Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Saturday, February 13, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
No Nukes
A generation of Americans has grown up without a single nuclear power
plant being brought on line since before the near meltdown of the Three
Mile Island structure in 1979. They have not been exposed to the
enormous costs, risks and national security dangers associated with
their operations and the large amount of radioactive wastes still
without a safe, permanent storage place for tens of thousands of years.
All Americans better get informed soon, for a resurgent atomic power lobby wants the taxpayers to pick up the tab for relaunching this industry. Unless you get Congress to stop this insanely dirty and complex way to boil water to generate steam for electricity, you'll be paying for the industry's research, the industry's loan guarantees and the estimated trillion dollars (inflation-adjusted) cost of just one meltdown, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, plus vast immediate and long-range casualties.
The Russian roulette-playing nuclear industry claims a class nine meltdown will never happen. That none of the thousands of rail cars, trucks and barges with radioactive wastes will ever have a catastrophic accident. That terrorists will forgo striking a nuclear plant or hijacking deadly materials, and go for far less consequential disasters.
The worst nuclear reactor accident occurred in 1986 at Chernobyl in what is now Ukraine. Although of a different design than most U.S. reactors, the resultant breach of containment released a radioactive cloud that spread around the globe but concentrated most intensively in Belarus, Ukraine and European Russia and secondarily over 40% of Europe.
For different reasons, both governmental and commercial interests were intent on downplaying both the immediate radioactively-caused deaths and diseases and the longer term devastations from this silent, invisible form of violence. They also were not eager to fund follow up monitoring and research.
Now comes the English translation of the most comprehensive, scientific report to date titled Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment whose senior author is biologist Alexey V. Yablokov, a member of the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences.
Purchasable from the New York Academy of Sciences (visit nyas.org/annals), this densely referenced analysis covers the acute radiation inflicted on both the first-responders (called "liquidators") and on residents nearby, who suffer chronic radioactive sicknesses. "Today," asserts the report, "more than 6 million people live on land with dangerous levels of contamination--land that will continue to be contaminated for decades to centuries."
Back to the U.S., where, deplorably, President Obama has called for more so-called "safe, clean nuclear power plants." He just sent a budget request for another $54 billion in taxpayer loan guarantees on top of a previous $18 billion passed under Bush. You see, Wall Street financiers will not loan electric companies money to build new nuclear plants which cost $12 billion and up, unless Uncle Sam guarantees one hundred percent of the loan.
Strange, if these nuclear power plants are so efficient, so safe, why can't they be built with unguaranteed private risk capital? The answer to this question came from testimony by Amory B. Lovins, chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, in March 2008 before the [House of Representatives of the U.S.] Select Committee on Energy Independence (rmi.org). His thesis: "expanding nuclear power would reduce and retard climate protection and energy security...but can't survive free-market capitalism."
Making his case with brilliant concision, Lovins, a consultant to business and the Defense Department, demonstrated with numbers and other data that nuclear power "is being dramatically outcompeted in the global marketplace by no and low-carbon power resources that deliver far more climate solution per dollar, far faster."
Lovins doesn't even include the accident or sabotage risks. He testified that "because it's [nuclear power] uneconomic and unnecessary, we needn't inquire into its other attributes." Renewable energy (eg. wind power), cogeneration and energy efficiencies (megawatts) are now far superior to maintain.
I challenge anybody in the nuclear industry or academia to debate Lovins at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., with a neutral moderator, or before a Congressional Committee.
However, the swarm of nuclear power lobbyists is gaining headway in Congress, spreading their money everywhere and falsely exploiting the concern with global warming fed by fossil fuels.
The powerful nuclear power critics in Congress want the House energy bill to focus on climate change. To diminish the opposition, they entered into a bargain that gave nuclear reactors status with loan guarantees and other subsidies in the same legislation which has passed the House and, as is usual, languishing in the Senate.
