Stop Fukushima Freeways Campaign Page - NIRS

The Stop Fukushima Freeways Campaign shows the perils of the massive and unnecessary radioactive waste transportation that would occur across the U.S. if the moribund and scientifically-indefensible Yucca Mountain, Nevada waste dump were to be revived. Such large-scale transport would also occur if, as some in Congress advocate, a "centralized interim storage" site for high-level radioactive waste were created. In that case, the waste would either have to move twice (once to the interim site, and then to a permanent site), thus doubling the risks, or the "interim" site would become a de facto permanent waste dump--without going through the necessary scientific characterization.

The solution to the radioactive waste problem begins with ending its generation as quickly as possible. And we work non-stop to acheive that goal. But for the highly radioactive waste that exists and continues to be produced, putting it on trucks, train cars and barges and transporting it across the country to a scientifically-indefensible site solely for the benefit of the nuclear power industry is an unacceptable risk to our cities, our communities, our agricultural heartland, our entire nation.

Twenty years ago, the Stop Mobile Chernobyl Campaign was launched to defeat a similar Congressional effort to open Yucca Mountain and/or establish a "centralized interim storage" site and thus begin a national radioactive waste transportation program. That campaign ultimately led to a veto by President Bill Clinton of such legislation that was sustained in the Senate by one vote.

Campaign Actions and Updates >>

MORE: Stop Fukushima Freeways Campaign Page - NIRS

Greenpeace delivers fake nuclear waste to Malcolm Turnbull’s office | Nuclear option nonsensical

“If the government really wants to boost the Australian economy, how about making us a world leader in solar power and the renewables industry?

...The environmental group [GREENPEACE] turned up to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s electorate office in Sydney on Thursday equipped with a truck, white suits and six yellow barrels painted with radioactive symbols to deliver a message that nuclear waste is everyone’s problem.

On Wednesday, Mr Turnbull said Australia could plausibly mine uranium, sell it overseas for use in nuclear power stations, then take it back as waste.

This proposition was abhorrent to Greenpeace, who said the waste would impact Australia for “literally thousands of years...”

The new Prime Minister has given some significant signals that his government is more interested in science and good policy than his predecessor, but the nuclear thought bubble is just plain wrong headed,” said Emma Gibson, Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s head of program.

“If the government really wants to boost the Australian economy, how about making us a world leader in solar power and the renewables industry?

“Mr Turnbull has indicated that he wants to lead a government focused on innovation, but nuclear power is heavy old tech. We need to move towards clean, modern solutions to our energy needs, like solar power and other renewables," she said.

more: Greenpeace delivers fake nuclear waste to Malcolm Turnbull’s office | Celsius

MEDIA RELEASE

Nuclear option nonsensical, given Australia’s abundant renewable energy

Sydney, 28 October 2015 - Greenpeace Australia Pacific has slammed a call from Australia’s next Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, for a renewed debate on the option of nuclear power as part of the country’s energy future.

“While we welcome government discussions on alternative energy sources, it's completely nonsensical to even pose the idea of building nuclear power stations in Australia when we have such an abundance of truly clean and renewable energy on our doorstep,” said Emma Gibson, Head of Program for Greenpeace Australia Pacific.

“If we used just 1 percent of land in Australia, we could produce enough electricity to power the whole country. [1]

“Nuclear power, on the other hand, is expensive, dirty and unreliable. It leaves a legacy of radioactive waste which remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years.

“We only have to look at the Fukushima disaster in Japan to be reminded of the health, social and economic impacts of a nuclear accident, and to see that this is not a safe option for Australians.

“No nuclear reactor has ever been built to deadline or within budget. Nuclear power is an expensive distraction from the real solutions to climate change, like solar and wind power.

“Any government seriously considering the nuclear option needs its head testing,” said Ms Gibson.

