Funded by Nuclear Power
Abookamongstthemany
Posts: 8,209
I think I'll pass. Thanks just the same
http://www.indypendent.org/2008/02/27/1504/
Disaster Uranium: Democratic Presidential Candidates Backed by Nuclear Powerhouses
By Jessica Lee
From the February 24, 2008 issue | Posted in National | Email this article
By Jessica Lee
While Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to spar for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, a hidden conflict over uranium mining and radioactive waste dumping is simmering, pitting the two candidates, other prominent politicians and Wall Street financiers against many indigenous and non-native American communities.
Tens of thousands of people across the continental United States and in Hawai’i still suffer the effects of previous uranium mining booms during the 1940s and the Cold War, and fears are growing over how a nuclear power renaissance will impact tribal lands.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse, a member of the Lakota Nation, explains, “In western South Dakota, there is an unspoken nuclear Chernobyl. There are days when the sky is brown from the dust of uranium mining tailings in the air. This is cattle and wheat country. When the dust settles, no one knows they are being radiated.”
Ghosthorse, also the host of “First Voices Indigenous Radio” on New York’s WBAI, speaks in a firm voice when he discusses the impact of uranium mining on his home in Cheyenne River Indian Reservation. “A few years, there were only 19 of us left from my 1973 high school graduating class of 70 or 80 people. Nine out of 10 of them had died of cancer.”
To bring attention to the environmental threats and the destruction of sacred sites, hundreds of Native Americans and supporters began trekking from San Francisco to Washington, D.C., on Feb. 11. The five-month walk commemorates the 1978 Longest Walk that led to the defeat of 11 anti-Native American bills in Congress and passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.
“The Walk is a call of action to the people to wake up and realize that the continued exploitation of Mother Earth cannot go on,” said Ricardo Tapia, a national coordinator of the Longest Walk 2. “This walk is for people of all colors. We are concerned about the trees, water and the sprit of the land. These things are alive. To most non-Indians, these are just seen as resources.”
The New York Times recently noted that in the case of New Mexico, where the nuclear power industry is seeking to restart uranium mining near a Dine (Navajo) reservation, “mining companies walked away from their cleanup responsibilities” of a thousand open mines after the Cold War ended. The Times stated “among the horrors” that resulted were “shifting mountains of uranium tailings; open mines leaching contaminated rain into drinking water tables; wind-blown radioactive dust; home construction from uranium mine slabs; and even the grim spectacle of children playing in radioactive swimming holes and ground pits.”
NUCLEAR ENERGY BACK ON THE TABLE
Like many other commodities, from gold to oil to wheat, uranium’s price has risen because of speculation. As of 2003, processed uranium ore, known as yellowcake, was trading for $7 a pound. Last year, it hit $138. The dwindling of Cold War-era uranium supplies combined with anticipation that industrializing economies in China, India and Russia would turn to nuclear power, led hedge funds and other big investors to drive up the price of yellowcake and the stocks of uranium mining companies. It’s this paper wealth that has stoked mining interests around the world.
The Las Vegas Sun noted on Feb. 10, “More than 1,000 new uranium mining claims have been staked on federal lands near the Grand Canyon during the past three years because of rising uranium prices.” According to the U.S. Department of Energy, uranium exploration and development drilling totaled 5,000 holes covering 2.7 million feet in 2006. It is estimated that at least 50 percent of uranium deposits are located on Native-owned lands.
But to realize these vast profits, the uranium mining industry needs various governments to approve new mining operations and to revive the controversial and dangerous nuclear power industry. In Virginia, for example, which has a moratorium on uranium mining; the state Senate approved a bill commissioning a “study” on Feb. 13 to determine if it is safe to mine a site that contains the “largest unmined uranium deposit in the United States, worth an estimated $10 billion.”
While the Bush administration is pushing for nuclear power’s revival, its future is not just in the hands of Republicans.
Claiming the United States cannot meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if nuclear power is not an option, Obama wants to spend $150 billion over the next 10 years to develop new ”climate-friendly” energy sources. Clinton says the issue of nuclear waste storage can be overcome by American technological innovation.
The major political factor driving nuclear power’s revival is global warming. “What the industry’s public relations are trying to do … is find a bigger boogie man that is greater risk than building nuclear reactors,” said Jim Riccio, the nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace. “If you are afraid of nuclear power, you need to come up with an alternative that is more frightening. That is where the industry has latched itself to the climate change debate, and it is trying to sell themselves as a solution.”
