nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Nuclear lobby trying to sell a technological corpse

when you hear some hired gun selling nukes, remember: even $645 million can only buy so much green lipstick for a dead radioactive pig.

Harvey Wasserman: $600 Million Lipstick for a Dead Radioactive Pig, 23 Feb 2010 “……In the face of that $645 million cash tsunami, grassroots activists still stopped $50 billion in loan guarantees three times since 2007. No new US reactor construction has started since the 1970s, when public opinion was over 70% in favor of atomic power, and Richard Nixon promised 1000 US reactors by the year 2000.
With green jobs advocate Van Jones ditched and Obama now openly in the nuclear camp, atomic energy is still a loser. Continue reading

February 23, 2010 Posted by | spinbuster, USA | , , , , | Leave a comment

UK’s nuclear navy scrapyard problem

Navy dock in danger of becoming a ‘nuclear dumping ground’ The Guardian Matthew Taylor, 22 February 2010The MoD has put forward plans to use the Devonport dockyard in Plymouth as a centre for dismantling radioactive submarines
Military chiefs are running out of space to store the UK’s growing number of obsolete nuclear submarines, prompting fears that one of the country’s busiest naval ports is set to be turned into a nuclear scrapyard. Continue reading

February 23, 2010 Posted by | UK, wastes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

How the nuclear lobby buys politicians and media

$600 Million Lipstick for a Dead Radioactive Pig THE HUFFINGTON POST, Harvey Wasserman February 22, 2010The mystery has been solved.Where is this “new reactor renaissance” coming from?There has been no deep, thoughtful re-making or re-evaluation of atomic technology. No solution to the nuke waste problem. No making reactors economically sound. No private insurance against radioactive disasters by terror or error. No grassroots citizens now desperate to live near fragile containment domes and outtake pipes spewing radioactive tritium at 27 US reactors.No, nothing about atomic energy has really changed.Except this: $645 million spent on lobbying and media manipulation. Continue reading

February 23, 2010 Posted by | business and costs, spinbuster, USA | , , , | Leave a comment

Alec Baldwin on the truth about nuclear reactors

The Truth About Nuclear Power in Utility Reactors THE HUFFINGTON POST, Alec Baldwin: February 22, 2010 “………The reactor operations at Brookhaven were reported to have released billions of gallons of tritiated water into the headwaters of the Peconic River during the period of its operations from 1965 to 1996……… Continue reading

February 23, 2010 Posted by | spinbuster, USA | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear plants are not safe from terrorist attack

Major Fallout Predicted Over Obama’s Nuclear Power Proposal. by: Grace Huang, t r u t h o u t 22 February 2010“……..According to NuclearBailout.org, though Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, said that he had considered targeting a nuclear facility instead of the World Trade Center, nuclear reactors are still “not required to be protected against air attack.” Continue reading

February 23, 2010 Posted by | safety, USA | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear industry – dirty and no solution to climate change

Nuclear power is too risky – CNN.com Mark Z. Jacobson,  22 Feb 2010 “……The on-the-ground footprint of nuclear power, through its plants and uranium mines, is about 1,000 times larger than it is for wind. Continue reading

February 23, 2010 Posted by | general | , , , , | Leave a comment

Wind energy more viable for S.Africa than nuclear

‘Renewable energy is viable’ Times LIVE (Africa) Feb 21, 2010  By ZWELI MOKGATA Eddie O’Connor is adamant that 90% of the world’s electricity could easily come from renewable sources by 2050 if only world governments would commit to key energy policies in time.

Continue reading

February 22, 2010 Posted by | South Africa, spinbuster | , , , , | Leave a comment

Dr Helen Caldicott reminds world of nuclear dangers

”That’s the ace up the sleeve of the nuclear industry,” she says. ”It’s a silent, cryptogenic disease that doesn’t denote its origin. You have to do big epidemiological studies like the German study to find out what’s going on.”

Why nuclear energy struggles to get private sector funds Sydney Morning Herald , Paddy Manning, February 20, 2010
People have forgotten – a younger generation perhaps never knew – what is scary about nuclear energy.

