Inexplicable leukemias rock small German rural region
Inexplicable leukemias rock small German rural region Google News By Arnaud Bouvier – 7 July 09 GEESTHACHT, Germany (AFP) — For 20 years, children from a small rural northern German region — where Alfred Nobel invented dynamite — have been contracting leukemia at a higher rate than anywhere else in the world and no one knows exactly why.Nineteen cases of leukemia among children under 15 have been recorded since 1989 in the region of Elbmarsch, some 30 kilometres (19 miles) from the city of Hamburg, three or four times the average rate.”Such a high rate of leukemia is unique in the world,” according to Hayo Dieckmann, a health official in the nearby town of Lueneburg who is also a medical doctor…………………………………………..
Campaigners, however, point out that within two kilometres of the region lie the Kruemmel nuclear power station and the GKSS scientific research centre, both of which they believe are to blame for the leukemia outbreaks.
The “citizens’ association against leukemia in Elbmarsch” (BI) believes that a nuclear accident took place at the GKSS centre, only six months after the devastating meltdown at Chernobyl.
The campaigners say that a radiation leak occurred at the centre — which operates a small nuclear reactor for research purposes — on September 12, 1986, which was later covered up by the authorities……………………………
Campaigners also point an accusing finger at the Kruemmel nuclear power plant which reopened on June 24 after a fire broke out there two years ago.
The plant hit headlines again at the weekend in the wake of two further malfunctions, one of which plunged part of Hamburg into darkness and knocked out the city’s traffic lights.
At the end of 2007, a national survey of nuclear power stations in Germany showed that the risk of contracting cancer rose dramatically for children living near a power plant.
If nuclear power is so great, why aren’t we doing it?
If nuclear power is so great, why aren’t we doing it? Thought Leader By Roger Diamond 7 July 09 “………………………..Somewhere, somehow, investors aren’t keen, and my suspicion is that expense is at the heart of their concerns, and not waste (environmental) or accident (social) issues.
The second issue I’d like to raise is that of externalities. These are the real costs not included in the financial cost of an item or service. In the case of nuclear energy, the externalities are associated with mining of uranium, decommissioning and high-level radioactive waste disposal. These are the costs not being added into the price of electricity from nuclear power plants. Specifically, mining of uranium has, like any other mining, a basket of costs that are being put off for future generations to deal with, namely groundwater and surface-water pollution, land disturbance and rehabilitation costs, dust etc. If these were costed into the life-cycle analysis for nuclear power, it would be even more expensive than it is now…………………….Externalities are where renewables get very competitive. Use of coal and uranium has huge externalities, whilst renewables only have the indirect effects associated with energy and resources used to construct and transport the energy-harvesting devices
Thought Leader » Peak Oil Perspectives » If nuclear power is so great, why aren’t we doing it?
Belarussian kids receive care
Belarussian kids receive careBy John Henderson Rocky Mount Telegram July 06, 2009 Children from Belarus who continue to be exposed to radiation from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant incident have once again traveled to Rocky Mount from the former Soviet Union to receive free medical care.But fewer local “host families” in this down economy have been able pay for the flights and take the children into their homes for six weeks. The host families also take the children to local offices for medical, eye and dental care treatment………………………….
On April 26, 1986, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant reactor exploded, releasing dangerous amounts of radiation into the air. The wind on that day carried it toward Belarus, contaminating the region’s air, soil and water.
“The problem is there is so much unknown radiation material (in Belarus), and it will probably be there for 3,000 or 4,000 years,” Patrone said. “Some of the food is not safe.”………………………………….
“Medically, they are small in size,” Patrone said. “Some have thyroid problems and an occasional immune-deficiency problem. They are still suffering, because basically, radiation is still in the dirt.”
If a child is diagnosed with a major problem here such as thyroid cancer, they are sent back to Belarus for treatment, he said.
“(The trip to Rocky Mount) is a way to get out of the radiation zone and to give kids a second (doctor’s) opinion,” he said.
Downwinders still waiting for RECA coverage
Downwinders still waiting for RECA coverage By Blair Koch Times-News 7 july 09 A common fear among victims of radiation fallout caused by nuclear testing in Nevada during the 1950s and ’60s is that they will not live long enough to see the government take accountability.Ilene Hoisington expressed this sentiment when interviewed by the Times-News in June 2007. At 75, she had seen both her sons die of cancer and had her own larynx removed due to the same disease. Hoisington’s sister also died of cancer.In June 2008, Hoisington lost her battle too, having died before Idaho fallout victims were included in the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.”I think (the government) is waiting until we all die and then there won’t be anymore downwinders, problem solved,” Hoisington said in 2007.
