To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
This
week 24 years ago, untold quantities of lethal radiation began pouring
into the atmosphere from the catastrophic explosion at Chernobyl Unit 4.
Nearly a million people have died because of it.
And on this horrific anniversary we have now seen the stumble of a
very bad climate bill. The events are directly related.
Chernobyl's
death toll has been bitterly debated.
This
week 24 years ago, untold quantities of lethal radiation began pouring
into the atmosphere from the catastrophic explosion at Chernobyl Unit 4.
Nearly a million people have died because of it.
And on this horrific anniversary we have now seen the stumble of a
very bad climate bill. The events are directly related.
Chernobyl's
death toll has been bitterly debated.
But after nearly a
quarter-century of industry denial, the New York Academy of Sciences has
published Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and
the Environment, the definitive catalog and analysis. Drawing on some
5,000 studies, three Russian scientists have placed the ultimate death
toll at 985,000.
The authors include Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former
environmental advisor to the president of Russia; Dr. Alexey Nesterenko,
a biologist in Belarus; and Dr. Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist who was,
at the time of the accident, director of the Institute of Nuclear
Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. The book has been
edited by Dr. Janette Sherman, a toxicologist expert in the health impacts of
radioactivity.
As Karl Grossman has shown, Chernobyl's death toll stretches
worldwide. Its apocalyptic cloud blanketed Europe and blew across the
northern tier of the United States. Sheep in Scotland and milk in New
England were heavily contaminated, along with countless square miles of
land and sea.
Ohio's Davis-Besse may have come within a fraction of an inch of
such a disaster, and has again been found with
potentially apocalyptic structural flaws. Michigan's Fermi I and the
infamous Three Mile Island Unit 2 did melt.
Now the brand new Toshiba-Westinghouse AP-1000 design has been
deemed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as unable to withstand
earthquakes, hurricanes or tornadoes, and has turned up with a critical
generic flaw that could
cause it to explode.
Which is where the climate bill comes in.
Widespread reports
of what it contained were to be clarified with its planned introduction
on Chernobyl Day. But co-sponsor Lindsay Graham (R-SC) abruptly
withdrew, apparently amidst partisan wrangling over immigration.
By all accounts this bill included a fossil industry wish-list, with
big money for "clean coal," off-shore drilling, a disembowelment of the
EPA and much more. With oil fires raging at sea and miners being buried
in the coal fields, how this bill would actually solve the climate
crisis remains
unclear.
What was clear were subsidies that John Kerry (D-MA) said would put
taxpayers on the hook for at least a dozen new reactors, and possibly far more.
The details are temporarily moot, but the portent is not.
It's
precisely that dangerously deficient AP-1000 design that the Obama
Administration wants to fund first, for construction in Georgia.
America's leaky fleet of 104 aging clunkers meanwhile staggers toward
disaster at places like Vermont Yankee and New York's Indian Point,
Ohio's Davis-Besse and California's Diablo Canyon.
Chernobyl exploded in a remote backwater of an impoverished region.
But by official accounts from Ukraine and Belarus, it did $500 billion
in damage just there. Nowhere in the US would the property damage be
remotely that small. The near-million death toll would be a mere
fraction of how many would die here.
Nothing in any known draft of this now-in-limbo climate bill demands
private insurance against such a catastrophe. Nor does it have a
solution for what to do with 60,000 tons of high-level radioactive
waste, or thousands more yet to come.
Nor does it begin to answer the reality that every cent thrown down
the reactor rat-hole could quickly save far more energy than such a reactor could
produce -- if it ever did come on line after the seven-to-ten years
it would take to license and build such a boondoggle.
No sane attempt to save the global ecology could ever include more
money for precisely the most dangerous, destructive, dirty and
deficit-ridden energy technology ever devised.
Let's hope this
bill's yank away from Chernobyl Day will take it to the desperately
needed safe haven of a Solartopian plan built around renewables,
conservation and efficiency.
Neither the planetary ecology nor the US economy can afford anything
less.
Nothing else would deserve the label "Climate Bill."
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. |
This
week 24 years ago, untold quantities of lethal radiation began pouring
into the atmosphere from the catastrophic explosion at Chernobyl Unit 4.
Nearly a million people have died because of it.
And on this horrific anniversary we have now seen the stumble of a
very bad climate bill. The events are directly related.
Chernobyl's
death toll has been bitterly debated.
But after nearly a
quarter-century of industry denial, the New York Academy of Sciences has
published Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and
the Environment, the definitive catalog and analysis. Drawing on some
5,000 studies, three Russian scientists have placed the ultimate death
toll at 985,000.
The authors include Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former
environmental advisor to the president of Russia; Dr. Alexey Nesterenko,
a biologist in Belarus; and Dr. Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist who was,
at the time of the accident, director of the Institute of Nuclear
Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. The book has been
edited by Dr. Janette Sherman, a toxicologist expert in the health impacts of
radioactivity.
As Karl Grossman has shown, Chernobyl's death toll stretches
worldwide. Its apocalyptic cloud blanketed Europe and blew across the
northern tier of the United States. Sheep in Scotland and milk in New
England were heavily contaminated, along with countless square miles of
land and sea.
Ohio's Davis-Besse may have come within a fraction of an inch of
such a disaster, and has again been found with
potentially apocalyptic structural flaws. Michigan's Fermi I and the
infamous Three Mile Island Unit 2 did melt.
Now the brand new Toshiba-Westinghouse AP-1000 design has been
deemed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as unable to withstand
earthquakes, hurricanes or tornadoes, and has turned up with a critical
generic flaw that could
cause it to explode.
Which is where the climate bill comes in.
