nuclear-news

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

Safety, cost, wastes, – nuclear industry fast losing credibility

The reactor relapse takes 3 hits to the head
by Harvey Wasserman November 12, 2009


nuclear-costs1

The much-hyped “Renaissance” of atomic power has taken three devastating hits with potentially fatal consequences.

The usually supine Nuclear Regulatory Commission has told Toshiba’s Westinghouse Corporation that its “standardized” AP-1000 design might not withstand hurricanes, tornadoes or earthquakes.  Continue reading

November 13, 2009 Posted by | safety, USA | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Are modern nuclear reactors safe?

the-economic-downside-to-

The economic downside to nuclear energy GREEN>BLORGE by Susan Wilson 10 Nov 09

“……….Are new modern nuclear reactors safe?”  The difficulty in this question is finding a nuclear reactor that has been built within the last 10 years.  According to Der Spiegel there aren’t any new reactors built within the last ten years that are up and running.  Current projects in Finland and France are experiencing severe problems with the construction and the design.  Continue reading

November 13, 2009 Posted by | 2 WORLD, safety | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Up to 40% of CT scans unnecessary, and potentially harmful

Six reasons to say No to your doctor . Find out how much of the $2.5 trillion we spend on heath care goes down the drain for tests and treatments thatdon’t help – and may even cause harm Forbes.com  13 Nov 09 High-Tech Imaging
A miracle of modern medicine, the computed tomography (CT) machine takes crystal-clear cross-sectional pictures of the body in a few seconds, using high-tech X-rays. Seventy million scans are done annually, at a cost of $200 or more. It’s a seductive, reassuring and quick technology, for both patients and doctors, but do you always need these scans? Continue reading

November 13, 2009 Posted by | 2 WORLD, health | , , , | Leave a comment

Are nuclear plants safe from terrorist attack?

The threat of nuclear meltdown. The government says that nuclear power is safe, but others say an airplane hit or frontal assault would be big trouble. CNN Money BySteve Hargreaves  
November 12, 2009: “……………….critics say the plants are vulnerable to attack, and that the government is not taking the measures necessary to protect the public. ……… there is an urgent need to address safety. Continue reading

November 13, 2009 Posted by | safety, USA | , , , , | Leave a comment

Radioactive land given back to aborigines

Tjarutja people ‘at risk’ from contaminated land ABC News 11 Nov 09ABC A South Australian ex-serviceman who was exposed to radiation during the Maralinga atomic tests in the 1950s and 60s says land should not be handed over to the traditional owners until a contaminated area is cleaned up or fenced off. Continue reading

November 12, 2009 Posted by | indigenous issues | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New emphasis on veterans’ exposure to depleted uranium

Vet Center provides a refuge from the horrors of war Redwood Times Susan Gardner, Redwood Times 11/11/2009 “..……..The Eureka Vet Center provides services to veterans who have served in a combat zone and who are struggling with PTSD. Continue reading

November 12, 2009 Posted by | 1, general | , , , , | 1 Comment

It’s just too expensive – the UK nuclear plan

Nuclear Shambles : Ed Miliband vows nuclear power is safe Media Lens Message Board  by jo abbess  on November 9, 2009, Ed Miliband, or the people advising him, think that people are opposed to New Nuclear Power on principle, Continue reading

November 12, 2009 Posted by | 1, business and costs, UK | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Time to dispel the secrecy about nuclear radiation effects

atom-uran-1Before the Bomb – book review. Online opinion, by Noel Wauchope,  9 Nov 09 Where do we go, to find out about the radiological effects of atomic weapons?We usually seek out the rather patchy and incomplete stories of the victims – those at the “receiving end” of bombing, at Hiroshima, or of the atomic tests of Nevada, of Mururoa, Montebello, Maralinga. These have been covered in several books.But, how much was known about these radiological effects before the Bomb?

