Nuclear power: Unacceptable risk
Last week the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) threw its weight behind the opposition to the proposed rehabilitation of the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. It rejected the opening of the nuclear plant as “the most dangerous and expensive way to generate electricity.” It said multiple risks and the possibility of corruption (again!) outweigh imagined benefits.
We join the CBCP and other groups opposing the opening of the nuclear power plant because we believe that nuclear power is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. Greenpeace and other organizations have made a strong case against nuclear power plants:
Nuclear power produces radioactive waste that remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years. No proven solution exists for dealing with radioactive waste.
The technology of generating electricity from nuclear fission can also be used to produce nuclear weapons.
Nuclear power plants are a target for terrorist attacks.
Nuclear power is not carbon free. Fossil fuels are needed to run the nuclear cycle, from mining uranium ore to disposing of the radioactive waste.
Nuclear power is expensive and nuclear plants take a long time to build……………..Developments in the field of energy are moving in the right direction. In November 2000 the world recognized nuclear power as a dirty, dangerous and unnecessary technology by refusing to give it greenhouse gas credits during the UN Climate Change talks in The Hague. In April 2001, the world dealt nuclear power another blow when the UN Sustainable Development Conference refused to label nuclear power a sustainable technology.
Greenpeace has rightly said that nuclear power “belongs in the dustbin of history.” There are many safe, renewable, reliable and less expensive sources of energy. Why not study these alternatives, and find out which can be adopted in our country?
Catholic bishops reject nuclear power plant revival
CBCP rejects nuclear power plant revivalRecommends Bataan facility ‘must be dismantled’ Philippine Daily Inquirer 02/27/2009
The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has thrown its weight behind the opposition to rehabilitating the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP).
In a pastoral statement, the CBCP urged Congress to “completely and irrevocably reject the opening of the nuclear plant as the most dangerous and expensive way to generate electricity.”
The statement was issued by the CBCP president, Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagdameo.
“Multiple risks and the possibility of corruption outweigh dreamed benefits. We recommend with other anti-BNPP congressmen and the Greenpeace Forum that the mothballed facility in Morong, Bataan, be dismantled as its revival will be most hazardous to health and life of the people,” read the CBCP statement.
CBCP rejects nuclear power plant revival – INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos
Anti-nuclear and ‘pro-life’ Philippines
Anti-nuclear and ‘pro-life’ By Rina Jimenez-David Philippine Daily InquirerFirst 02/24/2009 – “…………………if anyone has reason to fear the presence of an operational nuclear power plant, that would be the people living near it, who would arguably be the first to feel the effects — including being killed — as a result of any accident, mishap or neglect involved in running the plant.
Yesterday, residents of Bataan, among them members of the Catholic clergy and hierarchy, took part in a rally against the plant’s reopening. The march and rally drew various sectors from all corners of Bataan, among them youth and parish delegations and civil society groups, converging at the Balanga Cathedral…………………………..If the intent is to delay or reverse the effects of global warming
, then reviving the BNPP makes little sense, avers Green Peace. Said Baconguis: “Our congressmen must face the simple, indisputable facts: 1) Nuclear power is the most dangerous way to generate electricity, there is also no known scientific solution to safely storing plutonium and its deadly radioactive waste-product which remains radiotoxic for 200,000 years; 2) it is the most expensive source of power: aside from pricey construction costs, nuclear power involves expenses for decommissioning, as well as storage for nuclear waste, each of which can cost as much as a new power plant; 3) it cannot solve climate change — the contribution it can potentially make is negligible, especially if you consider that the processing of uranium as fuel uses so much electricity; and 4) importing more fuel, in this case uranium, is not the way to achieve energy security.”
Anti-nuclear and ‘pro-life’ – INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos
Philippines Activists hold rally to oppose revival of mothballed nuke plant
Activists hold rally to oppose revival of mothballed nuke plant
abs-cbnNEWS.com | 02/22/2009Hundreds of protesters urged legislators on Sunday not to support a bill in Congress to revive the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP).
Volunteers of environmental activist group Greenpeace and members of a network opposed to the BNPP also formed a human banner at the UP sunken garden forming the words – “NO TO BNPP.”
They called on members of the House of Representatives who indicated their support to the bill to withdraw their signatures and ensure it does not get past the House Committee on Appropriations……………………Protesters said reviving BNPP is not the answer to the country’s energy problem, adding neither will it solve climate change. Instead, they said government should expand the country’s renewable-energy capacity and promote energy-efficient technology.
Members of the Network Opposed to the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant revival also held a rally in front of UP Diliman’s Quezon Hall to call attention to the surcharge that would be imposed on power consumers if the bill is passed.
The group also called for the junking of House Bill (HB) 4631 which proposes the recommissioning of the BNPP. The group also said the BNPP revival will not address the expected energy crisis. They urged government to turn to indigenous energy sources instead.
Activists hold rally to oppose revival of mothballed nuke plant | ABS-CBN News Online Beta
Signature drive launched vs nuke plant revival –
Signature drive launched vs nuke plant reviva lMARK MERUEÑAS, GMANews.TV 11 Feb 09 MANILA, Philippines – A group of environmentalists, scientists, and church leaders on Wednesday launched a signature drive against the revival of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP), saying it would only usher in further corruption in government.
