Nuclear War // Current TV

The Bomb People

What puts the "mass" in Weapons of Mass Destruction? Nuclear Weapons. Adam... more

Adam_Yamaguchi
added this
4 years ago
|
8 comments

No more Nuclear bombs! Abolish Nukes!!!!

Please sign this and pass it onto everyone you know. Help me tell the next President... more

onechance
added this
4 years ago
|
6 comments

McCain nuclear proliferation/Iran attack ‘speech’ interrupted

Several times! Good work guys/girls! The tide is turning.

onechance
added this
4 years ago
|
20 comments

Nuclear power is no solution to the climate crisis: exposing the myths

The nuclear industry is hoping that concern over climate change will result in support... more

JanforGore
added this
5 years ago
|
1 comment

Nuclear subsidies in Lieberman/Warner bill draw criticism

The leaders of six national environmental and public interest groups warned today that the impending Lieberman-Warner climate change bill could contain at least $544 billion in taxpayer subsidies for nuclear energy. This would represent the biggest federal handout in history for the nuclear industry, already the most heavily subsidized energy sector over the past 50 years.

The Lieberman-Warner bill is expected to be on the Senate floor in early June. According to an analysis conducted by Friends of the Earth, the bill contains close to half a trillion dollars that can be accessed by the nuclear energy industry under a vaguely entitled category for “zero and low carbon energy technologies.” Nuclear is the only energy industry that could fall under this category that does not have a specific carve elsewhere; funding for renewable energy is identified separately in the bill.

“Although the word ‘nuclear’ has been carefully omitted from the bill, it is clear that this is a covert attempt to bolster a failing nuclear power industry in the name of addressing climate change,” said Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth. “It’s time to focus on real global warming solutions like solar, wind and energy efficiency, not to further fatten the moribund nuclear calf.”

The environmental and public interest group leaders decried the bill’s record-breaking giveaway to nuclear power which would encourage new construction of nuclear plants, the least-effective way of reducing carbon emissions because of their long construction times and high costs.

