Ziggy voted down in public debate on nuclear energy
|
Apparently, we absorb more radiation from bananas than from nuclear power. Which was easily the silliest contribution to a debate on Australia’s energy future at the Melbourne Town Hall last night. But even the more reasoned responses from a pro-nuclear camp led by nuclear physics boffin Dr Ziggy Switkowski failed to convince the crowd uranium is a solution to a carbon-constrained future. Ziggy insists nuclear is safe, cheap and, now, virtually ubiquitous. Even Ukraine is building more reactors in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster, he says, and Australia remains alone as the world’s largest non-nuclear economy. “Reasonable people agree…coal makes way to gas makes way to nuclear,” he said in the first of a series of Intelligence Squared debates organised by the Wheeler Centre. It didn’t play well. James Hansen, who brought the global warming problem to the world’s attention in the 1980s, backs nuclear as a solution. “Fourth-generation” reactors have improved safety and efficiency, he told the debate. Nuclear supporter Dr Erica Smyth went on to declare nuclear a “perfect solution” given Australia’s “ideal population”. Her centrepiece suggestion: matching sets of nuclear and desalination plants (needed to cool the reactors) up and down the Australian coast. But opponents insist safety remains an issue. “We cannot ignore the very real fear of catastrophic nuclear accidents,” EcoFutures’ Molly Olson said, pointing to US nuclear industry subsidies of US$500 million a year as a sign the technology is an economic white elephant. Those on the anti-nuclear side of the debate want to shift the focus to renewable energy. Why go nuclear, they ask, when renewable power sources like solar are more readily available. Ziggy and team are “renewable energy deniers”, according to Dr Mark Diesendorf from the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of NSW. Dr Diesendorf believes Australia could install a 100% renewable mix by 2020 using off-the-shelf technology — at an affordable cost of 3.5% of annual GDP. Renewables can provide base-load power, he insists, with new-generation 24/7 solar plants able to manufacture hydrogen or ethanol to export clean fuels to other countries. In contrast, nuclear is “slow, dangerous, expensive and unnecessary”. And the audience agreed, voting overwhelmingly for the anti-nuclear cause after the debate. Ziggy has some work to do. |
|
|
|
29 Comments
You state the audience was a not-in-favour group. I suspect you had an overwhelming eco/green group there to criticize. Those that would consider nuclear as a positive source of energy are the quiet ones who are not the natural attendees in such a debate.
A colleague of mine used to do an alternative energy journal called Third Opinion and it carried heaps of internationally sourced stories. When I read Peter Costello in the SMH recently with a cheap throw away line about more killed by the insulation programme than by nuclear industry (here, world?) I remembered the front cover of one edition.
It was a nuclear plant in the USA that was de-commissioned. Guess what? There was a uniform reduction in cancer rates. Statistically significant and all that. A profound before and after population analysis. A slam dunk on the poor safety of that facility. I recall in about 2002 quoting that study to NSW Health bureaucrats at a public meeting at the commissioning of the unfiltered M5 tunnel freeway in Sydney and
1. They knew of the study.
2. They agreed baseline health statistics of health of local people was valid way of measuring likely health impacts of the pollution plume.
In other words Costello didn’t have a clue about public health issues around nuclear energy. No doubt I will have to drag the study out from my files and blog it. Stay tuned.
I’ve yet to hear one proponent of nuclear power give an explanation as to the REAL costs of nuclear power via a nuclear reactor. Such things include;
the dangers of the whole cycle, which includes mining, milling, enriching and security & secure storage of wastes - including low level to high level waste, such as plutonium.
the costs of building the reactor, and what percentange of the costs is met by govts - that is the people; us
the cost of securing the site/s and transport etc for the removal of waste, to include that of the intelligence organisations(ASIO for instance) and State police forces;AFP and others.
the proliferation of nuclear material; human accidents/incidents/ honesty of govts reactor owners and others who have a vested interest in not informing the public - plenty of cases to refer to? Can’t safely install pink batts, I’m not inclined to put any govt in charge of the nuclear industry, particularly on a grand scale? It took Julie Bishop at least six questions before she admitted, that the Lucas Heights reactor had to shut down not long after it started up! Then she attacked the Opposition for even asking the question?
Howard gave the people the middle finger over the invasion of Iraq. In fact, he didn’t even allow discussion in the Parliament? Not good enough for me! Secrecy and a police state - no thanks! And that’s the only way so called security can be guaranteed - and then it’s not fool or foul proof!
as a person who lives on the east coast of NSW, and having the knowledge that reactors require plenty of water - much of which is wasted via steam etc( a resource not plentiful in this country - the driest inhabited continent) I can safely assume, that a site near me would be a suitable one, from the perspective of the pro-nuclear lobby - no thank you - in fact it was even mentioned prior to the 2007 election, and near a large industrial complex including BP and Mobil???
Everywhere in the world that a reactor has been de-commissioned, costs have blown out to the extreme, meaning that govts have no choice but to contribute - what do you do with an old reactor site - plant trees and allow the kiddies to fly their kites on it?
The US still does NOT have a permanent storage facility for high level waste? Each time it’s raised, the people start a legal case to stop it! This has been going on for some time now - even the Military are running out of storage space, and the domestic reactors have passed their use by date!
The US/Britain & France also use Depleted Uranium to make weapons - with horrific results. Watch, ‘The doctor, Depleted Uranium and the dying children of Iraq’? The numbers of these bombs dropped on Iraq during this last invasion has markedly increased from 1991/2? Deformed babies, childhood cancers and the same or similar for those military people who are/were there!
I find it amazing, that those who calmly push nuclear power, with very little honesty re the questions above are held to be calm, rational people, but people like me(particularly women) are irrational and emotional. There’s nothing calm or rational about giving birth to a baby with no brain or a huge, deformed head, or blindness or suffering many miscarriages and/or genetic mutations. That’s a reality to the women of Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan and too many others!
I read sometime last yr, that the first US military person who was in Iraq, died from cancer - linked to DU! How many Australians, and will they have to fight like those who witnessed atomic tests, or those who were in Hiroshima after the war ended?
Australia gets enough energy via the sun each day, to provide enough energy for the world for ONE YEAR! (ACF President, 7.30 Report ‘07?). An Australian bloke is in California working on solar energy that will provide base load power - he says cheaper than nuclear, and maybe even cheaper than coal - that’s for me! He left this country as Howard wouldn’t help with financial support(and he’s not the first). A company in CA is and they’re most optimistic - Dr David ? said it would take about 5 yrs - this was in 2007(on 7,30 Report in Oct? ‘07 - the transcript was still there late last year - look it up!) so it’s not long to wait now!
I’m not a scientist or physiciast or ?? but I do know, that I don’t want nuclear power in this country - it’s being pushed by those who are making money out of uranium mining etc, and as usual, they’re greedy bastards who don’t give a toss about my health and safety - or anyone elses’ either!
Very interesting.
Not overly surprised the crowd voted against, it’s fairly easy to mount a scare/doubt campaign against nuclear.
The reference was here:
“Infant Deaths And Childhood Cancer Drop Dramatically After Nuclear Plants Close
November 30, 2001, New York, NY”
“Dramatic declines in local infant death and childhood cancer rates occurred soon after the closing of eight nuclear power plants, according to a new report announced by New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, Radiation and Public Health Project, and the STAR Foundation. The study documents a 17.4% reduction in infant mortality in the downwind counties within 40 miles two years after reactor closing, compared to a national decline of just 6.4%. Large declines occurred in all eight areas near closed reactors, and remained above national trends for at least six years after closing. The information appears as an article published in the March/April 2002 edition of Archives of Environmental Health.
“We finally have reliable peer-reviewed accurate data attaching the nuclear power plants to death and injury in the host communities, this is a sobering and significant scientific study and we all need to take it seriously,” stated New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky. “It is critical that more studies of this type be performed, so that we fully understand the risks posed by nuclear reactors,” added Westchester County legislator Thomas Abinanti.
“Nuclear power is a failed experiment that is expensive and dangerous,” said Scott Cullen, Executive Director of STAR. “This study confirms the best of public health principles: that when you remove a known cause of illness, health improves,” said Cullen. “What is gratifying about the research is that it showed childhood health measures increasing so dramatically and quickly after the reactors closed and provides good news that we can strive towards.”
