Search
JOIN OUR NETWORK

     

     

 

 

ARTICLE ARCHIVE

Nuclear Power

Nuclear power cannot address climate change effectively or in time. Reactors have long, unpredictable construction times are expensive - at least $12 billion or higher per reactor. Furthermore, reactors are sitting-duck targets vulnerable to attack and routinely release - as well as leak - radioactivity. There is so solution to the problem of radioactive waste.

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Entries from May 1, 2010 - May 31, 2010

Saturday
May222010

Vermont Yankee now leaking Sr-90 into soil

Entergy Nuclear has now admitted that the bone-seeking radioisotope Strontium-90 has been discovered in soil near underground leaking pipes at its Vermont Yankee atomic reactor on the bank of the Connecticut River. Several years ago, Sr-90 was also detected leaking from the high-level radioactive waste storage pool at Entergy Nuclear's Indian Point atomic reactors on the bank of the Hudson River in New York State. Nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates warns that Sr-90, which is highly soluble in water, can concentrate in bones and cause leukemia, and thus is the most hazardous radioisotope yet discovered leaking into the environment at the 38 year old reactor just across the Connecticut River from New Hampshire, and just several miles upstream from Massachusetts. Other leaking elements discovered into the site's groundwater and soil include tritium, cobalt-60, cesium-137, manganese-54 and zinc-65. Raymond Shadis of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution is very skeptical that Entergy Nuclear's assurances that all Sr-90 contamination at Vermont Yankee has now been accounted for and cleaned up.

Wednesday
May122010

Kerry-Lieberman "climate" bill represents massive taxpayer giveaway to dirty, dangerous and expensive energy industries

Used with artist's permission. See http://davies.lohudblogs.com/The Kerry-Lieberman "American Power Act" released today would massively subsidize the expansion of the atomic energy industry, at taxpayer financial risk and direct expense. It would similarly benefit the offshore oil drilling industry, despite the catastrophe unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the coal industry, despite the recent deadly mine explosion in West Virginia. As pointed out by the Energy Collective, the bill clearly prioritizes nuclear energy's expansion, while renewables and efficiency seem to be a mere afterthought. As reported by Democracy Now!, numerous environmental groups expressed immediate opposition. Beyond Nuclear objected, as did other groups such as NIRS (on behalf of a coalition of 200 organizations), Friends of the Earth, and Greenpeace. Public Citizen spoke out against the bill, providing a section by section analysis. The Center for Biological Diversity called the bill "a disaster for our climate and planet," decrying the subsidies for "dangerous and costly nuclear energy." You know something is seriously wrong when the Nuclear Energy Institute "applauds" the Kerry-Lieberman bill, while licking its chops in hopes of gobbling up a large part of the $1.5 trillion investment NEI says is needed "over the next 20 years to meet rising electricity demand and upgrade our electric grid," much of which could well come in the form of fedearl subsidies, risky loan guarantees, tax incentives, short cuts on safety, and other taxpayer giveaways. Call your U.S. Senators right away via the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (202) 224-3121      end_of_the_skype_highlighting and urge them to oppose this dirty, dangerous and expensive energy industry subsidy bill, and to support real climate protection legislation in its place.

Tuesday
May112010

Kerry-Lieberman "climate bill" still supports offshore oil drilling and atomic energy

Used with permission of politicalcartoons.comThe Kerry-Lieberman Senate "climate" bill (Graham has sort of-kind of withdrawn his support for now), to be unveiled on May 12th, incredibly still supports an expansion of offshore oil drilling, despite the still-unfolding BP oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. It also supports unlimited  loan guarantees for the buildling of new atomic reactors and uranium enrichment facilities, as well as additional givewaways to the nuclear power industry. One thing the bill does not do, despite its name and supposed intent, is adequately protect the climate. Phone your Senators via the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (202) 224-3121      end_of_the_skype_highlighting and urge them to oppose taxpayer-backed subsidies, tax incentives, financial risks, and other giveaways to the already filthy rich dirty energy industries under the guise of a "climate" bill. Then, phone the White House comment line at (202) 456-1111 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (202) 456-1111      end_of_the_skype_highlighting: urge that President Obama support truly clean, safe, and affordable energy efficiency and renewable sources like wind and solar, rather than dirty, dangerous and expensive fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Thursday
May062010

Is the proposal for new reactors in Georgia environmental racism?

Bruce Dixon, co-founder of the Black Agenda Report, has an excellent article on the Huffington Post as well as the BAR Web site regarding the decision to award the first $8 billion in federal loan guarantees to the construction of two new reactors in a poor black community in Georgia that does not want the plant. As Dixon notes: "The Obama administration likes to call it "safe nuclear energy," often in the same breath as "clean coal." Both are colossal and equally transparent lies." And putting the lie to the nukes-will-bring-you-wealth myth, Dixon writes: "If leaky civilian and military nukes really are the job-creating answers to poverty, shouldn't Burke County, GA be one of the wealthiest, instead of the poorest places east of the Mississippi 25 years after its first civilian nukes, and six decades after neighboring towns, some of them all black on the South Carolina side of the river, were bulldozed to create the Savannah River nuclear weapons facility?"