Overcoming Nuclear Power’s Biggest Hurdle
Nuclear Power’s biggest hurdle
Strategy and Business 4 August 09 Nuclear power supporters had long hoped that the solution to the nuclear waste problem could be found in a storage facility hollowed out of Yucca Mountain, deep in the Nevada desert roughly 80 miles north of Las Vegas.But questions about Yucca’s long-term ability to keep radioactivity from leeching into groundwater energized nuclear opponents, as well as nearby residents and Nevada political leaders.
Soon after taking office, President Obama defunded the project.Pending another solution, the roughly 60,000 tons of nuclear fuel waste currently in the U.S. is stored on-site at nuclear plants, either in subsurface canisters or in secure “ponds” filled with boric acid.
If this approach continues much longer, it could cost Washington a lot of money: Utilities have successfully sued the federal government for failing to provide a permanent storage solution after they ponied up roughly US$30 billion in fees paid over several years to fund the Yucca project.
Indeed, untangling the nuclear waste problem may be more a matter of economics than of location.
Increased cancer deaths near nuclear power plants
Uranium and the secret society
Arch1 5 August 09
“……………………Ernest J. Sternglass of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, (”The Health Effects of Nuclear Fallout and Releases from Nuclear Power Plants.”) has concerns that nuclear power plants have similar effect.
He pointed out that studies in the north central Texas area indicate large increases in cancer rates since the start-up of the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant in Somervell County southwest of Fort Worth. (14)
Dr. Sternglass states data indicates that cancer mortality in the counties surrounding the power plant – Somervell, Hood, Johnson and Erath – increased dramatically, 27 percent, during the second five-year period while the rate for the state increased 15 percent for the same period.(15)
In Hood County, breast cancer increased 190 percent over the previous five-year period, and total breast cancer deaths for all four counties increased by 51 percent while the statewide increase was 12 percent for the same period.
More recently, using mortality statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mangano and Sherman found that in 1985-2004, the change in local child leukemia mortality (vs. the U.S.) compared to the earliest years of reactor operations were:
An increase of 13.9% near nuclear plants started 1957-1970 (oldest plants)
* An increase of 9.4% near nuclear plants started 1971-1981 (newer plants)
* A decrease of 5.5% near nuclear plants started 1957-1981 and later shut down
The 13.9% rise near the older plants suggests a potential effect of greater radioactive contamination near aging reactors, while the 5.5% decline near closed reactors suggests a link between less contamination and lower leukemia rates. Because of the large number of child leukemia deaths in the study (1292) it makes many of the results statistically significant.
The Mangano/Sherman report follows a 2007 meta-analysis also published in the European Journal of Cancer Care by researchers from the Medical University of South Carolina. That report reviewed 17 medical journal articles on child leukemia rates near reactors, and found that all 17 detected elevated rates.(17)
A January 2008 European Journal of Cancer article that found high rates of child leukemia near German reactors from 1980-2003 is believed to be the largest study on the topic (1592 leukemia cases)
http://arch1design.com/blog/?p=1859
USA – double standards on India, Iran – in spread of nuclear technology
When narrow national interests obstruct a noble cause
The Economist 7 August 09
“………….The Obama administration, unlike its predecessor, talks of ratifying the test-ban treaty. America and Russia are busy cutting warheads. Nuclear officials from America, Russia, Britain, France and China will meet in London next month to explore ways to build confidence for future disarmament.
Yet all will be in vain unless better ways can be found to deal with a practical problem as old as the nuclear age: how to stop nuclear technologies that can be used legitimately for making electricity from being abused for bomb-making. Efforts to tackle it are in a muddle.
………………..the Obama team may have done itself no favours either by agreeing to open early talks with India, under a controversial 123 deal negotiated by the Bush administration. This will eventually allow India to extract plutonium from spent reactor fuel of American origin. India, which has never signed the NPT, does not yet have any American-built reactors, let alone the spent fuel from them to reprocess. America is creating a muddle by giving India such rights now, when it is telling Iran than it should suspend its work and others that they had better not start.
……………..A quiet change: In the confusion, few will have noticed that the Obama administration has dropped its predecessor’s plans to restart commercial plutonium reprocessing—because it makes no economic sense, even for rich America, and is a proliferation risk.
Cancer, child deformities and deaths in uranium mining communities
(India) Uranium and the secret society
Arch1 5 August 09
“………….In a shocking report, the Indian Doctors for Peace and Development (IDPD) has revealed facts regarding health hazards faced by miners working in the Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) in the form of a detailed survey report.