THE DEMOCRATS’ DIRTY SECRET
The nuclear industry has helped bankroll the presidential campaigns of both Senators Obama and Clinton. Executives and employees of the Illinois-based Exelon have given Obama at least $221,517 — making Exelon Obama’s eighth largest contributor. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has also served as a consultant to Exelon.
NRG Energy is betting on Clinton. In September, NRG filed an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to open the first U.S. nuclear plan in more than 30 years. NRG Energy has given Clinton nearly $80,000 in campaign contributions. The company’s president and CEO, David Crane, is a “Hillraiser” — a Clinton backer who has raised at least $100,000. NRG Energy has also given $175 million to The Clinton Global Initiative run by former President Bill Clinton.
A NEW AGE OF COLONIALISM
Left unsaid on the campaign trail is the tragic fallout. Uranium exploration and mining, nuclear testing and radioactive waste dumping began more than 60 years ago, largely on lands that Southwestern Native Americans were forced onto generations earlier. Not only did Native communities receive little in the way of royalties for the uranium extracted from their lands, health and safety precautions were essentially non-existent.
As with people in South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana, Dine and Hopi communities in the Four Corner region (Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico) have suffered greatly from environmental contamination and widespread illness. These areas were deemed “National Sacrifice Areas” by the U.S. government — lands determined “uninhabitable” due to the planned depletion of water resources by industry and widespread radioactive contamination.
For the Native communities who are all too familiar with the dangerous consequences of being the nation that possesses thousands of nuclear weapons and relies on nearly 20 percent of its power from nuclear generation, this is a cry for environmental justice. And the Democratic leadership does not seem to care.
“Not one of the presidential candidates has an energy policy that excludes exploitation of indigenous lands,” said Klee Benally, founder of Indigenous Action Media and a volunteer with the Save the Peaks Coalition.
Ghosthorse agrees. “Hillary and Obama are not going to do anything about this. It is not who we elect, it is the system.” While the presidential primaries continue to hypnotize the nation, the Native American resistance walks on.
“Politicians do not have the answers and we cannot rely on them to provide the answers in the context of a system that is built on the exploitation of our lands,” Benally said. “We do not just need political action, we need direct action in our communities — because behind every environmental crisis is a social crisis.”
“This is the low-intensity warfare against Native people all of the time,” Ghosthorse said.
http://www.indypendent.org/2008/02/27/1504/
Disaster Uranium: Democratic Presidential Candidates Backed by Nuclear Powerhouses
By Jessica Lee
From the February 24, 2008 issue | Posted in National | Email this article
By Jessica Lee
While Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to spar for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, a hidden conflict over uranium mining and radioactive waste dumping is simmering, pitting the two candidates, other prominent politicians and Wall Street financiers against many indigenous and non-native American communities.
Tens of thousands of people across the continental United States and in Hawai’i still suffer the effects of previous uranium mining booms during the 1940s and the Cold War, and fears are growing over how a nuclear power renaissance will impact tribal lands.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse, a member of the Lakota Nation, explains, “In western South Dakota, there is an unspoken nuclear Chernobyl. There are days when the sky is brown from the dust of uranium mining tailings in the air. This is cattle and wheat country. When the dust settles, no one knows they are being radiated.”
Ghosthorse, also the host of “First Voices Indigenous Radio” on New York’s WBAI, speaks in a firm voice when he discusses the impact of uranium mining on his home in Cheyenne River Indian Reservation. “A few years, there were only 19 of us left from my 1973 high school graduating class of 70 or 80 people. Nine out of 10 of them had died of cancer.”
To bring attention to the environmental threats and the destruction of sacred sites, hundreds of Native Americans and supporters began trekking from San Francisco to Washington, D.C., on Feb. 11. The five-month walk commemorates the 1978 Longest Walk that led to the defeat of 11 anti-Native American bills in Congress and passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.
“The Walk is a call of action to the people to wake up and realize that the continued exploitation of Mother Earth cannot go on,” said Ricardo Tapia, a national coordinator of the Longest Walk 2. “This walk is for people of all colors. We are concerned about the trees, water and the sprit of the land. These things are alive. To most non-Indians, these are just seen as resources.”
The New York Times recently noted that in the case of New Mexico, where the nuclear power industry is seeking to restart uranium mining near a Dine (Navajo) reservation, “mining companies walked away from their cleanup responsibilities” of a thousand open mines after the Cold War ended. The Times stated “among the horrors” that resulted were “shifting mountains of uranium tailings; open mines leaching contaminated rain into drinking water tables; wind-blown radioactive dust; home construction from uranium mine slabs; and even the grim spectacle of children playing in radioactive swimming holes and ground pits.”
