Connecticut Coalition Against the Millstone Nuclear Power Reactor
CCAM NEWS 2007 part 3
from:
http://www.nonuclear.net
Do some of the arguments of nuclear power supporters "feel" wrong to you,
even though you have trouble pinpointing the fallacies in them?
Then you'll be glad to read . . .
THE TOP 10 PRONUCLEAR ARGUMENTS...ANSWERED
by Dr. John W. Gofman
ARGUMENT 1: We receive more radiation sitting in our living rooms than is
given off by nuclear power plants. A brick wall puts out 3.5 millirems of
radiation per year but a nuclear power plant releases only 0.3 millirem in
the same time period. In fact you can stand right next to a nuclear power
plant and receive no radiation at all.
GOFMAN: First let me agree that certain building materials do give
off enough radiation doses to deserve consideration. Let me also agree that
there is a very low dose of radiation emitted at the fenceline of a nuclear
power plant that is functioning normally If this were not the case, workers
couldn't park their cars nearby or even approach such utilities at all.
However, the "no dose at fenceline" statement doesn't consider the
radiation people can receive from the entire nuclear power fuel cycle. We
need to take into account all of the steps that make up the atomic energy
process including the production of mountains of uranium tailings
(unshielded piles that are continuously releasing radioactive radon) . . .
the inventory of radioactive poisons--such as cesium 137 strontium 90 and
iodine 131--that "leak" or "puff" into the atmosphere when a power plant is
not functioning normally . . . the quantities of radioactive wastes being
moved in fallible vehicles that can (and do) leak . . . and the so-called
burial sites which have also been shown to leak and spread their material
into the environment at large.
Now let's come to the claim that a nuclear power plant itself
releases only 3/10 of a millirem per year. Were that radiation dose--coupled
of course with other fuel cycle emissions--truly always so small I would
hardly waste my time concerning myself with the hazards of nuclear power.
But the proof that advocates of this energy source have no confidence
whatsoever in their estimate of the plants' releases lies in their behavior
with respect to the legal radiation standards.
As late as 1979, nuclear power plants were, legally, allowed to
bombard the public with 170 millirems per year. When my colleague Arthur
Tamplin and I proposed a tenfold reduction in that standard, the nuclear
industry and pronuclear government agencies fought us tooth and nail. Now it
has to be regarded as the acme of strange behavior for an industry to say,
"Look, we're never going to give you more than 3/10 of a millirem per year"
. . . and then demand that the permissible standard remain more than 500
times as high as that limit! So I would say that as long as the industry
fights against reducing legal standards to a level comparable to the 3/10
millirem per year that nuclear power advocates claim is the maximum dose per
plant, any member of the public can dismiss such ludicrously low estimates.
(The legal standard was changed in 1979. It now permits 25 millirems
per year of ionizing radiation to be passed on to the general public, under
normal operating conditions! The Catch-22 here is that if anything occurs to
make the operating conditions "abnormal", a nuclear facility is permitted to
release an increased--and unrestricted--quantity of radiation.)
ARGUMENT 2: People living in high altitude cities, such as Denver, receive
twice as much natural radiation as do those living at low altitudes . . .
yet the residents of such cosmically bombarded locales don't display double
the average incidence of cancer.
GOFMAN: The answer to this favorite pronuclear argument is that the
cosmic radiation hitting the people in Denver probably does cause an
increase in the number of cancer cases per capita. (One should not expect to
find twice as many cases of cancer, of course, because radiation is not the
only cause of the disease.) But to statistically demonstrate such a reality,
we would first have to know [1] that the medical reporting of disease
categories was equally accurate in that city and the sea-level community to
which Denver was being compared, [2] that the people who are considered "at
risk" in both communities had all lived at the same location all their
lives, and [3] that any other carcinogenic factors--aside from background
radiation--were identical in both areas. (Undoubtedly they would not be
identical.)
The fact is that no expert in the field of vital statistics would be
prepared to contest the point that Denver residents may be experiencing an
increased cancer incidence rate as a result of cosmic radiation . . . when
compared with otherwise equivalent people at sea level.
ARGUMENT 3: A chest X-ray exposes a person to 50 millirems of radiation, and
a coast-to-coast jet flight gives one a dose of 5 millirems. But the
spokespersons of the antinuclear "movement" don't complain about those
hazards.
GOFMAN: An individual has the right to choose to accept the
radiation received by flying coast to coast or by having a chest X-ray . . .
in exchange for a perceived benefit for him- or herself. (The dose received
from a variety of medical X-rays is high enough, though, that I would not
recommend undergoing such examinations unless the procedures are required in
order to make an accurate diagnosis of a potentially fatal disease.)
But nuclear power does not offer a voluntary choice . . . the
radiation released by nuclear power is imposed upon people. Indeed, atomic
power represents the use of an entire population as involuntary guinea pigs
in a gigantic game of Russian roulette . . . the results of which could be
an epidemic of cancer, leukemia, and genetic disease. And there would be no
justification for such an involuntary imposition of risk even if the
majority of the people in a country voted in favor of nuclear power . . .
because the majority has no right to risk committing genocide against the
minority.
ARGUMENT 4: The genetic dangers often cited by antinuclear activists are
obviously exaggerated, because not even the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in
World War II produced any harmful genetic effects.
GOFMAN: I've often heard the statement that the Hiroshima/Nagasaki
data show that no genetic damage results from radiation, so I went out of my
way to analyze, very carefully, those particular scientific papers . . . and
I was astounded to discover that the findings in that study were exactly the
opposite of what is being claimed! The often quoted Neel-Kato-Schull study
examined dominant genetic diseases that are expected to cause death in early
life among children under 17 years of age, and definitely indicated that
ionizing radiation increased the incidence of such diseases.
The Neel-Kato-Schull findings were significant at what is called the
"5% level", which means there's one chance in 20 that the findings were the
result of chance . . . and 19 chances out of 20 that the findings were
correct. Now the scientists who did this work decided that--considering the
delicacy of the matter--they didn't want to trumpet their results around . .
. so they concluded in their paper that they found "no clear effects" (my
italics).
Well, they had indeed found that radiation has an effect on the
incidence of genetic damage, at the 5% level of significance. But--by
twisting the words in their summary--they provided pronuclear advocates with
the opportunity to grab at the statement that "no effect was clearly
observed" and then to jump to the fraudulent conclusion that "no effect
exists".
The Japanese evidence certainly does not prove the absence of
genetic effects of radiation.
ARGUMENT 5: Antinuclear advocates exaggerate the dangers of plutonium. After
all, the substance is easily safeguarded because it's produced in very small
quantities. Furthermore, other dangerous poisons--like lead, which has an
infinite half-life--are continually being spewed into the environment.
GOFMAN: Plutonium has to be one of the most dangerous carcinogens that I
know of. In fact, I believe that my own estimates of its toxicity--figures
that are thousands of times higher than those of "official" estimating
bodies--may well be understated.
And--although nuclear advocates claim that the carcinogen is now
made in relatively small quantities--if we develop an industry involving
reprocessing fuel rods (which must surely come to pass if we commit
ourselves to the nuclear energy route), society will be handling millions of
kilograms of plutonium. Under such circumstances, in order to avoid a lung
cancer epidemic, the containment of this plutonium will have to be 99.9999%
perfect . . . in other words, they'll have to safely guard all but one part
in a million!
And yes, lead does have an infinite half-life and may be injuring
the brains of many, many children . . . particularly those in urban
environments. However, pointing to the dangers of another damaging pollutant
to justify creating plutonium is the equivalent of arguing that if others
are committing murder, then additional homicide is justified!
