|
Nuclear is Our Future Monthly Newsletter
October 7, 2006
Go Nuclear Mousepad
$10.99
|
- Introduction
- September 2006 Archive
Welcome to our newsletter! Contained here is the September 2006 Nuclear
is Our Future weblog archive. Given that it is in plain text format, the
HTML has been removed and thus many posts do not look the same as when
they were posted. If you want more information, please check the September
2006 online archive at blog.niof.org/2006_09_01_archive.html.
Link: http://blog.niof.org/2006_09_01_archive.html
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
"A problem arises with the treaty because it also promotes
peaceful nuclear technology--which is inherently dual-purpose, capable of
being used for peaceful or warlike purposes--as an "inalienable right" for
all nations."
-Peace Action
The only thing that
civilian nuclear technology can do is render bomb material useless. No
nation, including India (see link), ever used a civilian reactor to
produce bomb material.
posted by Stewart Peterson at 11:41 PM | 0
comments links to this post
Friday, September 29, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
"Improvements in automobile
efficiency since 1973 are saving consumers $177 billion in 2005 alone –
more than twice as much as the federal government spends each year on
education"
-Alliance to Save Energy
Every single
research program that somebody doesn't like is compared to federal funding
for education--because the overwhelming source of funding for education is
the states!
And I've said this a million times, but improving
efficiency and reducing use of things we need assumes (quite arrogantly)
that we've discovered everything, and that our efforts are better spent at
making fossil fuels work longer instead of developing alternative sources.
posted by Stewart Peterson at 5:08 PM | 0 comments links to this
post
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the
Day
"If all U.S. households used ENERGY STAR refrigerators,
the electricity saved could eliminate the need for about 3 nuclear power
plants."
-Alliance to Save Energy
Or a few thousand
windmills, or a large hydro dam, or six coal plants...
Great idea.
Let's eliminate any need for new technology. This is why the oil and coal
interests love conservation--it obviates competitors' products.
posted by Stewart Peterson at 3:12 PM | 0 comments links to this
post
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the
Day
"Our research shows that the U.S. Army at Fort Greely is
responsible for extensive radioactive contamination through: 1) control
rod accident—a near melt-down event in 1967 exposed workers to harmful
levels of radiation; 2) radioactive steam heat to the post; 3) liquid
radioactive waste discharged to groundwater and Jarvis Creek; 4)
radioactive fallout; 5) solid radioactive waste disposal; and 6)
long-lived radioactivity in the reactor still remaining on Fort Greely."
-Alaska Community Action on Toxics
1. How does a part
failure that they admit had no effect on the environment have an effect on
the environment?
2. The steam was produced by passing water over a
heat exchanger. That water never had anything to do with the reactor and
was consequently (guess what) not radioactive.
3. I assume that by
"liquid radioactive waste" they mean tritiated water, which is
approximately sixty times less radioactive than orange juice. Nuclear
power plants do not produce liquid nuclear waste; nuclear waste is ceramic
or metal pellets.
4. Fallout from what? Are they detonating nuclear
bombs at this site?
5. The aforementioned pellets are stored onsite.
They haven't been "disposed" anywhere.
6. If it's inside the reactor,
it's not outside, is it? And if it's not outside, how is it contaminating
anything?
posted by Stewart Peterson at 11:18 PM | 0 comments
links to this post
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Anti-Nuclear
Quote of the Day
"The design for an atomic bomb can easily be
found on the Internet; some basic materials purchased at the local
hardware shop will complete production."
-Helen Caldicott,
Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer, p.62
Link? Details, details.
And a plutonium bomb is extremely difficult to make, even if you
have the material.
posted by Stewart Peterson at 2:05 PM | 4
comments links to this post
Monday, September 25, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
"The radioactive sludge left
over from the making of the first atomic bombs is now leaking out of its
waste tanks seven miles from the Columbia River. Current estimates suggest
that it will take between $50 and $100 billion of taxpayer dollars to
encapsulate the nuke glop into some form of glass bricks for permanent
storage. And, there are serious doubts as to whether even this very
expensive plan will work. [Web Site Editor's note: Nuclear power looks
competitive with other power sources only because the waste disposal
costs, which will go on for many centuries, are not included in the
calculations. Instead, the waste disposal costs have been shifted to the
taxpayers of this and future generations.]"