NUCLEAR ENERGY BACK ON THE TABLE
Like many other commodities, from gold to oil to wheat, uranium’s price has risen because of speculation. As of 2003, processed uranium ore, known as yellowcake, was trading for $7 a pound. Last year, it hit $138. The dwindling of Cold War-era uranium supplies combined with anticipation that industrializing economies in China, India and Russia would turn to nuclear power, led hedge funds and other big investors to drive up the price of yellowcake and the stocks of uranium mining companies. It’s this paper wealth that has stoked mining interests around the world.
The Las Vegas Sun noted on Feb. 10, “More than 1,000 new uranium mining claims have been staked on federal lands near the Grand Canyon during the past three years because of rising uranium prices.” According to the U.S. Department of Energy, uranium exploration and development drilling totaled 5,000 holes covering 2.7 million feet in 2006. It is estimated that at least 50 percent of uranium deposits are located on Native-owned lands.
But to realize these vast profits, the uranium mining industry needs various governments to approve new mining operations and to revive the controversial and dangerous nuclear power industry. In Virginia, for example, which has a moratorium on uranium mining; the state Senate approved a bill commissioning a “study” on Feb. 13 to determine if it is safe to mine a site that contains the “largest unmined uranium deposit in the United States, worth an estimated $10 billion.”
While the Bush administration is pushing for nuclear power’s revival, its future is not just in the hands of Republicans.
Claiming the United States cannot meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if nuclear power is not an option, Obama wants to spend $150 billion over the next 10 years to develop new ”climate-friendly” energy sources. Clinton says the issue of nuclear waste storage can be overcome by American technological innovation.
The major political factor driving nuclear power’s revival is global warming. “What the industry’s public relations are trying to do … is find a bigger boogie man that is greater risk than building nuclear reactors,” said Jim Riccio, the nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace. “If you are afraid of nuclear power, you need to come up with an alternative that is more frightening. That is where the industry has latched itself to the climate change debate, and it is trying to sell themselves as a solution.”
THE DEMOCRATS’ DIRTY SECRET
The nuclear industry has helped bankroll the presidential campaigns of both Senators Obama and Clinton. Executives and employees of the Illinois-based Exelon have given Obama at least $221,517 — making Exelon Obama’s eighth largest contributor. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has also served as a consultant to Exelon.
NRG Energy is betting on Clinton. In September, NRG filed an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to open the first U.S. nuclear plan in more than 30 years. NRG Energy has given Clinton nearly $80,000 in campaign contributions. The company’s president and CEO, David Crane, is a “Hillraiser” — a Clinton backer who has raised at least $100,000. NRG Energy has also given $175 million to The Clinton Global Initiative run by former President Bill Clinton.
A NEW AGE OF COLONIALISM
Left unsaid on the campaign trail is the tragic fallout. Uranium exploration and mining, nuclear testing and radioactive waste dumping began more than 60 years ago, largely on lands that Southwestern Native Americans were forced onto generations earlier. Not only did Native communities receive little in the way of royalties for the uranium extracted from their lands, health and safety precautions were essentially non-existent.
As with people in South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana, Dine and Hopi communities in the Four Corner region (Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico) have suffered greatly from environmental contamination and widespread illness. These areas were deemed “National Sacrifice Areas” by the U.S. government — lands determined “uninhabitable” due to the planned depletion of water resources by industry and widespread radioactive contamination.
For the Native communities who are all too familiar with the dangerous consequences of being the nation that possesses thousands of nuclear weapons and relies on nearly 20 percent of its power from nuclear generation, this is a cry for environmental justice. And the Democratic leadership does not seem to care.
“Not one of the presidential candidates has an energy policy that excludes exploitation of indigenous lands,” said Klee Benally, founder of Indigenous Action Media and a volunteer with the Save the Peaks Coalition.
Ghosthorse agrees. “Hillary and Obama are not going to do anything about this. It is not who we elect, it is the system.” While the presidential primaries continue to hypnotize the nation, the Native American resistance walks on.
“Politicians do not have the answers and we cannot rely on them to provide the answers in the context of a system that is built on the exploitation of our lands,” Benally said. “We do not just need political action, we need direct action in our communities — because behind every environmental crisis is a social crisis.”
