French nuclear policy clouded in secrecy

Comment:  Virginia should not be kissing up to the French, we want true green power, not nuke power!  Just listen to the excuses the French makes about the problems in Nuke power!

October 2009

Several kilos of plutonium have been discovered at an Areva nuclear plant in Cadarache, in France.

Environmentalists have long complained that the nuclear industry, which fulfills 75 percent of France's energy needs, is shrouded in secret:


Click Title or Read the complete post at link below:

http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-4401971/aHR0cDovL3d3dy50cnV2ZW8uY29tL251Y2xlYXItZW5lcmd5LWZyZW5jaC1udWNsZWFyLXBvbGljeS1jbG91ZGVkLWluL2lkLzE4NDYzNzQ4NzY=

Dave Lindorff: Pentagon Dirty Bombers, Depleted Uranium in the USA

Comment:  Depleted Uranium will be our Middle East's VAs agent orange (Vietnam VA)!  Pray for our troops and all our Veterans!

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 10/26/2009 - 2:11pm. Dave Lindorff

The Nuclear Regulator Commission will be holding hearings tomorrow and Wednesday in Hawaii on an application by the U.S. Army for a permit to have depleted uranium at its Pohakuloa Training Area, a vast stretch of flat land in what's called the "saddle" between the sacred mountains of Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea on Hawaii's Big Island, and at the Schofield Barracks on the island of Oahu.

 In fact, what the Army is asking for is a permit to leave in place the DU left over from years of test firing of M101 mortar "spotting rounds," that each contained close to half a pound of depleted uranium (DU). The Army, which originally denied that any DU weapons had been used at either location, now says that as many as 2, 000 rounds of M101 DU mortars might have been fired at Pohakuloa alone.

But that's only a small part of the story.

The Army is actually seeking a master permit from the NRC to cover all the sites where it has fired DU weapons, including penetrator shells that, unlike the M101, are designed to hit targets and burn on impact, turning the DU in the warhead into a fine dust of uranium oxide.

Among the sites identified by the NRC as being contaminated with DU are: Ft. Hood, TX; Ft. Benning, GA; Ft. Campbell, KY; Ft. Knox, KY; Ft. Lewis, WA; Ft. Riley, KS; Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD; Ft. Dix, NJ; and Makua Military Reservation, HI.

Other locations identified as having DU weapons contamination are: China Lake Air Warfare Center, CA; Eglin AFB, FL; Nellis AFB, NV; Davis-Monthan AFB; Kirkland AFB, NM; White Sands Missile Range, NM; Ethan Allen Firing Range, VT; and New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

An application for a 99-year permit to test DU weapons at the NM Institute Of Mining and Technology claimed that that site's test area was "so contaminated with DU…as to preclude any other use"!

DU weapons have also been used by the Navy at Vieques Island off Puerto Rico (the Navy claimed it was a "mistake."

The Pentagon continues a long history of claiming that DU is not dangerous, although this official stance is belied by the warnings it has given to its troops (though not to civilians in battle zones), to stay well clear of tanks and other equipment destroyed by U.S. tanks, which used DU weapons as the ordnance of choice in both the Gulf War and the current Iraq War.

Read the complete post at or click Title:

http://blog.buzzflash.com/lindorff/284

Bill to ban the importation of foreign nuclear waste into Utah takes small step forward

Comment: We have enough nuke waste and we should take on overseas junk!

By Brock Vergakis, AP
October 27th, 2009

Bill to ban foreign nuke waste makes small advance

SALT LAKE CITY — A bill designed to keep foreign countries from disposing their nuclear waste in the United States is taking a small but significant step toward getting a U.S. House committee vote for the first time.

On Thursday, the Radioactive Import Deterrence Act will undergo a process known as markup, where members of a House subcommittee will debate and recommend changes to the bill before it advances.

The bill to ban the importation of low-level radioactive waste was drafted in response to a Utah company’s plan to import up to 20,000 tons of low-level radioactive waste from Italy’s shuttered nuclear power program through the ports of Charleston, S.C., or New Orleans. After processing in Tennessee, about 1,600 tons would be disposed of in EnergySolutions Inc.’s facility in the western Utah desert.

Read the complete post at or click Title:

http://blog.taragana.com/n/bill-to-ban-the-importation-of-foreign-nuclear-waste-into-utah-takes-small-step-forward-208667/

Radioactive tritium found off nuclear test site for first time

Comment: People who make bombs to kill people and use the excuse, let us bomb Japan and save a million of our people from war. The government brought the military people home and exposes them to Nuke Bombs! Logic, heck no, how many of our family members have died from these mad scientists! In addition, our government is still killing our families with depleted uranium in the Gulf War! Now nuke water is still killing people! No to Nuke Power!

By Mary Manning

Tue, Oct 20, 2009 (3:01 p.m.)

Scientists have found radioactive tritium from nuclear tests in Nevada contaminating groundwater off the Nevada Test Site for the first time.

However, state and federal studies indicated the contaminated groundwater would leave the nuclear site within 50 years.

A groundwater sample taken in a new well drilled on Air Force land contained tritium at about 12,500 picocuries per liter, below the federal Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking Water Act limit of 20,000 picocuries per liter. A picocurrie is a measure of radiation in liquid.

The Energy Department predicted in February that groundwater contamination would leave the Test Site boundary near Pahute Mesa, in the northwest corner of the sprawling site about 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The nearest public water source to the new government test well, completed Oct. 12, is 14 miles away!

Click to Read Whole Story: http://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/oct/20/radioactive-tritium-found-nuclear-test-site-first-/

Finnish TVO set for long row with Areva, Siemens

by Staff Writers
Helsinki (AFP) Oct 20, 2009

Finnish utility TVO said Tuesday it expected a lengthy dispute with France's Areva and Germany's Siemens over cost over-runs and delays in their construction of a Finnish nuclear reactor.

The plant being built in Olkiluoto, western Finland, was originally scheduled to start operating this year, but the project has fallen more than three years behind its original schedule, prompting a bitter fight between the three companies.

In a financial report for January-September published on Monday, TVO said it had demanded that Areva and Siemens pay compensation of around 1.4 billion euros (2.1 billion dollars) for the delays.

Meanwhile Areva and Siemens have asked for around one billion euros from TVO, arguing that the project has encountered "more rigorous security requirements" than initially foreseen.

Last week TVO said the new reactor's start date could be delayed beyond June 2012 and said it had asked for a new timetable from Areva and Siemens.

The Finnish firm posted in the first nine months of this year a loss of 30.4 million euros on turnover of 226 million euros.

Read whole article:
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/Finnish_TVO_set_for_long_row_with_Areva_Siemens_999.html

Obama's Radioactive Regulator

Why did the White House pick a cheerleader for nuclear energy to oversee the industry?
—By Kate Sheppard

Oct 20, 2009

Should a booster of nuclear power with undisclosed business connections to nuclear energy firms be allowed to regulate the industry? By nominating William Magwood to serve on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, President Barack Obama is doing just that.

Magwood served as the head of the Office of Nuclear Energy within the Department of Energy from 1998 to 2005, and in that capacity was the US government's senior nuclear technology official. But both before and after his time in government, he has worked as an enthusiastic advocate for nuclear interests in the private sector—including for at least one company likely to have business before the NRC in the near future. Good-government groups say that this background should preclude him from serving as a regulator for an agency whose stated mission is to "regulate the nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment."

"William Magwood has devoted his career to promoting nuclear power," said Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste watchdog at Beyond Nuclear. "The NRC is supposed to be a safety regulator. They're not supposed to advocate for expansion."

Click below to read whole article:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/10/obamas-radioactive-regulator

Radioactive Rabbit Poop Part Of Hanford Nuclear Reservation Cleanup (VIDEO)

Check out Rachel Maddow's segment below for more information on this operation, and the radioactive rabbits:




First Posted: 10-19-09 09:01 AM Updated: 10-19-09 10:40 AM

The Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state produced most of the plutonium our nation used during the atomic bomb through the 1980s. This production also led to massive amounts of toxic waste.

The area is the focus of the largest environmental cleanup operation in the country right now, and that includes scrubbing all the rabbit feces because it is radioactive.

Jackrabbits have taken quite a liking to the nuclear sludge, which contains a radioactive salt that they can't get enough of. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: jackrabbits routinely burrowed into those sites. They found the salt, liked it, and licked it. Then, they pooped it, leaving slightly radioactive scat all over the ground.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/radioactive-rabbit-poop-p_n_325716.html

Can We Afford More Subsidies for Nuclear Power?

Comment: No to Nuke Power!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 20, 2009
3:38 PM

CONTACT: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
Meghan Crosby
Assistant Press Secretary
202-331-6943
mcrosby@ucsusa.org

WASHINGTON - October 20 - The Senate may finally start debating climate and energy legislation now that Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) have introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.