The correct assessment involves the realization that if we're
letting the lead industry get away with dangerous pollution, we should do
something about the lead industry . . . and not promote still another
dangerous violation of human rights and health.
ARGUMENT 6: If all U.S. power were nuclear in origin, the radioactive waste
produced would amount to only the size of one aspirin tablet per person per
year.
GOFMAN: The important concern here, of course, is not only the
amount of poison, but its toxicity. A fully developed nuclear industry would
produce more than enough hazardous substances to kill everyone on the earth
many times over. So the real issue is not whether each citizen's "share" of
such materials occupies the size of a football field, a garage, or an
aspirin . . . but whether one hundredth, one ten-thousandth, or one
millionth of the accumulated poisons will escape. If the cumulative amount
that is released is anything like one-thousandth of the little "aspirins"
nuclear proponents speak about, we'll have one giant "headache": a cancer
and leukemia epidemic that will make all of history's advances in public
health care seem trivial.
ARGUMENT 7: Antinuclear activists often complain that the potential damage
caused by atomic power isn't covered by any insurance companies. But the
reason such businesses haven't insured the industry is simply that they have
no actuarial experience on which to base their rates.
GOFMAN: Yes, the insurance companies have said, "We don't know the
safety of nuclear power plants, so we won't insure them." For this reason,
Congress passed--and twice renewed--the Price Anderson Act, a law that
relieves the nuclear power industry of any liability claims beyond $560
million (a small sum in the event of a major catastrophe). Congress has also
decreed that the taxpayers would, in effect, reimburse the nuclear
industries for $460 million of that $560 million!
The insurance companies are smart . . . they don't know the risks,
so they won't insure. Does that mean it would be a good idea for you to "bet
your life" on nuclear power?
If the utilities were sincere about the safety claims that they make
publicly, they would agree to repeal the Price-Anderson Act and say, "We'll
put our assets on the line and insure each other." None of the power
companies has done so . . . which should tell you what they really think
about the safety of their plants.
ARGUMENT 8: Nuclear power supplies 13% of our country's electricity today.
If Industry is denied that energy, many jobs will surely be lost.
GOFMAN: The relationship of employment to energy is a very complex
matter. If you simply shut off the electricity serving a specific factory
tomorrow, then of course the people working there will be out of work. On
the other hand, the longrange increased use of electricity in factories
often results in more mechanization and a decrease in the number of humans
required to conduct the businesses' activities.
Furthermore, there's little reason to believe that the method of
energy production affects employment . . . though many solar advocates claim
that "their" energy source will produce more jobs per dollar than most other
power alternatives.
And as for any possible energy--not jobs--shortage that could occur
if we were to abandon atomic power (nuclear plants do produce 13% of our
electricity, but that amounts to only 3% of our total annual energy
consumption) . . . the American Institute of Architects has calculated, in
two carefully researched reports, that we could work up to a 26% saving in
America's projected energy use by 1990 (which would be equivalent to the
production of about 430 giant nuclear plants) simply by putting conventional
technology to work to make our buildings energy-efficient.
ARGUMENT 9: The question of the risks of nuclear power is a deeply technical
issue that only well-informed scientists, in that specific field, can
understand . . . and the majority of such people support nuclear power.
GOFMAN: I have several things to say in response to that one! First,
by simply using common sense, the layman will often behave far more
intelligently than would a Ph.D. The ordinary man-in-the-street can look at
the amount of radioactivity that would be produced in a full-scale nuclear
industry and realize that containing such toxins to 99.9999% perfection day
in, day out, year in, and year out--when one considers all the possible
human and machine fallibilities--is impossible. But the expert who looks at
a computer printout based on the perfect execution of a string of single
operations and then concludes that the toxins can be contained to one part
in a million is, to my way of thinking, the person who's behaving like an
idiot.
Let me now address the idea that the majority of qualified
scientists support nuclear power. When considering this statement, you
should first realize that the U.S. government funds about half of the
research in this country. And, as I can tell you from my own personal
experience, the government doesn't like results that disagree with its
policies. Therefore, many scientists are publicly silent on nuclear power,
or declare that the issue is too controversial to take a stance on, when
privately they will admit their reservations.
Most important, though, scientific truth is not a popularity
contest. Throughout history, almost every step forward in science was
resisted by the majority of contemporary scientists. When most people
thought that our earth was the center of the universe, the planet was
traveling through space just as it's doing today . . . even though the "vast
preponderance" of scientific opinion was steadfastly against such an idea.
So remember: No matter how many votes a scientific committee may cast . . .
the truth of nature remains unchanged.
ARGUMENT 10: Every activity--including driving a car--is risky. It's
impossible to have a risk-free society. Consequently the benefits of an
action must be weighed against its hazards . . . and nuclear power's
benefits outweigh its risks.
GOFMAN: It is absolutely true that we cannot have a risk-free
society. And, since that's the case, we should recognize that those who
produce hazards for others must be fully prepared to take the financial
consequences of the risks. This rule does hold true among individuals, and a
corporation or the government should not be allowed to assume the
right--which individuals do not have--to aggress against others. Yet nuclear
power is currently absolved from the responsibilities of its actions by the
Price-Anderson Act.
Moreover, the entire concept of a benefit vs. risk doctrine is
immoral. There is no benefit to society that can justify the forcible
imposition of risks or threats to life upon individuals. Indeed, there is a
straight path from accepting the benefit vs. risk doctrine for society as a
whole to the philosophy we saw epitomized in Nazi Germany.
Lastly, let me sum up my replies to all of the arguments presented
here by reminding people that the nuclear power question is fundamentally a
human rights issue. People have the right not to be aggressed against and
used as guinea pigs in a massive human experiment. However a concern for
human rights must not be equated with a craven fear of progress or
challenge! Humanity has faced very difficult problems and perilous
situations in the past, and shown great ingenuity in devising systems that
can minimize dangers in a fashion which results in only voluntary risks
being taken. But such things have to be done in a sensible way, without
coercion, and with each party or industry involved taking the responsibility
for his, her, or its actions.
Radiation and Human Health, by John W. Gofman, M.D. Ph.D. R&HH is a
practical book which can make a positive contribution to the health of those
who use it, and especially to the health of their children, who are the most
sensitive to radiation injury. The book provides necessary information for
making recurring personal and family decisions about voluntary exposures to
medical, dental, and occupational radiation. 928 pages, hardcover, $29.95
prepaid. CNR pays for packing and shipping. Tax on Californians: $1.80.Committee for Nuclear Responsibility
P.O. Box 421993, San Francisco, CA 94142
This document can always be found at
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/top10args.html
Greenburbs website:
http://www.greenburbs.com
Everything Solar & Green in Fairfield County
NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT THE ANSWER - by Karl Grossman October 24, 2007
There's again a move to "revive" nuclear power. Every decade or so those with a vested interest in this deadly dangerous technology have sought to get the public to swallow the nuclear pill--and it's happening again.
That promotion has consistently been based on falsehoods. For example, in a
heavy push years back--during a gasoline shortage that included long lines
at the pump--the claim was that if we had nuclear power, somehow this wouldn
't happen again. In fact, only 3 percent of electricity in the United States
is generated with oil. Nuclear power has nothing to do with oil and gas.
Currently, as the global warming crisis is acknowledged (after years of the
vested oil interests denying it) the big pitch is: Nuclear plants don't emit
greenhouse gases and thus don't contribute to warming. In reality, the
overall nuclear cycle--which includes uranium mining and milling,
enrichment, fuel fabrication and disposal of radioactive waste--produces
greenhouse gas emissions that play a significant part in global warming.
As Michel Lee of the Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy
notes: "The dirty secret is that nuclear power makes a substantial
contribution to global warming." The claim that it doesn't "is a fiction
that has been a prime feature of the nuclear industry's and Bush
administration's PR campaign."
As a petition being circulated by the Nuclear Information and Resource
Service, which numerous environmental and safe-energy groups and thousands
of individuals have signed onto, declares: "we do not support construction
of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis.
Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster,
leaner, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than
nuclear power."
The last order for a nuclear plant in the United States not subsequently
cancelled was in 1973. The 1979 Three Mile Island accident and the 1986 Cher
nobyl disaster gave the lie to the nuclear establishment's claim that a
catastrophic mishap was extremely unlikely--despite a PR campaign since then
trying to deny the impacts of these events.
Fortunately, a majority of Americans remain strongly against nuclear power,
realizing how lethal it is. Indeed, a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
report, "CRAC-2," projects consequences of a major accident at each the 103
nuclear power plants now operating our country, estimating "peak early
fatalities" as high as 100,000, "peak early injuries" even higher, and
property damage as much as $300 billion.
Post-9/11, with al-Qaeda acknowledging that it has been eyeing U.S. atomic
plants, every one is a target--and a potent nuclear weapon for terrorists.
Moreover, "It doesn't take an accident for a nuclear power plant to release
radioactivity into our air, water, and soil. All it takes is the plant's
everyday routine operation, and federal regulations permit these radioactive
releases," stresses Kay Drey of Beyond Nuclear.
How would the scores of would-be new nuclear plants be financed? You and
other taxpayers would be expected to pay heavily. Some $15 billion in
taxpayer subsidies have already been arranged and an energy bill now before
Congress authorizes $50 billion more for new nuclear plants.
"Renewables Are Ready" is the title of a 1999 book written by two staffers
of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Today, they are more than ready. Wind,
solar, hydrogen, bio-fuels, geothermal and other safe, clean renewable power
can, along with energy efficiency, easily provide the energy we need. The
resources are vast. Researchers at Stanford University estimate global wind
energy potential at 72,000 gigawatts--10 times as much electricity as the
world now uses. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory says seven U.S.
southwest states could provide more than 7,000 gigawatts of solar
power--seven times the existing electric capacity in the United States from
all sources. And renewable energy technologies are now highly developed--on
the shelf and ready to be widely utilized.
But those who push nuclear power would threaten us with losing out lives and
money--unnecessarily. They must be stopped.
-
Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at SUNY/College at Old Westbury
(N.Y.), is author of "Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About
Nuclear Power," and TV documentaries, including, "The Push to Revive Nuclear
Power."# # # # #EDITORS NOTE: MinutemanMedia.org is seeking, after all these years, to
become a bit higher profile. For this reason we would be grateful if you
would credit us with any piece you may use: "Distributed by
http://www.MinutemanMedia.org ." (or similar).
Litchfield Radio operators ready for disaster 10/14/2007
By DAVID HUTTER
Register Citizen Staff
LITCHFIELD - A group of volunteer radio operators transmitted messages in an exercise held at state police troop L headquarters Saturday that simulated a response to a disaster caused by two air crafts that crashed into the Millstone nuclear power plant in Waterford.
Brian Fernandez is a volunteer with the Amateur Radio Emergency Service and an investment banker from Washington Depot. Sitting in front of an interconnected system of radios, computers and other technologies, he received dispatches about the extent of damage at the power plant. In response, the 65-year-old Fernandez passed along subsequent information to firefighters, police officers and other emergency personnel who were responding to the wreckage at the power plant.
"You really don't quite understand the severity of the damage until you go to a place that is experiencing a disaster," Fernandez said, referring to his own experience of establishing communication systems in the aftermath of tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and the 9/11 terrorist attacks during the past 15 years. "You are shocked to realize the helplessness placed upon a community that has no infrastructures. If you have no communication, you cannot get food and water and medical supplies to the people in need."
Working inside a garage at the police barracks, Anne Buchenholz, David Hyatt and Fernandez operated a system of interconnected radios, computers and other technologies. The volunteers passed along information about evacuation plans for people who were located in a particular towns, shelters that had been set up and the conditions of certain highways.
"We are here because we care about people and we care about saving their lives during crises," Fernandez said. "I prepare communication systems in times of emergencies. I do this instead of golfing or fishing."
In sending and receiving messages, the operators identified the nature of the exercise in order to make sure that any person who was overhearing the dispatches would not be alarmed.
In addition to the group operating at Troop L headquarters, another 500 communication volunteers were participating in the exercise from other locations in Connecticut. These people are licensed radio operators through the Federal Communication Commission.
"Our motivation is a spirit of volunteerism; we are not obsessed with the certificates," Fernandez said. "We have a sense of purpose about the people we serve."
David Hyatt received updated weather reports and subsequently transmitted the information to colleagues working in other locations. A resident of Torrington who makes his living as a technical support engineer, the 50-year-old Hyatt said that some of his colleagues volunteer as much as 60 hours per week.
Hyatt went to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina devastated it in 2005. There, he helped establish communication systems that enabled emergency responders, firefighters, police officers and other authorities to transmit vital information to each other.
"We do not edit or revise or modify the information," Hyatt said. "If the information is correct, it is correct. If the information is wrong, it is wrong."
Anne Buchenholz, a 51-year-old homemaker and a volunteer with the Amateur Radio Emergency Service, discussed her passion for helping people in times of crises. She also volunteers with the Red Cross.
"I understand the importance of being prepared to set up a system of communications in an emergency," Buchenholz said. The volunteers operating at the Troop L barracks spend their own money on their own equipment. The equipment they were using on Saturday costs between $5,000 and $10,000, the volunteers said. The exercise was being conducted with the Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security.
David Hutter can be reached by e-mail at torrington@registercitizen.com.
Dominion's mantra is "Keep 'em confused"This week (beginning October 22, 2007), Dominion is testing six siren alarms installed last year at various locations in southeastern Connecticut. (The siren alarms are supposed to alert the community of an accident or other emergency at Millstone so that families can make plans to evacuate their homes, schools, hospitals, nursing homes and workplaces.) We know this because Dominion placed ads in the classified section of The New London Day.The ads did not say where the siren alarms were that would be tested nor when they would be tested.We called Pete Hyde - Millstone's PR man - twice to ask him to reveal to the community when and where the false alarms will sound, but he was silent on the subject. He didn't return our phone calls.A mantra of Dominion and indeed the nuclear industry and its so-called regulator, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, is to keep the public confused whenever possible and in this way frustrate public awareness of the grave risks of nuclear power.If the alarm goes off near you, we suggest you call Pete (860-447-1791 X 4497) and ask him if what you heard was a test or the real thing. If a test, take a moment to pause and ponder if relying on nuclear power instead of the sun and the wind and the tides is wise. If the real thing, we suggest you gather your family around you and say your prayers.Connecticut’'s highest court will decide whether the Siting Council acted illegally in allowing Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. to build an above-ground onsite storage facility for Millstone high-level nuclear waste in plain view of potential terrorists without considering the environmental consequences.The Supreme Court will hear argument later this fall on the challenge the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone brought to Dominion’'s plan to create a de facto permanent nuclear waste storage dump prohibited by Waterford zoning regulations.The Court released notice on October 10, 2007 that it was transferring the Coalition appeal from the lower Appellate Court. The Supreme Court traditionally transfers appeals to itself when it considers the issues raised to be substantial and to have statewide significance.The Siting Council refused to consider the environmental consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, although state law dictates the Council consider all potential environmental impacts of an application.The Supreme Court is also asked to decide whether Superior Court Judge George Levine correctly excluded evidence that Dominion deliberately disabled its perimeter security system as a cost-saving measure, while it represented to the Siting Council that the site was protected by a state-of-the-art security system.Did Judge Levine suppress the truth about misconduct by Dominion?Another issue is whether Edward C. Wilds, radiation director for the Department of Environmental Protection, who served as a designee on the Siting Council, should have disclosed that he was taken on a Dominion junket to visit a Pennsylvania nuclear installation where above-ground nuclear waste storage had already occurred and that he served as a dupe for Dominion?Did Judge Levine suppress the truth about the rancid corruption and collusion between Dominion and state government, particularly the DEP?“The Siting Council rubber-stamped Dominion’'s application and the public interest was not served,” said Nancy Burton, director of the Coalition and an environmental intervenor in the case. She will argue the appeal.If the Supreme Court sides with Dominion and the Siting Council, it will create a de facto zone of federal jurisdiction in Waterford over which the State of Connecticut will have no future say. The site could become a regional high-level nuclear waste dump and neither the state nor the town of Waterford would have standing to object.“We look to the state’'s highest court to correct these serious legal errors and restore the rule of law to matters involving the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, which poses the gravest threat to the safety and security of the state," Burton said.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Bonnie Raitt for MoveOn.org Political Action Thursday, October 18, 2007
Dear MoveOn member,
When Jackson Browne, Graham Nash, many other bands and I played our "No Nukes" concerts in 1979 to 100,000 people, we never dreamed we'd have to come back almost 30 years later to fight the same fight all over again.
But it's 2007, and here we are again. The nuclear industry just slipped a clause into the energy bill that will provide up to $50 billion in tax subsidies for to build new reactors—enough to launch a whole new generation of nukes! We've already got the safe, viable alternatives to replace the dirty energy we're using now. Building new atomic reactors in an age of terror threats is not only scary, but the toxic waste from nuclear power threatens our health and our planet.
The nuclear option is not the way to go.
So I called my friends, and we recorded a music video to spread the word. We've also launched a petition, and I'm asking MoveOn members to sign on. Here's what it says:
"America's new energy policy needs to focus on safe and economic fuel sources. Congress must strip the nuclear tax subsidies from the energy bill before they pass it."
Clicking below will add your signature (and you can also see the video that we produced on that same page):
http://pol.moveon.org/nukefree/o.pl?id=11424-7250776-.GYjjG&t=4
When you're done, please take a minute to pass it along to your friends.
$50 billion in loan guarantees is a lot of money—enough to cover financial risk for the big banks who want to get involved. In other words, if something goes wrong, it will be the American taxpayers who foot the bill, not Wall Street.
It makes no sense. We know nuclear facilities are a target for terrorists. We know nuclear energy is toxic to our health and environment. And we know solar and wind power are safer, cheaper, and getting easier to use every day. This should equal a big "no" on nuclear energy, and a big "yes" to investing in clean energy. But the nuclear industry and their friends in Congress don't want to take no for an answer.
We know MoveOn members worked to pass this energy bill and most of it is great—we'll get more solar and wind with this bill, and even more fuel efficient cars. We just need to ask Congress to take the nuclear subsidies out.
So that's why we're reaching out to you. No one is better than MoveOn when it comes to mobilizing quickly on important issues.
Can sign your name to the petition below and pass it along to your friends?
"America's new energy policy needs to focus on safe and economic fuel sources. Congress must strip the nuclear tax subsidies from the energy bill before they pass it."
http://pol.moveon.org/nukefree/o.pl?id=11424-7250776-.GYjjG&t=5
Thanks for listening. Together we can find a way to a cleaner future.
–Bonnie Raitt, Musician
Thursday, October 18th, 2007P.S. To check out the video, see more information, and read the list of everyone who has signed onto this campaign, go to www.nukefree.org
Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by our 3.2 million members. We have no corporate contributors, no foundation grants, no money from unions. Our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. If you'd like to support our work, you can give now at:
http://political.moveon.org/donate/email.html?id=11424-7250776-.GYjjG&t=6
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.__________________________________________________________________
Orbiting solar panels' day may be near
A study finds rising oil prices could finally make space power plants economically competitive.
By Theo Milonopoulos, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer October 11, 2007Beam it down, Scotty.
A new federal study released Wednesday concluded that continued increases in oil prices may finally make the generation of solar power in orbiteconomically competitive.
The report urged the government to sponsor a demonstration of the technology to spur private investment in the concept.
The orbiting power plants would reduce the nation's dependence on imported oil and help reduce the production of carbon dioxide that is contributing to global warming, according to the report led by the National Security Space Office, part of the Department of Defense.
"This is a solution for all mankind," said former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, chairman of the spaceflight advocacy group, ShareSpace Foundation. Aldrin joined a group of other space advocacy organizations to unveil the report in Washington.
Since the Space Age began 50 years ago, scientists have dreamed of launching acres of photovoltaic cells into orbit and beaming the electricity electromagnetically to Earth's surface but have stumbled over the project's high cost and the technical difficulties.
The report estimated that in a single year, satellites in a continuously sunlit orbit could generate an amount of energy nearly equivalent to all of the energy available in the world's oil reserves.
Mark Hopkins, senior vice president of the National Space Society, said space-based solar energy could generate so much power that it could transform the United States from an energy-importing country into an energy-exporting nation.
"It is the largest energy option which is available to us today in the sense that it would derive more power potentially than all of the other power sources combined," Hopkins said.
NASA and the Department of Energy have spent $80 million in the last three decades to study space-based solar energy, but the effort faded in the mid-1990s.
Critics have charged that ground-based solar energy is more economical. But putting the solar factories in space would allow them to operate 24 hours a day and would eliminate interference by clouds and adverse weather, said Charles Miller, director of the Space Frontier Foundation.
Miller said that, even if implementation started immediately, it would take at least 10 years before energy could be produced in significant quantities, and it would take several generations of satellites to reduce the cost of the technology to a reasonably low level.
But he said: "Our energy dependence and potential global warming problems are long-term problems. . . . So on a time scale, this solution matches up if we start investing now."
theo.milonopoulos @latimes.com
Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer:
Dr. Helen Caldicott in New Haven October 15
Join the discussion and book-signing with Nobel Peace
Prize nominee Dr. Helen Caldicott, celebrating the paperback release of
her acclaimed book, Nuclear Power is Not the Answer.
Helen Caldicott's look at the actual costs and environmental
consequences of nuclear energy belies the incessant barrage of nuclear
industry propaganda. Caldicott "reveals truths," Martin Sheen has
said, "that confirm we must take positive action now if we are to make
a difference." In fact, nuclear power contributes to global warming;
the true cost of nuclear power is prohibitive, with taxpayers picking
up most of the tab; there's simply not enough uranium in the world to
sustain nuclear power over the long term; and the potential for a
catastrophic accident or a terrorist attack far outweighs any
benefits. Concluding chapters detail alternative sustainable energy
sources that are the key to a clean, green future.
The world's leading spokesperson for the antinuclear movement, Dr.
Helen Caldicott is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee and the recipient of
the 2003 Lannan Prize for Cultural Freedom. A bestselling author,
Caldicott is the co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility
and president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute.
