Don't Nuke the Budget!

By Harvey Wasserman

July 28, 2011

America's budget crisis has the world economy at the brink. Social Security, Medicare, aid for needy children, environmental protection and much more are being chopped.

Yet Congress and the White House may still want to use our money to fund atomic power.

Specifically, $36 billion in loan guarantees may still be on the table for building new nukes. Millions more are slated for "small modular reactors" and other atomic boondoggles.

A national campaign---including an August 7 "MUSE2" concert---is underway to help stop this. With your help, we can win.

Some realities:

• More US energy is now generated by renewables than nuclear power,according to the latest Energy Information Administration report, and the balance is continuing to shift to green sources.
• Solar cells are now cheaper and faster to install than new nuclear, and will soon be cheaper than coal, according to General Electric.
• After a half-century, US atomic power cannot attract private investment for new reactors, cannot obtain sufficient insurance against a major disaster and cannot deal with its wastes.
• At least one Congressional study shows the likelihood of default on reactor loan guarantees to be at least 50%.
• The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's official post-Fukushima report advocates major upgrades in safety and temporary waste storage which the industry is fighting because the costs would force shut numerous aging, dangerous reactors, including nearly two-dozen virtual clones of Fukushima Unit One.
• Two reactors in Nebraska have just barely escaped major disasters due to flooding, although upstream dams still pose a significant danger.
• The only reactor now under construction in France has admitted to at least another billion dollars in cost over-runs and new delays that will push its projected opening until to at least five years after the original target date.
• France's new nuke under construction in Finland is also billions over budget and years behind schedule.
• Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Sweden have committed to phasing out all reactors and converting to renewables.
• A major new study in Japan has shown atomic power to be the highest-cost source of electricity.
• Nearly three-quarters of Japan's reactors are now shut, and all could be down by next summer.
• Reactors make global warming worse, and this summer's devastating heat waves have escalated their ecological impact, forcing ill-timed shutdowns.
• The owners of Georgia's Vogtle project, with $8.33 billion in federal guarantees, are fighting to make sure cost overruns are paid by consumers, not the company.
• Despite losing a major court decision and fierce public opposition, Entergy has decided to buy more fuel for the Vermont Yankee reactor, raising the stakes in a legal and political showdown with major national implications.

The $36 billion in loan guarantees once proposed by Obama for the 2012 budget come as every penny is being slashed from programs for veterans, the young, elderly and impoverished, as well as for protecting the environment and researching new technologies.

Given the economic failure of atomic power, it's likely no new reactors will be built here without these giveaways.

In 2007 the Bush Administration proposed a $50 billion guarantee package that was defeated by a national grassroots movement.

Key to that campaign was NukeFree.org, founded by Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne and Graham Nash. With MoveOn.org, Greenpeace, Nuclear Information & Resource Service, BeyondNuclear, Physicians for Social Responsibility and other national and regional groups, they delivered 120,000 signatures to Congress and sponsored a lobby day that helped shrink the guarantees to $18.5 billion.

Now Raitt, Browne, Nash, John Hall, David Crosby, Kitaro and others will be part of a MUSE2 concert at Shoreline Amphitheatre south of San Francisco on August 7. The all-day show will benefit Japanese disaster victims and recall the hugely successful 1979 Musicians United for Safe Energy "No Nukes" Concerts that rocked New York City after the accident at Three Mile Island.

MUSE2 and the stop-the-guarantees campaign aim to finish the job of burying an ever more unsustainable atomic industry.

Today the guarantees are missing from House Appropriations bill, but could re-surface in the Senate. Some believe the turmoil around the budget will preclude the Senate from doing an appropriations bill, and that the guarantees might surface in a Continuing Resolution. "For the guarantees to resurface, some pro-nuclear Senator will have to try to slip them in," says Michael Mariotte of NIRS. "But we'll be watching."

And a fully empowered national movement could be in good position to kill those guarantees and the unwanted future of US nuclear power along with them.

Slashing social services, environmental protection and so much more to pay for new nuclear plants is not the way to a sustainable green-powered Earth. Your action at this critical moment could make all the difference.

--
Harvey Wasserman edits http://NukeFree.org and is author of SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN POWERED EARTH. He helped co-found Musicians United for Safe Energy.

Author's Bio: HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE US is available at http://www.harveywasserman.com/, as is A GLIMPSE OF THE BIG LIGHT and clues to the whereabouts of the Holy Grail.

Italians say "no" to nuclear during soccer championship

Greenpeace unfurled a banner during the championship soccer game last Sunday, reading: "From Milan to Palermo, let's shut down nuclear." The tag line at the end reads, "the crazy ones are you if you don't vote to close nuclear in the referendum. The national referendum will be held June 12 and 13. In the last one in 1987, Italians voted to shut down their nuclear power program which has never since reopened.

