U.K. Expert: U.S. is Not Losing International 'Race' on Nuclear Power With France and Other Nations

Comment: Why are the Nuke people pushing uranium mining, GREED, GREED$$$$$$$$$$ PAID FOR BY THE US TAXPAYERS!!!

U.K. Expert: U.S. is Not Losing International 'Race' on Nuclear Power With France and Other Nations

No "Nuclear Renaissance" on the Continent: French, Finnish, and U.K. Experiences Hold Little Relevance for U.S. - Other Than As Cautionary Tales;

Copying France "Would Require Nationalization of U.S. Electric Utilities."

WASHINGTON, May 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Lobbyists and utility company officials who claim that the United States is missing out on a so-called "Nuclear Renaissance" have their facts wrong about what is going on in Europe with nuclear reactors, according to University of Greenwich Professor of Energy Studies Stephen Thomas.

The U.K. energy expert said that, not only is nuclear power in France, Finland, and Great Britain now plagued with problems, but almost nothing that is positive about the experiences in those nations would translate to the United States. Thomas is the author of "Areva and EDF: Business Prospects and Risks in Nuclear Energy" (March 2009) and the co-author of "The Financial Crisis and Nuclear Power" (February 2009).

Thomas said: "We've been waiting in vain on a 'Nuclear Renaissance' in Europe since the early 1990s. Even before the recent collapse in energy prices and the financial downturn, it was clear that all of the talk of a new resurgence in the prospects for nuclear reactors was just that: talk. It is for this reason that I find it so odd that the case for more nuclear power is being built in the United States on an entirely mythical notion of some kind of international 'race' that the U.S. supposedly is losing. In reality, the nuclear power industry in Europe is in the midst of the same kind regulatory and financial uncertainty that makes the future of the industry murky at best in this nation."

The University of Greenwich Professor added: "For example, the mistaken notion that the United States need only copy the 'French model' on nuclear power is particularly bizarre. The two main French entities in nuclear power - Areva and EDF - originally were and remain today largely branches of the French government. They are directed as a matter of state policy and have benefited from extremely favorable government financing and credit assurances. To duplicate this experience in the United States, you would essentially have to nationalize your electric utilities and have all new power plant siting decisions emanate from the White House."

In a briefing for reporters, Thomas focused on three nations often cited by U.S. proponents of moving ahead with new nuclear reactors in this nation:

Finland: This month, the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant in Finland was supposed to start producing power. Instead, the plant is at least three and a half years late and more than 50 percent over-budget. Olkiluoto was to be the "poster child" for the new generation of nuclear power plant designs that would drive the "Nuclear Renaissance" and if any nuclear project was going to go well. Instead, it has become an example of all that can go wrong in economic terms with new reactors. The vendor (Areva NP) and the utility are in bitter dispute over who will bear the cost overruns and there is a real risk now that the utility will default.

France: Even in France, where the same design as at Olkiluoto is under construction at Flamanville, things are not going smoothly. After 18 months of construction and a series of quality control problems, the project is more than 20 percent over budget and EDF is struggling to keep it on schedule. However, the French government strongly supports nuclear power through the utility, EDF (85% state-owned), and the vendor, Areva NP (more than 90% state-owned).

United Kingdom: In the U.K., Tony Blair's assertion in 2006 that nuclear power was "back with a vengeance" is proving slow to turn into reality. The first new order is unlikely before 2013 and by this time there could be two general elections and waning governmental support, which has driven things so far. In 2006, the British government began a safety assessment of the competing designs and announced it would streamline licensing and planning processes, believing that this would be sufficient for orders to be placed without the need for government subsidies. Progress has been slow, the reforms to planning are still being formulated and skill shortages in the safety regulator are delaying licensing. The French utility EDF, which owns the Britain's nuclear utility, British Energy, is saying that existing renewable energy targets must be reduced if they are not to hamper efforts to build nuclear plants in the U.K. Falling fossil fuel prices (less than US$40 per barrel of oil), have already substantially reduced wholesale electricity prices and this could put British Energy in major difficulties, as happened in 2002 when the government had to bail it out at a cost to taxpayers of more than $15 billion.

And what about other nations in Europe?

Thomas said: "In the countries where there have been suggestions that existing nuclear phase-out policies would be reversed -- Italy, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Spain -- new orders for reactors are a long way off. Even if the public can be persuaded that its earlier decisions to phase-out should be overturned, the process of rebuilding nuclear capabilities, assessing the safety of reactor designs, establishing sites and, most important, getting the financing in place puts orders a long way away and vulnerable to changes of government."

The lesson for the United States, according to Thomas, is that there is no international race on nuclear reactors to be won or lost. He explained: "U.S. efforts to revive nuclear ordering, begun in 2002, were originally expected to get a new plant on-line by 2010. Even if there are no further delays, the earliest a new plant could be on-line is now looking closer to 2020. In the meantime, the nuclear industry has upped its demands for taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to build demonstration plants from about $5 billion to more than $100 billion. The prospect that these demonstration plants would lead to unsubsidized ordering now looks fanciful. Far from leaving the U.S. lagging behind Europe in reviving nuclear power, the delays in the U.S. program may allow the Obama administration to free up resources to be channeled to energy efficiency and renewable energy that are able to meet the urgent environmental and security-of-supply issues that the U.S. faces."

Examples of Professor Thomas' recent work are available upon request by contacting Leslie Anderson at (703) 276-3256 or landerson@hastingsgroup.com.

ABOUT PROFESSOR THOMAS

Professor Thomas has been a researcher in energy policy for more than 25 years. He writes particularly on economics and policy towards nuclear power, liberalization and privatization of the electricity and gas industries and trade policy on network energy industries. He is a member of the editorial boards of: Energy Policy, Utility Policy, Energy and Environment, and International Journal of Regulation and Governance.

EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio recording of the news event will be available on the Web at http://www.psr.org/NuclearMyth as of 6 p.m. EDT/3 p.m. PDT on May 20, 2009
SOURCE Professor Stephen Thomas, University of Greenwich

Link to this page:
back to top

Related Links:

http://www.psr.org/NuclearMyth

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-20-2009/0005030201&EDATE=

Child Leukemia Rates Increase Near U.S. Nuclear Power Plants

Comment: Virginia wants to be the nuclear ‘renaissance’ of the World, why, nothing but GREED, PURE GREED, HECK WITH THE CITIZENS OF VA$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Salem-News.com (May-18-2009 18:45)

The carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure are most severe among infants and children.

(NEW YORK) - Leukemia death rates in U.S. children near nuclear reactors rose sharply (vs. the national trend) in the past two decades, according to a recent study.

The greatest mortality increases occurred near the oldest nuclear plants, while declines were observed near plants that closed permanently in the 1980s and 1990s. The study was published in the most recent issue of the European Journal of Cancer Care.

The study updates an analysis conducted in the late 1980s by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). That analysis, mandated by Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), is the only attempt federal officials have made to examine cancer rates near U.S. nuclear plants.

U.S. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said

"Nothing is more important to American families than the health of their children. It is critical that we continue to improve our understanding of the causes of child leukemia and learn how this heartbreaking disease be prevented, therefore this study deserves critical consideration."

Actor and advocate Alec Baldwin said:

"exposure to ambient levels of radiation near nuclear reactors used by public utilities has long been suspected as a significant contributor to various cancers and other diseases." Baldwin, who has a long-standing interest in radiation health issues, adds "nuclear power is not the clean, efficient energy panacea to which we are presently being reintroduced. It is dirty, poses serious security threats to our country, and is ridiculously expensive. Nukes are still a military technology forced on the American public with a dressed up civilian application."

Study authors were epidemiologist Joseph Mangano MPH MBA, Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project and toxicologist Janette Sherman MD of the Environmental Institute at Western Michigan University. They analyzed leukemia deaths in children age 0-19 in the 67 counties near 51 nuclear power plants starting 1957-1981 (the same counties in the NCI study). About 25 million people live in these 67 counties, and the 51 plants represent nearly half of the U.S. total).

Using mortality statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mangano and Sherman found that in 1985-2004, the change in local child leukemia mortality (vs. the U.S.) compared to the earliest years of reactor operations were:

OA_show(1);
* An increase of 13.9% near nuclear plants started 1957-1970 (oldest plants)

* An increase of 9.4% near nuclear plants started 1971-1981 (newer plants)

* A decrease of 5.5% near nuclear plants started 1957-1981 and later shut down


The 13.9% rise near the older plants suggests a potential effect of greater radioactive contamination near aging reactors, while the 5.5% decline near closed reactors suggests a link between less contamination and lower leukemia rates. The large number of child leukemia deaths in the study (1292) makes many of the results statistically significant.

The Mangano/Sherman report follows a 2007 meta-analysis also published in the European Journal of Cancer Care by researchers from the Medical University of South Carolina. That report reviewed 17 medical journal articles on child leukemia rates near reactors, and found that all 17 detected elevated rates.

A January 2008 European Journal of Cancer article that found high rates of child leukemia near German reactors from 1980-2003 is believed to be the largest study on the topic (1592 leukemia cases).

The carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure are most severe among infants and children.

Leukemia is the type of childhood cancer most closely associated with exposures to toxic agents such as radiation, and has been most frequently studied by scientists.

In the U.S., childhood leukemia incidence has risen 28.7% from 1975-2004 according to CDC data, suggesting that more detailed studies on causes are warranted.

The Radiation and Public Health Project is a non profit group of health professionals and scientists based in New York that studies health risks from radioactive exposures to nuclear reactors and weapons tests. RPHP members have published 23 medical journal articles on the topic. A copy of the child leukemia article is availale online by clicking here.

Source: Atheo News

Child Leukemia Rates Increase Near U.S. Nuclear Power Plants
Salem-News.com

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may182009/kids_leukemia_5-18-09.php

Uranium investment: knowing the value but not the cost

Comment: Nuke & Uranium Mining people are ruining People lives for Greed!

If you want to see an example of the smug misanthropy that lies behind much nuclear power propaganda and boosting, then take a look at this piece from ‘premier’ financial website Seeking Alpha.(listed below):

Making predictions of an impending bull market in uranium, it has this advice to give to potential investers…

[P]erhaps the most promising way to access uranium right now is to look to the source: producers.

Lately, uranium miners haven't been doing half bad, having regained some of the ground they lost in 2007's U3O8 price drop and last year's credit crunch.

The same RBC report noted that overall, uranium stocks have rebounded almost 225% from their lows, and that the market could reclaim its previous peaks within the next two years.

This recovery in miners has been driven in part by good discovery news out of Africa.

New drilling results from the Rössing South mine in Namibia suggest that the newly discovered source is not only the country's highest-grade uranium deposit, but could be one of the largest in the world. (Extract Resources, which owns the mine, and Kalahari Minerals, which owns a large stake in Extract, have both seen their share prices soar).

Meanwhile, in Niger, French nuclear power giant Areva has teamed up with local officials to lay foundations for a new mine in Imouraren, which when completed, will be Africa's largest uranium mine and the second largest in the world.

They simply can’t see the human cost of uranium mining for the dollar signs in their eyes.

We’ve already seen this week what Rössing Uranium have done in Namibia. We know what Areva have got up to in Niger.

This thinking from Alpha Seeker is linked to the similar line of thought that says nuclear power is safe or low carbon.

It consciously avoids discussion of the health dangers of uranium mining and the carbon costs of producing nuclear fuel. Alpha Seeker don’t say ‘nuclear power doesn't emit an ounce of greenhouse gases’, they say ‘nuclear reactors don't emit an ounce of greenhouse gases’. Notice the difference? This is a wilful, blinkered ignorance on any number of levels.

Posted by Justin on May 15, 2009 6:18 PM

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/2009/05/uranium_investment_knowing_the.html

NO to Uranium Power - Antinuclear Climate

Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant under construction in Olkiluoto, Eurajok

Comment: No one in the World wants Nuke Plants, why are they being built, GREED and some news, Uraniun Mining in Finland too!!!

