Group items tagged

Anti-nuclear activists have organised a rally here tomorrow to demand closure of nuclear power plants in the country, saying they were creating health hazards due to radiation. The activists, under the aegis of the 'National Alliance of Anti-nuclear Movements', insisted on development of renewable technologies and demanded better health facilities for people suffering from radiations caused by nuclear plants. "Tomorrow we are celebrating the birth anniversary of our father of the nation but our country no longer follows his principles," Neeraj Jain of NGO 'Lokayut' in Pune said. He alleged that propaganda of nuclear energy being a safe, cheap and clean energy are all lies. Samuel Jyrwa, President of Khasi Student's Union which has been spearheading movement against the proposed nuclear power plant in Meghalaya, said people of the state have expressed their opinion by participating in anti-nuclear hearings.

Anti-nuclear activists have organised a rally here tomorrow to demand closure of nuclear power plants in the country, saying they were creating health hazards due to radiation. The activists, under the aegis of the 'National Alliance of Anti-nuclear Movements', insisted on development of renewable technologies and demanded better health facilities for people suffering from radiations caused by nuclear plants. "Tomorrow we are celebrating the birth anniversary of our father of the nation but our country no longer follows his principles," Neeraj Jain of NGO 'Lokayut' in Pune said. He alleged that propaganda of nuclear energy being a safe, cheap and clean energy are all lies. Samuel Jyrwa, President of Khasi Student's Union which has been spearheading movement against the proposed nuclear power plant in Meghalaya, said people of the state have expressed their opinion by participating in anti-nuclear hearings.

Beyond Nuclear issued a press release today stating that it and "close to 100" other anti-nuclear or activist groups opposed to nuclear energy are lining up against the nomination of William Magwood to the NRC. Meanwhile, the Nuclear Energy Institute issued a release saying the industry welcomed the nomination of Magwood and George Apostolakis to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In a statement, Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear said: "We urged President Obama to instead nominate a strong regulator to the NRC Commission who has demonstrated a commitment to public safety, rather than to nuclear power industry promotional and financial interests. Mr. Magwood has a long track record promoting the nuclear industry's interest, including the scientifically-flawed Yucca Mountain dumpsite proposal, canceled by President Obama."

Beyond Nuclear issued a press release today stating that it and "close to 100" other anti-nuclear or activist groups opposed to nuclear energy are lining up against the nomination of William Magwood to the NRC. Meanwhile, the Nuclear Energy Institute issued a release saying the industry welcomed the nomination of Magwood and George Apostolakis to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In a statement, Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear said: "We urged President Obama to instead nominate a strong regulator to the NRC Commission who has demonstrated a commitment to public safety, rather than to nuclear power industry promotional and financial interests. Mr. Magwood has a long track record promoting the nuclear industry's interest, including the scientifically-flawed Yucca Mountain dumpsite proposal, canceled by President Obama."

Senators urged to reject choice for nuclear commission Anti-nuclear groups are fighting the Obama administration's nomination of a pro-Yucca Mountain nuclear industry insider to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On Oct. 9, President Barack Obama nominated Bill Magwood to the commission, which is charged with regulating and licensing all civilian use of nuclear materials, including the stalled nuclear waste dump proposed for 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Critics of the choice say Magwood has a history of nuclear boosterism that is incompatible with the role of a regulator. He also has repeatedly been quoted as saying Yucca Mountain is the best solution to the nation's nuclear waste storage issues, most recently in May.

Senators urged to reject choice for nuclear commission Anti-nuclear groups are fighting the Obama administration's nomination of a pro-Yucca Mountain nuclear industry insider to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On Oct. 9, President Barack Obama nominated Bill Magwood to the commission, which is charged with regulating and licensing all civilian use of nuclear materials, including the stalled nuclear waste dump proposed for 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Critics of the choice say Magwood has a history of nuclear boosterism that is incompatible with the role of a regulator. He also has repeatedly been quoted as saying Yucca Mountain is the best solution to the nation's nuclear waste storage issues, most recently in May.

A coalition of six anti-nuclear groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and Livermore's Tri-Valley CAREs, on Wednesday released its in-depth blueprint for steering Obama administration policy toward a nuclear weapons-free future. The timing of the report's release was deliberate: It was intended to get to President Barack Obama's desk before a bipartisan congressional committee releases its own report in early May to guide the president's thinking as he prepares a new nuclear weapons policy. Obama's eagerly-anticipated "2009 Nuclear Posture Review" is due this year, and will lay out the nation's guiding principles for a reduction of its nuclear weapons stockpile and for maintaining the viability of existing warheads to serve as a credible nuclear deterrent. The anti-nuclear coalition, called the Nuclear Weapons Complex Consolidation Policy Network, calls for slashing the U.S. nuclear stockpile to 500 weapons from 2015 to 2020, and for scaling down the nuclear weapons complex from eight sites to three.

The purpose of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is to encourage the growth of nuclear power worldwide. "It was a Bush initiative that Canada joined in December 2007 without any debate in parliament," explains Schacherl. An article printed in The Toronto Star on November 29, 2007 called on Canada to join a controversial nuclear partnership. The plan proposes re-using nuclear waste, a practice effectively banned in Canada and the U.S. since the 1970s for security reasons. It was announced in this article that Canada would be a part of the GNEP. Dave Martin of Greenpeace Canada insisted that "no matter which side of the nuclear debate you fall on - pro or anti - everyone should be able to agree this is something which deserves public scrutiny." Schacherl adds, "One of the principles of the GNEP partnership is that those countries who sell uranium will agree to take back the spent fuel. The United States, who initiated the partnership, benefits the most as it has a huge nuclear waste problem. Yucca Mountain, where long-term storage was once planned, has now been shelved for a number of reasons including community opposition. Countries such as Canada clearly don't benefit as they will take

The purpose of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is to encourage the growth of nuclear power worldwide. "It was a Bush initiative that Canada joined in December 2007 without any debate in parliament," explains Schacherl. An article printed in The Toronto Star on November 29, 2007 called on Canada to join a controversial nuclear partnership. The plan proposes re-using nuclear waste, a practice effectively banned in Canada and the U.S. since the 1970s for security reasons. It was announced in this article that Canada would be a part of the GNEP. Dave Martin of Greenpeace Canada insisted that "no matter which side of the nuclear debate you fall on - pro or anti - everyone should be able to agree this is something which deserves public scrutiny." Schacherl adds, "One of the principles of the GNEP partnership is that those countries who sell uranium will agree to take back the spent fuel. The United States, who initiated the partnership, benefits the most as it has a huge nuclear waste problem. Yucca Mountain, where long-term storage was once planned, has now been shelved for a number of reasons including community opposition. Countries such as Canada clearly don't benefit as they will take

The nuclear industry funds the special armed police force which guards its installations across the UK, and secret documents, seen by the Guardian, show the 750-strong force is authorised to carry out covert intelligence operations against anti-nuclear protesters, one of its main targets. The nuclear industry will pay £57m this year to finance the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC). The funding comes from the companies which run 17 nuclear plants, including Dounreay in Caithness, Sellafield in Cumbria and Dungeness in Kent. Around a third is paid by the private consortium managing Sellafield, which is largely owned by American and French firms. Nearly a fifth of the funding is provided by British Energy, the privatised company owned by French firm EDF. Private correspondence shows that in June, the EDF's head of security complained that the force had overspent its budget "without timely and satisfactory explanations to us". The industry acknowledges it is in regular contact with the CNC and the security services.

The nuclear industry funds the special armed police force which guards its installations across the UK, and secret documents, seen by the Guardian, show the 750-strong force is authorised to carry out covert intelligence operations against anti-nuclear protesters, one of its main targets. The nuclear industry will pay £57m this year to finance the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC). The funding comes from the companies which run 17 nuclear plants, including Dounreay in Caithness, Sellafield in Cumbria and Dungeness in Kent. Around a third is paid by the private consortium managing Sellafield, which is largely owned by American and French firms. Nearly a fifth of the funding is provided by British Energy, the privatised company owned by French firm EDF. Private correspondence shows that in June, the EDF's head of security complained that the force had overspent its budget "without timely and satisfactory explanations to us". The industry acknowledges it is in regular contact with the CNC and the security services.