The Network Opposed to the BNPP Revival (NO to BNPP Revival) succeeded in tagging along several personalities like former Vice President Teofisto Guingona Jr. and Sen. Ma. Consuelo “Jamby” Madrigal to join the cause.
In a press conference in Quezon City, the network – composed of at least 40 organizations – urged the public to oppose the resurrection of the BNPP, which the group said was a “dangerous and expensive demon of the past.”
Manila scientists oppose nuclear plant – upiasia.com
Manila scientists oppose nuclear plant UPI Asia.com By Gerry Albert Corpuz 12 Feb 09 Manila, Philippines — Scientists in Manila have declared war against a government plan to revive the controversial Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, which was built by 1984 but never operated. They dismissed the completed but not yet fueled plant as a sleeping monster and a monument of corruption.
The nuclear plant, located in Morong on the Bataan peninsula, is the current object of outrage by members of the scientific community and anti-corruption watchdogs throughout the Philippines. The plant was started in 1976 at an estimated cost of US$600 million. By the time it was finished in 1984 the price tag was US$2.3 billion – the price bloated by cronies of former Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos to ensure fat kickbacks for the ruling president’s group at the time.
The government was paying some US$300,000 a day on interest alone, essentially Filipino taxpayers money, on a loan sourced for Westinghouse, the plant builder, under the auspices of and guaranteed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund…………………………………
According to the Philippine-based geologist, the United States Geological Survey recorded at least six earthquakes in sites near Mt. Natib and the site where the plant is located. Rodolfo said uranium is not carbon-free as proponents of nuclear energy have been claiming.
He said fossil fuels are still used to mine, mill and process uranium before it reaches a reactor and every watt of electricity generated by a nuclear power plant makes around 30 percent as much carbon as a watt generated by burning fossil fuel, further complicating the problem of global warming.
Professor Giovanni Tapang, also a renowned scientist and physicist from the University of the Philippines, said the risks in getting the nuclear plant online would outweigh the benefits of the 620 megawatts of electricity it could generate………………………Based on the views of foreign and local scientists, and from the political and moral perspectives of groups and individuals opposing the revival of the nuclear plant, the Manila government should stop pursuing the project and instead focus on sourcing energy from alternative, cheaper and safer sources of energy.
Nuke plant unsafe, says study
Nuke plant unsafe, says study
By Leila Salaverria Philippine Daily Inquirer 02/08/2009 MANILA, Philippines—The Senate and the Office of the President have in their possession an explosive study whose disclosure could very well result in the permanent shuttering of the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant and end moves in Congress to reopen the facility, according to environmentalist Nicanor Perlas.According to Perlas, it is important that the four-year study be made public as Congress has now begun debates on a bill filed by Pangasinan Rep. Mark Cojuangco seeking to rehabilitate the BNPP at a cost of $1 billion.He said the study, conducted in 1991 by local and foreign experts, showed that the plant’s most serious defect concerned its Quality Assurance Program, which the experts found to be sloppy and below regulatory standards………………………………Even if $1 billion is spent to rehabilitate the plant, this would not be enough to cure the defects because in the first place, there is no way of pinpointing where all these problems are, Perlas said.
“The design and construction problems of BNPP are frozen in concrete and steel,” he said…………………………..
He said that at the time the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission had minimal experience in nuclear regulation. And the energy department at the time was run by the dictator Ferdinand Marcos’ energy czar. Thus, the regulator had a conflict of interest.
“So it was very shady… This is where the corruption meets the technical and creates a nightmare scenario for the quality of the plant,” Perlas said.
If there should be an accident as a result of an earthquake, volcanic eruption, tsunami, faulty equipment or operator error, the resulting meltdown would cause an unspeakable disaster, he warned.
Nuke plant unsafe, says study – INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos
Tags: nuclear, antinuclear, radiation, uranium
Is the BNPP safe?
Is the BNPP safe?By Roland G. SimbulanPhilippine Daily Inquirer 2 Feb 09
Just when we all thought that the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) had been permanently laid to rest after it was mothballed in 1992, now comes the proposed BNPP Commissioning Act seeking to revive and operate the controversial plant that had become the symbol of corruption and folly of the Marcos dictatorship.
Despite the BNPP’s total cost of roughly $2.3 billion, including interest, two previous post-Marcos administrations decided to permanently mothball the nuclear plant after a comprehensive scientific and technical audit that reviewed the condition of the plant from 1986 to 1990 found that the safety and health of the Filipino people would be at grave risk should the plant be put into operation……………
………………Of course, the nuclear scientists and engineers who rely on the nuclear industry for a living will tell us that science and technology will take care of everything. But they know that even up to now decommissioning a nuclear plant with a normal life span of only 30 years will cost more than its construction, as a decommissioned nuclear plant with its radioactive wastes will continue to pose risks to the health and safety of the people and threaten the environment. We will need at least 20-25 years to develop the necessary scientific and technological infrastructure and national capability to operate a commercial nuclear power plant to respond to nuclear accidents, plant upgrades, repairs and maintenance, nuclear waste disposal and other related problems.
Is the BNPP safe? – INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos
1 This Month
Website of the Week
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (127)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
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 