Wednesday, October 29, 2014

MoveOn Petitions - NRC: Shut Down Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant

Shut Down Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant

The plant is not safe, built on or near several dangerous earthquake faults. It generates some 500 lbs of nuclear waste every day with nowhere to safely store it and the waste will remain deadly for 200,000 years. Shut down Diablo Canyon, before California becomes another Fukushima!


Federal regulators secretly and illegally revised the license for California’s last nuclear power facility — PG&E’s Diablo Canyon — to mask the aging plant’s vulnerability to earthquakes, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday by environmentalists.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Friends of the Earth: PG&E and nuclear regulator said to collude in secret decision to cover up Diablo Canyon’s vulnerability to earthquakes

In federal court filing, PG&E and nuclear regulator said to collude in secret decision to cover up Diablo Canyon’s vulnerability to earthquakes

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Friends of the Earth has petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals to overturn a secret decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to illegally alter the operating license for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant allowing Pacific Gas and Electric to hide the fact that the reactors are vulnerable to earthquakes stronger than it was meant to withstand.

The secret revision of Diablo Canyon’s license was revealed in NRC documents rejecting a dissent by the plant’s former senior resident inspector. The inspector, Dr. Michael Peck, defied his superiors in saying that Diablo Canyon was operating in violation of its license and should be shut down unless and until new seismic information was addressed.

In a July 2013 formal dissent, which the NRC suppressed for more than a year, Dr. Peck argued that newly discovered faults could produce earthquakes far more destructive than the plant was designed, built and licensed to withstand. Last month, in rejecting the dissent, the NRC revealed that in September 2013 it had changed the way the risk of earthquakes at the plant are assessed -- in effect, rewriting history and science to make the threat of more powerful earthquakes go away, without requiring any safety upgrades by PG&E.

The amendment was added in secret, unknown beyond the highest levels of PG&E and the NRC. Today Friends of the Earth petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit to review the amendment, overturn it and order a public license amendment proceeding as required by federal law.

“PG&E’s new seismic study reveals that the earthquake threat at Diablo -- if measured by its original license -- could be far greater than that for which the reactors were designed.  So PG&E and the NRC secretly amended the license to relax the safety requirements,” said David Freeman, former head of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. “This is not only illegal, it’s an outrage.”

PG&E has enough trouble on its hands from the San Bruno explosion, where they had also claimed they had put safety first,” said Freeman,  senior advisor to Friends of the Earth. “This secret action shows they don’t put safety first.  Thank goodness there are courts in America that can give us an independent decision.”

Under federal law and NRC regulations, changing the way seismic risk or reactor durability is assessed requires a public license amendment review. Instead, in consultation with PG&E, the NRC inserted a secret revision to the plant’s license, which changed both the scientific calculations for assessing earthquake risks and retroactively declaring that the reactors were strong enough to withstand far greater seismic activity.

“At Diablo, it is now clear that these outdated 1960s-era reactors are not built to withstand the earthquake risks that surround the plant,” said Damon Moglen of Friends of the Earth.  “But instead of making them address these safety issues, the NRC worked with  PG&E to change the rules. It’s a scandal of the first order, and frankly very scary.”

A PG&E report released last month revealed that a newly discovered fault, located just 650 yards from the plant, is twice as long as the utility had maintained since 2011. The report also acknowledged one of Michael Peck’s most troubling concerns; that the new fault is connected to two others and together the three are capable of producing much stronger shaking than the plant was designed and licensed to withstand.

In the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, a 2011 NRC study indicated that Diablo Canyon is the nuclear power plant in the U.S. most likely to fail in response to an earthquake larger than it was designed to withstand.

Expert Contacts:
Damon Moglen, (202) 352-4223,
Communications Contacts:
Bill Walker, (510) 759-9911, (West Coast)
EA Dyson, (202) 222-0730, (East Coast)

Friends of the Earth U.S. | News releases

Lawsuit: Quake standards altered at California nuclear plant - SFGate: Federal regulators secretly and illegally revised the license for California’s last nuclear power facility — PG&E’s Diablo Canyon — to mask the aging plant’s vulnerability to earthquakes, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday by environmentalists.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

11.16 "Uranium? Leave It In the Ground!" film showing & discussion

-A Film Screening & Discussion About Uranium Mining-

Sunday November 16

@ Busboys & Poets (5th & K)
1025 5th St. NW Washington, DC 20001
Metro: Gallery Place/Chinatown

Join the discussion with experts and activists fighting the Nuclear Fuel Chain from Cradle to Grave. What can we learn from the history and what is at stake with uranium at this moment?

