EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
Popular content
Today's Top News
People Were Killed by Three Mile Island and Other Nuclear Disasters
One of the biggest lies ever told in American industrial history is that "no one died at Three Mile Island."
In the frenzy to get public funding for still more nuclear reactors, some industry backers now say no one has ever been killed by the nuclear industry AT ALL.
These absurd statements reflect atomic energy's desperate need for federal loan guarantees, which have been slipped into the Energy Bill now before Congress. After fifty years of proven failure, no private sources will invest in this lethal, expensive technology.
Meanwhile billions are pouring into the booming business of green power, including wind, solar power and increased efficiency. These technologies are not only profitable and clean, they don't kill people.
And the reality is that people have, in fact, been killed by the fallout from atomic power, and not just at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
At the very birth of fission technology, Lewis Slotin, a top researcher on the Manhattan Project, was fatally irradiated in an early experiment. Patriotic workers were exposed to high radiation doses while building the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In the 1950s, a critical accident struck a reactor at Chalk River, Canada. Scores of American "jumpers" were run into the plant to do clean-up work and then run out. One was the future president Jimmy Carter, who joked about the incident in his autobiography "Why Not the Best."
In 1961, three workers were killed at the SL-1 plant in Idaho. One was pinned to the ceiling of the containment dome by a fuel rod that shot out of the reactor core. The men's bodies were classified as high level radioactive waste, and were buried in lead casks.
On October 5, 1966, a critical blockage brought Michigan's Fermi I fast breeder reactor to the brink of disaster. Fermi's owners said the $100 million accident released no radiation. But for a month state authorities prepared to evacuate Detroit.
The entire history of atomic energy is defined by radiation releases that the industry has covered up. Today, nothing reactor owners say can be believed. At both Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, elaborate official studies done before the accidents "proved" that it was "impossible" for what then did happen to occur. The term "inherently safe" had been applied to reactors that proved very much otherwise. Today that same term is being used to describe the "new generation" of plants to be underwitten by these proposed guarantees.
In the late 1960s, Dr. John Gofman was asked to evaluate the killing power of so-called "normal" releases from America's fleet of atomic reactors.
Gofman was a towering figure. He was instrumental in developing the atomic bomb. As a medical doctor, his breakthrough discoveries in heart disease and LDL cholesterol are still in use.
Dr. Gofman was chief of health research at the Atomic Energy Commission. But he discovered that regular radiation emissions from America's nukes would kill 32,000 citizens per year, even without an accident or terror attack.
The industry demanded Gofman change his findings. When he refused, he was fired. He spent the rest of his life warning that Americans were being killed every day by the ever-growing fleet of US reactors.
In 1979, human error caused the melt-down at Three Mile Island Unit Two. The reactor's owners immediately denied there was any melting of fuel. This was a lie. Robotic cameras later showed that at least a third of the fuel had melted.
The owners said there was never a danger of a major catastrophe. That was a lie. The plant was very much at the brink of an apocalyptic radiation release.
The owners ridiculed those---among them Pennsylvania's Secretary of Health---who desperately warned that local citizens should be evacuated, especially to protect pregnant women and small children. The governor finally ordered just such an evacuation, but later fired his long-time friend at the Department of Health, who had advocated the evacuation, and who warned of damage from TMI's stealth radioactive fallout.
TMI's owners denied that its releases harmed anyone. But the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has admitted to Congress that nobody knows how much radiation escaped or where it went.
Official statistics showed a huge jump in infant death rates in Harrisburg in the three months after the accident compared to the numbers for the previous two years. State statistics showing heightened cancer rates were quickly altered. The state's tumor registry was abolished. Evidence showing downwind health effects was suppressed.
But an investigative team from the Baltimore News-Herald uncovered a massive epidemic of death and disease among the area's farm and wild animals.
In early 1980, I reported from ground zero on a ghastly epidemic of human death and disease. Based on a horrifying series of house-to-house interviews, I found cancer, heart attacks, respiratory problems, skin lesions, cataracts, a metallic taste in the mouth, hair loss, birth defects and everything else you'd expect from a major radiation release was everywhere to be found.
With three other researchers, I spent two years investigating these and other parallel epidemics at nuclear facilities throughout the United States. Our findings were published in 1982 by Dell/Delta in a book called Killing Our Own that showed a similar death toll throughout the nuclear fuel cycle---especially at uranium mines, mills and enrichment facilities---and at weapons production plants, waste storage pools and much more.
At TMI, 2400 central Pennsylvania families filed a class action lawsuit seeking justice. But the federal courts have never allowed their case to be heard.
Studies by Steven Wing of the University of North Carolina have confirmed the TMI death toll. Researcher Joe Mangano and others have used the government's own statistics to show a heightened cancer rate in the region. Parallel studies have correlated radioactive emissions with infant death rates, cancer rates and other health epidemics around other operating reactors.
But the industry's response is always the same. Anyone who shows that reactors kill people is automatically "discredited," even if their credentials, like those of Dr. Gofman, dwarf those of their attackers.
Even at an obvious catastrophe like Chernobyl, the deniers are out in force. The radiation releases at this unprecedented explosion far exceeded what was released at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
By all accounts, the plague that darkened central Pennsylvania after TMI was exponentially exceeded for thousands of downwind square miles in the Ukraine and other nearby nations of the former Soviet Union. The cancers, birth defects and other radioactive plagues have duplicated on a far larger scale what had already happened in the US in 1979.
Today, with billions in bailout dollars on the line, there is big money to be made in saying that atomic reactors have harmed no one.
But the truth is less convenient. Nuclear power kills people. From the Manhattan Project to TMI, from Chalk River to Chernobyl, even "normal" operations can be lethal.
Solar power, wind energy, bio-fuels, increased conservation---these sources are safe and clean. They don't create radioactive emissions or wastes, and will not be potential terror targets.
Nor do they need federal loan guarantees. Unlike atomic energy, green power is profitable for the entire community.
And unlike Three Mile Island, we will never have to evacuate wind farms or solar panels while their owners lie about what's really going down.
Harvey Wasserman edits www.nukefree.org and is senior editor of www.freepress.org.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

91 Comments so far
Show AllI agree wth you 100% about coal going first. But the power people would make their profit one way or another. Here are some of the current charges on my electric bill.
Geneating electricity, power supply adjustment, competition rules compliance charge, transmission and arcillary services, metering, meter reading, enviromental benefits surcharges, delivery service charge, enviromental benefit charge, and then ~FEDERAL enviromental improvement charge~, (that one could go way up and take care of the free wind and sun rays) power supply adjustment. They would make a very good profit and charge whatever they damnned please. At least we could have cleaner air.
I'm no fan of coal, but carbon can theoretically be scrubbed from emissions from coal plants, whereas radioactivity from nukes cannot. Only time can mend a half-life.
The future is undoubtedly solar/wind/geothermal/hydrogen. Only the purchased politicians stand in the way.
The elephant in the room is nuclear waste problem.. The industry touts Yucca Mountain as a "solution" to the nuclear waste problem. This is,in fact, not true. Yucca Mountain is known to be geologically unsuitable and seismically unstable; it is in the highest risk category for earthquakes. It has certainly not been proven safe for long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste. Nor has transportation of the waste to that site been established as safe.Â
As long as there are nuclear power plants operating in this country, there will be high-level nuclear waste that cannot be moved to any such "ultimate" storage facility. High-level radioactive waste is so hot when removed from a nuclear power plant that it has to remain cooling at the plant site for years.
In purely economic terms, nukes are a horrendous investment because no reactor can be guaranteed not to melt nor can any be protected from terrorism. If people in Chernobyl are still dying from the long-term effects 20 years later, why take the risk of an explosion or leakage? This is the ultimate moral reason for not using nuclear power.
Remember, those plants are put together at enormous expense, by the lowest bidder. We all know there are no shortcuts, cheaper materials, faulty welds, don't we?
I worked on a construction site many years ago. We were putting up the cheapest trash houses you could imagine. The County Building Inspector would drive up in his Cadillac, look over the houses being built and say. "They have all got to come down!"
The foreman would take him by the arm and go to another building telling him, "There's something over here you have to see."
They'd come out a few minutes later with smiles on their faces, he'd sign off the buildings, get back into his Cadillac and drive off until next time.
It's the second oldest story in the world, folks.
RE: Mark Abram November 19th, 2007 2:34 pm
"I'll just say that, yes, nuclear power does entail risks, and there have been accidents that have killed people, but far fewer than have died in coal mining accidents, for example, or than might die falling off roofs if the nation goes massively solar."
