. Here, we’ve compiled a short list of easy and practical ways that you can help the environment.


The great thing about these tips is that in most cases you really won’t have to change your lifestyle radically to have an impact on the environment. One thing we do encourage is more reliance on human power in your daily life. We hope that some of these tips will help us move one person at a time towards a society that is more responsible and less reliant on convenience.


For example, things like walking to the grocery store and using a reel mower will reduce air pollution and energy use, while also reducing the time you spend at the gym! Additionally, if you get your kids to follow your example by using human power more, you can do your part to help reduce child obesity and diabetes!


Please note that this is by no means a comprehensive list. In fact, we’re looking for help in expanding these tips with things that have worked for you that don’t appear on the list!

Effective measures for making environment clean and less polluted

We can make environment clean and less polluted by employing effective measures. We should therefore, attend to the following point in this respect:


1. Renewable resources should be used at that rate in which they are being replenished.


2. Silviculture should be started to replenish forests for producing raw materials and increasing the area under forests.


3. Large scale killing of animals should be banned, e.g. if we          kill more snakes for their skin, the population of rats and mice will increase and that will cause heavy damage to crops.


4. Natural habitat of animals should be preserved.


5. Monitoring the number of wild animals in sanctuaries be done.


6. Poaching should be banned.


7. Concerned officials should make surveys.


8. Uncontrolled felling of trees should be curbed.

Pollution and Environment

I have always wondered why so many Americans seem disinterested in global inequalities and environmental issues. I do not believe that we are a selfish people without concern for the world's poor or the well being of future generations. So the question is, why aren't more of us environmentalists? In light of this question, I suggest we think about our privileged position in the world. And rather than feeling guilty or self-satisfied about it, we should decide to be energized by our relative fortune. This energy might propel us to care for the environment and our fellow creatures at a level not currently realized. 


While I have little specialized knowledge of the demographics of college's student body, it's probably safe to assume several things. We are wealthier, more educated, better fed, drink cleaner water, and have better access to information than most people in this world. We all also live in a country where we can do many things more safely and readily than most can elsewhere. We can write, speak, or visit our state and federal representatives and expect to be heard. We can protest peacefully without fear of violent repercussions. We can expect our legal system to defend us against unsubstantiated charges. And, we can affiliate ourselves with organizations of our own choosing. In sum, we are privileged. 


If you have any doubts how fortunate you are, consider the following global snapshots: One-fourth of the world's people live on $1 or less a day; nearly half (47%) live on $2 or less. Over 40 percent of the world's population lives without basic sanitation. Only one out of every twelve people uses a personal computer and only half of them have access to the Internet. Only one out of fifty people in the world has a college degree and, shockingly, only one out of every fourteen has been educated at a high school level (PCFS). Can our privilege be denied? 


As thankful as we might be, being thankful isn't enough. We need to ask at least two follow up questions: What makes us so fortunate; and, do we have an obligation to others less fortunate? 


How did we become so fortunate, and others so unfortunate? Say what you will, but for almost all of us, our current fortune is due to sheer luck. (If you hold that your privileged position owes itself to hard work and sacrifice, how do you reconcile this with the reality that most people in the world are desperately poor despite the fact that they work in the fields (or factories) for up to 18-hours a day and have nearly no hope of mobility or improvement?) Any one of us could have just as easily been born in a malaria-infested, dengue-riddled part of the world. Or, alternatively, we could have been born in a country where violence, displacement and political repression are ever-present factors of life. If we accept that our privilege is happenstance, might we not have an obligation to reduce the misfortune that comes to so many of our brethren? To do otherwise is to resign oneself to the view that humans live in a "dog-eat-dog" world with inevitable winners and losers-a position not compatible with a healthy, fair and sustainable society and therefore not an acceptable one. 


There is much to be gained admitting our good fortune. We should feel empowered to promote policies that will improve the fortune of all, leaving no one, especially children, to suffer through no fault of their own. Policies that might encourage such an end include, but are not limited to, the following. Increasing funding to international family planning programs will reduce unwanted pregnancies and improve the health of the children that are born. Restructuring of the subsidization of certain foods and energy forms will encourage more responsible eating habits (those low in excess protein, calories and fat) and more efficient uses of technology. Putting into action the principle of "reuse, recycle, and reduce" will slow down our rapacious extraction of finite resources from the Earth which will not only increase the habitat for megafauna like the African black rhino and the Asian elephant but also the likelihood that our grandchildren (and their progeny) will inherit an Earth that is habitable for humans, animals, and plants alike. All of the above are starts not finishes, but most of us need to start somewhere. 