ENDS

http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/mediacentre/media-releases/Nuclear/Nuclear-option-nonsensical-given-Australias-abundant-renewable-energy/

Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study of workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS) | The BMJ

New international study confirms risks of low-dose radiation exposure; supports linear no-threshold model. https://t.co/CmO5bHm0L2

— NIRS (@nirsnet) October 22, 2015

Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study of workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS)

Abstract

Study question Is protracted exposure to low doses of ionising radiation associated with an increased risk of solid cancer?

Methods In this cohort study, 308 297 workers in the nuclear industry from France, the United Kingdom, and the United States with detailed monitoring data for external exposure to ionising radiation were linked to death registries. Excess relative rate per Gy of radiation dose for mortality from cancer was estimated. Follow-up encompassed 8.2 million person years. Of 66 632 known deaths by the end of follow-up, 17 957 were due to solid cancers.

Study answer and limitations Results suggest a linear increase in the rate of cancer with increasing radiation exposure. The average cumulative colon dose estimated among exposed workers was 20.9 mGy (median 4.1 mGy). The estimated rate of mortality from all cancers excluding leukaemia increased with cumulative dose by 48% per Gy (90% confidence interval 20% to 79%), lagged by 10 years. Similar associations were seen for mortality from all solid cancers (47% (18% to 79%)), and within each country. The estimated association over the dose range of 0-100 mGy was similar in magnitude to that obtained over the entire dose range but less precise. Smoking and occupational asbestos exposure are potential confounders; however, exclusion of deaths from lung cancer and pleural cancer did not affect the estimated association. Despite substantial efforts to characterise the performance of the radiation dosimeters used, the possibility of measurement error remains. 

What this study adds The study provides a direct estimate of the association between protracted low dose exposure to ionising radiation and solid cancer mortality. Although high dose rate exposures are thought to be more dangerous than low dose rate exposures, the risk per unit of radiation dose for cancer among radiation workers was similar to estimates derived from studies of Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Quantifying the cancer risks associated with protracted radiation exposures can help strengthen the foundation for radiation protection standards. 

Funding, competing interests, data sharing Support from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan; Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire; AREVA; Electricité de France; US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; US Department of Energy; and Public Health England. Data are maintained and kept at the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

the report >>> Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study of workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS) | The BMJ

Why October 21 will become known as International Embarrassment Day | GreenWorld (hint: HINKLEY)

...Yesterday, the government of the UK signed a deal with China that makes Chinese nuclear firms one-third partners, with EDF holding the other 2/3, in the project to build two new EPR reactors at Hinkley Point, at a cost estimated to be at least $25 Billion, and probably much more. Completion date is said to be 2025. In financial terms, it is the single largest project ever undertaken in the U.K. And yes, as an incentive, EDF gets to sell that electricity at about twice the going rate. And yes, the government has promised a multi-billion dollar loan guarantee too...

READ: Why October 21 will become known as International Embarrassment Day | GreenWorld

Solar subsidies are slashed, but the sun always seems to shine on nuclear | Business | The Guardian

George Osborne seems rather attached to nuclear power

by David Simonds for the Observer

Two events this week will throw the government’s contradictory attitudes to spending on green and atomic power into sharp relief

A glaring anomaly of British energy policy will be on display this week: the government will loudly trumpet a nuclear deal with China, and then will come a no-fanfare end to a controversial solar subsidy consultation...

more: Solar subsidies are slashed, but the sun always seems to shine on nuclear | Business | The Guardian

Entergy to close Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station by 2019 - News - Wicked Local Plymouth - Plymouth, MA

NEW ORLEANS – Entergy Corporation has announced that it will close the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth no later than June 1, 2019, citing poor market conditions, reduced revenues and increased operational costs.

"This is a particularly dangerous time," Pilgrim Watch founder Mary Lampert said today. "Entergy admits that Pilgrim is losing money. Therefore they will not make any investments in Pilgrim and we all know that you cannot run an old nuclear plant on the cheap. That is what will happen. Hope our luck holds out."

Cape Downwinders spokesperson Diane Turco sounded a similar note.