Film: The River That Harms
(Dir. Colleen Keane, 45 mins, 1987, United States)
This film documents the largest radioactive waste spill in U.S. history - a national tragedy that occurred on Diné (Navajo) lands that received little attention. With the sound of a thunderclap, 94 million gallons of radioactive waste broke through a United Nuclear Corporation storage dam in 1979 and poured into New Mexico’s Puerco River, the main water supply for the Diné people and a tributary of the major source of water for Los Angeles, California. To the Diné people, this event impacted their lands, their health and their economy and sends a prophetic warning for all humanity.

Co-sponsored by: Beyond Nuclear, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Diné No Nukes, S.A.N.S., and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Sticker designed by Yuko Tonohira of S.A.N.S., as is the Nov. 16th event flier

"Uranium? Leave It In the Ground!" film showing & discussion, Nov. 16 | Beyond Nuclear

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

4.14-16 Symposium mondial sur l'uranium à Québec

Science | Health | Environment | Human rights | Economy | Society

Symposium mondial sur l'uranium - 14-15-16 avril 2015 à Québec

COMMENTS ON THE EPA CARBON RULE | Sierra Club Nuclear Free Campaign

Sierra Club Nuclear Free Campaign 

On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced its proposed rule for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions from existing electrical generation units. This is an important and historic step toward addressing climate change. But EPA’s support of nuclear power and underplaying of the importance of renewables and efficiency is of serious concern. 

The EPA Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule supports building new nuclear reactors (power plants) and maintaining existing reactors as an alternative to burning fossil fuels. 

The rule encourages states to prevent even the most uncompetitive nuclear reactors from closing. 

The rule underestimates the advantages of renewable energy and energy efficiency as the best alternatives for reducing carbon emissions. The rule should acknowledge that renewables and efficiency can produce the power we need without the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power AND they can remove more carbon per dollar spent in a shorter time. Numerous studies have shown that this transition needs only the political will to make it happen. 

New nuclear reactors cost billions of dollars and take many years to bring on line. Renewable energy, and especially energy efficiency, are much cheaper and their development is already underway. 

EPA incorrectly claims that nuclear power is reliable. This ignores the many times nuclear reactors had to shut for years due to warm water temperatures, flooding, and extreme weather events, all of which will worsen as the climate warms. 

Nuclear power is far from carbon-free. Fossil fuels are used for uranium mining, milling, processing, conversion, enrichment, transportation and construction of reactors. Huge amounts of energy will be needed to isolate nuclear waste for millennia—a task which science has so far not been able to address. Large amounts of water are also used to operate and cool the reactors. 

EPA seriously minimizes the problem of radioactive waste. In fact, they erroneously contend that radioactive waste avoids the problem of waste from coal-fired generation! Waste from coal is a serious problem but radioactive waste is extremely dangerous and remains so for millions of years. EPA also ignores the routine radioactive releases at all reactors and the several U.S. close calls to nuclear meltdowns. The Sierra Club maintains that the first step toward dealing with nuclear waste and radioactive pollution is to stop generating it. 

The proposed rule improperly calls for reductions in CO2 from 2005 levels. The problem is that CO2 levels in 2005 were the highest ever. In fact, current levels of CO2 are 15% less than in 2005. The proposed rule should at least use current levels, or more appropriately, 1990 levels. 

The nuclear industry is looking to gain carbon credits—we say these carbon credits are undeserved, but in any case the industry is asking for carbon credits for nuclear power. These very credits will allow the industry to burn more coal. How does EPA propose that we obtain our national energy supply if we cut carbon but do not strongly emphasize moving as quickly as possible to sustainable, renewable replacement sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and efficiency? 

Currently EPA has out an Advanced Notice for comments on Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations. Unless the current Radiation Protection Standards are strengthened, EPA will continue to have lower standards for protection from radioactivity than the standards they have for protection from other pollutants. EPA’s “acceptable” cancer risk range is 1 in a million to 1 in 10,000 for other pollutants. Their allowable limit for radioactive exposure is 25 millirems per year. If a person’s lifespan is 70 years, the risk becomes 1cancer per 500 persons for radioactivity. It is worrisome that EPA does not mention strengthening its standards in its Advanced Notice for Comments, leaving the public to wonder if they are planning to lower their standards even further. So on the one hand, EPA is encouraging economic subsidies to nuclear power, while on the other hand EPA might change standards to allow more radioactive pollution from the nuclear fuel chain. 

EPA has extended the public comment period on the Clean Power Plan proposed carbon rule through December 1, 2014. The Sierra Club Nuclear Free Campaign strongly supports EPA’s move toward reducing CO2 emissions, but their inclusion of nuclear reactors as a reliable source of electricity is a mistake. Tell EPA to remove all support for nuclear power from its Carbon Rule and instead, strongly promote a speedy transition from fossil fuels and nuclear to renewables and energy efficiency. 

Comments can be made online at!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-0001. Reference Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602. There is reference in this link that comments are due by October 16. However, the deadline has been extended through Dec. 1, which the top of the right-hand column confirms. 

Alternatively, fax to 202-566-9744 or mail to EPA Docket Center, Mailcode 28221T, Attn: Docket OAR–2013-0602, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. 


Nuclear Free Campaign | Grassroots Network
We envision an energy efficient world, powered by clean, renewable technologies, free from dirty, dangerous, costly nuclear power and its legacy of toxic waste.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Aileen Mioko Smith - Nuclear-Free Future Award Foundation

Nuclear-Free Future
is presented by the
Nuclear-Free Future Award Foundation
Aileen Mioko Smith
for her keyrole
in breaking the wall of nuclear lies
and offering Japan 
a road to a nuclear-free future
14. Oktober 2014
The catastrophe at Fukushima, which began on March 11, 2011, put an end to the myth that nuclear power is a source of clean and safe energy.  It is, in fact, toxic. 
The public at large still does not realize that nuclear power nearly permutated into a weapon of mass destruction in Northern Japan. Ten years before Fukushima, Aileen Mioko Smith, president of Green Action Kyoto, had played a key role in exposing doctored insurance reports that proclaimed that the use of plutonium mixed oxide fuel rods in the Fukushima reactors was safe. Because of this revelation, only a small amount of the highly toxic material got into one of the reactors whose core later melted. 
Aileen’s admirable whistleblowing career began in 1971, when she helped insure that photographs of the Miamata Bay mercury scandal taken by her then husband, W. Eugene Smith, made their way around the world. Eight years later she interviewed more than 250 people affected by the Three Mile Island disaster in Pennsylvania. She concluded that the citizens themselves must be involved in decisions about technology that will affect their lives, their health and their future. 
In the 1980s, Aileen became a key figure in the resistance to nuclear power in Japan. The trauma of nuclear bombing and irradiation notwithstanding, the majority of Japanese had accepted the cluttering of their homeland with nuclear facilities. In 1988, Aileen was one of the activists who collected nearly four million signatures in favor of phasing out nuclear power in Japan. In 2004 she alerted the public to the utilities’ attempts to pass on to the taxpayers reprocessing costs to the tune of 8.8 trillion yen (8 800 000 000 000). In 2006, she helped win a lawsuit against Hokurikus Electric that stopped the utility from continuing the operation of an unsafe facility. In August 2010, she was instrumental in putting together a large-scale campaign bringing together almost 800 initiatives and NGOs to point out the risks, including earthquakes, of nuclear facilities. A few months later Fukushima proved their point. 
Shortly after that shock to the entire nation, Aileen wrote: „We will have to redouble our efforts. There is no other choice.”

Aileen Mioko Smith - Nuclear-Free Future Award Foundation

When Solartopia Transcends King CONG | EcoWatch

by Harvey Wasserman
A green-powered future is our only hope.
A planet run by King CONG—Coal, Oil, Nukes & Gas—cannot be sustained.
But to get beyond it, our Solartopian vision must embrace more than just a technological transformation.  It also demands social, political and spiritual transcendence.
From Fukushima to global warming, from fracking to the Gulf disaster(s), it’s clear the fossil/nuclear industry is hard-wired to kill us all. Its only motivating force is profit; our biological survival has no part in the equation.
Thankfully, renewable energy has achieved technological critical mass. Green power is cheaper, cleaner, safer, more reliable, more job-producing and more secure. Despite a furious fossil/nuke push-back, the multi-trillion-dollar transition to a green-powered economy is well underway. Photovoltaic cells alone will be the biggest industry in human history...

more > When Solartopia Transcends King CONG | EcoWatch

11.14-17 National Summit for a Nuclear Free Future; Chevy Chase, MD

The EPA is blatantly promoting nuclear power as one solution to cutting carbon. Nuclear is NO solution, and we need to push to end any campaigns to encourage more nuclear, and instead promote clean renewable technologies. Come help us plan strategies to move towards a future free of nuclear power. 

Here are the event details: 

WHO: Sierra Club Nuclear Free Campaign 
WHAT: National Summit for a Nuclear Free Future 
WHEN: Nov. 14-17, 2014 
WHERE: National 4-H Youth Conference Center, 7100 Connecticut Ave., Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Questions: Susan Corbett (

We look forward to seeing you there! 
Start Date: 
End Date:    
If you'd like to attend this event you can purchase tickets online.

whats up: #BustTheMyth
you can't nuke global warming!

11.7-17 Train Yatra from Kanyakumari to Kashmir: Campaign for ‘Nuclear-Free India’

Fight for Our Nature and Future
National Campaign for ‘Nuclear-Free India’
Train Yatra from Kanyakumari to Kashmir, November 7 to 17, 2014
Let us make it very clear at the outset that we are for the development of the country and all our peoples including the poor and oppressed. So we do support energy generating plans and projects.
We only say that let us generate required energy from renewable sources such as the Sun, wind, waves, wastes and so forth without spoiling our land, water, air, sea and sea food, cattle and crops etc. After all, food security, nutrition security, water security and air security are far more important than energy security.
But the Indian government wants to set up nuclear power parks (with six to ten plants) at so many locations all over India (Koodankulam and Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu; Kovvada, Andhra Pradesh; Pati Sonapur, Odisha; Haripur, West Bengal; Kaiga, Karnataka; Jaitapur and Tarapur, Maharashtra; Mithi Virdi, Gujarat; Banswada, Rajasthan; Gorakhpur, Haryana; Chutka, Madhya Pradesh etc.) with the help of the United States, Russia, France, Japan, South Korea etc. The United States has not built a new nuclear plant in recent years. Japan has shut down all its 52 nuclear power plants after the Fukushima accident in March 2011. Germany has decided to phase out its nuclear power plants. Should India be the dumpsite of this discredited nuclear technology?
Indian government wants to import Uranium from Australia, Kazakhstan, Namibia and so on. But none of these countries has even one nuclear power plant there.
Nuclear energy is not cheap. Consider the land acquisition cost, long construction period and cost escalation, bribery and corruption, security costs, decommissioning, waste disposal and management etc. Every step in nuclear power generation is very expensive and the government subsidizes all of them.
Nuclear energy is not clean. Consider the enormous amount of steel, cement, oil and electricity used in nuclear power plant construction and operation. All these come from polluting sources. Nuclear plants leave huge amounts of dangerous wastes that threaten us with radiation for 48,000 years. What will the government do with all this waste? Where will they store them in a crowded country?
Nuclear energy is not safe. India being a highly and densely populated country, even a small incident in a nuclear plant may have disastrous consequences for millions of our people. See the people of Bhopal who have suffered an industrial disaster. Even after 30 long years of several governments, chief ministers and prime ministers, the people there are left helpless without compensation, medical assistance or waste removal.
Nuclear energy is not healthy. Nuclear power plants dump enormous amounts of hot and mildly radioactive coolant water into the sea or river 24×7. That affects the seafood and groundwater. The nuclear plants emit radioactive iodine, cesium, strontium, tellurium etc into the air. All this may cause pregnancy-related problems, birth defects in children, radiation illnesses, cancers and so on.
Nuclear energy is not moral. What moral legitimacy do we have to spoil the Nature and the futures of our children and grandchildren just because we get electricity for 40 years and our political parties and leaders get huge amounts of commission from foreign countries and their nuclear corporations?
Nuclear energy is not the answer. Nuclear energy is not the answer for global warming as it uses so much carbon-producing energy. Nuclear energy poisons our Earth with deadly wastes. Nuclear power makes up only 2% of our electricity generation and may never be significant in the near future.
Should we lose our socioeconomic and political independence in the name of energy independence? Should we behave like slaves and recolonize our country all over again? Or should we think like leaders and solve our problems with originality and creativity?
As Mahatma Gandhi said: “The earth, the air, the land and the water are not an inheritance from our fore fathers but on loan from our children. So we have to handover to them at least as it was handed over to us.”
Come, let us strive for a ‘Nuclear-Free India’ that has No Deals, No Mines, No Reactors, No Dumps, and No Bombs.
People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE)
Idinthakarai 627 104
Tirunelveli District
Tamil Nadu