tagged w/ Nuclear War
What puts the "mass" in Weapons of Mass Destruction? Nuclear Weapons. Adam Yamaguchi visits the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria, the world's nuclear detective agency, and learns about the state of nuclear proliferation today, and what the UN's nuclear watchdogs are doing to keep tabs on it.What puts the "mass" in Weapons of Mass Destruction? Nuclear Weapons. Adam... more
Please sign this and pass it onto everyone you know.
Help me tell the next President that we will no longer stand for this terrible stuff.
PEACEPlease sign this and pass it onto everyone you know. Help me tell the next President... more
Several times! Good work guys/girls! The tide is turning.
The nuclear industry is hoping that concern over climate change will result in support for nuclear power. However, even solely on the grounds of economic criteria it offers poor value for money in displacing fossil fuel plant. Further, with its high cost, long construction time, high environmental risk and problems resulting from waste management, it is clear that nuclear power does not offer a viable solution to climate change. Rather a mixture of energy efficiency and renewable energy offers a quicker, more realistic and sustainable approach to reducing CO2 emissions.
The nuclear industry is hoping that concern over climate change will result in support... more
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
Islamabad and Beijing will set up a corporation shortly to build nuclear and coal-based power plants in Pakistan. The decision to form the China-Pakistan Power Plant Corporation was taken during Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s visit to China last month.
Sources said China had promised to help meet Pakistan’s nuclear energy requirements of 8,800 MW by 2030 by expediting the delivery of six plants of 300 MW each. Earlier, the country had assisted Pakistan in setting up the Chashma-1 and Chashma-2 plants of the same capacity.
The sources said that several joint working groups and studies were being undertaken by the two countries to speed up cooperation in different fields, particularly the energy sector.
“But side by side, Pakistan is building a $1.2 billion facility to develop capability to manufacture full-cycle nuclear fuel and power plants,” the sources said. They said the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) would establish the Pakistan Nuclear Power Fuel Complex (PNPFC) to attain 100 per cent indigenous capability to manufacture pressurised water reactors (PWR) and nuclear power plants.
Pakistan had taken the decision to set up the complex in the face of nuclear suppliers’ denial of the technology to all except favoured ones. They cited as example the US deal with India on civil nuclear technology sales.
Islamabad and Beijing will set up a corporation shortly to build nuclear and... more
John McCain embraces it. Barack Obama wants to address its flaws. Hillary Clinton is cautious but not opposed.
Nuclear power -- controversial in the United States and throughout much of the world -- is on the agenda of all three US presidential candidates as they seek to diversify the country's energy mix and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
Interviews with top policy advisers to the three White House hopefuls reveal a varied approach to the technology that some observers see as a necessary answer to fighting climate change and others view as expensive and dangerous.
McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona who has wrapped up his party's nomination, is by far the most enthusiastic about the carbon-free fuel source, regularly calling for more nuclear power plants at campaign stops throughout the nation.
"I believe we are not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and become energy independent ... unless we use nuclear power and use it in great abundance," he said in North Carolina on Monday.
McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said nuclear power faced an "uneven playing field" from years of political opposition.
"Sen. McCain would eliminate the political obstacles that hinder nuclear power, allow it to compete more effectively, and likely increase its share of the US energy portfolio," he said.
Nuclear energy accounts for about 20 percent of US electricity supply, a figure that could rise if regulations on carbon dioxide emissions are imposed, making greenhouse gas emission-free nuclear plants more attractive.
There are 104 operating nuclear reactors nationwide.
Obama, an Illinois senator and the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, shares McCain's belief that nuclear energy is part of the solution to climate change.
But he opposes new federal subsidies and would work to address concerns about safety and waste storage, senior adviser Jason Grumet said.
"Because of the fact that climate change is a species-challenging dilemma, we don't have the luxury to do anything but try to solve those real problems," associated with nuclear technology, he said.
Clinton, a New York senator, prefers using renewable fuels to fight climate change because of nuclear energy's risks.
"Hillary has real concerns about nuclear power because of the issues around safety, waste disposal and proliferation," policy director Neera Tandem said.
"She opposes new subsidies for nuclear power, but would continue research focused on lowering costs and improving safety."
John McCain embraces it. Barack Obama wants to address its flaws. Hillary Clinton is... more
What would happen to climate if India & Pakistan got into a nuclear war?
CU Salon Series
How Serious Is Climate Change?
April 17, 2008 - Moderated by: Richard Brenne
NCAR Social Scientist and IPCC Report author Dr. Patricia Romero Lankao
CU Atmospheric Science Department Chair Dr. Brian Toon
NCAR Social Scientist and IPCC Report author Dr. Kevin Trenberth
produced by OnSight Media
www.onsight-media.comWhat would happen to climate if India & Pakistan got into a nuclear war? CU... more
If you read the book of Revelations in the BIble, it mentions a final battle between West and East (Armageddon,) and nuclear exchanges are involved. It is hard to not then question whether or not this is one motivation of Neocons in this government and Israel in trying to lead us to a war with Iran. The link above gives a very comprehensive overview of a place called Megiddo where many of history's greatest battles were fought. I admit it may sound a bit farfetched, but is it really considering who we are dealing with?If you read the book of Revelations in the BIble, it mentions a final battle between... more
The New Mexican's cover story tells of how children in Los Alamos were another "collateral damage" of the government that failed to protect U.S. citizens from toxic exposure.