NO to Uranium Power - Antinuclear Climate Camp, Tervola, Lapland 20–26 July 2009

Welcome to join our protest camp in Finnish Lapland next summer! We won’t allow this corner of the world, that the borders of the Finnish government surrounds, to become a paradise of the nuclear industry!

Olkiluoto 3, The fifth reactor in the country is now under constuction in Western Finland. Over a thousand mistakes have already been documented in the construction work. The cost of the construction is now twice the original budget, and the project is already three years behind schedule.

However, the Finnish government seems so excited about this success, that they are happy to let nuclear industry take care of the economy of the country in the future as well. The recent dramatic decreases in energy consumption have not affected the plans for possibly even three more reactors.

The problem with final storage for nuclear waste is said to be solved here, for the first time in the world. A huge grave has already been dug for high level radioactive waste, despite that the project is seen as absurd in expert circles.

As Finland has a reputation of having an exceptionally positive attitude toward nuclear industry, it’s not surprising that companies interested in uranium mining come here as well. There are almost 20 applications for uranium mining in effect at the moment, in various places in Eastern and Northern Finland.

This year we´ll have a protest camp in Tervola, Lapland, near the Simo municipality, where the company Fennovoima (owned by German energy giant Eon) has bought land for building a new nuclear plant, close to one of the last open salmon rivers on the European continent.

Small communities with economical problems are easy to buy, when the local politicians are more interested in the money than in the well being of nature and the community in the long term. (sounds the same as Pitts. County)

We´ll also pay a visit to Ranua, where French nuclear company Areva is about to start test drilling for uranium.

The aim is to make the camp a space, where local movements against uranium prospecting and nuclear projects, NGOs that fight against the Finnish government’s ridiculous energy policy, radical ecological groups, international antinuclear activists, and of course anyone else interested in the issues, can gather together, unite, and build a stronger movement.

The program will provide information, skill sharing and action. As well, the aim is for the camp to be a space for sharing our visions about a safer and nicer future, and for learning to live respecting both the nature and the people around us!

More info:
www.nuclearfreefinland.org
email: ynuff2009 (a)gmail.com

http://www.hyokyaalto.org/2009/05/14/lapland-camp/

UPDATE 2-Entergy shuts NY Indian Point 3 reactor

Fri May 15, 2009 10:30am EDT
(Updates with company release)

NEW YORK, May 15 (Reuters) - Entergy Corp (ETR.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) manually shut the 1,025-megawatt Unit 3 at the Indian Point nuclear power station in New York from full power on May 15, the company said in a release.

The company said operators shut the plant due to a problem with a valve on the non-nuclear side of the plant that controls the flow of water into one of the unit's four steam generators. Steam generators produce the steam that spins the plant's turbines.

There was no release of radiation.

The company did not say in the report when the unit would return.

The 2,045 MW Indian Point station is located in Buchanan in Westchester County about 45 miles north of New York City. The station has two units, the 1,020 MW Unit 2 and the 1,025 MW Unit 3, which entered service in 1973 and 1976.

Unit 2 continued to operate at full power.

One MW powers about 800 homes in New York.

In April 2007, Entergy filed with the NRC for a 20-year extension of the unit's original 40-year operating licenses.

On its web site, the NRC said it will likely make a decision on the renewal sometime after February 2010 at a date still to be determined due in part to upcoming hearings concerning numerous contentions.

Community and environmental organizations have been trying to shut Indian Point since before the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. They fear radioactive contamination from an accident at the plant could cause numerous deaths and injuries in the heavily populated New York City metropolitan area.

Entergy, of New Orleans, owns and operates about 30,000 MW of generating capacity, markets energy commodities, and transmits and dist-ibutes power to 2.7 million customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. (Reporting by Scott DiSavino; Editing by John Picinich)

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1554838220090515

Virginia Tech, company aim for safer nuclear energy

Chernobyl disaster:The nuclear reactor after the disaster. Reactor 4 (image center). Turbine building (image lower left). Reactor 3 (center right)


Comment: article does not mention the problems of waste, uranium mining problems, CO2 during Nuke Process, Nuke Accidents, $10-20 billion costs, higher electric cost - just a few things the article did not include !!!!!

The university and ADNA Corp. want to improve efficiency and cut down on waste.
By Greg Esposito
381-1675

Virginia Tech is teaming with a company with Southwest Virginia ties on a project that could have far-reaching consequences in the field of nuclear energy.

The university and the Los Alamos, N.M.-based ADNA Corp. are expected to announce a memorandum of understanding today to construct a pilot facility to test technology to produce safer, less-costly and more-efficient nuclear energy.

The new design combines technology old and new -- but all proven to work -- including molten salt reactors tested in the 1960s and projects by ADNA founder and Roanoke native Charles Bowman that integrated accelerator technology into nuclear reactors in the 1990s.

"The components exist," Tech physics professor Bruce Vogelaar said. "What needs to happen is the integration of the systems and the demonstration that things work as anticipated. It's not a question of whether the technology, in principle, will work. The question is, 'Does it work as well as we anticipate?' "

If it does, the result will be nuclear power plants that produce more energy with less waste and don't result in the separation of plutonium from uranium during the process. Plutonium is a nuclear power byproduct that can be used to produce weapons. The production of it through the process of creating nuclear energy has been a point of contention in nuclear proliferation monitoring for years.

After a long career in nuclear science, Bowman retired in 1997 and founded ADNA -- short for Accelerator Driven Neutron Applications. A 1956 graduate of Tech who got his Ph.D. from Duke University in 1961, he splits his time between Los Alamos and Franklin County, where his family farm and some ADNA facilities are located.

The work between Tech and ADNA is the next step in research the company did with Duke and the Los Alamos National Laboratory. It will involve soliciting federal grants, and Vogelaar said he is optimistic that stimulus money for energy innovation could be a source of funding. Tech is contributing $225,000 in seed money.

Bowman began working with Vogelaar about three years ago. The Tech professor was a collaborator on a couple of experiments involving ADNA and Duke that measured neutron production from graphite. But the memorandum of understanding is the first official collaboration between Bowman and his alma mater.