Hey Mark, Kem, and every one of the regulars on these posts as we once again delve into the seemngly unlimited nuances of this (and the DU) topic,
Mark, awhile back I looked at the reports of the deaths attributed to Chernobyl. The disparity between the Geenpeace death claims, and those by the WHO, while (perhaps)exhibiting bias on both sides, certainly left me (after reading numerous instances regarding governments' cover-ups of nuclear 'incidents') more willing to believe Greenpeace than the highly politically compromise WHO. Keeping this in mind, if you use the Greenpece figure, then divide it by the number of world nuke plants, an average death rate of 218 persons per plant is the quotient.
As a consequence of this calculation I believe your claim erroneous. Actually, I think if you took the top 438 coal mine accidents each year, then added all the years together going back to the Chernobyl 'incident' they wouldn't approach the total of Chernobyl. The deaths from burning the coal itself is an entirely different matter, being far greater than both combined by a considerable factor.
RE: AdeleTheCzech November 19th, 2007 4:19 pm
Great post, and right on the mark. I think one thing the pro-nukers fail to understand is they had their chance and now must step away. If renewables had the funding that nuclear has gotten for the past 50 years or so we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now, and likely wouldn't be at war in the mid-east over oil either.
I haven't read quite all the posts yet, but to answer the question (if no one has already) there are 438 nuclear plants worldwide, and just over a hundred of those are in th US.
As KEM PATRICK wrote earlier, "We cannot predict the future, but the insurance companies insure, based upon mathematical odds and they won't insure a nuclear power plant." That one fact all by itself tells me that nuclear power is inherently unsafe and we all know about insurance companies.
If insurence companies won't insure any nuclear power plant ever, that tells me much more than all those who promote such a form of energy production. The insurance companies are no dummies, they know a bad risk when they see it.
Therefore, I can only infer and confirm what I believe – nuclear power has no place in this world.
Nuclear energy is looney. Just a few more decades before the cost of extracting the dwindling supplies of uranium skyrockets. The idiots in Washington will have US taxpayers fund trillion dollar wars to secure those dwindling supplies. Is everyone looking forward to grandbaby chimp turning loose the dogs of war in 2050 Niger? Then what are you going to do with the mountains of radioactive waste - the Japanese/French have NO IDEA. Now the French exhibited a nanoparticle of wisdom and replicated one reactor design across all their facilities. The American Chimp ain't so astute - every facility is a pure custom design - deliberately quadrupling all of the costs - this nuclear energy expansion proposal is the largest shaft to the US taxpayer next to the Pentagon. Do US taxpayers enjoy the shaft? Seems like it! Suggestion: Stop all exchange/association with the capitalists and LET THE CAPITALIST ZOMBIE DIE!!
Has anyone noticed that the deniers of the dangers of nuclear plants (like PJD and Mark Abram) never respond to the specific allegations made in the article by Mr. Wasserman?
It's as if someone says the big bad wolf is a menace because he blew down a house made of straw and another house made of wood. The denier then steps forward and says the big bad wolf is not a menace because a house made of brick still stands.
Such arguments are rhetorical, dishonest, misleading and essentially false.
You can add Port Hope Ontario ( Can) to the list about 30 minutes east of Toronto, Canada's largest city. For years Port Hope have made the fuel rods for the nuke plants. They are having problems with high levels of radiation. Yet the neo con Harper Gov wants to build even more nuke plants. This is after they use more natural gas to produce oil from the tar sands in Alberta than the amount of emergy they get out of the oil.
I agree 100% with wind solar power. If a "T" attack hits a wind mill it can be back up and running in a month. How long for a nuke plant???
I can't believe folks are even thinking about Nuclear. The arguments regarding nuclear are not so simplistic as how many will die from Nuclear vs Coal or falling off roofs. That isn't the entire point!
Look at what we are in a conundrum about now.... Pakistan has nukes. Are they are friends or not!?? eek... oh wait.. Iran might be getting nuclear.. DAMN.. uh.. oh wait.. what about Syria.. etc.. Ok...
Oh. and don't forget the terrorist theat and our Homeland Security!!!
I just heard a discussion yesterday that brought up the whole point about the Military interest of Nuclear power plants and weapons...
We are an INSANE species. We are so afriad of actually changing our lives.. slowing down a bit more that we would court Nuclear and risk it all.