The survey was undertaken by the organisation affiliated to Germany-based International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) in association with Jharkhandi Organisation Against Radiation (JOAR).
The study was took place between May and August 2007. It was conducted in two different phases. While one survey concentrates on villages within the radius of 2.5 km from the mines, a similar one was undertaken in villages about 30 km from the mining areas.
A total of 2,118 households were studied in the first category, while another 1,956 households in the second category.
According to the survey, DPD found significant increases in congenital deformities and childhood deaths due to congenital deformities; increased sterility; and elevated numbers of deaths due to cancer.
http://arch1design.com/blog/?p=1859
Protecting Fort Collins and Northern Colorado from uranium mining
The Alliance 5 August 09
Mining’s benefits will not last forever: Now to sum up the problems of uranium mining in the world, from water to health, from economic problems to uranium accidents, nothing but pure greed if the State of Virginia allows uranium mining in the whole state! Only the state of Virginia and the Canadian uranium mining company will benefit from open pit uranium mining and milling!
A Canadian company, Powertech, is planning to mine uranium just six miles northeast of Fort Collins on 6,880 acres of private land…………………Both types of mining – in-situ leach (ISL) and open pit (OP) – pose serious health risks for local residents, and create drastic environmental and economic risks for Fort Collins and northern Colorado. The Larimer County Medical Society, the Colorado Medical Society, and even the City of Fort Collins passed resolutions against the mine. Elected officials from both political parties, farmers and ranchers, medical professionals, real estate agents, and environmentalists have taken a stand against the mine………………..
Colorado needs to enact stringent regulations to protect citizens and property owners from the dangers of uranium mining. In a few months the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board will be changing the rules on uranium mining to make them comply with laws passed by the legislature in 2008.
http://thealliance123.blogspot.com/2009/08/protecting-fort-collins-and-northern.html
Strong anti-nuclear group having effect in Texas
New Anti-Nuclear Group, Energía Mía, Putting Heat on CPS
TEXAS VOX August 6, 2009 by citizensarah
“……………..Citizens are uniting in efforts to halt CPS’ spending for more nuclear reactors. Speakers from many diverse organizations and businesses relayed their concerns about nuclear power as part of the newly formed Energia Mia network and are working to increase visibility and awareness of the problems of nuclear power.
“Energía Mía urges all citizens in San Antonio to get involved now and contact the mayor and city council. The rate hikes that would come from more nuclear power are unacceptable. They would create a severe economic hardship on many people and local businesses” said Cindy Weehler. “We have set up a new web site, www.EnergiaMia.org to provide information to the public and let people know how to get involved.”
According to the San Antonio Express-News, their membership includes representatives from
…the Southwest Workers Union, Project Verde, Alamo Group of the Sierra Club, Highland Hills Neighborhood Association, Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Association, Texas Drought Project, Green Party and the San Antonio Area Progressive Action Coalition.
Alongside fundamental concerns about water, security, radioactive waste, and health and safety risks, the group is concerned about the financial effect the project could have on the city and the rate hikes that CPS has said will accompany STP’s expansion. CPS has already said that 5-8% rate hikes will be needed every two years for the next ten years to pay for this project, and that electric rates could increase nearly 50% as a result.
The good news is that all the noise these activists are making is starting to have an impact.
http://texasvox.org/2009/08/06/new-anti-nuclear-group-energia-mia-putting-heat-on-cps/
The Bombs Keep Dropping
The Bombs Keep Dropping
ARTVOICE by Geoff Kelly & Louis Ricciuti 6 aUGUST 09
Radioactive wastes leak from containment structure, but no worries—the water’s fine
The 64th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—August 6 and 9, 1945—will scarcely be marked in Western New York: A moment of silence was observed at the Japanese gardens in Delaware Park on Wednesday evening, followed by a screening of Hiroshima-Nagasaki August 1945, a short film by Erik Barnouw made from footage shot by a Japanese film crew immediately after the bombings. But that’s about it.
