[NukeNet] Nuclear Power Is Not Today's Solution for Global Warming -- SF Chron -- GO --JON BLOCK!!

[Bill Smirnow]

  While there's much good material in this piece, there's plenty of
disinformation. Dangerous disinformation. The Union Of Concerned Scientists
has absolutely ZERO rationale for stating " nuclear power research
> should continue, but with a focus on enhancing safety security and waste
> disposal."

   > Nuclear power plants are not as safe as they should - and could - be.

   It's defies the laws of physics for ANY  nuclear power facility to EVER
be safe. To even entertain the idea smacks of ignorance and or industry
collusion. Even the nuclear intoxicated Dr Edward Teller when asked about
commercial nukes stated that if they were to exist they should be placed in
very remote areas and be underground. This from Dr. Strangelove.

  When I have to pick between The Union Of Not So Concerned Scientists and
the early Dr Strangelove I think we're all in deep doo doo. Even Dave
Lochbaum who does many good things when he along with 5 other anti-nukers
appeared before a congressional hearing about 5 years ago was asked at the
end of the hearing weather nuclear power should be shut down permanantly,
said, as did all other "anti"  nuke activists "no."  What are people waiting
for Chernobyl[s] in the USA or elsewhhere?  One apparantly isn't enough for
them, they're willing to play "Chernobyl Roulette" with whomever and
whatever happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you were a
terrorist wouldn't you be frothing at the mouth to attack one or many of
these facilities? Next time you consider writing a check to UCS, think about
it. NIRS, Greenpeace and Public Citizen here in the USA,  in my view, are
much more worthy recipients of your money than UCS [or UNSCS- Union Of Not
So Concerned Scientists].


 > This lack of meaningful nuclear industry oversight is potentially
> life-threatening.

  The author of this article is either ignorant of the fact that NRC is  a
lap dog not a watch dog or is lying. Oversight is virtually non-existant
here in the USA. If serious oversight existed it would focus on shutting
them all down permenantlt ASAP.

   A major accident could kill thousands of people and
> contaminate large regions for thousands of years.

     It can also kill tens, possibly hundreds of thousands and contaminate
large areas for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Industry just
dosen't want the public to know:  http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html
[very watered down and from the nuke industry- Sandia Labs- itself].


   -Bill Smirnow


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mary Olson" <nirs at main.nc.us>
To: "nnn" <no-new-nukes-yall at yahoogroups.com>; "Nukenet"
<nukenet at energyjustice.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 7:55 AM
Subject: [NukeNet] Nuclear Power Is Not Today's Solution for Global
Warming -- SF Chron -- GO --JON BLOCK!!


> NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet at energyjustice.net)
>
> On U.S. Energy Policy - Nuclear Power Is Not Today's Solution for Global
> Warming:
>
> San Francisco Chronicle, by Jon Block (Union of Concerned Scientists),
> October 2, 2007
>
>
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/02/EDBJSHS4A.DTL&h
w=Jon+Block&sn=001&sc=1000>
>
> For the past year, former Environmental Protection Agency head Christy
> Todd Whitman has been working as a paid spokesperson for the nuclear power
> industry. As part of the industry's multimillion-dollar public-relations
> campaign to promote new nuclear plant construction, she recently wrote an
> Open Forum piece for this paper touting nuclear power as a key solution
> for global warming.
>
> Whitman's prescription for our nation's energy future is misguided. Her
> glowing description of nuclear power's benefits ignores serious issues of
> nuclear plant safety, security against sabotage and terrorist attack and
> waste disposal. To effectively address global warming, we need to deploy
> solutions that achieve the largest emissions reductions with the least
> cost and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.
>
> Nuclear power plants are not as safe as they should - and could - be.
> While the United States has strong safety regulations, they are not
> consistently enforced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the
> federal oversight agency. In 2002, for example, after several deferred
> inspections, operators of the Davis-Besse reactor near Toledo, Ohio,
> discovered that boric acid had eaten a football-size hole in the reactor
> vessel. If it had gone undetected for another several months, it could
> have caused a worse accident than the 1979 core meltdown at Three Mile
> Island. Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident. Regulatory
> complacency for the past three decades permitted the deterioration of U.S.
> reactor safety systems to reach the point where, on 38 occasions, it took
> more than a year to restore requisite safety levels.
>
> This lack of meaningful nuclear industry oversight is potentially
> life-threatening. A major accident could kill thousands of people and
> contaminate large regions for thousands of years. Congress needs to ensure
> that the NRC enforces its own regulations before additional nuclear power
> plants are built. Whitman would do well to acknowledge this need and call
> for improved oversight, because a nuclear accident would derail any
> increase in nuclear power capacity.
>
> Nuclear plants also pose serious security risks. Nuclear plants store
> highly radioactive waste in fuel pools and above-ground canisters. Both
> are potential terrorist targets. A large aircraft flown into a fuel pool
> could cause a fire that would release sufficient radioactivity to
> contaminate tens of thousands of square miles. Above-ground canisters
> could be hit with grenade launchers, which are readily available. On-site
> storage needs to be made more secure.
>
> The waste is accumulating at U.S. reactor sites because there is no
> permanent underground repository for it. Highly radioactive waste must be
> isolated for at least tens of thousands of years, if not longer. The U.S.
> government already has spent billions of dollars studying the suitability
> of a site at Yucca Mountain, Nev. However, technical questions remain
> unanswered, and the facility may never be licensed.
>
> Historically, nuclear power has been plagued by cost overruns, making it a
> financial risk. The first round of U.S. nuclear reactor construction from
> 1966 to 1977 experienced 200 percent to 380 percent cost overruns.
> Problems included difficulties with concrete pours and welding, increased
> capital costs and evolving designs during construction. Today, similar
> issues are dogging new reactor construction in Finland, Taiwan and China.
>
> Wall Street was rightly worried about the industry's sorry track record
> when it pulled the plug on nuclear investments decades ago. Investors are
> still reluctant to back the industry's self-proclaimed renaissance, even
> with the subsidies in the 2005 federal energy bill for six new reactors.
> So now the industry is looking for federal loan guarantees to sweeten the
> pot. Provisions tucked into both the Senate and House versions of the new
> energy bill would require taxpayers to bail out nuclear plant loan
> defaults that could amount to as much as $50 billion in the short term.
>
> The most sensible strategy to reduce global warming is to quickly deploy
> the cleanest, fastest, lowest risk solutions first. Conservation and
> increased efficiency by energy producers and consumers are the cheapest
> and quickest measures by far. Likewise, a wide range of renewable energy
> resources, including wind, solar, geothermal and tidal power, have
> enormous potential and are inherently safe-and they would encourage
> economic development. Prudence dictates that we pursue many options to
> reduce global warming. As a part of that effort, nuclear power research
> should continue, but with a focus on enhancing safety security and waste
> disposal.
>
> ================================
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
> Change your settings or access the archives at:
> http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
>