Long-time, staunch opponents of atomic power who are leaders in countering climate change, such as Cong. Ed Markey (D-MA), have quieted themselves for the time being, while the Republicans (loving the taxpayer subsidies) and some Democrats are hollering for the nukes. All this undermines the valiant efforts of the Union of Concerned Scientists, NIRS, Friends of the Earth, and other established citizen groups who favor a far safer, more efficient, faster and more secure energy future for our country and the world.
Just recently, a well-designed and documented pamphlet from Beyond Nuclear summarize the case against nuclear power as "Expensive, Dangerous and Dirty." The clear, precise detail and documentation makes for expeditious education of your friends, neighbors and co-workers.
You can download it free and reprint it for wider distribution from www.BeyondNuclear.org. It is very well worth the 10 to 15 minutes it takes to absorb the truth about this troubled technology--replete with delays and large cost-overruns--that has been on government welfare since the 1950s.
All Americans better get informed soon, for a resurgent atomic power lobby wants the taxpayers to pick up the tab for relaunching this industry. Unless you get Congress to stop this insanely dirty and complex way to boil water to generate steam for electricity, you'll be paying for the industry's research, the industry's loan guarantees and the estimated trillion dollars (inflation-adjusted) cost of just one meltdown, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, plus vast immediate and long-range casualties.
The Russian roulette-playing nuclear industry claims a class nine meltdown will never happen. That none of the thousands of rail cars, trucks and barges with radioactive wastes will ever have a catastrophic accident. That terrorists will forgo striking a nuclear plant or hijacking deadly materials, and go for far less consequential disasters.
The worst nuclear reactor accident occurred in 1986 at Chernobyl in what is now Ukraine. Although of a different design than most U.S. reactors, the resultant breach of containment released a radioactive cloud that spread around the globe but concentrated most intensively in Belarus, Ukraine and European Russia and secondarily over 40% of Europe.
For different reasons, both governmental and commercial interests were intent on downplaying both the immediate radioactively-caused deaths and diseases and the longer term devastations from this silent, invisible form of violence. They also were not eager to fund follow up monitoring and research.
Now comes the English translation of the most comprehensive, scientific report to date titled Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment whose senior author is biologist Alexey V. Yablokov, a member of the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences.
Purchasable from the New York Academy of Sciences (visit nyas.org/annals), this densely referenced analysis covers the acute radiation inflicted on both the first-responders (called "liquidators") and on residents nearby, who suffer chronic radioactive sicknesses. "Today," asserts the report, "more than 6 million people live on land with dangerous levels of contamination--land that will continue to be contaminated for decades to centuries."
Back to the U.S., where, deplorably, President Obama has called for more so-called "safe, clean nuclear power plants." He just sent a budget request for another $54 billion in taxpayer loan guarantees on top of a previous $18 billion passed under Bush. You see, Wall Street financiers will not loan electric companies money to build new nuclear plants which cost $12 billion and up, unless Uncle Sam guarantees one hundred percent of the loan.
Strange, if these nuclear power plants are so efficient, so safe, why can't they be built with unguaranteed private risk capital? The answer to this question came from testimony by Amory B. Lovins, chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, in March 2008 before the [House of Representatives of the U.S.] Select Committee on Energy Independence (rmi.org). His thesis: "expanding nuclear power would reduce and retard climate protection and energy security...but can't survive free-market capitalism."
Making his case with brilliant concision, Lovins, a consultant to business and the Defense Department, demonstrated with numbers and other data that nuclear power "is being dramatically outcompeted in the global marketplace by no and low-carbon power resources that deliver far more climate solution per dollar, far faster."
Lovins doesn't even include the accident or sabotage risks. He testified that "because it's [nuclear power] uneconomic and unnecessary, we needn't inquire into its other attributes." Renewable energy (eg. wind power), cogeneration and energy efficiencies (megawatts) are now far superior to maintain.
I challenge anybody in the nuclear industry or academia to debate Lovins at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., with a neutral moderator, or before a Congressional Committee.