May 31, 2011

Greenpeace Team Identifies ``High Contamination Levels`` in Minamisoma Vegetables

Posted: 13 Apr 2011 02:54 AM PDT

Comment:  Stay safe Rianne:  "Lead by Rianne Teule, Greenpeace International Energy Campaigner!"

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Yonezawa, Japan- (PanOrient News) Greenpeace said in a statement today that its radiation experts investigating impacts from the Fukushima nuclear crisis have discovered high levels of contamination in crops grown on the outskirts of Minamisoma city, raising further concerns over health risks to residents and a lack of official information outside the 20 km evacuation zone.

A Greenpeace radiation monitoring team tested spinach and other vegetables from the gardens of Minamisoma city residents, "revealing radiation levels many times higher than official limits," according to a statement by the group.

Total activity levels of 70,000 - 80,000 Bq/kg were found in spinach leaves from one garden, while levels of roughly 9,000 Bq/kg were found in cabbage from another. Based on the Japanese Ministry of Science (MEXT) reports, 20-30% of this radioactivity is caused by cesium-137, which is far above the Japanese government limit of 500 Bq/kg for vegetables. The limit for iodine-131 it is 2,000 Bq/kg.

Greenpeace has two small field teams carrying out radiation measurements, based in Yonezawa, but operating close to the Fukushima evacuation area. One team is focusing on a survey to map surface contamination and the on food and milk testing. Greenpeace is making requests through Japan’s media for food producers and consumers volunteering their food to be tested, which may aid them in future compensation claims.

The current official evacuation zone is 20 km around Fukushima, while between 20 km and 30 km is an area where people are advised to stay indoors or evacuate voluntarily.

“In several Minamisoma gardens, the vegetables were too contaminated for consumption,” said Greenpeace radiation expert Rianne Teule who is leading the food testing team. “The owner of one garden with contaminated spinach told us that she had received no information from authorities on the radiation risks to her crops, despite reports that government tests on plants in Minamisoma have been underway since March 18.”

The government has been publishing raw data from its own field monitoring, however, its assessment is currently far from comprehensive. Further radiation measurements made by the team in several parts of Minamisoma city show levels up to 4.5 microsievert per hour, which contrasts with the only official monitoring point in Minamisoma City which shows the relatively low levels of 0.7 microsievert per hour.

“Our measurements, taken between government monitoring points, show elevated levels of contamination outside the official 20 km mandatory evacuation zone that indicate a risk to health, yet people in Minamisoma are only being advised to stay indoors or leave on a voluntary basis. This is unacceptable.”

The Mayor of Minamisoma, Katsunobu Sakurai, expressed his frustration to Greenpeace, citing a lack of reliable information or clear advice from Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and the authorities regarding the risks this crisis is posing to his community.

“TEPCO has been irresponsible. 

Further measurements in the region, such as in a rural area near the village of Tsushima, 30 km from the Fukushima/Daiichi nuclear plant, and just outside the 30 km voluntary evacuation zone, also found contamination levels of up to 47 microsieverts per hour, compared to the 32.7 reported by the authorities. Exposure at this level means the maximum allowable dose for a year being achieved in less than 24 hours.

As the maximum allowable accumulated annual dose for members of the public is 1000 microsieverts, 47 microsieverts is 1.5 times that measured by the authorities, and high enough to expose someone to the maximum allowable dose in less than 24 hours.

As part of the monitoring work, the team used selection of standard radiation monitoring equipment including Gamma spectrometer (Exploranium GR-135,) LB 200 Becquerel monitor, Geiger counters (Radex RD 1503, RadAlert,) and Contamination monitors (RADOS MicroCont, Berthold UMO.)

Lead by Rianne Teule, Greenpeace International Energy Campaigner and radiation expert, the teams include Greenpeace Germany Climate and Energy Unit Head Thomas Breuer, Greenpeace Belgium radiation safety expert Jan van de Putte and Greenpeace International Logistics Manager and qualified radiation safety advisor, Nikki Westwood.

Read more:

http://www.panorientnews.com/en/news.php?k=910

Nuclear Protest Photos

Austria People demonstrate during a public summer party calling on authorities to switch off atomic power plants in front of the International Center where the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, has it's headquarters in Vienna, Austria, Saturday, April 9, 2011. Poster at right reads: Finally Switch Off. Poster at left: Nuclear Power, Booh. (Ronald Zak)

Brazil People holding hands march during an anti nuclear protest at Leblon beach in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Sunday March 27, 2011. (Felipe Dana)

Britain Peace protestor Nina Carter-Brown, 26, passes a line of police during a protest outside the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, England, Monday Feb. 15, 2010, where warheads for Britain's submarine-based Trident missiles are made. According to the organizers, hundreds of people took part in the protest, including two Nobel Peace Prize winners - Jody Williams, who led a campaign to ban land mines, and Mairead Maguire, who led a campaign to end violence in Northern Ireland.(Barry)