New Capitalism Old Capitalism Except Taxpayer Money Is At Risk
New Capitalism: Old Capitalism except taxpayer money is at risk Sunday Herald Iain Macwhirter 4 July 09 – “………………………..Old Capitalism has long gone and has been replaced by New Capitalism, which is like the previous system, but without the risk of failure………
…………make lots of profit from running it, but then when they stop making profits they hand the keys back to the government and walk off leaving all the losses with the taxpayer. This is a great improvement on boring old capitalism, because it removes all the danger from the investor, and turns public contracts into a licence to print money…………….
…………..Then there’s the nuclear industry. The cost of decommissioning the last generation of nuclear power stations was around £100bn – paid for by us. It was the most expensive way of producing electricity since the Van Der Graaff generator.The next generation is going to be totally different. Private companies will build and operate super-efficient and totally self-financing nuclear power stations earning healthy profits. Except that, under the deal, when something goes wrong they’ll be handed back to the government.
This is because the insurance costs are so high for these power plants that if the government hadn’t taken on the financial liability for nuclear disasters, the private operators wouldn’t have been able to make a decent profit. And, of course, the bulk of the decommissioning costs and the disposal of the nuclear waste, radioactive for a thousand years, will naturally be the taxpayer’s responsibility.
New Capitalism Old Capitalism Except Taxpayer Money Is At Risk (from Sunday Herald)
Why bring back expensive nuclear power when there are cheaper options? |
Diana Hooley: Why bring back expensive nuclear power when there are cheaper options? Idaho Statesman ENERGY BY DIANA HOOLEY 07/05/09 “………………. ……………Wall Street Journal reporter Keith Johnson (WSJ Blog, June 12) says that the capital costs for nuclear are currently prohibitive……………………………current problems in the European nuclear industry suggests that new reactors would be “no easier or cheaper to build than the ones a generation ago.” The Times said that construction of two “new” generation reactors in France and Finland have been riddled with problems and are well over budget with no end in sight for the project’s construction phase.
The Times also said that in Florida and Georgia, state laws have been changed to raise electricity rates in order to pass on the costs of the expensive construction of new nuclear plants to consumers. Some states like Missouri have balked at these preconstruction costs and suspended any nuclear plant projects for their state.
The New York Times quotes MIT economist Paul L. Jaskow in acknowledging the cost of nuclear. Jaskow says a number of U.S. companies are looking in trepidation at the magnitude of investment necessary to build a reactor………………….. renewables are working toward baseload capacities, and with smart grids and other new storage technology, researchers can see the potential for baseload.
Wind power is just one of several renewable resources supported by current federal legislature that produces no greenhouse gasses or toxic waste and is believed to have the long-term technical potential to be five times total current global energy production or 40 times current electricity demand (“Global wind map shows best wind farm locations,” Environment News Service, May 17, 2005).
Additionally, renewables do not have to be built to scale like nuclear, requiring massive investments in large electrical transmission infrastructures. Evidently, investors know the market potential of renewables; wind power alone is growing at the rate of 30 percent annually (Renewables Global Status Report: 2009 update).
IAEA calls on Serbia to address nuclear waste problem
AEA calls on Serbia to address nuclear waste problem 3 July 2009 | 15:00 | Source: B92 BELGRADE — The head of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) has warned that Serbia must dispose of any remaining atomic fuel as soon as possible. Mohammed ElBaradei and Serbian Science Minister Božidar Đelić today signed an additional protocol on cooperation between Belgrade and the IAEA, after visiting the Vinča Nuclear Science Institute yesterday.
ElBaradei warned that Serbia needed to dispose of its remaining supplies of atomic fuel to prevent any possible incidents.
B92 – News – Society – IAEA calls on Serbia to address nuclear waste problem
Wall must ignore nuclear hype, make an informed decision
“……………………………..the legitimacy of nuclear power as a cost-efficient energy source was dealt a severe blow this week with the news that the Ontario government has suspended the tender to build two new reactors at Darlington — part of a $26-billion nuclear building refurbishment plan. This development has certainly put a perspective on the foremost problem with nuclear power development — the exorbitant pricetag — that business proponents like the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce have sadly been downplaying.