In three of the eight areas with available data, cancer diagnosed in children less than five years of age declined 25.0% in the seven years after reactor closing, compared to a 0.3% increase nationally. Children exposed to radiation are of increased risk for cancer, says Joseph Mangano, MPH MBA, the principal author of the study who is affiliated with the New York research group Radiation and Public Health Project.
This study is most relevant to New York City because over 8% of the nation’s population lives within 50 miles of the Indian Point reactor. Counties downwind and within 40 miles of Indian Point include the Bronx, Dutchess, Manhattan, Nassau, Putnam, Queens, and Westchester in New York, and Fairfield County in Connecticut. Over 8.5 million persons live in these counties, where 110,000 babies are born each year. “
at
http://www.radiation.org/press/releases.html
with link to http://www.radiation.org/spotlight/closed.html
I’ve put the reference and quote in with links, it was closure of 8 reactors proximate to 8 million people in New York. The links are awaiting moderation.
A shorter quote:
““Infant Deaths And Childhood Cancer Drop Dramatically After Nuclear Plants Close
November 30, 2001, New York, NY”
“Dramatic declines in local infant death and childhood cancer rates occurred soon after the closing of eight nuclear power plants, according to a new report announced by New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, Radiation and Public Health Project, and the STAR Foundation. The study documents a 17.4% reduction in infant mortality in the downwind counties within 40 miles two years after reactor closing, compared to a national decline of just 6.4%. Large declines occurred in all eight areas near closed reactors, and remained above national trends for at least six years after closing. The information appears as an article published in the March/April 2002 edition of Archives of Environmental Health.”
Yes, well think on this: one thing you’ll never see in any of the arguments for nuclear power is how long it takes and how much its costs to dismantle a nuclear power station that’s gone beyond its use by date (about 20-30 years). Now most of the current crop of obsolescences were built in the 60s and 70s and, I presume, we can expect the new breed of - what was the phrase? - ah yes, ‘cheap and efficient’ power stations, won’t cost so much to build or break up. However, the costs for the latter have usually been excluded from the build cost. Somehow it’s always been assumed that the taxpayers foots the bill. In the UK National Audit Office estimated (at the beginning of 2008) the cost of decommissioning Britain’s 19 aged plants would be £76billion ($135b). And it can take decades to decommission a reactor! In Japan operators and government are so eager to avoid funding the cost of pulling them down they have kept reactors running long after they have been safe or economic. The cost of getting rid of them should be part of the debate and, of course, completely taken care of by those who build them for profit.
@EPONYMOUS I see you have already defaulted this debate to the same kind of fatuous sneering match the Crikey climate change argument follows. How predictable.
Guner Oksis has it right. The audience was well well stacked, mostly by Mark, as was to be expected.
And as he says, the ones who would vote for the motion are the ones, who would like an insurance policy that the lights stay lit - and they don’t attend such activist debates.
The tragedy is that the proponents of renewable energy see nuclear as the enemy, whereas it actually is the fossil fuel industry.
Since neither nuclear nor renewables emit, they should instead listen to each other and people like Tom Blees, Barry Brook and James Hansen and work together to defeat the coal lobbies.
Then we might get somewhere……./Chris
CHRIS - “Since neither nuclear nor renewables emit,” how do you know? Emit what? Tell me, why is it predicted, that at this time, one in every two people will be diagnosed with cancer? Not die from it, but be diagnosed? How do you know there’s no dangerous emissions? If they don’t emit, aren’t dangerous, why is a police state required to protect them from us or us from them??? That’s a damned stupid thing to say!
The fossil fuel industry is an ‘enemy’ I agree, and that’s why Australia can have all the energy it requires, desires etc via renewables. There are people like Tim Flannery who have solar panels which make his home self sufficient. What’s wrong with having solar power in communities? Cities? Buildings being self sufficent and energy aware.
Imaagine if the $10 billion that goes to help fossil fuel industries had been spent on renewables during the Howard yrs?
