HYDROGEN OR NUCLEAR? Why is the Nuke Industry waging war on Renewable Energy?

Hydrogen or Nuclear Power?
WHY IS THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY WAGING WAR ON RENEWABLE
ENERGY AS IT PREPARES FOR NEW REACTORS WORLDWIDE?
United Nations symbol for radioactivity
REASSURING: THE INTERNATIONAL WARNING FOR RADIOACTIVITY

Stop the Nuclear Industry from Hijacking the Climate Bill
ACT NOW! TELL YOUR SENATORS:
NO NUKES IN CLIMATE BILL,
NO CLIMATE BILL WITH NUKES
July 16, 2009

Dear Friends,
    The Senate Environment Committee is delaying work on its climate bill until September. But there is plenty going on now--both publicly and behind-the-scenes. And the news isn't good.
    Some Republicans are pushing for their own climate and energy plan. It calls for $50 billion more in taxpayer loan guarantees for new reactor construction; a doubling of taxpayer spending on dangerous reprocessing technologies, and a formal Congressional intent to build 100 new reactors in the next 20 years!
    This would make the bailout of the auto industry seem like penny-ante poker. Indeed, a recent study by an economic analyst at the University of Vermont finds that building 100 new reactors would cost from $1.9 to $4.1 trillion more than getting our electricity from clean renewable energy sources.
    The Republican plan won't pass; yet too many Democrats seem willing to compromise on nuclear power in order to get a climate bill passed.
    We need to act now, while decisions are being made in private. Please write your Senators here, and tell them that a climate bill that provides taxpayer subsidies to nuclear power would not only be ineffective at reducing carbon emissions, it would be unacceptable.
    But that's not going to be enough. We all need to ramp up our outreach, get the word to all of our mailing lists, e-mail lists, blogs, social networking sites, radio talk shows, letters-to-the-editor and so forth. Please do everything you can to spread the news that the Senate climate bill is in danger of being hijacked by the nuclear power industry.

And please support our campaign with your most generous donation so we can do the kind of outreach and mobilization needed.
    We've won twice this year already--defeating efforts to give the nuclear industry another $50 billion in loan guarantees. But this is going to be our biggest challenge yet.
    Many of those supporting nuclear expansion say they won't support any kind of climate bill anyway! So why should those in favor of taking necessary steps to reduce carbon emissions even think of compromising on nuclear power?
    They shouldn't, and if they hear from enough of us, they won't. But they have to hear from every one of us--and then a lot more.
    Don't forget that the Senate energy bill--which is slated to be folded in to the climate bill this Fall--sets up a new "Clean Energy Development Administration (CEDA)," with the power to give unlimited taxpayer loan guarantees for new reactors. That bill was sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)--and it's just as unacceptable as the Republican plan. This provision, along with reprocessing funding, must not become part of the climate bill.
    Here is a link to a new fact sheet from Physicians for Social Responsibility comparing the CEDA provisions in the Senate energy bill and the recently-passed House climate bill.
    We need to build our strength and show our strength, now and throughout the summer and fall.

*The first step is to write your Senators here.
*The next step is to support us financially if at all possible.
*The third step is--if you haven't already--send a letter to President Obama urging him to stand firm against Senate efforts to spend taxpayer money on nuclear power. You can do so here.
*Next, if you haven't yet signed the Simple Statement on Nuclear Power and Climate, do so here. If your friends haven't signed, ask them to. More than 10,000 people already have signed--but it will be a lot more effective if we can greatly increase that number!
*Now, forward this alert to everyone and anyone who might be interested. With all of us working and mobilizing together, we can stop this nuclear nonsense and begin building an energy policy for our future, one that is nuclear-free and carbon-free. Our lives, our children and our planet are at stake.

Here's one more quick link: to a Science Daily article about a new Swedish study that finds nuclear power's contribution to global warming has been signficantly underestimated--not because of nuclear's carbon emissions, but because of its heat emissions. There is really no choice: we can have nuclear power, or we can fight climate change. We can't do both. So we must act now.
    We will keep you informed throughout the summer and fall about developments on the climate bill and proposals for new nuclear subsidies. Watch for our blogs on DailyKos and other sites. We'll send new Alerts when you can take new, effective action. We'll also be doing sample letters-to-the-editor, talking points for the next national call-in day, and more.
    But please feel free to contact us any time if you'd like more information. You can e-mail us at nirsnet@nirs.org, or call us at 301-270-6477.
    Thanks for all you do,
    Michael Mariotte, Executive Director
    Nuclear Information and Resource Service
    nirsnet@nirs.org    www.nirs.org

P.S. We'll end on a very positive note! Bonnie Raitt and Taj Mahal are teaming up for a nationwide tour this summer. $1 of every ticket sold will be donated to progressive organizations, including NIRS. You can find out more about the tour, and--importantly--vote for which category of organization should receive this money, by going here.

NUCLEAR SNEAK ATTACK!

The ICHC brings to your attention this important message from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service

THIS IS IT FOLKS!

EITHER WE STOP THE "CLEAN ENERGY" BANK OR WE GET DOZENS OF NEW NUCLEAR REACTORS

WE CAN WIN THIS ONE: ACT NOW!

May 14, 2009

Dear friends,
We've asked a lot of you this past several months. As the Obama administration has moved into power, the pace of activity has increased; we know that.
So we don't waste your time asking you to take actions that aren't meaningful.

And right now, we're asking you to take the most important action of the year.

Write your House member and Speaker Nancy Pelosi now. And then forward this message to everyone you can think of.

Write your House member here.

Write Speaker Nancy Pelosi here.

We should have figured it out earlier, but we didn't. The section in the bill was so obscure we all missed it. But the "Clean Energy Bank" legislation sponsored by Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) includes UNLIMITED taxpayer loan guarantees for construction of new nuclear reactors. Not $50 Billion, or $100 Billion. UNLIMITED!

    In other words, under the guise of a clean energy program, the nuclear power industry could get taxpayer money to build as many reactors as they wanted, regardless of their cost, regardless of their projected default rate.
    That's just unacceptable.
    We need to act on this as loudly and clearly as possible.
    Write your House member and Speaker Nancy Pelosi now. And then forward this message to everyone you can think of.

Write your House member here.

Write Speaker Nancy Pelosi here.

PLEASE forward this Alert to everyone you can think of. In 24 hours, we generated more than 3,000 letters in opposition to the pro-nuclear Murkowski amendment to the Senate energy bill. That's pretty good for one day, and we thank everyone who wrote (the Murkowski amendment has not yet been considered, it will likely come up next week). But we need to generate at least 10,000 letters to Pelosi and House members to stop this fake "clean energy" bank. Please help everyone you can think of to send letters now by forwarding this Alert. Phone calls to House members would be very effective too: 202-224-3121.

A NIRS blog posting on the "clean energy" bank is available here. It provides a lot more background info on this issue. You have our permission to re-post this everywhere and anywhere you want. Please do so.
    This really is it folks. The effectiveness of our actions now will determine our energy--and quite possibly our economic--future. There is just no reason for inaction; let's all do everything we can.
    Pass the word; send an e-mail to your friends, forward this Alert everywhere. Put in on Facebook and MySpace. Twitter it. Blog it. Print this and take it to meetings. Do whatever you can. We can't let this stand.
    And please send a few dollars our way. Every tax-deductible contribution you make enables us to reach more people, to expand our efforts, to build on what you already are doing. We simply can't do this without your support, so please contribute here.
    We need thousands and thousands of people responding to this Alert; please act, please do everything you can to expand our reach.
    Thanks for all you do,
Michael Mariotte, Executive Director
nirsnet@nirs.org
    Nuclear Information and Resource Service

YEARS OF U.S. TAXPAYER INVESTMENT BEAR FRUIT?

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY IN BRAIN CELL CRISIS!
Europe & Japan Assured Global Dominance as U.S. Retreats

U.S. Department of Energy FY2008 Budget Request

U.S. Drops Research Into Fuel Cells for Cars
Matthew L. Wald New York Times May 7, 2009

The Energy Department will continue to pay for research into stationary fuel cells, which Dr. Chu said could be used like batteries on the power grid and do not require compact storage of hydrogen.

“This is a strange turn of events.
We are very close to the tipping point.
To stop that now is
a waster of taxpayer dollars.”
Shannon Baxter-Clemmons
Executive director of the S.C. Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Alliance

"We should go to Washington
and make the case that not funding
the long-term solution is short-sighted.”
Mayor Bob Coble, Columbia, S.C.
Obama’s Cuts Deal Blow to S.C. Hydrogen Economy
Jeff Wilkinson The State (SC) May 9, 2009

"As I thought about the decision, how it was worded, and the fact that the budget was zeroed, I didn’t feel I could in any way appear to be supportive. ...And quite honestly, I didn’t want to put my energy into debating people who ...have never touched real hardware, tried to build businesses in this area or dealt with real customers using real products.”
J. Byron McCormick
former executive director of General Motors’ fuel-cell program
Fight for Hydrogen Funding
Jim Motavalli New York Times May 12, 2009
Some critics of the Energy Department’s decision are personalizing this sudden loss of confidence in the fuel-cell transportation future, seeing it as a misstep by Mr. Chu, whose work at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory centered on biofuels.

“The vehicles have been invented.
The issues are infrastructure
and how do we reduce cost.”
John Hanson, Toyota

“Hydrogen is a key to solving the nation’s mid- to long- term issues of energy security, reduced petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions as well as being part of the reinvention of General Motors.”
Larry Burns, GM

Honda, GM Stick to Fuel-Cell Plans as Obama Guts Hydrogen Funds   A. Ohnsman, T. Seeley   Bloomberg   May 11, 2009
    The policy shift is “very disappointing,” said Dan Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis and a member of the state’s Air Resources Board. The agency has authority to set environmental rules for carmakers and other industries rivaling the federal government’s.
    “It’s unclear how we’re going to get big reductions in greenhouse gas emissions without hydrogen,” Sperling said. “Hydrogen is the most challenging in terms of implementation because of the need for new fueling infrastructure.”
    That could be created in 10 to 15 years at less cost than the “$6 billion to $10 billion” the U.S. provides annually in subsidies for corn ethanol, Sperling said.

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Associations Criticize DOE Program Cuts
National Hydrogen Association
U.S. Fuel Cell Council
May 7, 2009

Washington DC----The National Hydrogen Association (NHA) and U.S. Fuel Cell Council (USFCC) issued the following joint statement regarding the Obama Administration's FY 2010 budget request for the U.S Department of Energy.
    "The cuts proposed in the DOE hydrogen and fuel cell program threaten to disrupt commercialization of a family of technologies that are showing exceptional promise and beginning to gain market traction.
    "Fuel cell vehicles are not a science experiment. These are real vehicles with real marketability and real benefits. Hundreds of fuel cell vehicles have collectively logged millions of miles.
    "Both the National Academy of Sciences and NHA's recent Energy Evolution report conclude that a portfolio of vehicle technologies is needed to achieve the nation's energy and environmental security goals and that hydrogen is essential to success. Hydrogen also advances the Obama Administration's goals of greener power generation and a smarter power grid.
    "The newest fuel cell vehicles get 72 miles per gallon equivalent with no compromise in creature comforts. Fuel cell buses operating in revenue service achieve twice the fuel economy of diesel buses. Hydrogen production costs are already competitive with gasoline. Projected vehicle costs have been reduced by 75%. These are accomplishments of the Department's own program in partnership with industry. It would truly be a government waste to squander them by walking away just as success is in sight.
    "The National Academy recommended a portfolio approach and we are frankly puzzled at the Energy Department's decision to ignore that recommendation even as the Department uses other material from the same report to justify its proposed cut.
    "We are also concerned that the Department appears to be walking away from its Market Transformation activities, which support fuel cell deployment in early commercial applications. This Congressionally-mandated program is demonstrating the ability of fuel cells to provide a competitive and green alternative to battery-based systems in vehicles and in power supply.
    "Finally, we are concerned that the Department has proposed to cut funds for the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA). SECA success could dramatically lower the cost of carbon sequestration, improve power plant efficiency, and enable a virtually pollution-free coal plant in the future. Additional funding will hasten SECA progress."
    The NHA and USFCC collectively represent more than 200 companies and organizations.

CONTACT:
NHA: Patrick Serfass, 202-223-5547, ext. 366 serfassp@HydrogenAssociation.org

USFCC: Bud DeFlaviis, 202 293 5500, ext. 35 bdeflaviis@usfcc.com

Energy Department Slashes Hydrogen Transportation Funding in Proposed Budget Green Car Advisor May 7, 2009
Chu's belief that it is best to cut hydrogen spending and divert the funding elsewhere isn't necessarily shared by Congress, which must approve the budget, said Patrick Serfass, the National Hydrogen Association's vice president for technology. ...Serfass worries that if the Obama administration turns its back on hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, the automakers will take their research and development programs to Europe or Asia and the U.S. will lose the lead in technology that will be a critical part of an oil-independent future.
FY 2010 Congressional Budget Request DOE May 2009
The Real U.S. Energy Priorities FuelCellPlace 2008
Auto Workers Pulling for Fuel Cell Jobs
Bud Lowell WXXI March 2, 2009
General Motors has its main fuel cell development center in Honeoye Falls, and Delphi has its fuel cell center in Rochester. Rochester labor officials say with GM coming hat-in-hand to Washington looking for a bailout, they believe one of the strings attached may well be a Rochester fuel cell plant.

Uranium Supply Decline
Clouds Nuclear Power's Future
Charles Q. Choi LiveScience April 22, 2009

    Now it seems that mining uranium, which nuclear power depends on, could be even less environmentally friendly and more costly than critics say, according to a new analysis led by Gavin Mudd, an environmental engineer at Monash University in Australia.
    On average, supplies of high-quality uranium ore have been steadily declining worldwide for the past 50 years, and will likely to continue to wane in the mid- to long-term, Mudd said. Any new uranium deposit is likely to be deeper and harder to extract, and getting uranium from lower-quality deposits involves digging up and refining more ore, according to their analysis of government and industry reports.
    This suggests that in the future, uranium mining could require more energy, water and industrial chemicals such as corrosives, and release more greenhouse gases.
    "Over time, as ore grades decline and more energy is required for uranium production, this will lead to a higher carbon intensity for nuclear power, eventually becoming similar to gas-fired electricity, though this may be a few decades away and difficult to quantify precisely," Mudd said.

Sustainability of Uranium Mining and Milling:
Toward Quantifying Resources and Eco-Efficiency
Gavin M. Mudd and Mark Diesendorf
Environmental Science and Technology March 8, 2009
Suit Challenges New Uranium Exploration That Threatens the Grand Canyon Center for Biological Diversity May 8, 2009
The Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust, and Sierra Club today amended their lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior to challenge newly authorized uranium exploration near Grand Canyon National Park. The new uranium projects are located within a 1-million acre area that was required to be immediately withdrawn from new mining claims and exploration by a June 25, 2008 emergency resolution of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources. Today’s amendment challenges new uranium projects authorized by the Bureau of Land Management on April 23 and April 27, 2009. While the Bureau initially denied that new uranium exploration activities had been authorized, it has since acknowledged that exploration on the lands in question could begin whenever the companies wish.
Uranium Supply and the Nuclear Option Paul Mobbs 2005
Could a shortage of uranium be the Achilles-heel of the nuclear industry?

Engineer Receives Probation
for Role in Besse Cover-up
Tom Henry Toledo Blade (OH) February 7, 2009

The NRC correctly diagnosed something was amiss at Davis-Besse, but had no idea the plant's old reactor head was weeks away from bursting and allowing radioactive steam to form in containment of a U.S. nuclear plant for the first time since the half-core meltdown of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor in 1979. A crisis was barely averted when the plant was shut down on Feb. 16, 2002, six weeks later than what the NRC had originally proposed. Siemaszko and his supervisor, David Geisen, were indicted on five felony deception charges for withholding vital information from the government agency after a two-year grand jury probe.

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OVER TWO DECADES THE STATE IS HOLDING HEARINGS ON HOW TO ADDRESS THE IMPACTS OF EARTHQUAKE AND THE IMPACTS OF WATER POLLUTION AT CALIFORNIA'S AGING NUCLEAR PLANTS - PLEASE WEIGH IN.
March 23, 2009

A message from our friends at Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility:Both the Assembly and Senate are hearing bills relating to the impacts of nuclear reactors on California's coast. On Monday, AB 42 Blakeslee [R-San Luis Obispo] has introduced a bill requiring additional state-of the-art studies and mapping at Diablo Canyon. The bill resulted from a recommendation by the California Energy Commission that that Pacific Gas and Electric Company should use three-dimensional geophysical seismic reflection mapping and other advanced techniques to explore fault zones near Diablo Canyon. The CEC made the same recommendation for San Onofre. The CEC recommendation was strengthened after PG&E's disclosure that a second earthquake fault had been discovered 1800 feet offshore of Diablo.

The 2007 earthquake in Japan shutdown 8000 MW of nuclear generation in ninety seconds and energy production has dropped to 58%. California cannot afford to ignore the Japanese lesson, especially in light of new seismic information at Diablo. The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility's support letter can be copied at http://a4nr.org/letters/03.21.09-renewfaultline/view and sent to the Chair of the Assembly Committee, Felipe Fuentes Assemblymember.fuentes@assembly.ca.gov. If you have time a cc to Assemblyman Blakeslee and the Alliance would be appreciated.

BUT WAIT, THERE'S ANOTHER NUCLEAR BILL

The biggest "emission" of a nuclear plant is thermal pollution. California's nuclear plants use one million gallons of sea water a minute to cool the reactors. The Alliance has produced a six minute clip to highlight the impacts to our ocean from the daily operation of nuclear plants. The film not only highlights the impacts, but the solution, and can be seen on the web at http://www.everythingnuclear.org/emissions.html

The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility's support letter for SB 42 [Corbett D. San Leandro] can be copied at http://a4nr.org/letters/03.21.2009-sb42supportltr/view and sent to the Chair of the Senate Energy Committee, Alex Padilla and Chair of the Natural Resources Committee, Fran Pavley http://legplcms01.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/ContactPopup.aspx?district=SD23. Again, a cc to the Alliance would be greatly appreciated.

We now have the opportunity to have a voice - support our comments, file your own, send email, phone, and if you can support the Alliance who is the only statewide organization monitoring these bills and "walking the halls" for support. For more information: www.a4nr.org Believe that you can make a difference, for truly you are the only ones who can.
In Peace
Rochelle

In Peace

Rochelle Becker, Executive Director
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
www.a4nr.org
PO 1328
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406-1328

JAPAN: Chubu Electric Shuts Reactor Manually After Alarm
Bloomberg December 30, 2008

THE ICHC IS SUPPORTIVE OF FUSION R&D AND FUSION PROTOTYPES

The hohlraum cylinder, which contains the National Ignition Facility's fusion fuel capsule, is just a few millimeters wide, about the size of a pencil eraser, with beam entrance holes at either end. The fuel capsule is the size of a small pea. NIF/LLNL
Scientists Plan to Ignite Tiny Man-made Star
Richard Gray Telegraph (UK) December 27, 2008
The sense of excitement at the facility is clear. In the city itself, people on the street are speaking about the experiment and what it could bring them. Until now Livermore has had only the dubious honour of being home of the US government’s nuclear weapons research laboratories....

Inertial Confinement Fusion: How to Make a Star NIF/LLNL

Valuing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions
from Nuclear Power: A Critical Survey
Benjamin K. Sovacool
Energy Governance Program, Centre on Asia and Globalisation,
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore

Does Nuclear Belong in the Renewable World?
Solar Nation May 30, 2008
Recent cost estimates for two separate nuclear plant proposals in Florida have shown an increase of more than 100% over industry figures that are just two years old. Combined with similar estimates from such sources as Moody’s Investor Service, these figures—attributable largely to rising costs of metals, forgings and labor—represent a significant threat to the viability of the form of power once touted as “too cheap too meter.”

House Select Committee
on Energy Independence and Global Warming

May 19, 2008

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20502

Dear Mr. President:

    It is with great alarm that I write you concerning your recent agreement with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia regarding nuclear energy cooperation. Your decision to assist Saudi Arabia with the development of nuclear technology is inexplicable given that country’s bountiful energy reserves, but more disturbingly, it is deeply flawed given the extraordinary tension in the Middle East today over Iran’s nuclear program. I urge you to reconsider this decision and to not begin or continue any discussion or negotiations with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on a formal Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation.
     As you know, Saudi Arabia possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves. It remains a mystery to me why a country with such vast and inexpensive energy resources would be interested in nuclear energy, which is a far more technically challenging, expensive, and dangerous energy source. I do not believe that Saudi Arabia has made or could make a cogent case for why nuclear energy is in its economic interests, given its other energy resources.
     Another country in the region with enormous oil and gas resources, Iran, has argued that nuclear energy is a cost-effective and necessary investment for domestic energy production. But that argument has proven unpersuasive both to our allies and here in the United States. On October 25, 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney said, “[Iran is] already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear, as well, too, to generate energy.” Vice President Cheney was right in saying that Iran has no need for nuclear power, and the same can be said regarding Saudi Arabia today.
     If Saudi Arabia is truly interested in diversifying its energy portfolio, I am puzzled that your administration would not have offered technologies and expertise in the renewable energy area, especially solar energy. A square kilometer of desert typically receives solar energy equivalent to 1.5 million barrels of oil. Under the previous administration, the U.S. Department of Energy joined with the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology in Riyadh on a comprehensive joint solar radiation resource project to assess the solar energy capability of the Saudi Kingdom. Further engagement on both solar energy research and deployment would help both the United States and Saudi Arabia move towards a more sustainable energy and economic future.
     I am concerned that Saudi Arabia’s interest in acquiring U.S. nuclear assistance has nothing to do with energy and everything to do with Middle East politics. By receiving a pledge of support from the United States on nuclear technology, Saudi Arabia is sending a signal to the leaders of Iran that if Tehran continues down the nuclear path Riyadh will do so as well. It would be folly for the United States to enable and encourage such a dangerous cycle. I urge you to reconsider this decision, and to immediately halt any further discussions or negotiations with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on the development of nuclear technology.

Sincerely,
Edward J. Markey Chairman

cc: Mr. James Sensenbrenner
Ranking Member

	RELEASED! "Incredibly well thought out. A tremendous guide to hydrogen's potential role in a green future of plentiful renewable energy without fossil pollution, oil wars or nuclear waste." Richard D. Masters International Clearinghouse for Hydrogen Commerce FREE DOWNLOAD
Carbon-freeWithout Nuclear Power? Bob Audette Reformer.com January 21, 2008
Technology in renewable energy is growing by leaps and bounds, [Makhijani] said, and instead of spending money subsidizing nuclear power, the federal government should plow investments into wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and biofuel research and development. ...In North Dakota alone, wind power could eliminate the need for every single nuclear power plant in the United States, he said. That would use up much of the land space in North Dakota, he said, but wind farms in the Dakotas, Texas, Kansas, Montana and Nebraska, taking up 800 to 1,000 square miles, would provide the power necessary to shut down those reactors.