Wheels Coming Off Nuclear Bandwagon
Beyond
Nuclear 2 July 09 International leaders of the nuclear power “renaissance” have recently announced major delays, or outright cancellations, of new reactors. In the U.S., John Rowe, CEO and Chairman of the largest nuclear utility Exelon, dropped its application to NRC to build two reactors at Victoria County Station, Texas and instead will pursue a more generic Early Site Permit approval without committing to a specific reactor design. This latest stumble is admittedly due to “limited availability of federal loan guarantees.” (See Wall Street Journal coverage with links to more articles). In Ontario, $26 billion in nuclear power plant refurbishment and new reactor construction plans have been suspended, as the Province seeks to bargain down Atomic Energy of Canada Limited’s skyrocketing price tags, especially given the government -owned “Crown Corporation’s” current troubles and uncertain future. (See press coverage). And recent developments in South Africa have likely rung the death knell for the pebble bed modular reactor, once touted as the lead “Generation IV” design for “advanced reactors.” (See The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists story). ??
New study: Nuclear workers at higher risk for cancer –
New study: Nuclear workers at higher risk for cancer Brattleboro Reformer By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff July 2BRATTLEBORO — Are nuclear power plant workers at higher risk to die of cancer?A study conducted by a Canadian researcher concluded the risk is substantially higher to them than to the general public.The document, “Exposure to Radiation and Health Outcomes” was made public last week. It was written by Mark Lemstra, who was formerly a senior research epidemiologist for the Saskatoon, Canada, Health Region……………………In the radiation report, in which Lemstra reviewed 1,725 articles related to radiation studies, he concluded that nuclear power plant workers have a “relative excess risk” of getting cancer.
In epidemiology, excess risk is defined as the difference between the proportion of subjects in a population with a particular disease who were exposed to a specific risk factor and the proportion of subjects with that same disease who were not exposed.
In the case of nuclear power plant workers, that risk factor is low-dose radiation.
New study: Nuclear workers at higher risk for cancer – Brattleboro Reformer
‘No’ to nuclear power
SOUTHDOWN STAR Marlene Lang 30 June 09 “……………………Twenty-six plants nationwide showed shortfalls in the funds they are required by federal law to set aside for dismantling the reactors someday and cleaning up after themselves.–
Every year the Nuclear Regulatory Commission checks on the state of so-called “decommissioning funds.”
Most years there are only a handful of plants running short of having those estimated costs laid up, usually four or five one official said. Those billions set aside for close-down and clean-up don’t just pile up under a mattress, of course; the money is invested in the stock market. According to an Associated Press report, some $4.4 billion in decommissioning funds was lost in the downturn, even as the actual costs for shutting down plants has risen by $4.6 billion because of (I love this part) rising energy costs – and labor costs.–
Illinois’ Braidwood Station, Byron Station and LaSalle County Station, each with two nuclear reactors, and the Clinton Power Station are all on the NRC’s shortfall list……………………… Plans for fund-challenged nuclear power plants are to let them sit for about six decades, or however long it takes to accumulate the cash to safely dismantle those reactors and remove those nasty, hot and highly radioactive uranium fuel pellets. Sixty years, idle, is the time-frame estimate the NRC gave media earlier this month.–……………………. I didn’t need to be an engineer to wonder what happens when things get, well, rusty? But immediately I doubted my common sense; I asked if maybe we, the non-technical public, are ill-informed? Maybe even stupid? Maybe magical nuclear power plants don’t actually rust; maybe they can rest safely forever on waterfronts near our homes and always safely contain that high-level radioactive fuel.–
I tried to believe, but I lacked what the nuclear industry and U.S. government policy refer to as: Waste Confidence. This is a doctrine – and I chose that word carefully – which says that the nuclear industry can continue to function and grow even though it has the big gaping problem of what to do with the its own leftovers, being confident that a solution will be found. When common sense fails, there is always faith.– …………………………. What to do? The better question may be, what not to do. How about we listen to common sense and NOT build any more of these reactors until we have solved the great mystery of what to do with the waste, and can afford to pay for that solution?
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/lang/1644764,063009-colLANG.article
Nuclear Power has Political Meltdowns
Nuclear Power has Political Meltdowns Greentech Pastures Harry Fuller 1 July 09 There’s the on-going issue of nuclear waste, and in Ontario, at least, there’s the problem of the expense of the next generation technology.
Only Finland is currently building the latest and best in nuclear generation tech, the work being done by European firms, Areva and Siemens. The project is now far over budget and at least three years from completion. The plant construction began in 2005 and was supposed to have been completed this year. Situations like Ontario and Finland are not going to encourage other nations to go further into nuclear generation.
Nuclear power problems remain
News.cincinatti.com Bill Cahalan • July 1, 2009 “……………..about Duke Energy’s plan for a nuclear plant in Piketon, Ohio,……………. many decision-makers appear motivated by fear of shortages (and for the nuclear industry, hunger for big profits) to return to this sleeping dog of nuclear electricity.
Despite some improvements in the technology, the following decades-old problems remain: air, water and human contamination from uranium mining, huge up-front construction (and later, decommissioning) costs, lengthy construction times, higher cancer rates and morbidity from other disorders in nearby residents due to routine radioactive releases, the continuing danger of meltdowns as occurred at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and almost at Davis-Besse in Toledo (2002), high vulnerability to terrorist attacks and the still unsolved problem of radioactive waste passed to our descendants for thousands of years.
I challenge the assumption that, in a world stressed by many transgressed ecological limits besides CO2 emissions, we must resign ourselves to continually increasing population, consumption and energy demands……………
……………..I for one plan to strive even harder now to unplug from Duke and turn to solar cells and conservation,…….
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090701/EDIT02/907010374/Nuclear+power+problems+remain
No answer on nuclear waste issue
No answer on waste issue Rutland Herald KATHLEEN KREVETSKI 29 June 09 “……………………. the Areva nuclear fuel processing plant — La Hague in France where spent nuclear fuel rods are refined for weapons-grade plutonium and enriched uranium. La Hague acknowledges that it is intentionally dumping thousands of gallons of radioactive waste into the ocean while the incidence of childhood cancer is rampant in the area surrounding that plant.
Before George Bush left office, the U.S. EPA had radically increased permissible public exposure to radiation in drinking water, including a nearly 1,000-fold increase in permissible concentrations of strontium-90, 3,000- to 100,000-fold for iodine-131, and a nearly 25,000 increase for nickel-63. The relaxation of these radiation protection regulations had been sought for years by the nuclear industry and its allies in the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
In the most extreme case, the new standards permit radionuclide concentrations seven million times more lax than permitted under the Safe Drinking Water Act and would permit public exposure to radiation levels vastly higher than EPA had previously deemed unacceptably dangerous. The public did not get to comment on these changes. What exactly is the radioactive waste that is now being discharged into the Connecticut River. When will our Vermont Department of Public Health start reporting on the trends of cancer incidence rising in Vermont? And Entergy and the NRC thinks its OK to continue to build up the stockpile of the radioactive waste here in Vermont because no one else will accept it
Nuclear power is well-disguised fossil fuel
Nuclear power is well-disguised fossil fuel1 Mail and Guardian 30 June 09 …by Roger DiamondAs global warming gets hotter on the international political agenda, and with recent oil price volatility, the nuclear power proponents have jumped on a bandwagon to promote “the peaceful atom” as a means to power our society………………….. Carbon free? When uranium, or any other fissionable material, reacts, indeed, it does not give off any carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gases. However, almost every other aspect of the production of nuclear power does. Let’s start with mining uranium…………………All of this mining, processing and transporting activity uses energy — fossil fuels to be precise. But that’s not even the big energy user in nuclear power. The biggest factor is probably the building of the power stations that have to be over-engineered for terrorist strikes, earthquakes, careless operators………………………..the energy consumed in earth moving, making thousands of tons of cement and building a nuclear power station, is very significant. Maintenance of the power station also consumes energy, as does the transport and disposal of the low and medium-level radioactive waste, but the big unknowns in nuclear power are decommissioning and disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
All of this activity is driven by fossil fuels and so to say that nuclear power is carbon free is to pretend that nuclear power stations descend from the heavens and that fuel rods grow on trees, neither of which are particularly believable. It is also to ignore the challenge that decommissioning and high-level waste disposal pose………………………….he clincher is that all of this adds up to make nuclear power rather expensive and uncertain, and so the predicted boom in nuclear power has not materialised and in fact, the construction of new nuclear power stations is only keeping pace with the decommissioning of old ones built in the 1960s. This is even without the years of expense that we look forward to in guarding and maintaining radioactive hulks of concrete for the rest of civilisation so that they don’t crumble and leak radiation or demolishing the monstrosities and finding a hole to bury them in.
Thought Leader » Peak Oil Perspectives » Nuclear power is well-disguised fossil fuel
1 This Month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (152)
- 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)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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 