There are several sites in Virginia, New Mexico, Tennessee and Nevada that qualify as candidates for the location of the pilot plant, Vogelaar said.

Bowman said the design phase of the demonstration facility could take about two years and the entire project about seven years.

"Virginia Tech is an excellent partner in this because this technology has moved to, pretty much, to an engineering phase," Bowman said. "So what we have to do is bring engineering to bear on the design of the demonstration facility. ... The science at this point is more in the area of refinement."

http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/203552

British Energy: Hartlepool Nuclear Unit Shut Fri Unexpectedly

LONDON (Dow Jones)--U.K. nuclear power generator British Energy shut down one of its two nuclear reactors at Hartlepool nuclear power station Friday, data from the U.K. power grid operator National Grid PLC (NGG) showed.

A company spokesman confirmed that British Energy's 2,605- megawatt nuclear unit at Hartlepool was shut down Friday morning. The unit was shut down manually, the spokesman said. He added that it wasn't planned.

British Energy is the U.K. nuclear arm of Electricite de France (EDF.FR).

Company Web site: http://www.british-energy.com
-By Alex MacDonald, Dow Jones Newswires; +44 (0)20 7842 9328; alex.macdonald@dowjones.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090427-702595.html

Corrosion found in Shippingport

Times photo by Kevin Lorenzi The cooling towers of the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station in Shippingport are seen in this March photo. A gash was found Thursday in the steel lining of the Unit 1 nuclear reactor containment building!

SATURDAY APRIL 25, 2009 :: Last modified: Friday, April 24, 2009 9:58 PM EDT


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corrosion found in Shippingport
nuclear reactor containment building


Times photo by Kevin Lorenzi
The cooling towers of the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station in Shippingport are seen in this March photo. A gash was found Thursday in the steel lining of the Unit 1 nuclear reactor containment building.

By Bill Vidonic, Times Staff

SHIPPINGPORT — An inspection Thursday revealed corrosion in the steel lining of the nuclear reactor containment building of Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station’s Unit 1, according to FirstEnergy Corp.

No radiation was released from the building, and there was “no impact to the public health or safety of any employees,” FirstEnergy spokesman Todd Schneider said Friday evening.

The Unit 1 reactor had been shut down since Monday for scheduled refueling and maintenance. As part of that work, Schneider said, the containment building that surrounds the reactor underwent a standard inspection.

The containment building has concrete walls that are 4 feet thick, Schneider said, and there’s a 3/8-inch-thick steel lining on top of that concrete in the building’s interior.

The steel is coated with what Schneider described as “nuclear-grade paint.” An inspection showed a blister in some of that coating. The blister wasn’t cracked, Schneider said.

Once the coating was cleaned, Schneider added, workers found that the steel underneath it had corroded through to the concrete wall. The affected area of the steel is in the shape of a rectangle, Schneider said, about one inch long by about 3/8-inch high. That’s just under the size of a standard paper clip.

Schneider said the concrete beneath the steel lining was not cracked or damaged by the steel corrosion, so there was no danger of a radiation leak.

As required by federal regulations, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was notified about the blister, Schneider said, though the discovery was not considered an emergency.

Wes Hill, director of Beaver County Emergency Services, said Friday evening that his department was not notified of the discovery.

Schneider said the blisters have been discovered at other nuclear plants in the past, so there’s an established procedure to follow in making repairs.

The corroded steel will be removed, Schneider said, and another piece of steel will be welded into place. The removed steel will be examined to try to determine what caused the damage.

The affected area was last inspected in 2007 during another maintenance outage, Schneider said, and no problems were found then, so the corrosion occurred within the last couple of years.

Schneider would not say how long the reactor will remain off line for its scheduled maintenance, but said Thursday’s discovery wouldn’t delay the reactor restart; the repair to the steel will proceed during the refueling and maintenance work.

Once repairs are made, Schneider said, tests will be conducted “to ensure the safe operation of the plant” before the reactor is restarted.

The reactor was first brought online in 1976.

The Shippingport nuclear power station’s second reactor, Unit 2, remained online and operating normally Friday, Schneider said. That unit, first online in 1987, was last inspected in spring 2008, he added; no problems were detected in that building at that time.

An NRC spokesman could not be reached for comment Friday night.

Bill Vidonic can be reached online at bvidonic@timesonline.com.


http://www.timesonline.com/articles/2009/04/24/news/top_stories/doc49f26aea011a3609930130.txt

Decommissioning cost grows for nuclear plant

VERNON — The owners of Vermont Yankee nuclear plant say the estimated cost of mothballing it has increased $25 million in the past year while the amount of money available for doing so has shrunk.

In a filing with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission this week, Entergy Nuclear said its decommissioning fund lost $93 million in value.

The company now says that decommissioning the Vernon facility will cost $909 million, up from $875 million, the Rutland Herald reported Friday.

Vermont Yankee’s owners are seeking permission to add another 20 years to its operating license, which is scheduled to expire in 2012.

At the same time, Vermont lawmakers are considering a bill that would require Entergy Nuclear to make additional contributions to the decommissioning fund.

Radiation illness screening at St. Mary's ends

Comment: Interesting article about uranium mining and the nuclear energy jobs radiation exposure and cancer! Maybe our future, Heck No, We Won't Glow!!

By CASSIE HEWLINGS
Friday, February 27, 2009

St. Mary’s Hospital has stopped offering a program that helped people with potential radiation exposure find compensation for their related illnesses.

The Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program is funded through federal grants. The Saccomanno Research Institute at St. Mary’s administered the program for seven years before it ceased last month.

Samantha Moe, spokeswoman for the hospital, said it had been awarded two three-year grants to fund the program and was in the first year of its third three-year grant when the hospital decided to end the program.

“We accomplished what we meant to accomplish,” Moe said.

The program had served more than 900 people potentially exposed to radiation, but participation had dwindled in recent years to one or two patients a week, Moe said.

The amount of the latest grant was less than half what it had been in previous years, Moe said.

The federal program helps people who may have developed cancer through working in nuclear-related industries such as uranium mining or living in areas where nuclear testing occurred.


People who enter the program are assessed to determine whether they are sick and entitled to federal compensation for treatment.

Only six clinics in the United States, including St. Mary’s Hospital, were funded under the program.

Moe said people affected by the closing of the program were sent letters about where they could continue to get assistaance.

The two closest locations are in Utah at Dixie Regional Medical Center in St. George and Utah Navajo Health Systems in Montezuma Creek.

Greenpeace speaker confronts nuclear misconceptions

Comment: No Nuke Plants, therefore, No Uranium Mining

Date: 2009-02-27 By Joel Wiebe

It's human arrogance to think science and technology are simply going to step in and save us from climate change says Bruce Cox, and he's kicking off a 10-city tour across the province to let people know what we need to do.

"We are really running out of time," he adds.

Carpooling to Peterborough in an old Ford Escort isn't exactly a stylish way for the executive director of Greenpeace Canada to travel, but it's all part of walking the talk.

The focus of his tour - he was in Peterborough Thursday at Market Hall - is letting people know what the solutions are in Ontario, and what stands in the way.

A simple question about why nuclear energy hinders renewable energy brings out the passion he has for the subject.

"Once we go down that road it's difficult to turn back," he emphasizes.

Nuclear reactors, he says, are expensive and heavily subsidized. The government is ready to spend another $40 billion on nuclear power, he says, yet they haven't paid off the debts from the old ones.

The pollution in mining for uranium and the lack of knowledge of what to do with the waste are environmental issues he has with nuclear power.

The solution exists," he notes.

There is only so much room for power on the grid: he's concerned the government won't pursue the need for green power after spending so much on nuclear. This could turn off green entrepreneurs.

We need an energy revolution," he says.

While energy production is a big issue, he believes conservation is the first step. Rather than try and figure out how to generate enough green power to meet Ontario's needs, we need to reduce our needs.

More efficient energy use is an issue. Rather than use a boiler to simply heat a building, the energy from the hot water can be used to create electricity and then heat the building.

"We're going to have to pick up the pace."

"The solution exists,"

Bruce Cox's top 10 reasons to replace the aging Pickering reactors with green power:

10. Renewable is doable
9. Nuclear is unreliable
8. Nuclear is dirty
7. Nuclear is unsafe
6. Green energy is quick to build
5. Nuclear is expensive
4. No radioactive waste
3. No uranium mining
2. Green energy creates more jobs
1. Nuclear stops green energy

http://www.mykawartha.com/news/article/37409

Victory in Landmark Clean Water Act ChallengeLeague and Lake Residents Overturn Dominion Nuke Permit

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FEBRUARY 20, 2009
CONTACT: Louis Zeller (336) 982-2691 or (336) 977-0852

Today a Virginia court in Richmond ruled that state agencies violated federal law and that the water quality permit for Dominion-Virginia Power’s North Anna nuclear station is revoked.

Judge Spencer ruled that Lake Anna water quality is governed by the federal Clean Water Act and that Virginia’s Attorney General was wrong in supporting the state’s water permit.

This landmark decision favored the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and co-plaintiffs residing near Lake Anna by determining that the so-called hot side of the lake is “waters of the United States.”

The Virginia State Water Control Board must now go back to the drawing board to evaluate the adverse impacts of hot water discharges to Lake Anna from the two nuclear reactors.

Louis Zeller, Science Director of the League, said, “We and lakeside residents have long believed that Dominion is guilty of thermal pollution; however, we believe that the greatest impact of the Richmond court’s decision is that the Commonwealth and the people must reject the permitting of a third reactor at our endangered Lake Anna.”

The League is conducting research to see how many other power plants will be affected by this decision.

NRC ISSUES FINAL RULE ON NEW REACTOR AIRCRAFT IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

Comment: I wonder how much more money will be added to the $10 billion to build a Nuke Plant that can with stand an jet?

NRC NEWSU.S. , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
February 17, 2009

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a final rule that requires applicants for new power reactors to assess the ability of their reactor designs to avoid or mitigate the effects of a large commercial aircraft impact.

“This is a common sense approach to address an issue raised by the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001,” said NRC Chairman Dale Klein, adding that some of the credit for resolving the issue is due to the efforts of the late Commissioner Edward McGaffigan. “Without the energy he devoted to this effort every day, up to the week he died, the Commission may never have been able to come to common ground on this very important issue. I am quite confident that this rule will be an important element in the regulatory framework for new reactor applications that will result in a margin of safety far beyond that required to achieve reasonable assurance of public health and safety.”

Nuclear power plants are designed under very stringent requirements to assure they can safely shut down following “design-basis events” such as large fires, floods, earthquakes and hurricanes, as well as improbable equipment malfunctions including pipe breaks. These requirements include having two redundant systems to accomplish each safety function. The rule treats large commercial aircraft crashes as Abeyond-design-basis events.@

Under the rule, any design feature or functional capability adopted solely to comply with the rule will meet high quality standards but is exempt from NRC design-basis regulations, such as regulations for redundancy. These design features and functional capabilities must address core cooling capability, containment integrity, spent fuel cooling capability, and spent fuel pool integrity following an aircraft impact.

The NRC has already taken several steps to improve security at existing nuclear power plants, including adopting a rule in March 2007 that requires both existing and potential new reactors to defend against a more realistic threat.

The agency also issued a February 2002 Order requiring all existing nuclear power plants to develop and adopt mitigative strategies to cope with large fires and explosions from any cause, including beyond-design-basis aircraft impacts.

The NRC voted in December 2008 to codify these requirements in a separate rule for all existing and future nuclear power plants.The agency does not believe nuclear power plant operators should be required to prevent the impact of large commercial aircraft; that responsibility rests with the federal government.

The NRC works closely with other federal agencies such as NORAD, the Federal Aviation Administration and the intelligence community to provide layered protection against such a threat. The agency expects these efforts would effectively preclude an aircraft attack from occurring. Should such an unlikely event take place at a new plant designed in accordance with the new rule, the NRC expects the plant would be better able to withstand such a crash than the same design without changes resulting from the rule.

Extracting a disaster

The effects of uranium mining are disastrous. To minimise the risks, the nuclear supply chain needs independent auditing

David Thorpe ,guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 December 2008 18.30 GMT

Article history

The increased sourcing of raw uranium that will arise from nuclear new build is an ethical and environmental nightmare currently being ignored by the government.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA), the trade body for companies that make up 90% of the industry, admits that in "emerging uranium producing countries" there is frequently no adequate environmental health and safety legislation, let alone monitoring. It is considerately proposing a Charter of Ethics containing principles of uranium stewardship for its members to follow. But this is a self-policing voluntary arrangement.

Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency's safety guide to the Management of Radioactive Waste from the Mining and Milling of Ores (pdf) are not legally binding on operators.

The problem is that transparency is not a value enshrined in the extractive or the nuclear industries. Journalists find themselves blocked. Recently, to tackle this issue, Panos Institute West Africa (IPAO) held a training seminar for journalists in Senegal which highlighted that only persistent investigation – or, in the case of the Niger's Tuareg, violent rebellion – has a chance of uncovering the truth.

The co-editor of the Republican in Niger, Ousseini Issa, said that only due to local media campaigns was there a revision of the contract linking Niger to the French company Areva. "As a result of our efforts, the price of a kilogram of uranium increased from 25,000 to 40,000 CFA francs," he said. The local community hopes now to see more of the income from the extraction of its resources.

IPAO has much evidence that in Africa the legacy of mining is often terrible health, water contamination and other pollution problems. IPAO would laugh at the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative – an Orwellian creation launched by Tony Blair in 2001.

What is the effect of uranium mining? Nuclear fuel from fresh uranium is cheaper than from recycled uranium or recycled plutonium (MOX), which is why there is a worldwide uranium rush.

To produce the 25 tonnes or so of uranium fuel needed to keep your average reactor going for a year entails the extraction of half a million tonnes of waste rock and over 100,000 tonnes of mill tailings. These are toxic for hundreds of thousands of years.

The conversion plant will generate another 144 tonnes of solid waste and 1343 cubic metres of liquid waste.

Contamination of local water supplies around uranium mines and processing plants has been documented in Brazil, Colorado, Texas, Australia, Namibia and many other sites.

To supply even a fraction of the power stations the industry expects to be online worldwide in 2020 would mean generating 50 million tonnes of toxic radioactive residues every single year.
These tailings contain uranium, thorium, radium, polonium, and emit radon-222.

In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency sets limits of emissions from the dumps and monitors them. This does not happen in many less developed areas.

The long-term management cost of these dumps is left out of the current market prices for nuclear fuel and may be as high as the uranium cost itself. The situation for the depleted uranium waste arising during enrichment even may be worse, says the World Information Service on Energy.

No one can convince me that the above process is carbon-free, as politicians claim. It takes a lot of – almost certainly fossil-fuelled – energy to move that amount of rock and process the ore. But the carbon cost is often not in the country where the fuel is consumed.

And what of the other costs? Over half of the world's uranium is in Australia and Canada.

In Australia the government is planning to make money from the nuclear renaissance being predicted; uranium mining is expanding everywhere. Australian Greens are fast losing the optimism they felt when the Labor party won the last election.

In the Northern Territory plans to expand a nuclear dump at Muckaty station are being pushed forward with no regard for the land's Aboriginal owners.

The supposedly greener new Australian government Minister Martin Ferguson has failed to deliver an election promise to overturn the Howard government's Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act, which earmarks a series of sites for nuclear waste dumps.

In South Australia, in August the Australian government approved the expansion of a controversial uranium mine, Beverley ISL. This was dubbed a "blank cheque licence for pollution". Groundwater specialist Dr Gavin Mudd has examined the data from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and called for it to be "independently verified by people not subservient to the mining industry" (The Epoch Times September 2 2008).

Elsewhere in the Northern Territory, BHP Billiton plans to have the first of five planned stages of expansion at its Olympic Dam mine in production by 2013.

This will increase production capacity to 200,000 tonnes of copper, 4500 tonnes of uranium and 120,000 ounces of gold. This is a vast open cast mine, from which the wind can carry away radioactive dust.

Not far away locals are fighting a new uranium mine 25 kilometres south of Alice Springs. At the Ranger mines, Energy Resources of Australia – 68.4% owned by Rio Tinto – expects to find 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes of ore in the Ranger 3 Deeps area. In October it agreed to supply uranium oxide to a Chinese utility, signing a safety accord.

This is how safe the mine in fact is – and you won't find such records at African mines: almost 15,000 litres of acid uranium solution leaked in a 2002 incident, and since then further leaks ranging from 50 to over 23,000 litres have been reported.
The list goes on.

The bottom line is this: UK ministers are blind to the consequences of their pro-nuclear evangelism.

Carbon credits under the Kyoto mechanism have to be independently audited by a global body to ensure that new renewable energy is unique, additional and lives up to its claims.

At the very least there should be an independent, global body verifying the ethics, health and long-term safety of the nuclear supply chain.

Better, just leave it in the ground.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER

Comment: We do not need new nuclear power plants, we do not need uranium mining, use "True Green" energy.

Eurpope's anti-Nuclear Plants will help everyone against uranium mining plus some companies uses France as a model Nuclear Power power, well France is polluting the water, land & air!

Don't forget to tell your grandchildren tomake sure they let their grandchildren knowhow to instruct their grandchildren to showtheir grandchildren how to clarify to theirgrandchildren in what way their grandchildrencould enable their grandchildren to look afterour nuclear waste.

Europe must stop wasting taxpayers' money to protect a dangerous and expensive technology. 20 years after the Chernobyl disaster, nuclear power, despite its widespread use also in Europe, remains the most dirty and dangerous form of energy.

Instead of nuclear power, Europe needs massive investments in energy efficiency and renewable energies. Any sensible energy policy must have these two elements at its heart.

The nuclear industry hopes for a nuclear come-back -- despite its dangers, despite its astronomical costs. A disaster like the Chernobyl accident, now 20 years ago, can happen anytime anyplace, and since Chernobyl, there were 22 serious nuclear accidents around the world..