But the addition of a nuclear provision to the bill raises some questions. What will be the fate of the so-called nuclear power renaissance, and to what extent will taxpayers be asked to underwrite it?

But is nuclear power a climate solution we can afford? The short answer, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), is no.

As UCS Nuclear Energy and Climate Change Project Manager Ellen Vancko notes, “Even if you discount nuclear power’s current security and safety problems, the skyrocketing cost of construction could be the industry’s Achilles’ heel.”

Wall Street has made it clear that it will not finance the nuclear industry’s expansion without federal loan guarantees because of the high risks and uncertain costs associated with such investments.

A recent Moody’s report characterized investments new nuclear plants as a “bet the farm” risk, stating that companies that build new reactors will take on a higher business and operating risk profile, which will threaten their credit ratings.

To circumvent these financing challenges, the nuclear industry is supporting legislation that was passed by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in June.

That bill, S. 1462, would underwrite the industry’s expansion by creating a new Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA). Although CEDA’s provisions are poorly understood, the implications of this pending legislation are enormous, according to UCS.

A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report concluded that S. 1462 would exempt the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Loan Guarantee Program, which was established under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, from Federal Credit Reform Act provisions requiring such programs to be funded each year by congressional appropriation.

“The effect of this exemption,” the CBO stated, “would be to give DOE permanent authority to guarantee such loans without further legislative action or limitations.”

That means DOE could give virtually unlimited loan guarantees to expensive and risky new technologies, all underwritten by taxpayers without congressional oversight. (For the CBO report, go to www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10637.)

“The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Energy Department could hand out more than $130 billion to nuclear and fossil fuel energy projects,” Vancko said. “That’s a lot of money.

But what is even more alarming is that CBO’s calculation is based solely on pending Energy Department loan guarantee applications. It does not include an estimation of the hundreds of billions of dollars in additional loan guarantees that could be approved by a new energy bank if this program becomes law.”

Vancko recently co-authored a briefing paper, “Nuclear Power: A Resurgence We Can’t Afford,” which is available at:

www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-resurgence.html.

In it she provides a clear-eyed look at the nuclear industry’s history of cost overruns, projections of current reactor construction costs, comparisons with cleaner, more cost-effective low-carbon energy options, and the potential risks to taxpayers from overly generous federal subsidies and loan guarantees. Another UCS briefing paper from earlier this year, “Nuclear Loan Guarantees: Another Taxpayer Bailout Ahead?,” should also be of interest.

For that report, go to www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-loan-guarantees.html.

Ellen Vancko is available for interviews. Please call Elliott Negin at 202-331-5439.
.###
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/10/20-13

Media Mayhem: Nuking climate change

Comment: This blog agrees with the following groups: Clean Water Action, Environmental Working Group, Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen and the Sierra Club, NO TO NUKE POWER, YES TO TRUE GREEN POWER! The following groups are traitors and need to be tar and feather with nuke waste: The Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists! NO TO THE SO CALL CLIMATE CHANGE, NEW NAME "NUKE CLIMATE CHANGE PAID FOR BY AMERICAN TAXPAYERS!"

When people like John Kerry back nuclear subsidies, green activists find themselves in a difficult position.

By Ken EdelsteinMon, Oct 19 2009 at 6:32 AM EST

Nuclear power once was the greenie’s ultimate litmus test.

Pro-nuke? You must have been an industry toady willing to relegate future generations to radioactive Armageddon. Anti-nuke? You must have righteously understood that the only future to sense in our world would be one graced with windmills, solar panels, peace, love and flowers.

If environmentalism were a religion, the nuclear industry was its devil

How much less politically radioactive nuclear power has become was underscored Oct. 11 in a Sunday New York Times op-ed co-written by Sen. John Kerry. As Massachusetts’ lieutenant governor and then as senator.

The NYT op-ed generated buzz because Kerry wrote it with a Republican colleague, Lindsay Graham of South Carolina. It signaled that some Republicans actually might support a climate bill this year if it contained significant compromises, and that Democrats might agree to such compromises to get the bill passed.

A lot of those compromises have to do with nukes. In the article, Kerry and Graham argue that nuclear power must be part of the mix in addressing climate change. Not only that, they say, nukes deserve special favors. “While we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar,” they write:
In many ways, Kerry’s support for nuclear subsidies demonstrates just how desperately he and others view the prospect of climate change. It’s not that nuclear plants have become any safer. There are still myriad questions surrounding them: Where will we dispose of the waste? How can we find enough water to cool them? What about the terrorist threat? What about the prospect of nuclear proliferation? And how can we justify subsidizing loan guarantees and insurance backups for a wealthy industry surrounded by so many questions?

But as the nuclear industry’s twin bête noires -- the Chernobyl disaster and the Three Mile Island accident -- fade from memory, the threat of climate change looms larger and scarier. Nuclear power, its advocates note, pumps virtually no greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

The whole new reality creates quite a predicament for environmentalists. Yes, politics does make strange bedfellows, but usually they don’t require Geiger counters. The nuclear industry’s lead trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), owns an appropriate reputation for greenwashing PR on the order of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy.

In the typical doublespeak fashion of moneyed Washington special interests, NEI has crafted slick marketing campaigns to appropriate the phrase “clean energy.” It backs an industry front group called the “Clean and Safe Energy Coalition” and a speakers’ bureau called Clean Energy America. With the start of this year’s National Hockey League season, NEI struck a sponsorship deal with the Washington Capitals; there’s nothing like rink-side signs that say “Clean Air Energy” to get your message across to members of Congress who happen to be hockey fans.

Most environmental organizations still argue against the increased subsidies needed to kick-start nuclear power plants. Among the foes are Clean Water Action, Environmental Working Group, Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen and the Sierra Club. They note that steering resources into safer, renewable energy -- such as wind, solar and conservation -- seems to bode better for both the environment and for the economy.

The anti-nuclear movement still has strong pop-cultural pull among environmentalists. Last week, NukeFree.org -- a group backed by Jackson Brown, Bonnie Raitt and other celebrities -- organized a “National Call In Day” to pressure Congress not to include nuclear subsidies in climate legislation.

Other environmental groups shouldn’t be described exactly as pro-nuke, but they are keeping their options open. The Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists -- all highly respected organizations with a strong bent toward research and policies -- have said they’re at least willing to consider nuclear energy as part of broader legislation.

The thing is that the Senate climate change bill introduced last month by Kerry and Sen. Barbara Boxer already contains quite a few gifts for the nuclear industry, including job training, regulatory reform, subsidies and $18.5 billion in loan guarantees. That’s more generous than the House-approved Waxman-Markey bill. (For more on this, visit MNN’s politics channel.)

So the compromises create yet another predicament for environmentalists. If the climate legislation ends up so much more generous to the nuclear energy than it is to emerging renewable industries -- such as wind, solar and conservation -- some will have to consider whether to withdraw their support, and to rely on the Environmental Protection Agency to push for regulation.

Either that, or strike their deal with the devil.

Journalist Ken Edelstein writes the Media Mayhem column for the Mother Nature Network. From various coffee shops in Atlanta, he publishes an environmental news site at MyGreenATL.com.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/stories/media-mayhem-nuking-climate-change#comment-8497

The medical and economic costs of nuclear power

October 15, 2009
by Dr Helen Caldicott

Jennifer Nordstrom, co-ordinator of the Carbon-Free Nuclear-Free project has noted “Telling states to build new nuclear plants to combat global warming is like telling a patient to smoke to lose weight.”

A recent study sponsored by the German government (the KiKK study - Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schultze-Rath R, et al. Leukemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. Int J Cancer. 2008; 1220:721-726,) examined children who lived near 16 of the country’s commercial nuclear power plants.

The results revealed a strongly increased risk of all childhood cancers, particularly leukaemia, the closer the proximity of the children’s residence to the reactor. In particular, the study found that children less than the age five years, living within a 5km radius of the power plant exhaust stacks were more than twice as likely to develop leukaemia compared with those children residing more that 5km away. The KiKK team studied other carcinogenic factors which may be responsible for the cancer clusters but none were found.

Another large study (Baker PJ, Hoel DG. Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukemia in proximity to nuclear facilities. Eur J Cancer Care. 2007:16:355-363) - a meta-analysis of the incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukaemia in children living near 138 nuclear facilities in Britain, Canada, Spain, Germany, the US and Japan also demonstrated a statistically significant rate of leukaemia in children less than nine years of age.

A further large review (Laurier D, Jacob S, Bernier MO, et al. Epidemiological studies of leukemia in children and young adults around nuclear facilities: A critical review. Rad Prot Dosim. 2008; 132:182- 190) of children and young adults living near 198 nuclear sites in 10 countries was found to be compatible with the study described above.

