• More Blogs
• Observations »
• Bering in Mind »
• Cross-check »
• Extinction Countdown »
• Solar at Home »
• Expeditions »
• Guest Blog »
• Anecdotes from the Archive »

It will be exactly 30 years tomorrow since the nation's worst commercial nuclear accident occurred on a three-mile (five kilometer) slip of land in the Susquehanna River in the shadow of Harrisburg, Pa. Until that day, few people had ever heard of Three Mile Island—now there are few who haven't.

Once a majestic symbol of nuclear power, the plant would become synonymous with its dangers after one of its two reactors—the newer one, known as Unit 2—nearly melted down on March 28, 1979, just months after it was fired up.

The plant was shuttered, and Pennsylvania Gov. Richard Thornburgh recommended that pregnant women and preschoolers within five miles (eight kilometers) of the plant evacuate; some nearby hospitals and nursing homes were also evacuated. Today steam billows from the chunky, twin cooling towers of TMI's only functioning unit; the crippled reactor, now a skeleton, never reopened.

The incident triggered an outcry of protest against nuclear power, with critics pointing to the possible risks, including the lack of safety measures and workable evacuation plans. When Chernobyl in Ukraine, then a republic in the Soviet Union, melted down seven years later in what would become the worst nuclear power plant disaster in history, it seemed like the death knell for the industry—at least in the U.S.

Who could ever have predicted that the tide would turn? Yet three decades later, 20-plus applications have been filed for permission to construct new U.S. nuclear power plants—and even some onetime critics have done an about-face.*  The reason: Nuclear is one of the carbon-free alternatives to coal-fired and other fossil-fueled power, which result in greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming. And when they weigh climate change against the potential of another nuclear accident, they find the former the greater threat—especially in light of stiffer safety regulations adopted since the TMI incident.

Citizens' groups still worry that nuclear plants provide tempting targets for would-be terrorists—and that there are no credible evacuation plans should a facility—such as Indian Point in the Hudson River just 24 miles (38 kilometers) north of New York City—melt down. But time—and a pressing global environmental threat—seem to have erased much of the opposition to nuclear power, paving the way for the renaissance of an industry once believed fatally wounded in the U.S.

For more on the Three Mile Island accident—and the past, present and future of nuclear power, see our in-depth report on the power-generating technology. And for more on the  Three Mile Island cleanup, see our feature on the robots that did much of the work.

Image: Courtesy of NRC

The wording of the sentence marked with an asterisk was clarified at 11 a.m. on March 27, 2009.

9 Comments

1. 1. Quasimodo 08:25 AM 3/27/09

   I sure do wish the reporter had given us the information we were led to believe would be in the article - the actual status of Three Mile Island. Yes, there's a line about the place being shuttered, but what does that mean? Is Three Mile Island nuclear power facility running or not? How about some up to date photos? How about a little actual work on the article? Be happy I'm not your boss. You'd have been laughed out of my office and given a warning about such flimsy articles. You were actually paid for this article? (Heavy sigh.)

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. whowritesthesethings 08:28 AM 3/27/09

   who writes or edits these things? If the critics do a 360, then it's like they didn't turn at all. It's like you have a high school intern writing these articles.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. dhisrael 09:12 AM 3/27/09

   You also might mention that the French get a very large percent (87.5%) of their energy from Nuclear power, they export power to several Northern European Countries and their energy costs are a fraction of ours. They left us in the dust (coal dust at that) during the past thirty years. The question is which Socialist Democrat dribble do you believe; the carbon footprint dogma or the "we will all die of nuclear radiation" sermon. All our liberals will have to do a 180 to accept either. The 360 won't work here either)The "Campain for Change" doesn't really change anything does it? The more they "change" the more they reamin the same.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Sellout in reply to Quasimodo 10:09 AM 3/27/09

   Why so snarky, Quasimodo? All the info was there if you bothered to read it. Unit 1 is still up and running (the "only functioning unit" as mentioned in the article) and Unit 2 is down ("never reopened"). I guess reading comprehension is to much to ask in this day and age? (Heavy sigh.)

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. bogey999 10:31 AM 3/27/09

   Typical SA report. More editorial rather than news reporting.
   It has been proven over and over that rising CO2 levels throughout history have been the result of global warming, not the cause.
   Why don't you mention the safety record of the hundreds of nuclear reactors around the world? Why don't you mention that all the nuclear waste produced so far could fit in a Best Buy store. Too much trouble? Or doesn't fit with your UNscientific philosophy?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. jeffstieracsh 10:53 AM 3/27/09

   Please see: Three Mile Island, 20 years later (10 years ago). http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.867/pub_detail.asp
   
   Note that this was indeed the nation's worst commercial nuclear accident-- but that speak so the safety of nuclear energy.
   
   As to questions about ACSH's funding: http://www.acsh.org/about/pageID.6/default.asp

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. drafter 03:54 PM 3/27/09

   Notice in nearly melted down but didn't and nobody was hurt. the system worked so why was it shut down. Fear mongering on the part of those who hate progress. If we had not let ourselves be continually scared by every shadow we would probably have nuclear reactors like France's and be well ahead of the game.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. modepaul 02:44 PM 3/30/09

   Who writes these comments?
   
   Quasimodo: As Sellout mentioned, many of your questions would have been answered by a careful reading of the article... get a clue! Rest assured, I am VERY happy you're not by boss.
   
   whowritesthesethings: Thank you for your semantic argument, we are all much more enlightened on the topic of nuclear reactors now that we know a 360 degree turn equals a 0 degree turn.
   
   dhisrael: I am sad to hear that you have reduced the "question" of worldwide power production to two options of "Socialist Democratic dribble". Stop blindly dismissing extreme opinions and start forming your own well rounded argument.
   
   bogey999: Where do I begin? Greenhouse gases (such as CO2) being released into the atmosphere create the greenhouse effect, which causes a global rise in temperature. Also, the positive safety records of nuclear reactors should be minimally weighed against the negative when you consider the destructive potential of a single nuclear meltdown. And by the way, the US alone produces over 3000 tons of nuclear waste each year, I don't know what Best Buy you shop at but I am skeptical.
   
   drafter: Are you serious? Just because no one was hurt doesn't mean that the system worked. I think a more accurate description would be that the system narrowly avoided disaster. Have you ever heard of precaution? When regarding the potential for a nuclear meltdown 24 miles from one of the most populated cities in the world, I think precaution should be the #1 priority.
   
   Lisa Stein: I thought the article was well written, thank you.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. eco-steve 06:34 PM 4/1/09

   DHisrael : Your figures about France's nuclear industry are totally false. France only produces 18% of its energy needs from nuclear power. It produces 80% of its electricity from that source, but only at night in summer when consumption is at its lowest. Otherwise it uses fossil sources like everyone else. To do this it has almost 60 nuclear power plants, many of which are reaching the end of their lease of life and will have to be sealed for tens of thousands of years.....

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this