However, the swarm of nuclear power lobbyists is gaining headway in Congress, spreading their money everywhere and falsely exploiting the concern with global warming fed by fossil fuels.
The powerful nuclear power critics in Congress want the House energy bill to focus on climate change. To diminish the opposition, they entered into a bargain that gave nuclear reactors status with loan guarantees and other subsidies in the same legislation which has passed the House and, as is usual, languishing in the Senate.
Long-time, staunch opponents of atomic power who are leaders in countering climate change, such as Cong. Ed Markey (D-MA), have quieted themselves for the time being, while the Republicans (loving the taxpayer subsidies) and some Democrats are hollering for the nukes. All this undermines the valiant efforts of the Union of Concerned Scientists, NIRS, Friends of the Earth, and other established citizen groups who favor a far safer, more efficient, faster and more secure energy future for our country and the world.
Just recently, a well-designed and documented pamphlet from Beyond Nuclear summarize the case against nuclear power as "Expensive, Dangerous and Dirty." The clear, precise detail and documentation makes for expeditious education of your friends, neighbors and co-workers.
You can download it free and reprint it for wider distribution from www.BeyondNuclear.org. It is very well worth the 10 to 15 minutes it takes to absorb the truth about this troubled technology--replete with delays and large cost-overruns--that has been on government welfare since the 1950s.
- Posted in
Comments are closed
110 Comments so far
Show All"And the last horse was pale and his name was DEATH"!How appropriate for nukes and this should also include the black horse which can stand for the premise behind the push.GREED!Tony
Most Americans I know have fallen for the clean, safe nuclear power myth...they like silver bullets and they feel warm and fuzzy about smokeless nuke plants with no exposed moving parts.
Most Americans I know have fallen for the clean, safe nuclear power myth...they like silver bullets and they feel warm and fuzzy about smokeless nuke plants with no exposed moving parts.
Most Americans I know have fallen for the clean, safe nuclear power myth...they like silver bullets and they feel warm and fuzzy about smokeless nuke plants with no exposed moving parts.
This is what Nader still does with his time - patiently exposing basic truths about our society.
i don't know what will get our attention, pouring so much of our money, our energy, our lives into the monster machine. When will we simply see what we do, and stop doing it?
The only thing that can get their attention is sending them over to those countries heavily dependent on nuclear energy and seeing the consequences for themselves. Sometimes, it takes a disaster to acknowledge the truth and then some people still think it's not enough.
France and some other EU countries are 80 percent dependent on nuclear power. Their safety record is near-perfect.
It is fine to oppose nuclear power, as long as one also opposes other industrial operations that produce equal or usually far greater amounts of hazardous and toxic substances, and are far more dangerous places to work too. Where is similar opposition to coal power plants, chemical and plastics manufacture, oil refining, gas well fracking, and heavy manufacturing of all sorts?
I hear a lot about safety records and yes, it can help in those nations but even then it only goes so far. What people fail to realize is that with nuclear and fossil fuel based energies, safety and maintenance costs are high. Just ask some French and Swedish natives if you get a chance to visit Europe. I would also caution that anytime those nations end up with reckless leadership ala the USA, the disadvantages of nuclear/coal become obvious with "deregulation". Cleaner sources of energy and conservation are inevitable no matter how far any nation can brag about safety records.
The governments subsidize nuclear to keep it looking "low" but it still takes more water to operate them. I would rather pick tidal over nuclear energy any day.
I'm ready to join a Progressive third party and work to elect Ralph Nader as POTUS.
Somebody please let me know when this third way is launched.
Thank you.
Sorry Abbywood, Ralph would be of better use to us in the United States Senate than as President. Without an organized party to back him in the White House, he would be nothing more than a daily punching bag for the Republicans, Democrats and the conservative main stream media.
In the Senate he would be able to act freely on our behalf, putting forth and influencing bills as they moved through the Senate. And could you imagine the embarrassment of the Senators as Senator Nader calls them out for their support of corporate criminals. It would be great!
