Tag Archives: Medical

Nuclear waste will last longer than civilisation

October 4, 2010

by Judith Taylor

Amid the rather futile discussion about South Africa’s nuclear power generation policy and programme the most important aspect of all seems lately to have dropped off the list of factors to be considered. I refer to the radioactive longevity of nuclear fuel residue. For its radioactivity to decay to just half its initial intensity takes about 25 times longer than the entire recorded history of man.

It is no solution to encase the stuff in concrete then drop it down a mine shaft or push it inside a mountain tunnel. A quarter of a million years is ample time for unpredictable chemical and geological processes to re-expose this deadly material. Nuclear power generation on a global scale would produce enough radioactive leftovers to occupy a great deal of no-go land and require costly guarding virtually for ever, a period that would see the end of our civilisation and the rise and fall of several more.

Theoretically, nuclear waste could be recklessly shot off into space or by some yet-to-be-invented marvel of nuclear physics changed into something less lethal. In the meantime it would be more realistic to persevere with developing wind and solar power networks to succeed Eskom’s present coal-fired generation programme. However, in the interests of time and expense the government should facilitate this development work being carried out by private industry.

Meanwhile Eskom should incentivise the government to pursue diplomatically the agreement to bring hydropower from the Congo River, a sensible idea but discarded because of political and military instability on the route. This threat could be overcome if the need is pressing enough.

True costs of nuclear power are ignored

The problem with nuclear power is the total lack of transparency. People such as Dr Kemm can never give cradle to grave costs of the projects. Let’s look at what is involved if nuclear power goes ahead:

  • Nuclear power is not only a substantial threat to our water resources, but also to the biodiversity of the Cape.
  • At Thyspunt, 5 000 jobs and a R500 million industry will be replaced with a polluting reactor and 750 jobs.
  • Uranium mining, the birthplace of the fuel, is highly polluting of miners themselves, water and surrounding land.
  • Nuclear waste is also highly polluting. Nuclear power’s real carbon footprint has never been acknowledged nor has the full cost of nuclear been computed.

The citizens of Niger have recently instituted action in the US against Areva, which is mining for uranium in that country, for damage undergone by the state as well as the inhabitants of the area where Areva works. This suit is claiming several million euros in compensation.

Currently, there is not one proven, operating nuclear plant of the “new generation”. In addition, the safety issues have been omitted from the environmental impact assessments.

However, do we wish to see our water supplies, our land and our people so polluted by uranium, caesium, lead and so on that there is no quality of life and we all die a slow and painful death? Is it a logical path to follow, given the experiences of native Indians in the US who mined uranium and have died of radiation sickness?

Renewables can come on line right now and provide more than 10 times the number of jobs that nuclear or coal can. South Africa’s ingenuity in pioneering new technology can grasp the renewables revolution and bring us true wealth and health.

The cost of Chernobyl was 985 000 lives. In the UK the Sellafield plant’s decommissioning has failed, leaving a radioactive waste land for generations to come. Koeberg’s decommissioning could do the same.

Source:

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=553&fArticleId=5672085

23 total views, no views today

Rate this post

Robinson Lake, Gauteng, a radioactive area

Acid mine water: The damage done – Uranium levels over 220 times safety levels

Oct 4, 2010

By Dan Kemp

Dan Kemp writes: We’ve all heard about the acid mine water problem and the danger it poses to drinking water in the Gauteng area. I had the opportunity to see some of the damage first hand.

Photograph by: Ashley Kemp

My Dad heard an expert on the matter, Mariette Lieffering, talking on radio. He contacted her and she invited us on a tour she was giving to some journalists.

The tour was to various accessible sites on the Western Gold Reef of some of the most visible examples of the damage caused. Mariette is a well known and clearly passionate activist concerned with acid mine drainage.

The scepticism I had of “clearly passionate activists” was dispelled as Mariette cited official report after report written by government bodies (Dept of Water Affairs, Dept of Minerals and Energy, Dept Environmental Affairs and Tourism, CSIR, National Nuclear Regulator) and academic institutions.

It was clearly not speculation.

First stop was the basin that is Luiperdsvlei. No major surprises, it is after all a giant slimes dam catchment surrounded by mine dumps.