We have reason to make more of it:.The chemical and metallurgical industries in Niagara Falls were instrumental to the Manhattan Project, which created the first atomic bombs. This region was at one time the free world’s leading producer of uranium metal for use in weapons and reactors—and, it follows, the leading producer of the deadly wastes that attend the refinement process. Avast amount of that waste was dumped cavalierly on a 12-square-mile federal reserve
Western New Yorkers, and especially residents of Niagara County, live with their own legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And here’s news with which to mark this year’s anniversary: Two weeks ago, Dr. Joseph Gardella, a chemist at the University at Buffalo, announced that the Corps’ monitoring reports indicate that the containment structure is leaking uranium into the groundwater.
China probes top nuclear chief for wrongdoing
China probes top nuclear chief for wrongdoing: report
(AFP) –6 August 09 BEIJING
— A top official in charge of China’s civilian and military nuclear programmes has been placed under investigation, state media said Wednesday, in what appeared to be another case of high-level graft.Kang Rixin, party secretary and general manager of state-owned China National Nuclear Corporation, is being probed for possible involvement in “grave violations of discipline”, the Xinhua news agency said.The term “discipline violations” often means acts of corruption in the language of Chinese officialdom………………………
The China National Nuclear Corporation is responsible for both civilian and military nuclear activities, such as nuclear weapons production, power generation and waste disposal.
Nuclear power is dangerous and too expensive to build
delaware online Frieda Berryhill, 6 August 09 “……….First, companies will not build nuclear power plants without the protection of the Price-Anderson Act which provides taxpayer compensation in case of an accident since no company in the world will insure them.
Price-Anderson, however, only provides $500 million when the latest government report, states that depending on the severity of the accident, damages could run in the billions. Second, after 50 years of operation there is still the waste problem. Energy Secretary Steven Chu appeared before the House lawmakers on June 3 and declared the planned Yucca Mountain repository “dead.”……………..
since 2005, cost estimates for building a new nuclear reactor have more then tripled. Nuclear energy, once declared to be “too cheap to meter,” is now too expensive to pursue.
Nuclear power is dangerous and too expensive to build | Delawareonline.com | The News Journal
Nuclear energy isn’t the answer
Nuclear energy isn’t the answer
Mountain Home News August 5, 2009
Nuclear energy sounds like the answer to this country’s energy problems, but it isn’t.For decades, nuclear power has been peddled as being an efficient and inexpensive energy. In the ’50s, nuclear advocates loudly promised the world that atomic power would provide electricity “too cheap to meter.” That promise dissolved with the reality of reactor construction costs in the 1970s and 1980s.But the price to consumers isn’t limited to just the cost of the power usage that is listed on your monthly electricity bill. It goes way beyond that. Nuclear power is not cheap. Since the very beginning the government has been heaping subsidies, which come from our tax dollars, into the building and running of nuclear plants. But these cash payments and tax breaks are not the most valuable subsidies that they receive. The most important subsidies that the investors and owners can receive come from shifting the risks onto the taxpayers or the surrounding area’s population.A lot of the risks to the investors are financial, such as the unexpected costs associated with construction, or the risk of defaulting on the costs of loans or the debts that can occur from construction delays or administrative failure and error…………………….Since its inception, the nuclear industry has benefited greatly from government programs that shift the key risks of the nuclear fuel cycle away from investors and onto taxpayers. All operating nuclear power plants in the U.S. were built with very large public subsidies (our tax dollars again). These include large subsidies for research and development, for plant construction, for uranium enrichment, and for waste management. Since the very beginning, the nuclear industry has been supported by the public monies given to them from our government (our tax dollars), as well as monumental and lucrative tax write-offs.
Taxpayers at Risk – Expansion of Nuclear Loan Guarantees Could Cost Billions
Taxpayers at Risk – Expansion of Nuclear Loan Guarantees Could Cost Billions WASHINGTON,
Aug. 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Several new analyses confirm that, after over half a century of operation, nuclear power remains one of the most capital intensive, high-risk energy industries…………..Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) opposes the expansion of loan guarantees for new reactors:
- Earlier this summer, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee adopted S. 949, the 21st Century Energy and Technology Deployment Act, as part of a suite of bills that has now been combined into a larger energy bill, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (ACELA). The main goals of the Clean Energy Technology Deployment provisions, now Title I of ACELA, are to make changes to the existing DOE loan guarantee program and create an independent entity within DOE, known as the Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA), to distribute credit support to the energy industry.
- The Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program already has $18.5 billion authorized for Treasury-backed loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates a 50 percent default rate on these loan guarantees. However, this could be just the beginning of billions more in risk as the nuclear industry has already submitted more than $120 billion in loan guarantee requests.
While TCS takes no position on whether or not nuclear power should be part of the nation’s energy future, we strongly believe it should not continue to be subsidized by taxpayers.
Atomic agency urged to examine Burma nuclear claims
Atomic agency urged to examine Burma nuclear claimsAnne Davies, Washington
The Age August 5, 2009
US NON-proliferation experts have called on the International Atomic Energy Agency to seek clarification from the Burmese Government over its nuclear program following a report in The Age that quoted defectors claiming there was a secret military nuclear program.The Age report, based on interviews by Professor Desmond Ball of the Australian National University and journalist Phil Thornton with defectors from Burma, revealed that it was building a secret nuclear reactor, with North Korea’s assistance, at Nuang Laing, close to Mandalay………………………..Russia is said to have agreed in 2007 to give the Burmese a small civilian light-water reactor, which would be subject to IAEA inspections, although the status of the project is disputed.
David Albright, the head of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, which monitors nuclear proliferation, pointed to visits to Burma by executives from the North Korean company Namchongang Trading Corporation, which is under sanctions for its role in trading nuclear technology.
Rebranding nuclear waste fools nobody
Greenpeace 4 August 09
Nuclear waste has undergone an image makeover recently. Indeed, the industry is working hard to ensure that the most dangerous kind of nuclear waste isn’t even called nuclear waste any more. It’s now called ‘spent fuel’.
Sounds much friendlier, doesn’t it? Doesn’t make all the nasty problems associated with the nuclear waste that comes out of reactors disappear but giving something horrible a nice name helps to stop people thinking about those nasty problems. It why we call civilians killed in wars ‘collateral damage’ and why genocide gets called ‘ethnic cleansing’.
The issue of we do with this nuclear waste – sorry, spent fuel – has also had a splash of greenwash. There’s been a big push to rebrand nuclear waste reprocessing as recycling. We don’t reprocess nuclear waste any more – we ‘recycle spent fuel’. Isn’t that nice? Sounds green and environmentally friendly, doesn’t it? Nothing in the actual process has changed and we’re still left with the dangerous by-products but it sounds so much better.
So, now nuclear power has successfully rebadged* itself as not-nasty and environmentally friendly, surely it’s been warmly accepted as a renewable energy source?
The International Renewable Energy Agency (Irena) will not back programmes to develop nuclear energy due to the waste it produces and the risks it presents […] ‘Irena will not support nuclear energy programmes because it’s a long complicated process, it produces waste and is relatively risky,’ Helene Pelosse, director general of Irena, told Reuters in a telephone interview from the French Alps.
Spill an ‘unusual event’ or business as usual?
Spill an ‘unusual event’ or business as usual?
August 4, 2009
BRACEVILLE — Exelon officials say tritium was released because of an “unusual event.”
Tritium was released 100 feet into the air around 9 p.m. Thursday, Exelon said, as part of normal nuclear power plant operations — or at least it’s normal when there is a power outage………………….
The steam released into the air from Braidwood Generating Station in Braceville, contained 11,500 to 38,000 picocuries of tritium per liter of water.
Tritium is a radioactive hydrogen isotope that is a byproduct created when nuclear reactors produce electricity. Exposure reportedly can increase the risk of cancer, birth defects and genetic damage.
…………. The release is allowed under the station’s operating license, which is regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Spill an ‘unusual event’ or business as usual? :: Herald News :: Local News
Radioactive Canadians a daily occurrence at U.S. border
Radioactive Canadians a daily occurrence at U.S. border Highly sensitive equipment picks out border-crossers who have undergone radiological procedures
By Jeff Lee, Canwest News Service August 4, 2009
“…………….In what one U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer says is now “a daily occurrence,” American border agents are pulling aside people who have undergone nuclear medical procedures such as stress tests and radiation treatments. You could say they’re now catching Canadians with glowing hearts……………………..It turns out the problem is so widespread that many hospitals in Canada now issue special identification cards at no cost to patients, according to Dr. Damien Maharaj, the head of nuclear medicine for the Fraser Health Authority.
Maharaj said if patients tell technicians they plan to travel across borders, they will receive a card indicating when, how much and what type of isotope was used. The cards also include a contact number at the hospital. Most treatments will remain detectable for several weeks to several months.
1 This Month
10 June – Assessing Canada’s Investments in Small Modular Nuclear Reactors – https://zoom.us/meeting/register/IiqHA5feRhaEBycOLNTJlA#/registration
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (89)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 