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?
March 30, 2011 - 12:02am
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?
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
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."
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..."
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
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.
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..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fukushima
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.
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.
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.
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.."
False.
Another source:
Childhood Leukemia Spikes Near Nuclear Power Plants
And in the same vein:
source
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..."