Apart from the lack of security fencing, the first thing that shocks you is the ground between the road and the edge of the basin. If you break the surface of the earth with your shoe, you find a bright sulphur-yellow sediment, concentrated in a 2cm thick layer, just below the crust.

Its caused by the runoff from the mine dump itself, which flows directly into the vlei. The second shocking fact is, Luiperdsvlei is a source of the Vaal. In fact, the stream flowing out of Luiperdsvlie, contributes 35% of the salt content but only 3% of the water volume to the Vaal.


Warning Signs at Robinson Dam - Photo: Environment.co.za

These salts have high levels of Cobalt, Cadmium, Aluminium, Arsenic, Lead, Nickel and Uranium. Uranium and Cadmium are particularly bad health risks.

Rand Water supplies most of Gauteng’s water from the Vaal.

All water on the south of the intercontinental water divide, which includes Luiperdsvlei, flows into the Vaal/Orange River system and into the Atlantic Ocean.

We then went north, over the divide, into Randfontein. All water this side of the divide flows into the Crocodile River system and into the Indian Ocean. Next to Randfontein Golf Course is Robinson Lake, a former recreational lake filled with water pumped from Robinson Deep mine.

This has a pH of 2.6. Water has a natural Uranium concentration of 0.0004mg/l. The DWAF considers a concentration of 0.07mg/l safe to drink. Robinson Lake has a Uranium concentration of 16mg/l, more than 220 times safe levels. This has resulted in the NNR declaring Robinson Lake a radioactive area.

Source:

http://www.timeslive.co.za/iLIVE/article688413.ece/Acid-mine-water–The-damage-done

149 total views, no views today

Rate this post

Chernobyl death toll: 985,000, mostly from cancer

New Book on the Malignant Legacy of Chernobyl the nuclear industry does not want you to know

By Karl Grossman, Op-Ed News, Sept. 3, 2010

This past April 26th marked the 24th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. It came as the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear government officials in the United States and other nations were trying to “revive” nuclear power. And it followed the publication of a book, the most comprehensive study ever made, on the impacts of the Chernobyl disaster.

Search for http://www.greens-efa-service.org/medialib/media/flash/torch/ -- it will take you to a media flash presentation based on a report by The Other Report on Chernobyl – the TORCH report – on radiation plumes after the Chernobyl disaster. It is hosted by the European Greens Party website.

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment was published by the New York Academy of Sciences. It is authored by three noted scientists:

–Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president;

–Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and

–Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus.

Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity.

The book is solidly based — on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports — some 5,000 in all.

It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.

The book explodes the claim of the International Atomic Energy Agency — still on its website that the expected death toll from the Chernobyl accident will be 4,000. The IAEA, the new book shows, is under-estimating, to the extreme, the casualties of Chernobyl.

Alice Slater, representative in New York of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, comments: “The tragic news uncovered by the comprehensive new research that almost one million people died in the toxic aftermath of Chernobyl should be a wake-up call to people all over the world to petition their governments to put a halt to the current industry-driven “nuclear renaissance.’ Aided by a corrupt IAEA, the world has been subjected to a massive cover-up and deception about the true damages caused by Chernobyl.”

Further worsening the situation, she said, has been “the collusive agreement between the IAEA and the World Health Organization in which the WHO is precluded from publishing any research on radiation effects without consultation with the IAEA.” WHO, the public health arm of the UN, has supported the IAEA’s claim that 4,000 will die as a result of the accident.

“How fortunate,” said Ms. Slater, “that independent scientists have now revealed the horrific costs of the Chernobyl accident.”

The book also scores the position of the IAEA, set up through the UN in 1957 “to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy,” and its 1959 agreement with WHO. There is a “need to change,” it says, the IAEA-WHO pact. It has muzzled the WHO, providing for the “hiding” from the “public of any information “unwanted” by the nuclear industry.

“An important lesson from the Chernobyl experience is that experts and organizations tied to the nuclear industry have dismissed and ignored the consequences of the catastrophe,” it states.