-nonukes.org
That's not nuclear power, though. That's bomb manufacturing.
posted by Stewart Peterson at 2:12 PM | 3 comments links to this
post
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
"Plutonium is so carcinogenic that the half-ton of plutonium
released from the Chernobyl meltdown is theoretically enough to kill
everyopne on earth with lung cancer 1,100 times if it were to be uniformly
distributed into the lung of every human being."
-Helen
Caldicott, Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer, p.62
Then why hasn't
it?
posted by Stewart Peterson at 11:58 PM | 0 comments links to
this post
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of
the Day
"Before the Chernobyl meltdown, the nuclear industry
assumed that, in the event of an accident at a nuclear power plant, only a
tiny percentage of the radioactive inventory of the reactor core would
escape from the containment into the environment. On April 26, 1986, when
Unit Four of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant exploded, however, almost
all the contents of the deadly radioactive fission products were spewed
into the environment."
-Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Power Is Not
the Answer, pp.74-75
Before I address the central argument, there
are two other more minor false statements and a key omission:
1.
Chernobyl is called both a meltdown and an explosion. It was in fact a
steam explosion--a meltdown is simply the melting of fuel.
2.
"Contents of the fission products?" Fission products are the
contents--that's like saying "contents of the metal ingot" or "contents of
the electrical plug."
3. Chernobyl had no containment to hold anything
in. If it had, next to nothing would have gotten out.
Now, the
real part:
On the contrary, industry and government alike assumed that
a worst-case scenario accident would release all of the fuel and fission
products--but that it would be extremely improbable. However, such an
accident was later found to be physically impossible--the fission products
(since they are obviously lighter) escape more easily than the fuel, which
in a full meltdown congeals into a puddle in the bottom of the reactor
vessel. Furthermore, fission products are only around 3% of the fuel--and
in a bomb factory like Chernobyl, even less (and if it had been a civilian
nuclear power plant, the design compromises that led to the accident would
never have been made, but that's another post). In total, even in a
worst-case reactor accident like Chernobyl, where all of the material was
supposed to be released, only about 5% of the total was released. This
included all of the krypton and xenon, most of the other fission products,
and very little else. Chernobyl demonstrated that previous nuclear safety
studies were fatally flawed: they were far too conservative.
posted by Stewart Peterson at 11:06 AM | 0 comments links to this
post
Friday, September 22, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
"Each of the 100,000 casks would carry the long-term
radiological equivalent of some 40 to 200 Hiroshima bombs. [RWMA]
Government studies show HLRW shipments would experience similar rates and
types of accidents as other types of hazardous materials shipments; DOE
estimates that 8 to 66 accidents would occur during HLRW transport to
Yucca Mt. [DOE EIS] Therefore, the question is not if an accident will
occur—but when and where. The steel shipping containers could release
catastrophic amounts of radiation in a severe accident or terrorist
attack, but the federal government has refused to perform adequate
full-scale physical safety tests to see how they would hold up."
-BE SAFE Precautionary Campaign
1. Nuclear weapons
aren't intended as radiological devices. In fact, they primarily set
fires--reinforced concrete buildings in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki
survived the bombings, including the building directly below the explosion
in Nagasaki.
2. Types of accidents, meaning types of accidents or
types of accident consequences? A thin metal tank full of hydrochloric
acid and a concrete cask full of solid fuel rods can experience the same
type of accident, and the concrete cask will come out in one piece while
the tank breaks open.
3. Will these 8 to 66 accidents be severe enough
to release radioactive materials? Is such an accident physically possible?
4. "Full-scale physical safety tests" have in fact been conducted.
posted by Stewart Peterson at 10:51 AM | 0 comments links to this
post
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the
Day
"HLRW is dangerously radioactive for hundreds of thousands
to millions of years."
-BE SAFE Precautionary Campaign
Not if it's reused, and not if you measure "dangerous
radioactivity" as higher-than-natural levels instead of some arbitrary
number that is lower than natural radiation.
posted by Stewart
Peterson at 10:41 AM | 0 comments links to this post
Wednesday,
September 20, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
"Precautionary decisions place the highest priority on
protecting health and the environment, and help develop cleaner
technologies and industries with effective safeguards and enforcement."
-BE SAFE Precautionary Campaign
Precautionary
decisions prevent the development of technology to solve clear and present
problems if the consequences of the technology, however speculative, are
not "fully known." The debate becomes the classic impossible "how can you
prove it's not going to happen" argument. If I were (a) powerful and
either (b) nuts or (c) politically motivated, I could simply say that a
favorite Green technology (say windmills) might have problems in the
future that we don't even know about and can't predict, that we shouldn't
take any risks ever, and we should go back to living in caves and picking
berries because, although we know that lifestyle is horrible, we know the
risks. For instance, although we know that nuclear power is cleaner than
coal (even by anti-nuclear measures), we know what burning coal does, so
it's a "precautionary decision" to keep doing it, even when we know it's
the wrong decision!
The precautionary principle prevents the
development of technology. That's all it does.
posted by Stewart
Peterson at 10:19 AM | 0 comments links to this post
Tuesday,
September 19, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
"Shown
above is the ruptured pipe that leaked some 83 cubic meters of uranium,
plutonium and nitric acid liquor onto the fuel clarification cell floor at
Sellafield's Thorp reprocessing facility over a period of nine months."
-Bellona
(a) That's a pretty small leak rate,
considering the amount of time, and (b) So what?--that's what the cell was
designed for, specifically catching leaks from that pipe!
posted
by Stewart Peterson at 9:53 AM | 0 comments links to this post
Monday, September 18, 2006
NIOF Email Problem
Dear
readers, some of you may have tried to email me; however, there has been a
technical problem with my SMTP connection that has prevented me from
responding for the last three weeks or so. I've tried everything I know
how to do, but I can't figure it out. If there are any Outlook Express
experts out there, please help:
I'm doing everything the hosting
provider (Bravenet) told me to:
1. Go to Tools / Accounts /
Add > / Mail
2. Type in your Display Name and click 'Next >'
3. Enter your e-mail address. e.g. / you@niof.org
4. Enter your Incoming
mail server. pop3.niof.org
5. Enter your Outgoing mail server.
mail.niof.org and click 'Next >'
6. Type in your Account name. Your
account name is your full e-mail address (you@niof.org).
7. Enter the Password
you have selected for the e-mail account if you want outlook to remember
your password.
8. Click 'Next >' and then click 'Finish >'
9. Select your newly added account in the Mail tab and click
'Properties'.
10. Choose the Servers tab, then check "My Server
requires authentication".
11. Select Settings. Check "Log On Using"
and enter your hosting email address and your POP3 password and click 'OK'
and 'OK' again.
Yet, I get the following error message:
The connection to the server has failed. Account:
'pop3.niof.org', Server: 'mail.niof.org', Protocol: SMTP, Port: 25,
Secure(SSL): No, Socket Error: 10060, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E
I can receive email but not send it.
Any ideas?
posted by Stewart Peterson at 11:32 PM | 0 comments links to this
post
Site Update
There is now a Nuclear Advocacy Webring
navigation panel at the bottom of the page.
posted by Stewart
Peterson at 10:56 PM | 0 comments links to this post
Store Update
Framed Tiles and Teddy Bears are back in stock.
posted by
Stewart Peterson at 10:24 PM | 0 comments links to this post
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
"8 And he said, This is
wickedness. And he cast
it into the midst of the ephah; and he cast
the
weight of lead upon the mouth thereof.
(Notice that the
angel is saying the "lead" or URANIUM
is WICKEDNESS as it's being used
in the vision. The
angel then casts the uranium back into the "mouth"
or
opening in the nuclear bomb, hence re-arming it and thereby
showing specifically that it is in fact WICKEDNESS to have
an
atomic bomb.)"
-'John P. Boatwright'
posted by Stewart
Peterson at 4:24 PM | 0 comments links to this post
Sunday,
September 17, 2006
UN Calls House Iran Report "Erroneous, Misleading,
and Unsubstantiated"
When will people figure out that the laws of
physics protect us from proliferation?
People have been giving
nuclear energy far too much credit since at least 1945 and probably since
the radium-as-a-cure-all fad of the early 1900s. Why can't we get past
this, even today, and restore some rationality to security measures? Why
don't people realize that light-water nuclear power plants could use all
the enrichment capacity of Natanz, so that they couldn't divert any of it
or the lights would go out? Why don't people realize that what someone
intends to do is rather less important than whether or not it's physically
possible to do it? Most of all, why don't people remember history and kick
the neo-cons back into the holes in the wall from which they came?