A look at where some leading nuclear powers stand on offering compensation to victims of nuclear tests. UNITED STATES: The U.S. is the only nation that currently compensates nuclear test victims. Since the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act was enacted in 1990, more than $1.38 billion in compensation has been approved. It goes to people who took part in the tests, notably at the Nevada Test Site, and to anyone exposed to the radiation. FRANCE: The French government offered Tuesday to compensate victims for the first time. A draft bill to be submitted to parliament soon would allow payments to people who suffered health problems related to the tests. The payouts would be available to victims' descendants and would include Algerians, whose country was part of France when the French started nuclear testing in the Sahara in 1960. Victims say the eligibility requirements are too narrow. BRITAIN: No formal British government compensation program exists. Nearly 1,000 veterans of Christmas Island nuclear tests in the 1950s are seeking to sue the Ministry of Defense for negligence. They say they suffered health problems and were warned of potential dangers only after the experiments. RUSSIA: Decades afterward, Russia offered compensation to veterans who were part of the 1954 Totsk test, in which a Hiroshima-yield bomb was set off and then soldiers were sent in to test how fighting would proceed in a post-blast environment. Anti-nuclear groups say there has been no blanket government compensation for other tests. There was no compensation to civilians sickened by the Totsk test. CHINA: China's nuclear program is highly secretive, as are its atomic tests in remote deserts in a Central Asian border province. Anti-nuclear activists say there is no known government program for compensating victims.

"The debate over nuclear power in recent months has revolved around taxpayer backed loan guarantees for new nuclear projects. Not only has the President announced $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees for a two-reactor project in Burke County, Georgia, his budget proposal includes tripling the nuclear loan guarantee program from $18.5 billion to over $54 billion. Unfortunately, some groups have used this debate to disguise their anti-nuclear agenda in anti-loan guarantee rhetoric. The basic construct of their argument is that nuclear energy is so risky and so expensive that using government backed financing subjects the taxpayer to unreasonable risk. The problem is that they often not only misrepresent facts about loan guarantees and what risks they pose, but also about nuclear energy broadly to make their case. Misrepresenting the facts not only undermines the legitimacy of their argument but takes away from a very important debate over whether or not loan guarantees are an appropriate tool for financing new nuclear (or any other energy source) projects."

"AN anti-nuclear group is heading to Westminster to voice its feelings on the future of the nuclear industry. Marianne Birkby, founder of South Lakes anti-nuclear group Radiation Free Lakeland, will speak to the Parliamentary Select Committee Inquiry on January 27. Three new sites in Cumbria have been identified as suitable for new nuclear power stations - Kirksanton, Sellafield and Braystones. Public consultation is currently on-going. Ms Birkby said: "The nuclear juggernaut will only be stopped by people saying no - as people are doing in Germany where 50,000 people of all walks of life, including convoys of farmers on tractors marched in Berlin opposing the proposed extension of the life of existing nuclear plants - no one in Germany is proposing new build and certainly no country in the world is proposing such a blanket nuclear sacrifice zone in such a small area as the UK government"."

"Nuclear knowledge, nuclear technology and the corresponding delivery systems are now more easily available internationally than ever before. This favors the nuclear ambitions of states that see their security at risk and that have ambitions to become regional powers. If they were to get nuclear weapons, this would then trigger a chain reaction among their neighbors, who would feel threatened by those arms. For example, a nuclear-armed Iran would raise for the Arab states the question of an "Arab bomb," given that the main non-Arab actors in the region -- Israel, Iran and the US -- would all have nuclear weapons under this scenario. Large states like Egypt or Saudi Arabia might therefore want to join the club. "

A Wisconsin-based anti-nuclear publication may be going out of business as contributions are not keeping up with costs. For 30 years, Nukewatch has been an advocate of non-violent resistance against nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons for northwestern Wisconsin and northeastern Minnesota. The quarterly publication has contributed to some of the nation's largest anti-nuclear movements, including the closing of naval submarine communications base "ELF" in Clam Lake. Editor John LaForge says many non-profits are in tough financial shape. He says quite a few environmental groups have been affected recently, including Clean Water Action and Eagle both closed offices in northern Wisconsin. LaForge says the December issue may be the last one unless more contributions come in. He says closing his publication would be a loss, since people would have to go to sources of information from outside the area.

A Wisconsin-based anti-nuclear publication may be going out of business as contributions are not keeping up with costs. For 30 years, Nukewatch has been an advocate of non-violent resistance against nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons for northwestern Wisconsin and northeastern Minnesota. The quarterly publication has contributed to some of the nation's largest anti-nuclear movements, including the closing of naval submarine communications base "ELF" in Clam Lake. Editor John LaForge says many non-profits are in tough financial shape. He says quite a few environmental groups have been affected recently, including Clean Water Action and Eagle both closed offices in northern Wisconsin. LaForge says the December issue may be the last one unless more contributions come in. He says closing his publication would be a loss, since people would have to go to sources of information from outside the area.