The book details the spread of radioactive poisons following the explosion of Unit 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear plant on April 26, 1986. These major releases only ended when the fire at the reactor was brought under control in mid-May. Emitted were “hundreds of millions of curies, a quantity hundreds of times larger than the fallout from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” The most extensive fall-out occurred in regions closest to the plant–in the Ukraine (the reactor was 60 miles from Kiev in Ukraine), Belarus and Russia.

However, there was fallout all over the world as the winds kept changing direction “so the radioactive emissions “covered an enormous territory.”

The radioactive poisons sent billowing from the plant into the air included Cesium-137, Plutonium, Iodine-131 and Strontium-90.

There is a breakdown by country, highlighted by maps, of where the radionuclides fell out. Beyond Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, the countries included Bulgaria, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The radiological measurements show that some 10% of Chernobyl poisons “fell on Asia “Huge areas” of eastern Turkey and central China “were highly contaminated,” reports the book. Northwestern Japan was impacted, too.

Northern Africa was hit with “more than 5% of all Chernobyl releases.” The finding of Cesium-137 and both Plutonium-239 and Plutonium-240 “in accumulated Nile River sediment is evidence of significant Chernobyl contamination,” it states.

“Areas of North America were contaminated from the first, most powerful explosion, which lifted a cloud of radionuclides to a height of more than 10 km. Some 1% of all Chernobyl nuclides,” says the book, “fell on North America.”

The consequences on public health are extensively analyzed. Medical records involving children–the young, their cells more rapidly multiplying, are especially affected by radioactivity–are considered. Before the accident, more than 80% of the children in the territories of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia extensively contaminated by Chernobyl “were healthy,” the book reports, based on health data. But “today fewer than 20% are well.”

There is an examination of genetic impacts with records reflecting an increase in “chromosomal aberrations” wherever there was fallout. This will continue through the “children of irradiated parents for as many as seven generations.” So “the genetic consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe will impact hundreds of millions of people.”

As to deaths, the list of countries and consequences begins with Belarus. “For the period 1900-2000 cancer mortality in Belarus increased 40%,” it states, again based on medical data and illuminated by tables in the book. “The increase was a maximum in the most highly contaminated Gomel Province and lower in the less contaminated Brest and Mogilev provinces.” They include childhood cancers, thyroid cancer, leukemia and other cancers.

Considering health data of people in all nations impacted by the fallout, the “overall mortality for the period from April 1986 to the end of 2004 from the Chernobyl catastrophe was estimated as 985,000 additional deaths.”

Further, “the concentrations” of some of the poisons, because they have radioactive half-lives ranging from 20,000 to 200,000 years, “will remain practically the same virtually forever.”

The book also examines the impact on plants and animals. “Immediately after the catastrophe, the frequency of plant mutations in the contaminated territories increased sharply.”

There are photographs of some of these plant mutations. “Chernobyl irradiation has caused many structural anomalies and tumor like changes in many plant species and has led to genetic disorders, sometimes continuing for many years,” it says.

“Twenty-three years after the catastrophe it is still too early to know if the whole spectrum of plant radiogenic changes has been discerned. We are far from knowing all of the consequences for flora resulting from the catastrophe.”

As to animals, the book notes “serious increases in morbidity and mortality that bear striking resemblance to changes in the public health of humans–increasing tumor rates, immuno-deficiencies, and decreasing life expectancy.”

In one study it is found that “survival rates of barn swallows in the most contaminated sites near the Chernobyl nuclear power plant are close to zero. In areas of moderate contamination, annual survival is less than 25%.” Research is cited into ghastly abnormalities in barn swallows that do hatch: “two heads, two tails.”

“In 1986,” the book states, “the level of irradiation in plants and animals in Western Europe, North America, the Arctic, and eastern Asia were sometimes hundreds and even thousands of times above acceptable norms.”

In its final chapter, the book declares that the explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear plant “was the worst technogenic accident in history.” And it examines “obstacles” to the reporting of the true consequences of Chernobyl with a special focus on “organizations associated with the nuclear industry” that “protect the industry first–not the public.” Here, the IAEA and WHO are charged.

The book ends by quoting U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s call in 1963 for an end of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.

“The Chernobyl catastrophe,” it declares, “demonstrates that the nuclear industry’s willingness to risk the health of humanity and our environment with nuclear power plants will result, not only theoretically, but practically, in the same level of hazard as nuclear weapons.”