Widespread reports
of what it contained were to be clarified with its planned introduction
on Chernobyl Day. But co-sponsor Lindsay Graham (R-SC) abruptly
withdrew, apparently amidst partisan wrangling over immigration.
By all accounts this bill included a fossil industry wish-list, with
big money for "clean coal," off-shore drilling, a disembowelment of the
EPA and much more. With oil fires raging at sea and miners being buried
in the coal fields, how this bill would actually solve the climate
crisis remains
unclear.
What was clear were subsidies that John Kerry (D-MA) said would put
taxpayers on the hook for at least a dozen new reactors, and possibly far more.
The details are temporarily moot, but the portent is not.
It's
precisely that dangerously deficient AP-1000 design that the Obama
Administration wants to fund first, for construction in Georgia.
America's leaky fleet of 104 aging clunkers meanwhile staggers toward
disaster at places like Vermont Yankee and New York's Indian Point,
Ohio's Davis-Besse and California's Diablo Canyon.
Chernobyl exploded in a remote backwater of an impoverished region.
But by official accounts from Ukraine and Belarus, it did $500 billion
in damage just there. Nowhere in the US would the property damage be
remotely that small. The near-million death toll would be a mere
fraction of how many would die here.
Nothing in any known draft of this now-in-limbo climate bill demands
private insurance against such a catastrophe. Nor does it have a
solution for what to do with 60,000 tons of high-level radioactive
waste, or thousands more yet to come.
Nor does it begin to answer the reality that every cent thrown down
the reactor rat-hole could quickly save far more energy than such a reactor could
produce -- if it ever did come on line after the seven-to-ten years
it would take to license and build such a boondoggle.
No sane attempt to save the global ecology could ever include more
money for precisely the most dangerous, destructive, dirty and
deficit-ridden energy technology ever devised.
Let's hope this
bill's yank away from Chernobyl Day will take it to the desperately
needed safe haven of a Solartopian plan built around renewables,
conservation and efficiency.
Neither the planetary ecology nor the US economy can afford anything
less.
Nothing else would deserve the label "Climate Bill."
This
week 24 years ago, untold quantities of lethal radiation began pouring
into the atmosphere from the catastrophic explosion at Chernobyl Unit 4.
Nearly a million people have died because of it.
And on this horrific anniversary we have now seen the stumble of a
very bad climate bill. The events are directly related.
Chernobyl's
death toll has been bitterly debated.
But after nearly a
quarter-century of industry denial, the New York Academy of Sciences has
published Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and
the Environment, the definitive catalog and analysis. Drawing on some
5,000 studies, three Russian scientists have placed the ultimate death
toll at 985,000.
The authors include Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former
environmental advisor to the president of Russia; Dr. Alexey Nesterenko,
a biologist in Belarus; and Dr. Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist who was,
at the time of the accident, director of the Institute of Nuclear
Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. The book has been
edited by Dr. Janette Sherman, a toxicologist expert in the health impacts of
radioactivity.
As Karl Grossman has shown, Chernobyl's death toll stretches
worldwide. Its apocalyptic cloud blanketed Europe and blew across the
northern tier of the United States. Sheep in Scotland and milk in New
England were heavily contaminated, along with countless square miles of
land and sea.
Ohio's Davis-Besse may have come within a fraction of an inch of
such a disaster, and has again been found with
potentially apocalyptic structural flaws. Michigan's Fermi I and the
infamous Three Mile Island Unit 2 did melt.
Now the brand new Toshiba-Westinghouse AP-1000 design has been
deemed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as unable to withstand
earthquakes, hurricanes or tornadoes, and has turned up with a critical
generic flaw that could
cause it to explode.
Which is where the climate bill comes in.
Widespread reports
of what it contained were to be clarified with its planned introduction
on Chernobyl Day. But co-sponsor Lindsay Graham (R-SC) abruptly
withdrew, apparently amidst partisan wrangling over immigration.
By all accounts this bill included a fossil industry wish-list, with
big money for "clean coal," off-shore drilling, a disembowelment of the
EPA and much more. With oil fires raging at sea and miners being buried
in the coal fields, how this bill would actually solve the climate
crisis remains
unclear.
What was clear were subsidies that John Kerry (D-MA) said would put
taxpayers on the hook for at least a dozen new reactors, and possibly far more.
The details are temporarily moot, but the portent is not.
It's
precisely that dangerously deficient AP-1000 design that the Obama
Administration wants to fund first, for construction in Georgia.
America's leaky fleet of 104 aging clunkers meanwhile staggers toward
disaster at places like Vermont Yankee and New York's Indian Point,
Ohio's Davis-Besse and California's Diablo Canyon.
Chernobyl exploded in a remote backwater of an impoverished region.
But by official accounts from Ukraine and Belarus, it did $500 billion
in damage just there. Nowhere in the US would the property damage be
remotely that small. The near-million death toll would be a mere
fraction of how many would die here.
Nothing in any known draft of this now-in-limbo climate bill demands
private insurance against such a catastrophe. Nor does it have a
solution for what to do with 60,000 tons of high-level radioactive
waste, or thousands more yet to come.
Nor does it begin to answer the reality that every cent thrown down
the reactor rat-hole could quickly save far more energy than such a reactor could
produce -- if it ever did come on line after the seven-to-ten years
it would take to license and build such a boondoggle.
No sane attempt to save the global ecology could ever include more
money for precisely the most dangerous, destructive, dirty and
deficit-ridden energy technology ever devised.
Let's hope this
bill's yank away from Chernobyl Day will take it to the desperately
needed safe haven of a Solartopian plan built around renewables,
conservation and efficiency.
Neither the planetary ecology nor the US economy can afford anything
less.
Nothing else would deserve the label "Climate Bill."