Category Archives: no nukes

Are People Who Are Opposed To Nuclear Power Also Opposed To Science – I always try to be fair

Posted on by
Reply

First this person loads this article with oblique invective. Not all liberals are opposed to nuclear power. In fact he never even defines what a liberal IS. Second, he bases his arguement on health issues while dismissing the costs of the power stations and the displacement of that cost to investments in renewable sources of energy with no evidence to support those dismissals. Then there is the issue of waste storage which proved so decisive in the Fukushima accident – eg. causing the most destruction and the most danger. From a larger perspective, we have our own nuclear fusion plant going on with the Sun, and we got back up in the Moon causing the tides. We don’t need no stinking nuclear power.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-ropeik/are-antinuke-liberals-sci_b_844783.html

Are Anti-Nuke Liberals Science Deniers?

Posted: 04/ 5/11 03:37 PM ET

 

David Ropeik

David Ropeik

Author, “How Risky Is It, Really?”

The first glimmers of hope begin to shine from the nuclear crisis in Japan, but they will do little to brighten the views of some about nuclear power. As the disaster at Fukushima has shown, nuclear certainly has risks, as do all forms of energy. But the disaster has also reminded us that it’s really hard to get people to change their minds about a risk, once those minds have been made up. And close-mindedness isn’t the brightest, or safest, way to make the healthiest possible choices about how to stay safe.

As a TV reporter in Boston I covered several nuclear power controversies. Seabrook. Pilgrim. Yankee Rowe. These were great stories… lead stories… because they involved possible public exposure to nuclear radiation, and everybody knows that’s really dangerous. My stories were full of ominous drama and alarm. But when I joined the Harvard School of Public Health and researched nuclear power for a chapter in a book, RISK, A Practical Guide for Deciding What’s Really Safe and What’s Really Dangerous in the World Around You, I was ashamed to learn how uninformed and misleading my alarmism had been. Ionizing radiation is indeed a carcinogen. But it’s not nearly as potent as most people fear.

94,000 survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been followed for 66 years by epidemiologists from around the world and, compared to normal cancer rates in Japan, only about 500 of those survivors have died because of the radiation. About two thirds of one percent. The radiation also caused birth defects in children born to women pregnant when they were exposed, but no long term genetic damage. These findings are widely accepted in the scientific community. Governments around the world base their radiation regulations on them.

:}

Go there and read. More tomorrow.

:}

Meditations On Being Opposed To Nuclear Power – Isao Hashimoto 2053 nuclear explosions 1945-1998

Posted on by
Reply

OK, I tried to load the video here and failed again. Totally. But there are enough links below to get you to the video which is really cool. It is a video that shows the location of all the “known” nuclear bomb tests up to 1998. Now, that doesn’t mean ALL the tests because it does not show the Israeli test off South Africa nor does it include the Korean attempts. Still it is so much like a War Games screen and it is real. Also very well done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyGnq7d4MLg

http://youtu.be/gyGnq7d4MLg

:}

Go there and view. More tomorrow.

:}

Energy Deathprint – One of those pesky externalities you never hear about

Posted on by
Reply

This article is both disturbing and self explanatory.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources

 

James Conca, Contributor

Everyone’s heard of the carbon footprint of different energy sources, the largest footprint belonging to coal because every kWhr of energy produced emits about 900 grams of CO2. Wind and nuclear have the smallest carbon footprint with only 15 g emitted per kWhr, and that mainly from concrete production, construction, and mining of steel and uranium. Biomass is supposedly carbon neutral as it sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere before it liberates it again later, although production losses are significant depending upon the biomass.  Carbon emissions and physical footprints are known as externalities and are those vague someone-has-to-pay-eventually kind of thing it’s hard to put a value on. Proposed carbon footprint taxes are in the range of $15 to $40/ton of  CO2 emitted, but assigning a physical footprint cost depends on the region, ecosystem sensitivities and importance. A hundred-acre wetlands to be flooded by a new dam is worth more to the planet than a barren hundred-acre strip under a solar array in the Mojave (P. Bickel and R. Friedrich, 2005).

