Americans are exposed to seven times more radiation
Americans are exposed to seven times more radiationTop News by Piyush Diwan on Wed, 03/04/2009 Recent research revealed that Americans are seven times more exposed to radiation than in 1980. The possible reason behind this increase is overuse of a diagnostic scans by doctors for profit.Research conducted by National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement said that doctors are ordering too many diagnostic tests, driving up the cost of healthcare in the United States and potentially harming patients. Researchers believe that too much radiation exposure can cause cancer, especially in younger people.Dr. James Thrall, chair of the American College of Radiology’s Board of Chancellors, said: “Unfortunately, one of the things we have seen in the imaging world is that many physicians look at imaging as the solution to their financial problems.”
Americans are exposed to seven times more radiation | Top News
News Headlines Increase Radiation Risks – More people go to the doctor if they are panicked – Softpedia
News Headlines Increase Radiation Risks SOFTPEDIA 7 March 09 More people go to the doctor if they are panicked – “……………………doctors say, patients are prone to getting more exposed to radiation after news programs and various daily papers tell that a disease is on the rise, or other such information……………………“Adding up all the doses and then spreading out the total over the entire population, no matter a person’s age, occupation, location, or health status is not appropriate for assessing risk to the general population,” Mayo Clinic professor of radiological physics Cynthia McCollough shares.
window.google_render_ad();While trying to keep healthy, people actually tend to get intoxicated with unnecessary doses of radiation, just to make sure that whatever disease is circulating the country at one point is not affecting them.
“Nuclear waste coming soon to an interstate near you”
Nuclear waste coming soon to an interstate near you The Register Guard By Jack Dresser – Mar 4, 2009, Pasco, Wash., is an exceptionally clean, well-kept little city. But as many unhappy homeowners and investors now realize, when something looks too good, you’d better look more closely. Pasco is the gateway to the most contaminated nuclear site in the Western Hemisphere……………………
The Nov. 17 hearing presented a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on the energy department’s earlier proposal to develop a “Global Nuclear Energy Partnership” presented in May, 2007 at the same locations. The DOE snuck in its mandated hearings far from our population centers, with short and little notice. For good reason.
Under the GNEP plan, nuclear fuel would be produced in the U.S. and other advanced nuclear nations through a reprocessing technology that is yet to be developed. The cost is undisclosed but substantial. Nuclear fuel would be provided to developing countries for their nuclear energy development. In return, we would receive their waste for further reprocessing — an international recycling system that would keep the big boys in control of weapons-grade nuclear material production. The DOE claims the reprocessing site isn’t yet selected, but the inside word is that it’s Hanford.
Most of the waste would be shipped by truck or train through Oregon, primarily along the Interstate 5 and Interstate 84 corridors………………………In contrast to the local news, the deceptively soothing DOE handouts had brief and carefully worded descriptions, touting nuclear as an energy source that doesn’t pollute the air (never mind the Earth and water). And its proposed system will allegedly be “proliferation-resistant” (not proliferation-secure), making nuclear materials “nearly impossible” (not impossible) to divert without detection. They were clearly hedging their pledges, and it wasn’t reassuring.
Nuclear power is still loaded with problems
Nuclear power is still loaded with problems StarTribune.com By Ken Bradley and Monique Sullivan- March 5, 2009 – “…………………….Shipping and storing one of the most dangerous substances ever created will continue be problem for a quarter of a million years. It isn’t responsible to leave this problem for future generations. It’s even worse to continue to add to existing stockpiles of nuclear waste.
In 2008, Bloomberg News reported that the most recent estimates for building a new nuclear power plant range from $6 billion to $12 billion. According to Cambridge Energy Research Associates, that cost has increased by 185 percent since 2000. Government subsidies are required for any new nuclear plant. These tax dollars could be invested more effectively in wind, solar, efficiency and other alternatives. The Congressional Budget Office assumes that half of all loans to nuclear power projects will default. Our state and nation cannot afford to take on this liability.