The other important factor in this debate should be conservation of energy. Buildings being built facing north/south - lighting switching off when last person leaves the building/s; (urinals with water switched off at the same time also). Why waste the walls with glass that only adds to the heat withing the building, then the need for air conditioners etc - madness!There’s lots of things to do that are within economic limits. Some companies and individuals are doing some of these now - we just need to expand it. Insulation, regardless of the cockups(mainly by greedy employers etc) is a positive start, as is solar hot water and water tanks - we just need to expand these things! It’s just a crime that 3-4 decades have been wasted. Some of us were talking about this 30 yrs ago, some even longer! Shame!
There’s lots of smart people out there doing amazing things. Insight had a program on it last year?? It was awesome!
I nominate Peter Costello to live next door to the first nuclear reactor if it eventuates. What a whimp? He’d scream at the attempt!
Do people know that you can’t obtain insurance against a nuclear accident/incident?
I tried once, just out of curiosity! Around the time that it was being pushed for 25 reactors around the country - one 20-30 minutes from my home!
The big Insurance companies, like Lloyds etc? No such coverage?
How would you get on if you had to leave your home pronto? Start right from scratch - probably still having to finish the mortgage on the home you had to leave? The Banks would waive the money? Yeah right! The moon is made out of cream cheese, and the pink pigs are flying overhead!
Ziggy didn’t get asked that tricky question I bet? How would you feel is you were pregnant? Scared I’d say! To say the very least!
Worth thinking about!
Dear Luddites, would you read this sentence again?
“We cannot ignore the very real fear of catastrophic nuclear accidents,” Molly Olson said.
Yes, you can rise above this fear. The cure is to check out the facts, and not from Ms Olsen.
Was there an environmental catastrophy at Three Mile Island? - No.
Did thousands of people die of horrible diseases after Chernobyl? - No.
However, there was a catastrophy for clear thinking in both cases. Public opinion was stampeded by voices like the above.
Benefiting from the widespread apprehension that something was wrong, the hydrocarbons industry surged ahead instead of declining. Now the friends of gas and coal want to remind you of your “very real fear” of our only realistic non-carbon source of baseload electricity.
ROGER - There was an accident at the US, where at least 2 blokes were impaled in the reactor - they had to be buried in lead lined caskets etc. there was a book called ‘Nuclear Power’ by Walter ?? where he lists the incidents, accidents and human error - very scary indeed! Nuclear power is not safe - the whole cycle, except for the reactor itself is dangerous - how many miners do you know? How many have regular checkups? How many are told the results? Why was Karen Silkwood killed? What about those workers who make the pellets; the weapons; who load the weapons onto the plane, like they did for the 1st Gulf War and an increase of 300% for the last one?
Why can’t people get coverage against an incident or accident if they live near a nuclear reactor. I can’t get any, and I live an hour and a half from Lucas Heights? If it’s so damned safe, why is this so?
People like me are just castigated like you did with Ms Olsen? It’s easier to shoot the messenger than act like a responsible adult, and answer these questions! Perhaps if you carried babies, gave birth etc, you might have more respect for human life, and more consideration for those who are at risk.
The reactors in the US and britain are well passed their used by date. It’s surprising that there hasn’t been an ‘issue’ with at least one of them. How much is it going to cost to decommission them? Or is that question best left until after the reactor is up and running? I find that damned irresponsible.
You haven’t touched on proliferation of both waste and weapons. A small quantity of plutonium makes a pretty horrific bomb. There are catastrophes, but they just haven’t affected you personally. Ask the mothers of Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia etc who’ve given birth to babies who are deformed or have genetic mutations. You do some research about the increase in childhood cancers in Iraq after the first gulf war, and how these poor little kids only had aspirin for their end stage pain - fancy sitting with your child during this horror. Why didn’t they have morphine ? Bush wouldn’t allow it to go through. He stopped immunisation until the rest of the world found out and forced him to change his orders! I suppose you didn’t know about that either?
How did those women get on who gave birth to babies with heads more than double the normal size? No morphine, no medical facilities to find out in time perhaps, prior to the birth? Too late - women probably died too! I’ll take notice of the doctor who worked there for over 20 yrs in the 70’s/80’s and then went back in the early 2000’2? Horrific! He took his own tests and had them analyzed - there’s so much of Iraq that is just covered with DU dust?
WE DO NOT NEED NUCLEAR POWER. WE HAVE MORE SUN(longer etc) THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, WE HAVE ALTERNATIVES.