Labyrinth Books, 290 York Street, New Haven (off Broadway behind Sterling Library), 7:30 P.M.
This event is free and open to the public.
Remember “Millsteam”?
On April 17, 2005, Dominion declared a Class II emergency at Millstone Unit 3 when steam cascaded from Millstone for a 10-hour period during a Dominion-declared Class II emergency involving valve failures, operator error, defective instrumentation and a "tin whisker." Throughout the incident, Dominion denied radiation leakage to the environment. Subsequently, officials of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, under questioning by the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone, admitted the steam contained unusual levels of radioactive krypton, which quickly decays to strontium-90, a deadly radioisotope which causes bone cancer and leukemia. The NRC admitted it lied to the public about radiation releases which occurred during the emergency to avoid a public panic.
On January 28, 2007, Unit 3 was again shut down when a radioactive leak allowed irradiated coolant to escape from the reactor. Workers assigned to investigate and repair the leaking valve were exposed to high levels of radiation. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Millstone's Virginia-based owner, denied that any radiation leaked into the environment
These incidents - and hundreds more over the course of the past 21 years since Millstone Unit 3 went on line in 1986 - have exposed the public to high health and safety risks.
Millstone Unit 3 is so unsafe it should be closed. If Dominion and its predecessor, Northeast Utilities, were forced to pay reparations and compensation to the families of those who have died from cancer and other diseases attributable to its radiation releases, and to the State of Connecticut for its devastation of fishery stocks and heating up of the Long Island Sound with its continuous thermal plume, the money would easily exceed what it would cost to replace Millstone megawatts with conservation and green energy.
Instead, Dominion is now applying to the NRC to increase the amount of electricity it generates at Millstone Unit 3 by 7 per cent. The proposed “uprate” would geometrically increase pressure within the aging, embrittled reactor containment and increase routine radiation releases to the air and water by more than 7 per cent.
Instead of “uprating” nuclear reactors whose concrete structures have strained and cracked under punishing pressure during two decades of output, rationality dictates “downrates” to final closure.
After the NRC approved an uprate recently at Vermont Yankee, four frightening uprate-related incidents have so far occurred: a transformer fire associated with increased water flows; a fire resulting from overtaxing pumps; cracking of the steam dryer; and collapse of a cooling tower.
Sign our online petition to the NRC to deny the Millstone 3 uprate!
PETITION TO U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
We the undersigned petition the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to deny the Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. application for a 7 per cent “uprate” in electricity generation at the Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 3.
Email to info@MothballMillstone.org.
From: Harvey Schaktman harvey@ nukebusters.org Thursday, August 23, 2007
[NucNews] Cooling Tower Collapse Raises Concerns about a New
License for the Aging Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.
After key components of a Vermont Yankee cooling tower fell to the ground
Tuesday, members of Safe Power Vermont are saying "no" to renewing Entergy's
license to operate for another 20 years.
Safe Power Vermont - a coalition of experienced citizen, environmental,
legal, and anti-nuclear organizations committed to closing the nuclear power
plant - said that while alarming, the collapse of the cooling tower is not
surprising.
"Vermont Yankee is running at 120% of its designed capacity. This surge in
power combined with its already ailing infrastructure leaves Vermont Yankee
incredibly vulnerable to dangerous accidents just like this one," said Deb
Katz, Executive Director of Citizens Awareness Network.
Advocates questioned the clean bill of health that the cooling tower
recently received from Entergy's experts. They called into question Vermont
Yankee's claims that the 35 five year old reactor is not experiencing
serious aging strain that jeopardizes the plant's future. "Vermont Yankee
telling us that the plant is running like new is like a hair dresser telling
you that you look twenty years younger, its nice to hear but far from the
truth," said James Moore, Clean Energy Advocate for VPIRG.
The plant's history of defects and accidents is not insignificant. Just in
the past decade, Vermont Yankee has documented 76 cracks in its steam dryer,
three fires in its transformer station, a dangerously overcrowded spent fuel
pool for radioactive waste and now a cooling tower collapse. Despite this,
Entergy is aggressively looking to extend the plant's license to operate for
an additional 20 years.
Advocates also noted that Vermont Yankee benefited from the recent
expiration of a rate payer protection plan. This fact will leave Green
Mountain Power, Central Vermont Public Service, and Vermont rate payers with
higher bills in the future.
"Any further reliance on Vermont Yankee will pass on to future generations
both financial as well as safety risks. Vermont Yankee was built to run 40
years and at 35 it is already testing "father time", the plant must close in
2012," said Ed Anthes of Nuclear Free Vermont.
In accordance with Act 160, the Vermont legislature has the power to prevent
Vermont Yankee from running past its 2012 lifespan. Safe Power Vermont says
the coalition will continue to work for the facility's closure to prevent a
seemingly inevitable accident of catastrophic proportions.
Regulators keeping tighter tabs on dangerous radioactive material
By GREG CLARY THE JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: August 14, 2007)
BUCHANAN - Specially trained contractors broke open a bolted box at the bottom of Indian Point 3's spent-fuel pool this month, hoping to find tiny amounts of weapons-grade uranium 235 that federal officials want to verify haven't been misplaced, lost or stolen.
The work - done underwater with equipment operated from above - should be finished in the next few days, and Indian Point officials expect to find all the radioactive isotopes they're supposed to.
Still, the process is painstaking.
"You can't just empty the contents of the boxes on the floor and start counting," said Indian Point spokesman Jim Steets. "One of the boxes gave the guys trouble just to get it opened."
Federal regulators are requiring an updated inventory of "special nuclear material" at nuclear plants across the country and have found a few cases - including Indian Point - where the storage methods and records don't meet Nuclear Regulatory Commission standards.
Those gaps bring into focus the storage of radioactive isotopes that, before Sept. 11, 2001, were considered so dangerous to handle that thieves wouldn't risk certain suicide to steal them.
"The current threat environment has changed the NRC's perspective of the self-protecting nature of this material," said Martha Williams, the agency official most responsible for ensuring inventories are accurate. "Ten years ago it never occurred to anybody that somebody would give up their life to get something like this."
It's pretty clear from experts that those trying to grab some plutonium or enhanced uranium to create a radiological disaster wouldn't get far at a nuclear plant without taking extraordinary precautions.
"When you're talking about somebody trying to steal or deliver the material, the radiation around that spent-fuel pool would be so high that if you didn't have the proper equipment, you'd have only minutes to live," said Joseph Alverez, a health physicist with more than 30 years' experience in radiation-protection programs, most of that with the U.S. Department of Energy.
"It would be like trying to walk into a place that's 300 degrees and expecting to live," Alverez said. "We're talking about radiation so strong, you're getting fried. Your nerves just go. Your body can't cool itself off."
NRC officials say that since terrorists have shown they will give their lives if the cause is important enough to them, the rules have changed, not just in tightened security measures, but also in the day-to-day warehousing of nuclear material.
So much so that the agency committed extra resources late last year to review all of its 104 nuclear plant inventories by the summer, even down to verifying amounts minute enough to force Indian Point to break open a box that had been closed since about 1988.
Entergy Nuclear, which owns and operates Indian Point, bought the power plant in 2001 and is responsible for visually verifying all its inventories.
"We have to account for metric tons (of special nuclear material)," said Robert "Monk" Hansler, the man responsible for Indian Point's inventory. "Almost all of it - probably 99.9 percent - is spent fuel."
The small remaining amount is either new fuel, instrumentation calibration samples, or detectors that measure the power of the nuclear reactors on site.
That last category is what caused the inventory problem at Indian Point and has cost other nuclear plants hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines when the detectors have turned up missing.
It's too early to know what the NRC will do on the issue with Indian Point, which was cited for not visually verifying each detector during annual inspections. Entergy said it believed the bolted container left over from previous owners was to be counted as a unit.
Federal regulators said company officials should have opened it because it was merely bolted shut, not sealed.
Indian Point isn't alone among plants that have had to find special nuclear material that wasn't properly inventoried.
As recently as last month, Dresden 3 in Morris, Ill., ran into trouble when officials couldn't locate two fuel pellets and 99 pieces of uranium used as in-core power detectors.
The items were last documented in 1977 in the reactor's spent- fuel pool and are still unaccounted for, NRC officials said yesterday.
There have been other cases, as well, including Entergy plants in Vermont and Massachusetts.
The case that raised the most auditing concerns, however, was the Millstone power plant in Waterford, Conn., which was fined $288,000 in 2002 for two fuel rods that were reported missing in 2000 and were never found.
Millstone, in fact, is the reason that the federal government started keeping a closer eye on the nuclear industry's fuel supplies - that and the terrorist attacks of 2001, NRC officials said.
A special investigation soon after those events led to a 2005 federal government report that cited a lack of visual verification of inventory and too great a reliance on record keeping that wasn't even computerized until more recent times.
"It's because of some of the problems ... that the NRC is now more in a Missouri mode, where you have to 'show me,' " said David Lochbaum, a nuclear specialist with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "In the past, a paperwork audit was enough and the change is leading to some of the situations that we have today like Indian Point's."
Lochbaum chided the NRC's lack of speed in arriving at the new attitude, noting that the Millstone discovery happened in late 1999 and that seven-plus years was too long to wait to enact tighter controls.
"The NRC is moving in the right direction on this, but they can turn a license renewal around in 24 months," Lochbaum said. "They're an agency that allegedly puts safety first."
Lochbaum and Alverez, as well as Entergy and NRC officials, all pointed out that the amounts of uranium 235 being reviewed at Indian Point are too small to make a bomb. The material has also been enriched to a maximum of 5 percent, while the amounts needed for an atomic bomb would be thousands of times greater and would have to be enriched to more than 90 percent.
"The uranium at a nuclear power plant, you can't make it into a bomb. You just can't blow that stuff up," Alverez said. "The stuff that could be made into a bomb, there just so little of it, you'd have to collect a bunch of it from a bunch of different places to do it."
He said the people who have enough nuclear material to make something dangerous are sanctioned labs set up for nuclear bomb research.
"Unless you're doing special types of experiments, you don't want that much of this material," Alverez said. "If you've got enough to make a bomb, and it gets together accidentally, you'd have a problem. It's very unstable."
Reach Greg Clary at 914-696-8566 or gclary@lohud.com.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' By Mark Kinver Science and nature reporter, BBC News
The idea that the exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant has created a wildlife haven is not scientifically justified, a study says.
Recent studies said rare species had thrived despite raised radiation levels as a result of no human activity.
But scientists who assessed the 1986 disaster's impact on birds said the ecological effects were "considerably greater than previously assumed".
The findings appear in the Royal Society's journal, Biology Letters.
In April 1986, reactor number four at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant exploded.
After the accident, traces of radioactive deposits were found in nearly every country in the northern hemisphere.
The paper's authors, Anders Moller of University Pierre and Marie Curie, France, and Tim Mousseau from the University of South Carolina, US, said their research did not support the idea that low-level radiation was not affecting animals."Recent conclusions from the UN Chernobyl Forum and reports in the popular media concerning the effects of radiation from Chernobyl has left the impression that the exclusion zone is a thriving ecosystem, filled with an increasing number of rare species," they wrote.
Instead, they added: "Species richness, abundance and population density of breeding birds decreased with increasing levels of radiation."
The study, which recorded 1,570 birds from 57 species, found that the number of birds in the most contaminated areas declined by 66% compared with sites that had normal background radiation levels.
It also reported a decline of more than 50% in the range of species as radiation levels increase.
Photos showing normal (left) and partial albino barn swallow
The findings build on a previous study of barn swallows in the affected area, which showed that the number of the birds declined sharply in contaminated areas.
The birds' decline was probably the result of depressed level of antioxidants after its long migration back to the area, making it more vulnerable to the low-level radiation, the researchers concluded.
"It suggests to us that barn swallows are not alone; there are many other species that appear to be affected in a similar way," Professor Mousseau told BBC News.
"This paper also suggests that birds feeding on insects that are living in the upper surface of the soil, where contaminates are highest, seem to be most likely to be missing or depressed."
He added that they were currently carrying out research to find out whether the decline was a result of the birds eating contaminated insects, or whether it was a result of fewer insects living in affected areas.
"We are also looking for funding to expand the range of ecological studies to include invertebrates, as well as plants and animals."
Radioactive retreat
A recent paper published in the American Scientist magazine suggested that plants and animals were better off in the exclusion zone than specimens outside the 30km radius surrounding the site of the destroyed nuclear reactor.
How wildlife is coping inside the exclusion zone
One of the paper's co-authors, Robert Baker from the Texas Tech University, said that the benefits for wildlife from the lack of human activity outweighed the risks of low-level radiation.
Writing on his university web page, Professor Baker said: "The elimination of human activities such as farming, ranching, hunting and logging are the greatest benefits.
"It can be said that the world's worst nuclear power plant disaster is not as destructive to wildlife populations as are normal human activities."
Professor Mousseau acknowledged Professor Baker's description: "It is true that the Chernobyl region gives the appearance of a thriving ecosystem because of its protection from other human activities.
"However, when you do controlled ecological studies, what we see is a very clear signature of negative effects of contamination on diversity and abundance of organisms.
"We clearly need to be applying scientific method to ecological studies before we can conclude, based on anecdotal observations, that there are no consequences."
Denmark's Living Green Island
by Becky Daniels
http://www.positivenews.org.uk/artman/publish/article_1197.shtml
Jun 12, 2007
Positive News Issue 52
4,000 islanders on the Danish island of Samso run all their homes, farms and
businesses without using any fossil fuels. Samso has developed an almost
entirely self-sufficient energy system, which has improved life for the
whole community.
"It's a very good feeling because we're a renewable energy island," says
farmer, Erik Anderson, who runs his tractor on home-grown rapeseed oil and
gets his hot water and power from solar panels and wind turbines.
Since winning a national competition in 1997, Samso was given the go ahead
to provide all its energy from renewable sources. It has been so successful
that 100 per cent of its electricity now comes from wind power while 75 per
cent of its heat comes from combining solar power and fuels from biomass.
To save money, the island installed collective solar thermal plants, which
pump hot water to the majority of near-by houses. Locally-grown straw and
wood pellets burnt in central furnaces produce hot water piped underground
straight to people's homes. This efficient system is totally carbon neutral.
Ten offshore wind turbines produce Samso's electricity. This compensates for
emissions from all the island's trans-port including the ferries. Sometimes
the turbines even make surplus energy to sell to the mainland - a bonus for
the islanders who are the shareholders!
Experts on Samso are currently work-ing on two ideas to solve the residual
problem of fuel emissions. Biofuel from rapeseed oil can power any vehicle
once the engine has been adapted, so diesel guzzlers, like ferries and
tractors, will all be converted. However, this small island cannot produce
enough biofuel for every car so the residents also want to build a
wind-powered hydrogen plant as soon as possible. Plans for a
hydrogen-fuelled truck are also in the pipeline.