The cooling of nuclear power requires significant amounts of groundwater, and thermal energy production is one of the largest users of water in our state. Our present nuclear plants are located along the Mississippi River, where an accident would affect not only the local community but millions of people downstream. The location of plants and the storage of waste has been concentrated near low-income and native communities.
Nuclear waste dogs US energy policy
Nuclear waste dogs US energy policy The Christian Science Monitor Yucca Mountain was supposed to be where the highly toxic material was sent. But Obama’s energy budget leaves it out.By Gail Russell Chaddock Christian Science Monitor 6 March 09
Washington – President Obama’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2010 all but sinks prospects to store America’s nuclear waste at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain.
But it leaves wide open the role of nuclear power in building “a new economy powered by clean and secure energy” – and the question of what to do with existing, highly toxic nuclear waste.
“The nation has already accumulated 60,000 metric tons of spent nuclear waste, and the material is going to have to be isolated from the environment for hundreds and thousands of years,” says Edwin Lyman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington.
“There’s no way to make the waste disappear. No matter what the French say, there’s no alternative to having a mined geological repository,” he says. The challenge is to find one that is technically and politically acceptable……………………….the budget document released by the White House last week makes no mention of nuclear power as an element in a transition to a low-carbon economy. Instead, it cites the need for increased support for solar, biomass, geothermal, wind, and low-carbon-emission coal power………………………….Since failing to complete a storage facility by 1998, as provided in the contract, the US Energy Department has faced open-ended court challenges over billions in liability payments to utilities now having to store toxic waste on site.
nuclear hazards
Geological hazards of nuclear plants
“………………………………………The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is also very worried because loss of pool water could cause the zirconium alloy cladding of the most recently discharged spent fuel assemblies to combust spontaneously. The fire would then ignite adjacent fuel assemblies. Spraying the fire with water would make it worse because steam and zirconium react to produce even more heat.Just like a fire in a reactor core, one in a spent fuel storage pool would release huge volumes of radioactive gases to the atmosphere, including much Cesium-137, which is water-soluble and extremely toxic, even in minute quantities.Pool water could be lost in many ways such as pump valve or piping failures or a simple brownout. At Natib, an earthquake could simply slosh the water out of the pool. In an eruption, a pyroclastic flow could evaporate the water instantaneously…………………………”
Kelvin Rodolfo is concurrently professor emeritus with the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois in Chicago, and an adjunct professor with the National Institute of Geological Sciences, University of the Philippines-Diliman. He is currently a DOST Balik Scientist.
Yucca Mountain Is Dead. Now What?
Yucca Mountain Is Dead. Now What? THE NEW REPUBLIC 4 March 09 So what does this mean for the future of nuclear power in the United States? Not much in the short run, says Allison MacFarlane, a George Mason University professor and author of Uncertainty Underground, a book on Yucca Mountain and the long-term storage of high-level nuclear waste. The nation’s nuclear power plants, MacFarlane told me, will continue storing their spent fuel rods onsite—first in cooling pools and then in slightly more permanent dry-cask storage containers. The Energy Department is still contractually obligated to remove that waste and store it in some sort of permanent repository eventually, so it’s not as if utility companies are worried they’ll be left holding the bag………………………It will be important to construct a permanent geological repository at some point in the next few decades, especially if nuclear power production expands further as part of the push to curb carbon emissions. What’s more, the oft-mentioned option of reprocessing high-level nuclear waste and using it as fuel for fast-breeder reactors won’t make building a storage site any easier. Reprocessing may reduce the volume of high-level nuclear waste that needs to be stored, but it won’t reduce the amount of heat that the remaining waste actually produces—and that’s the main concern in finding a suitably sized repository, since you don’t want to keep hot waste too close together…………………….even if it is situated in a closed basin, there are still people who drink the basin’s groundwater.
33 Towns Support Closing Of Nuke Plant – News- msnbc.com
33 Towns Support Closing Of Nuke Plant msnbc 4 March 09 Non-Binding Resolution Speaks To Bigger Picture Thirty-nine communities around the state voted on whether or not they think the nuclear power plant’s license should be extended, and most of those communities voted an overwhelming “no.”
Towns Weigh In On VT Yankee Future Organizers of a campaign to close Vermont Yankee nuclear plant say 33 towns voted in favor a measure urging state lawmakers to pull the plug on it.
The non-binding resolution was passed Tuesday at town meetings in Brattleboro, Brookline, Calais, Charlotte, Corinth, Charleston, Craftsbury, Dummerston, Duxbury, East Montpelier, Greensboro, Guilford, Halifax, Hinesburg, Holland, Lincoln, Marshfield, Middlesex, Marlboro, Montpelier, Newfane, Plainfield, Putney, Richmond, Shrewsbury, Townshend, Tunbridge, Warren, Westfield, Westminster, Windham, Woodbury and Worcester……………………….The vote was an advisory vote, which means that the Legislature has no obligation to act on its results.
Leadership: Nuclear Pressure
Nuclear Pressure STRATEGY PAGE March 4, 2009: For the second time in three years, the U.S. Navy has had to discipline sailors who maintain nuclear power plants. Back in 2007, several members of the nuclear power department on a nuclear submarine were disciplined for not maintaining logs properly………….
…….A similar situation arose recently in the nuclear power department of the carrier Eisenhower. There, seventeen senior NCOs and a junior officer were punished for cheating on a requalification examination.
Overexposed: Imaging tests boost U.S. radiation dose
Overexposed: Imaging tests boost U.S. radiation dose
By Julie Steenhuysen
CHICAGO (Reuters) Mar 4, 2009 – Americans are exposed to seven times more radiation from diagnostic scans than in 1980, a report found on Tuesday as experts said doctors are overusing the tests for profit and raising health risks for patients.
The findings, issued by National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, add to already mounting evidence that doctors are ordering too many diagnostic tests, driving up the cost of healthcare in the United States and potentially harming patients.
While diagnostic scans give doctors valuable information and many times are necessary, doctors fear too much radiation exposure can cause cancer, especially in younger people………………………”Unfortunately, one of the things we have seen in the imaging world is that many physicians look at imaging as the solution to their financial problems,” Thrall, head of radiology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a telephone interview.
Overexposed: Imaging tests boost U.S. radiation dose | Reuters
No nukes or coal for clean energy future
David K eppel March 1, 2009 The Utilities and Energy Committee of the Indiana Senate is considering a bill that would include so-called “clean coal” and nuclear power in a Renewable Energy Standard.
Public relations campaigns notwithstanding, coal is not clean, and nuclear is not safe. Carbon capture and sequestration technology is uncertain. Carbon capture will reduce the power output of a coal plant, and it does nothing to address the environmental devastation of coal mining. With nuclear power, the issue of long-term disposal of nuclear waste remains unsolved. The transport of nuclear fuel and waste involves risks of theft and terrorism, and a nuclear plant itself is a potential terrorist target. Unlike wind and solar, neither coal plants nor uranium-based nuclear reactors are renewable energy. Breeder nuclear reactors would invite weapons proliferation.
The point of a Renewable Energy Standard is to facilitate widespread adoption of truly clean technologies such as wind, solar and geothermal. Wider use will make them cheaper, as manufacturers achieve economies of scale.
Scientists tell us we must reduce carbon emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2020 to avoid a climate catastrophe. Coal and nuclear would be a fatal distraction from this task.
Officials Fear Vermont Could Be Home To Nuclear Waste
5 WPTZ.com February 27, 2009 BRATTLEBORO, Vt. — Officials in Vermont, Massachusetts and New York say a federal rule change could mean used nuclear fuel will be stored for decades on the site of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon.
The attorneys general from the three states say the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s proposed rule change is unsupported by science and history and violates the National Environmental Protection Act.
The NRC’s proposed rule change would allow spent nuclear fuel to be stored on the site until a permanent disposal facility can reasonably be expected to be available. But Vermont officials said it could be decades, if ever, before a long-term storage facility for spent waste is open. http://www.wptz.com/news/18811594/detail.html
Obama Rejects Nuclear Waste Site After 20-Year Fight.
Obama Rejects Nuclear Waste Site After 20-Year Fight.
By Daniel WhittenFeb. 26 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama won’t let nuclear waste be stored at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, rejecting the project after 20 years of planning at a cost of at least $9 billion.
Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu “have been emphatic that nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain is not an option, period,” said department spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller. The federal budget plan Obama released today “clearly reflects that commitment,” she said.
“The new administration is starting the process of finding a better solution for management of our nuclear waste,” Mueller said in an e-mail today.
Obama’s decision leaves unresolved a long-term plan for nuclear waste, primarily from power plants, even as utility companies seek to build more reactors.
Under the disputed proposal, nuclear waste from reactors around the nation was to be shipped to Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) northwest of Las Vegas, to be stored in tunnels 1,000-feet underground. The Energy Department had plans to store more than 109,000 metric tons at the site.
Radioactive waste is now spread among more than 120 sites in 39 states, according to the Energy Department. There are 104 operating commercial reactors in the U.S., and 17 applications are pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build 26 more reactors.
Obama’s budget focuses on renewable energy
Obama’s budget focuses on renewable energy Tom LoBianco THE WASHINGTON TIMES February 27, 2009 President Obama’s first budget includes $15 billion a year for renewable energy programs and an ambitious plan to raise $656 billion from a carbon reduction proposal.
“Because our future depends on our ability to break free from oil that’s controlled by foreign dictators, we need to make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy,” Mr. Obama said Thursday.
The plan uses money from a cap-and-trade program – which would allow companies to emit carbon dioxide up to a certain level, and then charge them $20 per ton of gasses emitted above that cap – would pay for Mr. Obama’s middle-class tax cuts and investments in renewable energy.
Washington Times – Obama’s budget focuses on renewable energy
Iran and USA – new approach needed
Iran and USA – new approach needed
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 26/02/2009
……….ROBERT BAER:………………………President Obama is moving tentatively to open up serious dialogue with Iran, but that process could be a long, slow one. And if further evidence emerges that Iran is moving closer to nuclear weapons capacity, he would come under pressure to act pre-emptively…………………………….what’s happened is that the United States looks at the Middle East through Israel. And the Arabs and the Persians look at Israel as an outpost of the United States of the West. We’ve lost this anti-colonial game and the Iranians have won it. They’ve simply portrayed themselves as not as religious fanatics, but as an anti-colonial power. And everybody in the Middle East, you look at the polls across the board, even countries like Morocco, which are entirely Sunni, look to Tehran as the great anti-imperial power. We’ve lost the ideological war. You know, that doesn’t mean we lost the war entirely, but we’ve lost the ideological war, but by bringing Iran to the negotiating table; by implementing Resolution 242; closing the settlements in the West Bank; getting the Israelis to a position where they don’t have to feel they have to bomb Gaza; will normalise relations in the Middle East…………. It’s a military dictatorship and any military conflict can be negotiated. Ideological ones cannot be…………………………….The nuclear weapons is a red herring in this conflict with Iran because the Iranians are not going to build a bomb now. I’m almost convinced of it. In as much as you can predict anything, they are not going to build and test a bomb now. It causes them too much problems – too many problems – they’ve gained too much. There would be international embargo, sanctions and on and on. Even Russia and China would back away. Nuclear bomb – they don’t need one right now, it’s just a way to get us to the negotiating table. But the major point is they’re not going to commit suicide. If the Iranians wanted to commit suicide, they could have done it long ago in the Gulf. Started a war with the United States. And they’re not going to start one with Israel either.
1 This Month
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (74)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
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