 And once we admit our privilege, what then? The response that we make to this admission will vary from person to person, but each one of us will undoubtedly begin to see ourselves as part of a larger whole. We will begin to recognize that our good fortune comes at the hands, hearts, minds, sweat and blood of people and other living things the world over. (If you are wondering what I am getting to here, read the tag of your clothes to find out where the majority of them come from or consider the origin of the wood or plastics that you have in your house.) With this recognition, we may begin to make an effort to take less or give back, in other words sacrifice a little. Perhaps, some of us will be moved to develop a more sustainable form of living-by improving our diets by reducing excess and unhealthy consumption or by choosing to purchase vehicles that are more efficient and less polluting. Others will realize how little they know about their connection with the natural world, something our schools are greatly negligent in providing, and they may begin to seek out opportunities to learn about such things. Fortunately, literature on these topics abounds in our libraries, bookstores, and on websites. Others might decide that they are just too busy to do much for anyone but their immediate families. Even these people might begin to see how interconnected their family is with other families here and abroad. A global fellowship might spread that will foster friendship and understanding rather than the hate and violence being perpetuated by terrorists and governments alike. Call me an idealist, you wouldn't be the first, but at least contemplate the creation of a world that is much more in harmony that the one we have today. Challenging as this might be, it represents perhaps our greatest hope. 


If not us, then who will promote and espouse environmental principles? We certainly have our own bills to pay and our retirement to think about. However, if we, the residents of the richest nation in the world, are not able to sacrifice for the betterment of others and our environment, then who is? Many people, such as Ken Saro-Wiwa (of Nigeria), Chico Mendez (of Brazil), and Wangari Maathai (of Kenya), all were beaten or killed when they peacefully defended their local peoples and environments. We do not have to fear the same sort of repression for participating in similar activities. I am not advocating that we all become Peace Corps volunteers (although that wouldn't be a bad idea), but rather that we spend some of our "free" time and "excess" money making the world a better place rather than gallivanting around the state, nation, or world polluting and despoiling the environments that support us. That is not to say that we should all live as hermits in our homes but rather than we recognize that if we take from the environment, then we must give back. If we take more than we give, then we are responsible for the exacerbation of our world's many environmental problems. Alternatively, if we all take strides to give more (than we currently do), then we are on a road towards healing and reconciliation. 


In the 20th Century we began to realize something very important. We came to understand that we have something to gain from living more in harmony with the natural world. This recognition led to the creation of national parks as well as air and water quality standards. As we transitioned into the 21st, we began to observe the ramifications of the finiteness of our Earth and time scale of its many ecological services (i.e., aquifer recharge, forest regrowth, & ocean-atmosphere gas exchange). The 21st Century, thus, represents the period when we will begin to live sustainably, by choice or by default. Many are showing us the way (such as Julia Butterfly Hill, Wes Jackson, Winona LaDuke or Sandra Steingraber), yet most of us are either not looking hard enough to find them or are so preoccupied with our day-to-day existence that we don't think we can sacrifice a moment or a dime. It is time for all of us to look harder and/or escape cynicism. Cherish your fortune and use it to make the world a better place for all to live. 

How to Make the World a Better Place

1.Be nice and helpful to people. For example, if someone is carrying groceries to their car and they drop a bag, help them by picking up the groceries and loading them back into the bag. The simple things like that are very much appreciated by anyone!


2.Donate money to different causes and charities. Even if you can't give more than a dollar, you're still helping.


3.Give a smile to everyone you see, no matter who they are or what they do. Walk the walk that will make you happy and it will make others happy as well.


4.Don't say cruel things about others - ever. There's no need, and you can always do things like say GOOD things about other people to make yourself feel better.


5.Invest in your own community by eating, shopping, and spending locally. Most new jobs are provided by local businesses and it reduces environmental impact. Non-profits receive greater support from local businesses too.