It is important to note that the sensitivity to the damaging effects of radiation in early embryonic and fetal life is much higher than in adults, and young children are also particularly vulnerable.

The radioactive elements “routinely” emitted from nuclear power plant stacks into the air can be inhaled, or ingested when they concentrate in the food chain - in vegetables and fruit, -and then further concentrated in various internal organs in humans.

Similarly, the millions of gallons of cooling water flushed daily from a nuclear reactor into the always adjoining water source (lake, river or sea) contaminate it with radioactive materials which bio-concentrate hundreds of times in the aquatic food chain.

Unfortunately, radioactive elements are invisible to the human senses - taste, smell, and sight. Also unfortunately, the incubation time for radiation-induced cancer is five to 60 years, a long, silent latent period. No cancer ever denotes its specific cause.

Among these biologically active elements that are routinely released from nuclear power plants are tritium which lasts for more than 100 years (there is no limit to the amount of tritium that escapes); xenon, krypton. and argon which decay to cesium and strontium; carbon 14 which remains radioactive for thousands of years; cesium 137 - radioactive for hundreds of years; and iodine 129, which has a half life of 15.7 million years.

Tritium combines directly in the DNA molecule of the gene and can induce fetal deformities and various cancers in both animals and humans; cesium causes muscle sarcomas and brain cancers; and strontium - a calcium analogue - migrates to bone where it can induce bone cancer or leukaemia. Finally radioactive iodine causes thyroid cancer.

This situation is made worse by the fact that we are all - including populations living within the vicinity of nuclear reactors - routinely exposed to carcinogenic chemicals in our daily lives, many of which enhance the carcinogenic effects of radioactivity. There are now 80,000 chemicals in common use.

Turning from the human health costs to the monetary, another relevant study related to the nuclear power debate examined the economic feasibility of a “nuclear renaissance” at this time. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report published in August 2009 states that the nuclear industry continues to face steadily increasing construction costs and future cost estimates. The AREVA French-designed reactor project in Olkiluoto Finland is three years behind schedule and 55 per cent over budget (US$7 billion).

The average age of operating reactors globally is 25 years, while the average age of 123 reactors already closed is 22 years only. In addition to the 52 reactors currently under construction, another 43 reactors would have to be planned, built and started by 2015 - one every six weeks, and another 192 units over the following 10 years - one every 19 days - in order to maintain the same number that are operating today.

None of the new countries wanting nuclear power have the appropriate nuclear regulations, independent regulators, the domestic maintenance capacity and the skilled workforce to run a nuclear reactor.

Furthermore some of these countries either have a government hostile to the concept of nuclear power (Norway, Malaysia, Thailand), hostile public opinion (Italy and Turkey), major economic problems (Poland), earthquake or volcanic risks (Indonesia) or some have an absolute lack of all necessary infrastructure (Venezuela).

And there is one other major bottleneck for new reactors - only one corporation in the world, Japan Steel Works, can manufacture large steel forgings for many reactor pressure vessels.

These problems, together with the global financial crisis mean that the prospects of funding for the nuclear industry - most of which is government sourced - looks grim. .

US, efforts to forge the nuclear industry renaissance has been thwarted in eight states from Kentucky to Minnesota to Hawaii, Illinois, West Virginia, California, Missouri and Wisconsin.

When the Yucca Mountain repository for high level waste was vetoed by President Obama, Dave Kraft, Director of the Nuclear Energy Information Service in Chicago said “Authorising construction of nuclear reactors without first constructing a radioactive waste disposal is like authorising the construction of a new Sears tower without the bathrooms. Neither makes sense; both threaten public health and safety.”

How does this state of affairs relate to Australia? Well, as we know Australia sits on 40 per cent of the world’s high grade uranium; the ALP, in its wisdom, has determined that there should be no restrictions on uranium mining proceeding throughout the country.

There are more than 60 potential uranium mines in Western Australia alone.
In the light of these two studies it is difficult to understand how Kevin Rudd and the Labor Government can have no moral scruples about our uranium exports.

Dr Helen Caldicott, has devoted the last 38 years to an international campaign to educate the public about the medical hazards of the nuclear age and the necessary changes in human behavior to stop environmental destruction. She is also the Founding President of the Physicians for Social Responsibility which, with other national groups won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. She is President of people for a Nuclear Free Australia and a member of the Spanish Scientific Committee advising the Spanish Prime Minister.

Helen Caldicott is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Helen Caldicott

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15673

Even Rabbit Droppings Count in Nuclear Cleanup

October 15, 2009
By MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON — Anything that hops, burrows, buzzes, crawls or grazes near a nuclear weapons plant may be capable of setting off a Geiger counter. And at the Hanford nuclear reservation, one of the dirtiest of them all, its droppings alone might be enough to trigger alarms.
A government contractor at Hanford, in south-central Washington State, just spent a week mapping radioactive rabbit feces with detectors mounted on a helicopter flying 50 feet over the desert scrub. An onboard computer used GPS technology to record each location so workers could return later to scoop up the droppings for disposal as low-level radioactive waste.

The Hanford site, overseen by the federal Department of Energy, produced roughly two-thirds of the plutonium used in the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal, beginning in World War II and ending in the 1980s. Today it is the focus of the nation’s largest environmental cleanup, an effort that has cost tens of billions of dollars and is expected to continue for decades.

The area had, however, been used by rabbits that had also burrowed into other areas that were contaminated. Many of the contaminants were in the form of salts, which attract wildlife. The rabbits carried strontium and cesium, which emit gamma rays, back out of the area in their digestive tracts.

The flights were far less expensive than other strategies, said Dee Millikin, a spokeswoman for the contractor, a subsidiary of the engineering and environmental consulting company CH2M Hill.

Walking through the area with radiation detectors would have taken eight months longer and cost $1 million, she said.

The flights were first reported by The Tri-City Herald newspaper of Kennewick, Wash.

The rabbits themselves are not a target of the operation: the area from which they picked up the contamination was paved over years ago, so the source was sealed off, Ms. Millikin said.

Rabbits were not the only biological vectors contaminated by the nuclear residue. Mice and badgers also picked it up, she said, and coyotes feed on the contaminated smaller animals. “It’s basically a circle-of-life situation,” she said, adding that researchers have also found traces of radioactive materials in fish of the adjacent Columbia River.

Yet roaming rabbits appear to account for the overwhelming bulk of the radioactive excrement located in the flights, Ms. Millikin said.

Technicians have monitored rodents and waterfowl at Hanford for radiation since 1947, and have identified about 5,400 incidents of “biological intrusion.” It is not only animals; tumbleweeds have roots deep enough to pull up radioactive material and then carry it as they blow away, said John Price, who monitors conditions at Hanford for the Washington State Department of Ecology.

Marylia Kelley, the executive director of a California group called Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, said the rabbit cleanup was “kind of funny, in a sick way.”

Hanford is not the only reactor site that has prompted concern about contamination spreading to animals, Ms. Kelley said. .

At that site, she said, contamination has been somewhat harder to track because it is mostly plutonium, whose main emission is alpha particles that travel only a few inches in air, unlike the gamma rays from cesium and strontium at Hanford.

Radiation is also a concern at the Savannah River nuclear site in South Carolina, where neighbors can enter a lottery every year to be allowed to hunt deer.

“If they find something that was above the limit, they take out that part of the carcass and allow the guy to go on his merry way with the rest of it,” said Robert Alvarez, an environmental expert and former Energy Department official.

In the 1980s, researchers found turtles contaminated with radioactive materials on a hog farm near the Savannah River plant.

As the federal government pursues cleanups at various nuclear sites, experts have deliberately contaminated a species to further their efforts: honeybees.
Workers position a hive at a suspect area and wait to see what the bees come back with. Researchers can measure the radioactive content of the bees’ honey or wax, but “the recommended sample is the bee itself,” the agency said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/science/earth/15rabbit.html?_r=1&sq=nucle&scp=2&pagewanted=print

NATIONAL DON'T NUKE THE CLIMATE CALL-IN DAY--THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15

Subject: Tomorrow is Nat'l Call-In Day--Keep the Senate's phones ringing
Nuclear Information and Resource Service

NATIONAL DON'T NUKE THE CLIMATE CALL-IN DAY--THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15


PICK UP THE PHONE! KEEP THOSE SENATE PHONES RINGING!


AND KEEP THOSE E-MAILS/FAXES COMING TOO!


TALKING POINTS BELOW

October 14, 2009

Dear Friends,

Tomorrow is the National Don't Nuke the Climate Call-In Day!
Please call both of your Senators offices and tell them to keep nuclear power out of the Senate climate bill. Recent events, like the John Kerry/Lindsay Graham op-ed in Sunday's New York Times calling for more nuclear power in the bill, add to the urgency of this call-in day.