Support from the whole community to bring about this green dream has been
essential. "People participate, not because they are forced to by the
authorities, but because they want to," says the Manager of Samso's Energy
and Environment Office, Soren Hermansen.
Samso Energy & Environment Office
http://www.energiakademiet.dk
No Future for Nuclear Energy
by Ralph Nader Published on Saturday, July 21, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Here they go again. After thirty years without a firm order, the atomic
power companies are pushing their radioactive, costly technology for a
comeback on the backs of you the taxpayers.
The old argument in the Seventies was that nuclear powered electricity would
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. With only three percent of our
electricity coming from burning petroleum, the pro-nuke lobby is now jumping
on the global warming bandwagon. Uranium, they argue, does not release
greenhouse gases like coal or oil.
What nuclear lobbies ignore is all the coal and oil that needs to be burned
to enrich uranium, to transport radioactive wastes with protective highway
and rail convoys and provide security since they would be a priority target
for sabotage.
Apart from that, let’s start with the technological insanity of the nuclear
fuel cycle-from uranium mines and their deadly tailings, to the refining and
fabrication into fuel rods, to the multi-shielded dome-like nuclear plant,
to the necessity for perfect operation of the facility, to the still
unresolved problems of the location and containment of hot radioactive
wastes and contaminated material for the next 200,000 years!
All this for one objective-to boil water into steam. A pretty complex chain
of events in order to boil water. There are far better, cheaper ways to meet
the electricity needs of today’s generation without burdening future
generations for centuries with the deadly waste products.
Back in the Seventies, before the public rose up and said no to nuclear
power, helped by Wall Street’s reluctance to finance these trouble-prone
plants, the Atomic Energy Commission projected the construction of 1000
atomic power plants in the U.S. by the year 2000. There are today 103
plants.
Placing the predicted 100 plants up and down the California coastline would
have been an act of peerless recklessness, especially given the earthquake
faults.
Just this week, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake struck Kashiwazaki, Japan and
disabled a gigantic nuclear power plant which the New York Times reported,
“raised new concerns about the safety of the nation’s accident-plagued
nuclear industry.” It turns out that this plant, owned by Tokyo Electric
Power, may be sitting directly above an earthquake fault line.
Each day, reports show damage greater than believed the day before,
including radiation leaks, damage to exhaust ducts, burst pipes and other
“malfunctions” beyond the fires. Several hundred barrels of radioactive
waste were toppled.
The problem with nuclear power is that it gets one bite of the apple.
Just one major meltdown could provoke a demand to close the industry down by
overwhelming adverse public outrage. You see, way back in the Fifties and
Sixties, the Atomic Energy Commission, a booster-regulatory agency for
atomic power plants, estimated that an “area the size of Pennsylvania” would
be contaminated in such a disaster.
Remember, Chernobyl in Ukraine is still surrounded by vacant towns and
villages following the 1986 tragedy. Radioactivity found its way as far as
sheep in England, nuts grown in Turkey and elsewhere.
Do you know any other industry producing electricity that has to have
specific evacuation plans for miles around it, is inherently a national
security risk, cannot be privately insured without Congress mandating severe
limited liability in case of massive casualties and requires massive
taxpayer subsidies?
A most concise, authoritative case against the electric atom was recently
released titled “Why a Future for the Nuclear Industry is Risky” by a group
of environmental health and social investment groups. (See
www.cleanenergy.org)
In the introduction to the report, the case against nuclear energy was
summarized this way: “Wind power and other renewable technologies, combined
with energy efficiency, conservation and cogeneration can be much more cost
effective and can be deployed much sooner than new nuclear power plants.”
Yes indeed, efficiency or conservation, with a national mission, can cut in
half the waste of energy, using currently available technology and know-how,
before the first privately capitalized nuclear plant opens. One scientist
once described the primary output of electric generating plants as “heating
the heavens.”
If this insensitive industry cannot be revived by Uncle Sam’s tax treasury,
Wall Street certainly has given no indication that private investment would
take on the risk. Investment money is pouring presently into wind power,
solar and other renewables and this is just the early springtime for these
benign sources of energy.
The International Energy Agency sees a 25% cost reduction for wind power and
a 50% cost reduction for solar photovoltaics from 2001 to 2020. Without Wall
Street’s private capital and with rising construction and operating costs in
other countries, the prospect for nuclear power being competitive, even
deducting decommissioning costs, and the many millennia of waste storage
costs, is not there.
Add a major accident and you’ll see, in addition to casualties and
contaminated land and property, every private investor running for cover
while the bill is passed on to taxpayers.
Here is a suggestion to put the industry’s propaganda to rest. Will any high
nuclear industry executive debate physicist Amory Lovins at the National
Press Club filled with electric company leaders? If so, please visit
http://www.rmi.org and contact Mr. Lovins.
NEWS FROM BEYOND NUCLEAR
For Immediate Release
July 23, 2007
Contact: Linda Gunter
301.270.2209
info@beyondnuclear.org
Superb Los Angeles Times Editorial Makes Compelling Case against Turning to Nuclear Power to Combat Climate Change
TAKOMA PARK, MD – The Los Angeles Times today ran an excellent editorial on the detriments of nuclear power. In an extensive, detailed, and possibly unprecedented opinion piece, the Times laid out the definitive arguments against the nuclear power option in the context of climate change. The editorial can be found at: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-nuclear23jul23,0,378363.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail.
The editorial, entitled: A Warming World, No to Nukes, identified the case for nuclear power as “weak” and went on to list the many compelling reasons to eliminate the nuclear choice:
“The enormous cost of building nuclear plants, the reluctance of investors to fund them, community opposition and an endless controversy over what to do with the waste ensure that ramping up the nuclear infrastructure will be a slow process — far too slow to make a difference on global warming. That's just as well, because nuclear power is extremely risky. What's more, there are cleaner, cheaper, faster alternatives that come with none of the risks.
Beyond Nuclear applauds the Los Angeles Times for taking this stand, particularly in making the often neglected connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, an issue central to the Beyond Nuclear mission. The Times editorialists wrote:
“Weapons proliferation is an even more serious concern. The uranium used in nuclear reactors isn't concentrated enough for anything but a dirty bomb, but the same labs that enrich uranium for nuclear fuel can be used to create weapons-grade uranium. Thus any country, such as Iran, that pursues uranium enrichment for nuclear power might also be building a bomb factory. It would be more than a little hypocritical for the U.S. to expand its own nuclear power capacity while forbidding countries it doesn't like from doing the same.”
Beyond Nuclear urges the country’s press corps to take note of this important editorial, and to call upon the expertise and resources of the Beyond Nuclear staff at any time for follow-up on the broad array of related topics discussed in the piece.
Paul Gunter covers all aspects of nuclear reactor oversight for Beyond Nuclear: paul@beyondnuclear.org
Kevin Kamps covers all aspects of radioactive waste and the nuclear fuel chain for Beyond Nuclear. kevin@beyondnuclear.org
Cindy Folkers is a specialist in the radiation impacts on health at Beyond Nuclear. cindy@beyondnuclear.org
Linda Gunter authored with Paul Gunter a special report on the impacts to wildlife from the operation of nuclear reactors, due to be expanded and updated later this year. linda@beyondnuclear.org.
Beyond Nuclear staff members can be reached at: 301.270.2209.