The American Nazi Party had non-trivial influence in the 1930s,
and while its ideological siblings usually no longer call themselves
Nazis, they didn't just disappear when Hitler declared war on America.
Americans must remain ever-vigilant: fascists must never again get a seat
at the table, even when they wave the American flag instead of the German
flag, or appeal to irrational fear instead of nationalism. The American
system and culture will prevent a fascist clampdown at home in most cases;
I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about the control freaks of the
extreme right and extreme left--fascists by any other name--eroding the
concepts of American jurisprudence that made this Republic great.
Link.
posted by Stewart Peterson at 11:24 PM | 0 comments
links to this post
Explanation for Reduced Posting
I'm
currently working on reorganizing the information I've posted so that it
can be navigated topically. This is going to take a long time, and I won't
be posting as much new material as I was previously able to. This blog
will still be regularly updated; I'm just not going to be able to post
much more than the Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day. It will continue to run
in lower gear until at least the end of this month; another status update
will come on October 1 (of course, there will also be regular posts
between now and then).
I apologize for my poor performance.
posted by Stewart Peterson at 11:47 AM | 0 comments links to this
post
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
"Just this month,
officials at Florida's Turkey Point reactor had a scare when they
discovered a small hole drilled into a cooling pipe (Miami Herald)."
-Council on Foreign Relations
This is a safety threat?
posted by Stewart Peterson at 11:03 AM | 4 comments links to this
post
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the
Day
"A 2004 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists
suggests a successful attack on the Indian Point plant, thirty-five miles
from Manhattan, could kill as many as 44,000 in the near-term."
-Council on Foreign Relations
Is a successful attack
possible?
posted by Stewart Peterson at 11:01 AM | 0 comments
links to this post
Friday, September 15, 2006
Anti-Nuclear
Quote of the Day
"Furthermore, that 2004 draft, obtained by
the trade press, resulted in a storm of public concern. A detailed
critique was submitted by 57 organizations on 2 December 2004, followed by
a similar letter from 46 additional organizations on 27 January 2005,
identifying serious failings in the 2004 draft guidance. All of these
concerns have been ignored in issuance of the final guidance, with no
substantive response let alone any changes made regarding any of the
specific problems identified."
-Committee to Blow the Bridge
The number of people proposing something does not determine the
proposal's merit or lack thereof.
posted by Stewart Peterson at
10:57 AM | 0 comments links to this post
Thursday, September 14,
2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
"Key Facts About
Tritium
-Radioactive Isotope of Tritium"
-Committee to
Blow the Bridge
That second "tritium" would be hydrogen.
posted by Stewart Peterson at 10:53 AM | 0 comments links to this
post
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the
Day
"Since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 there have been at
least 22 major accidents at nuclear power stations of which 15 involved
the release of radioactive substances. We don’t list them all, just a few
examples."
-Million Against Nuclear
Why not? Are they
afraid it will take up too much paper?
posted by Stewart Peterson
at 10:12 AM | 0 comments links to this post
Tuesday, September 12,
2006
Explosion at Coal-Fired Power Plant Leads ABC's Chicago Local
News
Shockingly, it wasn't completely ignored. It would have lead
the news worldwide had it been at a nuclear plant, but this explosion
couldn't have happened at a nuke, since they don't have coal dust floating
around.
More as this develops.
Update 8:45 PM: The story
is online.
posted by Stewart Peterson at 6:21 PM | 0 comments
links to this post
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
"Unless we desire the death of our planet, we must end the
production of unstable particles which are generating the earth's fever. A
first priority to prevent this disaster would be to shut down all nuclear
power plants and end the testing of atomic weapons, electronic warfare and
'Star Wars'."
-Electrical engineer Paul Schaefer, as quoted by
Earthpulse Press
posted by Stewart Peterson at 4:37 PM | 1
comments links to this post
Monday, September 11, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
"But the First Law of
thermodynamics tells us there is no "creation" -- there is no such thing
as "man-made capital". Thus, ALL capital is "natural capital", and the
economy is 100% dependent on the "environment" for everything."
-DIE OFF
The First Law of Thermodynamics concerns
energy (meaning heat) within a closed system. Open points in the system or
changes to the system are special cases within this general framework, and
they happen all the time--the first happens when we don't know everything
about the system, and the second is known as "technology." Furthermore,
the above statement does not concern heat transfer and is thus not even
within the realm of thermodynamics.