Keep in mind that all the Nuclear interests have money and power and will keep throwing and manipulating the argument. It apparently is working as so many so called "Green" people are considering it. No logic at all. You can't look at one side of the argument. You can just look at technical numbers of those who died or who might die...
I lose ALL respect for any so called "environmentalist" or "green" person that even considers nuclear.
Sorry. I am going to be a radical in that respect.
There is no reason for you or anyone else to be sorry for being radical in that respect.
Paul Bramscher. Sequestration of carbon from coal fired power plants is, as you have stated a theoretical concept. Currently, carbon dioxide is injected into dying oil wells to force the oil out. This is a very limited application, and of course, we're not doing much for global warming if we inject CO-2 into the ground for the purpose of bringing out more oil to burn.
Widespread use of this tecnology in burying the massive amounts of CO-2 produced by burning coal (About 2 billion tons per year in the US alone) is a big unknown.
There are some very passionate anti-nuclear posters above. I am not pro-nuclear myself. However, it is coal that is going to ruin the planet first, so why not start with coal? If we had attacked coal plants with the same vehemence that we attacked nuclear plants, we wouldn't be faced with devastating climate change today.
Nucelar weaponry is a separate discussion from nuclear energy. Politically, we are nowhere near getting rid of nuclear weapons, and neither is the rest of the world. If every nuclear power plant were to close, and we only burned coal for electricity, we would still be manufacturing nuclear weapons.
Now there's a thought, we could use computers for voting machnes too, no more voter fraud. Why not have a computer for a president? Uhhh, naw ___ that would eleminate blow jobs in the oral office when resting off line.
Most of you are apparently okay with placing nuclear waste on Indian reservations against the will of Indians which is a treaty violation. Where are your voices with respect to this issue? Indians must still be sub-human right? The policy of quiet genocide continues in America. Go ahead, turn your heads.
What treaty? Only the Indians have to obey treaty documents, grey eyes write the rules, they don't live by them.
"Nobody knows how much radiation was released or where it went." Of course they don't. Radiation isn't material. You can't carry around a bucket of light, heat or anything on the EM spectrum. The nuke industry uses this fact to deny any suggestion or epidemiological study indicating increased frequency of disease occurence near radiation hotspots. Tell that to the Ukrainians though, who must live in fear of every single pregnancy they have, praying for a healthy baby.
More on 2nd oldest story (corruption):
My buddy once worked on a US nuke pwr plant, and confided a chilling tidbit about sensors, computers, and surveillance of radiation releases:
He was called many times for the same issue, of the radiation sensors having failed (mysteriously?), which coincidently occurred just prior to planned releases (venting) of containment vessel air.
His opinion as a Elec Eng, was that someone had systematically applied 100 VAC (input) to the low voltage DC (output) lines of the sensors - the effect is what anyone can demonstrate by plugging their headphones into the wall outlet.
If they really wanted to know . . .
how much radiation is released, as if they were building a bomb and wanting to know of its performance, there a clear methods to do so (even when the sensors become incinerated while measuring the phenomenally gigantic blast).
Namaste
KEMPATRICK
"Ionized DU" - No such thing, well not as we are discussing here. Radioactive elements emit various forms of ionizing radiation (photon, electron (beta), neutron, and alpha particles). Uranium undergoes oxidation as it burns or is exposed to the air.
"from use as ammunition and bombs is NOT naturally present in our enviroment. Uranium is, solid DU is not very dangerous."
True, it is far less dangerous than naturally occurring uranium as it is far less radioactive.
"What COMARK posted concerning DU is 100% accurate."
True.
"I don't believe the Baath party,"
Gosh, I hope not. You seem like a pretty good guy.
"I do believe the doctors and scientists who have spent many years studyng the subject of DU as used in ammunition."
I know the scientists doing the studying and attended a lecture by Ron Kathren, PHD (Google him) on the subject just a couple of days ago, and I have seen no conclusive, peer-reviewed, epidemiological study that says anything like what you say.
"I do believe the results of what has happened to thousands of troops who have severed in the Mid-East, breathed in DU and are now suffering and dying from radiation poisoning."
They may be (and I stress may) suffering from heavy metal toxicity though the scientific jury is still out on that. There is more chance of suffering radiation poisoning from smoking cigarettes (contains trace quantities of polonium and other radioactive elements) than from breathing the air in Iraq. Depleted uranium is just that - depleted. It is what is left when most of the U-235 and U-233 has been removed. The remaining U-238 is very stable, a weak alpha emitter, with daughter products that are weak beta emitters (which tends to be blocked by the U-238).
The most horrible thing that appears to be affecting our troops is the suicide epidemic among the returning vets.
Folks, all the arguments for and against nuclear power seem to have been made here. I won't belabor them, although precious little has been said about the dangers of the front end of the nuclear cycle. My point to the advocates of nuclear power is this: if you truly believe that nuclear power is safe and secure, then advocate to your congressman and senators for repeal of the Price-Anderson Act. That act limits the liability of any nuclear installation to $5 billion per accident. Considering that most conservative estimates of the cost of a major nuclear disaster on the surrounding region is upwards of $600 billion, I'd say that's a remarkable subsidy of $595 billion per reactor. No other industry has any such blanket subsidy, not even the oil industry. Put your money where your mouth is and support repeal of Price-Anderson, then see if there's any investment house in the world foolish enough to support the construction of a single nuclear plant in the US. I'm betting none of you will take that challenge.
I recall reading recently, within the past year, that there are lakes and ponds in the mountains of Eastern Europe that are still boiling with radiation from Chernobyl.
You MUST SEE the documentary 'Chernobyl Heart' in case you have not already.
Chernobyl Heart is a documentary presented by a group of Irish women who travelled to the region to document the hellish deformities to children caused by the Chernobyl nightmare
http://www.chernobylheart.com/
KENDPOTTER, if you were offered to inhale a few microscopic specks of DU dust which had been taken from an exploded DU round of ammo, would you fear to inhale it?
To answer yours and COMARK's comments and argue the flip side of the coin, please read this link.
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du_howkilling.htm
You see, it is not MY opinions you are arguing. I'm not that smart to know it all.
The article about the New York town that was contaminated with uranium and DU is no longer here. There were over 60 comments posted. It came on Sunday afternoon and now it isn't even available in the archives. Why does someone at Common Dreams do that with articles about DU? ____ A most important subject. There are many articles here that will be available for a week or more, that are hum-drum, about as useful as readng about Paris Hilton. Guess I'm strange, ___ or just stupid.
KEM,
I was looking as well, guess this proves that there's no health risk, as the evidence amounts to nothing . . .
Uhh, I'm sorry NSPIRE I don't understand your last post?
KEM,
I don't want to inhale DU of any kind because I know that it is a chemical toxicant.
I am aware of Dr. Miller's work. It is one study, limited in nature/numbers, not peer reviewed, or published. That is not to say that she is not absolutely right in her conclusions. These nano-particles caused by pyrophoric combustion may be just as damaging as she says they are. I am just relating what is specifically known and accepted (well studied and peer reviewed) inside the Health Physics community. You are certainly welcome to believe what you want. I prefer to suspend judgement on such matters until there is scientific consensus.
KENDPOTTER, I certainly appreciate you and many others reluctance to form a strong opinion on the subject of DU hazards, due to the many conflicting references written by WHO and other govermental agencies, who deny the danger. However, on your prior post I thought that was what in fact you did do, if not, I apologize for assuming.
Here is just one article of over 1,300,000 website refrences on the subject of DU, with strong comments written by Doctor POITR BEIN.~PhD,MASC,P Enginering. It is a very detailed report from an uranium weapons conference and explains in detail the dangers of DU. This link, which is purely scientific discussions without the hype of scare tactics, helps to explain the magnitude of the misinformation we do have from governments abut the danger of depleted uranium.
If you care to take the time to read this report, you may have the scientific consensus you need to form a better opinion. Thank you for taking your time, to reply to my prior post also.
http://uraniumweaponsconference.de/background.htm
Hi KEM,
When you wrote:
"Uhh, I'm sorry NSPIRE I don't understand your last post?"
I believe that you may have been puzzled by blatant sarcasm, where I said:
"I was looking as well, guess this proves that there's no health risk, as the evidence amounts to nothing . . ."
Sarcasm, that the missing email thread and article where not accidentally deleted, but outside forces may have reached it and 'disappeared' the offensive information, ergo we are left with no evidence (it keeps vaporizing). I emailed the editor to re-post the thread but no response there, yet.
Namaste
I thought that was your meaning but I wasn't quite sure. Thank you for the explination. They do that every time on a DU article. Reasons? ___ I can only guess. I doubt you will recieve a reply, that's how editors are, though I do think there are very good ones here. They give free reign most of the time and sometimes I believe they delete some of my rants, to protect me from looking as overly stupid.