Anti-nuclear and pro-green energy grassroots groups came together to form the Coalition for a Nuclear Free Alberta (CNFA) in late 2008. The consolidation of concerned Albertans and organizations from across Alberta has a common goal: to keep Alberta nuclear free. The congregation of all Coalition members is to have one strong collective voice to achieve this goal. The CNFA was formed because of the rumored nuclear reactors that Bruce Power will be installing in Northern Alberta if Bill 50 is passed and the massive transmission project is completed. "Bill 50 in its present state will allow the provincial government to arbitrarily leapfrog past environment concerns and public consultations in implementing rapid expansion of the transmission system in Alberta. The legislation effectively eliminates the public's involvement in the decision making process and seriously damages landowners' ability to reject transmission towers from being constructed on their land," explains Chris Hooymans of the CNFA, representative for Calgary, Central and Southern Alberta.

Anti-nuclear and pro-green energy grassroots groups came together to form the Coalition for a Nuclear Free Alberta (CNFA) in late 2008. The consolidation of concerned Albertans and organizations from across Alberta has a common goal: to keep Alberta nuclear free. The congregation of all Coalition members is to have one strong collective voice to achieve this goal. The CNFA was formed because of the rumored nuclear reactors that Bruce Power will be installing in Northern Alberta if Bill 50 is passed and the massive transmission project is completed. "Bill 50 in its present state will allow the provincial government to arbitrarily leapfrog past environment concerns and public consultations in implementing rapid expansion of the transmission system in Alberta. The legislation effectively eliminates the public's involvement in the decision making process and seriously damages landowners' ability to reject transmission towers from being constructed on their land," explains Chris Hooymans of the CNFA, representative for Calgary, Central and Southern Alberta.

The nuclear power industry, virtually dormant for decades, is hoping that concerns about global warming will bring its resurgence. Wisconsin, which has not built a new nuclear reactor since 1974, got a taste of the well-orchestrated pro-nuclear campaign last week at a legislative hearing stacked with nuclear power apologists, including two former critics of nuclear power who now support it as part of a solution to the converging challenges of climate change and energy shortages. Times have changed, the converts say. One of them, Patrick Moore, who also wrote the March 12 op-ed "Put nuclear energy to work," assured legislators that nuclear power was "one of the safest technologies that has ever been invented by human beings." (Moore is paid by the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, funded by the nuclear industry.)

Nuclear energy sounds like the answer to this country's energy problems, but it isn't. For decades, nuclear power has been peddled as being an efficient and inexpensive energy. In the '50s, nuclear advocates loudly promised the world that atomic power would provide electricity "too cheap to meter." That promise dissolved with the reality of reactor construction costs in the 1970s and 1980s. But the price to consumers isn't limited to just the cost of the power usage that is listed on your monthly electricity bill. It goes way beyond that. Nuclear power is not cheap. Since the very beginning the government has been heaping subsidies, which come from our tax dollars, into the building and running of nuclear plants. But these cash payments and tax breaks are not the most valuable subsidies that they receive. The most important subsidies that the investors and owners can receive come from shifting the risks onto the taxpayers or the surrounding area's population.

Nuclear energy sounds like the answer to this country's energy problems, but it isn't. For decades, nuclear power has been peddled as being an efficient and inexpensive energy. In the '50s, nuclear advocates loudly promised the world that atomic power would provide electricity "too cheap to meter." That promise dissolved with the reality of reactor construction costs in the 1970s and 1980s. But the price to consumers isn't limited to just the cost of the power usage that is listed on your monthly electricity bill. It goes way beyond that. Nuclear power is not cheap. Since the very beginning the government has been heaping subsidies, which come from our tax dollars, into the building and running of nuclear plants. But these cash payments and tax breaks are not the most valuable subsidies that they receive. The most important subsidies that the investors and owners can receive come from shifting the risks onto the taxpayers or the surrounding area's population.