"Ok, now let's take their language on! Closing? Pilgrim is not closing. Entergy reports it is operating until 2019. That is totally unacceptable. They fail to meet federal safety standards, do not invest in maintenance, and there will be an exodus of experienced workers," Turco said. "So Entergy continues to operate for profit at the expense to public safety."

... “The decision to close Pilgrim was incredibly difficult because of the effect on our employees and the communities in which they work and live,” Leo Denault, Entergy’s chairman and chief executive officer said. “Our people at Pilgrim are dedicated and skilled, a wonderful blend of young professionals and seasoned, experienced veterans, who for decades have been generating clean power and contributing millions of dollars of economic activity to the region. But market conditions and increased costs led us to reluctantly conclude that we had no option other than to shut down the plant" ...

complete article:
Entergy to close Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station by 2019 - News - Wicked Local Plymouth - Plymouth, MA

Wagging the Plutonium Dog: Japanese Domestic Politics and Its International Security Implications - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Japan has pledged not to produce more plutonium than it can consume. Serious questions are emerging, however, about whether it can uphold this commitment.

READ: Wagging the Plutonium Dog: Japanese Domestic Politics and Its International Security Implications - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

ABOUT THE NUCLEAR POLICY PROGRAM

The Carnegie Nuclear Policy Program is an internationally acclaimed source of expertise and policy thinking on nuclear industry, nonproliferation, security, and disarmament. Its multinational staff stays at the forefront of nuclear policy issues in the United States, Russia, China, Northeast Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East.

carnegieendowment.org

Nuclear power sags in safety, relevance, misleads as climate help, experts, campaigners and politicians say - Bellona.org

International safety experts viewing the damage of Unit 3 of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant after the devastating earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011 resulted in one of the world’s worst nuclear and radiation disasters in history. (Photo: G. Webb/IAEA, iaea.org)

ST. PETERSBURG – Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to today’s multiplying threats that include terrorism, electromagnetic pulse, and solar weather, American experts warn. Meanwhile, environmental NGOs urge to drop nuclear as one proposed but untenable remedy for climate change, and Naoto Kan, Japan’s premier during Fukushima, voices confidence in his country’s nuclear-free future...

READ: Nuclear power sags in safety, relevance, misleads as climate help, experts, campaigners and politicians say - Bellona.org

Energy of the future: Nuke or solar? – It’s time to talk small modular nuclear reactors (SMNRs) versus concentrated solar power (CSP)

It’s time to talk small modular nuclear reactors (SMNRs) versus concentrated solar power (CSP) — because the future of your family and our habitable planet might depend on the outcome of the discussion...

READ: Energy of the future: Nuke or solar?

When the party's over ... the financial spectre at the end of nuclear power - The Ecologist

There are two rules about the end costs of nuclear power, writes Ian Fairlie. It's far more than you ever knew. And whatever sum of money was ever set aside, it's nowhere near enough. Germany understands this. That's why it refused to let E.ON spin off its nuclear liabilities into a hands-off company. But the UK, it seems, has lost the ability to learn from its nuclear mistakes...

READ: When the party's over ... the financial spectre at the end of nuclear power - The Ecologist

#BustTheMyth articles in #OcNukeDaily | #dontNUKEtheCLIMATE

these "#BustTheMyth" articles are a regular feature of The #OcNukeDaily (as well as The #OcNuke Weekly, #RCDaily • #ECO and RC's Weekly) –

whats up: WHY NUKES CAN'T SAVE THE PLANET FROM CLIMATE CHANGE

whats up: #BustTheMyth

whats up: Petition: Don't Nuke the Climate | Wise International | #BustTheMyth • #DontNuketheClimate

Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change - NIRS

A Simple Statement On Nuclear Power and Climate Change - NIRS

Background Information on Climate Change and Nuclear Power - NIRS

The #OcNukeDaily • #OccupyNuclear

"We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power." SIGN NOW - A Simple Statement On Nuclear Power and Climate Change - NIRS ALSO #DONTNUKETHECLIMATE Petition:Don't Nuke the Climate@Wise International

see also: whats up: petition

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