WE DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO STUFF AROUND WITH KID’S LIVES or make the opportunity of bombs etc more of a reality!
“there was a book called ‘Nuclear Power’ by Walter ??”His name was Walter Patterson!
Just remembered! The brain is an amazing thing!
Roger Clifton-wrong about the Chernobyl stats. Not thousands maybe but enough and that’s without mentioning birth defects. There is a no-go area at Chernobyl now and still in place after all those years.
Nicolino@7:27 PM sought to contradict me on the statistics of the Chernobyl fatalities, with beliefs kept alive among the faithful.
However my facts are drawn from “The Chernobyl Forum” , commissioned by the governments involved, which punctures most of the myths about the Chernobyl disaster.
At the time of the disaster, hysteria was pumped up around the world, with the main outrage being expressed as so-many hundreds of millions of people who were about to start dying. As the years progressed this number was trimmed back to thousands but the faithful kept up their litany of fear.
The Chernobyl Forum studied the effects on the people, economy and the land. They dismissed the death toll and the deformed babies, and urged the three governments to “urgently revisit the classification of Chernobyl-affected zones, as current legislation is too restrictive”. For anyone really concerned for the environment, this online publication is well worth reading.
For me, the main lesson from Chernobyl is not that its effects were an anticlimax, but that so much damage can be caused by fear.
@ROGER CLIFTON: ‘damage’ - to what?
Let’s legislate to stop miners making electricity.
For those interested in a more rational discussion of the nuclear option in Australia I recommend Barry Brook’s ‘Brave New Climate’ website.
ROGER DAVIES - Good idea! Don’t need miners to make electricity from the sun!
PAUL - What is your idea of “a more rational discussion”? One that doesn’t mention obscene costs, dangers, pollution, nuclear weapons, increased cancers, the need for a police state, nuclear waste and decommissioning reactors? That’s like discussing motherhood but refusing to allow the word or concept of pregnancy to be used!
Guner Oksis - “Those that would consider nuclear as a positive source of energy are the quiet ones who are not the natural attendees in such a debate.”
No, they don’t have to. They have big business the corporate media and multi-nationals who are reaping in the money from the nuclear industry. Why would they let a local community meeting interfere with their business meetings? Probably out discussing how they’ll get away with the bare minimum in protections while they put their dangerous wares on/under aboriginal land?
@Liz45. Did you even head over to Brave New Climate? Its only a few clicks away and they’re more qualified to answer your questions than I am.
PAUL - I don’t know how old you are, but I’ve been listening and reading BS by those who want to push the nuclear fuel industry for over 30 yrs. They all have a sameness about them, and if they tell the truth, they all have much money to make by pushing this barrow. I have no interest in, nor do I want to entertain the idea of nuclear power in Australia. Apart from the reasons I and others have already alluded to, it’s not necessary in this country, when we have that big ‘nuclear reactor’ in the sky! It’s just plain dumb!
My kids have supported the non-nuclear option for years too! Their children are precious to me, and I don’t want any chances taken with their health, let alone their lives? Ask your mates at ‘Brave New Climate’ why people can’t obtain insurance from a nuclear incident/accident? If it’s proven to be so damned safe, what’s the problem?
The Howard govt stated their intention to sell uranium to Indonesia, for them to build nuclear reactors - on areas that are known to be earthquake faults? That’s just another example of so-called calm rational people when it comes to this issue. Money, money, money is the name of their game. Peoples’ safety is less than important, and Indonesia’s record re human rights leaves a lot to be desired. Those in power think it’s OK for workers to be literally treated like slaves !
Go back & read Tom McLoughlin’s posts! I rest my case!
@Liz45. So that’s a no?
Irrespective of my age, I am very concerned with environmental issues, enough so that I chose biodiversity conservation is my profession.
BTW I would not call any of the posters at BNC ‘mates’ anymore than I would Bernard Keane, Andrew Crook and First Dog on the Moon. They are another source of information to keep me informed on the critical issues of climate change and sustainability.
Perhaps you could recommend a site which you feel would be beneficial?
