SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
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.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
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.
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.