"Activists in the Bay Area are marking the 25th Anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster with rallies, speakers, street theater, and educational events. Calling the Ukraine catastrophe "the most significant nuclear reactor failure in the history of nuclear power", anti-nuke enthusiasts say they want the world to remember that April 26, 1986 was the day when one of the reactors at the Chernobyl nuclear power station exploded, killing plant employees instantly and leading to a projected increase in cancer deaths in the hundreds of thousands. Tri-Valley CARES, Plutonium-Free Future and other groups concerned about the proliferation of nuclear power sponsored a panel discussion on April 10 in Oakland called "A Quarter Century of Chernobyl". The panel featured Russian women activists with first-hand experience in that nuclear reactor disaster. In Menlo Park, a community demonstration at the busy downtown intersection spilled over to a nearby outdoor cafe where lunchtime patrons became the audience for street theater with an anti-nuke message. "

"An international anti-nuclear group made its way through Pike County on Tuesday, and the members are headed to Chillicothe today. The group, Footprints for Peace, started its International Peace Walk Toward a Nuclear Free Future in February in Oak Ridge, Tenn., and plan to travel through Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York before reaching the United Nations Headquarters in New York on May 1. The group's Australian organizer, Marcus Atkinson, said it is opposed to nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. His group is concerned about the hazardous waste output generated by nuclear energy the effect nuclear weapons have on people and communities throughout the world. "Our leaders are incapable of building a world without nuclear weapons. It won't happen without pressure being put on them by all of us," Atkinson said."

A shipment of radioactive waste from German nuclear plants arrived at a storage site on Tuesday morning after being delayed by fierce protests from nuclear activists. The demonstrations are partly in response to conservative calls for a rethink of the planned phaseout of nuclear power stations. German riot police confronted activists along the route of the nuclear waste transport. Eleven trucks carrying radioactive waste from German nuclear power stations arrived a day late at their destination, a storage site near Gorleben in northern Germany, early on Tuesday morning after thousands of anti-nuclear activists tried to stop the convoy.

An Eagle-based company wants to build a 1,600-megawatt nuclear power plant in Elmore County. The U.S. Congress is considering a bill that proposes the nation build 100 new nuclear power reactors over the next 20 years. Idaho Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson has embraced nuclear power, and like others, promotes it as cheap and clean. They argue also that nuclear energy emits no greenhouse gases. But it is unclear which part of the nuclear energy cycle they're referring to. Nuclear power is neither cheap nor clean. The two main reasons no new power plants have been built in the United States since the late 1970s are the high cost of construction and the uncertainty of the regulatory approval process. Only federal subsidies make nuclear power "cheap."

"Fifty years ago, it was widely believed that nuclear power might provide the answer to all of the world's energy needs by providing a clean, safe, and virtually endless supply of affordable electricity. Two decades or so later, of course, the bloom on the nuclear rose had quickly wilted under the weight of the spiraling costs, worries about weapons proliferation and the storage of waste byproducts, and, of course, the disasters at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. As a result, there has not been a new nuclear power plant ordered in the United States since 1977. The last new plant to go into service went on line in 1996. In the wake of growing and urgent concerns about CO2 pollution and global warming, however, there has been a revival in the public's interest in nuclear power. Once again, serious people - even some self-proclaimed environmentalists - are debating the merits of a nuclear revival. So, what should we make of this? Did Americans act too fast decades ago when they ended further expansion of it? If we're forced to "pick our poison," is nuclear energy a better solution than coal or other carbon-based energy sources? Is it even viable? "Cleaner"? What are the real world risks? Are there better solutions? Should North Carolinians come to expect and accept the distribution of anti-radiation pills (as is set to take place next month in the areas surrounding the Shearon-Harris plant in western Wake County) as a fact of 21st Century life?"

In the wake of a French investigation into reports that nuclear waste is sent from French plants to Siberia, news has emerged that Germany has a long tradition of shipping toxic waste to Russia. The German anti-nuclear group "Ausgestrahlt" said that since 1996, Germany's only uranium enrichment plant in Gronau has shipped about 22,000 tons of uranium hexafluoride, which is a compound used in the uranium enrichment process, to Russia. "Ausgestrahlt" reported on Wednesday that only 10 percent of that was returned to Germany as enriched uranium. The anti-nuclear activists said the remaining 90 percent was stored in Siberia, outdoors and in rusting containers. Uranium hexafluoride is highly toxic and corrosive to most metals.

In the wake of a French investigation into reports that nuclear waste is sent from French plants to Siberia, news has emerged that Germany has a long tradition of shipping toxic waste to Russia. The German anti-nuclear group "Ausgestrahlt" said that since 1996, Germany's only uranium enrichment plant in Gronau has shipped about 22,000 tons of uranium hexafluoride, which is a compound used in the uranium enrichment process, to Russia. "Ausgestrahlt" reported on Wednesday that only 10 percent of that was returned to Germany as enriched uranium. The anti-nuclear activists said the remaining 90 percent was stored in Siberia, outdoors and in rusting containers. Uranium hexafluoride is highly toxic and corrosive to most metals.