PAUL - I’d put ‘renewable energy resources’ into a search engine and go from there. Or read from the Australian Conservation Foundation. Dr Helen Caldicott, an Australian Paediatrician, living in the US, has been writing and speaking out against all issues to do with uranium/nuclear power/wars/nuclear bombs etc for at least 30 yrs. I went to listen to her in the 70’s while she and her then husband were speaking out against the dangers of all things nuclear! I have more faith in The Greens than any of the other political points of view - on this issue and many others!
Over the yrs I’ve read heaps of stuff. You could also go to http://www.handsoffiraqioil. org
Or, ‘From Afghanistan to Iraq-Joining the dots with oil’. It’s on the Alternet website but it’ll come up if you put into search engine. This is relevant to the whole political question re energy. It can’t be viewed individually, but in the holistic sense. Big business, greed, criminal activity, lying to the people etc etc. Why would I put my life in their hands, or more importantly, the future of those I love? Not likely!
I was born 4 months and 2 days before the bombing of Hiroshima. I recall being horrified when I learned of this and the death and misery it caused, and the fact that it was a wanton act, a criminal act of war, as the Japanese had already agreed to surrender(unofficially, of course?). I was angry with my parents for allowing it to happen, until I realised that they were lied to as well. Not me though! I’m not going to allow it to happen to my descendants without putting up a fight. While we (the world)have a nuclear industry, it’s an option. Look at the Depleted Uranium bombs? One way of getting rid of nuclear waste - use it to kill people ‘like a hot knife through butter’? Horrific!
Renewable energy is the answer, but it requires commitment accompanied by money - that’s the problem. Those who make the rules have the money, or protect those who do!
Whether the issue at hand is oil, coal or nuclear power, Australia is not up to the challenge and it’s about time this nation became leaders and ceased to be followers.
It’s glaringly obvious that in the 21st century, Australia cannot even manage one uranium mine safely or competently, let alone 40 nuclear reactors.
1. Last month, the Office of the Supervising Scientist advised a Senate estimates committee that contaminated water seeping from a mine in Kakadu National Park has a uranium concentration more than 5,000 times the normal level. The uranium concentration in the billabong surrounding the mine is about three to five parts per billion but the uranium in the processed water that has been leaking from beneath the tailings dam for years, is 27,000 parts per billion yet this mine continues their hazardous operations with impunity.
2. At the very same mine, owners were fine in 2005 after twenty-eight workers fell ill, drinking and showering in water contaminated with 400 times the legal limit of uranium. Symptoms included vomiting, headaches and skin rashes. A total of 159 workers were exposed to the contamination. What will be the lag time for radiation sicknesses to emerge and how will the victims be treated? History tells us with disdain and suspicion and with the usual deny and delay strategy in the hope that the victims will have gone to God before any compensation is determined.
3. In separate incidents, three works vehicles left the Ranger site contaminated with uranium ore.
4. Last year, environmental officers were working to save remote wetlands from a serious chemical spill after a truck rolled outside Kakadu National Park on its way to the Ranger Uranium mine.
The spill is believed to be one of the largest in recent history and there are concerns about the environmental effect on surrounding wetlands.
As is the culture of polluters and their sycophantic sidekicks in regulatory agencies, the public were assured in so many words that there was “no immediate danger.”
5. Last year the media reported on “15 scientists and doctors including a Nobel Prize-winner and two Australians of the year warned of the “mind-blowing risk” of the Olympic Dam expansion.
“Experts are warning of arsenic, mercury and uranium which will enter undergroundwater and the atmosphere.
“The 15 wrote to the State Government warning that up to 5.5 million tonnes of toxic waste in dams with an area of 4000ha will reach ground water within 150 years and dust storms could blow thousands of tonnes from the 242 million tonnes of waste into the atmosphere and all over the state for hundreds of years.”
Nuclear proponents are practised at putting lipstick on a pig but a pig is a pig and will remain a pig in perpetuity (apologies to our hapless, porcine species!)
After spending $10 billion on the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste repository in Nevada, the project has been terminated before it was even commissioned.
The United States operates more nuclear reactors (104) than any other nation yet bears the ignominious title of the largest polluter on the planet.
In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences concluded after an exhaustive study that even the tiniest amount of ionizing radiation increases the risk of cancer. Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health said: “The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial.”
