decades in the antinuclear movement I have little patience with any
who publish errors on this important subject. I insert a few
comments on this IPS item (written by someone not fully in command of
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Nuclear Power No Panacea, Critics
Both Dean and Beranek warned of "far more serious nuclear
accidents" and "real risks" posed by earthquakes and
industrial disasters, as well as possible terrorist attacks in the
glad this is prominently stated. This topic came up some months
ago on this list, and I lodged the fact that knowledgeable scientists
have looked into the scope for sabotage of nuclear power plants and
concluded it's all too easily done. (Michael Balter challenged
me to prove it, and refused to ackn the validity of refusal to publish
the latest terrorist bombing in the near E. is stated on TV news to
have made a crater 10 m deep.
In April 2006, there was a radioactive spill of 40 litres of liquid
containing plutonium in the brand new reprocessing plant in
Rokkasho-Mura, the group said, adding that in August 2004, a pipe was
ruptured in the Mihama plant, which resulted in the death of five
this covered up at the time? I've not heard of it
before. Will it spell the end of the misleading slogan
"no-one has been killed by an accident in a Western civilian
nuclear power station"? If the Japanese are willing
to be non-Western, the slogan may ride on ...
More famously, nuclear meltdowns occurred at Three Mile Island in the
U.S. state of Pennsylvania in 1979 and in 1986 at the Chernobyl
Nuclear Power Plant in the former Soviet Union. A recent
Greenpeace report estimated that 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal
cancers were caused by that disaster.
GreenpeaceŽ actually say those cancers have already emerged?
Is any explanation offered for the fatal cancers being only a
minority, 1/3, when in the overdeveloped world generally the ratio is
commonly staed in the form that 1/3 humans get indentified cancer and
1/4 die of it, i.e it's still usually fatal (treatments for some
the cancers caused by Chernobyl are not tagged by that cause, but
merely a small percentage added to the already rife cancers in Europe,
how could Greepneace know they'd been only 1/3 fatal?
deaths have been retrospectively attributed to TMI, AFAIK. The
fuel was only a couple month old and by that great good luck the
radiodecay heating was much smaller than in your average
genuine authority, John Gofman, pubd predictions, on simple clear
assumptions, of larger totals in the exposed generations. IAEA
countered with 'a few dozen'. WHO is not a reliable authority on
such matters - their head of non-infectious diseases lived
a few doors from me for her first decade in Auckland, and I can assure
you she is not straight. She operates pursuant to the name or
style 'Bonita' - not her real name.
Former environment ministers from European countries, including
Russia, sent a letter to the former U.N. chief Kofi Annan urging him
to reform the mandate of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
"Nuclear power is no longer necessary," they said in the
never was necessary. It was always stupendously expensive,
hugely subsidised (one of Lovins' main points), unrealiable, and
mainly to make plutonium which is bad stuff.
Greenpeace's Beranek echoed the same
message Monday. "Nuclear power undermines real solutions to
climate change, by diverting resources away from the massive
development of clean energy sources the world urgently needs," he
"Energy conservation and wind and
solar power are cleaner and safer than nuclear power," said Dean.
"They are a better way to fight global
fact has been clear for 3 decades. Now how are we to get govts
to act on it?