Sue Vorenberg | The New Mexican
"On its unclassified surface, the quiet mountain town of Los Alamos seemed an idyllic place to raise children in the 1940s and 1950s.
Young boys would run down the canyons, chasing paper sailboats as they splashed through trickling streams. They'd fish, or try to catch a glimpse of wild deer as they built tents to camp in the wilderness behind their homes in the sealed community.
Little girls would splash in puddles on the sidewalk in the late spring rains, and hug their daddies when they came home from their jobs — covered in the toxic and sometimes radioactive materials they secretly worked with during the day.
"We thought we were in a good place because it was a closed city and our parents didn't have to worry about us getting kidnapped," said Lynne Loss, 65, who lived in Los Alamos from 1949 to 1957. "We had no idea what was going on."
Contact Sue Vorenberg at 986-3072 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Photo by William H. Regan/Palace of the Governors, Negative No. 059227
An aerial view of Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory around 1950 shows what appears to be an idyllic place. But some people who lived as children in Los Alamos in the 1940s and ’50s say the area was filled with toxic waste. A lawsuit filed last month charges the lab with negligence and wrongful death.
Image 3 of 3
Via your friends at TouchArt.net and OneEarthBlog.blogspot.com
"Spread the word that nuclear energy and weapons kill our own, poison the earth and can not be safe." Charleen Touchette TouchArt@aol.com
The New Mexican's cover story tells of how children in Los Alamos were another... more
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
In another round of international willy-waving, Pakistan has today successfully test fired a long-range, nuclear-capable ballistic missile. The military announced, 'the missile... has a range of 2000 km (1,200 miles) and can carry both nuclear and conventional warheads'.
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani watched the test of the surface-to-surface missile and congratulated engineers and scientists for achieving an 'important milestone' in Pakistan's quest for sustaining strategic balance in South Asia.
Nuclear-armed Pakistan and India routinely carry out missile tests despite a peace process they launched in early 2004. The South Asian neighbours, who conducted tit-for-tat nuclear weapons tests in 1998, inform each other of missile tests in advance.
Is this just a fabulous waste of money and resources, or a necessary evil on the nuclear world stage?In another round of international willy-waving, Pakistan has today successfully test... more
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
Energy expert Amory Lovins, Chair & Chief Scientist for the Rocky Mountain Institute testifies before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming about the danger of relying on nuclear energy as a solution to global warming. Energy expert Amory Lovins, Chair & Chief Scientist for the Rocky Mountain... more
Contrary to some claims that the Bush administration will allow diplomacy to handle Iran’s nuclear weapons program, a leading member of America’s Jewish community tells Newsmax that a military strike is not only on the table – but likely. Contrary to some claims that the Bush administration will allow diplomacy to handle... more
After a hiatus of nearly three decades, nuclear energy is booming. Seventeen power companies in the U.S. are making plans to build more than 30 nuclear plants.
One important factor in the resurgence: new federal and state laws that help utilities pay for nuclear plants that, if completed, would be among the most expensive projects ever built in the country.
One state where nuclear power is making a comeback is Florida. At a meeting last week in Tallahassee, Florida's Public Service Commission voted to approve the state's first new nuclear plants in decades.
Commission member Nathan Skop hailed the decision. "Simply put, nuclear power is a strategic investment for the state of Florida and our national security—to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to protect our environment," he said.
After a hiatus of nearly three decades, nuclear energy is booming. Seventeen power... more
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
American scientists have determined that a regional nuclear war would put the world in havoc for at least a decade by shredding large areas of Earth's protective ozone layer.
The countries involved would be devastated as well as fall victim to the ozone disaster, the scientists' analysis says.
Massive fires resulting from even a limited conflict would blast enough soot into the atmosphere to create an ozone hole over heavily populated areas, the researchers warned in a paper published Monday in the online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
American scientists have determined that a regional nuclear war would put the world in... more
At the back of what looks like an enclosed porch of an unpretentious ranch house near Wall, South Dakota, a steel-runged ladder leads down a 30-foot concrete access shaft. At the bottom, a massive, eight-ton steel-and-concrete door is painted the red, white and blue image of a Domino’s Pizza box, with a slightly altered phrasing of the chain’s familiar promise: “World-wide Delivery in 30 Minutes or Less; Or Your Next One is Free.” But in this case the “Next One” is a Minuteman II intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). For almost three decades, the house was the “Delta One” Launch Control Facility (LCF) for ten Minuteman missiles armed with nuclear warheads. The massive blast door was designed to ensureAt the back of what looks like an enclosed porch of an unpretentious ranch house near... more