Dr. Sherman, speaking of the IAEA’s and WHO’s dealing with the impacts of Chernobyl, commented: “It’s like Dracula guarding the blood bank.” The 1959 agreement under which WHO “is not to be independent of the IAEA” but must clear any information it obtains on issues involving radioactivity with the IAEA has put “the two in bed together.”

Of her reflections on 14 months editing the book, she said: “Every single system that was studied — whether human or wolves or livestock or fish or trees or mushrooms or bacteria — all were changed, some of them irreversibly. The scope of the damage is stunning.”

In his foreword, Dr. Dimitro Grodzinsky, chairman of the Ukranian National Commission on Radiation Protection, writes about how “apologists of nuclear power” sought to hide the real impacts of the Chernobyl disaster from the time when the accident occurred. The book “provides the largest and most complete collection of data concerning the negative consequences of Chernobyl on the health of people and the environment.

The main conclusion of the book is that it is impossible and wrong “to forget Chernobyl.’”

In the record of Big Lies, the claim of the IAEA-WHO that “only” 4,000 people will die as a result of the Chernobyl catastrophe is among the biggest. The Chernobyl accident is, as the new book documents, an ongoing global catastrophe.

And it is a clear call for no new nuclear power plants to be built and for the closing of the dangerous atomic machines now running — and a switch to safe energy technologies, now available, led by solar and wind energy, that will not leave nearly a million people dead from one disaster.

Karl Grossman is a professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury and host of the nationally syndicated TV program Enviro Close-Up.

Source:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/New-Book-Concludes-Cherno-by-Karl-Grossman-100902-941.html


139 total views, no views today

Rate this post

Ex-nuclear workers to demand answers from Energy Minister at her offices today, 12 noon 24 March 2010

Please be informed that ex-nuclear workers who have repeatedly over the past few years failed in their attempts to get compensation from South Africa’s Nuclear Corporation (NECSA) for debilitating and often fatal occupational diseases, will today seek answers from Energy Minister Dipuo Peters.

They will gather at Makhaza Sports ground, corner Maunde Street and Makhaza Street Sausville, Atteridgeville outside Pretoria. They will leave at 11h00am to hand over a memorandum to the Minister at her offices in Pretoria at 12h00. For information you can call Mr Alfred Sepepe at 074 2998214.

Please find attached the memorandums .

Memorandum from Ex NECSA Nuclear Workers

Please contact Mr. Sepepe for further details.

This media release is issued by:

Pelindaba Working Group
acting in solidarity with the plight of these ex-nuclear workers
Dominique Gilbert – 083 740 4676

* * * * * ** * * * * * * *

This event follows a march by the ex-nuclear workers on Necsa’s Pelindaba Complex earlier this year.

Some background information has been subjoined below for your information.

Many of these Atteridgeville Township based workers formed part of the sample group of 208 ex-nuclear workers who underwent preliminary medical examinations by respected occupational health medical practitioner Dr Murray Coombs. Coombs found that a significant number of these workers suffered from occupational illnesses resultant from their employment at the Pelindaba complex and referred several cases to the Compensation Commissioner. All these applications were rejected. The Commissioner has yet to make known the basis on which he dismissed these applications despite legislation which entitles these workers to compensation based on presumption alone. Coombs further concluded that most of the ex-workers he had seen needed further in-depth medical tests and in 2006 Dr. Coombs approached NECSA to undertake these tests in the presence of representatives appointed by the workers themselves to ensure transparency. NECSA flatly refused and produced its own medical results that denied the claims made in the Coombs Report.

Almost 30 ex-workers from the original sample group have died penniless and with extreme medical conditions since this process began in 2005/6 – this despite numerous appeals to the President, various Ministers and a special hearing before a Parliamentary Portfolio Committee in July 2007 which undertook to ensure justice and compensation for these workers. The chairman of that committee was dropped in the new post-elections administration and to date not a single promise made to these workers has been met.

________________________

Protest about illnesses ends peacefully

A protest by ex-employees of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) who claim to suffer from illnesses caused during their employment at the corporation, ended peacefully on Thursday when it was agreed that they would first study Necsa’s response to their demands before taking any further action.

