The Nuclear Power Danger

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclearpower.html

The Nuclear Power Danger

Nuclear reactors emit radioactivity; present inviting terrorist

targets; are

inextricably linked to nuclear weapons - depending on fuel chain

facilities that can be diverted to nuclear weapons use - and are too

expensive and too slow to build to combat climate change. They leave

mountains of radioactive waste, dangerous for millennia. An accident

could result in devastating health consequences.

The age of nuclear power and fossil fuels has passed. We have

excellent, cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives that are available

and ready to implement. Here are some of the compelling reasons to

shut down nuclear power:

Climate Crisis: Nuclear energy cannot address issues connected

to the greenhouse gas buildup. Nuclear power plants are too costly,

take too long to build, and are too expensive to operate to affect the

problem in time. In fact, investments in nuclear power deprive other

efforts, such as conservation, energy efficiency and renewable energy,

of much-needed funding.

Routine Radioactive Releases: All reactors release radiation

into the air, water and soil and cannot be described as "emissions-

free." Children are especially vulnerable and cannot be shielded from

cancer-causing radiation in the environment. In fact, national

radiation protection standards fall short of protecting those most

vulnerable to the harmful effects of radiation, basing their

evaluation on impacts to a "standard" healthy, young, white adult

male.

Terrorism: New reactors would increase the number of terrorist

targets and current ones are not even defended to the level of the

9/11 assault - 19 men in four teams, including air attack scenarios.

Thirty-two U.S. reactors have fuel pools on the upper levels of the

reactor building, shielded only by sheet metal and an open invitation

to air attack.

Radioactive Waste: The entire nuclear fuel chain, from mining to

milling, processing, enrichment, fuel fabrication, and fuel

irradiation in reactors, generates radioactive waste. Nuclear reactors

produce large amounts of long-lasting, deadly radioactive waste. This

includes 20-30 tons of high-level radioactive waste per year per

reactor, plus so-called "low" level radioactive waste streams, and

much of the entire contaminated nuclear power plant site once closed.

There is currently no acceptable solution for either "storage" or

"disposal" of this waste. New reactors would produce yet more

radioactive waste which would be left on site, threatening the region,

or transported across the country, increasing the odds of disaster on

site and in transit. The only proposed deep geological dump in the

U.S. is at the scientifically unsound Yucca Mountain, virtually

guaranteed to leak massive amounts of deadly radioactive waste over

time. The site would, if opened, soon be full with no room for newly-

produced waste. "Low-level" radioactive waste, a misnomer, is dumped

into landfills or incinerated, contaminating our water and air.

Efforts to recycle it into consumer goods threaten our health.

Exorbitant Cost: Every reactor costs at least $4 billion to

construct. President Bush signed an energy bill in 2005 that would

award the nuclear industry $13 billion in tax breaks, subsidies and

loan guarantees. This includes $2.9 billion for more research and

development and $2 billion to cover costs of new construction delays -

all paid by the public. Meanwhile, electric utilities comprise some of

the wealthiest corporations in the world. Nuclear power has already

been subsidized to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars over

the past fifty years.

Accidents: New reactors, like old ones, are at their most

vulnerable to accidents. Yet in the event of an accident, existing

evacuation plans have been found to be unrealistic. Furthermore, the

Price-Anderson Act ensures that the liability of an accident to a

utility is capped at $10.8 billion. A serious reactor accident could

cost as much as $600 billion, the balance of which would likely be

paid by taxpayers.

Reactors and Bombs: Reactors and the nuclear fuel chain

facilities they are connected to set the stage for atomic weapons

production. Therefore the world cannot free itself from nuclear

weapons while reactors and nuclear fuel chain facilities such as

uranium enrichment and reprocessing factories exist. The tensions over

Iran, North Korea, India and Pakistan perfectly illustrate this point.

"9 Trillion Dollar Republican National Debt" <icadserve2@yahoo.com> wrote in

message news:1188429476.075955.299390@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclearpower.html

>

> The Nuclear Power Danger

>

> Nuclear reactors emit radioactivity; present inviting terrorist

> targets; are

> inextricably linked to nuclear weapons - depending on fuel chain

> facilities that can be diverted to nuclear weapons use - and are too

> expensive and too slow to build to combat climate change. They leave

> mountains of radioactive waste, dangerous for millennia. An accident

> could result in devastating health consequences.

