babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Anti Nuke Power. What are we going to organize?

howeird beale
Offline
Joined: Jan 14 2011

So a reactor's melting down in Japan, and Ontario wants to build new reactors at Darlington.

What are people into organizing to stop this bullshit?


Comments

howeird beale
Offline
Joined: Jan 14 2011

two days and nuthin' huh?

I actually know events being organized.

but here? not so much as a link.

whole lotta nothin' huh?

pretty much as I suspected. babble's pretty much populated by the kind of people i used to discourage from coming to meetings.

Y'know, the kind of activists who like to make suggestions for what the group should be doing, but, when offered the opportunity to spearhead their own initiatives, tremble, and say they cant make that sort of commitment

y'know, do-nothings


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Nuclear Nightmare on the Great Lakes  -  by Kevin Kamps and Michael Leonard

http://www.counterpunch.org/kamps04082011.html

"...spent fuel pools of highly radioactive wastes sit dangerously on the shores of lakes, Erie, Huron, Michigan and Ontario. Aging and dysfunctional reactors continue to operate as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy and their Canadian counterparts push to allow these dangerous behemoths to function here for decades more, prioritizing corporate profits ahead of public health and safety and the protection of the natural environment.

This series and articles will detail this Nuclear Nightmare on the Great Lakes of North America as it has transpired and continues to unfold."


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com

"...Of all the posts I have put here regarding Fukushima, I consider this the most important one..."


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

What our political stooges for nuclear power will typically do during an election campaign as a general rule is to volley third rail issues surrounding separate school funding back and forth between them two weeks before the election. That way our lamestream newz media can avoid mentioning anything of the Darlington nuclear megafiasco created by our two old line Bay Street parties several decades ago. Nuclear is already a third rail political hot tamale in Puerto Ontario, and Liberal and Tory parties just kind of force nuclear killerwatts on the public without much consultation or transparency whatsoever. Kick-back and graft is easiest when slipping multi-billion dollar public contracts the way of a few preferred private companies this side of the border and the other.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Childhood Leukemia Rates Double Near French Nuclear Reactors

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/19/childhood-leukemia-rates-double-n...


NuclearJeff
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2011

NDPP wrote:

Childhood Leukemia Rates Double Near French Nuclear Reactors

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/19/childhood-leukemia-rates-double-n...

Read the article, and read the paper.  To quote the conclusions of the author of the paper:

Quote:
"In the authors' previous multisite incidence studies, no association between proximity to

NPPs and AL (acute leukemia) was observed. This was in line with most multisite studies, and is also in

line with the results of the authors' incidence analysis over the whole period, 1990-2007."

At NO point in the paper does it say that leukemia rates are doubled near a NPP.  Only that the numbers indicate that there MIGHT be a possible connection.  The paper also admits that it is not as complete or detailed as other studies, that found no link between AL and proximity to NPPs.

Quote:
"

Like most studies of childhood leukemia in the neighborhood of NPPs, the Geocap study did

not have access to complete residential histories, which is an important limitation for the

evaluation of the true exposure to radiation or any factor related to the proximity of NPPs.

However, neither the Finnish study which collected complete residential history and

computed the distance from a NPP weighted by the time spent in the house9, nor the Swiss

study which used the addresses at birth and diagnosis6 revealed an association with past or

cumulative proximity to NPP."

 And finally, the paper also concludes that the gaseous emissions from NPP which were thought to be the greater contributor to AL, was not correlated with their results.

Quote:
 "The absence of any association with DBGZ, which is assumed to reflect the distribution of gaseous radiation discharged from NPPs, may indicate that the association observed with distance <5 km over 2002-2007 and particularly in 2006-2007, is not explained by NPP gaseous discharges."

This indicates that even if an actual relationship between NPP proximity and AL is found, it is likely due to another non-radiological emissions cause.  Just off the top of my head I'm thinking simple population density and demographics is a large component.  AL occurs in an expected percentage of the population, and areas surrounding NPP's typically house more people and children, because NPP's employ many people, with stable high paying jobs.  The kind you would like to have when raising a family. Go figure.

I'm not attacking the validity of the paper.  I'm only pointing out that the paper does not in fact support your claim of "double" the incidences of leukemia.


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Speaking of reading into things, the title of the article is what actually makes the claim.


NuclearJeff
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2011

Slumberjack wrote:

Speaking of reading into things, the title of the article is what actually makes the claim.

Well since he posted it, in an implied effort to show the 'evils' of nuclear power, I can only assume he believes it and supports it, and is perpetuating a false claim without doing any of his own research.   That's what people do on this board.  They post a poorly researched blog entry, or uncited article, and use them to promote their anti-whatever agenda.  Then when someone actually stops and points out the holes and errors in their material... they just pretend like it never happened.  They misdirect the discussion to another topic in the hopes no one will read how wrong they've been shown to be.  Either that or they just fall silent. 