6.Reuse. Following that, Recycle anything with the recycle label. Other things such as paper, cardboard, plastic, and so much more is also recyclable! You can also reuse things, such as refilling a plastic water bottle instead of getting a new one.


7.Do not litter... anything!


8.Save Energy. The more you cut back, the less fossil fuels are burned which not only give off CO2 its limited. Try turning lights off or lowering the house temperature by one, it also saves you money!


9.Don't drive unless necessary. Don't drive unless its necessary to save fuel.


10.Have a compostor in your back yard. Its great for throwing out egg shells, banana peels, and other fruits. It'll keep the dumps lower and cleaner and make your garden very healthy.


11.Don't smoke. Not only is smoking bad for you, it's bad for everyone around you. This is called second-hand smoking. Many people avoid this fact, but the smoke from cigarettes put pollution into the air. Smoking isn't good for anything!


12.Do not contribute to animal abuse! There are factories that do "animal testings" that are very harmful to animals! Many products (shampoos, lotions, body products, medicines, etc.) do animal testings by testing their products on animals. If a product does not have a "No animal testing" label, chances are they could be testing that product on animals. If possible, buy less meat and animal products.


13.Do not abuse an animal in any way, and if you know someone who does, report it immediately.


14.Give to the needy. So many kids and adults as well, are living poor all over the world! You can help them by donating new, old (but in fair condition) or unwanted goods such as clothes, food, toys, and anything else needed! It all pays off in the long run!


15.Conserve as much as possible. Again, the simplest stuff like taking one shower a day (unless it's necessary for another), and never letting the water run while brushing your teeth helps a lot! Buy the new high energy-saving light bulbs! They last years longer and cost more than half less a month than ordinary light bulbs!


16.Conserve water. Use it well because it is a limited resource.


17.Become vegan: Doing so is better for you, better for the animals involved, and better for the world: Producing meat is extremely taxing to the environment.


18.Work hard. One of the best things we can do for others is to do the best we can at our jobs. If you do not feel like your job contributes to society, consider getting a new one, but in many cases, going the extra mile at work does much more for the world than you know.


19.Plant trees.


20.Try to avoid stepping on ants or bugs. Imagine how much it would hurt to be stepped on by a giant foot. Instead of squishing spiders, use a shoe box and a piece of paper to capture them and release them out doors.

Why Are Forests Important?

Arguments are still going on about how to define a forest. But if generally, a forest can be defined as a community, not just of plants and trees but also of the animals which inhabit the place. In fact, it is equilibrium of abiotic (non-living) components like the soil, climate and water etc and biotic (living) things, e.g. trees, animals etc. Around 30% of the land is covered in forests and they are the storehouses of the biological diversity on our planet.

Forests come in all varieties and distribution and that is why they are so important not only for the nature as a whole and their degradation can threaten the survival of our species. Below are listed a few points which tell us why they are so important:


(1) Among the most talked about words in the current times are “global warming”. And the good news is that forests cool the air by releasing water vapors into the air. This phenomenon is called vaporization.


(2) During day time the trees absorb carbon dioxide, which is a green house gas, and release oxygen.


(3) Forests are excellent sound barriers and thus help contain noise pollution.


(4) Their artistic value is beyond what can be put in words.


(5) If forests are well managed, they improve the quality of water in the surrounding areas.


(6) In addition to improving the water quality, forests have also been found to raise the ground water table.


(7) The wood that forests supply in plenty is useful in different ways.


(8) It is not difficult to find as many as 1500 invertebrates on a single tree in a typical rain forest. Some of these species hold the keys to scientific mysteries and they are useful in drug research.


(9) Those who are blinded by the glitter of gold, here is a fact. Forests add to the economy. The tourists, herbs etc are a good source of income.


(10) Forest help limit the damage that a typical flood would cause if the forests were not there.


(11) Twenty-five percent of our modern medicines are a result of studying the forest and so far only 1% of the forests have been studied, so it can only be imagined what the rest of the 99% hold.

How Does Recycling Affect The Environment?

Most people would agree that recycling not only affects the environment but it also makes the world a better place for plants and animals. For example, recycling paper products can, in the long run, preserve a large number of trees that might otherwise be used to make new paper. This is one way that recycling directly affects the environment.