A solution for the long-term storage & treatment of radioactive waste has yet to be found. Radioactive material from nuclear power generation can be used to build nuclear weapons. And, globalised terrorism makes nuclear power stations and the uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear material a serious security hazard.

And nuclear power is economically insane. Not a single nuclear power plant was ever built without direct or indirect subsidies, paid by taxpayers and increasing the profits of the nuclear industry. Nuclear power is also no solution to climate change: each Euro invested in nuclear energy would save ten times more greenhouse gases if it was invested in energy efficiency measures instead.

Despite this, and despite the fact that many EU Member States and the majority of their citizens are not in favour of nuclear energy, the so-called EURATOM Treaty officially obliges all EU countries to promote nuclear power.

Clearly, this treaty must be abolished, it being an old relic that has no role to play in a modern Europe.

Read on: 6 reasons against nuclear power

1. Nuclear power is dangerous, safety is a myth

Nuclear power remains the most dangerous form of energy. A disaster like the Chernobyl accident, now 20 years ago, can happen anytime anyplace. The history of the Nuclear Age is a history of accidents.

20 years after Chernobyl, people are still suffering from health problems caused by the accident. An accident can occur at any nuclear reactor, causing the release of large quantities of radioactivity into the environment. Even during normal operation, radioactive materials are regularly discharged into the air and water. Transports of large quantities of low and intermediate level wastes are also increasing the risks to populations.

Although nuclear power is a hazardous business, the nuclear industry hardly has any financial liability. In the case of a nuclear disaster, most of the damages will be paid by society and not the companies' insurances. None of the various international conventions on nuclear damage currently in force are designed to make operators, or owners, of nuclear facilities liable for damage they cause.

2. Nuclear power is a deadly legacy for our children

A solution for the long-term storage & treatment of radioactive waste has yet to be found. Highly radioactive spent fuels need to be isolated from the biosphere for hundreds and thousands years. Nuclear waste is produced at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining and reactors to the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Radioactive waste remains dangerous for hundreds and thousands of years and radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects.

There is not a single safe disposal option for the highly radioactive waste produced by nuclear power stations worldwide. In almost all countries waste is stored in bunkers, below surface or above ground, while the world desperately researches ways to safely store it for thousands of years to come. These 'intermediate' storages are expensive and require safety measures that are not comparable to any other waste or industrial process. As there is no safe way to store these wastes for the necessary periods of time, this alone should be enough reason to abandon nuclear power as a viable energy source.

3. Nuclear power is financially insane

If the European energy market was a level playing field, where energy pricing would reflect the true costs of producing energy from different sources, nuclear power would be economically insane.

All countries using its technology have seriously underestimated the full costs of nuclear power. Not a single nuclear power plant was ever built without direct or indirect subsidies, paid by taxpayers and increasing the profits of the nuclear industry. Also, nuclear power will not be able to compete with renewable energies without huge amounts of state aid. That nuclear power today produces on third of Europe's electricity is due to political that created favourable market conditions: Over the last 30 years, the EU's governments spent more than €45 billion for nuclear research.

As already said, Most of the costs of a (however likely) serious nuclear accident will be borne by society and not by the plant operator's insurance.

There is a huge gap between the expected costs of decommissioning and waste storage of the currently operating plants in the EU and the money set aside for that purpose by the operators. The hidden costs of waste disposal, decommissioning of plants at the end of their lifespan (the decommissiing costs alone could be as high as 500 billion Euro for the power stations currently operating within the EU) and provisioning for accidents have never been adequately accounted for, and will result in a massive burden on future economies and generations.

4. Nuclear power is no solution to climate change

In order to avoid the most catastrophic effects of global warming, the world will have to cut back its emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by around 50% by 2050. Since by far the most of emissions happen in the energy sector, the nuclear industry hopes to use the climate crisis to stage a nuclear revival, arguing that nuclear power is cheap, emission-free and thus has a role to play in securing low-emissions supply of energy.

But nuclear power is not at all emissions free, if emissions in relation to uranium mining, transportation, plant construction and decommissioning and waste storage are included in the calculation. It has been calculated that for example in the UK with its 23 nuclear reactors, doubling capacity would cut emissions by no more than 8% . Globally, tripling nuclear capacity by 2050 might contribute 12.5%-20% to the necessary emission reductions. But such scenarios -- one plant every two weeks -- have no link to political reality, and the costs would be astronomic.

Compare this to the 20% reduction of energy consumption (and emissions) the European Union can achieve by 2020 (30 years earlier) at zero net costs, as the European Commission has pointed out in a "Green Paper" on energy efficiency. Also, nuclear power comes with high opportunity costs (since every Euro can be spent only once): Every Euro invested in new nuclear power could save ten times more emissions if it was invested in energy conservation measures instead -- thus also securing energy supply ten times cheaper.

5. Nuclear weapons are the flip side of nuclear power

Radioactive material from nuclear power generation can be used to build nuclear weapons. The global expansion of nuclear power could well contribute to an increase in the number of nuclear weapons states. So far India, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, North Korea, and of course the five official nuclear weapons states (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China), have developed arsenals of nuclear weapons using their "peaceful' nuclear facilities.

Nuclear power reactors have produced enough plutonium to build 160,000 nuclear weapons or an even wider range of radioactive materials for use in 'dirty bombs'. The spread of nuclear technology significantly increases the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. Smuggling of nuclear material, including from civil nuclear programs, also presents a significant challenge. The International Atomic Energy Association has recorded over 650 confirmed incidents of trafficking in nuclear or other radioactive materials since 1993. In 2004 alone almost a hundred such incidents occurred.

6. Nuclear power dependent on limited & dirty resources

Nuclear power plants run on uranium fuel. And uranium - like oil, gas and coal - is a finite resource that will only last a few more decades, at most 50 years (with the current level of use). A significant increase in the use of nuclear power will quickly result in a shortage of nuclear fuel.

