The Myth of Low-Level Radiation | Radiation Truth

All radiation is dangerous, whether it is natural or man-made. There is no “safe”  amount of radioactive material or radiation. “The U.S. Department of Energy has testified that there is no level of radiation that is so low that it is without health risks”, reports Jacqueline Cabasso, the Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation. (full article *)
Why?

“It takes only one radioactive atom, one cell, and one gene to initiate the cancer or cell mutation cycle.” (Helen Caldicott, Nuclear madness: what you can do). Hence, any exposure increases risk of cancer or genetic damage.

As the U.S. Department of Energy says, our current safety “standards now are based on an underlying model called linear-no-threshold (LNT), which maintains that any exposure to radiation may be harmful and extrapolates low dose effects from known high dose effects.”  It continues, “Scientists disagree about the validity of this LNT model.”

But consider this simple, uncontroversial example, unrelated to nuclear power: radon, a naturally occurring gas that emits alpha particles.  In the U.S., radon causes an estimated 20,000 deaths per year, second only to smoking.  But those victims were not exposed to high levels of radon: there was no radon bomb!  Instead, they inhaled and absorbed low doses (indoor average 1.3 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), outdoor 0.4 pCi/L; over 4 pCi/L in Iowa) over years.  (By the way, the EPA also says that radon and smoking are synergistic; it stands to reason that other sources of alpha particles may be synergistic with other carcinogens.)

Here’s another example: children of workers at the Lawrence Livermore Labs get more cancer. “A 1995 California Department of Health Services’ investigation of childhood cancer incidence among Livermore children and young adults (0-24 years), found two and one-half times the expected number of children with malignant melanoma living in Livermore at the time of diagnosis, more than six times the incidence of malignant melanoma in children and young adults born in Livermore, and elevated levels of brain cancer among children born in Livermore in the 1960’s.” (California Department of Health Services. Environmental Health Investigations Branch. Cancer Incidence Among Children and Young Adults in Livermore, California 1960-1991. September 6, 1995.  Cited in announcement of “Community Health Training, Radiation Risk, and the Community“, December 9, 2000, Livermore, California, by Western States Legal Foundation).

Washington’s Blog, even though it is “not against all nuclear power“, has more examples with citations.

Nuclear power plants routinely emit radiation, at levels the government, the NRC and IAEA tell us are safe. These releases are legally permitted and required for the reactors to run; but they are not safe. When investigators of low-dose ionizing radiation revealed that levels of radiation lower than those permitted were causing cancer, government agencies attempted to suppress their findings.  See Industry & the government.

Although much of the evidence has been suppressed, there are studies that demonstrate increased risk in populations that live close to nuclear power plants.

“There have been several epidemiological studies that claim to demonstrate increased risk of various diseases, especially cancers, among people who live near nuclear facilities. Among recent studies, a widely cited 2007 meta-analysis of 17 research papers was published in the European Journal of Cancer Care. It offered evidence of elevated leukemia rates among children living near 136 nuclear facilities in the United Kingdom, Canada, France, United States, Germany, Japan, and Spain. Elevated leukemia rates among children were also found in a 2008 German study that examined residents living near 16 major nuclear power plants in Germany. These recent results are not consistent with many earlier studies that have tended not to show such associations. But no credible alternate explanations for the recent findings have so far emerged.” (Nuclear-News)

We are in the middle of a terrifying scientific experiment in which we and our children are the subjects. Let’s face the facts that mixing the profit motive with the most dangerous technology is a very bad idea, and that natural forces and human error are reason enough to admit nuclear power is a mistake. It’s time to move on.

* for links please see the original post

source: The Myth of Low-Level Radiation | Radiation Truth



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

Claims that uranium mining near the Grand Canyon is safe don't hold water | David Kreamer | Comment is free | The Guardian

Science shows we can’t assume that uranium deposits, when disturbed by mining, can’t leak into groundwater. We should be wary of claims to the contrary

It only takes a few Grand Canyon hikes to realize the importance of its springs and other water sources. When refilling a water bottle in the cool depths below multi-colored rock walls, listening to a summer frog symphony at sunset or maybe snapping an icicle from a weeping ledge in winter, it’s clear that the living desert depends on its pockets of water.

That’s why, as a hydrologist and longtime Grand Canyon hiker, boatman and scientist, I am profoundly concerned about continued uranium mining in or near it. It has great potential to irreparably harm Grand Canyon springs and the plants and animals that depend on them.

I am concerned because industry and agency officials are relying on a justification that isn’t supported by past investigations, research or data to promote uranium mining in the Grand Canyon region. Specifically, they claim that mining will have minimal impact on springs, people and ecosystems there.

Instead, the science shows that it is unreasonable to assume that uranium deposits, when disturbed by mining, can’t leak into groundwater. The deposits in the Grand Canyon are typically found in geologic features known as breccia pipes, formed millennia ago when caves in the main groundwater system collapsed, leaving shattered, rock-filled chimneys that extend upwards thousands of feet to the canyon’s rim. These chimneys act as conduits that have allowed groundwater to move vertically through the rock layers over thousands of years. The vertical movement of groundwater combined with low oxygen levels caused the uranium deposits to form over millennia. Inserting a mine shaft into these features disrupts geologic formations, increases the permeability and oxygenation of these vertical pipes and increases the ability of ore deposits to be suddenly dissolved, mobilized and carried with groundwater...

more:
Claims that uranium mining near the Grand Canyon is safe don't hold water | David Kreamer | Comment is free | The Guardian

No Nuclear in South Africa! | Greenpeace activists lock down gigantic Trojan horse at the Department of Energy headquarters in anti-nuclear protest

NO NUCLEAR!
South Africans deserve to know the details of a disastrous nuclear deal that will bankrupt the country!

This is why, right now Greenpeace activists are confronting the Minister of Energy by locking themselves down to a four metre high wooden nuclear ‘Trojan Horse’ outside the Department of Energy headquarters in Pretoria.

The activists are there to publicly protest against the Department’s lack of transparency around proposed investments in nuclear, and to remind the Minister that the nuclear plan is nothing less than a trap - a Trojan horse with a price tag South Africans cannot afford.

MORE / PETITION: No Nuclear in South Africa!

“Greenpeace strongly believes that nuclear is an expensive dead-end road to nowhere, and that renewable energy is the solution to our current electricity crisis. We have tried repeatedly to engage with the Department of Energy regarding the country’s electricity future, but the Department has continued to pursue an increasingly opaque and baseless process to invest in nuclear. Rosatom and other unscrupulous nuclear companies such as Areva and Westinghouse are vying to develop nuclear for South Africa with complete disregard of what the country’s real and urgent energy needs are. We believe that a process that is so steeped in secrecy presents a ticking time bomb for South Africa. If the Department of Energy has nothing to hide, then full transparency would be the basis of the nuclear deal, and we challenge the Minister to make all nuclear information publicly available”

Pretoria 25 August 2015: Today, Greenpeace activists confronted the Minister of Energy by locking themselves down to a four metre high wooden nuclear ‘Trojan Horse’[1] outside the Department of Energy headquarters in Pretoria. The activists are protesting against the Department’s lack of transparency around proposed investments in nuclear, and to remind the Minister that the nuclear plan is nothing less than a trap - a Trojan horse with a price tag South Africans cannot afford. 

– On the 17^th of August a Greenpeace delegation hand-delivered a letter written by Greenpeace Africa’s Executive Director, Michael O’Brien-Onyeka, to the Minister of Energy giving her one week to respond to and address the key issues that the organisation raised[2] and make key nuclear information publicly available. By midnight on the 24^th of August no response had been forthcoming from the Minister or her office, leading to the protest action by the Greenpeace activists...

more: Greenpeace activists lock down gigantic Trojan horse at the Department of Energy headquarters in anti-nuclear protest | Greenpeace Press Centre

★KEEP CALM AND NO NUKES! 0922 反原発★首相官邸前・国会前大抗議 | 首都圏反原発連合

★KEEP CALM AND NO NUKES! 0922 反原発★首相官邸前・国会前大抗議 | 首都圏反原発連合

Nuclear Power Is a Losing Proposition - Greenpeace USA

Americans know the clean energy economy is here and they are embracing it—and that doesn't include nuclear.

[REPOST] This article was originally published in the Miami Herald and is co-authored by Annie Leonard, Executive Director, Greenpeace USA;  Michael Brune, Executive Director, Sierra Club; and Erich Pica, President, Friends of the Earth. 

More than seven out of ten of us want more emphasis on wind and solar energy, while only about a third favor more nuclear energy, according to the latest research from the Gallup poling organization. Gallup also found that support for nuclear power dropped by 11 percentage points in the United States in the last five years.

Meanwhile, the struggling nuclear industry is trying to pitch its product as a viable low-carbon alternative to clean energy, rather than the dangerous and expensive choice that it is.

As potential climate solutions go, though, nuclear power is a losing proposition that is only getting worse. Developing clean, affordable renewable energy sources and tapping our vast energy efficiency “reserves” is a much smarter bet for America’s future...

more: Nuclear Power Is a Losing Proposition - Greenpeace USA

whats up: #BustTheMyth
you can't nuke global warming!
 :: NUKES CAN BE NO SOLUTION TO CLIMATE-CHANGE – they are NOT carbon-free clean safe green or affordable!

#petition :: Stop Nuclear Regulatory Commission From Extending License Period 20 years For California Nuke (Diablo Canyon)

As the Commission members are aware, their mission is to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety of the nation’s nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants, especially old nukes, such as the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, do not belong near densely populated regions, in areas where earthquakes are a dangerous geological reality.

SIGN NOW: MoveOn Petitions - Stop Nuclear Regulatory Commission From Extending License Period 20 years For California Nuke

ALERT! NRC may RULE RADIATION EXPOSURE IS HEALTHFUL! | Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation

ALERT! NRC may RULE RADIATION EXPOSURE IS HEALTHFUL! ... The Nuclear Regulatory Commission may decide that exposure to ionizing radiation is beneficial – the radiation from nuclear bombs, nuclear power plants, depleted uranium, x-rays, and Fukushima. It has opened a proceeding to consider adopting this “radiation is good for you” model.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received three petitions for rulemaking (PRM) requesting that the NRC amend its “Standards for Protection Against Radiation” regulations and change the basis of those regulations from the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model of radiation protection to the radiation hormesis model. The radiation hormesis model provides that exposure of the human body to low levels of ionizing radiation is beneficial and protects the human body against deleterious effects of high levels of radiation. Whereas, the LNT model provides that radiation is always considered harmful, there is no safety threshold, and biological damage caused by ionizing radiation (essentially the cancer risk) is directly proportional to the amount of radiation exposure to the human body (response linearity).

This would be the most significant and alarming change to U.S. federal policy on nuclear radiation.

Here is the Federal Register notice --
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/23/2015-15441/linear-no-threshold-model-and-standards-for-protection-against-radiation

Comments are due by September 8, 2015.
Is this a joke? NO!

P.S. this ALERT was first emailed by MaryBeth Brangan through Heal Fukushima (http://healfukushima.org/…/alert-nrc-may-rule-radiation-ex…/). And as per Jane Swanson, Mother's for Peace: "The easiest way for people to comment is by email:

•Email comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.
• Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0057 in the subject line of your comment submission.

The three petitioners who started this effort to lower protective standards are all in the health fields. They claim that there is no valid evidence that low doses are harmful, and find that compliance with current limits is expensive for their professions. Radiation phobia is their favorite new term. Here is a sample of their reasoning:

"Dr. Doss filed this petition on behalf of Scientist for Accurate Radiation Information, whose mission is to “help prevent unnecessary, radiation-phobia-related deaths, morbidity, and injuries associated with distrust of radio-medical diagnostics/therapies and from nuclear/radiological emergencies through countering phobia-promoting misinformation spread by alarmists via the news and other media including journal publications.”

A Proposed Rule by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on 06/23/2015
This document has a comment period that ends in 26 days (09/08/2015)

Federal Register | Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation

thanks to Laura Lynch!

8.14 Watertown MA: Harvey Wasserman – nuclear power crisis is as dangerous as the climate crisis

ON BEHALF OF PLANET EARTH and Harvey Wasserman

Harvey will speak on the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, MA, Radioactive Waste, and why the nuclear power crisis is as dangerous as the climate crisis. Followed by Q&A

This event is taking place on Aug 14 — 6:00 PM at The Apartments at the Coolidge School Auditorium 319 Arlington Street, Watertown

Watertown Citizens is proud to co-sponsor with ON BEHALF OF PLANET EARTH a public forum in Watertown by notable long time no nuclear journalist, activist, organizer Harvey Wasserman on Friday, August 14, 6:00 PM – 9:30 PM at The Apartments at the Coolidge School Auditorium 319 Arlington Street, Watertown. It is on bus line from Harvard Square and Watertown Square, plenty of parking and handicap accessible.

6:00 PM Doors open for Potluck dinner

7:30 PM Harvey will speak on the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, MA, Radioactive Waste, and why the nuclear power crisis is as dangerous as the climate crisis. Followed by Q&A

Harvey Wasserman helped coin the phrase “No Nukes” in 1974 and has been fighting atomic reactors around the world ever since. He is author, co-author or introducer of 18 books and hosts the Solartopia Green Power & Wellness Show.

His “Solartopian” vision for a totally green-powered Earth was introduced in 2005 by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He’s a Voting Member of Greenpeace USA and has spoken to audiences throughout the US, Europe and Asia.

Endorsers to date, list still in formation: Betty Wood, M.D., Richard Moskowitz, M.D., Cornelia Sullivan, R.N., Janis Mancini, R.N., Judy Lynch R.N., Clean Water Action, Jamaica Plain Forum, No Boston 2024, Pax Christi Boston, Reb Leah Campolo, Cape Downwinders, MA Downwinders, Pilgrim Coalition, Cape Cod Bay Watch, and Boston Downwinders.

For questions, contact sheilaruthparks@comcast.net


Watertown Citizens for Peace, Justice & the Environment

Protests as Tokyo restarts first nuclear plant since Fukushima disaster — RT News

Protesters rallied outside Japan’s Sendai nuclear plant and its company’s headquarters to demonstrate against the planned restarting of operations, over four years after the Fukushima disaster that left the entire world horrified.

Protests as Tokyo restarts first nuclear plant since Fukushima disaster — RT News

Nuclear Is NOT a Low-Carbon Source of Energy Washington's Blog

Similarly, some scientists are under the mistaken impression that nuclear power is virtually carbon-free, and thus must be pushed to prevent runaway global warming. (If you don’t believe in global warming, then this essay is not aimed at you … although you might wish to forward it to those who do.)

But this is a myth...

more: Nuclear Is NOT a Low-Carbon Source of Energy Washington's Blog

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

Climate denial and radiation denial: two sides of the same coin | GreenWorld

As the world veers closer to climate catastrophe, the people of the world increasingly understand that action to prevent that catastrophe must be taken. We are seeing that understanding grow even in the U.S., which has lagged most other industrialized countries in popular support for climate action, and even whether climate change is real.

As the most recent example, voters in a poll released last week in states considered to be potential swing states in the 2016 presidential election, consider climate change to be a serious problem by margins ranging from 54% to 68%. By similar margins (55%-66%), they support the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. 

That the margins are not even higher–up in the 70-80+% ranges typically seen in Europe and Asia–can largely be attributed to the influence of climate deniers in the U.S. Climate deniers can be categorized pretty much in two groups: a) those (a small absolute number) who may or may not personally believe in climate change but are profiting from the current system of fossil fuels and thus want to keep it and b) those who honestly don’t understand the issue and/or simply oppose whatever Obama/environmentalists/Democrats/whatever support...

more: Climate denial and radiation denial: two sides of the same coin | GreenWorld

Nuclear power is a losing proposition | Miami Herald

Americans know the clean energy economy is here and they are embracing it. More than seven out of 10 of us want more emphasis on wind and solar energy, while only about a third favor more nuclear energy, according to the latest research from the Gallup poling organization. Gallup also found that support for nuclear power dropped by 11 percentage points in the United States in the last five years.

Meanwhile, the struggling nuclear industry is trying to pitch its product as a viable low-carbon alternative to clean energy, rather than the dangerous and expensive choice that it is.

As potential climate solutions go, though, nuclear power is a losing proposition that is only getting worse. Developing clean, affordable renewable energy sources and tapping our vast energy efficiency “reserves” is a much smarter bet for America’s future.

As things now stand, the nuclear power industry is facing dark days. All five nuclear reactors now under construction in the United States are behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget — a situation that is not unique to our nation. In fact, 75 percent of reactors currently under construction worldwide are delayed and over budget.

In Illinois, the utility Exelon is pressing state lawmakers for a massive bailout to keep its existing fleet of reactors online because they cannot compete in the marketplace. Similar bailout schemes are in front of regulators in Ohio and New York State. In the past two years, nuclear reactors have been shut down in Vermont, Wisconsin, and California, while plans for nine new reactors have been scuttled.

Contrast the nuclear power industry's troubles with the bright prospects for renewables and energy efficiency, and it’s clear that our future lies not with the unstable nuclear industry but with the rapidly growing clean energy sector.

The cost of solar panels has fallen dramatically — 80 percent in the past six years alone — and Wall Street projects that solar power will become even more price competitive. The United States produces enough solar energy to power 3.2 million homes, and that number is growing rapidly. Although nuclear power's growth has been stagnant, the solar industry is adding jobs 20 times faster than the rest of the economy. Twice as many Americans are now employed in the solar power industry as in coal mining.

Wind power is already one of America’s most affordable energy sources, with nearly 50,000 turbines providing electricity sufficient to power 15.5 million homes. Some states already get a quarter of their power from wind energy. In fact, there are markets where the extraordinarily low cost of wind power has led the nuclear industry to demand preferential pricing arrangements in an attempt to remain “competitive”.

Energy efficiency remains the nation’s least expensive and most climate-friendly approach to meeting our energy needs. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the American economy has tripled in size since 1970, and three-quarters of the energy required to fuel that growth came from energy-efficiency and related advances — not from new nuclear reactors or fossil fuels.

Contrast that with the drawbacks of nuclear power, which are substantial and all too well documented.

Increasingly severe natural disasters (including earthquakes, floods, and Fukushima-style tsunamis), the inevitability of design and operator errors, and the threat of terrorist attacks pose special dangers for nuclear reactors and the communities that exist alongside them. Add to that the lack of a permanent, proven, and safe solution for the isolation of highly-radioactive nuclear waste, which will be hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years, and it’s clear that nuclear power fails to make the grade.

The nuclear industry and its paid advocates often try to brush off these problems by noting that they favor yet-to-be-developed nuclear reactor technologies. But this is a weak argument given that we’re already seeing the effects of climate change in our backyards and around the globe.

By definition, so called “advanced” nuclear reactor technologies still under development — including “small modular reactors” or proliferation-prone plutonium “breeder” reactors — are unproven, most likely uneconomical (based on the industry’s track record), decades away from commercial use, and not assured of regulatory approval. To pin our hopes on future nuclear technology breakthroughs — at the very point that the broad scientific consensus says that the tipping point of climate change is already upon us — would be rash indeed.

In fact, Wall Street and industry analysts have pronounced the old-fashioned “baseload” system of nuclear reactors and other large power stations to be a dying relic of the 20th century. Just as “snail mail” has been largely replaced by email, the old-style energy grid in this nation already is giving way to decentralized, distributed power solutions, with a smarter, tech-savvy reliance on renewables, energy efficiency, and battery-storage technology, including the recently announced Tesla battery solution for homes, businesses and utilities.

Much like the coal industry, nuclear-dominated utilities are fighting to maintain their current and lucrative business model — but the way we power America already has begun an inevitable and essential transformation. Progress may be impeded by reactor and utility bailouts for a time, to the detriment of everyone else and the climate, but it cannot and will not be stymied for long.

MICHAEL BRUNE IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SIERRA CLUB. ANNIE LEONARD IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF GREENPEACE USA. ERICH PICA IS THE PRESIDENT OF FRIENDS OF THE EARTH.


Read original here: Nuclear power is a losing proposition | Miami Herald



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

#petition :: STOP MOORSIDE: "Biggest Nuclear Development in Europe" | Campaigns by You

We urge David Cameron and the leaders of Europe to scrap plans for Moorside. The UK Government is planning to sell a vast area of Cumbria to the same companies responsible for the Fukushima disaster, so that they can build new nuclear reactors. Please don't risk the safety of Europe by turning Cumbria into a nuclear sacrifice zone.

SIGN NOW: STOP MOORSIDE: "Biggest Nuclear Development in Europe" | Campaigns by You

Bob Dylan and America’s 70-Year Nuclear Nightmare

In an interview with Rolling Stone, singer Bob Dylan said, “[The U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima] showed that indiscriminate killing and indiscriminate homicide on a mass level was possible, whereas if you look at warfare up until that point, you had to see somebody to shoot them or maim them, you had to look at them. You don’t have to do that anymore.”

I thought Bob Dylan’s statement was profound. In America, we’ve always had war and all kinds of related evils, but with Hiroshima we crossed the line with this new demonic power and an insane preparation that allows us to destroy the entire planet. It is like we said to God, “What it took you 15 billion years to make, we can destroy in 15 minutes.”

more: Bob Dylan and America’s 70-Year Nuclear Nightmare

Follow the Radiation

Today I feel like David and Energy NW, the owners of a large nuclear reactor in Washington State, the Columbia Generating Station(CGS), is my Goliath. My slingshot, Truth and I fight against Goliath, symbolic here of Radiation.

I have now figured out how to win this fight if only others would join me along with those of us who have also been fighting Goliath for almost 70 years and the answer was waiting for me to find it. It took 3 years of following radiation readings around the US to figure this out.

Sometimes we are told to follow the money. In this case, I had to follow the radiation. After tracking readings and following how the NRC and the EPA work I realized the symbiotic relationship between these two groups were where the answers were hidden and where the answers could be found. I will explain.

Since writing my first article 4 months ago published in CounterPunch titled, Why Fukushima Ended the Nuclear Debate, there have been about 11 reported NRC Events from CGS. I ask myself each time a new Event occurs, how many near misses can one nuclear plant have before the next Fukushima attacks us from within? When does the luck run dry? I also ask daily, why won’t the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shut down nuclear power plants before luck turns to corium, molten nuclear core?

more: Follow the Radiation | counterpunch

8.16 Protest the #GreatLakesNukeDump

"One way to magnify your opposition to the nuclear waste dump proposed for the Canadian shores of Lake Huron is to join with hundreds of other opponents at Pine Grove Park on Aug. 16."

more:
Rally opposing proposed nuclear dump on Lake Huron set - News - Voice News

The 'sanitised narrative' of Hiroshima's atomic bombing - BBC News

The 'sanitised narrative' of Hiroshima's atomic bombing

The US has always insisted that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to end World War Two. But it is a narrative that has little emphasis on the terrible human cost.

I met a remarkable young man in Hiroshima the other day. His name is Jamal Maddox and he is a student at Princeton University in America. Jamal had just toured the peace museum and met with an elderly hibakusha, a survivor of the bombing. 

Standing near the famous A-Bomb Dome, I asked Jamal whether his visit to Hiroshima had changed the way he views America's use of the atom bomb on the city 70 years ago. He considered the question for a long time... 

read: The 'sanitised narrative' of Hiroshima's atomic bombing - BBC News

8.13 NO NUKES DAY ★川内原発再稼動反対！ 0813九州電力東京支社前大抗議 | 首都圏反原発連合

★川内原発再稼動反対！ 0813九州電力東京支社前大抗議 | 首都圏反原発連合

New EIA analysis shows nukes don’t help reduce carbon emissions under EPA’s Clean Power Plan | GreenWorld

(GreenWorld | June 3, 2015) The Environmental Protection Agency has not yet released the final version of its Clean Power Plan (CPP), but reportedly has sent it to the White House for final review and the public release is expected in August.

But the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA), which typically has vastly underestimated and under-projected the growth of renewables over the years, recently released projections of how much carbon emission reductions the EPA’s Clean Power Plan would produce, based on several different scenarios.

And, as analyzed by Utility Dive, perhaps the most significant finding is that nuclear power does not help achieve greater carbon emission reductions. Even a scenario meant to encourage new nuclear power would have no effect on the reduction of carbon emissions (although it would have a large effect on the increase of radioactive emissions). So much for the nuclear industry’s pitch for nuclear power as a climate solution...

read: New EIA analysis shows nukes don’t help reduce carbon emissions under EPA’s Clean Power Plan | GreenWorld



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

Final Clean Power Plan Drops Support for Existing Nuclear Plants

The final version of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan does not include aid to existing nuclear power plants at risk of closing because they can’t compete with cheaper natural gas and renewables—a list that includes some of the nation’s most controversial reactors, including Indian Point and Three Mile Island.

In the draft version, EPA had proposed allowing states to count 6 percent of existing nuclear generation toward their clean energy goals, a provision designed to rescue the 6 percent of nuclear capacity considered at risk.

“On further consideration, we believe it is inappropriate to base the BSER (Best System of Emission Reduction) on elements that will not reduce CO2 emissions from affected electric generating units below current levels,” EPA states in the final rule...

more: Final Clean Power Plan Drops Support for Existing Nuclear Plants

see also: New Nuclear Power Seen as Big Winner in Obama’s Clean Power Plan - Bloomberg Business



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

Former Exelon CEO says Exelon should shut those reactors | GreenWorld

"I’m living in a fairy world because I don’t have the numbers and I’m not responsible for them anymore. But in my opinion, you shut those three plants down. You say they have become uneconomic just like some old coal plants are uneconomic. And in a world that’s driven by unfriendly market prices and unfriendly public policy, you shut them down."

read: Former Exelon CEO says Exelon should shut those reactors | GreenWorld


#BustTheMyth :: NUKES CAN BE NO SOLUTION TO CLIMATE-CHANGE
– they are NOT carbon-free clean safe green or affordable!

Is Radioactivity Really Good for You? – NRC to be The Decider | NoNukesCA.net

YOU may be suffering from…

RADIOLOGICAL PHOBIA!

NRC Leaps into the Breach
Always ready to uphold its well-earned reputation as Jonny-on-the-Spot for identifying and resolving any conceivable danger to public health and safety from nuclear technology, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its august wisdom has decided to respond to a petition from three people claiming to represent Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information to revisit in an official proceeding the long-discredited theory of ‘hormesis,’ the idea that chronic exposure to low-level nuclear radiation is actually Good for you, because it makes you better able to withstand higher exposures. Wow, what a liberating, needless worry-reducing concept!

Don’t Be Fooled: Even Low Levels of Radiation Are Bad

Information and links to sources debunking the ridiculous, irresponsible and long-discredited claim that chronic exposure to low-level  radioactivity  is good for you are [included below].

A recent Alert from HealFukushima.org blew the warning whistle on this new brand of nuclear madness. Public comment is due by no later than September 8, 2015...

read: Is Radioactivity Really Good for You? – NRC to be The Decider | NoNukesCA.net