“This is the low-intensity warfare against Native people all of the time,” Ghosthorse said.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate
By MIKE McINTIRE
Published: February 3, 2008
When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.
Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”
“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.
A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.
Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.
“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”
The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money.
Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.
Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.
In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues.
The Obama campaign said in written responses to questions that Mr. Obama “never discussed this issue or this bill” with Mr. Axelrod. The campaign acknowledged that Exelon executives had met with Mr. Obama’s staff about the bill, as had concerned residents, environmentalists and regulators. It said the revisions resulted not from any influence by Exelon, but as a necessary response to a legislative roadblock put up by Republicans, who controlled the Senate at the time.
“If Senator Obama had listened to industry demands, he wouldn’t have repeatedly criticized Exelon in the press, introduced the bill and then fought for months to get action on it,” the campaign said. “Since he has over a decade of legislative experience, Senator Obama knows that it’s very difficult to pass a perfect bill.”
Asked why Mr. Obama had cited it as an accomplishment while campaigning for president, the campaign noted that after the senator introduced his bill, nuclear plants started making such reports on a voluntary basis. The campaign did not directly address the question of why Mr. Obama had told Iowa voters that the legislation had passed.
Nuclear safety advocates are divided on whether Mr. Obama’s efforts yielded any lasting benefits. David A. Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists agreed that “it took the introduction of the bill in the first place to get a reaction from the industry.”
“But of course because it is all voluntary,” Mr. Lochbaum said, “who’s to say where things will be a few years from now?”
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
OK, I am employed in this industry. That incident was the most overblown joke. The people of Godley are sucking the teet for all it is worth. Exelon has given them free drinking water since this has happened even though none of them had any radioactive water anywhere near them.
They say radioactive leaks like some fuel rods were laid across Rt53. The amount that was exposed to the environment was below federal laws, and it is virtually harmless. One person had it on her property and she was paid 3x the amount that the land cost her, almost $1M. Exelon has spent millions on a new system for this reason even though the discharge was approved by the government for over 20 years. This whole thing was a complete knee-jerk reaction similar to me complaining about someone in Germany smoking a cigarette because now I'm worried about second hand smoke.
If it were not for Exelon those people would have nothing. Exelon has pumped millions into the local economy, not only in tax revenues but in general sales. Taxes paid last year to improve daily life and schools, infrastructure, were over $16M. When refuel outages are going on and supplemental, out-of-area, workers are temporary employed they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in the local economy. The station where this took place has an annual payroll of $63M. So if Exelon were to not exist many businesses would close, people would be out of work....etc. Go view the school and the fire station, they are huge. This isn't a big town we are talking about.
I'd comment on the OP but since location is not known I'll save it. I'm sure it isn't a local.
Nuclear power has virtually no greenhouse gases, unlike dirt burners, and has a proven safe track record aside from Chernobyl which was a freak occurrence. Their plant had a faulty reactor design and the operators did not follow procedures.
Nuclear Power is making a comeback and it is one that should be embraced.
Finally a voice of reason! I also work in the nuclear industry, and was actually just out in Rockford Ill, at an Exelon plant this week. I have a 2 degrees in Nuclear Engineering.
To add points to your post... wind turbines have other drawbacks, aside from visual pollution, they also kill wildlife. We have had the technology for years to reprocess our fuel, and reuse it. But Democrat Jimmy Carter outlawed this. Like you said, it is not really waste; it is a resource that we can use for energy.
The articles are full of BS. They talk about where to "dump" the waste. They should be talking about long term storage of a resource. There is a definite agenda in the article. They talk about radioactive wind, and kids swimming in the ground. But fail to mention that it is just natural uranium (mostly U-238) in very low concentrations. We have that around us constantly; it is part of natural background radiation. Science has also shown that low levels of radiation can be a health benefit.
As for Chernobyl, the RBMK style Russian reactor is vastly different than the U.S. LWR (PWR or BWR). During the accident, they violated safety interlocks and were performing a test at low power, where they had a positive power coefficient. U.S. Plants would never violate procedure and perform such a test, nor do they ever operate with a positive power coefficient.
We are building new plants here in the U.S. and abroad. We have no other option for energy independence. Here is reason #1 to not vote for a Democrat, because they are usually anti-nuclear. Which means they are either too stupid to understand the necessity of nuclear power, or understand it and are selling out our children's future for votes from the NIMBY crowd. Either is unacceptable.