With all due respect Ralph is best exactly where he is, a voice of reason in a wilderness of lies and sellouts.
As to Nuclear Energy plants, a great idea, as soon as the technology catches up with the concept. Perhaps fifty years from now?
In fifty years uranium nuclear power plants will be history. Either fusion or thorium or something else will replace it -- such as real solar power -- want to bet?
And the old nuke plants will be radioactive hulks to be carted away and buried somewhere.
Gary
"Wally: Stupidity is like nuclear power; it can be used for good or evil. Dilbert: And you don't want to get any on you."
-- Scott Adams
I agree. He would be best in the Senate. He would have a bully pulpit so to speak and he could challenge Leiberman and other dimocrats head on. I mentioned this to folks who might have been able to reach him back in back in 2003 or 04.
The Senate is where the power really is. 5 years to not worry about elections and raise hell.
However, having a Senator Nader would raise people hopes I am afraid. I am not sure if it a good idea that anyone has hope for our fascist governement at this point? Without hoping for reform there might be a chance that we the people might be able to competely dismantle it.
this says it all:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/31-5
fresh water!
thank God for obomba's green energy plan!
How about a third party "The Scientific party" that deals primarily with facts rather than
frames? The future is coming whether we plan for it or not. Why not use science to help in that planning and that debate?
That's an idea I fully support.
The problem is the general populace doesn't recognize/is incapable of recognizing fact from fiction. The general populace is uneducated in the sciences. They haven't a clue as to what the 'scientific method' is nevermind how it works.
Watch television, read newspapers, listen to 'talk' radio, peruse the internet ... all replete with propaganda ... misinformation ... disinformation. Most of those who partake are willing enthusiasts absorbing without question or further investigation of what is disseminated.
Every day, in just about everything we do and are exposed to, there is manipulation and distortion of facts.
We have an educational system that has been/is being systematically purged of anything that encourages critical thinking, problem solving, reasoning skills, rational thought processes.
So ... when it comes to the subject of nuclear power ... the populace has been primed! So has our government! So has our President!
We've been dumbed down! We've been lied to! We've been cheated! We've been ignored! We've been set up! We've been primed!
Couldn't we see this nuclear energy push coming? It's been lurking in the shadows ... waiting ... now, working its way through the system ... seizing an opportunity ...
Ralph Nader is a rational, educated human being. He understands the facts. He understands the consequences of embracing nuclear power. Our President neither understands the facts nor understands the consequences. Our President actually believes there is safe nuclear power ... Safe for whom?
I'm afraid minds have been so numbed, so dumbed that simple presentation of facts doesn't/can't work anymore. You have to know what to do with the facts once you have them. You have to have some understanding of right and wrong. You have to have the basic comprehension of what humanity is ... what it means to be human ... humane.
They're out there ... getting all their ducks in a row ... government guarantees, permitting fast-tracking, increased limitations on public input ... with a populace so numbed from fear, war, economic disaster, joblessness, homelessness ... with a populace so dumbed by ignorance, distraction, manipulation, and propaganda ... yup ... and our President pushing their agenda ... the nuclear power corporations are going to rule the day.
Oh, the oil companies were evil. Then we thought the banksters and Wall Street were the ultimate in evils!?! It's like a competition ... who(corporations are now considered persons) can be the one to wreak the most havoc.
And to top it all off ... they believe in God ... ???
Absurdity beyond my comprehension!
p.s. By the way ... where did all the anger and outrage go in regards to the banksters and Wall Street, the bail out, and ... see no sooner does something happen do we forget about it. Is that what will happen with the latest surge in nuclear power promotion?
Actually, scientific comparisons of the hazards of nuclear electric power, compared to other modern form of energy production, manufacturing, and transportation, would give nuclear rather high marks.
Question: Whose science are you siting for the comparisons?
Question : You state ' ... would give nuclear rather high marks'. Does a disinterested third party provide the grading and the criteria to substantiate such grading? Or, is this an assumption?