Economics is very often
grossly misrepresented. It can be generalized as the study of
decision-making, and money is but one way to measure how people make
decisions to better themselves.
posted by Stewart Peterson at 8:02
PM | 1 comments links to this post
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
"We need now, as we have for
more than fifty years, to articulate and then dispel and shatter the false
and exceedingly lethal assumptions underlying the "promises" of nuclear
technology. The hierarchies of centralized authority, which have the
greatest vested interest in perpetuating the employment of this
technology, have lied about its true costs from the very beginning. These
hierarchies include the Fortune 500 [1] / Global 500 [2] corpses [3], G7
governments, the World Bank [4] [5] [6] and International Monetary Fund,
known by "grassroots" as players in The World Game.
-'dave
ratcliffe'
posted by Stewart Peterson at 7:52 PM | 0 comments
links to this post
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Anti-Nuclear
Quote of the Day
"Scarce tax dollars should not be wasted on
this fusion reactor. it is purely experimental and will not produce any
electricity. Even the supporters of Iter admit that a fusion reactor to
generate electricity is at least 35 to 50 years away, if it ever works."
-Dave Martin, Sierra Club Canada, as quoted by Energy Probe
Fellow fusion people: we're next. We have to stop the
no-nukes-kooks before they kill off every R&D program that they can
get their hands on. It's not other people's fight.
posted by
Stewart Peterson at 12:31 AM | 3 comments links to this post
Friday, September 08, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
"[I]t is dangerous to use fast neutrons rather than slow
neutrons. Slow neutrons provide greater response time for equipment and
operators, in the event of a reactivity excursion accident, which could
possibly be stopped before a tragic release of radiation. Fast neutrons,
on the other hand, provide very little time or margin for error."
-Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer, p.124
That's prompt criticality, not the fast neutron spectrum. Oops.
Plus, that assumes that a power excursion can start in the first
place, which it can't, and that a power excursion would result in a
radiological accident. In fact, a power excursion would result in the fuel
melting and forming a puddle in the bottom of the reactor.
posted
by Stewart Peterson at 11:11 PM | 0 comments links to this post
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
"It is inappropriate for the industry to talk about Generation
IV reactors when neither the United States nor the rest of the world has a
Generation I high-level waste disposal site, or has successfully operated
even a Generation III reactor. His [Dave Lochbaum's] recommendation--the
federal government must create a repository for high-level nuclear waste
before it licenses the next generation power reactors."
-Helen
Caldicott, Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer, p.127
Finland is
currently building a repository, but the main point is that most of the
Generation IV reactors (and a couple Generation IIIs) actually can run on
Generation I and II nuclear waste. The more the technology has developed,
the fewer problems there have been with waste.
posted by Stewart
Peterson at 11:03 PM | 0 comments links to this post
Wednesday,
September 06, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
"If they
can't do something as simple as make the sirens go woo woo woo on command,
why are they trusted to not just run eight nuclear plants but talk about
building more in Louisiana and Mississippi? Is this the kind of neighbor
people want?"
-Public Citizen
Safety is all in reactor
physics. It doesn't matter who operates the plant; if it's safe, it's
safe. You could have both Homer Simpson and Osama bin Laden at the
controls and nothing would happen.
posted by Stewart Peterson at
10:28 PM | 0 comments links to this post
Tuesday, September 05,
2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
"The mining and
enrichment processes needed to concentrate enough uranium in the fuel to
sustain a chain reaction causes tons of carbon dioxide to be released in
the air. Reprocessing used fuel generates even more greenhouse gas
emissions."
-Citizens Awareness Network
1. Fresh fuel
rods are basically pure uranium dioxide (ceramic). No "concentration" is
really necessary--billions of years ago, uranium deposits occasionally
went critical. Today, the proportion of uranium atoms that can easily be
split is not high enough to work in a reactor that uses ordinary water. A
reactor using heavy water, however, can also use natural uranium and even
run on nuclear waste. Basically, enrichment increases the fissile
proportion--the proportion of atoms that a normal reactor can split--from
0.71% to between 3% and 5%. Other, more advanced designs can consume all
the uranium in a fuel rod instead of only 1% or so, but that's another
topic.
2. Mining, milling, enrichment, reprocessing, low-power
testing, and other processes that use electricity do not cause emissions.
