Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Florida, South East: Nuclear Train Wreck a-coming
Lee Bidgood published the article hiding behind the "Read more!" link in the May 13th edition of The Daytona Beach News-Journal. In the article he calls Florida, and the entire South East a "prime target". I was wondering what those concentric circlews on my back were for...
May 13, 2006
Florida, Southeast region targets in push for nuclear power plants
By LEE BIDGOOD
COMMUNITY VOICE
The nuclear power industry is aiming primarily at the Southeast for more nuclear plants. Florida is a prime target, and Floridians should wake up and organize to repel the assault.
To lobby for new nuclear plants, the industry formed three consortiums. One is NuStart Energy Development, LLC, with 11 mostly southern members, including nine nuclear utilities and two nuclear reactor manufacturers. NuStart consortium enjoys a 50-50 cost sharing arrangement with the U.S. Department of Energy to implement what it calls "one-time, generic activities needed to allow future nuclear investment decisions." Translation: Make permitting and financing new nuclear plants quicker and easier. The Florida Legislature and Gov. Jeb Bush are helping by pushing new laws to streamline nuclear plant approval.
Members of the NuStart consortium are flush with $12 billion of promised subsidies in the federal energy bill passed last year. They plan most new nukes in the Southeast, because opposition here hasn't been as well-organized and vigorous as elsewhere. Some small rural southern towns that have lost their textile industry welcome new nuclear plants. For example, The New York Times reported that in Gaffney, S.C. (population 13,000), almost everyone supported plans for a new Duke Power nuclear plant. Gaffney residents expect about 1,500 construction jobs and 1,000 jobs in nuclear plant operations. Some $8.5 million in annual taxes would be split between the county and state.
A few southern organizations have opposed nuclear plants for health reasons. The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League mustered compelling evidence about the health hazards of nuclear plants in its fight against one or two new reactors to be built next to an existing nuclear plant in North Anna, Va. In 2004 BREDL released a study by the Radiation and Health Project (RPHP) showing that the infant death rate near North Anna rose 11 percent in the first three years after the nuclear plant began operations, compared to a 9 percent decline nationwide. Death rates for children 1 to 4 years old rose 99 percent near North Anna during the first few years of plant operation, while the rate declined 3 percent during the same period in the rest of Virginia. Nuclear plants are not safe, even without accidents. Here are some reasons:
· All nuclear plants release radioactive isotopes to the air and water in routine operations. Releases are usually (but not always) within prescribed international and national limits. Radiation exposure limits are based on the "standard man," an adult male. Fetuses, infants, children and the ill or elderly are far more susceptible than the theoretical adult man.
· There is no safe radiation dose. All radiation exposure is cumulative, whether from Earth's background radiation, cosmic radiation in high altitude flights or X-rays. In the 1950s, Dr. Alice Stewart found that even one X-ray of a pregnant woman's fetus almost doubled the child's chances of contracting childhood leukemia.
· The cumulative effects of nuclear weapons testing, accidents and routine releases of radioactivity from nuclear power plants and weapons plants have about doubled the Earth's background radioactivity.
· Perhaps worse than cancer is irreversible radiation damage to the human gene pool leading to various mental and physical defects. The defects may appear three or four generations later. Greenpeace reports that Nuclear Regulatory Commission records disclose that U.S. nuclear power plants have had nearly 200 "near misses" of a meltdown since the catastrophic Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. Florida plants have had
their share.
The NRC records that Florida Power & Light's Turkey Point 3 reactor has had a significant near miss event. The NRC defines a significant near miss as greater than one chance in 1,000 of a reactor core meltdown. The NRC records six important near misses in Florida reactors since Chernobyl, two at Turkey Point and four at FPL's St. Lucie plant. The agency defines an important near miss as greater than one chance in 10,000 of a core meltdown. The odds are against a Chernobyl-like meltdown, but it could happen.
Florida Progress Crystal River 3 nuclear plant has avoided near miss citations, but it was fined $100,000 in 1996 and $50,000 in 1997 for various safety and security violations.
An outrageous claim of nuclear proponents is that nuclear power aids the fight against global climate change. Mining and six steps of uranium processing all require copious amounts of fossil fuel energy. Constructing the plant, storing and guarding its hazardous waste output and eventually dismantling it consume more energy. A nuclear plant must run at least 10 or 12 years before it has produced more calories than it has consumed and begins to reduce greenhouse gas output.
The claim of cheap nuclear power is false. Nuclear plants are bad investments. It is a crime against future generations to commit $12 billion, plus liability insurance, to encourage more nuclear plants rather than use that money to accelerate renewable energy output.
Bidgood, an environmental activist and retired chemist, lives in New Smyrna Beach.
DAYTONA BEACH NEWS-JOURNAL
May 13, 2006
Florida, Southeast region targets in push for nuclear power plants
By LEE BIDGOOD
COMMUNITY VOICE
The nuclear power industry is aiming primarily at the Southeast for more nuclear plants. Florida is a prime target, and Floridians should wake up and organize to repel the assault.
To lobby for new nuclear plants, the industry formed three consortiums. One is NuStart Energy Development, LLC, with 11 mostly southern members, including nine nuclear utilities and two nuclear reactor manufacturers. NuStart consortium enjoys a 50-50 cost sharing arrangement with the U.S. Department of Energy to implement what it calls "one-time, generic activities needed to allow future nuclear investment decisions." Translation: Make permitting and financing new nuclear plants quicker and easier. The Florida Legislature and Gov. Jeb Bush are helping by pushing new laws to streamline nuclear plant approval.
Members of the NuStart consortium are flush with $12 billion of promised subsidies in the federal energy bill passed last year. They plan most new nukes in the Southeast, because opposition here hasn't been as well-organized and vigorous as elsewhere. Some small rural southern towns that have lost their textile industry welcome new nuclear plants. For example, The New York Times reported that in Gaffney, S.C. (population 13,000), almost everyone supported plans for a new Duke Power nuclear plant. Gaffney residents expect about 1,500 construction jobs and 1,000 jobs in nuclear plant operations. Some $8.5 million in annual taxes would be split between the county and state.
A few southern organizations have opposed nuclear plants for health reasons. The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League mustered compelling evidence about the health hazards of nuclear plants in its fight against one or two new reactors to be built next to an existing nuclear plant in North Anna, Va. In 2004 BREDL released a study by the Radiation and Health Project (RPHP) showing that the infant death rate near North Anna rose 11 percent in the first three years after the nuclear plant began operations, compared to a 9 percent decline nationwide. Death rates for children 1 to 4 years old rose 99 percent near North Anna during the first few years of plant operation, while the rate declined 3 percent during the same period in the rest of Virginia. Nuclear plants are not safe, even without accidents. Here are some reasons:
· All nuclear plants release radioactive isotopes to the air and water in routine operations. Releases are usually (but not always) within prescribed international and national limits. Radiation exposure limits are based on the "standard man," an adult male. Fetuses, infants, children and the ill or elderly are far more susceptible than the theoretical adult man.
· There is no safe radiation dose. All radiation exposure is cumulative, whether from Earth's background radiation, cosmic radiation in high altitude flights or X-rays. In the 1950s, Dr. Alice Stewart found that even one X-ray of a pregnant woman's fetus almost doubled the child's chances of contracting childhood leukemia.
· The cumulative effects of nuclear weapons testing, accidents and routine releases of radioactivity from nuclear power plants and weapons plants have about doubled the Earth's background radioactivity.
· Perhaps worse than cancer is irreversible radiation damage to the human gene pool leading to various mental and physical defects. The defects may appear three or four generations later. Greenpeace reports that Nuclear Regulatory Commission records disclose that U.S. nuclear power plants have had nearly 200 "near misses" of a meltdown since the catastrophic Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. Florida plants have had
their share.
The NRC records that Florida Power & Light's Turkey Point 3 reactor has had a significant near miss event. The NRC defines a significant near miss as greater than one chance in 1,000 of a reactor core meltdown. The NRC records six important near misses in Florida reactors since Chernobyl, two at Turkey Point and four at FPL's St. Lucie plant. The agency defines an important near miss as greater than one chance in 10,000 of a core meltdown. The odds are against a Chernobyl-like meltdown, but it could happen.
Florida Progress Crystal River 3 nuclear plant has avoided near miss citations, but it was fined $100,000 in 1996 and $50,000 in 1997 for various safety and security violations.
An outrageous claim of nuclear proponents is that nuclear power aids the fight against global climate change. Mining and six steps of uranium processing all require copious amounts of fossil fuel energy. Constructing the plant, storing and guarding its hazardous waste output and eventually dismantling it consume more energy. A nuclear plant must run at least 10 or 12 years before it has produced more calories than it has consumed and begins to reduce greenhouse gas output.
The claim of cheap nuclear power is false. Nuclear plants are bad investments. It is a crime against future generations to commit $12 billion, plus liability insurance, to encourage more nuclear plants rather than use that money to accelerate renewable energy output.
Bidgood, an environmental activist and retired chemist, lives in New Smyrna Beach.
DAYTONA BEACH NEWS-JOURNAL
// posted by Gregg Jocoy @ 2:04 PM 