04/25/03 05/02/03 5/3/03 6/24/03 6/28/03 7/5/03 7/6/03 7/11/03 7/12/03 7/14/03
09/28/04 09/29/04 10/01/04 10/02/04
09/28/05 09/30/05 10/03/05
5/24/06 5/25/06 5/27/06 5/28/06 5/30/06 6/01/06 6/03/06 6/23/06 6/24/06 7/22/06 7/23/06
6/20/08 6/22/08 6/24/08 6/25/08
This article is just more bleeding heart BS to sift through.
Can you provide us with some safety comparisons of cigarette smoke and uranium tailing dam dust?
Maybe you could provide us with a quick comparison to the danger of the Three Mile Island leak vs the Church Rock disaster in NM?
I thought we used the waste for DU purposes and that we're using parts of Carlsbad Cavern and soon to be Yucca Mountain as storage for those spent fuel rods sitting around the country in ponds.
Wasn't Dresden 1 permanently shutdown? Wasn't Dresden a generation 1 reactor?
Nuclear energy like any energy is not without its risk, just like building dams to supply electricity, some areas win, some areas loss. To sugar coat the dangers of nuclear energy with smoking is just assine.
Dresden 1 has been shutdown and has been decomissioned, what is your point? What does that have to do with a minor leak of tritiated water? The leak was not at Dresden.
My comparison of smoking was to this particular leak. Where does dam dust have anything to do with that?
You do know it is 2008, right? I just didn't want you to be totally clueless.
interesting...
Nuclear Power is the Problem, Not a Solution
by Helen Caldicott
There is a huge propaganda push by the nuclear industry to justify nuclear power as a panacea for the reduction of global-warming gases.
In fact Leslie Kemeny on these pages two weeks ago (HES, March 30) suggested that courses on nuclear science and engineering be included in tertiary level institutions in Australia.
I agree. But I would suggest that all the relevant facts be taught to students. Mandatory courses in medical schools should embrace the short and long-term biological, genetic and medical dangers associated with the nuclear fuel cycle. Business students should examine the true costs associated with the production of nuclear power. Engineering students should become familiar with the profound problems associated with the storage of long-lived radioactive waste, the human fallibilities that have created the most serious nuclear accidents in history and the ongoing history of near-misses and near-meltdowns in the industry.
At present there are 442 nuclear reactors in operation around the world. If, as the nuclear industry suggests, nuclear power were to replace fossil fuels on a large scale, it would be necessary to build 2000 large, 1000-megawatt reactors. Considering that no new nuclear plant has been ordered in the US since 1978, this proposal is less than practical. Furthermore, even if we decided today to replace all fossil-fuel-generated electricity with nuclear power, there would only be enough economically viable uranium to fuel the reactors for three to four years.
The true economies of the nuclear industry are never fully accounted for. The cost of uranium enrichment is subsidised by the US government. The true cost of the industry's liability in the case of an accident in the US is estimated to be $US560billion ($726billion), but the industry pays only $US9.1billion - 98per cent of the insurance liability is covered by the US federal government. The cost of decommissioning all the existing US nuclear reactors is estimated to be $US33billion. These costs - plus the enormous expense involved in the storage of radioactive waste for a quarter of a million years - are not now included in the economic assessments of nuclear electricity.
It is said that nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very different.
In the US, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent of global warming.
Also, this enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, release from leaky pipes 93per cent of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the US. The production and release of CFC gas is now banned internationally by the Montreal Protocol because it is the main culprit responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilises large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste.
In summary, nuclear power produces, according to a 2004 study by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, only three times fewer greenhouse gases than modern natural-gas power stations.
Contrary to the nuclear industry's propaganda, nuclear power is therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These releases are unregulated because the nuclear industry considers these particular radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so.
These unregulated isotopes include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm and cause genetic disease.
Tritium, another biologically significant gas, is also routinely emitted from nuclear reactors. Tritium is composed of three atoms of hydrogen, which combine with oxygen, forming radioactive water, which is absorbed through the skin, lungs and digestive system. It is incorporated into the DNA molecule, where it is mutagenic.
The dire subject of massive quantities of radioactive waste accruing at the 442 nuclear reactors across the world is also rarely, if ever, addressed by the nuclear industry. Each typical 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 33tonnes of thermally hot, intensely radioactive waste per year.
Already more than 80,000 tonnes of highly radioactive waste sits in cooling pools next to the 103 US nuclear power plants, awaiting transportation to a storage facility yet to be found. This dangerous material will be an attractive target for terrorist sabotage as it travels through 39 states on roads and railway lines for the next 25 years.
But the long-term storage of radioactive waste continues to pose a problem. The US Congress in 1987 chose Yucca Mountain in Nevada, 150km northwest of Las Vegas, as a repository for America's high-level waste. But Yucca Mountain has subsequently been found to be unsuitable for the long-term storage of high-level waste because it is a volcanic mountain made of permeable pumice stone and it is transected by 32 earthquake faults. Last week a congressional committee discovered fabricated data about water infiltration and cask corrosion in Yucca Mountain that had been produced by personnel in the US Geological Survey. These startling revelations, according to most experts, have almost disqualified Yucca Mountain as a waste repository, meaning that the US now has nowhere to deposit its expanding nuclear waste inventory.
To make matters worse, a study released last week by the National Academy of Sciences shows that the cooling pools at nuclear reactors, which store 10 to 30 times more radioactive material than that contained in the reactor core, are subject to catastrophic attacks by terrorists, which could unleash an inferno and release massive quantities of deadly radiation -- significantly worse than the radiation released by Chernobyl, according to some scientists.
This vulnerable high-level nuclear waste contained in the cooling pools at 103 nuclear power plants in the US includes hundreds of radioactive elements that have different biological impacts in the human body, the most important being cancer and genetic diseases.
The incubation time for cancer is five to 50 years following exposure to radiation. It is important to note that children, old people and immuno-compromised individuals are many times more sensitive to the malignant effects of radiation than other people.
I will describe four of the most dangerous elements made in nuclear power plants.
Iodine 131, which was released at the nuclear accidents at Sellafield in Britain, Chernobyl in Ukraine and Three Mile Island in the US, is radioactive for only six weeks and it bio-concentrates in leafy vegetables and milk. When it enters the human body via the gut and the lung, it migrates to the thyroid gland in the neck, where it can later induce thyroid cancer. In Belarus more than 2000 children have had their thyroids removed for thyroid cancer, a situation never before recorded in pediatric literature.
Strontium 90 lasts for 600 years. As a calcium analogue, it concentrates in cow and goat milk. It accumulates in the human breast during lactation, and in bone, where it can later induce breast cancer, bone cancer and leukemia.
Cesium 137, which also lasts for 600 years, concentrates in the food chain, particularly meat. On entering the human body, it locates in muscle, where it can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma.
Plutonium 239, one of the most dangerous elements known to humans, is so toxic that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic. More than 200kg is made annually in each 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant. Plutonium is handled like iron in the body, and is therefore stored in the liver, where it causes liver cancer, and in the bone, where it can induce bone cancer and blood malignancies. On inhalation it causes lung cancer. It also crosses the placenta, where, like the drug thalidomide, it can cause severe congenital deformities. Plutonium has a predisposition for the testicle, where it can cause testicular cancer and induce genetic diseases in future generations. Plutonium lasts for 500,000 years, living on to induce cancer and genetic diseases in future generations of plants, animals and humans.
Plutonium is also the fuel for nuclear weapons -- only 5kg is necessary to make a bomb and each reactor makes more than 200kg per year. Therefore any country with a nuclear power plant can theoretically manufacture 40 bombs a year.
Because nuclear power leaves a toxic legacy to all future generations, because it produces global warming gases, because it is far more expensive than any other form of electricity generation, and because it can trigger proliferation of nuclear weapons, these topics need urgently to be introduced into the tertiary educational system of Australia, which is host to 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the world's richest uranium.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
...interesting....
how the hell can anyone support such a thing!? how can anyone support a candidate who pushes this as an answer!?!? :eek:
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
They pay very well.
i dont think obama has "pushed" nuclear as an answer... he happens to be a senator in illinois which apparently has a very large nuclear presence... i think i have seen obama say that "nothing should be taken off of the table" as far as energy and energy independence... if he was in delaware he would get lots of donations from the chemical industry... or if he was in south carolina he would draw money from whatever industries are big in that area
i have seen alot of inches get stretched to miles recently when it comes to obama...
who is donating to nader? would he deny 1 single donation? hell no... would he deny 1 single $ no matter where it came from? hell no
in the real world, right now, it takes a SHIT LOAD of $ to get elected as president... i dont care who donates to his campaign quite frankly... he has to accpet all the $ he can get...
also... perhaps people noticed the cost of oil currently? i think all options need to be on the table at this time... solar is the future and i believe it is the answer to our energy concerns... but guess what, the infrastructure is not in place and that could take decades... so we have to work with what we have right now... like it or not
a healthy combination of idealism and realism is is the best approach i have found...
did you read the articles??
first, you say it would take too long for solar...how long would it take to build all those nuclear reactors and get them on linge??? how much would it cost??? i'm sure quite a bit more than infrastructure for solar power! and obama's own agenda says he will have us at only a 25% renewable energy by 2025!!!!
he's not pushing nuclear power, he just thinks the answer is building MORE of them????? huh??
i looked up some youtube clips on his stance and he mostly goes into other things INSTEAD of nuclear power!!! he says quickly he supports exploring it but then goes off on about renewable energy (which again, 25% by 2025 aint shit!)
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
nothing to see here, folks.
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/search.asp?name=&state=&zip=&employ=exelon&txtCID=N00009638&amt=a&txtSoft=N&sort=A&cycle=2008&Page=1
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The new ones are supposed to be three years from ceremonial shovel of dirt to producing power. They rely less on multiple pumps and motors and more on gravity and natural circulation. They are much more simplified than what is currently running in the states. You need to remember much of what is running is 1960's technology, these aren't Big-Macs that can be whipped up instantly.
The point here is really that most liberals have taken the stance for years that nuclear power is unsafe, has no real solutions for disposal and have spoken out about the health dangers associated with it for years....
this all seems to disappear when their party and candidates are caught supporting, aiding and being funded by this industry. now nuclear power doesn't matter so much anymore. I think it's hypocritical. I think supporters should AT LEAST challenge Obama on this and many other issues instead of acting like it's perfectly okay with them now. That is my biggest gripe with Obama and Democrat supporters....they never pressure their candidates instead they just drop these issues as even concerning them anymore because their candidate reflects that stance. So now our candidates views mold what we are and aren't fighting and speaking out against?? We're in huge trouble if this is the new trend for 'progressives'.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351767,00.html
The accelerating threat of global warming requires innovation and may demand risk-taking, but there are better options than nuclear power. A combination of energy-efficiency measures, renewable power like wind and solar, and decentralized power generators are already producing more energy worldwide than nuclear power plants. Their use is expanding more quickly, and the decentralized approach they represent is more attractive on several levels. One fast-growing technology allows commercial buildings or complexes, such as schools, hospitals, hotels or offices, to generate their own electricity and hot water with micro-turbines fueled by natural gas or even biofuel, much more efficiently than utilities can do it and with far lower emissions.
The potential for wind power alone is nearly limitless and, according to a May report by research firm Standard & Poor's, it's cheaper to produce than nuclear power. Further, the amount of electricity that could be generated simply by making existing non-nuclear power plants more efficient is staggering. On average, coal plants operate at 30% efficiency worldwide, but newer plants operate at 46%. If the world average could be raised to 42%, it would save the same amount of carbon as building 800 nuclear plants.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.nirs.org/alerts/03-02-2008/1
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
sorry, why should i trust someone who works at Exelon???
BOSTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Justice today announced that they have reached a $6 million enforcement case settlement with a local power plant that will result in significant air quality improvements for Boston school children and North Shore commuters, as well as a restored salt marsh in Chelsea and construction of a new commuter bike path across the Mystic River that will link Everett and Somerville.
In a settlement stemming from air quality violations over a five-year period at the Mystic Station power plant in Everett, plant owner Exelon Mystic LLC has agreed to pay a $1 million civil penalty and fund more than $5 million of environmental projects in the Boston area. The settlement was filed in US District Court late yesterday in Boston.
and
Exelon has agreed to pay a $20,000 penalty to settle an EPA complaint alleging Clean Air Act violations at Exelon’s Delaware Generating Station
and
Exelon Fined $602,000 for Air Quality Violations....
and
SPRINGFIELD, Illinois, April 6, 2006 (ENS) - Exelon is in trouble with the state of Illinois again for leaks of water contaminated with radioactive tritium from one of its nuclear power plants.....IEPA has already sent two violation notices to the Exelon Generation Company for violations at the Braidwood Station facility. Both were subsequently referred to the Attorney General for enforcement action, and the state filed charges against Exelon in March for leaking millions of gallons of radioactive water laced with tritium...The Dresden Violation Notice specifically identifies violations of state environmental regulations relating to the impairment of resource groundwater. Exelon has reported tritium in several monitoring wells on and off plant property, as well as four private drinking water wells off-site.....
may be a few years old but they spread a bit of cancer around, eh?
http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/facility.tcl?tri_id=19022DDYSTNO1IN#maps
http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/facility.tcl?tri_id=19125DLWRG1325B#maps
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
is this interesting, too?
Contrary to the nuclear industry's propaganda, nuclear power is therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These releases are unregulated because the nuclear industry considers these particular radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so.
These unregulated isotopes include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm and cause genetic disease.
Tritium, another biologically significant gas, is also routinely emitted from nuclear reactors. Tritium is composed of three atoms of hydrogen, which combine with oxygen, forming radioactive water, which is absorbed through the skin, lungs and digestive system. It is incorporated into the DNA molecule, where it is mutagenic.
The dire subject of massive quantities of radioactive waste accruing at the 442 nuclear reactors across the world is also rarely, if ever, addressed by the nuclear industry. Each typical 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 33tonnes of thermally hot, intensely radioactive waste per year.
Iodine 131, which was released at the nuclear accidents at Sellafield in Britain, Chernobyl in Ukraine and Three Mile Island in the US, is radioactive for only six weeks and it bio-concentrates in leafy vegetables and milk. When it enters the human body via the gut and the lung, it migrates to the thyroid gland in the neck, where it can later induce thyroid cancer. In Belarus more than 2000 children have had their thyroids removed for thyroid cancer, a situation never before recorded in pediatric literature.
Strontium 90 lasts for 600 years. As a calcium analogue, it concentrates in cow and goat milk. It accumulates in the human breast during lactation, and in bone, where it can later induce breast cancer, bone cancer and leukemia.
Cesium 137, which also lasts for 600 years, concentrates in the food chain, particularly meat. On entering the human body, it locates in muscle, where it can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma.
Plutonium 239, one of the most dangerous elements known to humans, is so toxic that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic. More than 200kg is made annually in each 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant. Plutonium is handled like iron in the body, and is therefore stored in the liver, where it causes liver cancer, and in the bone, where it can induce bone cancer and blood malignancies. On inhalation it causes lung cancer. It also crosses the placenta, where, like the drug thalidomide, it can cause severe congenital deformities. Plutonium has a predisposition for the testicle, where it can cause testicular cancer and induce genetic diseases in future generations. Plutonium lasts for 500,000 years, living on to induce cancer and genetic diseases in future generations of plants, animals and humans.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I'm not taking sides here because I am a long way from making up my mind on this issue. But, in the interest of keeping the things fair it should be said that coal power plants also combust radioactive isotopes that are released into the air.
In fact in a nuclear and coal plant of the same electrical output, the coal plant will produce 3x the radioactive emmisions of the nuclear plant.
So there is no doubt that nuclear is far cleaner than coal, and I think perhaps an intermediate step between coal and complete renewables. However, there is also a valid argument that suggests that to move to nuclear now is only deffering what we have to do ultimately- to invest in renewable technology... and nuclear is not a renewable.
So I am still undecided. Why doesn't somebody just solve cold fusion...
yes, at least one of the articles mentioned that
it also says:
In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilises large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste.
In summary, nuclear power produces, according to a 2004 study by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, only three times fewer greenhouse gases than modern natural-gas power stations.
i agree that we need to look into renewable energy, not invest in new nuclar reactors, not invest in 'clean coal' technology, not a shitty 25 percent renewable energy by 2025....nuclear power is not an answer, we need to be pursuing better ways and obama aint gonna do it.
while 3 times fewer is something it's still not the 'clean' answer that the industry pushes it as.
every tax dollar we put into this is money taken away from real answers. i would much rather find answers, REAL answers instead of subsidizing the nuclear power industry to build more reactors when they are 'just a little bit' better as far as pollution to the air and water but certainly not long-term
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/features/hanford/111305HanGovRemarks.html
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/environment/archives/122070.asp
Reduce your energy consumption folks. They want to create more supply because of the demand.
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_actionitems.asp
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
For anyone interested in simply learning about nuclear power and its advantages and disadvantages, here's a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_nuclear_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_emissions_by_electricity_source.PNG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety
I think a lot of people formed their opinions about nuclear power based on either bad 50's/60's sci-fi (if we use nuclear power giant ants or Godzilla will be created and attack us) or based on what they see on The Simpson's (if I set foot in a nuclear plant when I come home I will glow in the dark).
As far as the plant's running in the US the design of a lot of that 60's technology is also based on the reactors that would be installed in a nuclear submarine.