Would they be too expensive to build and take so long to build, if no one

would challenge the construction of these plants? You do know that there

are nuclear plants in countries who do not have nuclear bombs don't you?

How any accidents have occurred with nuclear power plants where lots of

people have died, since they have been constructed?

>

> The age of nuclear power and fossil fuels has passed. We have

> excellent, cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives that are available

> and ready to implement.

What are these "alternatives"?

Here are some of the compelling reasons to

> shut down nuclear power:

>

> Climate Crisis: Nuclear energy cannot address issues connected

> to the greenhouse gas buildup.

Why not?

Nuclear power plants are too costly,

> take too long to build, and are too expensive to operate to affect the

> problem in time. In fact, investments in nuclear power deprive other

> efforts, such as conservation, energy efficiency and renewable energy,

> of much-needed funding.

> Routine Radioactive Releases: All reactors release radiation

> into the air, water and soil and cannot be described as "emissions-

> free." Children are especially vulnerable and cannot be shielded from

> cancer-causing radiation in the environment. In fact, national

> radiation protection standards fall short of protecting those most

> vulnerable to the harmful effects of radiation, basing their

> evaluation on impacts to a "standard" healthy, young, white adult

> male.

And how many people have died as a result to date?

> Terrorism: New reactors would increase the number of terrorist

> targets and current ones are not even defended to the level of the

> 9/11 assault - 19 men in four teams, including air attack scenarios.

> Thirty-two U.S. reactors have fuel pools on the upper levels of the

> reactor building, shielded only by sheet metal and an open invitation

> to air attack.

So, the solution to the perceived problem is to beef up secusrity at these

plants?

> Radioactive Waste: The entire nuclear fuel chain, from mining to

> milling, processing, enrichment, fuel fabrication, and fuel

> irradiation in reactors, generates radioactive waste. Nuclear reactors

> produce large amounts of long-lasting, deadly radioactive waste. This

> includes 20-30 tons of high-level radioactive waste per year per

> reactor, plus so-called "low" level radioactive waste streams, and

> much of the entire contaminated nuclear power plant site once closed.

> There is currently no acceptable solution for either "storage" or

> "disposal" of this waste. New reactors would produce yet more

> radioactive waste which would be left on site, threatening the region,

> or transported across the country, increasing the odds of disaster on

> site and in transit. The only proposed deep geological dump in the

> U.S. is at the scientifically unsound Yucca Mountain, virtually

> guaranteed to leak massive amounts of deadly radioactive waste over

> time. The site would, if opened, soon be full with no room for newly-

> produced waste. "Low-level" radioactive waste, a misnomer, is dumped

> into landfills or incinerated, contaminating our water and air.

> Efforts to recycle it into consumer goods threaten our health.

Which are you more concerned about, global warming or nuclear waste?

> Exorbitant Cost: Every reactor costs at least $4 billion to

> construct. President Bush signed an energy bill in 2005 that would

> award the nuclear industry $13 billion in tax breaks, subsidies and

> loan guarantees. This includes $2.9 billion for more research and

> development and $2 billion to cover costs of new construction delays -

> all paid by the public. Meanwhile, electric utilities comprise some of

> the wealthiest corporations in the world. Nuclear power has already

> been subsidized to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars over

> the past fifty years.

So, the solution is for the government to build these plants?

> Accidents: New reactors, like old ones, are at their most

> vulnerable to accidents. Yet in the event of an accident, existing

> evacuation plans have been found to be unrealistic. Furthermore, the

> Price-Anderson Act ensures that the liability of an accident to a

> utility is capped at $10.8 billion. A serious reactor accident could

> cost as much as $600 billion, the balance of which would likely be

> paid by taxpayers.

How many accidents have occurred in nuclear power plants in the United

States, and how many people have died?

> Reactors and Bombs: Reactors and the nuclear fuel chain

> facilities they are connected to set the stage for atomic weapons

> production. Therefore the world cannot free itself from nuclear

> weapons while reactors and nuclear fuel chain facilities such as

> uranium enrichment and reprocessing factories exist. The tensions over

> Iran, North Korea, India and Pakistan perfectly illustrate this point.

>

So? Can you build a nuclear bomb, without building a nuclear power plant?

The answer is, yes you can. Both the United States and the Soviet Union

developed nuclear bombs, before they ever built their first nuclear powered

power plant.