I'd hoped that our editor 'angels' could fly higher.
The sky's the limit, but past that, just empty space -- sigh
Two things to note. First, I note with more than a bit of irony that not one of the advocates of nuclear power who has posted here has responded to my statements about repealing Price-Anderson. That's because they know that, if that huge subsidy is repealed, nuclear power is dead for all time in this country. May it rust in peace. Secondly, someone stated that the only people screaming about DU contamination are the Baathists in Iraq. Sorry, but the evidence of deadly effects is well-documented in Boznia-Herzegovina, Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere where US forces or our (MANY) client states have used these weapons. There is also extensive data that the VA has (leaked now) demonstrating over 100,000 deaths or serious injuries resulting from DU exposure on troops participating in the original Gulf War in 1991.
Thank you for that info HAWKNH. Have you seen the news today, where the CDC states that childhood diabetes has skyrocketed in the past four years? Twenty some years ago, diabetes in children was very RARE. Of course they say is it due to diet and obesity.
Well, We know of three children in one family who have diabetes and none are obese at all. In fact they are all rather thin. They suffer a great deal and now one is having serious memory loss problems, all have constant aches and pains in their joints and often serious headaches and bloody noses. Sheryl is a delightful child who was a straight A student until this year. It does appear to their parents, they may be suffering from radiation posioning. That is just one family we know about.
DU is fired off on a military range, not far and down wind from where they live. The serious problem of many birth defects in their local hospital, is now being "studied" once again by the CDC. We can bet that DU will not be found ot be a cause of any problems. DU is "SAFE" as so many here have so 'wisely' noted.
This will work out like everything else. Global warming? we must have a several year study. Years pass and the commission makes its report. Yes, global warming is a fact and here are the results of our work. Hmmmm this requires a several year study and a new commission is formed to study the results of the study. Meanwhile, temperatures rise, storms flatten, croplands turn to deserts. By golly, we need to study this and see if it is important...
DU used, horrible birth defects, thousands of sick troops, civilian populations in areas have increased sickness, cancers, birth defects.
We need to study this, it may just be a coincidence. In a few years, some panel will publish their results that DU seems to be the culprit for this increase in disease and cancers. This will call for a study of their methodology and results for a few years...
We are drowning in government studies which solve nothing because if they don't come out the way the government wants them to, the scientists are fired and they look for new scientists who will do as the government asks; start with the desired results and work backward to a government acceptable cause..
KEM,
Good news!
If you use your browser HISTORY, you will discover as I just did, that the "missing" DU article is still here on the server, it just no longer has a link from the archives page, but this worked a moment ago:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/18/5309/#comment-139993
Namaste
P.S. I guess the editor "angels" fly in the blind sometimes
I'm computer stupid nspire, don't know what the browser is. Shhhh, don't tell anyone else.
I did get there by clickng on the link you offered Thank you.
P/S I think that blogger Guy is stupid too.
Oh my gosh Ibertas, you told it so well. Of course those studies cost BIGGG money and some of that big money comes back to the requester of the study in an envelope at the gulf course, or in the rear of a big limo.
Good article Harvey.
Killing Our Own is a chilling read. I'd recommend all to read it.
May I elaborate further on the article?
The 1961 accident at SL-1 in Idaho was thought to have been caused by a faulty control rod that would get stuck. When it got stuck the men would use whatever means necessary to dislodge it. It was said that the man impaled to the ceiling pulled the control rod up too far. That's a good example of mans stupidity, arrogance, and ignorance just like the Brown's Ferry incident mentioned. Nuclear energy is a disaster/accident waiting to happen or actually already happening.
More on the Fermi I fast breeder reactor: If my recollections are correct there are 20,000 gallons of radioactive liquid sodium coolant encased in concrete there to this very day.
Seems like only a corporation hell bent on centralized power generation would support nuclear energy. I for one would much rather have a wind turbine or CSP (concentrated solar power).
Hi FZ,
I recall that SL-1 was uncomfortably hiding a secret love triangle, where dude on the ceiling was impaled for 'similar activities' with the wife of another of the technicians.
Namaste
If that's not so, one could say he was shafted.
Regardless, there was too much shafting going on
He may not have read Clinton's explination of what sex actually isn't. If he did, then too much shafting may not have occurred.