Group items tagged

Greek conservationists from the Greek NGO, Archipelagos, work to protect endangered common dolphins and monk seals and also the region's marine ecosystems from the effects of overfishing, shipping, and the military. Dr Anastasia Miliou, manager and head scientist from Archipelagos Institute of Marine and Environmental Research of the Aegean Sea, based on the Greek island of Samos in the eastern Aegean, explains about seals, uranium deposits and sonar * Digg it * Buzz up * Share on facebook (6) * Tweet this (14) * Guardian Weekly, Friday 30 October 2009 09.00 GMT * Article history Monk seal An endangered monk seal. Photograph: Phil Mislinski/Getty Images The Mediterranean monk seal is the world's rarest and most endangered marine mammal. Its population is less than 450 and one of the most important remaining populations survives in the Aegean region. We are urging fishing communities and authorities to understand that the marine biodiversity needs to be conserved, not only for the sake of productive marine ecosystems or the endangered species, but also for the benefit of human communities, whose livelihood depends on the health and productivity of the seas."

image

A Senate committee in Kentucky just passed a bill that could potentially allow for the new construction of nuclear power plants in the Bluegrass State. Essentially, the bill would repeal a 1984 law that placed a moratorium on nuclear power plant construction until the federal government can figure out how to dispose of the waste. So has the federal government figured out how to dispose of this waste? Not a chance.

A debate was held at the University Monday, talking about the pros and cons of nuclear energy. Both sides were represented, with Gordon Edwards of the Coalition for Nuclear responsibility talking about the dangers, and Duane Bratt of Mount Royal College in Calgary explaining the benefits. Bratt says nuclear energy is better than what we already have, such as coal. But Edwards says there are alternatives that don't produce radioactive waste, such as wind or hydro power.

The Air Force's already-battered nuclear corps just suffered another blow, Danger Room has learned. An internal inspection has found flaws in the way the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana handles and protects its nuclear weapons. The Air Force's nuclear mission has come under increasing scrutiny, after a series of embarrassing mishaps, damining reports, and fired officers. Last fall, the Air Force's 5th Bomb Wing lost track of six nuclear warheads.

Video images of Chernobyl survivors!

A device described by its operators as a hi-tech worm has been used to probe the condition of a pipeline once used to discharge radioactive effluent. The £100,000 pipe crawler has beamed back images from inside the system at the Dounreay plant in Caithness. The underground pipeline to the sea was in use from 1957 to 1992.

Radiation from x-rays and CT scans can accumulate to substantial doses, according to a study that estimates as many as 4 milion adults have high exposure ATLANTA - Many types of medical imaging procedures, such as x-rays, computed tomography scans, and nuclear medicine scans, expose patients to ionizing radiation, which over time can accumulate to substantial doses, according to a study published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine. "We know that radiation is not benign and some people are getting high exposures," says Reza Fazel, M.D., the lead author of the study and a cardiologist at Emory University.

A study suggests some younger Americans may be getting too many imaging tests that expose them to worrisome amounts of radiation, which over a lifetime may raise their risk of cancer. Here are some procedures that deliver the biggest doses of radiation: * Myocardial perfusion scans, done in patients with heart disease to see how much blood is getting to the heart muscle. For the test, patients are injected with a small amount radioactive liquid. The test on average delivered 15.6 millisieverts of radiation per dose, and accounted for more than 22 percent of the total radiation exposure among people in the study, more than any other test. For people living in the United States, the normal expected radiation dose from chemicals in the ground or flying in an airplane is 3 millisieverts a year.

Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Friends of the Earth environmental organization, the U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE) recently released color photos of 18-wheeler trucks used to transport weapons grade plutonium, uranium and other nuclear materials over local highways to the Savannah River Nuclear Site for disposal. Prior to the DOE release, the only public image of the trucks and their escort vehicles belonged to Tom Clements, the Southeastern Campaign Coordinator of Friends of the Earth, who snapped a photo of the vehicles leaving the Charleston Naval Weapons Station with plutonium shipments bound of SRS and Duke Energy's Catawba reactor in 2005. The trucks in the recently released DOE photos are likely the same type as those used in recent plutonium shipments from the Hanford site in Washington State to the Savannah River Site (SRS). The K-Area Material Storage facility at SRS is slated to house approximately 13 metric tons of "non-pit" (never weaponized) plutonium, Allen Gunter, an SRS-based DOE manager, told City Paper in a Jan., 2008 report.

On August 6, 1945, the United States of America dropped an atomic bomb fueled by enriched uranium on the city of Hiroshima. 70,000 people died instantly. Another 70,000 died by the end of 1945 as a result of exposure to radiation and other related injuries. Scores of thousands would continue to die from the effects of the bomb over subsequent decades. Despite the fact that the U.S. is the only nation to have used atomic weapons against another nation, Americans have had little access to the visual record of those attacks. For decades the U.S. suppressed images of the bomb's effects on the residents of Hiroshima, and as recently as 1995, on the fiftieth anniversary of the bombing, the Smithsonian Institution cancelled its exhibition that would have revealed those effects and settled for the presentation of a single exhibit: the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.

Energy Fuels is trying to alter its special use permit application. They want to open up the restriction, imposed by the Montrose Planning Commission, that states, "only raw uranium ore processed on-site may be stored in the tailings cells." The Montrose Daily Press reports that Energy Fuels CEO, George Glasier, brought up the proposed change for discussion late at the June 10 meeting, the second public hearing before the Planning Commission, after public comments were closed. By this time, many members of the public had already left. In testimony at the May 19 meeting in Nucla, before a large crowd in the high school gymnasium, Energy Fuels had publicly stated they had "no plans to process any material other than uranium ore," according to the Montrose Daily Press.

Nuclear energy has always had something of a bad reputation-a volatile, barely containable force that nobody wants in their neighborhood. But with the planet heating up, the economy floundering, and the world economy striving for safer energy alternatives, it's time to ask: does nuclear power really deserve its negative stigma, and does it hold promise as a renewable alternative to fossil fuels? Nuclear Plant Safety Safety has always been a concern regarding nuclear plants, and one of the primary factors motivating people to keep nuclear plants away from their homes. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are two of the first things that come to mind when many consider hosting a nuclear power plant, and neither are particularly cheering images. When compared to other power plants, however, nuclear energy is actually one of the safest options. According to a study by the Paul Scherrer Institute, there have been only seven major nuclear accidents ever, accounting for approximately 64 deaths and 220 latent fatalities.

Nuclear energy has always had something of a bad reputation-a volatile, barely containable force that nobody wants in their neighborhood. But with the planet heating up, the economy floundering, and the world economy striving for safer energy alternatives, it's time to ask: does nuclear power really deserve its negative stigma, and does it hold promise as a renewable alternative to fossil fuels? Nuclear Plant Safety Safety has always been a concern regarding nuclear plants, and one of the primary factors motivating people to keep nuclear plants away from their homes. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are two of the first things that come to mind when many consider hosting a nuclear power plant, and neither are particularly cheering images. When compared to other power plants, however, nuclear energy is actually one of the safest options. According to a study by the Paul Scherrer Institute, there have been only seven major nuclear accidents ever, accounting for approximately 64 deaths and 220 latent fatalities.