Bulgaria Demonstrators take part in an anti nuclear protest in Sofia, Saturday, March 19, 2011. The protesters gathered to demand the shutdown of Bulgarian nuclear power station and suspension of the plans for construction of a new power plant in Belene, Bulgaria. The poster reads BeleNE (No to Belene nuclear power plant). (Valentina Petrova)

Cyprus Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot environmental activists wearing masks and white overalls protest against Turkey's plans to build a nuclear power plant on its southern coast during a demonstration in the divided island's capital Nicosia, on Saturday, March 19, 2011. Environmentalists say the site where the proposed plant will be built sits near an seismic fault line and could pose a danger to Cyprus 100 kilometers (62 miles) away as well as other neighboring countries.(Philippos Chris)

France A demonstrator wears a gas during an anti-nuclear protest in Paris, Sunday March 20, 2011. Fueled by the nuclear crisis unfolding in Japan following the country's earthquake, demonstrators are demanding that France end its dependence on nuclear power. (Thibault Camus)

Germany Anti nuclear demonstrators march in Cologne, western Germany Saturday March 26, 2011 to protest against nuclear power. Poster in front reads: Fukushima warns: Pull the Plug on all Nuclear Power Plants. White banner behind reads : 'Solidarity with the people in Japan'. Some 200,000 people turned out in Germany's largest cities on Saturday to protest against the use of nuclear power in the wake of Japan's Fukushima reactor disaster, police and organizers said.

India An Indian protester belonging to the Anti-Nuclear Struggles Solidarity Forum holds a photo of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster during anti-nuclear protest, in New Delhi, India, Friday, March 25, 2011. Nearly 100 protesters marched to India's parliament on Friday demanding that the government give up plans to set up a large number of nuclear power reactors, underscoring the nuclear crisis in Japan. (Manish Swarup)

Indonesia An Indonesian environmental activist holds a portrait of a victim of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster during an anti-nuclear protest marking its 24th anniversary outside The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources in Jakarta, Indonesia, Monday, April 26, 2010. (Dita Alangkara)

Israel Greenpeace activists place a huge banner on a light rail bridge at the entrance to Jerusalem, Sunday, Jan. 16, 2011. Greenpeace activists protested Sunday against the country's plans to build a new coal-fueled power plant in southern Israel. (Sebastian Scheiner)

Italy A giant Greenpeace banner reading in English and Italian "Stop nuclear madness'' is unrolled from the "Squared Colosseum", also known as the Palazzo della Civilta' Italiana (Palace of the Italian Civilization), reflected in a lake, in Rome's EUR district, Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2010. As the sun rose Tuesday over the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini's palace, four members of the pro-environment group used ropes to reach the top in a protest against the possible construction of nuclear power plants.

Japan Protesters hold placards against nuclear power plant as they took to the streets in a rally against nuclear power and its development, in Tokyo, on Sunday, April 10, 2011, after a devastative earthquake and tsunami crippled the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex in northeastern Japan last month. (Itsuo Inouye)

Malaysia Protesters hold a banner during an anti-nuclear protest in Port Klang, outside Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Sunday, April 3, 2011. Some 30 protesters joined an anti-nuclear protest on Sunday, calling for the government to drop plan to build two nuclear power plants by 2022. The red words at the bottom read "Caution! Radiation effects." (Lai Seng Sin)

Mexico A Greenpeace activist hangs in back of an anti-nuclear sign in front of Mexico's Energy Secretariat (Sener) during a protest in Mexico City, Thursday March 31, 2011. The sign reads in Spanish, "Nuclear? No, Thanks!" (Alexandre Meneghini)

Philippines Tribal Filipinos and environmental activists burn a caricature of Philippine President Benigno Aquino III during a rally near the Presidential Palace in Manila, Philippines, Thursday, March 3, 2011, to coincide with the 16th anniversary of the Mining Act of 1995 which liberalized the country's mining industry and allegedly allowed 100-percent ownership by foreign corporations of mineral lands and mining operations.

