Thursday, October 11, 2018
Annual dose of empirical data shows nuclear power in continued decline – Report tracks global success of renewable energy | Beyond Nuclear International
By Linda Pentz Gunter
When arguing the case for or against nuclear energy, you can go with the masters of spin and omission or you can go with the empirical data. We prefer the latter. And for that, there is the welcome annual edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report.
After that, the job becomes easy. There IS no case for nuclear power. It’s fundamentally over. Yet governments — mainly those of nuclear weapons states — cling on to it even as their fingers are loosened one at a time from the ledge. They refuse to fall. Why?
These questions are largely answered in the 2018 edition of the WNISR which rolled out in London, UK on September 4, and is available for download — in full or as an executive summary — from the WNISR website… … …
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Public comments to NRC needed in opposition to the WCS/ISP CISF scheme, by Oct. 19 deadline! | Beyond Nuclear - Centralized Storage
Beyond Nuclear files hearing request, petition to intervene, opposing Waste Control Specialists/Interim Storage Partners rad. waste CISF (Consolidated Interim Storage Facility) which would store 40,000 metric tons of highly radioactive, commercial irradiated nuclear fuel, if its license application to construct and build is approved. The scheme would also launch unprecedented numbers of shipments of high-level radioactive waste by road, rail, and/or waterway through most states.
PUBLIC COMMENT NEEDED! ••• DEADLINE OCT 19th.
Beyond Nuclear - Centralized Storage - Public comments to NRC needed in opposition to the WCS/ISP CISF scheme, by Oct. 19 deadline!
Thursday, October 4, 2018
A “small” dose can do immense damage; our new handbook explains how and why
All nuclear power plants routinely release radioactive gases and water contaminated with radioactive isotopes. When a nuclear plant has a serious accident — as occurred at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima — orders of magnitude more radioactivity is released into the environment.
Uranium mining also releases harmful radioactive isotopes and leaves behind radioactive waste. The 1979 uranium tailings pond spill at Church Rock, NM — 90 million gallons of liquid radioactive waste and 1,100 tons of solid mill waste — was the largest accidental release of radioactive waste in US history and permanently contaminated the Puerco River.
Radioactive releases occur all along the uranium fuel chain, beginning with uranium mining and culminating in radioactive waste “management.”
All of these releases — whether large or small (because there is no “safe” dose) — impact human health with varying degrees of severity. And yet most of the time, these impacts are poorly understood, hushed up, or even dismissed. When discoveries are made — such as increased rates of leukemia in populations living near nuclear power or reprocessing plants — there is an immediate effort by industry, often supported by governments, to undermine, challenge or negate such findings.
The fact remains, however, that both the immediate and long-term damage done to human health — which can last for generations — is the single, most compelling reason not to continue with the use of nuclear power and the extractive, polluting industries that must support it.
The Radiation and Harm to Human Health chapter of the Beyond Nuclear anti-nuclear handbook, is available now for download and printing as a standalone booklet. In it, we endeavor to both explain and synthesize the many ways that radioactivity released through the nuclear power sector damages human health, especially the most vulnerable members of our population — women, pregnancy, babies and young children…
NEW HANDBOOK: "The Case Against Nuclear Power: Radiation and Harm to Human Health" (PDF)
Tuesday, October 2, 2018
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is quietly moving to weaken U.S. radiation regulations, turning to scientific outliers who argue that a bit of radiation damage is actually good for you — like a little bit of sunlight.
The government’s current, decades-old guidance says that any exposure to harmful radiation is a cancer risk. And critics say the proposed change could lead to higher levels of exposure for workers at nuclear installations and oil and gas drilling sites, medical workers doing X-rays and CT scans, people living next to Superfund sites and any members of the public who one day might find themselves exposed to a radiation release…