"After 50 years of unresolved safety and waste disposal issues, it perplexes many Americans why Congress would support massive subsidies for the nuclear industry," said John Passacantando, Executive Director of Greenpeace USA. "Nuclear power is a dirty and dangerous distraction from real global warming solutions," said Passacantando. "When both Wall Street and Warren Buffet think nuclear is a risky investment, Congress should not waste American tax dollars to further subsidize this 1950s technology."
~~~~
So not only does this bill disguised as a climate change bill when it is nothing more than a pork bill to polluters call for investment in CSS systems for the coal industry to allow themmore time to pollute, but the biggest subsidies for the nuclear industry. And this is the best we can do?
The leaders of six national environmental and public interest groups warned today that... more

JanforGore
added this
5 years ago
|
16 comments

U.S.-India Nuclear Deal Spurs Pakistan Nuclear Pact With China

Islamabad and Beijing will set up a corporation shortly to build nuclear and... more

JanforGore
added this
5 years ago
|
1 comment

Nuclear energy heats up U.S. Presidential race

John McCain embraces it. Barack Obama wants to address its flaws. Hillary Clinton is... more

JanforGore
added this
5 years ago
|
20 comments

US and Russia in sandwich battle

The US may have won the Cold War, but its culinary skills are sadly behind.

anger
added this
5 years ago
|
0 comments

What would happen to climate if India & Pakistan got into a nuclear war?

What would happen to climate if India & Pakistan got into a nuclear war? CU... more

tuffgong
added this
5 years ago
|
2 comments

Would attack on Iran be fulfillment of Bible prophecy?

If you read the book of Revelations in the BIble, it mentions a final battle between... more

JanforGore
added this
5 years ago
|
11 comments

Deadly exposure: Cancers plague children of the Manhattan Project

The New Mexican's cover story tells of how children in Los Alamos were another... more

TouchArt
added this
5 years ago
|
13 comments

What nuclear renaissance?

If you listen to the rhetoric, nuclear power is back. Smashing atoms will replace burning carbon-based coal, gas and oil. In the face of a disaster movie-like future of runaway climate change--bringing drought, floods, famine and social breakdown--carbon-free nukes are cast as the deus ex machina to save us at the last minute.

Even a few greens support nuclear power--most famously James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory. In the popular press, discussion of nuclear energy is dominated by its boosters, thanks in part to sophisticated industry PR.

In an effort to jump-start a "nuclear renaissance," the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another. For the past two years a program of federal loan guarantees has sat waiting for utilities to build nukes. Last year's appropriations bill set the total amount on offer at $18.5 billion. And now the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill is gaining momentum and will likely accrue amendments that will offer yet more money.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects up to thirty applications to be filed to build atomic plants; five or six of those proposals are moving through the complicated multi-stage process. But no new atomic power stations have been fully licensed or have broken ground. And two newly proposed projects have just been shelved.

The fact is, nuclear power has not recovered from the crisis that hit it three decades ago with the reactor fire at Browns Ferry, Alabama, in 1975 and the meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. Then came what seemed to be the coup de grâce: Chernobyl in 1986. The last nuclear power plant ordered by a US utility, the TVA's Watts Bar 1, began construction in 1973 and took twenty-three years to complete. Nuclear power has been in steady decline worldwide since 1984, with almost as many plants canceled as completed since then.

All of which raises the question: why is the much-storied "nuclear renaissance" so slow to get rolling? Who is holding up the show? In a nutshell, blame Warren Buffett and the banks--they won't put up the cash.

"Wall street doesn't like nuclear power," says Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. The fundamental fact is that nuclear power is too expensive and risky to attract the necessary commercial investors. Even with vast government subsidies, it is difficult or almost impossible to get proper financing and insurance. The massive federal subsidies on offer will cover up to 80 percent of construction costs of several nuclear power plants in addition to generous production tax credits, as well as risk insurance. But consider this: the average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. That's before cost overruns, and no US nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget.

much more at the link.If you listen to the rhetoric, nuclear power is back. Smashing atoms will replace... more

JanforGore
added this
5 years ago
|
4 comments

Pakistan tests long-range ballistic missile

In another round of international willy-waving, Pakistan has today successfully test... more

mischabarrett
added this
5 years ago
|
0 comments

Don't Dismiss Nuclear Risks

With the recent settlement between the state of Maryland and Constellation Energy Group, the power company is once again championing Calvert Cliffs as the site of a new nuclear power plant. This is not a cause for celebration.

On July 13, Constellation submitted the first new application to build a nuclear power plant in the U.S. since Three Mile Island. But the company threatened to go elsewhere if Maryland lawmakers re-established state regulatory control on new power plants.

Fear of a growing energy shortage is leading to calls for more nuclear power plants. What many people are forgetting is that nuclear power is an expensive and risky investment, and there would be little interest in such projects without federal subsidies and incentives, including liability insurance, risk insurance for delays, production tax credits and loan guarantees totaling billions of dollars. In Florida, two proposed new reactors may cost $24 billion, with ratepayers expected to pay during construction. With wind power already more economical than nuclear power, and solar power soon to be, one critic predicts nuclear power plants will be “economically obsolete before they are built.”

Nuclear power cannot be brought online on the scale and time frame needed to replace coal. In 2007, 12 of 32 nuclear reactors under construction worldwide had been so for more than 20 years. Moody’s estimated that no more than two new nuclear power plants will come online by 2015. In addition to delays in finding suitable sites, dealing with community objections and getting permits, there is now a three-year backup in obtaining the core reactor vessel, which is forged by a single company in Japan.

There is no solution to the problem of nuclear waste, currently totaling 50,000 metric tons. Despite 20 years of study and a $9 billion expense, the repository site at Yucca Mountain is not close to having a permit. Were it to open, it would be full by 2012.

Pro-nuclear advocates tend to ignore the fact that nuclear power is the only energy source that carries the risk of radioactive contamination. This unique safety concern is exacerbated by a degraded safety culture shared by plant owners and by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission that took too long to correct a dangerous erosion problem, which allowed container vessels to leak. The NRC has failed to resolve design flaws in sump pumps at Calvert Cliffs and other plants at risk of clogging in an accident. Moreover, the NRC’s inspector general has criticized the agency for failing to document criteria for plant recertification.

end of excerpt.

By Dr. Gwen DuBoisWith the recent settlement between the state of Maryland and Constellation Energy... more

JanforGore
added this
5 years ago
|
1 comment

Amory Lovins: Congressional testimony on nuclear power

Energy expert Amory Lovins, Chair & Chief Scientist for the Rocky Mountain... more

JanforGore
added this
5 years ago
|
1 comment

U.S. Strike on Iran Nearing

Contrary to some claims that the Bush administration will allow diplomacy to handle... more

Marilynn_Murray
added this
5 years ago
|
27 comments

Nuclear Energy Lobby In U.S. Using Climate Change for Profit

After a hiatus of nearly three decades, nuclear energy is booming. Seventeen power... more

JanforGore
added this
5 years ago
|
19 comments

Nuke exchange would shred ozone layer: study

A regional nuclear exchange could wipe out most of the Earth’s protective ozone layer, researchers report. The layer is a part of the atmosphere that contains enough ozone to block most of the sun’s ultraviolet radiation, which burns the skin and can cause skin cancer.

Michael Mills of the University of Colorado, Boulder, and colleagues concluded from simulations that a conflict involving the exchange of 100 Hiroshima-equivalent bombs would cause urban fires whose smoke would decimate the ozone layer.

The fires would loft as much as five million metric tonnes of soot into the troposphere, the lowest atmospheric layer, the researchers argued. Solar heating, they added, would then boost the soot into the stratosphere, a higher layer.

Up to about 60 km (40 miles) high the soot would absorb solar radiation and heat the surrounding gases, thus speeding up chemical reactions that break down ozone, the scientists said.

They used a model that linked climate to atmospheric chemistry to conduct 10-year simulations. Their model predicts that in a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan, atmospheric currents would likely spread soot around the globe, resulting in local atmospheric warming of up to 30-60 degrees Celsius.

Some ozone-destroying reactions would accelerate at the higher temperatures, the researchers continued. In both hemispheres, they addded, the ozone from 20 degrees north or south latitude to the poles would thin below the threshold defining a currently existing Antarctic ozone hole. The model predicts that the atmosphere would begin to recover in five to eight years.

The study is to appear in this week’s early online edition of the research journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
~~~~~~~~~~~
However, humans won' t get the message. We will continue to warmonger and push for nuclear energy by telling people it is "safe."
A regional nuclear exchange could wipe out most of the... more

JanforGore
added this
5 years ago
|
17 comments

Small Nuclear War Would Shred Ozone

American scientists have determined that a regional nuclear war would put the world in... more

jcwelker
added this
5 years ago
|
0 comments

Blast-Door Art: Cave Paintings of the Nuclear Era

At the back of what looks like an enclosed porch of an unpretentious ranch house near... more

maniology
added this
5 years ago
|
0 comments

select your country

Community Spotlight

TAGS

tagged w/ Nuclear War

top videos

find current on tv

find current online

recent comments

© 2013 Current TV, LLC All Rights Reserved

the basics

follow us online

tools

stay in touch

© 2013 Current TV, LLC
All Rights Reserved