Here, at last, is the book that answers this question. And Paul Langley’s book The Prediction of the Radiological Effects of Atomic Bombs From Knowledge Published Prior to August 1945 answers it with evidence in forensic detail, a plenitude of exact primary documentary evidence, including digital evidence available on the Internet.

This is also a book that raises questions: questions that matter very much right now. Today, World War II veterans, Pacific Islanders, Navajo people and Australian Aborigines seek acknowledgment and justice for their diseases from exposure to radiation. Iraqi doctors and communities, and US, Canadian and UK Gulf War veterans claim health damage from depleted uranium. Where is the truth?

Since the early 1940s, public knowledge of, and safety guidance on, the radiation effects of atomic weapons has relied on information from the US Atomic Energy Commission. The AEC also supplied radioisotopes for medicine: atoms for healing and atoms for killing. Can we, should we, rely on AEC’s data, to give the public the whole truth?……………………

This is not an easy book to read. One can feel weighed down by its technical detail. So, for some people, it might best find its place as a reference work

However, the detail is necessary. It is a very original idea, to explore and expose the motivations behind the Manhattan project, and behind the continuing secrecy about radiological warfare. No doubt there are many who would like to dismiss Paul Langley’s book because ” he is not a nuclear physicist.” Langley is a former soldier, with a background of Army training and experience in the use of RADIAC instruments and radiation safety, But it is pretty hard to ignore all that well-reasoned and well-documented evidence.

Before the Bomb – book review – On Line Opinion – 9/11/2009

November 11, 2009 Posted by | 1, 2 WORLD, health | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Grave health risks of Indian Point nuclear plant

Indian Point puts public health at grave risk   Times Union , Joseph Mangano,  November 10, 2009 A major battle over the future of New York’s energy policy is being fought at Indian Point, 75 miles south of Albany. The battle is not just about energy, but public health. Continue reading

November 11, 2009 Posted by | 1, environment, USA | , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear fast breeder reactors – wishful thinking!

The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction – Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion? The Oil Drum by Francois Cellier on November 10, 2009 – “…. Continue reading

November 11, 2009 Posted by | 1, 2 WORLD | , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Japanese saying NO to plutonium reactors

Petition: STOP Pluthermal (MOX) Nuclear Power Generation in Saga, Japan! Ten Thousand Things November 10, 2009 Local opposition groups in Saga have set up tents for a 24/7 sit-in in front of the head office of KYUDEN (Kyushu Electric Power Co., Inc.) in the center of Fukuoka City, Kyushu. Continue reading

November 11, 2009 Posted by | 1, Japan, politics | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Plutonium nuclear reactor problems

Problematic ‘pluthermal’ era ” Japan Times Nov. 11, 2009 .……. Japan’s first reactor using plutonium-uranium mixed oxide (MOX) as fuel, attained nuclear criticality last Thursday and started trial operations Monday….. Thus “pluthermal” power generation has begun, but many problems remain unresolved…………. Continue reading

November 11, 2009 Posted by | 1, Japan | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Unsolved nuclear waste problem is stopping the industry

Nuclear waste blocks growth opportunities The Collegian Philip Reiser, Staff Writer   10 Nov 09 With the growing concerns about the climate problem, the need for renewable energy sources becomes more and more pressing……………. Continue reading

November 10, 2009 Posted by | 1, general | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Patrick Moore – paid nuclear spruiker, ignores cost isses

Nuclear power industry is plagued by problems the Philadelphia Inquirer Nov. 10, 2009 Patrick Moore’s recent op-ed (“Old foes welcome clean fuel,” Thursday) is long on optimism and short on facts. Continue reading

November 10, 2009 Posted by | 1, spinbuster, USA | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Britain’s nuclear future very dubious

A bright nuclear future: true or false? Britain has identified 10 ‘suitable sites’ for next-generation nuclear power plants. Here’s a list of awkward questions Guardian.co.uk, by Jeremy Leggett 10 Nov 09 Continue reading

November 10, 2009 Posted by | 1, spinbuster, UK | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment