Don't Waste South Carolina

 A catastrophe like Chernobyl could happen here. It's the radioactive core of the second biggest lie in US industrial history.

The atomic pushers say such a disaster is “impossible” at a US reactor. But Chernobyl's explosion spewed radiation all over the world. And Sunday’s tragic 23rd anniversary reminds us that any reactor on this planet can kill innumerable people anywhere, at any time, by terror, error and more.

It further clarifies why yet another grab at billions of taxpayer dollars for new reactor construction must be stopped NOW!

The BIGGEST lie in US industrial history is that “nobody died at Three Mile Island.” Just before last month’s thirtieth anniversary of the central Pennsylvania melt down, critical new evidence was completely ignored by the corporate media.

Read full article here

“The question is not whether climate change is happening or not but whether, in the face of this emergency, we ourselves can change fast enough.”

--Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations, November 2006

There is a clear scientific consensus that we must halve global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2050 or suffer changes to the global climate with catastrophic consequences. Avoiding the most severe impacts of climate change requires governments, individuals and businesses world-wide to take immediate action.

Some US $7 trillion are projected to be invested in new electricity generation capacity between now and 2030.2 The energy investment decisions taken today will determine whether or not the world achieves the necessary CO2 emission cuts in time.

The nuclear industry, which has been in decline in the US and Europe, has seized upon the climate crisis as a revival opportunity, claiming to offer a carbon-free contribution to our future energy mix.

Nuclear power is an expensive and dangerous distraction from the real solutions to climate change. Greenhouse gas reduction targets can only be met through using the proven alternatives of renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency. Every dollar spent on nuclear power is a dollar stolen from the real solutions to climate change.

The following document is a briefing by Greenpeace on how nuclear power has been undermining action on climate change.

2007 Briefing on Nuclear Power

The Energy Bill Passed the U.S. House of Representatives without the Bailout of Nuclear Power. The battle to stop taxpayer loan guarantees of new nuclear power is now in the Senate. Please urge your senators to vote for an energy bill that instead of loan guarantees for nuclear power, includes a requirement that at least 15 percent of the electricity generated in this country comes from renewable energy and that the fuel economy standard for cars and light trucks must be increased to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Our senators oppose the bill that supports renewable energy instead of nuclear power. Call Senators DeMint and Graham at 202-224-3121 and tell them that an energy bill with nuclear loan guarantees is unacceptable! You might also want to indicate your support for renewable energy!

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission decided today that new nuclear power plants do not have to withstand attacks by big airplanes.  Instead they proposed that designers analyze how reactors can be built to mitigate the effects, "to the extent practical".

Two designs have already been approved that did not make such an analysis. One argument given was that since no one knows the probability of such an attack, one cannot do a cost/benefit analysis as is required by their rules. Presumably such an analysis would be to decide if the benefit of avoiding the devastation caused by an  airliner striking a nuclear power plant were worth the cost.

Find the article here 54.38 Kb

Published in AJC on: 11/11/06

It is disturbing that the Southeast is being targeted for most of the new nuclear reactors. Why doesn't the rest of the country want these nuclear power plants? Maybe they know that nuclear is dangerous, costly to construct, vulnerable to terrorists and not a real answer to global warming.

More reactors in the Southeast will also mean more radioactive fuel and waste being transported on our public highways. Is this what we want? Is this what is best for our beautiful region?

We need to look closely and critically at plans for these new reactors and not allow them to be rammed down our collective throats.

KRISTA BREWER, Atlanta
Atlanta WAND President

Published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution 11/11/06

I wonder how many people reading the "Nucleus for nuclear" headline realize that if Atlanta and the Southeast become the center of a nuclear revival, as The Atlanta Journal-Constitution suggests, the region will also become the center for the nation's nuclear waste.

For years the government has promised to take possession of nuclear and store it in a safe repository like Yucca Mountain. Now it appears that won't happen for years —- if ever —- so the government is writing legislation that would allow nuclear waste to be stored on site or close to the site of production.

We produce it, we keep the waste, and because the nasty stuff will be around for hundreds of thousands of years and will accumulate in ever-increasing amounts, the South will once again become the dumping ground for what the rest of the country doesn't want.

JOAN O. KING, Sautee
Atlanta WAND  member

Original at UCBerkeley Press

By Robert Sanders, Media Relations | 02 April 2007

BERKELEY – Enticed by the gleam of government subsidies, many companies are rushing to invest in nuclear power, expecting that new technology and safer reactors will make them as good as other types of power plants.

A new study appearing in the April 1 issue of the journal Environmental Science and Technology notes, however, that the country’s history of unexpected cost overruns when building nuclear plants should sound a cautionary note for power companies that nuclear power may not be financially attractive.