Please visit our Web site at: www.beyondnuclear.org
###
Beyond Nuclear
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400
Takoma Park, MD 20912
Tel: 301.270.2209 Fax: 301.270.4000
www.beyondnuclear.org
Radioactive material leaked undetected for days
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: July 19, 2007 Filed at 2:19 p.m. ET
KASHIWAZAKI, Japan (AP) -- Radioactive material leaked undetected for days
at an earthquake-battered nuclear power plant even as the utility was
assuring the public that the damage posed no danger to those outside the
site, company executives admitted Thursday.
The revelation cast more doubt on the plant's emergency measures and the
response by Japan's largest power company, while the indefinite shutdown of
the world's most powerful electricity generating facility raised serious
fears of a summer power shortage.
Tokyo Electric Power Co. confirmed reports that radioactive material was
leaking as late as Wednesday night, nearly three days after the plant
suffered a near-direct hit from a quake that killed 10 people and injured
more than 1,000 in Kashiwazaki on Japan's northern coast.
It was government inspectors who found radioactive iodine venting from an
exhaust pipe at the plant's No. 7 nuclear reactor, said Hisanori Nei, an
official with the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. It escaped between
Tuesday and Wednesday night, Nei said.
Tokyo Electric previously announced other radioactive materials had escaped
from the pipe, but not iodine. An exhaust fan inside the building may not
have been turned off as instructed in the operations manual, company
spokesman Manabu Takeyama said.
Government inspectors concluded the iodine leak was too small to harm the
environment or public health, Nei said.
The utility also stressed the amount was extremely low and said it posed no
threat to the environment or local people.
But the revelation reinforced concerns about the plant's safety, coming a
day after Tokyo Electric issued a list of previously unreported damage from
the quake -- including a fire, burst pipes and waste spillage.
The seven reactors at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant shut down automatically
when the quake hit, and authorities have ordered the plant closed
indefinitely while inspections and repairs are carried out to assure it can
be restarted safely.
Tokyo Electric has warned that the closure could cause a power shortage in
Japan as demand rises from summer use of air conditioners.
Six other power companies have said they will cooperate in providing
emergency electricity and Tokyo Electric is considering restarting
generating plants fueled by oil and natural gas, the utility said late
Thursday.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki urged the operators of Japan's 55
nuclear reactors -- suppliers of one-third of Japan's energy -- to speed up
safety checks for earthquake resistance, a top concern in the temblor-prone
nation.
''Since there was such a huge earthquake that surpassed our expectations, we
need to consider future measures for quake resistance,'' Shiozaki said. ''I
asked them to speed up the assessment and checkups wherever possible.''
Officials at the plant conceded earlier that they had not foreseen the
possibility of an earthquake as powerful as the magnitude-6.8 temblor that
hit Monday. They also said the utility hadn't known about the nearby
offshore fault line in which the quake occurred.
The utility announced Thursday that the force of the quake exceeded its
resistance guidelines at all seven reactors, sometimes by more than double.
Public broadcaster NHK said the reading at the No. 1 reactor was the
strongest quake ever measured at a Japanese reactor.
Tokyo Electric has repeatedly underreported the quake's impact. After
initially saying it had caused a fire in an electrical transformer and the
spill of radioactive water into the Sea of Japan, the company reported 50
incidents of damage or leaks. Then it upped the number to 63.
Its stock tumbled again Thursday, sliding 5.6 percent to 3,400 yen a share,
or $27.88, bringing its losses since the quake to 10.3 percent.
Members of the Nuclear Safety Commission toured the sprawling plant Thursday
and criticized Tokyo Electric for missteps in its response to the
earthquake.
Even so, they concluded none of the errors had threatened public health.
The safety of the ''plant was fundamentally maintained and we avoided the
serious consequences of a nuclear accident,'' commission Chairman Atsuyuki
Suzuki said in a statement. ''The list of problems announced by TEPCO have
no serious effect on the safety of the reactor.''
Tokyo Electric has been punished for failing to accurately inform the public
of problems in the past.
Four years ago, the utility was forced to halt all of its 17 nuclear
reactors after admitting it misreported safety problems in the late 1980s
and early 1990s. The halt caused a power shortage in the summer of 2003, and
other utilities stepped in with emergency electricity production.
In that scandal, a trade ministry report revealed 29 cases of cracks or
minor structural damage in eight of Tokyo Electric's reactors, including two
reactors at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa. The company's top three executives resigned,
but the utility insisted the cracks never posed a serious danger. The last
of the shuttered reactors wasn't cleared to reopen until July 2005.
The impact of Monday's quake has spread far beyond the region. Japan's auto
companies had to suspend production because a key parts maker sustained
damage during the temblor. Officials at the damaged factory said they
expected to restart production early next week.
People in the Kashiwazaki region struggled to put their lives back together
but basic services such as water had not been restored to some areas.
''We're just getting by day by day,'' said Masatoshi Ogawa, sitting in front
of his closed pinball parlor. ''Our houses were OK so we didn't have to go
to evacuation centers, but life without water is really inconvenient.''
------
Associated Press writers Kozo Mizoguchi and Chisaki Watanabe in Tokyo
contributed to this report.
NEWS FROM BEYOND NUCLEAR
For Immediate Release
July 18, 2007
Contact: Linda Gunter, Beyond Nuclear
301.455.5655
linda@beyondnuclear.org
Concerns rise over vulnerability of U.S. atomic facilities to earthquakes after world’s largest nuclear plant damaged by Japanese quake
TAKOMA PARK, MD – The extensive damage at a seven-reactor nuclear power plant in Japan after an earthquake this week is stoking concern that U.S. reactors and other nuclear facilities may also be vulnerable to releases of deadly radioactivity into the environment due to earthquakes.
Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa atomic power plant, the largest in the world in terms of electricity output, suffered 50 cases of “malfunctioning and trouble” after a 6.7 tremor struck nearby two days ago. Radioactively contaminated water, now calculated at more than 600 gallons, leaked into the Pacific Ocean and an estimated 400 barrels containing radioactive waste tipped over, with 10% of the lids falling off. Hazardous radioactive isotopes, cobalt-60 and chromium-51, were emitted into the atmosphere from an exhaust stack.
Concerns that a similar event could happen here are confirmed by an incident in August 2004, when an earthquake in Illinois broke an underground pipe attached to one of the Dresden nuclear power plant’s radioactive waste condensate storage tanks. The broken pipe was leaking tritium (a harmful, radioactive form of hydrogen) into groundwater, creating an expanding underground plume of hazardous radioactive contamination.
Several U.S. atomic reactors may be especially vulnerable to earthquakes. The twin reactor Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant near San Luis Obispo, California was already built before it was discovered that an earthquake fault line associated with the infamous San Andreas Fault lay just offshore in the Pacific Ocean.
Fires, such as the one that broke out in Japan, are also a legitimate U.S. concern.
“Earthquakes are notorious for sparking fires, which could spell disaster at U.S. nuclear power plants given that many are not in compliance with safety regulations for fire protection and reactor shutdown systems,” said Paul Gunter, the nuclear industry watchdog at Beyond Nuclear, and an expert on nuclear plant fire protection. “An earthquake-sparked inferno, or failure to safely shut down a reactor, could lead to a meltdown, catastrophic release of radioactivity, and deadly fallout hundreds of miles downwind and downstream,” Gunter added.
A 1982 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) report, known as CRAC-2, shows that a major accident at a U.S. atomic reactor could cause tens to hundreds of thousands of radiation-related deaths and injuries, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars of property damage.
Risks extend to the radioactive wastes stored on-site at U.S. reactors as well. Environmental groups filed a federal lawsuit last month against the NRC for failing to enforce its earthquake safety regulations for outdoor storage of high-level radioactive wastes at the Palisades atomic reactor on the s