Are you aware of the realities of uranium mining ... what uranium mining has done to Native Americans and their lands ... what uranium mining has done to other aboriginal peoples and their lands ... ?
How does one cost out the damages uranium mining has, and will have, inflicted on lives, lands, flora, fauna and waters ... past, present and future? How is it that uranium mines are inordinately located in poor/destitute areas? How is it that poor and/or deprived peoples are inordinately impacted? (These questions are applicable to any industry causing environmental disaster, degradation, contamination or threat thereof).
Who is held accountable for the genetic damage incurred through extended or long-term, low-level radioactive exposure? How are genetic damage assessments made, that is, if they are in fact made? Who is doing this? What criteria is used? Who is connecting the dots?
Question: Whose science are you siting for the comparisons?
There is no such thing as this person's science and that person's science. You proposed the issue be approached scientifically, yet in this post you clearly know nothing about the scientific method.
Studies could be designed to objectively assess all the factors you mentioned. but it is funny that you didn't mention the biggest impact of all in any comparison between nuclear and fossil generation - GHG emissions and potentially life-ending runaway global warming.
Many more poor people are affected by mining - particularly coal mining. Come to Eastern Kentucky.
I was quite hesitant to further engage here. I am going to make an attempt however.
Personal attacks, making insinuations and then blatantly accusing someone of 'clearly knowing nothing about the scientific method' is a red herring ... er ... bullying.
I merely posed questions.
Science and the 'scientific method' has been my life for a very, very long time. Yes ... I believe and know through experience that there is in fact 'such a thing as this person's science and that person's science'. I have witnessed manipulation of data. I have witnessed senior scientists destroy reams of good data. Verifiable analyses, legitimate results shredded. SOPs disregarded. Numbers simply erased/changed to 'achieve' the desired outcome. Critical samples ... logged in ... within the chain of command ... suddenly, mysteriously disappeared on numerous occasions. None of this is anecdotal. These were not and are not isolated incidents.
These have been part of my experience certainly not all of it.
Data, numbers, statistics ... all what science and the scientific method are ultimately about ... can/are and will be manipulated and skewed ... and then there is the matter of 'interpretation' of data, numbers, statistics.
To me, with the caveat 'in my opinion', this is why understanding whose 'science' is being used is so important. Being able to backtrack ... to study the procedure, techniques, quality of data, quantity of data, etc... is critical. That is why I had asked 'whose science'.
It is not 'funny that' I 'didn't mention the biggest impact of all ...'. In reponse to that ... brevity ... not exclusion. I cannot possibly include all my thoughts, experience, opinions, all facts, comparisons and all aspects in a 'comments' area. Again ... brevity ... not exclusion. I have seen the environmental devastation from all types of mining. I have been to Eastern Kentucky. I have seen more than I really want to remember sometimes.
And ... as in this venue ... you have your opinion ... I have my opinion ...
But those who betray their training in the way you describe are *not* scientists, nor do they represent the majority of their nominal colleagues. They might have big science credentials and well-paid science jobs, but they're frauds who should be struck off.
The Natural Law Party folded over 10 years ago.
Natural Law Presidential Candidate Physicist John Hagelin then threw his support to Dennis Kucinich.
harvey wasserman
good stuff, ralph. keep giving em hell. we've got our work cut out for us stopping this next run at nuclear insanity. but we can do it. no nukes, indeed.
ps--the situation around vermont yankee is in crisis mode; the company is very capable of causing a major accident as you read this. we MUST shut that reactor ASAP...
How are we going to counter what will be a well-funded, expertly scripted pro-nuclear attack rolled out on mass media capable of reaching millions of Americans every hour with a few dozen low watt am radio shows and less than a half dozen liberal cable tv shows who'll probably ignore the topic entirely in favor of further Sarah Palin coverage?
Progressives will continue to lose EVERY political battle until a new improved Fairness Doctrine is established and the media megaliths are anti-trusted into a thousand pieces.
