Friday, May 3, 2013

Should Edison shut down San Onofre? / comments

VOTE YES! “Should Edison shut down #SanOnofre?”

my recent comment on the RESULTS/COMMENTS page ---

San Onofre is a BROKEN nuke. don't restart it. YES - Shut it down.

Unit 3 is probably retired; Unit 2 has exactly the same problems. restart is a bad idea. shut it down - restarting it would be an ill-advised experiment with too great a risk.

Aren't we talking about the safety of millions? - a nuclear reactor is a very complicated machine designed to work with all of its parts in order, not with a compromised system which is integral to its function. If they want to turn it back on they should have to go through some serious hoops and quit trying end runs, and then have to actually fix it. they have changed the plans, lied about it, say 70% equals 100%, and have been trying anything they can to get approval while avoiding some very real issues.

What would their restart experiment put at risk? - the lives, health and prosperity of millions; one of the most beautiful places on the planet, a "bread basket," the Pacific Coast... its just not worth the risk. a serious accident there (and they do happen!) would literally KILL the economy, affecting millions and costing billions. Southern California would be history - it is not worth a gamble!

-- Responding to some of the comments that have been posted on the 

Regarding baseload replacement: studies have shown that we can do without San Onofre. they have also shown that jobs in renewables are outpacing all others by a factor of four, and California is the hotbed. it would be much better to invest in truly clean energy production. also, I don't think that conservation is talked about nearly enough. - beware corporate fear-mongering!

I have become very tired of people saying that nukes are somehow green and start talking about CO2. nuclear power plants and the nuclear industry have a huge environmental footprint and exact true human costs. nukes are absolutely not carbon free - you have to include the entire fuel cycle or you are in left field. and: no one can deny that people die of cancer from mining and processing uranium; and from living downstream of the mines; and even from just living near a nuke. processing uranium and refining atomic fuels emit all kinds of noxious stuff including greenhouse gases and mutagenic radioactive contaminants; and all nuclear plants basically leak all of the time with routine and not-so-routine releases. nukes are far from being clean!

and all this, sorry, is not to mention a legacy of lethal waste for future generations. what kind of burden will that be? please think before claiming that nukes are some sort of magic bullet without looking outside of industry propaganda or thinking about all of the ramifications. if you want to talk about jobs and economy, please remember future generations and think about what we will be leaving them; and think about what a nuclear catastrophe in Souther California would look like.

- a quote from Arnie Gundersen, Fairewinds Associates: "The people that are saying we need nuclear power and we have the technology to safely store nuclear waste for 250,000 years are the same ones who claim that we can't use solar because we have no way to store the electricity overnight! If we have the technology to do one, we ought to be able to figure out the other." - see whats up: NO NUKES • #RE_TOOL NOW

• The first long-term study of the full-population health impacts of the closure of a U.S. nuclear reactor found 4,319 fewer cancers over 20 years, with declines in cancer incidence in 28 of 31 categories – 14 of them statistically significant – including notable drops in cancer for women, Hispanics and children.

Published in the peer-reviewed medical journal, Biomedicine International, the major new article, “Long-term Local Cancer Reductions Following Nuclear Plant Shutdown,” is the work of epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, M.P.H. M.B.A., executive director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, and internist and toxicologist Janette Sherman, M.D.

[photo]: Solar power has replaced nuclear power at Rancho Seco, its cooling towers still standing as a reminder of the mistaken decision to build a nuclear reactor rather than safer sources of electrical power.


• for info on San Onofre safety issues see:

• SoCal Edison's fraudulent behavior regarding the Replacement Steam Generators at San Onofre:

• Animation shows what could happen if SanO Unit 2 is restarted:

• regarding nukes and the climate:

VOTE YES! “Should Edison shut down #SanOnofre?”

No comments:

Post a Comment