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

I'll take that stuff over your pro-nuclear industry propaganda any day, by weighing the long term implications to humanity one way or another.  The preference couldn't be clearer in my estimation.


Dostoyevsky
Offline
Joined: Dec 19 2011

Nuclear Jeff - I don't agree with you on the safety of Nuclear power but I do admire your efforts to try spread a more truthful less biased view of Nuclear power here.

As you said - many posters simply look for articles to post that support their view no matter how unreliable the source.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Thyroid Cancer, Fracking and Nuclear Power

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/thyroid-cancer-fracking-and-nuclear....

"Thyroid cancer cases have more than doubled since 1997 in the United States, while deadly industrial practices that contaminate groundwater with radiation or other carcinogens are also rising..."


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Judge Rules Vermont Can't Shut Nuclear Plant

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/9530-judge-rules-ver...

"The ruling is almost certain to be appealed by the state and an array of private groups that want the plant shut down because of leaks of radioactive tritium. Vermont Yankee's design is nearly identical to Fukushima's No. 1 reactor.."

behold the power of BIG NUKE INC.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

The Radioactive Waste Crisis: A Mountain Almost 70 Years High

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/20/the-radioactive-waste-crisis/

"Attempting to find a site that can store deadly radioactive waste for a million years - the amount of time that the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledges the waste will remain hazardous - could indeed be beyond the scope of humanity for the foreseeable future.

But advocates of dump sites, permanent or temporary, argue that something must be done with the waste already accumulated. Almost all reactor fuel pools are filled to capacity, necessitating 'overflow parking' in outdoor casks on site: both are vulnerable to accidents, attacks and natural disasters. If a cask wears down, no safe, sure plan yet exists to transfer the waste inside it to a new cask..."


NuclearJeff
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2011

Dostoyevsky wrote:

Nuclear Jeff - I don't agree with you on the safety of Nuclear power but I do admire your efforts to try spread a more truthful less biased view of Nuclear power here.

As you said - many posters simply look for articles to post that support their view no matter how unreliable the source.

Thanks Dostoyevsky.  I appreciate the respectful disagreement we can have.

NDPP on the other hand, has only indicated that he is not capable of critical thinking.  His failure to address any of the issues I point out with what he posts is the biggest reason that no one respects any sort of environmental movement.  If you can't back up what you post, DON'T POST IT.  It only serves to discredit you, and any actual good argument you or anyone associated with you might have in the future.


NuclearJeff
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2011

Slumberjack wrote:

I'll take that stuff over your pro-nuclear industry propaganda any day, by weighing the long term implications to humanity one way or another.  The preference couldn't be clearer in my estimation.

What long term implications are those?  We've had 60 years of nuclear technology and we can only attribute 0.23% of the average human dose to fall out from bomb testing and reactor accidents.  Given that track record... we have 540 years of bomb testing and accidents at our disposal before that percentage tops 2%.  A drop in the bucket.  Instead of worrying about radiation and nuclear power, which is of miniscule risk, why aren't we pushing for breathalyzer starters to be mandatory on all vehicles before you can operate them.  Drunk driving kills far more people than nuclear has/can. 

I see another long term implication i put ahead of the 'dangers of nuclear power'... the next ice age.  We're due. 


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Safe, long range storage solutions would come most immediately to mind.  On-site waste storage at over 400 facilities around the world can't continue forever without certain risks that have now been made quite obvious.  Additionally, the overall carbon footprint from mining, processing, transportation, and total decommissioning of reactors and sites would bear some consideration when we talk about how 'clean' this source of energy actually is.


NuclearJeff
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2011

Slumberjack wrote:

Safe, long range storage solutions would come most immediately to mind.  On-site waste storage at over 400 facilities around the world can't continue forever without certain risks that have now been made quite obvious.  Additionally, the overall carbon footprint from mining, processing, transportation, and total decommissioning of reactors and sites would bear some consideration when we talk about how 'clean' this source of energy actually is.

I will refer to you 40 years of research that shows deep geological disposal is a safe method to isolate spent nuclear fuel.  www.nwmo.com/technicalresearch .  We just needs the fanatics to step back and let it be done. 

Everything has a carbon footprint.  Even windmills and solar panels require mining of raw materials.  That is unless they're now made of grass and I'm just out of the loop. 

The carbon footprint of nuclear power is vastly lower than fossil fuel methods of generating stable baseload power.  A baseload level of power that solar and wind cannot provide reliably.  You can't just say nuclear has a carbon footprint and then dismiss it, because every animal on earth, including all 6 billion of us, are constantly emitting CO2. Can you define how much CO2 emission is too much?  How much is ok?  Perhaps you could do your part to help the environment by holding your breath for an hour a day.

Don't worry, once you pass out your body will instinctively start to breath again on it's own. 


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Eminent Domain and the Fight Against Nuclear Power

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/23-0

'The nuclear power program in the US was set up 'rigged' - to allow the federal government to push atomic energy with state or local governments 'pre-empted' on most issues.."