Help keep the Senate's phones ringing all day long!
Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121.

And keep your letters and faxes to your Senators coming, and keep forwarding the action url to all of your lists: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/t/5846/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2137

Post it on your Facebook pages, Tweet it, spread the word every way possible.

More than 4,000 letters already have been sent to the Senate this week--but we'll need more than that to beat the nuclear lobbyists.

And with 16,000+ people on this e-mail list, that means a lot of you haven't yet taken action, and haven't yet helped reach the millions more people across this country who also want to keep nuclear out of the climate bill.

So take action today. E-mail and/or fax your Senators here. Then spread the word to every list you have, everyone you can think of.

And take action tomorrow. Call both your Senators offices at

202-224-3121.

The basic talking point is simple. If you only get 30 seconds with your Senators' offices, or an answering machine, just tell them: No nuclear power in the Senate climate bill, no more taxpayer dollars to support the failed nuclear industry.

But if you get a little more time, below are some talking points you may want to use. These also will be useful for drafting letters to the editor, op-eds, blog postings and the like--all of which will be very helpful as well. The more noise and publicity we can make, the better off we'll be.

Talking Points

*Nuclear power already receives a competitive advantage when a price is placed on carbon. If the nuclear industry cannot compete with such an advantage, that's its own problem, taxpayers should not be expected to provide more help to the industry.

*Projected costs for new reactors are stratospheric. In early 2006, the Nuclear Energy Institute predicted costs for the first few new reactors would run $2,000/kw, going down to $1,500/kw over time. Instead, recent estimates include Turkey Point (Florida) at $8,200/kw and Calvert Cliffs-3 (Maryland) and Bell Bend (Pennsylvania) at about $9,000/kw, or $13-15 billion. For example, see: http://www.bellbend.com/faqs.htm

*Cost overruns have been a constant with the nuclear industry. A 1986 Department of Energy study found the average cost overrun for the first 75 U.S. reactors was 207%. Reactors coming online after 1986 typically experienced even larger overruns. The only two reactors now under construction in the West-Areva reactors in Finland and France-are currently 75% and 20% over-budget, with years to go before construction completion.

*Electricity from new reactors, as expected with such enormous costs, would make the 1980s concept of "rate shock" seem quaint. An August 2009 report from the California Energy Commission, for example, predicts kilowatt/hour costs for nuclear electricity as high as 27-34 cents/kwh-nearly a tripling from today's prevailing rate of less than 12 cents/kwh. This report is available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-017/CEC-200-2009-017-SD.PDF

*Nuclear power is not carbon-free. The nuclear fuel chain is responsible for fairly significant carbon emissions--at least three times those of wind power, for example. A recent study by Virginia Tech professor Benjamin Sovacool on this subject is available here: http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf

*Nuclear reactors use enormous amounts of water, and water will become an increasingly precious resource in years to come, especially as we grapple with a warming climate. Allocating water to nuclear reactors now means less water for people and agriculture down the road. An August 2009 Virginia Tech study notes 36 states are projected to experience water shortages during the next decade. http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/water/sr46waterdependency.pdf

*Nuclear power is not even the only baseload alternative, as some in the industry claim. As cited in the August 6, 2009 Wall Street Journal for example, Spain is building large baseload solar thermal power plants for about $5,200/kw. While expensive, this is still $2,000/kw cheaper than the current low estimates for new reactor construction.

*Congress must not pre-judge the administration's re-evaluation of radioactive waste policy, which has not yet even begun. Specifically, no money should be spent on expensive, dangerous technologies like reprocessing, especially when the future direction of waste policy is unknown.

Tomorrow, NIRS staff will be going door-to-door in the Senate office buildings, delivering the thousands of postcards you sent to us (Thanks!) and the list of 629 U.S. organizations that have signed on to the simple statement on nuclear power and climate change. We hope to hear those phones ringing in every office we visit!

Thanks for all you do, but this week, let's all try to do just a little bit more....
Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
www.nirs.org
nirsnet@nirs.org

US Energy Secretary: To Push For More Nuclear Loan Guarantees

Comment: Everybody needs to make calls tomorrow against Nukes, see the above articles! No To Nuke Power! No To Chu!

Oct 14, 2009
By Ian Talley, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Thursday he will push for billions of dollars in new loan guarantee authority to help rejuvenate a domestic industry and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Although companies have submitted 18 new nuclear power plant license applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy only has authority for $18.5 billion, enough for four to five plants.

"If you really want to restart the American nuclear energy industry in a serious way...we (need to) send signals to the industry that the U.S. is serious about investing in nuclear power plants," Chu said in an interview on the sidelines of a conference here.

Pressing for new nuclear power plants may help the administration win over the handful of Republican senators needed to help pass a landmark climate bill into law. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for example, supports a cap on emissions in principle, but said government support for nuclear power is essential for him to consider backing a bill that would cut greenhouse gases.

Although it's nowhere near the 100 new nuclear power plants that the GOP has called for, Chu said "there's real interest out there (for) another four to five or more, we could easily do."

"It's part of how we're going to get to the carbon reductions we need in order to avoid the worst of climate change," Chu said.

The Energy Secretary said the loan guarantees would help revitalize a U.S.- based nuclear industry, given that most of the major companies that build reactors are now owned by international companies.

"It's also an American leadership issue," the Secretary said. "We were the pioneers in the nuclear industry...We are no longer the world leaders," he said.

Chu also said a new blue ribbon panel that will determine the nation's future nuclear waste energy policy would be appointed "soon." Although there were still "complications," he was pressing for the panel to convene as quickly as possible.

The delay in determining the waste issue after the administration decided to cancels plans for a central storage site in Nevada is one of many stumbling blocks that has dogged the industry.

-By Ian Talley, Dow Jones Newswires; (202) 862 9285; ian.talley@dowjones.com;

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200909241923dowjonesdjonline000687&title=us-energy-s

Nuclear power: not clean, not cheap, not safe

Comment: Great Study, No to Nuke Power and No to Uranium Mining all over the World!

October 14, 2009

My students usually identify the seven fatal flaws in nuclear energy (''Nuclear power the way to cut emissions'', October 14) within 10 minutes of discussion:

1) the still unsolved problem of safely dealing with the radioactive waste;

2) the huge amounts of carbon released into the atmosphere during the mining, transport and processing of the ore;

3) the extraordinarily high costs of building the plants;

4) the massive amounts of water required for their operation;

5) hostile attack;

6) peak uranium and, finally, what all the advocates never mention,

7) the crippling costs of decommissioning the obsolete plants that will sit where they are until kingdom come.

Not clean. Not cheap. Not safe either for us or for countless generations to come.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/letters/nuclear-power-not-clean-not-cheap-not-safe-20091014-gxc9.html

France dumps nuclear waste in Siberia, reports say

Comment: The Fairy Tale Nuke France is not so great are they, come on Virginia, kick them out of our state!

Nuclear 13.10.2009

Nuclear waste from France has been sent to Siberia for storage.

According to the French daily newspaper Liberation and Franco-German television broadcaster Arte, France's electricity company EDF has sent 108 tons of uranium to Siberia since the mid-1990s. .

EDF said it sends uranium left over from nuclear plant production in France to Russia to be treated so that it can be used again.

Ten to 20 percent of the uranium came back to France to be used in French power plants, an EDF spokeswoman said Monday. A company official denied that waste was left outdoors.

Liberation based its information on an eight-month investigation which was broadcast by Arte on Tuesday.

Legal loophole

The container was allegedly shipped by boat from Le Havre in northern France to the Siberian atom complex "Tomsk-7," located 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles) away. This was only possible due to a legal loophole: In Russia, depleted uranium, recharged uranium and plutonium are not considered atomic waste but "radioactive material," according to the report by journalist Laure Noualhat.

Therefore, the shipment to Russia was not officially treated as an atomic waste transport overseas - that would have been forbidden by law.

France's ecology minister, Chantal Jouanno, has called for an investigation into the case.

Anti-nuclear power movement group "Sortir du Nucleaire" accused Jouanno of trying to win time by announcing an investigation. The group has demanded that the atomic waste be brought back from Russia.

France, like Germany, has not yet found a location to permanently store nuclear waste underground. French nuclear authorities are considering permanently storing the waste generated in the past three decades and the waste produced in the future near Bure in eastern France, 500 meters (1,640 feet) below ground.

sst/AFP/AP
Editor: Kate Bowen

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4786672,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf

Nuclear Power, Hydro Excluded From UN Climate Draft (Update1)

By Todd White

Oct. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Nuclear power and “large-scale” hydroelectric plants were excluded from a list of sources that a new climate treaty may recommend developing countries such as China use in efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.

Splitting atoms and damming rivers “have adverse impacts on the environment,” according to a draft approved by a United Nations working group at international climate talks among about 180 nations in Bangkok. The document was published on a UN Web site and dated Oct. 8.