Every nuclear reactor releases tritium as a part of its routine operation and not just as the result of accidental leaks or spills.
This month, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that new tests at a monitoring well on Vermont Yankee’s reactor site in Vernon registered 70,500 picocuries per litre of tritium, more than three times the federal safety standard of 20,000 picocuries per litre.
“That is the highest reading yet at the Vermont Yankee plant, where the original discovery last month drew sharp criticism by Gov. Jim Douglas and others. Officials of the New Orleans-based Entergy Corp., which owns the plant in Vernon in Vermont’s southeast corner, have admitted misleading state regulators and lawmakers by saying the plant did not have the kind of underground pipes that could leak tritium into groundwater.”
Last year, pin-up girl of all things atomic, France, was again forced to import electricity from Britain to cope with a summer heatwave that has helped to put a third of its nuclear power stations out of action.
France’s Électricité de France (EDF) try to play down the heat problems but in previous years, the situation grew so severe that the French nuclear safety regulator granted special exemptions to plants, allowing them temporarily to discharge water into rivers at temperatures as high as 30C and therefore, a licence to wipe out marine life.
Currently, prehistoric Generation II reactors are being given a cosmetic makeover and to date the two Gen. III+ reactors being built in France and Finland continue on with their comedy of errors and it’s estimated that Generation IV you beaut reactors will not be commercially available for decades.
Meanwhile the industry tells us that the commissioning of nuclear reactors is “urgent.” Apparently “urgent” means 40 to 50 years time when the planet’s really cooked, which to them means we can continue using oil and coal in the interim period and forget about renewables – but we’re on to them:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/27/nuclear-reactors-contain-safety-flaws
Strange how the nuclear industry with eyes wide shut, persists with jabbering in tongues.
FLOWER - “Strange how the nuclear industry with eyes wide shut, persists with jabbering in tongues.”
How true!
Thank you for all the above information. I’m going to save yours too as I did Tom’s. It’s so good to have this stuff to counter the money hungry nuclear power proponents!
Reactors next to rivers have been known to kill off the fish after some time. Coolant water or water with radioactive particles seeps back into the river and surrounds, which affects all living creatures. Years ago, a reactor at Winscale in Britain was found to have radioactive contaminants outside the ‘walls’ of the reactor. When news leeched out to the public, those in power just showed the destruction of milk from the local cows - nobody thought to check the cows themselves? It was a PR exercise in smoke and mirrors?
If we knew of all the stuff ups and blunders, we’d be horrified.
As I’ve pointed out before, look at the cockups re pink, yellow or foil batts? 4 deaths(although one was not related to this program - apparently, the house had a long term electrical problem - the corporate media didn’t tell us that though - can’t let the truth ruin a good story??) fires etc. If we can’t find out the real truth about this, how are we to have any confidence in politicians and reactor builders, owners, and those who run them etc?
They all have a vested interest in denying us the facts? That’s good enough reason for me to not support their madness!
Once these reactors are in operation, the Anti-Terrorist Act would be used against any dissent! We have water cannons, taser guns, shoot to kill and other horrific measures in almost every state. It would be to ‘protect us from the terrorists’ that we’d be silenced. Not one pro-nuclear person has raised security, or a police state or lack of accountability by all with vested interests!
Rudd has just given ASIO more powers! I hate to think where we’d end up - the mind boggles!
Greetings Liz45 and more for your archives.
Today sheep on some 355 farms located in and around Snowdonia in Wales, nine in England and seven in Scotland are still being monitored for radiation from the Chernobyl catastrophe where many sheep continue to be deemed unfit for human consumption (All the farms in Northern Ireland were finally “derestricted” in 2000.)
“A 40,000 square kilometre area of south-east Belarus is so stuffed with radioactive isotopes that rained down from the nearby Chernobyl nuclear power station in 1986 that it won’t be fit for growing food for hundreds of years, as the isotopes won’t have decayed sufficiently”:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227144.500
The following UN article states that by 1998, the total damage to the country of Belarus as a result of Chernobyl had been estimated at $235 billion.
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:-XaE2xYIm7sJ:www.un.org/russian/ha/chernobyl/funds.htm+belarus+40,000+km2+land+contaminated&cd=23&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
Of course the nuclear industry would have you believe that only luddites refer to the Chernobyl disaster while the luddites in the uranium industry wipe out our ecosystems and spew out radon which hitches a ride on prevailing winds and which also causes tens of thousands of lung cancer deaths every year.
One must weigh up what is truth and what is spin as the nuclear industry continues to dumb down historical calamities and persists in comparing direct deaths in the nuclear industry to the coal industry, seemingly unaware that the public don’t want their electricity from coal and seemingly unaware that the lag time between radiation exposure and for health symptons to appear can take a short time to several decades and seemingly unaware that children’s immune systems are particularly vulnerable to radiation exposure.
http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary
The nuclear industry assures us that the new age technology in nuclear energy has inherent safety features but where are these wondrous beasts of man’s invention and if Australia’s population is to expand to 35 million, when can we expect the commissioning of some 40 nuclear reactors to provide a mere 30% of energy requirements by 2050 and what new age technology will be applied to treat the dying and diseased citizens of Australia (and beyond!) when they become “dusted” from the massive Olympic Dam expansion?
FLOWER - The other requirement of nuclear cycle is water - huge amounts of it, so much so, that BHP Billiton is going to construct a desalination plant to cater for its expansion of Olympic Dam - this company was allowed to use lots of water FREE from the SA govt, while the people of Adelaide were dangerously close to running out. This, now multinational company given such a handout from a state govt is obscene.
Those like Ziggy who push this industry are never asked the relevant questions about water, and how will the desalination plants operate - by coal fired power station or nuclear? What plans are in place to preserve water for example - not many in NSW, apart from water tanks and some areas recyling? It is an absolute wonder to me, that those who pooh pooh our well deserved fears of a nuclear fuel cycle, but they don’t address any safety issues at all - just referring to other countries, but don’t follow it up with stats.
They’re also never asked about the safety of those who mine uranium. How often are they examined; do they have the right to see their medical records, and if not why not.
A few yrs ago, the Deputy in Pakistan was caught out selling nuclear information and materials to other countries. The US just gave him a slap on the wrist; he was demoted, and life went on as usual. Of course this was while Mushareff was in power, and the US wanted his support to continue, as they had their eye on Afghanistan & Iraq? Makes the nonsense with Iran seem like mass hysteria by comparison. Unlike Pakistan, Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and as such, has the right to use uranium and enrich it. I realise that they’re not being as open as they should be, but when was the US, Britain, France, Russia and China been observed and called upon to allow inspections, and why is Israel allowed to not even admit whether or not they have a nuclear program, when it’s not even a member of the NPT? It’s so ludicrous and irresponsible. Apparently, if you’re a friend of the US, you can operate as you damned well please. We all know that Israel has nuclear weapons, and if the Shah had taken up the US’s offer of nuclear weapons in the 70’s+, Iran would already have nuclear weapons too???
People also don’t seem to join the dots re 25-40 nuclear reactors in this country, and the transportation of high level waste through their streets either to the wharf or by road to the waste dump in the Top End? Imagine that? The cities and towns would either be closed down, or it done at night? How hard would it be for would-be terrorists to bomb the vehicle/s? Pretty easy to see with improving night time vision via you beaut technology - observed pretty easily as the vehicles would have police escorts?
Last yr, I lost 3 members of my extended family via cancer - just horrific. One was only 46. Almost everyone I speak to has a family/extended family member or friend with cancer. 30 yrs ago, this was not a reality - now it’s 1 in 2 who’ll be diagnosed - not die, but be diagnosed and require treatment. Children are particularly susceptible to cancers, as the “tumours” love their lovely pink organs(Dr Helen Caldicott, Paediatrician) said this yrs ago. Could it be, that those who lambast those of us against nuclear power are predominantly men, and they’re usually the ones who make the decisions, but women are the ones who carry and give birth, do 75% of the work in the home, and probably as much primary care to the chn, particularly when they’re ill! My kids father never took a day off when his 3 kids were sick(be it not frequently, thank goodness) and I was the main parent who took them to the doctor’s; he may have once or twice???(I can almost see the blokes eyes rolling?) But it’s true!
Thanks again for the info - will follow it up later as I have to go out soon!