NuclearJeff
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2011

NDPP wrote:

Eminent Domain and the Fight Against Nuclear Power

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/23-0

'The nuclear power program in the US was set up 'rigged' - to allow the federal government to push atomic energy with state or local governments 'pre-empted' on most issues.."

 

Look everyone! NDPP knows how to use an RSS feed!  Too bad he can't contribute any independant thought.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Fukushima


NuclearJeff
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2011

I'm reminded of an episode of family guy...  Where Lois runs for Mayor, and responds to serious questions with "Jesus" and "9/11."   Mindless one word answers that have no meaning without discussion.


allah
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2011

There have been very few deaths due to nuclear reactor accidents. Way fewer than people realize:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents#Nuclear_pow...

 


NuclearJeff
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2011

allah wrote:

There have been very few deaths due to nuclear reactor accidents. Way fewer than people realize:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents#Nuclear_pow...

 

Sadly, most people are pulling a 'Helen Caldicott', and won't let go out bogus articles and 'studies' like the translated russian papers that claim over 100000 deaths from chernobyl.


allah
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2011

More deaths from wind turbines than from nuclear power accidents:

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

http://www.inquisitr.com/18588/wind-power-causes-more-deaths-than-nuclea...

No endangered species killed by nuclear either

I favour nuclear over wind.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Nuclear Power Plants Pose Risks to Drinking Water for Illinois

http://rockrivertimes.com/2012/01/25/nuclear-plants-pose-risks-to-drinki...

"The drinking water for 652,000 people in Illinois could be at risk of radioactive contamination from a leak or accident at a local nuclear plant, says a new study released January 24...

Bruce Inus, PIRG state director explained: 'The dangers of nuclear power is too close to home. Nuclear power plants in Illinois pose a risk to drinking water for more than 600,000 Illinoisans. An accident like the one in Fukushima Japan, or a leak could spew cancer-causing radioactive waste into our drinking water..."

Radioactive Monitor Goes off at Nuclear Plant

http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3447836

"Bruce Power is looking into what caused a radiation monitor at the nuclear plant to go off Monday.."


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

allah wrote:

No endangered species killed by nuclear either

False.

Quote:
Marine life in all forms, from endangered manatees and sea turtles to essential microscopic organisms, is being harmed and killed by once-through cooling systems, used to remove waste heat at nuclear power stations.

Another source:

Quote:
The initial devastation of marine life and ecosystems stems from the powerful intake of water into the nuclear reactor. Marine life, ranging from endangered sea turtles and manatees down to delicate fish larvae and microscopic planktonic organisms vital to the ocean ecosystem, is sucked irresistibly into the reactor cooling system. Some of these animals are killed when trapped against filters, grates, and other structures, or, in the case of air-breathing animals like turtles, seals, and manatees, they drown or suffocate.

An equally huge volume of wastewater is discharged at temperatures up to 25°F hotter than the water into which it flows. Indigenous marine life suited to colder temperatures is eliminated or forced to move, disrupting delicately balanced ecosystems.


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005
All of this reminds me that we haven't been hearing enough from the clean coal industry lately.

Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Childhood Leukemia Spikes Near Nuclear Power Plants

Quote:
In Germany, results of the 2008 KiKK studies - a German acronym for Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants - were published in both the International Journal of Cancer (Vol. 122) and the European Journal of Cancer (Vol. 44). These 25-year-long studies found higher incidences of cancers and a stronger association with reactor installations than all previous reports. The main findings were a 60 percent increase in solid cancers and a 117 percent increase in leukemia among young children living near all 16 large German nuclear facilities between 1980 and 2003. These shocking studies - along with persistent radioactive contamination of Germany from the Chernobyl catastrophe - are largely responsible for depth and breadth of anti-nuclear public opinion all across Germany.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

And in the same vein:

Quote:
Living near a [U.S.] nuclear facility increases your chances of dying from breast cancer. A nationwide survey of 268 counties within 50 miles of 51 nuclear reactors, found breast cancer deaths in these "nuclear counties" to be 10 times the national rate from 1950 to 1989.

In the 7 years after the closure of 8 nuclear reactors, infant mortality rates (deaths to infants under 1 year of age) fell dramatically in downwind communities.

source


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Hanford: America's Nuclear Nightmare  - by Peter Eisler, USA Today

http://www.readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/9623-hanford-ame...

"...Seven decades after scientists came here during WWII to create plutonium for the first atomic bomb, a new generation is struggling with an even more daunting task: cleaning up the radioactive mess.

The US government is building a treatment plant to stabilize and contain 56 million gallons of waste left from a half-century of nuclear weapons production. The radioactive sludge is so dangerous that a few hours of exposure could be fatal.

A major leak could contaminate water supplies serving millions across the Northwest.

The cleanup is the most complex and costly environmental restoration ever attempted..."


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments