What the EPA’s Clean Power Plan means for nuclear energy | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

For nuclear power, the good news and the bad news in EPA’s final Clean Power Plan are the same: The technology got pretty much what it deserved. The competitive position of all new low-carbon electricity sources will improve relative to fossil fuels. New reactors (including the five under construction) and expansions of existing plants will count toward state compliance with the plan’s requirements as new sources of low-carbon energy. Existing reactors, however, must sink or swim on their own prospective economic performance—the final plan includes no special carbon-reduction credits to help them. During the Clean Power Plan’s 15-year scope, a few will sink; most, especially those in states where existing generators need not compete, will swim...

more: What the EPA’s Clean Power Plan means for nuclear energy | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Raising CANE: the Campaign Against Nuclear Expansion | Friends of the Earth Adelaide

Australia –

The SA Government has launched a Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle in the hope of garnering support for an expansion of the nuclear industry. The terms of reference and the makeup of the commission and its experts are clearly biassed towards expanding the industry.

We believe this is an attempt to soften up the public for the creation of a nuclear waste dump for high-level waste from overseas.

FoE Adelaide are proud to announce the launch of the Campaign Against Nuclear Expansion

We believe that renewable energy is the best alternative to fossil fuels and SA is not the place for a nuclear waste dump, an enrichment facility or expansion of uranium mining...

more: Raising CANE: the Campaign Against Nuclear Expansion | Friends of the Earth Adelaide

Anti-nuclear & Clean Energy (ACE) Campaign

Friends of the Earth Australia • foe.org.au

Friends of the Earth has been campaigning against the nuclear industry - and promoting safer solutions - for 40 years. If you'd like to get involved, contact your local FoE group or contact your local anti-nuclear campaign group or contact FoE's national nuclear campaigner Jim Green 0417 318368 jim.green[@]foe.org.au

SIGN NOW: Tell NRC to reject efforts by pro-nuke fanatics to weaken radiation standards

Tell NRC to reject efforts by pro-nuke fanatics to weaken radiation standards

August 19, 2015

In February, a group of pro-nuclear fanatics—there is really no other way to describe them—submitted three petitions for rulemaking to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). These three petitions would turn the entire basis for radiation protection standards on its head: they argue that the “Linear No-Threshold” (LNT) radiation model used by the NRC, EPA, and most modern societies should be replaced by a “hormesis” model.

Here’s the basic difference between the two models: the LNT model, endorsed by the National Academies of Sciences and used by all government agencies, acknowledges that there is no such thing as a “safe” level of radiation exposure. All exposure carries some risk of cancer or other disease, and that risk rises with the amount of exposure. The “hormesis” model, on the other hand, asserts—with little to no scientific backing—that exposure to very low levels of radiation can actually be beneficial to people, and that there is no concern about exposures until they reach high levels.

If implemented, the hormesis model would result in needless death and misery. The concept of ALARA (a requirement that nuclear operators reduce exposures “as low as reasonably achievable”) would be tossed out the window. Emergency Planning Zones would be significantly reduced or abolished entirely. Instead of being forced to spend money to limit radiation releases, nuclear utilities could pocket greater profits.

Tell the NRC below to reject the hormesis model and instead to strengthen radiation standards.

Notes: everyone can participate in this action. We encourage you to edit the sample comments to use your own language and reflect your own concerns. Please share this action page with your friends and colleagues by using the icons on the top right, but please do so before sending your comments. The comment deadline is September 8, 2015, has been extended until November 19, 2015--more time to share widely! Thank you.

Subject: Docket Nos. PRM-20-28, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30, NRC-2015-0057

SIGN NOW: Tell NRC to reject efforts by pro-nuke fanatics to weaken radiation standards

'Nuke Matters' and 'Of Nuclear Interest' Articles | Cape Cod Bay Watch

Cape Cod Bay Watch has teamed up with GateHouse Media to bring the public a series of articles about the risks and issues associated with the ongoing operation of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth.

read: 'Nuke Matters' and 'Of Nuclear Interest' Articles | Cape Cod Bay Watch

capecodbaywatch.org

C.A.N. Mandatory Action Alert | C.A.N. Coalition Against Nukes

ATTENTION ALL NEW C.A.N. Facebook Group Members and Current Members; … we are calling on you to participate in a mandatory action alert:

ACTION ALERT! A CALL TO ACTION FOR EVERYONE WHO LOVES THIS PLANET & HUMANITY: TELL THE NRC TO DO IT’S JOB & STRENGTHEN RADIATION STANDARDS NOT WEAKEN THEM! COMMENT PERIOD ENDS NOVEMBER 19, 2015. We have three different ACTION ITEMS … TAKE THE CHALLENGE AND DO ALL THREE!

more: C.A.N. Mandatory Action Alert | C.A.N. Coalition Against Nukes

#COP21: don't nuke the climate!

Nuclear energy is a failed technology that's never been safe, affordable or effective at reducing carbon emissions, writes Peer de Rijk. But that won't stop the world's nuclear lobbyists from thronging to COP21 in Paris determined to secure a place for nuclear power among the 'solutions' to climate change. We must make sure they fail.

read: #COP21: don't nuke the climate! - The Ecologist

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

“Radiation is Good for You!” and Other Tall Tales of the Nuclear Industry

by KARL GROOMSMAN –

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering a move to eliminate the “Linear No-Threshold” (LNT) basis of radiation protection that the U.S. has used for decades and replace it with the “radiation hormesis” theory—which holds that low doses of radioactivity are good for people.

The change is being pushed by “a group of pro-nuclear fanatics—there is really no other way to describe them,” charges the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) based near Washington, D.C.

“If implemented, the hormesis model would result in needless death and misery,” says Michael Mariotte, NIRS president. The current U.S. requirement that nuclear plant operators reduce exposures to the public to “as low as reasonably achievable” would be “tossed out the window. Emergency planning zones would be significantly reduced or abolished entirely. Instead of being forced to spend money to limit radiation releases, nuclear utilities could pocket greater profits. In addition, adoption of the radiation model by the NRC would throw the entire government’s radiation protection rules into disarray, since other agencies, like the EPA, also rely on the LNT model.”

“If anything,” says Mariotte, “the NRC radiation standards need to be strengthened.”

The NRC has a set a deadline of November 19 for people to comment on the proposed change. The public can send comments to the U.S. government’s “regulations” website...

READ MORE: “Radiation is Good for You!” and Other Tall Tales of the Nuclear Industry | CounterPunch

Kommt zum Schienenspaziergang gegen Urantransporte am 13.9.15 in HH-Wilhelmsburg!

Anti Atom Berlin
@antiatomberlin

RT @robin_wood: Save the Date: 13.9.15 Schienenspaziergang gegen #Atomtransporte in HH #antiatom http://t.co/4c3gYwkFfehttp://t.co/qLrVDes…

7 Sep 15 - @antiatomberlin on Twitter

Robin Wood | Kommt zum Schienenspaziergang gegen Urantransporte am 13.9.15 in HH-Wilhelmsburg!

"No Escape from the Cape" #nonukes #LaborDay #CapeCod

Cape Downwinders anti-nuclear activists will again bid summer visitors adieu at the base of the Sagamore Bridge this Labor Day. On Monday from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., the protesters will hold their annual "No Escape from the Cape" rally in the Christmas Tree Shop parking lot on Route 6.


more: Local protesters plan annual anti-nuke rally at Sagamore Bridge | CapeCodToday.com

Nuclear advocates fight back with wishful thinking | GreenWorld

It must be rough to be a nuclear power advocate these days: clean renewable energy is cleaning nuclear’s clock in the marketplace; energy efficiency programs are working and causing electricity demand to remain stable and even fall in some regions; despite decades of industry effort radioactive waste remains an intractable problem; and Fukushima’s fallout–both literal and metaphoric–continues to cast a pall over the industry’s future.

Where new reactors are being built, they are–predictably–behind schedule and over-budget; while even many existing reactors, although their capital costs were paid off years ago, can’t compete and face potential shutdown because of the very aspect of nuclear power that was supposed to be its economic advantage: low operating and maintenance costs that are proving instead to be too high to manage.

Not surprisingly, the nuclear industry is fighting back. After all, what other choice does it have? But two major new reports released this week by established nuclear advocates indicate that the only ammunition left in their arsenal is wishful thinking...

more: Nuclear advocates fight back with wishful thinking | GreenWorld

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

‘Political rhetoric, not science’: Greenpeace slams IAEA Fukushima report — RT News

“Nobody knows how much radiation citizens were exposed to in the immediate days following the disaster. If you don’t know the doses, then you can’t conclude there won’t be any consequences. To say otherwise is political rhetoric, not science,” said Kendra Ulrich, senior global energy campaigner with Greenpeace Japan.

Greenpeace has lashed out against the conclusions of IAEA’s latest report on the Fukushima disaster, calling the claim that radioactive exposure is “unlikely” to result in increased thyroid cancer risk in children a political rhetoric rather than science.

On Monday, IAEA said that despite uncertainties about the radiation doses incurred by children immediately after the accident, “an increase in childhood thyroid cancer attributable to the accident is unlikely.”

read more: ‘Political rhetoric, not science’: Greenpeace slams IAEA Fukushima report — RT News

Fukushima Report Dangerously Downplays Ongoing Health Risks: Greenpeace | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

"The IAEA report actively supports the Abe government’s and the global nuclear industry’s agenda to make it appear that things can return to normal after a nuclear disaster."


... In a press statement, Greenpeace Japan seized on the information gap.–

"The IAEA concludes that no discernible health consequences are expected as a result of the Fukushima disaster, but admits important uncertainties in both radiation dose and long-term effects," said Kendra Ulrich, senior global energy campaigner with Greenpeace Japan. "Nobody knows how much radiation citizens were exposed to in the immediate days following the disaster. If you don’t know the doses, then you can’t conclude there won’t be any consequences. To say otherwise is political rhetoric, not science."

The IAEA report conveniently comes as pro-nuclear Prime Minister Shinzo Abe systematically seeks to lift evacuation orders and re-start the country's nuclear program. 

"The IAEA report actively supports the Abe government’s and the global nuclear industry’s agenda to make it appear that things can return to normal after a nuclear disaster," Ulrich said. "But there is nothing normal about the lifestyle and exposure rates that the victims are being asked to return to."

In July, Greenpeace Japan charged that the IAEA "has sought to downplay the radiological risks to the population since the early days in 2011. In fact, it produced two documents that can be said to have laid the foundation and justification for Abe’s current policy of de facto forced resettlement."

Exploring the political dynamics further, Ulrich wrote at the time:

Over four years after the triple reactor core meltdowns and exploded containment buildings at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the majority of the Japanese public has remained opposed to any nuclear restart. The country has been completely nuclear-free for nearly two years, thanks in large part to significant public opposition, in spite of the massive pressure from nuclear utilities and the Abe government on local city governments.

However, these utilities are massively powerful and the Abe government is wholly in bed with them.

In an effort to reduce public opposition, Abe has been pushing forward the pro-nuclear agenda to 'normalize' a nuclear disaster. If the public can be convinced that less than five years after the worst nuclear disaster in a generation, citizens can go home and return to life the way it was before the disaster – with no additional health risks – then that is a powerful argument against the majority of Japanese citizens who oppose  nuclear reactor restarts...

complete article: Fukushima Report Dangerously Downplays Ongoing Health Risks: Greenpeace | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community