Atomic energy and hydropower have been promoted by governments as climate-friendly because they produce far fewer greenhouse gases than generators that burn coal or natural gas. China and India both plan new atomic-energy plants. They are among developing countries at the talks that were asked by industrial nations to reduce their growth of emissions in return for clean-energy project funding from richer countries.

If the nuclear and hydro provision becomes part of a treaty “it means they cannot be supported through public funding from developed countries,” said Benito Mueller, director of environment at Oxford University’s Institute for Energy Studies. It won’t likely stop them from being built, he said.

The UN has spent almost two years drawing up lists of clean-energy “actions” that nations may voluntarily employ to reach national goals for reducing global-warming gases.

While some nations would like to make these mitigation actions mandatory, there’s no assurance they will ever become binding under a new treaty, said Kaisa Kosonen, a political adviser at Greenpeace who monitored the talks in Bangkok.

The talks end today in Bangkok and resume Nov. 2 before concluding in December in Copenhagen.

Last Updated: October 9, 2009 09:16 EDT
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=at37MphxIxGY

Friends of the Earth Statement on the Kerry-Boxer Draft Climate Bill

Comment: No to Nuke Power and all dirty power!

Submitted by RConnors on Wed, 09/30/2009 - 12:38

Global Warming Government and IndustryEnergyInternational

Wednesday, September 30, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Ben Schreiber, 202-222-0752, bschreiber@foe.org
Elizabeth Bast, 202-641-7203, ebast@foe.org

Friends of the Earth Statement on the Kerry-Boxer Draft Climate Bill (REVISED**)
Washington, D.C.— Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica had the following statement in response to the Kerry-Boxer draft climate bill:

"We commend Senators Boxer and Kerry for their dedication to combating the important problem of climate change but we cannot support a bill that fails to solve the problem. Overall the draft is riddled with loopholes and does not go far enough to protect the planet.

Areas of concern include:

· Emissions Cap: Science demands at least a 40% reduction in emissions, compared to 1990, by 2020. The draft bill has emissions reductions targets of about 20 percent below 2005 levels – nowhere near what a fair U.S. contribution to a global emissions reductions should be to avert climate catastrophe

· Offset Loopholes: The extensive use of unreliable offsets in this draft bill, up to 2 billion tons a year, seriously undermines the integrity of the already weak emissions cap and delays the health, environmental, and economic benefits of shifting to a low-carbon economy.

· Methane Regulations: The House-passed bill would require emissions from landfills, coal mines and natural gas pipelines to be regulated, but under the Kerry-Boxer draft, these sources can voluntarily capture methane in exchange for offset payments.

· Markets Regulations: The bill would creative a massive, new and complex commodities market with almost no specifics on how that market would be regulated.

· Subsidizes Dirty Energy: The bill gives special subsidies to expensive, unsafe and environmentally damaging technologies such as nuclear reactors and carbon capture and sequestration and capture for coal plants, not to mention ambiguous incentives for biofuels.

Friends of the Earth's policy team will be taking a deeper look at the bill in further days and release a more detailed analysis at a later date so that we can work with the Senate to pass legislation that will fairly and effectively address the problem of climate change."

**Upon on a more thorough reading of the draft bill, we acknowledge that the Clean Air Act section of our previous statement was not an accurate reflection of the bill’s text.

###
Friends of the Earth (www.foe.org ) and our network of grassroots groups in 77 countries fight to defend the environment and create a more healthy, just world. We're progressive environmental advocates who pull no punches and speak sometimes uncomfortable truths to power. Our current campaigns focus on clean energy and solutions to global warming, protecting people from toxic and new, potentially harmful technologies, and promoting smarter, low-pollution transportation alternative.

http://www.foe.org/friends-earth-statement-kerry-boxer-draft-climate-bill

a hard rain (problems with nuclear power)

Comment: Why is Virginia chasing nuke power, you should have seen the bunch I saw today that is supposed to represent the people of VA. They are willing to blow up our hills for uranium mining for nuke plants! No to Nuke Power and No to Uranium Mining!

View excerpt of A Hard Rain:

A Hard Rain


This is a documentary that had to be made! Twice Academy award nominee and five times AFI winner David Bradbury’s latest contribution, A Hard Rain, explores the ‘other side’ of the nuclear debate.

Governments and most mainstream media are promoting that nuclear is now an attractive alternative to fossil fuels – the magic fix that will save us all from global warming. Nuclear power has taken on a clean and green spin from the low point 20 years ago which saw the Chernobyl meltdown.

Traversing five countries – China, France, UK, Japan and Australia, and using what Bradbury learnt from his previous three nuclear documentaries (Public Enemy Number One, Jabiluka and Blowin' in the Wind), A Hard Rain takes a closer look at the global nuclear industry in its entirety – from the mining of uranium through to the nuclear power plant to the radioactive waste and weapons manufacturing. It exposes the hidden agendas behind this latest push for Australia to go nuclear.

Included are interviews with some of the world's top scientists and environmentalists on the subject such as Dr Rosalie Bertell from Canada, Dr Chris Busby from the UK, and from Australia, Dr Mark Diesendorf (Ex CSIRO) from the Environmental Institute at the University of NSW, Prof. Ian Lowe, President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, and Dr Gavin Mudd from the Monash University Engineering Department.

Interviews with traditional owners who have been locked out of genuine consultation with what is happening on their country is also included in this film.

By looking at the experience of countries overseas that have gone nuclear, A Hard Rain debunks some of the myths of the nuclear industry: that nuclear is safe, cheap, health and green with little chance of another Chernobyl happening.

If you want vital and factual information to debate the issue intelligently and overthrow the myths that the nuclear and pro uranium mining lobby has so successfully implanted in the media, in the government and the Labor Party, then this documentary is a must see.

http://www.frontlinefilms.com.au/videos/hardrain.htm

Kazatomprom; Areva join forces to market nuclear fuel

Comment: Taking advantage of the poor!

The pair are aiming at the Asian market

Posted: Tuesday , 06 Oct 2009

ALMATY (Reuters) -

France's Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote) and Kazakh state nuclear company Kazatomprom said on Tuesday they were setting up a joint venture to market uranium fuel and were considering joint production.

The venture, IFASTAR, will research the Asian market for nuclear fuel and run a feasibility study for a project to produce fuel in Kazakhstan, the companies said in a statement.

Areva will have a controlling stake in IFASTAR.

"This confirms the strategy of Areva and Kazatomprom, the companies producing about 30% of global uranium output, to strengthen positions in Asia," the companies said in a joint statement.

They said planned joint nuclear fuel production at the Kazakh Ulbinsky plant would be handled by a separate venture and Kazatomprom would have a controlling stake in it. (Writing by Olzhas Auyezov; Editing by Greg Mahlich)

http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page504?oid=90286&sn=Detail

Nuclear Power - One of Humankind's Biggest Mistakes

by Jim Bell
01 February 2009

Nuclear Power was a mistake and remains a mistake. If the human family survives it, our descendants will wonder what we were thinking to justify leaving them nuclear power's toxic legacy -- a legacy they will be dealing with for hundreds if not thousands of generations.

And why did we do it? To power our lights, TVs, radios, stereos, air conditioners, etc. and the tools we used to make them.

Our creation of nuclear power will be especially difficult for our descendants to understand because they will know that in the nuclear era, we already had all the technologies and know-how needed to power everything in ways that are perpetually recyclable, powered by free solar energy and which leave zero harmful residues in their wake.

On its own, nuclear power's toxic radioactive legacy should be enough to give any thinking person sufficient reason to want to eliminate it as quickly as possible and do everything to protect our descendants from the radioactive wastes already created.

The human family has been at war with itself for the majority of its history. Human history is full of successful, advanced and sophisticated civilizations that utterly collapsed. To the informed, even our current civilization(s) don't feel very solid. Plus there are earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, severe weather, terrorism, and just plain human error. This given, who can guarantee that anything as dangerous and long-lived as nuclear waste can be kept safe for even 100 years much less the hundreds to hundreds of thousands of years it will take before some of these wastes are safe to be around.

And even if an insurance company did guarantee its safety, what is their guarantee worth? What could they do to protect us and future generations if San Onofre's spent fuel storage pond lost its coolant water. If this happened an almost unquenchable radioactive fire would spontaneously erupt, spewing radioactive materials wherever the wind blew for weeks if not months -- rendering Southern California a dangerous place to live for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years.

Notwithstanding the above, the nuclear industry is lobbying the public and the government to continue supporting them politically and economically so the industry can expand.