------------------
Whoever controls the media controls the country. Period.
Even if we include every somewhat credible claim since the year Dot of early death, and include, too, the death tolls from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the obscene use of US soldiers as unwitting guinea pigs, and the criminal use of DU, the total butcher's bill for nuclear use _and_ abuse is probably still less than the slaughter, maimings, fatal illnesses, environmental damage, and general mayhem from which the oil and transportation industries make money _EVERY YEAR_.
And Ralph made his name with "unsafe at any speed".
Sometimes the irony and selective attention around here is so thick on the ground a body would be forgiven for thinking it could be sliced up and sold for use in building houses.
Challenge:
Where is the 'irony'? Where is the 'selective attention' around here?
Your statement 'Somewhat credible claim ... for nuclear use and abuse ...' makes me question your motives here. From my understanding of what you have stated in your contribution, you are indicating doubt and asserting that the 'less than' quantifiable harm/death attributed to radioactive contamination/exposure/bombing somehow nullifies the ravages and damages caused or related to fossil fuels.
By addressing the recent pro-nuclear power push this in no way advocates for fossil fuels nor is it condoning them. Fossil fuels are simply not the actual subject of Mr. Nader's article.
Fossil fuels certainly have not been disregarded in the discussion of energy and the profits derived from them.
I am not and do not intend to speak for Mr. Nader. I do however seriously question your assertion that Mr. Nader has disregarded the 'general mayhem from which the oil and transportation industries make money _EVERY YEAR_'. Where does this information come from? Again, it is not the subject of the article. There is neither 'irony' nor 'selective attention'. How does Mr. Nader's 'Unsafe At Any Speed' prop oil and transportation industries?
All I have to say is ... the only way a campaign can be waged/pursued successfully is by staying focused on one issue after another. Focus. Focus. Focus.
The focus here being the recent pro-nuclear power push by the industry and our President.
Combining a myriad of unrelated subjects, comparing apples with oranges, twisting and turning, trying to relate disjointed thoughts and opinions IN PLACE OF a clear line of reasoning supported by truths and facts = a sure way to getting nowhere.
Trying to stop the pro-nuclear power push we are witnessing in no way absolves, advocates, or supports fossil fuels use.
Challenge: Agreed. I've noticed whenever a post on CD deals with nuclear power the creepers come out of the walls to misdirect, misinform, and push their lethal agenda.
You seem to have misunderstood my entire post. Perhaps part of that is my fault. Let me see whether I can make my point more clearly:
The harm done by all the nuclear use and misuse in human history is presumptively less than the harm done by the petroleum and transportation industries *every year*.
I say "presumptively" because we know about the 500,000 road deaths each year, which of course is orders of magnitude more than the deaths that are even *probably* due to nuclear use/abuse. But we don't have good data that I know of about the "smaller", less visible effects of the petroleum and transport industries: the maimings, the cancers, etc. I presume the number of such injuries is far larger than the 500K immediate deaths since that's the usual relationship for death:injury.
Despite that vast difference in their respective destructive effects --and remember: we're talking about the destruction of *real people* here, not just numbers on paper-- the focus in "liberal" venues --and even at CD, it seems, which is the ironical bit-- is on the smaller problem rather than the larger one.
That is what I mean by "selective attention": eagerly focusing on the less important thing that's going on because it's "politically correct" to do so (I use the term sardonically, as the original Reds used it, not as it's misused today).
What causes that selective attention? I'd guess it's what Bismarck called the lack of "civil courage" -- the fear that if I refuse to stone the harmless old woman who's been called a witch today, the person to be called a witch and stoned tomorrow might be me.
But I've found that I can't live that way, so I'll think things through as best I can, speak my mind, and take my chances. The world would be a better place, I reckon, if more people did the same. Will they ever, do you think?
