Thursday, October 22, 2009

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

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

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