Its latest rational is that nuclear power will produce fewer greenhouse gases than what would be produced using fossil fuels to make electricity. This is true if one only looks at what happens inside a reactor. It's not true when accounting for all the fossil fuel energy consumed during nuclear power's fuel cycle, and what it takes to build, operate and dismantle plants when they wear out. Additionally, even if nuclear power was ended today, fossil fuel energy must be consumed for millennia in order to protect the public from the radioactive residues that nuclear power has already generated.

An increasing number of former industry and non-industry experts are saying that at best nuclear power releases slightly fewer greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than if the fossil fuels embodied in it had been burned to make electricity directly.

In his 2002 book, Asleep at the Geiger Counter, p. 107-118, Sidney Goodman, (giving the industry the benefit of the doubt on a number of fronts and assuming no serious accidents or terrorism), concludes that the net output of the typical nuclear power plant would be only 4% more than if the fossil fuels embodied in it had been used directly to produce electricity. This means, best-case scenario, replacing direct fossil fuel generated electricity with nuclear generated electricity will only reduce the carbon dioxide released per unit of electricity produced by 4%. Goodman is a long practicing licensed Professional Engineer with a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering.

Other experts believe that nuclear power will produce about the same amount of energy as was, is, and will be consumed to create, operate and deal with its aftermath. This case was made in an article published in Pergamon Journals Ltd. Vol.13, No. 1, 1988, P. 139, titled "The Net Energy Yield of Nuclear Power." In their article the authors concluded that even without including the energy that has or would be consumed to mitigate past or future serious radioactive releases, nuclear power is only "the re-embodiment of the energy that went into creating it."

In its July/August 2006 edition, The Ecologist Magazine, a respected British publication, featured a 16-page analysis of nuclear power. One of the conclusions was that nuclear power does not even produce enough electricity to make up for the fossil fuels consumed just to mine, mill and otherwise process uranium ore into nuclear fuel, much less all the other energy inputs required This is not surprising given that typical U-235 ore concentrations of .01% to .02%, require mining, crushing and processing a ton of ore to end up with 1/2 oz to 1 oz of nuclear reactor fuel. To put this in perspective, the typical 1,000 MW nuclear power plants uses around 33 tons or over 1 million oz of nuclear fuel each year.

As a teenager I saw a TV program that showed a man holding a piece of metal in the palm of his hand. He was saying that if what he held was pure uranium it would contain as much energy as the train full of coal that was passing by him on the screen. I became an instant "true believer" in nuclear power. I thought if something that small can produce the same amount of energy as all that coal, there will be plenty of energy and therefore plenty of money to address any dangers that using it might pose.

Unfortunately, to get that level of energy from a small amount of pure or near pure uranium it would require that it be exploded as an atomic bomb. Of the uranium used in a reactor, only a fraction of the energy in pure uranium gets used. That's why we are left with depleted uranium and other long-lived wastes.

The nuclear industry says that nuclear power is safe, a big net energy producer, and that it will be cheap and easy to keep its wastes out of the environment and out of the hands of terrorists.

But if these claims are true, why has an industry that supplies only 8% of our country's total energy and 20% of its electricity consumed hundreds of billions of tax dollar subsidies since its inception? Now in 2009, the industry is lobbying for $50 billion in loan guarantees on top of the $18.5 billion already allocated by the Bush administration.

If nuclear power is so safe and wonderful, why does it require the Price Anderson Act? The Price Anderson Act puts taxpayers on the hook if the cost of a major radioactive release exceeds $10.5 billion. According to a Sandia National Laboratory analysis, this puts taxpayers on the hook for over $600 billion to cover the damage that a serious radioactive release would cause. Another Sandia Laboratory study focusing just on the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York, concluded the damage caused by a serious release from that plant could cost up to a trillion dollars. Needless to say, any serious radioactive release from any U. S. plant would wipe out any net energy gain by nuclear power if -- there ever was one.

Realizing the potential cost of a serious radioactive release, manufacturers, insurers and utilities, were unwilling to build, insure or order plants. They only got seriously involved after the Congress assigned these cost to the taxpaying public. On page 7 of a report by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research titled The Nuclear Power Deception, they included the following 1996 quote from then NRC Commissioner James Asselstine, "given the present level of safety being achieved by the operating nuclear power plants in this country, we can expect a meltdown within the next 20 years, and it is possible that such as accident could result in off-site releases of radiation which are as large as, or larger than the released estimates to have occurred at Chernobyl." Bear in mind, a meltdown is only one of several things that could happen with nuclear power to cause a serious radioactive release.

As I said in the beginning, nuclear power is a mistake. Especially considering we already have all the technologies and know-how needed to make us completely and abundantly renewable energy self-sufficient. Solar energy leaves no radioactive residues for our children or future generations. Additionally, although not completely environmentally benign yet, solar energy collection systems can be designed to last generations, be perpetually recyclable and leave zero toxic residues behind. If San Diego County covered 24% of its roofs and parking lots with PV panels, it would produce more electricity than the county consumes. This assumes that 3 million resident use, on average, 10 kWh per capita per day after installing cost-effective electricity use efficiency improvements.

For ourselves, our children and future generations, let's move into the solar age.

_ _ _ _ _

Jim Bell is an ecological designer, author, and lecturer. He ran for Mayor of San Diego in 1996, 2000, and 2004. His honors include: The Society of Energy Engineers’ Environmental Professional of the year for the Southwestern States, a "Beyond War" award, and a City of San Diego Water Conservation Design Award. For details read his free books, visit jimbell.com

http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=307&Itemid=1

India, US hope to clinch agreement on reprocessing n-fuel

Comment: I feel for the India's people, reprocessing is a failure for France and ruin the English Channel where the waste was dump! People of India, you need Greenpeace to stop this now!

October 04, 2009 18:41 IST

India and the US may clinch the much-awaited "arrangements and procedures" agreement on reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel of American origin when they meet in Vienna [ Images ] soon. The talks between officials of the nuclear establishments of the two countries are expected to take place within the next fortnight and will be observed very closely by US companies which are keen to set up nuclear power plants in India.

The first round of talks in July in Vienna were "very surprising for both the sides", sources close to the negotiators said.

Department of Atomic Energy officials also said the two sides had made "good progress" in the first round of discussions and were optimistic that agreement could be clinched "in a couple of months". The talks are being considered as a significant step to take forward the operationalisation of the Indo-US nuclear deal.

The consultations are being based strictly on Article 6 (III) of the 123 agreement between India and the US. According to the agreement, to bring reprocessing rights into effect, India has to establish a new national facility dedicated to reprocessing safeguarded nuclear material under the safeguards of International Atomic Energy Agency.

Also, India has to reach an agreement with the US on "arrangements and procedures" under which such reprocessing will take place in this new facility.

Conclusion of the talks is crucial for the US companies to start nuclear commerce with India. US energy majors --Westinghouse-Toshiba and GE-Hitachi have inked pacts with state-run Nuclear Power Corporation for setting up nuclear parks in India.

India has earmarked two sites -- Mithi Virdi in Gujarat and Kovada in Andhra Pradesh -- to host the US nuclear reactor parks.

Designation of the sites was advocated by the US-India Business Council, the Washington-based trade group that championed the successful US initiative to end the global ban against commercial nuclear trade with India.

In September last year, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group amended its rules to permit India to engage in international trade in commercial nuclear equipment, fuel and technology.

In the year since, India has moved forward signing nuclear cooperation agreements with Russia [ Images ], France [ Images ], Namibia and Kazakhstan.

Besides the US, France and Russia will also develop nuclear parks in the country with each park hosting between six and eight atomic reactors.

Russia is already building two reactors at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu, while France's Areva has been allocated Jaitapur site in Maharashtra to set up nuclear plants.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/oct/04/ndeal-inda-us-to-clinch-deal-on-reprocessing-nuke-fuel.htm

Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power

Comment: Great web page with great information with the problems with Nuke Power!

Here at Green America, we’re working hard to heal the climate by transitioning our electricity mix away from its heavy emphasis on coal-fired power. In 2007, you helped us stop fifteen new coal plants, tell the financiers of major coal projects to stop funding coal, and persuade mutual funds to support shareholder efforts to mitigate climate change.

But all of that good work will be wasted if we transition from coal into an equally dangerous source – nuclear power, which is why we've put together this list of reasons why nuclear power is not a climate solution.

Solar power, wind power, geothermal power, hybrid and electric cars, and aggressive energy efficiency are climate solutions that are safer, cheaper, faster, more secure, and less wasteful than nuclear power. Our country needs a massive influx of investment in these solutions if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

Thankfully, no new nuclear plants have been built in the US for over 30 years. That means that a whole new generation of concerned citizens grew up without knowing the facts about nuclear power – or remembering the terrible disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. So it is time to remind everyone that nuclear is not the answer. Please help us get the word out.