Anti-nuclear campaigners such as Dr Helen Caldicott are routinely disparaged nowadays. A quick trawl through the clippings yields choice descriptors: “inane”, “hysteric”, “rabid”, “ageing”, “anti-nuclear messiah” and “warrior princess”. Continue reading

February 20, 2010 Posted by | 2 WORLD, spinbuster | , , , , | Leave a comment

Despite Bill Gates’ support, Fourth Generation nuclear reactors look dodgy

some nuclear experts who warn that the promise is a snare and a delusion.

Fourth generation nuclear power may not be the clean energy silver bullet, FinancialTimes, by Ed Crooks, 18 Feb 2010

The huge cost, and delays and budget over-runs in construction, of third generation reactors such as Areva’s EPR, along with concerns about their safety, has inspired a search for new smaller designs, including some that are only the size of a garden shed. Continue reading

February 19, 2010 Posted by | USA | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Price-Anderson Act passes risk of nuclear accident to the taxpayer

The Price-Anderson bill is the one that caps the nuclear industry’s liability and makes us (that’d be you) liable

Excuse Me, But That Nuclear Plant Has Its Hand On Your Wallet, San Francisco Chronicle : Gerald Sindell 18 Feb 2010 “……..if you dig out your handy guide to the laws of the United States you’ll find something called the Price-Anderson Act, a temporary measure passed in 1957 to help the nuclear industry get going. Atoms for Peace and all that. Continue reading

February 18, 2010 Posted by | Legal, USA | , , , | Leave a comment

Obama’s big financial gamble on nuclear power

The government backing of the Georgia project is a major financial gamble, but the White House seems to see it as worth the risk politically………..
The case the administration has made is that they will give Republicans more nuclear power, offshore oil and gas drilling, and incentives for coal, if they will accept a cap on carbon emissions and investments in renewable energy.

Obama’s risky nuclear renaissance The Guardian, Kate Sheppard 17 February 2010 Barack Obama’s promise to fund new nuclear power plants is a major financial gamble – and US taxpayers will foot the bill Continue reading

February 17, 2010 Posted by | climate change, politics, USA | , , , , | Leave a comment

Terrorist plot targeted Australia’s only nuclear reactor?

possible targets for bombings included the Lucas Heights nuclear facility.

Terrorism tools still missing, says judge Sydney Morning Herald MALCOLM BROWN February 16, 2010 A ”WIDE RANGE” of materials collected by conspirators in a terrorism case has not been recovered by authorities and may be used by others bent on terrorism offences, a Supreme Court judged has warned. Continue reading

February 17, 2010 Posted by | safety | , , , , | Leave a comment

Complicated politics of Obama’s nuclear push

The Green Politics Behind Obama’s Boost for Nuclear Power – TIME 17 Feb 2010 By spending billions to back the nuclear industry, the White House may be able to get some Republican support for the floundering climate and energy bill, which would put a limit on greenhouse gases……… Continue reading

February 17, 2010 Posted by | politics, USA | , , , , | Leave a comment

Toxic financial loans to nuclear industry

Nuclear power, strike 2 MNN – Mother Nature Network  Karl Burkart 15 Feb 2010 Even Wall Street won’t touch nuclear because it is too financially risky. At least 1 out of 2 nuclear plants will fail, leaving taxpayers with the burden of debt.Sun, Feb 14 2010 Continue reading

February 16, 2010 Posted by | business and costs, USA | , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear energy – financially, it’s a corporate killer

”the risks faced by developers à are so large and variable that individually they could each bring even the largest utility company to its knees financially.”

ENERGY: Nuclear Does Not Make Economic Sense Say Studies Australia.to 14 February 2010   by Julio Godoy

BERLIN,   (IPS)  – The enormous technical and financial risks involved in the construction and operation of new nuclear power plants make them prohibitive for private investors, rebutting the thesis of a renaissance in nuclear energy, say several independent European studies. Continue reading

February 15, 2010 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs | , , , , | Leave a comment