Russia Several members of liberal Yabloko party hold a poster, showing a map with a route of nuclear waste from Germany to Russian Urals Mountains, as they picket at the Germany Embassy in Moscow on Tuesday, Aug. 24, 2010. Protesters demanded a ban on nuclear waste transfer from Germany to Russia for an utilization. (Sergey Ponomarev)

South Korea South Korean environmentalists stage a protest aboard a boat calling for the closure of the outdated Wolsung reactor and opposing the construction of a new reactor on seas off Wolsung Nuclear Power Plant in Gyeongju, South Korea, Wednesday, March 23, 2011. Fears over possible radiation contamination are growing in South Korea, the country closest to Japan, after Japanese nuclear power plants were damaged by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.(Yonhap, Lee Sung-hyung) KOREA OUT

Spain A Greenpeace protester adjusts her gas mask outside Spain's Industry Ministry in Madrid Wednesday Sept. 22, 2010 against a planned nuclear dump. Various Spanish towns have volunteered to host a nuclear waste dump that is becoming a hot potato for the government. Spain has eight nuclear reactors that provide 19 percent of the country's electricity. Banners read 'No to the Nuclear cemetery' (Paul White)

Sweden A policeman apprehends a Greenpeace activist after he was prevented from entering the Forsmark nuclear power plant, North of Stockhollm, Monday, June 14, 2010. Police say they arrested around 50 activists after they entered a power plant in central Sweden as part of a Greenpeace protest against the use of nuclear energy. Greenpeace says the activists were staging a protest Monday against government plans to allow new nuclear power stations to be built in Sweden.(Bertil Ericson)

Switzerland People demonstrate against nuclear power plants, in Geneva, Switzerland, Saturday, March 26, 2011. The demonstration is in reaction to the nuclear power plant destruction after the recent earthquake followed by a tsunami in Japan. (Martial Trezzini)

Taiwan A Taiwanese, wearing a headband with Chinese characters (reversed) that read, "Anti-nuclear, Save Taiwan," holds a lily and prays for victims of last Friday's earthquake and tsunami in Japan during a protest for antinuclear in front of the Executive Yuan, Thursday, March 17, 2011, in Taipei, Taiwan.(Chiang Ying-ying)

Turkey A woman walks past Greenpeace activists as they display symbolic mock-ups of traditional Russian matryoshka dolls with the image of Russian Prime Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, during their protest in Ankara, Turkey Thursday, Aug. 6, 2009. The activists gathered to protest against Putin's offer to help Turkey build nuclear power plants, hours before Putin is scheduled to arrive in Ankara. (Burhan Ozbilici)

United States Demonstrators outside the federal courthouse in Tacoma pray before a sentencing hearing for the Rev.Bill Bichsel, of Tacoma; the Rev. Stephen Kelly of Oakland, Calif.; Lynne Greenwald of Tacoma; Sister Anne Montgomery of Redwood City, Calif.; and Susan Crane of Baltimore Monday, March 28, 2011. The five cut through fences in November 2009 to reach the weapons storage area at Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor where they put up banners, scattered sunflower seeds and prayed to protest submarine nuclear weapons

Greenpeace - the truth on Fukushima dumping radiation in ocean

Ocean dumping: Fukushima far from under control

Posted: 07 Apr 2011 03:22 AM PDT

Blogpost by Jessica Miller - 
April 6, 2011 at 9:52 

For weeks TEPCO and the Japanese government have tried to assure us that the crisis at Fukushima is stabilizing and that the situation is under control. 

However, the recent decision to dump over 15,000 tons of highly radioactive water directly into the sea seems to suggest just the opposite. TEPCO’s decision to further contaminate the marine environment - to free up space for storing water with even higher levels of radiation - proves this crisis is far from under control.

Pouring seawater over the Fukushima reactors and spent fuel ponds has been a last resort to prevent a worst-case scenario in an already dire situation. It resulted in huge amounts of seriously contaminated water accumulating in the power plant’s basement and the rest of the facility. That water then was disposed of to make room for more contaminated water.

Officials have said that the water being released does not pose a significant threat to human health. That has yet to be proven - but what about the impacts of radiation on marine ecosystems, fishing communities and seafood? 

During the last few days, seawater samples taken some 40km away from the damaged reactors have indicated serious levels of radioactive contamination Similarly, analysis of seaweed collected two weeks ago, also 40km away revealed an extremely high concentration of radioisotopes – several thousand times above the limit. The impacts of additional or continued dumping of contaminated water into the sea can only be imagined.

The east coast of Japan is important when it comes to fishing and the harvesting of seafood. The sea around the Fukushima plant has already been contaminated – TEPCO says seawater samples taken on 2 April close to reactor 2 contained 7.5 million times the legal limit for radioactive iodine. I Sadly, at this point the potential impacts of an extra 15,000 tonnes of radiation on the sea can only be imagined.

Field radiation team

Last week our field radiation team’s findings confirmed those by the Fukushima Prefectural Government for Iitate, and those of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Following these findings, we called on the Japanese government to evacuate the contaminated areas outside the official zone. The government has yet to call for an evacuation.

So we have a new team on the ground - right now, two radiation monitoring teams are outside the Fukushima evacuation zone: one investigating health threats and testing food and milk and the other is looking at surface contamination.

Nuclear reactors are inherently dangerous, and will always be vulnerable to the potentially deadly combination of human error, design failure and natural disaster. Governments around the world must commit to a future based on energy efficiency and renewable energy – nuclear power has no place in a modern safe and secure energy system!