Currently we draw electric power from about 400 nuclear plants worldwide. Nuclear proponents say we would have to scale up to around 17,000 nuclear plants to offset enough fossil fuels to begin making a dent in climate change. This isn’t possible – neither are 2,500 or 3,000 more nuclear plants that many people frightened about climate change suggest. Here’s why:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Nuclear waste -- The waste from nuclear power plants will be toxic for humans for more than 100,000 years. It’s untenable now to secure and store all of the waste from the plants that exist. To scale up to 2,500 or 3,000, let alone 17,000 plants is unthinkable.

Nuclear proponents hope that the next generation of nuclear plants will generate much less waste, but this technology is not yet fully developed or proven. Even if new technology eventually can successful reduce the waste involved, the waste that remains will still be toxic for 100,000 years. There will be less per plant, perhaps, but likely more overall, should nuclear power scale up to 2,500, 3,000 or 17,000 plants. No community should have to accept nuclear waste site, or even accept the risks of nuclear waste being transported through on route to its final destination. The waste problem alone should take nuclear power off the table.

The Bush administration’s solution – a national nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain – is overbudget and won’t provide a safe solution either. The people of Nevada don’t want that nuclear waste facility there. Also, we would need to transfer the waste to this facility from plants around the country and drive it there – which puts communities across the country at risk.

2. Nuclear proliferation – In discussing the nuclear proliferation issue, Al Gore said, “During my 8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program.” Iran and North Korea are reminding us of this every day. We can’t develop a domestic nuclear energy program without confronting proliferation in other countries.

Here too, nuclear power proponents hope that the reduction of nuclear waste will reduce the risk of proliferation from any given plant, but again, the technology is not there yet. If we want to be serious about stopping proliferation in the rest of the world, we need to get serious here at home, and not push the next generation of nuclear proliferation forward as an answer to climate change. There is simply no way to guarantee that nuclear materials will not fall into the wrong hands

3. National Security – Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk, and an attractive target for terrorists. In researching the security around nuclear power plants, Robert Kennedy, Jr. found that there are at least eight relatively easy ways to cause a major meltdown at a nuclear power plant.

What’s more, Kennedy has sailed boats right into the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant on the Hudson River outside of New York City not just once but twice, to point out the lack of security around nuclear plants. The unfortunate fact is that our nuclear power plants remain unsecured, without adequate evacuation plans in the case of an emergency. Remember the government response to Hurricane Katrina, and cross that with a Chernobyl-style disaster to begin to imagine what a terrorist attack at a nuclear power plant might be like.

4. Accidents – Forget terrorism for a moment, and remember that mere accidents – human error or natural disasters – can wreak just as much havoc at a nuclear power plant site. The Chernobyl disaster forced the evacuation and resettlement of nearly 400,000 people, with thousands poisoned by radiation.

Here in the US, the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 triggered a clean-up effort that ultimately lasted for nearly 15 years, and topped more than one billion dollars in cost. The cost of cleaning up after one of these disasters is simply too great, in both dollars and human cost – and if we were to scale up to 17,000 plants, is it reasonable to imagine that not one of them would ever have a single meltdown? Many nuclear plants are located close to major population centers. For example, there’s a plant just up the Hudson from New York City. If there was an accident, evacuation would be impossible.

5. Cancer -- There are growing concerns that living near nuclear plants increases the risk for childhood leukemia and other forms of cancer – even when a plant has an accident-free track record. One Texas study found increased cancer rates in north central Texas since the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant was established in 1990, and a recent German study found childhood leukemia clusters near several nuclear power sites in Europe.

According to Dr. Helen Caldicott, a nuclear energy expert, nuclear power plants produce numerous dangerous, carcinogenic elements. Among them are: iodine 131, which bio-concentrates in leafy vegetables and milk and can induce thyroid cancer; strontium 90, which bio-concentrates in milk and bone, and can induce breast cancer, bone cancer, and leukemia; cesium 137, which bio-concentrates in meat, and can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma; and plutonium 239. Plutonium 239 is so dangerous that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic, and can cause liver cancer, bone cancer, lung cancer, testicular cancer, and birth defects. Because safe and healthy power sources like solar and wind exist now, we don’t have to rely on risky nuclear power.

6. Not enough sites – Scaling up to 17,000 – or 2,500 or 3,000 -- nuclear plants isn’t possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling, and there aren’t enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. Over 24 nuclear plants are at risk of needing to be shut down this year because of the drought in the Southeast. No water, no nuclear power.

There are many communities around the country that simply won’t allow a new nuclear plant to be built – further limiting potential sites. And there are whole areas of the world that are unsafe because of political instability and the high risk of proliferation. In short, geography, local politics, political instability and climate change itself, there are not enough sites for a scaled up nuclear power strategy.

Remember that climate change is causing stronger storms and coastal flooding, which in turn reduces the number of feasible sites for nuclear power plants. Furthermore, due to all of the other strikes against nuclear power, many communities will actively fight against nuclear plants coming into their town. How could we get enough communities on board to accept the grave risks of nuclear power, if we need to build 17, let alone, 17,000 new plants?

7. Not enough uranium – Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants, we’re running out of the uranium necessary to power them. Scientists in both the US and UK have shown that if the current level of nuclear power were expanded to provide all the world's electricity, our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years.

As uranium supplies dwindle, nuclear plants will actually begin to use up more energy to mine and mill the uranium than can be recovered through the nuclear reactor process. What’s more, dwindling supplies will trigger the use of ever lower grades of uranium, which produce ever more climate-change-producing emissions – resulting in a climate-change catch 22.

8. Costs – Some types of energy production, such as solar power, experience decreasing costs to scale. Like computers and cell phones, when you make more solar panels, costs come down. Nuclear power, however, will experience increasing costs to scale. Due to dwindling sites and uranium resources, each successive new nuclear power plant will only see its costs rise, with taxpayers and consumers ultimately paying the price.

What’s worse, nuclear power is centralized power. A nuclear power plant brings few jobs to its local economy. In contrast, accelerating solar and energy efficiency solutions creates jobs good-paying, green collar, jobs in every community.

Around the world, nuclear plants are seeing major cost overruns. For example, a new generation nuclear plant in Finland is already experiencing numerous problems and cost overruns of 25 percent of its $4 billion budget. The US government’s current energy policy providing more than $11 billion in subsidies to the nuclear energy could be much better spent providing safe and clean energy that would give a boost to local communities, like solar and wind power do. Subsidizing costly nuclear power plants directs that money to large, centralized facilities, built by a few large companies that will take the profits out of the communities they build in.

9. Private sector unwilling to finance – Due to all of the above, the private sector has largely chosen to take a pass on the financial risks of nuclear power, which is what led the industry to seek taxpayer loan guarantees from Congress in the first place.

As the Nuclear Energy Institute recently reported in a brief to the US Department of Energy, “100 percent loan coverage [by taxpayers] is essential … because the capital markets are unwilling, now and for the foreseeable future, to provide the financing necessary” for new nuclear power plants. Wall Street refuses to invest in nuclear power because the plants are assumed to have a 50 percent default rate. The only way that Wall Street will put their money behind these plants is if American taxpayers underwrite the risks. If the private sector has deemed nuclear power too risky, it makes no sense to force taxpayers to bear the burden.

And finally, even if all of the above strikes against nuclear power didn’t exist, nuclear power still can’t be a climate solution because there is …

10. No time – Even if nuclear waste, proliferation, national security, accidents, cancer and other dangers of uranium mining and transport, lack of sites, increasing costs, and a private sector unwilling to insure and finance the projects weren’t enough to put an end to the debate of nuclear power as a solution for climate change, the final nail in nuclear’s coffin is time. We have the next ten years to mount a global effort against climate change. It simply isn’t possible to build 17,000 – or 2,500 or 17 for that matter – in ten years.

With so many strikes against nuclear power, it should be off the table as a climate solution, and we need to turn our energies toward the technologies and strategies that can truly make a difference: solar power, wind power, and energy conservation.

http://www.greenamericatoday.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm

San Antonio Anti-Nuclear Film Series

October 2, 2009 by citizensarah

Thursday, October 8th the Esperanza Peace & Justice center continues the Other and Out & Beyond film series with a day on nuclear energy and the devastating effects of uranium mining, nuclear waste and contamination. This event is Free and open to the public, though donations are appreciated.

All films will be held at the Esperanza Peace and Justice Center at 922 San Pedro, San Antonio, TX 78212. The center can be reached at 210-228-0201 or at www.esperanzacenter.org.

Must see movies from the 70’s and 80’s:

2pm The China Syndrome

A modern nightmare nearly becomes reality in this tension-filled movie starring Jane Fonda as an ambitious TV reporter covering a story on energy sources who is present at a nuclear plant when a startling accident occurs that nearly causes the meltdown of the reactor. 122 mins/US/1979

4:15 pm Silkwood

This dramatic film is based on the true story of Karen Silkwood, a ran and file worker at a plutonium factory, who becomes an activist after being accidentally exposed to a lethal dose of radiation. Starring Meryl Streep. 131 mins/US/1983
Life & Land: The Hidden Costs of Nuclear

7:00 pm Climate of Hope

While the threat of climate change is now widely accepted in the community, the potential for neuclear power stations in Australia has raised questions about the best strategy to move to a low-carbon economy. This animated doucmentary takes us on a tour through the science of climate change, the nuclear fuel chain and the remarkable energy revolution that is under wya. 30 mins/Australia/2007

7:40 pm Woven Ways

Told in their own words with no narration, Woven Ways is a lyrical testimony to Navajo beauty and hope in the face of grave environmental injustice. For decades, uranium miing has contaminated the people, land and livestock that sustain their culuture and economy. The film chronicles each family’s steady resolve to hold on to the land, air and water, not for themselves, but for generations that will come.

8:30 pm Platica — The evening program will be followed by a community platica on nuclear energy including local activists and experts who will share their knowledge on issues of waste, water, mining, renewable energy alternatives and local organizing.

http://texasvox.org/2009/10/02/san-antonio-anti-nuclear-film-series/

Nuclear - Oct 2

Published Oct 2 2009 by Energy Bulletin, Archived Oct 2 2009
by Staff


The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction Part III: How (un)reliable are the Red Book Uranium Resource Data?

Francois Cellier, The Oil Drum: Europe

For more than 40 years, the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the United Nations have published a bi-annual document with the title "Uranium Resources, Production and Demand." This book, known as the IAEA/NEA 2007 Red Book, summarizes data about the actual and near future nuclear energy situation and presents the accumulated world-wide knowledge about the existing and expected uranium resources. These data are widely believed to provide an accurate and solid basis for future decisions about nuclear energy. Unfortunately, as it is demonstrated in this article, they do not.

The conventional world-wide uranium resources are estimated by the authors of the Red Book as 5.5 million tons. Out of these, 3.3 million tons are assigned to the reasonably assured category, and 2.2 million tons are associated with the not yet discovered but assumed to exist inferred resources. Our analysis shows that neither the 3.3 million tons of "assured" resources nor the 2.2 million tons of inferred resources are justified by the Red Book data and that the actual known exploitable resources are probably much smaller.

Despite many shortcomings of the uranium resource data, some interesting and valu able information can be extracted from the Red Book. Perhaps most importantly, the Red Book resource data can be used to test the "economic-geological hypothesis," which claims that a doubling of uranium price will increase the amount of exploitable uranium resources by an even larger factor. The relations between the uranium resources claimed for the different resource categories and their associated cost estimates are found to be in clear contradiction with this hypothesis.

Obama Has Fanned the Flames of Nuclear Development
Roger Herried, Culture Change

It would seem that nothing is new under the sun these days when it comes to the good old USA. The state of Arizona -- anybody remember McCain -- recently gave the Canadian Denison Mining Company the go-ahead to reopen the Arizona 1 uranium mine near the Grand Canyon, with two more mining permits pending. Yes, Obama has tentatively stopped nearly 1000 new mining permits around the Canyon from going ahead, old mines are another matter. (see "Uranium mining could resume north of Canyon," Sept. 2)

The downturn in the economy has slowed the nuclear renaissance down but not stopped it. The nuclear industrial complex was given a huge influx of cash by Obama to supposedly clean up Department of Energy contamination from the Cold War. DOE’s own estimate for the clean up is between $270-330 billion. Under Bush, a dramatic acceleration of the privatization of DOE activities has occurred with nearly 200,000 contract workers versus 15,000 government employees. With the giant handouts of money going to the very U.S. military industrial companies that are seeking to expand nuclear development in the U.S. Obama has fanned the flames of nuclear development.

Rather than going into the heart of the beast and rolling back the lobbying apparatus he promised to do, the nuclear industry is now on the verge of obtaining $100 billion in loans to pay for its corrupt "Renaissance."...
(19 Sept 2009)

India plans to cut carbon and fuel poverty with untested nuclear power
Randeep Ramesh, The Guardian

India's prime minister today signalled a huge push in nuclear power over the coming decades, using an untested technology based on nuclear waste and the radioactive element thorium.
Manmohan Singh, speaking at a conference of atomic scientists in Delhi, announced that 470,000MW of energy could come from Indian nuclear power stations by 2050 — more than 100 times the current output from India's current 17 reactors.

"This will sharply reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and will be a major contribution to global efforts to combat climate change," he said, adding that Asia was now seeing a huge spurt in nuclear plant building. The Indian plan, which relies on untested technology, was criticised by anti-nuclear campaigners as "a nightmare disguised as a dream".
The prime minister said a breakthrough deal with the US, sanctioned by the international community, had opened the door for the country to "think big" and meet the demands of its billion-strong population. He did not say how much the plans would cost, or how they would be paid for...
(29 Sept 2009)

http://energybulletin.net/node/50278

NATIONAL CALL-IN DAY OCTOBER 15:DON'T NUKE THE CLIMATE!

SENS. BOXER & KERRY INTRODUCE SENATE CLIMATE BILL

McCAIN, ET AL, WANT MORE NUKES IN BILL

NATIONAL CALL-IN DAY OCTOBER 15:
DON'T NUKE THE CLIMATE!

September 30, 2009

Dear Clean Energy Supporter:

Senate Environment Committee chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) today introduced their long-awaited climate bill. As yet unnumbered, it is called the ''Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act."

The response from nuclear power fanatics was swift:

"When asked by Reuters if he could support the Democrats' bill Senator John McCain said: "Of course not. Never, never, never." McCain complained that the Democratic bill merely paid lip-service to the nuclear power industry."

McCain and his pals, like Lamar Alexander (R-TN), will try to lard the bill with billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for new nuclear power-and then they're going to vote against any bill addressing climate change anyway.

That's the kind of attitude we're all going to have to fight the rest of this year. And we're going to be seeing the same kinds of lies and deceit, exaggeration, and corporate deception that characterized the health care issue all summer. Except in this case, it will be on behalf of dirty energy like nuclear power and coal.

Your help is essential if we're going to stop them.

And start preparing now for the National Don't Nuke the Climate Call-In Day on Thursday, October 15. Start spreading the word, start getting e-mail lists and phone trees together, plan call-in parties at your home, a local restaurant or pub, on-campus, or anywhere it's easy to gather people together. Note: send us info on any such event you'd like us to publicize, and we'll do so!

On October 15, NIRS will be on Capitol Hill, distributing the list of more than 600 U.S. organizations that have signed the statement on nuclear power and climate. Check one more time to make sure your organization is on that list. If it isn't, please sign by October 12 to be included.

And we'll also be hand-delivering the thousands of postcards to your Senators that you have sent in. We'll need all postcards in our office by October 14--but that still leaves you time to distribute some more, so if you'd like some, call (301-270-6477) or send us a quick e-mail.

Back to the climate bill: you can read the full 821-page text here.

As Sen. Boxer announced a couple of weeks ago, the bill contains a nuclear title aimed at garnering support from some "moderate" Senators. But if the reaction from McCain is any indication, they needn't have bothered. And, of course, there shouldn't be a nuclear title in a climate bill at all. In any case, it provides support for job training programs for nuclear workers; requires DOE to start a new research program on reactor aging--dangerously suggesting that DOE should help find ways to extend reactor licenses beyond 60 years; and authorizes an unspecified amount of money for research and development of radioactive waste technologies--including reprocessing.

For those following along, the nuclear title runs from pages 111 to 119 of the bill.

Thank you to all of those of you from California and Massachusetts who called Sens. Boxer's and Kerry's offices yesterday. Your efforts succeeded in making some 11th-hour changes to the text. For example, nuclear power is no longer falsely described as a carbon-free energy source, as was the case in earlier drafts. There is no longer an assertion that renewables cannot be baseload energy sources. And, importantly, the NRC has been removed from a promotional role with DOE in the research program on reactor aging.

Help us stop the upcoming efforts by nuclear fanatics to add billions of dollars of your money to this bill for new reactors.

Indeed, we are going to have to fight not only the McCains and Alexanders of the world, but apparently Energy Secretary Stephen Chu as well, who was recently quoted as saying he'd be happy with another $20 billion in taxpayer loan guarantees for new reactors! Let's make sure he doesn't get a dime of it!

Again, please start organizing for the October 15 National Don't Nuke the Climate Call-In Day. Let us know what you're doing and how we can help you. And spread the word as far and wide as you can….

Together, we will achieve a nuclear-free, carbon-free future.

Thanks for all you do,

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
nirsnet@nirs.org
www.nirs.org
301-270-6477

http://www.nirs.org/