Trees provide homes for birds and other animals, they provide shade for what would otherwise be a hot and dry land, and they are crucial to the oxygen/carbon dioxide balance in our atmosphere. Recycling can definitely have a positive effect on our world.

Paper is not the only item that should be recycled. Glass bottles and plastic containers have become a problem for cities and private companies who operate landfills. The sheer numbers of containers thrown away take up a lot of landfill space, which puts companies and municipalities in the position of having to take up more land for another landfill area.


Several decades ago, activists who demonstrated against large companies and their waste products used the phrase, “There is no away!” What this meant was that we can’t really get rid of anything.


We can only change its shape and form. Recycling is a way to make this change so that it clutters and pollutes less. Recycling also takes used materials from “trash” to usable products if they are handled properly.


Scientists and social activists have also pointed out that making new products from recycled materials means less manufacturing. With the correct methods, we can have a comfortable, convenient life without the pollution and massive use of natural resources that manufacturing brings.


Reducing the number of landfills might mean a healthier food chain for both humans and animals. When we place materials in landfills and they don’t break down over time, we are creating a potentially dangerous situation. The chemicals used in manufacturing many modern-day products can leach into the soil, pollution the water and any plants that grow on or near that area. This is especially true with computer parts, batteries and other items that contain certain chemicals.


While some people don’t view the world in the same way as others where animals are concerned, the truth is recycling can help keep the environment in its natural state so that animals can survive. If we continue to put mercury in our water, as is the case in some states already, not only will we have to avoid eating fish, the fish will die from pollution and lack of oxygen.


The number of large fish and dolphins affected by trash in the ocean may not be large in the big picture, but scientists and divers have found animals trapped and killed by plastic and other garbage they have ingested.


In the long stretch of time, recycling affects the planet positively because we will use less of our natural resources – trees, water, minerals etc. When it comes to the environment, using less means we have more.

10 Ways to Go Green and Save Green

Save energy to save money.


Purchase State of the World 2010:
Transforming Cultures to learn more
about the shift from consumerism to sustainability Set your thermostat a few degrees lower in the winter and a few degrees higher in the summer to save on heating and cooling costs.
Install compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) when your older incandescent bulbs burn out.


Unplug appliances when you're not using them. Or, use a "smart" power strip that senses when appliances are off and cuts "phantom" or "vampire" energy use.
Wash clothes in cold water whenever possible. As much as 85 percent of the energy used to machine-wash clothes goes to heating the water.
Use a drying rack or clothesline to save the energy otherwise used during machine drying.

Save water to save money.


Take shorter showers to reduce water use. This will lower your water and heating bills too.
Install a low-flow showerhead. They don't cost much, and the water and energy savings can quickly pay back your investment.
Make sure you have a faucet aerator on each faucet. These inexpensive appliances conserve heat and water, while keeping water pressure high.
Plant drought-tolerant native plants in your garden. Many plants need minimal watering. Find out which occur naturally in your area.

Less gas = more money (and better health!).


Purchase State of the World 2009:
Into a Warming World to learn more
about overcomig global climate change
Walk or bike to work. This saves on gas and parking costs while improving your cardiovascular health and reducing your risk of obesity.
Consider telecommuting if you live far from your work. Or move closer. Even if this means paying more rent, it could save you money in the long term.
Lobby your local government to increase spending on sidewalks and bike lanes. With little cost, these improvements can pay huge dividends in bettering your health and reducing traffic.

Eat smart.


If you eat meat, add one meatless meal a week. Meat costs a lot at the store-and it's even more expensive when you consider the related environmental and health costs.
Buy locally raised, humane, and organic meat, eggs, and dairy whenever you can. Purchasing from local farmers keeps money in the local economy.
Watch videos about why local food and sustainable seafood are so great.
Whatever your diet, eat low on the food chain [pdf]. This is especially true for seafood.

Skip the bottled water.


Purchase State of the World 2011:
Innovations that Nourish the Planet
to learn more about eating sustainably.
Use a water filter to purify tap water instead of buying bottled water. Not only is bottled water expensive, but it generates large amounts of container waste.
Bring a reusable water bottle, preferably aluminum rather than plastic, with you when traveling or at work.
Check out this short article for the latest on bottled water trends.

Think before you buy.


Go online to find new or gently used secondhand products. Whether you've just moved or are looking to redecorate, consider a service like craigslist or FreeSharing to track down furniture, appliances, and other items cheaply or for free.
Check out garage sales, thrift stores, and consignment shops for clothing and other everyday items.
When making purchases, make sure you know what's "Good Stuff" and what isn't.
Watch a video about what happens when you buy things. Your purchases have a real impact, for better or worse.

Borrow instead of buying.


Borrow from libraries instead of buying personal books and movies. This saves money, not to mention the ink and paper that goes into printing new books.
Share power tools and other appliances. Get to know your neighbors while cutting down on the number of things cluttering your closet or garage.

Buy smart.


Great for classrooms:
Climate Change
Reference Guide
Buy in bulk. Purchasing food from bulk bins can save money and packaging.
Wear clothes that don't need to be dry-cleaned. This saves money and cuts down on toxic chemical use.
Invest in high-quality, long-lasting products. You might pay more now, but you'll be happy when you don't have to replace items as frequently (and this means less waste!).

Keep electronics out of the trash.


Keep your cell phones, computers, and other electronics as long as possible.
Donate or recycle them responsibly when the time comes. E-waste contains mercury and other toxics and is a growing environmental problem.
Recycle your cell phone.
Ask your local government to set up an electronics recycling and hazardous waste collection event.

Make your own cleaning supplies.


Join the Million Car Carbon Campaign by purchasing your Earth-Aid kit today.


The big secret: you can make very effective, non-toxic cleaning products whenever you need them. All you need are a few simple ingredients like baking soda, vinegar, lemon, and soap.
Making your own cleaning products saves money, time, and packaging-not to mention your indoor air quality.

IS THE PUBLIC READY FOR MORE NUCLEAR POWER?

We have seen that we will need more power plants in the near future, and that fueling them with coal, oil, or gas leads to many serious health, environmental, economic, and political problems. From the technological point of view, the obvious way to avoid these problems is to use nuclear fuels. They cause no greenhouse effect, no acid rain, no pollution of the air with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, or other dangerous chemicals, no oil spills, no strain on our economy from excessive imports, no dependence on unreliable foreign sources, no risk of military ventures. Nuclear power almost completely avoids all the problems associated with fossil fuels. It does have other impacts on our health and environment, which we will discuss in later chapters, but you will see that they are relatively minor.


However, regardless of such rational arguments, we must recognize that acceptance of nuclear power is largely an emotional issue. Nuclear power cannot have a future in the United States unless the public at large is ready to accept it. Pollsters have been busily trying to determine the status of this question. Let's examine what they have found.


WHAT THE POLLS SAY


A Gallup poll taken in February 1989 asked "How important do you think nuclear energy plants will be in providing this nation's electricity needs in the years ahead?" The same question was then asked about coal-burning plants. The results are given below for the first question, with the results for coal-burning plants in parentheses.


a. Very important 45% (29%)
b. Somewhat important 34% (37%)
c. Not too important 10% (17%)
d. Not at all important 6% (8%)
e. Don't know 5% (9%)


Combining a with b, we see that 79% thought nuclear would be important, while only 66% thought coal, which now provides most of our electric power, would be important. Combining c with d, only 16% thought nuclear would be unimportant versus 25% for coal. Moreover, younger people are more favorably disposed toward nuclear, with 81% in the age range 18‑34 versus 75% over age 55 believing that nuclear would be important.


In July 1989, the polling organization TeleNation Market Facts asked a cross section of the American public "How important a role should nuclear energy play in the U. S. Department of Energy's National Energy Strategy for the future?" Responses were:


a. Important 50%
b. Somewhat important 31%
c. Not too important 8%
d. Not at all important 8%
e. Don't know 3%


The results of a May 1989 survey by another professional polling organization, Cambridge Reports, were not quite as impressive, but still encouraging. It asked a representative sample of the American public "How important a role should nuclear energy play in meeting America's future energy needs?" The results were:


a. Very important 38%
b. Somewhat important 31%
c. Not too important 13%
d. Not at all important 14%
e. Don't know 4%


At the same time, Cambridge Reports asked another representative sample "How important do you think nuclear energy plants will be in meeting this nation's energy needs in the years ahead?" Replies were:


a. Very important 50%
b. Somewhat important 27%
c. Not too important 10%
d. Not at all important 9%
e. Don't know 4%


To summarize these surveys, 69% to 81% of the public think nuclear power should be important, while 16% to 27% think it should be unimportant. When asked whether it will be important, 77% to 79% said yes, while 16% to 19% said no.


These surveys refer somewhat indefinitely to the future. But what about the very near future that must be actively planned for now? In May 1989, Cambridge Reports asked "Which one energy source do you think will be our primary source of electricity 10 years from now?" The interviewer did not name any sources. The results were:


a. Nuclear energy 28%
b. Solar energy 18%
c. Hydroelectric 6%
d. Coal 6%
e. Oil 6%
f. Natural gas 4%
g. Fusion 3%
h. Wind 1%
i. Other 5%
j. Don't know 23%


Note that nuclear energy is by far the leader, and its lead over coal, oil, and natural gas, which experts would all agree are the only practical alternatives for the near future, is especially impressive.


In November 1989, Cambridge Reports asked "Do you think the nation's need for nuclear energy as part of the total energy mix will increase in the years ahead?" Of those polled, 77% said yes, 15% said no, and 8% were not sure.


One might still wonder whether the public is in favor of constructing any new power plants. The May 1989 Cambridge Reports poll also asked how serious a problem are energy supplies in the United States. Responses were


a. Very serious 48%
b. Somewhat serious 32%
c. Not very serious 11%
d. Not serious at all 6%
e. Don't know 3%


The 48% vote for "very serious" is up from about 33% during the 1983-1986 time period.


All of this leads us to believe that the overwhelming majority of the American public will not be surprised or offended by more nuclear power plants being built in the near future and is ready to accept them. Since there has been little publicity about the new developments, these attitudes are based on current nuclear power plants. When the public is informed about the new super-super safe plants to be described in Chapter 10, it should be even more favorably inclined.


While public support of nuclear power has only recently been turning favorable, the scientific community has always been steadfastly supportive. In 1980, at the peak of public rejection, Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter, social scientists from Smith College and Columbia University, respectively, conducted a poll of a random sample of scientists listed in American Men and Women of Science, The "Who's Who" of scientists.1 They received a total of 741 replies. They categorized 249 of these respondents as "energy experts" based on their specializing in energy-related fields rather broadly defined to include such disciplines as atmospheric chemistry, solar energy, conservation, and ecology. They also categorized 72 as nuclear scientists based on fields of specialization ranging from radiation genetics to reactor physics. Some of their results are listed in Table 1.


HOW SHOULD WE PROCEED WITH NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT?


TABLE 1
All
scientists Energy
experts Nuclear
experts
Proceed rapidly 53 70 92
Proceed slowly 36 25 8
Halt Development 7 4 0
Dismantle plants 3 1 0


From Table 1 we see that 89% of all scientists, 95% of scientists involved in energy-related fields, and 100% of radiation and nuclear scientists favored proceeding with the development of nuclear power. Incidentally, there were no significant differences between responses from those employed by industry, government, and universities. There was also no difference between those who had and had not received financial support from industry or the government.


Another interesting question was whether the scientists would be willing to locate nuclear plants in cities in which they live (actually, no nuclear plants are built within 20 miles of heavily populated areas). The percentage saying that they were willing was 69% for all scientists, 80% for those in energy-related sciences, and 98% for radiation and nuclear scientists. This was in direct contrast to the 56% of the general public that said it was not willing.


Rothman and Lichter also surveyed opinions of various categories of media journalists and developed ratings for their support of nuclear energy. Their results are shown in Table 2.


SUPPORT FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY


TABLE 2
Category Number
surveyed Support*
rating
Nuclear scientists 72 7.9
Energy scientists 279 5.1
All scientists 741 3.3
Science journalists 42 1.3
Prestige press journalists 150 1.2
Science journalists at New York Times,
Washington Post & TV networks 15 0.5
TV reporters, producers 18 -1.9
TV journalists 24 -3.3


*Scale runs from +10 for perfect to -10 for complete rejection.


We see that scientists are much more supportive of nuclear power than journalists, and press journalists are much more supportive than the TV people who have had most of the influence on the public, even though they normally have less time to investigate in depth. There is also a tendency for science journalists to be more supportive then other journalists.


In summary, these Rothman-Lichter surveys show that scientists have been much more supportive of nuclear power than the public or the TV reporters, producers, and journalists who "educate" them. Among scientists, the closer their specialty to nuclear science, the more supportive they are. This is not much influenced by job security considerations, since the level of support is the same for those employed by universities, where tenure rules protect jobs, as it is for those employed in industry. Moreover, job security for energy scientists is not affected by the status of the nuclear industry because they are largely employed in enterprises competing with nuclear energy. In fact, most nuclear scientists work in research on radiation and the ultimate nature of matter, and are thus not affected by the status of the nuclear power industry. Even among journalists, those who are most knowledgeable are the most supportive. The pattern is very clear — the more one knows about nuclear power, the more supportive one becomes.


But the attitude of scientists is largely irrelevant. The decision on acceptability of nuclear power will be made by the public. The most important point is that the public is now becoming supportive. If that support is maintained and continues to grow, the future of nuclear power is certain to be bright.


Strong public support for nuclear power is not a new phenomenon in the United States. In the 1960s, the public viewed nuclear energy as the great new wave of the future, the answer to all energy supply problems. Candidate communities vied for the honor of being chosen as a location for a nuclear plant. Mayors and governors offered tax concessions and pulled political strings to get them.


All of that changed when groups opposed to nuclear power formed and gained support from the media in depicting it as a dangerous technology operated by incompetents. Public opinion was turned around, with disastrous consequences. It has taken many years for the nuclear industry to recover public support.


This support could be lost again if the opposing groups and the media were to perform as they did in the 1970s and early 1980s. But there is evidence that this may not happen. Environmental groups are now truly concerned about the greenhouse effect, acid rain, and air pollution and, on weighing the alternatives, are becoming more opposed to coal burning than to nuclear energy.


According to polls by Cambridge Reports, in the 1983-1986 time period, which was 4-7 years after the Three Mile Island accident but before Chernobyl, 60% of the public recalled seeing or reading news stories about nuclear energy within the previous 6 months, and over two-thirds of these stories were "mostly unfavorable." However, in May 1989, only 51% recalled stories and only 25% viewed them as unfavorable.


In the 20 polls taken between 1983 and 1989, this May 1989 poll was the first in which less than half of the stories were unfavorable. This gives grounds for optimism. Since many stories are neutral, there are still more unfavorable than favorable stories, so the decrease in total number of stories is also a positive development. Perhaps the media and the public are ready to base decision making on nuclear power on scientific information. If so, decisions will be made on the basis of material we will explore in the remainder of this book.


But public support of nuclear power is fragile, and suspicion abounds. In a February 1989 Gallup poll, people were asked whether selecting nuclear power for large-scale use was a good choice, a realistic choice, or a bad choice. Replies were:


Good choice 19%
Realistic choice 50%
Bad choice 25%
It seems like the public is not in love with nuclear power but is ready to accept it as the least of the available evils. The public prefers to avoid risks in any shape or form but is coming to recognize that some risk is unavoidable. We will explore this matter in Chapter 8.


This February 1989 Gallup poll asked people how they would react to having a nuclear power plant in their community. Replies were


Favor nuclear plant 17%
Oppose nuclear plant 23%
Reserve judgment 59%
This hesitancy to have a plant in one's own community is a pervasive attitude known as the NIMBY syndrome — Not in my back yard. It extends far beyond the nuclear industry to any industrial activity that is viewed as something less than pristine. It is therefore encouraging to see that a strong majority of the public is at least willing to reserve judgment on a nuclear power plant in their community. In 1981, 56% were opposed.


Perhaps the best way to summarize the poll results presented in this chapter is to conclude that the public is receptive to, and even supportive of, nuclear power, but it is suspicious and can easily be swayed in either direction. Presumably, the heavy majority that is reserving judgment is waiting for more information on the subject. Providing that information is my main goal in writing this book.