Read more:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/ocean-dumping-fukushima-far-from-under-contro/blog/34114

Greenpeace on Nuclear Energy; Not needed: NYT/IHT oped

Nuclear Energy Isn't Needed

By KUMI NAIDOO

Published: March 22, 2011

Twelve days are not nearly enough to comprehend the magnitude of the catastrophes that hit Japan starting March 11. From the children who lost parents in the crush of the earthquake, to those whose loved ones are still missing after the tsunami, to the scores of workers risking their health by heroically attempting to stabilize the Fukushima nuclear complex — there is no end to the tragic stories.

Yet in addition to the grief and empathy I feel for the Japanese people, I am beginning to develop another emotion, and that is anger. As we anxiously await every bit of news about the developments at Fukushima, hoping that radiation leaks and discharges will be brought to an end, that the risk of further catastrophe will be averted, and that the Japanese people will have one less nightmare to cope with, governments across the world continue to promote further investment in nuclear power. Just last week, for example, the government of my home country of South Africa announced that it was adding 9,600 megawatts of nuclear energy to its new energy plan.

There are two dangerous assumptions currently parading themselves as fact in the midst of the ongoing nuclear crisis. The first is that nuclear energy is safe. The second is that nuclear energy is an essential element of a low carbon future, that it is needed to prevent catastrophic climate change. Both are false.

Nuclear technology will always be vulnerable to human error, natural disaster, design failure or terrorist attack. What we are seeing at Fukushima right now are failures of the systems. The reactors themselves withstood the earthquake and tsunami, but then the vital cooling systems failed. When the back-up power systems also failed, the reactors overheated, eventually causing the spread of radiation. This is only one example of what can go wrong.

Nuclear power is inherently unsafe and the list of possible illnesses stemming from exposure to the accompanying radiation is horrifying: genetic mutations, birth defects, cancer, leukemia and disorders of the reproductive, immune, cardiovascular and endocrine systems.

While we have all heard of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, the nuclear industry would have us believe these are but isolated events in an otherwise unblemished history. Not so. Over 800 other significant events have been officially reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency — Mayak, Tokaimura, Bohunice, Forsmark to name just a few.

The argument that nuclear energy is a necessary component of a carbon-free future is also false.

Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council have put together a study called “Energy [R]evolution,” which clearly shows that a clean energy pathway is cheaper, healthier and delivers faster results for the climate than any other option. This plan calls for the phase-out of existing reactors around the world and a moratorium on construction of new commercial nuclear reactors.

Furthermore, an energy scenario recently produced by the conservative International Energy Agency highlights the fact that nuclear power is not necessary for lowering greenhouse gas emissions. It shows that even if existing nuclear power capacity could be quadrupled by 2050, the proportion of energy that it provided would still be below 10 percent globally. This would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by less than 4 percent. The same amount of money, invested in clean, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar could have a much greater impact on lowering global warming.

Nuclear energy is an expensive and deadly distraction from the real solutions. “Fuel-free” sources of energy do not generate international conflicts (as I write I cannot help but think of Libya), they do not “run dry” and they do not spill. There are initial financial investments to be made, but in time the price of renewables will decline as technological advances and market competition drive the costs down. Furthermore, implemented wisely, a green, nuclear and fossil-free future will create a host of safe, new jobs.

As international organizations like Greenpeace join Japan’s Citizens Nuclear Information Center in an appeal to the Japanese government for improved evacuation plans and other protective measures for people still within the 30-kilometer exclusion zone; as the issue of food and water contamination continues to grow in Asia; as iodine tablets continue to sell out around the globe and people in places as far away from Japan as Los Angeles are on high alert for “radioactive plumes” — it is imperative that as citizens of the world we continue to voice our opposition to further investment in nuclear energy. We need a truly clean energy revolution now.

Kumi Naidoo is executive director of Greenpeace International.

Extremely radioactive water leaks into surrounding tunnels

NEWSTABULOUS) – Extremely radioactive water has seeped from one of the reactors at Japan’s damaged nuclear reactor facility.

Greenpeace reported that it had detected high levels of radiation outside an exclusion zone.

Tokyo Electric Power Co., TEPCO, appealed to French companies for assistance, in controlling the six reactor Fukushima facility as they are concerned about the success of their efforts to date.

The plant is located 150 miles north of Tokyo and was crippled in theMarch 11 earthquake and tsunami, which claimed more than 27,000 dead and missing persons in the northeast area of Japan. 

Engineers have steadily been forced to halt their work in stabilizing the facility as explosions, fires, and radiation leaks have made it impossible to complete the work.  When radiation levels went as high as 100,000 times above the norm inside reactor No. 2 on Sunday, another suspension of their efforts occurred.

TEPCO claimed that radiation above 1,000 millisieverts per hour was found in the tunnels used for piping outside the reactor. Sunday, the same level existed. The U.S. Environmental Agency claims that one dose of 1,000 millisieverts is sufficient to cause hemorrhaging.

Although the contaminated underground tunnels do not flow directly into the ocean, the radioactive water could leak into the ground and thus contaminate the sea. 25 miles northwest of the facility, radiation of up to 10 microsieverts per hour had been confirmed by Greenpeace experts. Consequently, they requested an extension of another 12 miles be added to the evacuation zone.

Greenpeace said that in only a few days, the village of Iitate could receive the maximum allowed yearly dose of radiation and would definitely be unsafe for people to stay there; especially children and pregnant women. 

Already over 70,000 have been evacuated from the area within 12 miles of the facility and 130,000 in the zone which extends 6 miles further had been asked to stay indoors, but are now encouraged to leave as well.

Radiation has shown up in Tokyo’s tap water; radiation showed up has far away as Iceland.

With the unclear, dismissive, and vague information given to the Japanese people, Greenpeace urged the government to finally acknowledge the inherent danger. They said:

“The authorities must stop choosing politics over science.”

One person who lives in the area complained that:

“the scary thing is the radiation. There is a gap between what the newspapers write and what the government is saying. I want the government to tell the truth more.”

Experts have been trying, at this point, to come up with solutions and ideas to halt the operations at the facility. One major possibility is to entomb the reactors in sand and concrete as was done at Chernobyl after their disaster.

At this time, about 250,000 people are in shelters and damage could be more than $300 billion, making it the world’s most expensive natural disaster.

photo: buzzyuk.com

Similar Posts:

• Radiation Levels Higher Than Earlier Reported
• Level 5: Japan’s Nuclear Severity Rating Raised
• Fourth Reactor on Fire & Radiation Pouring Out
• Fukushima 50 Fight to Avert Nuclear Disaster in Japan
• Radiation Levels 10 Million Times Higher than Normal in Reactor 2

Anti-uranium mining activists stage inquiry in Peterborough into province's plan to expand nuclear reactors

Anti-uranium mining activists stage inquiry in Peterborough into province's plan to expand nuclear reactors

Posted By NICOLE RIVA/Examiner Staff Writer

Posted 1 day ago

The dangers of radiation, health problems and environmental sustainability took centre stage at a meeting staged by anti-uranium mining activists at Sadleir House Tuesday.

Organized by the Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium and facilitated by Peterborough group Safe and Green Energy (SAGE), the Citizens Inquiry into Impacts of Uranium Mining was dubbed a neutral hearing by organizers. But of the nearly 40 speakers, there was no one on hand to defend to represent mining companies.

The goal of many participants is to seek a moratorium on uranium mining and exploration in Ontario.

A lack of public debate about uranium mining and nuclear energy was criticized by several speakers, but the executive director of Greenpeace said those groups have said enough.

“The corporations have been heard. They’re in the backrooms of the province,” said Bruce Cox. “This is one of the few times to hear the other side of the story.”

Cox said the four hearings being held by the activists across the province are exactly what is needed to get the government to listen.

“What politicians do respond to is public pressure,” he said.

Nearly 50 people attended the inquiry's afternoon and evening sessions.

The inquiry was overseen by a panel, said Anna Petry from SAGE, which will gather information from the hearings and present them to Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Former Ottawa mayor and MP Marion Dewar and Fraser McVie, a retired official with the corrections system, made up yesterday’s panel.

Anyone wishing to present to the inquiry only had to submit their name by April 1, Petry said, and organizers had no previous knowledge about presentations.

Speakers included concerned citizens, politicians, scientists and activist groups who came from surrounding areas including Port Hope, Haliburton, Toronto and the Bancroft area.

Cox spoke adamantly against the government’s $40-billion proposed nuclear expansion involving up to eight new reactors and said public discussion is needed to preserve Ontario’s natural heritage for future generations.

Rachelle Sauve pushes a three-eyed fish in a shopping cart outside MPP Jeff Leal's constituency office on King Street before walking to trent University's Sadleir House on George Street to attend a a meeting staged by anti-uranium mining activists Tuesday. The citizens inquiry was organized by the Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium.

Clifford Skarstedt, Examiner

“The corporations have been heard. They’re in the backrooms of the province. This is one of the few times to hear the other side of the story.” Bruce Cox, executive director.

Cox said the four hearings being held by the activists across the province are exactly what is needed to get the government to listen.

“What politicians do respond to is public pressure,” he said.

Nearly 50 people attended the inquiry's afternoon and evening sessions.

The inquiry was overseen by a panel, said Anna Petry from SAGE, which will gather information from the hearings and present them to Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Former Ottawa mayor and MP Marion Dewar and Fraser McVie, a retired official with the corrections system, made up yesterday’s panel.