The action by ex-employees to get compensation for the illnesses they suffer as well as compensation for the families of ex-employees who have already passed away started in 2004 as a campaign supported by Earthlife Africa.

The ex-employees gathered outside gate 3 at Necsa on Thursday morning, demanding answers to a memorandum handed over to the corporation during a protest on 24 January 2007, claiming that the corporation never responded to the demands set out in the memorandum.

Salome Moela (Setsiba), who was employed by the erstwhile Atomic Energy Board, told Kormorant that she was involved in an accident at Pelindaba in 1987 when she was pinned to a wall by a truck when she walked from one building to the next. She says that since the accident she has been unable to work but has received no compensation or pension from Necsa.

Another woman, Rosina Raselabe’s husband worked at Necsa in 1998 when he was rendered unconscious and injured in an explosion at the site. She said that her husband was taken to Unitas Hospital where he regained consciousness after four days. Raselabe’s husband has since died and she claims that she does not receive any pension from Necsa – money that she needs to take care of her children.

The group claimed that since the campaign started more than half of the ex-employees have died without any compensation forthcoming.

The memorandum from 2007 which was handed over to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Necsa, Dr. Rob Adam, includes demands to have access to medical treatment, access to their medical files and compensation for the ill as well as compensation for the families of the deceased. In accepting the memorandum from Mr. Alfred Sepepe, Dr. Adam said that the corporation responded to the memorandum on 25 January 2007.

He said it seemed that the response did not reach the ex-employees and it was agreed that the leaders of the ex-employees first study the response. Dr. Adam then invited the group to return to the corporation if they had any further concerns.

The response from Necsa to the memorandum included that Necsa opened its medical facilities to the ex-employees for examination so that medical tests can be done to ascertain whether their illnesses are due to their employment at the corporation. It also refers to the finding of an independent investigation into the claims and the fact that the findings were forwarded to the Compensation Commissioner.

The group undertook to study the content of the response.

http://www.kormorant.co.za/2010/02Feb/11Feb/Necsa.htm

112 total views, no views today

Rate this post

The medical and economic costs of nuclear power

By Helen Caldicott – posted Monday, 14 September 2009

Jennifer Nordstrom, co-ordinator of the Carbon-Free Nuclear-Free project has noted “Telling states to build new nuclear plants to combat global warming is like telling a patient to smoke to lose weight.”

A recent study sponsored by the German government (the KiKK study – Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schultze-Rath R, et al.Leukemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. Int J Cancer. 2008; 1220:721-726,) examined children who lived near 16 of the country’s commercial nuclear power plants. The results revealed a strongly increased risk of all childhood cancers, particularly leukaemia, the closer the proximity of the children’s residence to the reactor. In particular, the study found that children less than the age five years, living within a 5km radius of the power plant exhaust stacks were more than twice as likely to develop leukaemia compared with those children residing more that 5km away. The KiKK team studied other carcinogenic factors which may be responsible for the cancer clusters but none were found.

Another large study (Baker PJ, Hoel DG. Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukemia in proximity to nuclear facilities. Eur J Cancer Care. 2007:16:355-363) – a meta-analysis of the incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukaemia in children living near 138 nuclear facilities in Britain, Canada, Spain, Germany, the US and Japan also demonstrated a statistically significant rate of leukaemia in children less than nine years of age.

A further large review (Laurier D, Jacob S, Bernier MO, et al. Epidemiological studies of leukemia in children and young adults around nuclear facilities: A critical review. Rad Prot Dosim. 2008; 132:182- 190) of children and young adults living near 198 nuclear sites in 10 countries was found to be compatible with the study described above.

It is important to note that the sensitivity to the damaging effects of radiation in early embryonic and fetal life is much higher than in adults, and young children are also particularly vulnerable.

The radioactive elements “routinely” emitted from nuclear power plant stacks into the air can be inhaled, or ingested when they concentrate in the food chain – in vegetables and fruit, -and then further concentrated in various internal organs in humans. Similarly, the millions of gallons of cooling water flushed daily from a nuclear reactor into the always adjoining water source (lake, river or sea) contaminate it with radioactive materials which bio-concentrate hundreds of times in the aquatic food chain. The fish of course, who may ingest these materials in the surrounding water, routinely travel for tens and even hundreds of miles before they are caught by commercial or recreational purposes. And when caught their physical appearance does not provide any clues about such ingestion.