But an energy’s deathprint, as it is called, is rarely discussed. The deathprint is the number of people killed by one kind of energy or another per kWhr produced and, like the carbon footprint, coal is the worst and wind and nuclear are the best. According to the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of Science and many health studies over the last decade (NAS 2010), the adverse impacts on health become a significant effect for fossil fuel and biofuel/biomass sources (see especially Brian Wang for an excellent synopsis). In fact, the WHO has called biomass burning in developing countries a major global health issue (WHO int). The table below lists the mortality rate of each energy source as deaths per trillion kWhrs produced. The numbers are a combination of actual direct deaths and epidemiological estimates, and are rounded to two significant figures.

:}

Go there and read. The numbers are disgusting. More tomorrow.

:}

Fukushima Update – Mutated butterflies…oh my

Posted on by
Reply

I was going to put up a piece by a woman in Austin today about recycling electronics and then start in on global warming and the drought here in Illinois but then this popped up. I mean it is the biggest nuclear disaster of this decade and the effects of the radiation are going to be with us for thousands of years. So just like the Ukrainian wolves that we have been watching, the Japanese butterflies bear watching too.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57492524/report-mutated-butterflies-found-near-fukushima/

August 13, 2012 10:52 PM

Report: Mutated butterflies found near Fukushima

Disaster in Japan

(CBS News) A group of scientists in Japan made a surprising discovery by finding large numbers of specimens of pale grass blue butterflies that had mutated.

In a report in the Scientific Reports journal, the scientists said their research concluded that “that artificial radionuclides from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant caused physiological and genetic damage to this species.” The scientists said their findings were not expected.

“It has been believed that insects are very resistant to radiation,” lead researcher Joji Otaki from the University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, told the BBC. “In that sense, our results were unexpected.”

:}

Go there and read. More tomorrow.

:}

Nuclear Power – On time and under cost

Posted on by
Reply

Yah right. That is so laughable. Even after they announced that they were going to try to bring 5 nuclear plants on line there were no commercial backers and so the price went up before they even started. It has been all downhill since then.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/news-guide-building-nuclear-power-plants-16750327#.T_2tBZGkNyU

News Guide: Nuclear Industry Facing Cost Pressures

By The Associated Press
July 10, 2012 (AP)

Q: How many nuclear plants are under construction in the U.S.?

A: Three. Two nuclear reactors are being built at Plant Vogtle in eastern Georgia. Two more reactors are under construction at Plant Summer in central South Carolina. A fifth reactor mothballed in 1985 is being finished at Plant Watts Bar in Tennessee.

Q: How often are nuclear plants built?

A: The last nuclear plant built in the United States was the existing reactor finished at Watts Bar in 1996.

Q: How much does a nuclear plant cost?

A: Billions of dollars. Nuclear plants are among the most complicated and expensive infrastructure projects in the world. The plants require incredible amounts of design and engineering work and must be built to exacting safety standards. Federal inspectors can require that parts of the plant be ripped out and replaced if they don’t meet muster. The plants require huge amounts of metal, concrete, cables and wires. Building two Westinghouse Electric Co. AP1000 reactors at Plant Vogtle is supposed to cost roughly $14 billion, though the final expenses could be more.

:}

Go there and read the rest. More tomorrow.

:}

Rocky Mountain Flats Sucked Then – And it still sucks now

Posted on by
Reply

All they did really was put out the fires and bury the remains. It sits there moldering to this day. They cleaned up the first 3 ft. of soil and tore down the buldings. The buildings and other materials were shipped to New Mexico and Nevada for storage. See first, the history of Rocky Flats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats_Plant

The Rocky Flats Plant was a United States nuclear weapons production facility near Denver, Colorado that operated from 1952 to 1992. It was under the control of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) until 1977, when it was replaced by the Department of Energy (DOE).

:}

Then see her book:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/books/book-review-full-body-burden-by-kristen-iversen.html?_r=0

Publication Date: June 5, 2012

Full Body Burden is a haunting work of narrative nonfiction about a young woman, Kristen Iversen, growing up in a small Colorado town close to Rocky Flats, a secret nuclear weapons plant once designated “the most contaminated site in America.” It’s the story of a childhood and adolescence in the shadow of the Cold War, in a landscape at once startlingly beautiful and–unknown to those who lived there–tainted with invisible yet deadly particles of plutonium.

It’s also a book about the destructive power of secrets–both family and government. Her father’s hidden liquor bottles, the strange cancers in children in the neighborhood, the truth about what was made at Rocky Flats (cleaning supplies, her mother guessed)–best not to inquire too deeply into any of it.

:}

Go there and read. More tomorrow.

:}

This Piece Just Blew Me Away – Small unit nuclear power is just so wrong on so many levels

Posted on by
Reply

This is the Republican Corporate dreamland. Proclaiming that you are the energy source of  the future doesn’t make it so. But mix in a fair number of under educated farm people who will believe anything and Westinghouse who has everything to gain and you have a Missouri wet dream. Unfortunately this is just that, only it is a bad dream. I mean really, if we make it small and spread it around it will work better? Get out.

http://www.moenergyfuture.org/blog/breaking-news-exciting-investment-opportunity-for-missouri-announced-today/

Breaking news: Exciting investment opportunity for Missouri announced today

Posted on April 19, 2012

On Thursday, April 19, Missouri’s energy future took a giant leap forward as investor-owned, cooperative and municipal utilities announced that they are partnering with Westinghouse Electric Company to apply to the Department of Energy’s Small Modular Reactors (SMR) investment fund for up to $452 million. The funding will support engineering, design certification and licensing for SMRs in Missouri.

This historic partnership could make Missouri a world leader in the energy sector economy.  Gov. Jay Nixon, Sen. Mike Kehoe, Rep. Jeanie Riddle, Chairman Pollock and the overwhelming majority of members of the General Assembly who support nuclear power and helped make this amazing opportunity a reality, should be applauded for their hard work and commitment to Missouri’s energy and economic future.

Over the last four years, MBEF’s supporters across the state educated the public to show that cleaner, alternative energy sources like nuclear are a path forward for Missouri. Today, we are another step closer to creating jobs, boosting our economy and securing our energy future.

This announcement could make Missouri home to an SMR component manufacturing center, engineering and design center, and training facility for engineers—establishing Missouri as a world leader and exporter in energy technology and manufacturing.  In addition to the construction of new SMRs, thousands of Missourians will be put to work because of this project.

An economic impact study about the SMR project is in process and will be made available later this spring.

For more information about SMRs, please visit the below websites.

:}

Go there and laugh. More tomorrow.

:}

Nice To Have A Nuke In The Basement – Really the article is more hype than anything

Posted on by
Reply

Still it is kind of interesting. I wonder why no one spilled the beans. Was it because the bulk of their workers were blind and totally dependent on Kodak. I do not know but it is an amusing tale nonetheless.

http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/so_kodak_about_that_nuclear_reactor_in_your_basement

So, Kodak — about that nuclear reactor in your basement

It seems that, until 2006, Kodak had a basement that housed a nuclear reactor, complete with a cache of weapons-grade uranium. How did the company get away with that?

by May 14, 2012 11:16 AM PDT

Corporate America is a place of many layers.

Though fanciful movies made by drug-addled Hollywood directors sometimes suggest that corporations are behind wars, most believe that CEOs are just too harassed to find the time for that sort of action.

And yet, this morning Gizmodo has turned my head toward the explosive reporting of The Democrat and Chronicle, the local newspaper of the Rochester, N.Y., area — home to Kodak.

This paper reveals that between 1978 and 2006, Kodak had a nuclear reactor. No, not a picture of one. A real one — albeit a small one intended for research — housed in its basement.

Surely, you might think that there’s some exaggeration here. And yet it seems that this nuclear reactor contained three-and-a-half pounds of enriched uranium. Highly enriched uranium, indeed, which some might describe as “weapons-grade.”

I am sure that everyone in Rochester — not to mention, say, North America — will be pleased to hear that nothing ever went wrong with this reactor. No leaks. No strange explosions. It apparently bore no responsibility for Kodak’s own implosion, either.

Given that it was only dismantled in 2006, though, it is remarkable that few locals — or, indeed, Kodak employees — knew anything about this 14×24-foot bunker

 

:}

Go there and read. More tomorrow.

:}

 

 

 

Next Week Is Earth Week – Actually Sunday is the day

Posted on by
Reply

Might as well end the week with a kick off for the next. Earth Day is Sunday, but Springfield can’t seem to get its act together on the actual day. But at least people celebrate it. Happy weekend everyone.

http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/10_things_we_ve_learned_about_the_earth_since_last_earth_day

April 19, 2012

10 Things We’ve Learned About the Earth Since Last Earth Day

Sunday is the 42nd celebration of Earth Day, which was started in 1970 by U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson to help educate people about environmental issues and demonstrate public support for a conservationist agenda. With that in mind, we decided it was the right time to recap the most surprising, awe-inspiring and alarming things that we have learned about the Earth and the environment since last year’s holiday:

1. Undiscovered species are still out there: Countless discoveries over the past year reminded us that, despite centuries of research, the planet still has plenty of surprise species in store. Among the many finds include seven new forest mice species in the Philippines, a “psychedelic” gecko in Vietnam and a new type of dolphin in Australia. A new analysis released last August, billed as the most accurate ever, estimated that a total of 8.7 million different species of life exist on earth.

2. Global warming is already driving up food prices: While many fear that climate change will someday reduce crop yields and cause food prices to rise, a study published last May in Science indicates that this troubling trend has already gotten started. The models used suggest that reduced global yields of wheat and corn are related to global warming. Although the effects are relatively small so far, they may cause severe problems in the future, as climate patterns continue to change and food demand increases.

:}

Go there and read. More next week.

:}

2 Nuclear Power Plant failures in 2 Days – So nuclear power is still safe right

Posted on by
Reply

So in the Illinois case an INSULATOR fell off a transformer and shut down the plant. This is a little bit more than a missed inspection. This is more like they ignored the problem until it broke. Not very encouraging if you ask me. In the case of the California plant, it sprung a little leak. I mean really it leaks. Shouldn’t someone stick their finger in it till they get it fixed.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/01/31/146137547/illinois-nuclear-power-plant-shuts-down-unit-after-power-loss

Illinois Nuclear Power Plant Shuts Down Unit After Power Loss

by

Backup diesel generators are powering one of the two nuclear reactors at the Byron Station facility in northern Illinois. Unit Two came offline yesterday after it inexplicably lost power. The facility’s operator, Exelon, declared the incident an “unusual event” – the lowest of four emergency status declarations set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Fire crews were called to the site, about 25 miles outside of Rockford, as smoke was seen from the top of the facility building, according to WREX-TV. But the NRC told the Chicago Tribune the smoke was from a transformer and fire crews didn’t find a fire.

:}

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/unit-shut-down-at-san-onofre-nuclear-plant.html

San Onofre nuclear power plant unit shut down after potential leak

January 31, 2012 |  6:54 pm

L.A. NOW

Southern California — this just in

« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »

San Onofre nuclear power plant unit shut down after potential leak

January 31, 2012 |  6:54 pm
Officials at the San Onofre nuclear power plant shut down one of the facility’s two units Tuesday evening after a sensor detected a possible leak in a steam generator tube.

The potential leak was detected about 4:30 p.m., and the unit was completely shut down about an hour later, Southern California Edison said.

“The potential leak poses no imminent danger to the plant workers or the public,” utility spokeswoman Jennifer Manfre told The Times.

 

:}

Go there and read. More tomorrow.

:}