Mairead,
Excellent points. As I've already pointed out here, when the subject is nuclear power, the comment against here is very heavy and often quite emotional. But in articles on Marcellus shale gas drilling and fracking, which has the potential to contaminate, with cancer-causing chemicals, the groundwater and surface water over whole major river watersheds (it is already destroying the drinking water quality of the Mon river where I live), the number of comments can usually be counted on one hand.
Thanks, PJ. Funny you mention the chems...I was just thinking of the huge "Superfund" site in Woburn that I used to pass by quite frequently. Fenced off, big skull-and-crossbones signs, a foetid slough of toxicity that produced leukaemias and birth defects. Now it's allegedly "cleaned up" ...but since it will remain interdicted for residential use into the indefinite future, the "cleaned up" evidently has a more limited meaning than the words would suggest.
Read Frederick Pohl's "Chernobyl." He details the nuclear accidents in the US.
A real problem for Americans (and anyone with a government)is that the gov't disinforms (lies for everyone not familiar with news speak)about every potential problem.
No one knows what to do. Because we never get accurate info.
His point about rich subsidies, guaranteed loans and tax breaks is pretty good, though the upfront costs of building these these enormous infrastructures and the huge political resistance to them are a big problem. Perhaps outright ownership by the government of at least some of these projects might be a solution.
As far as his estimation of the danger or possible positive contribution of this industry to climate problem, he completely drops the ball. His "learning curve" is nil. James Lovelock's book "Revenge of the Gaia" is just one of many books from the scientific community that refutes his claim. What a tragedy!
I don't think Nader has 'dropped the ball'--rather, he is, like millions of us, opposed to nuclear power for sundry reasons. Ultimately, it is impossible to 'insure' nuclear power. Here's the latest disaster: Yankee Nuclear in Vermont is leaking and contaminating ground water in a small community where all home, schools, etc. get their water from wells--http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100211/NEWS02/100210037/Shut-down-Vermont-Yankee-nuclear-expert-says. Now, maybe you'd like to volunteer to help clean up the groundwater? Or maybe you'd like to buy up all the property around the plant at a price the buyers would have gotten prior to the contamination? You say nuclear has a positive role to play--there it is, playing its role. Get busy and help make the dream real by cleaning up that mess before you create another one.
Meanwhile, we have current renewable technologies like wind, solar PV, solar thermal, geothermal, that are NOT receiving billions in subsidies in the US. If they were given 50 billion instead of blowing it on nuclear insurance, it would create a very different trajectory for the US. The story of corruption and influence that give nuclear a new opportunity is another lesson explained by other articles. Review Harvey Wasserman's articles on this site.
We must start with 'downsizing energy use' by doing 'load analysis' on homes and businesses, offering both free energy efficiency analysis and upgrading existing structures to make them less wasteful--that's where the greatest energy savings will come from. Do that first.
On CNN's web site, Bill Gates is calling for 'energy miracles'--preposterous drivel. He has the money it would take to create an energy miracle but is spending it, hording it, elsewhere. Meanwhile, he is trumpeting a notion about using spent nuclear fuel--this from a man who was responsible for Windows Millennium! God save us if he is ever involved in any way with nuclear power. His timeline for his miracle is, unfortunately, too late. The fact is that we can change our lifestyles and avoid catastrophic climate change--if we act quickly and with a different course of action. What no one wants to admit is that our fearful leaders (oligarchs) have become accustomed to using--and wasting--vast amounts of energy and would like to continue doing so... forever.
Business As Usual is suicidal. The changes we must make involve understanding the problems in a new way and recognizing we already have the solutions, but we must abandon the BAU model. We need political and economic change, not climate change.
After fighting for years to stop nuclear power after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl--en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster, I never thought it would come back. Only in a country where debate is squelched would it be possible. That was one of Nader's core points.
The hazards from VM leak (caused by an easily preventable poor design - the inaccessible burial of a pipe which carry's tritiated water - who approved that?) is pretty small compared the the threat of Marcellus Shale gas well drilling and fracking to the groundwater and surface water over entire large river watersheds. Can you spare some of your energy to oppose it too?
Oh GOD! Another WPPSS....we're still paying for the last ones that were never finished. The folks in Washington really know how it feels to be human sacrifices to the Nuclear weap...power indistry.
Humans on the short list for extinction could do one really good thing and not leave their nuclear
trash around for those that come after. Greenhouse will fix itself after we leave, radiation is the kiss of death forever.
Come on people do the right thing.
harrylime: Not to worry. Mother Nature has literally all the time there is; quite long enough to dissipate the half-lives of our nuke trash.
Cheer up. No species is eternal, and most evolutionary innovations--I count our semi-intelligence as such--fail the first time around.
Ralph is my president.
I tried to locate the pamphlet that Ralph mentioned in this article at BeyondNuclear.org and I couldn't find it. Can anyone help me out?
Thanks.
The report, as Ralph said, is not free. Here is a link to directly take you to the place where you could buy it or read the TOC for free: https://www.nyas.org/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%252fannalfulltext%252fjump.ashx%253faid%253df3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1%2526isid%253d123194851%2526code%253d1181%2526ref%253d9781573317573&aid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1&isid=123194851&ref=9781573317573
Oops, wrong site. I see the problem. No article by that title. I did find this good overview: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti
Opps, didn't see your later post till too late.
Never Mind.
Gary
"The discovery of nuclear chain reactions need not bring about the destruction of mankind any more than did the discovery of matches. We only must do everything in our power to safeguard against its abuse. Only a supranational organization, equipped wit h a sufficiently strong executive power, can protect us."
-- Albert Einstein
No. You cannot read it unless you are a member of the New York Academy of Science. Not even the Table of Contents.
Unless there is some secret access I cannot find.
Gary
PS a Tiny URL for that ridiculously long URL is:
http://tinyurl.com/yc5477y
“What I am going to write is the last of what I have to say. I will say that literature is the only consciousness we possess and that its role as consciousness must inform us of our ability to comprehend the hideous danger of nuclear power.”
-- John Cheever
Mairead writes:
"we know about the 500,000 road deaths each year,"
NO we don't: the actual figure is about FIFTY (not FIVE HUNDRED) thousand road deaths a year -- and thanks in no small part to Ralph Nader's efforts, this annual petro-sacrifice is less than it has been in the past.
Granted this is ghastly enough for anyone, but especially when citing "orders of magnitude" between nuclear and non-nuclear technologies, introducing an extra zero here may embody the "irony and selective attention" Mairead attributes to others.
Since everyone points at the whole world when talking about nuclear energy problems, I took my 500K number from world statistics too, not US statistics. Fair enough, don't you think?
Here's another assessment, from the UN's World Health Organisation
(http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_traffic/en/):
--------------------------------------
"More than 3000 people die on the world's roads every day. Tens of millions of people are injured or disabled every year."
--------------------------------------
To save you the calculation, 3K/day is 1M/year --*twice* the 500K figure I cited.
Chalk it up to US-centrism. do they even drive cars, of have nuclear power, in all those backward foreign countries? :)
NO NUKES.. EVER! How can they talk about saving the planet from global warming and at the same time talk about poisoning the earth and air with nuclear waste??!!
Chernobyl was a warning. Heed it and fight against nuclear powered plants.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvAJ_u3Q0Hw&feature=player_embedded
As usual, Ralph Nader is fighting on the side of humanity.
Building solar panels and wind turbines may involve coal at first but the energy yields are better and they are safe while energy from fossil fuels and nuclear are not. Ralph Nader has spoken against Mountain Top Removal.
He did come to Charleston, WV before as well.
http://www.wvhighlands.org/VoicePast/VoiceMay00/Nader.May00Voice.htm
He saw this danger long before Hansen caught on.
Tiny URL for Ralph Nader in Charleston
http://tinyurl.com/y9twbns
Gary
“All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk.”
-- Ronald Reagan