PUBLIC MISUNDERSTANDING


I have been doing research and teaching on the health and environmental impacts of nuclear power for the past 17 years and have been constantly dismayed by the vast gulf of misunderstanding by the public. Perhaps the most important misunderstanding is about the dangers of radiation. The public views radiation as something highly mysterious, very complex, and poorly understood. Actually, it is one of the simplest and best understood of all environmental agents, far better understood, for example, than the biological actions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, or any of the other chemical agents discussed in Chapter 3. The next chapter represents my effort to clear up the public's misunderstanding of the hazards of radiation.


Another important misunderstanding is the danger from reactor meltdown accidents. Many people view such an accident as the ultimate disaster, picturing tens of thousands of dead bodies strewn about the landscape, something like what may be expected from a nuclear bomb attack. Actually, it is impossible for a reactor meltdown to cause anything approaching that level of disaster. In fact, deaths among the public from a meltdown accident would be similar to those from the air pollution caused by coal burning. They would be predominantly among the elderly, and only very rarely would they be recognizably connected with the accident. The major difference from the air pollution analogy is that there would be only a tiny fraction as many deaths. For the number of deaths from reactor meltdown accidents to be equal to the number caused by coal-burning air pollution, there would have to be a complete meltdown accident somewhere in the United States every few days! But after more than 30 years of nuclear power, we haven't even had the first such accident yet.


Chapter 6 explains reactor meltdown accidents, including their potential causes, their estimated effects, and estimates of how often they may be expected. This is followed in Chapter 7 by a description of the Chernobyl accident in the Soviet Union, including a definitive answer to the question: Can such an accident happen here?


The third major misunderstanding results from the failure of the public to quantify risks and put them into perspective with other risks. Chapter 8 represents an effort to lead the reader through this process, allowing the risks of nuclear power to be expressed in terms of extra cigarettes consumed by a regular cigarette smoker, extra weight gained by an overweight person, or driving in a small car rather than a midsize car. We then turn to the question of cost effectiveness of life-saving measures, comparing the number of deaths that are being averted by spending a given amount of money to improve the safety of nuclear reactors and of radioactive waste from the nuclear industry with the number that could be averted by spending that same money on medical screening or highway safety programs, or even on reducing our radiation exposure from radon in homes. The facts leading to the conclusions I draw in Chapter 8 were absolutely astounding to me when I discovered them. Perhaps they will serve as eye-openers to the reader.


The fourth major misunderstanding is of the hazards associated with radioactive waste, which is the subject of Chapters 11 and 12. Much of the public views this as an unsolved problem, with horrible consequences a distinct possibility if it is not solved satisfactorily. Actually, it is a rather trivial technological problem, and it can be shown that the health risks are trivial compared with those due to the waste from burning fossil fuels. Elucidating these matters is the principal agenda of Chapters 11 and 12, but the story involves several side issues that are also covered there.


Even if these four major areas of misunderstanding are cleared up, the public will still not accept nuclear power if the financial cost is too high. As of now, the costs are too high, or at least somewhat higher than the costs of electricity derived from burning coal. This situation has only come to pass recently — until the mid-1980s, nuclear power was cheaper. The reasons for that turnabout are the topics for Chapter 9.


The solution to the cost problem is given in Chapter 10, which describes the new generation of nuclear power plants being developed for the 1990s and beyond. They will not only provide electricity at a lower cost than coal-generated electric power, but they will also be a thousand times safer than plants of the present generation. Why this is possible and how it will be done will be described in some detail.


Some other misunderstandings of nuclear energy that have received less attention recently, the hazards of plutonium and the possible role of plutonium from the nuclear industry in making bombs for terrorists or for nations that do not now have nuclear weapons, are the topics of Chapter 13.


But even if all of the misunderstandings are cleared up, some people would still hesitate to accept nuclear power because they prefer solar energy instead. Is that a real option? Or will it become a viable option in the foreseeable future? Is it really as environmentally benign as most people believe it to be? All of these matters are considered in Chapter 14.


Unfortunately, some of the discussions must become rather technical. I have done my best to avoid this without leaving out essential points. Some of the technical details have been relegated to the Appendixes. But, to a large extent, each chapter stands by itself, and in most cases, can be read without having read the previous chapters.


With these preliminaries out of the way, we are ready to begin our discussion of the public's misunderstandings about nuclear power. We begin with the question "How dangerous is radiation?"