Burning things to generate electricity causes emissions, and if the power
came from energy sources that don't produce emissions, there would be no
emissions. The quote's technique, known as life-cycle analysis, contains
an implicit and quite deliberate opposition to alternative energy: we need
only to reduce our use of electricity, not think about where it comes
from.
posted by Stewart Peterson at 9:25 PM | 0 comments links to
this post
Monday, September 04, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the
Day
"[January] 29-1961: A B-52 plane carrying nuclear bombs
crashes, the bombs do not explode but three of the eight crew members are
killed (USA)"
-Calendar of Nuclear Accidents
That
sounds to me like a plane crash, not a nuclear accident, especially
considering that no part of the accident involved anything nuclear.
posted by Stewart Peterson at 9:19 PM | 0 comments links to this
post
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
"[January] 16-1990: Loss of offsite power with multiple
equipment failures at Dresden nuclear power plant (USA)"
-Calendar of Nuclear Accidents
For the millionth time,
a part failure isn't a safety problem--a system can be configured to
either rely on parts' functionality or to restore itself to a safer state
in the event of a part failure. The latter is known as 'inherent safety,'
and it is a prominent feature of nuclear power plants.
posted by
Stewart Peterson at 8:57 PM | 0 comments links to this post
Saturday, September 02, 2006
NIOF.org Update #41
I've
added an index to the new Newsletter section, plus redone subscription
confirmation and error pages.
posted by Stewart Peterson at 11:56
PM | 0 comments links to this post
August 2006 Newsletter
I have just submitted it. I am told that it will be sent at around
3:00 AM, although I have no control over when it is in fact sent. If you
have not subscribed, you can find it on the internet here, and/or
subscribe using the box in the top right corner of this page.
CafePress has decided to remove all the line breaks for some
reason. I have no idea why this is happening, but I'll try to fix it
before the next newsletter.
posted by Stewart Peterson at 2:54 AM
| 0 comments links to this post
Iran Having Trouble with
Centrifuges
Any bets on when they'll figure out how to operate the
facility they built? Was this not obviously going to happen?
I'm
sure some neo-cons somewhere will find a way to spin this into imminent
destruction and doom.
via Reuters.
posted by Stewart
Peterson at 2:08 AM | 0 comments links to this post
Anti-Nuclear
Quote of the Day
"Each fuel bundle from a power reactor weighs
about 24 kilograms, and at the end of 2002 there were 1.7 million fuel
bundles at Canadian nuclear facilities (about 40,000 metric tonnes).
Without an early nuclear phaseout, an additional 2 million fuel bundles
(about 45,000 metric tonnes) will be produced. Thus total production could
mount to 3.7 million fuel bundles weighing about 85,000 tonnes."
-Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout/Nuclear Waste Watch
Yes, they are complaining that the historical waste production
from every nuclear power plant in Canada is roughly equivalent to the
waste produced by a single coal plant every few days.
Furthermore,
only a little more than one percent of that is actually waste--the rest is
perfectly good uranium.
posted by Stewart Peterson at 1:51 AM | 0
comments links to this post
Friday, September 01, 2006
NIOF.org Update #40
I've placed the newsletters into a folder
on the news.niof.org side of the site. Here are the links:
July
2005 Newsletter
August 2005 Newsletter
September 2005 Newsletter
October 2005 Newsletter
November 2005 Newsletter
December 2005
Newsletter
January 2006 Newsletter
February 2006 Newsletter
March 2006 Newsletter
April 2006 Newsletter
May 2006
Newsletter
June 2006 Newsletter
July 2006 Newsletter
August
2006 Newsletter
posted by Stewart Peterson at 11:52 PM | 0
comments links to this post
Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day
The following is a bit ASCII-fied; it wouldn't let me copy the
poll questions directly:
"Why is nuclear power not a
solution to climate change?
-o-Renewable energy and energy efficiency
give us power without radioactive waste
-o-Nuclear power is too costly
and too slow to build
-o-It produces dangerous radioactive waste
-o-Nuclear power is too dangerous
______
|Vote|
______"
-Australian Conservation Foundation
This is probably
the most rigged poll since the 1980 referendum in Sweden.
posted
by Stewart Peterson at 11:40 PM | 0 comments links to this post
Link: http://blog.niof.org/2006_09_01_archive.html
Thank you for reading. I hope this newsletter was helpful. Links on the
plain-text version of the newsletter are broken and I would suggest
visiting blog.niof.org/2006_09_01_archive.html. Have a great
October! |