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/

Washington Capitals gung-ho for nuclear power

Comment: Idea, their suits could have glow-in-dark lettering! No to Nukes!

Endorsment comes as nuclear power group buys season-long ad campaign with team

September 30, 2009
Mitch Potter
WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON–In a move that has already rankled climate critics, the Washington Capitals skated into the global debate over clean energy Wednesday with an unprecedented endorsement of nuclear power.

The unusual team endorsement, believed to be the first of its kind for a pro sports franchise, comes as energy industry lobbyists in Washington intensify efforts to influence climate legislation working its way through Congress.

"Nuclear energy is an important part of a technology-based solution to climate change," Capitals majority owner and longtime AOL executive Ted Leonsis said in a statement released by the Nuclear Energy Institute, the team's new partner.

"It's a proven energy provider in Virginia and Maryland for Capitals' fans. We are pleased to work with NEI to raise awareness of the role that it can play in reducing greenhouse gases across America."

But the announcement carried no afterglow for climate campaigners, who immediately questioned how much money the Capitals organization received for its nuclear nod. Sources at NEI confirmed the group would pay the team for a season-long advertising campaign involving print, radio and arena signage but declined to disclose the amount.

"The Washington Capitals are backing the wrong horse. Nuclear power is too expensive and too risky to solve the global warming crisis," said Dave Martin, a climate policy analyst with Greenpeace Canada.

NEI officials in Washington said they drew inspiration for the partnership from Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment, which struck a deal with Bruce Power in July making the nuclear utility an official sponsor of the Air Canada Centre, the Maple Leafs, the Raptors and the Marlies. But the sponsorship did not involve such an overt and high-level endorsement from the Leafs' parent company.

The dollar value of the Capitals deal "is not hugely significant," NEI Vice President of Communications Scott Peterson told the Toronto Star.

"But it is a significant partnership for us to have access to the fan base. Because it is Washington and because the team's television feed will get the message out pretty frequently to people in a part of the country we want to reach."

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/703461

A State Leader for Producing Clean Energy

Comment: How is the nuke plant coming along in Finland, only 3 years behind, over budget, the French Way! This dude needs to stay in DC! NO TO NUKE POWER, IT IS NOT CLEAN, IT IS NOT GREEN, remember, we do not want to be like France, they have problems!

The News & Advance
Published: September 30, 2009

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu offered good news last week for those seeking to expand the renewable energy front in Virginia. In short, he said the state has great potential for producing clean power from wind and nuclear sources.

Chu also said the state would receive $16.1 million in block grants of federal stimulus money. The funds will be disbursed by state officials to local governments that submit the best plans for energy conservation programs.

On the broader subject of renewable energy, the secretary said “Virginia is a perfect example of having real economic opportunities in clean energy.” He pointed out the state is “a national leader in nuclear power” and that one-third of the state’s electrical energy comes from nuclear power.

Speaking on behalf of the Obama administration, he said, “We are eager to restart the nuclear program in the United States and we look forward to Virginia being part of that.” He added that the federal government is in final negotiations for $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for the first utility companies that build new nuclear reactors.

Those funds would help pay for new reactors such as the one Dominion Power hopes to build at North Anna. Areva in Lynchburg is also designing a reactor for a Maryland utility company, based on plants now under construction in Finland and France.

In a conference call to announce the block grants, Chu addressed the problem of disposing of spent nuclear fuel when he said he hoped the new reactors would produce a spent fuel that is less hazardous than the current generation of reactors, where some of the waste has been converted to plutonium that could be developed into weapons.

Potential stockpiles of nuclear waste have been the leading deterrent in the effort to expand nuclear power in the United States, but Chu said the administration is convinced “the nuclear waste issue is solvable.” Among the options is a new look at recycling spent fuel, “but there are even newer options, and new reactor designs where you don’t have to actively recycle in a conventional way.”

Turning to wind power, he said the state could be a leader in its potential to produce power from offshore wind farms. Turbines built off the coast, he said, could create 10,000 to 20,000 jobs that would stay in the state.

Chu didn’t mention the small, but growing, sentiment for wind power in Nelson County. The county’s supervisors held a hearing last week on a proposed set of regulations for wind turbines. If approved, the turbines would be constructed in areas where wind speed tests show enough power to sustain the production of electricity. At least two wind turbine dealers have sprung up in the county who are talking to homeowners.

The ordinance would allow one turbine on parcels of at least one acre. Parcels of five or more acres could have more turbines if the owners get conditional use permits. The turbines would be allowed to stand as tall as 100 feet.

Guidelines on the placement, color and noise levels of the turbines would be set in the ordinance, as well.

Officials in Amherst and Bedford counties have also begun working on ordinances to govern turbine operations, which have the potential of using the most renewable — and the cleanest — source of energy that exists. Nuclear energy runs it a close second because it does not produce emissions that foul the atmosphere the way fossil fuels do.

It’s exciting that, as Secretary Chu said, Virginia could be in the forefront of both forms of the cleaner production of renewable energy. That should be the way of the future.

http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/news/opinion/editorials/article/a_state_leader_for_producing_clean_energy/19912/

Soviet Announces Nuclear Accident at Electric Plant

Comment: History seems to repeat it, praying not when it comes to nuclear power!

Power Reactor Damaged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mishap Acknowledged After Rising Radioactivity Levels Spread to Scandinavia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Serge Schmemann
Special to The New York Times

Moscow, April 28 -- The Soviet Union announced today that there had been an accident at a nuclear power plant in the Ukraine and that ''aid is being given to those affected.''

The severity of the accident, which spread discernable radioactive material over Scandinavia, was not immediately clear. But the terse statement, distributed by the Tass press agency and read on the evening television news, suggested a major accident.

The phrasing also suggested that the problem had not been brought under full control at the nuclear plant, which the Soviet announcement identified as the Chernobyl station. It is situated at the new town of Pripyat, near Chernobyl and 60 miles north of Kiev.

Heightened Radioactivity Levels

The announcement, the first official disclosure of a nuclear accident ever by the Soviet Union, came hours after Sweden, Finland and Denmark reported abnormally high radioactivity levels in their skies. The readings initially led those countries to think radioactive material had been leaking from one of their own reactors.

The Soviet announcement, made on behalf of the Council of Ministers, after Sweden had demanded information, said in its entirety:

''An accident has occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant as one of the reactors was damaged. Measures are being taken to eliminate the consequences of the accident. Aid is being given to those affected. A Government commission has been set up.''

Concern Is Reinforced

The mention of a commission of inquiry reinforced indications that the accident was a serious one. [United States experts said the accident probably posed no danger outside the Soviet Union. But in the absence of detailed information, they said it would be difficult to determine the gravity, and they said environmental damage might conceivably be disastrous. Page A10. [The Chernobyl plant, with four 1,000-megawatt reactors in operation, is one of the largest and oldest of the 15 or so Soviet civilian nuclear stations. Nuclear power has been a matter of high priority in the Soviet Union, and capacity has been going into service as fast as reactors can be built. Page A10.] Pripyat, where the Chernobyl plant is situated, is a settlement of 25,000 to 30,000 people that was built in the 1970's along with the station. It is home to construction workers, service personnel and their families.

A British reporter returning from Kiev reported seeing no activity in the Ukrainian capital that would suggest any alarm. No other information was immediately available from the area.

But reports from across Scandinavia, areas more than 800 miles to the north, spoke of increases in radioactivity over the last 24 hours.

Scandinavian authorities said the radioactivity levels did not pose any danger, and it appeared that only tiny amounts of radioactive material had drifted over Scandinavia. All of it was believed to be in the form of two relatively innocuous gases, xenon and krypton. Scandinavian officials said the evidence pointed to an accident in the Ukraine.

In Sweden, an official at the Institute for Protection Against Radiation said gamma radiation levels were 30 to 40 percent higher than normal. He said that the levels had been abnormally high for 24 hours and that the release seemed to be continuing.

In Finland, officials were reported to have said readings in the central and northern areas showed levels six times higher than normal. The Norwegian radio quoted pollution control officials as having said that radioactivity in the Oslo area was 50 percent higher.

Since morning, Swedish officials had focused on the Soviet Union as the probable source of the radioactive material, but Swedish Embassy officials here said the Soviet authorities had denied knowledge of any problem until the Government announcement was read on television at 9 P.M.
The first alarm was raised in Sweden when workers arriving at the Forsmark nuclear power station, 60 miles north of Stockholm, set off warnings during a routine radioactivity check. The plant was evacuated, Swedish officials said. When other nuclear power plants reported similar happenings, the authorities turned their attention to the Soviet Union, from which the winds were coming.

A Swedish diplomat here said he had telephoned three Soviet Government agencies - the State Committee for Utilization of Atomic Energy, the Ministry of Electric Power and the three-year-old State Committee for Safety in the Atomic Power Industry -asking them to explain the high readings over Scandinavia. All said they had no explanation, the diplomat said.

Before the Soviet acknowledgment, the Swedish Minister of Energy, Birgitta Dahl, said that whoever was responsible for the spread of radioactive material was not observing international agreements requiring warnings and exchanges of information about accidents.