The reprocessing of spent fuels has already been proven to be no solution. Reprocessing is a complicated and hazardous chemical process that creates an enormous amount of radioactive waste. Besides that, reprocessing is a very uneconomical technology, as past examples have clearly demonstrated.

Nevertheless there are two reprocessing units in Europe: Sellafield (UK) and La Hague (France).
Both are known to be the biggest sources of radioactive pollution in the European environment through the release of huge quantities of radioactive liquid effluents into the sea and gaseous discharges into the air.

And last but not least, the production of weapons from plutonium separated in reprocessing facilities is relatively simple, dramatically increasing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.

Hanford nuclear power plant goes off line

Last updated February 9, 2009 12:38 p.m. PT
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

RICHLAND, Wash. -- Energy Northwest says its nuclear power plant on the Hanford nuclear reservation is shut down for repair.

The utility consortium says the Columbia Generating Station should be off the Bonneville Power Administration grid for no more than two days
.
The plant disconnected Sunday when monitoring equipment indicated a problems with the steam flow through the main turbine.

The 1,150 megawatt plant generates enough electricity for a city the size of Seattle

A $50 Billion Nuke Power Bomb Is Dropping Toward Obama's Stimulus Package

Published on Saturday, January 31, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

by Harvey Wasserman
The desperate, dangerous nuclear power industry has dropped a $50 billion stealth bomb meant to irradiate the Obama Stimulus Package.

It comes in the form of a mega-loan guarantee package that would build new reactors Wall Street wouldn't finance even when it had cash. It will take a healthy dose of citizen action to stop it, so start calling your Senators now.

The vaguely worded bailout-in-advance provision was snuck through the Senate Appropriations Committee in the deep night of January 27. It would provide $50 billion in loan guarantees for "eligible technologies" that would technically include renewable sources and electric transmission. But the handout is clearly directed at nukes and "clean coal."

The Stimulus Package is explicitly meant to create jobs within the next two years. But according to sources at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, no new reactors could be licensed for construction within that time. Nor could any new coal plants. And thus the funds in this rider are to "remain available until committed." That means their "stimulus" might not go into effect for many years.

But the nuclear industry does have the ability to spend large sums of money on "site preparation" and other busy work prior to being licensed. Though the guarantees could technically be used for truly green sources such as wind and solar, the provision's backers, including Senators Robert Bennett (R-UT) and Thomas Carper (D-DE), have made it clear that this money is meant to go for new reactor construction.

In late 2007, nuclear power's Congressional Godfather, then-Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), stuck a similar $50 billion loan guarantee package into that year's energy bill. A grassroots uprising, joined by virtually all national environmental organizations, helped defeat the package. Among other things, the fight inspired a music video from Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne, Graham Nash, Keb Mo and Ben Harper (www.nukefree.org).

In late 2008 the industry came back again with a blank check package that went down in flames along with the stock market.

Still unable to get private financing, the industry is back yet again. In the interim, the projected cost of building new reactors has soared to more than $10 billion each, and continues to climb steadily. Many of the previous generation of reactors came in hugely over budget. According to the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, one DOE study places the overall average overruns at 207%. But reactor projects such as Seabrook, in New Hampshire, New York's Shoreham, Pennsylvania's Beaver Valley, California's Diablo Canyon, and many others, far exceeded that.

The Congressional Budget Office now predicts that half the nuclear utilities using such a loan program will go into default. Some $18.5 billion in loan guarantees has already been approved, apparently for such use. But its legality is being hotly disputed, and the money has not been distributed by the Department of Energy.

Washington insiders believe this latest attempt at a pre-arranged bailout has again come from Domenici, who has stayed in Washington to lobby for his radioactive benefactors after apparently retiring from the Senate in January.

This guarantee package was not part of the Stimulus Package that passed the House. Its secretive, late night inclusion on the Senate side is reminiscent of how former Vice President Dick Cheney did business for the fossil/nuclear corporations that funded much of the Bush Administration. The reappearance of this kind of back door dealing has not been well received, especially in the House.

Numerous national groups, including the Nuclear Information & Resource Service (www.nirs.org) are providing sign-ins for sending e-mails to the Senate. They also urge that you call your Senator at 202-224-3121.

Time is fast slipping by for the nuke power industry. As the popularity of renewables and efficiency escalates, the most obvious source of new jobs and prosperity has become truly green technologies. Atomic power has long since been priced out of the market. Only massive federal and ratepayer subsidies could bring it back, to the direct detriment of the revolution in renewables.

Defeating this latest money grab will help drive another nail in the coffin of the 20th century's most expensive failed technology. It is an essential step toward a truly green-powered future.
Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! Our Green-Powered Earth, is at www.harveywasserman.com. He edits the NukeFree.org web site, and is senior editor of www.freepress.org, where this article first appeared.

Stop Senate’s $50 billion bailout to the nuclear industry:
http://action.foe.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26528

Questions linger about uranium, nuclear power

Letter to the Editor

Can someone answer my questions about uranium mining and nuclear power plants?

Can pro uranium mining people tell me names of the clean uranium mines and locations of mines that do not pollute?

Can pro-uranium mining people tell me the names of the clean nuclear plants that do not pollute?
Can pro-uranium mining people tell me the cost of electric bills the French people pay since they use France as a role model on nuclear power plants?

Can pro-uranium mining people tell me how they clean up the uranium mill tailings and where they are stored when the mine shuts down?

Can pro-uranium mining people tell me how they reclaim the land and the locations of reclaimed uranium mining locations?

Can pro-uranium mining people tell me how uranium contaminated Orange County, Calif., water, which comes from the West where the uranium milling ponds are close to the Green and Colorado rivers?

I emailed Virginia Uranium Inc with these questions and they have never responded to my email.I have emailed Areva; they never responded to my email.

I emailed all the Canadian companies; they never responded to my questions.

Can the pro-uranium people and the pro-nuclear power answer my questions?

Why do pro-uranium people and pro-nuclear power people oppose any Green Power?

Japan depends on nuclear power (the local people do not have the choice to oppose nuclear power), but they use other forms of power. I saw huge wind mill farms on their mountains.

Deborah Dix