Anyone wishing to present to the inquiry only had to submit their name by April 1, Petry said, and organizers had no previous knowledge about presentations.

Speakers included concerned citizens, politicians, scientists and activist groups who came from surrounding areas including Port Hope, Haliburton, Toronto and the Bancroft area.

Cox spoke adamantly against the government’s $40-billion proposed nuclear expansion involving up to eight new reactors and said public discussion is needed to preserve Ontario’s natural heritage for future generations.

“All stages (of production) release some form of radioactive waste,” he said. “One million years is the life expectancy of high-level nuclear waste.”

Former UN secretary general Kofi Annan was quoted on concerns about nuclear terrorism.

“Nobody has targeted wind turbines for terrorist action,” Cox said.

Cox was followed by Trent professor and Ardoch Algonquin First Nation co-chief Paula Sherman who was arrested and fined for contempt of court after a blockade against uranium mining exploration on Sharbot Lake in March along with Ardoch’s spokesman Robert Lovelace, who is serving a six-month sentence at the Central East Correctional Centre in Lindsay.

Lovelace was called a hero several times during the day and calls for his release were repeated during yesterday's event.

Sherman demonstrated the need to keep uranium in the ground by reading from the story “Christopher Coyote and the Seeds of the Sun.” In the story once the secrets of the seeds of the sun are revealed everything dies.

Sherman, along with several other speakers, spoke about how the uranium mines encroaching on First Nations ancestral land was a form of colonialism and that a review of Ontario’s Mining Act is needed.

Mark Winfield, former Ontario policy director for the Pembina Institute, explained how uranium negatively impacts the environment at each step and produces radioactive tailings that can contaminate surface and groundwater.

“We’re looking at discharges largely of uranium and other heavy metals notably nickel, arsenic and lead,” Winfield said. “Health Canada, Environment Canada have said the effluent is a toxic substance.”

Presentations from Port Hope residents added a personal feel because of their proximity to the Cameco uranium processing facility, which has had operations curtailed since last July by a contamination leak under one of the plants.

John Miller, from Families Against Radiation Exposure (FARE), described the Cameco situation as being “too close for comfort.”

The 1,500 FARE members are working to force Cameco to clean up from an ongoing leakage and keep the community safer.

“Cameco knows the public wants emissions reduced, health testing done and to ensure the site’s security,” Miller said.

A former Cameco employee, Dan Rudka, told his story of radiation poisoning, which nearly killed him. The poisoning has not been officially acknowledged, he said, but he has tested positive for having uranium in his body.

Rudka recounted how his skin started to rot away, losing one-third of his body mass and how colours were washed out of sheets from his sweat.

Several speakers said uranium can leach into water systems and travel a great distance, and pointed out how if water near Haliburton and Bancroft is affected it could carry down to Peterborough since the areas share a watershed.

“The toxins don’t stop at the plant gate,” said Marion Burton from the Occupational and Environmental Health Coalition. “Communities have a right to know what chemicals exist in our neighbourhoods.”

Academics say safety concerns of new generation of nuclear plants not yet addressed.

A group of U.K. scientists and academics Friday condemned as undemocratic and possibly illegal the British government's plans to force through a new generation of nuclear power stations to meet Britain's energy needs for the next 30 years. They warn that questions about the risks from radiation, disposal of nuclear waste and vulnerability to a terrorist attack have not been addressed - even though the government was ordered last February to repeat a public consultation on energy supply, after its exercise was declared unlawful by a high court judge. Friday the nuclear consultation group, made up of 17 energy economists and several of the government's independent advisers on nuclear waste, condemned the methods used in the second attempt to gather public and expert opinion. "We are profoundly concerned that the government's approach was designed to provide particular and limiting answers," said Paul Dorfman, a spokesman for the independent group, which includes professors of Oxford, Sussex, and Lancaster universities, and Rutgers in the U.S. "Those answers risk locking in U.K. energy to an inflexible and vulnerable pathway that will prove unsustainable," he added. In an 87-page report, the group says: "Significant issues were not consulted on in any meaningful way or resolved in practice. It has left the government vulnerable to legal challenge and may lead to hostility and mistrust of any future energy decision," the paper warns. Contributors include Andy Stirling, director of science at the Science Policy Research Unit, Jerome Ravetz, fellow of the Institute for Science and Civilization at Oxford University, Dave Elliott, co-director of energy and research at the Open University, Gordon Walker, chair of environment at Lancaster University, and Frank Barnaby, at the Oxford Research Group. The report comes as the government prepares to give the go-ahead next week for a major expansion of nuclear power, which could herald the building 20 reactors by private firms. Prime minister Gordon Brown is convinced, as was Tony Blair, nuclear power is needed to ensure energy security and to limit carbon emissions. The intervention could trigger fresh legal action, however. Thursday Greenpeace, whose challenge to the energy review was upheld last year, said it would wait to see the government's formal response on Tuesday before deciding whether to return to the courts. A new court case could delay the start of building stations by a further year. The government is expected to insist it has a mandate. In meetings in the autumn, more than 1,000 people were asked their view of nuclear power after seeing videos and taking part in discussion: 44% said power firms should have the option to build nuclear; 36% said no. A Department for Business and Enterprise spokeswoman said: "We gave people five months to respond, longer than the average three to four month consultation period. We have received 2,700 responses from the extensive consultation, which included public meetings across the U.K., a written consultation document, and a website. Time is pressing. We need to make a decision on whether we should continue to get some of our electricity from nuclear, which is a low carbon form of making energy." Green groups said the questions were loaded and the information presented biased and inaccurate. A complaint was made to the Market Research Standards Board alleging the market research firm involved broke the code of conduct. A Greenpeace letter sent to the Treasury solicitors before Christmas says: "It would be unlawful for the government to make a decision to build new nuclear power stations without knowing what will happen to the new radioactive waste." The consultation response will be a statement by energy secretary John Hutton, followed in days by an energy bill. Intellpuke says: Ever since then prime minister Tony Blair announced a push for nuclear power, the British government, hand-in-hand, if you will, with the nuclear industry, has been trying to rush the decision and push forward with construction as rapidly as possible. Yet its first "citizen review" was found woefully lacking by a British high court which, in essence, said many of the governments statements about nuclear power and safety were inaccurate and misleading. Now, it sounds as if the second round of "citizen review" is equally lacking in objectivity regarding construction methods and safety. Contrary to what the nuclear industry would have people believe, nuclear power is not a "clean" energy. It is, in fact, about the most toxic and lethal form of energy humans have come up with. All it will take is one construction error in a key area or one successful terrorist attack because security was not adequate to create a disaster in Britain, or anywhere else that will rival, if not surpass that of Chernobyl. Just one such blunder would not only make the immediate vicinity of the incident a "dead zone" but spread that dead zone across a surprisingly large area downwind from the incident. You can read this article by Guardian environment editor John Vidal, reporting from Manchester, England, in context here: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/04/nuclearpower.greenpolitics You can also find a link to the independent group's full 87-page report, in PDF format, at the link to this article. you can find it at www.nuclearconsult.com and this is its executive summary: 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The public mistrust of policy decision-making on issues involving nuclear risk is a defining issue. In order to overcome this mistrust, government has consulted with the public about the potential role of nuclear power in future energy policy - the idea is to weigh expert knowledge with every-day knowledge to arrive at a democratic and balanced view. Here, the practice and purpose of this public dialogue, and the models of engagement to enable it, are core to the relationship between government and the public in a modern democracy. In order to overcome the widespread belief that institutions wishing to impose their arbitrary actions upon the public may be secretive, all the key framing propositions and assumptions underpinning the nuclear power consultation need to be made explicit in any case that is put forward for new nuclear power stations. To access true public opinion about such a high-stakes issue, the public consultation should have been clear, integrated, independent, and conducted over a long enough time-frame. Failure to do so has left the government vulnerable to legal challenge and may lead to hostility and mistrust of any future energy policy decision. Even in the most technical and sophisticated forms of analysis, it seems that the answer you get depends on the way you frame the question. We suggest that the key assumptions underpinning the government’s approach to the 2007 nuclear consultation remain open to critical analysis. We are profoundly concerned that these framing assumptions were designed to provide particular and limited answers - and those answers risk locking in UK energy futures to an inflexible and vulnerable pathway that will prove unsustainable. This report discusses the form and function of the nuclear consultation, and then addresses the issues and challenges that were elided and obscured during that consultation. We conclude that the government erred in asking the public to take a decision ‘in principle’ for more nuclear power when significant ‘what if’ issues were not consulted on in any meaningful way, or resolved in practice. These issues include uncertainty about: nuclear fuel supply and manufacture, vulnerability to attack, security and nuclear proliferation, radiation waste, radiation risk and health effects, reactor decommissioning, reactor design and siting, cost of electricity generating technologies, energy distribution models, true renewable and energy efficiency modelling. We take no satisfaction that our Conclusions and Recommendations to government are based on the understanding that the 2007 nuclear power consultation has failed. Poor consultation practice wastes people’s time and can seriously undermine people’s trust in government. The extent of mistrust of the institutions and the institutional culture underpinning nuclear power underlines that this is a public mood that, although not immutable, has been deeply entrenched by long and discouraging experience. Although a broader, 6 deeper, even-handed consultation may have appeared an inconvenience to certain sectors of the nuclear industry, a truly involving process would have produced a better result for everyone by generating greater social consensus and trust in the eventual outcome.