Tass, the Soviet Government press agency, said the Chernobyl accident was the first ever in a Soviet nuclear power plant.

It was the first ever acknowledged by the Russians, but Western experts have reported at least two previous mishaps. In 1957, a nuclear waste dump believed related to weapons production was reported to have resulted in a chemical reaction in the Kasli areas of the Urals, causing damage to the environment and possibly fatalities. In 1974, a steam line exploded in the Shevchenko nuclear breeder plant in Kazakhstan, but no radioactive material is believed to have been released in that accident.

Soviet authorities, in giving the development of nuclear electricity generation a high priority, have said that nuclear power is safe. In the absence of citizens' opposition to nuclear power, there has been virtually no questioning of the program.

The terse Soviet announcement of the Chernobyl accident was followed by a Tass dispatch noting that there had been many mishaps in the United States, ranging from Three Mile Island outside Harrisburg, Pa., to the Ginna plant near Rochester. Tass said an American antinuclear group registered 2,300 accidents, breakdowns and other faults in 1979.

The practice of focusing on disasters elsewhere when one occurs in the Soviet Union is so common that after watching a report on Soviet television about a catastrophe abroad, Russians often call Western friends to find out whether something has happened in the Soviet Union.

Construction of the Chernobyl plant began in the early 1970's and the first reactor was commissioned in 1977. Work has been lagging behind plans. In April 1983, the Ukrainian Central Committee chastised the Chernobyl plant, along with the Rovno nuclear power station at Kuznetsovsk, for ''inferior quality of construction and installation work and low operating levels.''

---- U.S. Offers to Help AGANA, Guam, Tuesday, April 29 -Donald T. Regan, the White House chief of staff, said today that the United States was willing to provide medical and scientific assistance to the Soviet Union in connection with the nuclear accident but so far there had been no such request.

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0426.html

Tritium vented from Illinois power plant

Published: Aug. 4, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Small quantities of the low-level radioactive isotope tritium were vented into the air in Illinois last week, electric utility officials say.

A spokesman for Exelon said the incident at the Braidwood Generating Station in Braceville, Ill., came as part of the "normal" procedures used to re-start the plant after a power outage, The Chicago Sun-Times News Group reported Tuesday.

"We are still looking into the cause of the outage," Exelon spokesman Paul Dempsey told the news agency, adding that such releases of radioactive steam are allowed under Braidwood's operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Neighbors told the news agency they heard a sound resembling the take-off of a jet airplane for about an hour emanating from the plant.

"We appreciate the patience of our neighbors during the initial outage in which plant noises may have been loud and startling," added Bryan Hanson, Braidwood's vice president. "It is also important people realize that this kind of steam venting is part of the plant design and poses no environmental health or safety issues to workers or to the public."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/08/04/Tritium-vented-from-Illinois-power-plant/UPI-41351249400715/

Nuclear grant has more to it

Great Letter, Ann

by Letter to the editor
Monday, September 28, 2009; 7:41 PM

Are there really no conflicts of interests here?

According to the article "Tech receives nuclear grant" (CT, Sept. 15), Virginia Tech is slated to "implement" the money Virginia Uranium, Inc. will pay to the National Academy of Sciences for its services in performing a research study, which is to determine if uranium mining and milling can be done safely in Virginia.

Tech's newspaper, Collegiate Times, recently featured a picture of a mushroom-shaped atomic bomb blast cloud with the title "Virginia Tech's History of Nuclear Energy" with the chronological dates of the program's inception (1953), its disbanding (1990s) and its revival (2007). Strangely included are the dates of the Three Mile Island disaster in Pennsylvania (1979) and the Chernobyl disaster in Russia (1986). It also lists the $850,000 nuclear grant money (2009) received from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The article by Liana Bayne relates the NRC nuclear grant money, $850,000, which will go toward hiring new professors to "revitalize" Tech's nuclear engineering program.

Now, I shudder to think what the school's newspaper was thinking to post such a photograph, but it should cause more than an uneasy pause for the members of the NAS governing board, which is currently deliberating whether its prestigious institution should contract with Tech to do a study when the school, as the above article states, is clearly enjoying "a taste of the nuclear renaissance."

Let's recap: VUI wants to excavate an $8 billion to $10 billion uranium ore body at Coles Hill in Chatham, Va., and is the only entity that has offered to pay for the proposed NAS study. Tech wants to revitalize its nuclear engineering program and is well on track in doing so by receiving nuclear grant money ($850,000) from the NRC. (This is on top of a $300,000 grant it received last year for this program.) Tech will utilize VUI's north and south mines at Coles Hill, and its milling facility, as field laboratories for its students, which will be part of the curriculum of the nuclear engineering program. (In the past, Tech graduate students have already been on the site doing various studies on the un-mined uranium ore body at Coles Hill.) Tech will be the conduit to "implement" the estimated $1.2 million to $1.4 million VUI plans to pay NAS for doing the research study - a study it needs in order to overturn Virginia's moratorium on the mining and milling of uranium.

I have to ask, are there really no conflicts of interest here? And what does a mushroom-shaped atomic bomb blast cloud have to do with Tech's revival of its nuclear engineering program? Will NAS disregard the obvious connection between the revival of Tech's nuclear engineering program and its role to "implement" the money VUI will pay the NAS to do a research study?

Does NAS have blinders on?

Anne Cockrell
Danville, Va.

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14276

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN THE MIX - Consider impact first

Comment: Great letter, Dr. Brugge!

September 27, 2009

THERE ARE at least five strong arguments against nuclear power being more than a minor part of the response to climate change (“Nuclear must be part of energy equation,’’ Op-ed):

There is no current or imminent plan for permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste in the United States.

Addressing climate change through nuclear power means spreading nuclear technology worldwide. We already see how this leads to nuclear proliferation in places such as Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea. This also may heighten the risk of nuclear terrorism.

Unintended releases of radiation from nuclear power plants, while rare, can be catastrophic (witness Chernobyl), and may be more likely as nuclear spreads to countries with less experience with the technology than the United States.

Nuclear is not really carbon neutral. The mining and processing of uranium, the building of power plants, and their decommissioning release carbon. A full accounting must consider the complete life cycle.

Finally, but not least important, mining and processing uranium ore has had devastating consequences for workers and nearby communities, often indigenous peoples.

Before we jump on the nuclear bandwagon, we need to appraise all the impacts and consider other alternatives, such as solar and wind, that have substantially less downside.

Doug Brugge
Cambridge

The writer was co-editor of the book “The Navajo People and Uranium Mining.’’

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2009/09/27/consider_impact_first/

Nuke safety claim is wrong

Comment: Nukes are always bragging about no one has been killed! Wrong, great article! However, the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl has killed people but the governments protect the nukes!

Web Posted: 09/04/2009 12:00 CDT
By John Tedesco- Express-News

As CPS Energy seeks to invest more than $5 billion in nuclear power, the public utility repeatedly has claimed no one ever has been harmed by a nuclear power plant accident.

But the sweeping claim ignores an explosion at an experimental military nuclear facility in Idaho in 1961 that killed three men.

The SL-1 plant near Idaho Falls was a prototype built for remote arctic regions, according to government reports — a far cry from modern commercial plants that have numerous safeguards.

But when asked about the accident Thursday, a CPS official acknowledged the utility needs to revise its claims.

“It's an anomaly of a test reactor,” said Jim Nesrsta, vice president of power plant construction at CPS. “And you know, that was in 1961. We really haven't seen anything like that since then. But we need to clarify that statement.”

In public meetings being held across San Antonio, CPS Energy has been urging the public to support a proposed $5.2 billion expansion of the South Texas Project nuclear plant, which CPS partly owns, in Matagorda County.

“There has never been a fatality at a nuclear power plant in the United States, ever, ever,” said Mike Kotara, CPS' vice president in charge of energy development, at a public meeting Wednesday attended by more than 100 people. “That's a pretty awesome track record for nuclear power.”

Kotara has made that claim at past meetings, and CPS also provides the public with a brochure that states: “No person or community in the U.S. has been harmed by nuclear power plant operations. Nuclear plants in the U.S. are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and they meet the agency's stringent safety standards.”

After Kotara's comment was published in a report in the San Antonio Express-News, two readers posted comments on the newspaper's Web site that linked to accounts of SL-1.

A May 15, 1961, report about the incident written for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission states that three military men were assembling the reactor control rods when a steam explosion occurred.

The blast killed the three — one man was thrown 13 feet above the reactor head and was impaled. The explosion also caused extensive damage to the reactor and produced “high radiation levels” at the site, according to the report.

Kotara's receptionist said he was tied up in meetings Thursday. Nesrsta returned a reporter's calls and acknowledged claims by CPS were too sweeping — and not just in regards to the SL-1 accident.

“Obviously there are industrial accidents at any kind of large industrial facility,” he said.

In 2005, the STP nuclear plant reported a contract worker fell about 10 feet from a ladder and was transported to a Houston hospital by LifeFlight helicopter. The plant's report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the worker was in stable condition.
Idell Hamilton contributed to this report.

Find this article at:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/environment/Nuke_safety_claim_is_wrong.html