Unfortunately, radioactive elements are invisible to the human senses – taste, smell, and sight. Also unfortunately, the incubation time for radiation-induced cancer is five to 60 years, a long, silent latent period. No cancer ever denotes its specific cause.

Among these biologically active elements that are routinely released from nuclear power plants are tritium which lasts for more than 100 years (there is no limit to the amount of tritium that escapes); xenon, krypton. and argon which decay to cesium and strontium; carbon 14 which remains radioactive for thousands of years; cesium 137 – radioactive for hundreds of years; and iodine 129, which has a half life of 15.7 million years.

Tritium combines directly in the DNA molecule of the gene and can induce fetal deformities and various cancers in both animals and humans; cesium causes muscle sarcomas and brain cancers; and strontium – a calcium analogue – migrates to bone where it can induce bone cancer or leukaemia. Finally radioactive iodine causes thyroid cancer.

This situation is made worse by the fact that we are all – including populations living within the vicinity of nuclear reactors – routinely exposed to carcinogenic chemicals in our daily lives, many of which enhance the carcinogenic effects of radioactivity. There are now 80,000 chemicals in common use.

Turning from the human health costs to the monetary, another relevant study related to the nuclear power debate examined the economic feasibility of a “nuclear renaissance” at this time. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report published in August 2009 states that the nuclear industry continues to face steadily increasing construction costs and future cost estimates. The AREVA French-designed reactor project in Olkiluoto Finland is three years behind schedule and 55 per cent over budget (US$7 billion). There are now 435 commercial reactors operating globally, nine fewer than 2002. In 2008, nuclear electricity provided only 5.5 per cent of the international commercial primary energy production.

The average age of operating reactors globally is 25 years, while the average age of 123 reactors already closed is 22 years only. In addition to the 52 reactors currently under construction, another 43 reactors would have to be planned, built and started by 2015 – one every six weeks, and another 192 units over the following 10 years – one every 19 days – in order to maintain the same number that are operating today. With extremely long lead times of 10 to 15 years, this will be an impossible task, let alone actually increasing the number of reactors.

None of the new countries wanting nuclear power have the appropriate nuclear regulations, independent regulators, the domestic maintenance capacity and the skilled workforce to run a nuclear reactor. Nor do they have an adequate grid system to absorb the output of a nuclear power plant.

Furthermore some of these countries either have a government hostile to the concept of nuclear power (Norway, Malaysia, Thailand), hostile public opinion (Italy and Turkey), major economic problems (Poland), earthquake or volcanic risks (Indonesia) or some have an absolute lack of all necessary infrastructure (Venezuela).

France with its large nuclear infrastructure is currently threatened with a severe shortage of skilled workers. The Word Nuclear Industry Status Report reveals that currently only 300 nuclear science graduates are available in France for 1,200 to 1,500 open positions, and in the US only one quarter of such graduates plan to work in the nuclear industry. Most of the current operators, baby boomers, are close to retirement.

And there is one other major bottleneck for new reactors – only one corporation in the world, Japan Steel Works, can manufacture large steel forgings for many reactor pressure vessels.

These problems, together with the global financial crisis mean that the prospects of funding for the nuclear industry – most of which is government sourced – looks grim. New reactors are too risky and expensive to attract private investor funding, and the nuclear industry will not proceed with its “new build” unless they can transfer the risk to the tax payers or ratepayers.

In the US, efforts to forge the nuclear industry renaissance has been thwarted in eight states from Kentucky to Minnesota to Hawaii, Illinois, West Virginia, California, Missouri and Wisconsin. When the Yucca Mountain repository for high level waste was vetoed by President Obama, Dave Kraft, Director of the Nuclear Energy Information Service in Chicago said “Authorising construction of nuclear reactors without first constructing a radioactive waste disposal is like authorising the construction of a new Sears tower without the bathrooms. Neither makes sense; both threaten public health and safety.”

102 total views, 1 views today

Rate this post
lazy-submarginal