Los Alamos Fire Burns Near Nuclear Weapons Factory — July 2011
set to music by don michael sampson
Alec Baldwin on the Human Costs of Nuclear Power
on Huffington Post April 11, 2010
Chernobyl 25 years later: distorted reality, and unanswered questions
a report from Greenpeace International. (2011)
nukey-poo: Toxic Radioactive Waste at Fernald, Ohio (Oct. 2009)
When nuclear power advocates claim that nuclear energy is cheap,
they do so because they exclude the costs of both the beginning and
the end of the nuclear energy process: both uranium mining/smelting and toxic
waste guarding (there is no safe way to “dispose” of it). The linked
news story is about nuclear waste from 50 years ago. We will only
have to take intensive care of it for another 249,950 years. What a bargain!
Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power
Three pages tell the whole story. – From Coop America.
Details? Do I hear you saying you want more @!#*&%%! details?
Here is a 77-page technical report documenting the ongoing problems with leaking nuclear waste tanks that are contaminating the groundwater around Hanford, Washington.
Web Site Editor’s comment: How ‘cheap’ is nuclear power if its waste poisons the water and sickens untold future generations? How ‘safe’ do nuclear weapons keep us, if our continual reliance on them teaches every ambitious politician on planet Earth that nuclear weapons are the path to real political power?
A Background Briefing on Radioactive Pollution – A 26-page review of problems associated with radioactive pollution from nuclear power, weapons and waste — by Wendy Oser and Molly Young Brown, M.Div.
Nuclear Spoons: Hot metal may find its way to your dinner table. By Anne-Marie Cusac in The Progressive October 1998.
“…the DOE has come up with an ingenious plan to dispose of its troublesome tons of [radioactive] nickel, copper, steel, and aluminum. It wants to let scrap companies collect the metal, try to take the radioactivity out, and sell the metal to foundries, which would in turn sell it to manufacturers who could use it for everyday household products: pots, pans, forks, spoons, even your eyeglasses.” (Web editor’s note: Bad publicity such as this article helped get this program suspended by the DOE in July, 2000. But the problem of radioactive materials migrating into civilian prodicts is not over.)
>>> One objection to nuclear power is that it requires superhuman levels of honesty, consistency and reliability from a vast network of just plain human beings. The story below reports the latest trouble at Sellafield, England, site of the disasterous 1957 Windscale nuclear fire …
Feb. 22, 2000: UK Nuclear Fuel Scandal Widens (from the Environment News Service)
>>> March, 2000: Improvements in local infant health observed after nuclear power reactor closings…
Abstract of journal article: Between 1987 and 1998, operations ceased at 12 U.S. nuclear power reactors. One of these, Rancho Seco, is located in a densely populated area. After the reactor closed in 1989, significant decreases in mortality (all causes and from congenital anomalies) and cancer incidence were observed for fetuses, infants, and small children. These trends contrast with a worsening of infant health status after the plant opened in 1974. The data suggest that a relationship between nuclear emissions and adverse health effects exists, especially since fetuses and newborns are most sensitive to radiation. Because Rancho Seco released low levels of radionuclides into the local environment, the issue of health effects of prolonged, low-dose radiation exposure is raised. The matter becomes increasingly important as operators of several dozen aging U.S. reactors must soon decide whether to extend their operating licenses.
From: Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology (2000) 2, 32-36.