The Economics of Nuclear Power by Greenpeace International. Click to download.

The
Economics of Nuclear Power
Greenpeace International
November 2007

The economics of nuclear power have always been questionable. The fact that consumers or governments have traditionally borne the risk of investment in nuclear power plants meant that utilities were insulated from these risks and were able to borrow money at

rates reflecting the reduced risk to investors and lenders.
However, following the introduction of competitive electricity markets in many countries, the risk that the plant would cost more than the forecast price was transferred to the power plant developers, which are constrained by the views of financial organisations such as banks shareholders and credit rating agencies. Such organisations view investment in any type of power plant as risky, raising the cost of capital to levels at which nuclear is less likely to compete.
The logic of this transfer to competitive electricity markets was that plant developers possessed better information and had direct control over management and so had the means as well as the incentive to control costs. Builders of non-nuclear power plants were willing to take these risks, as were vendors of energy efficiency services. Consequently, when consumers no longer bore the economic risk of new plant construction, nuclear power, which combines uncompetitively high prices with poor reliability and serious risks of cost overruns, had no chance in countries that moved to competitive power procurement.

NEW REACTORS IN SOUTH TEXAS WOULD SET
U.S. ENERGY POLICY ON MISGUIDED COURSE
Michael Mariotte, Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Research Service September 25, 2007

    Today, NRG Energy said it is submitting an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two new reactors at its South Texas nuclear site. This is the first full application for a new reactor in the U.S. in more than 30 years.
    This project is emblematic of the failures of U.S. energy policy to effectively meet the needs of our nation. Nuclear power is a 20^th century technology in a new world of climate crisis and a future that demands a distributed, sustainable approach to energy. Nuclear power requires massive taxpayer subsidies and yet still cannot compete environmentally with the sustainable energy technologies that will power our future.
    NRG Energy already has been quoted in the media (Washington Post, September 25, 2007) as saying that “the whole reason” the company is considering new nuclear reactors is taxpayer subsidies provided by Congress and the Bush Administration in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. These multi-billion dollar subsidies include taxpayer loan guarantees for new reactors, tax credits for the first six reactors built, the Price-Anderson Act limitation of utility liability for nuclear accidents, and “risk insurance” to cover possible delays in the licensing process.
    Without taxpayer support, no utility would build a new atomic reactor, and no financial institution would invest in a new reactor.
    Moreover, the NRG Energy application would repeat one of the fundamental mistakes of the first generation of nuclear power: the construction of nuclear reactors without a feasible facility or plan for storage of the lethal radioactive waste the reactor would produce. The Yucca Mountain, Nevada, radioactive waste dump is on its last legs, and appears increasingly unlikely to ever open. Even if it did, a new round of nuclear construction would necessitate construction of another radioactive waste dump as well—something no state in the country likely would accept. After 50 years, one would think the lesson would have been learned: building atomic reactors without a scientifically-sound waste plan is folly.
    Texas is blessed with enormous potential for wind and solar power, while aggressive energy efficiency programs remain the cheapest, fastest and cleanest method of addressing both electricity demand and the need to quickly reduce carbon emissions. Construction of new reactors in Texas would divert the resources needed to implement those efficiency programs and help solar and wind reach their full potential—to the detriment of Texans and all Americans. A recent study from American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy shows that Texas can meet all forecasted energy demand through energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies.
(see http://www.nirs.org/alternatives/sestudy10.pdf )
    Both Texas and the United States deserve better than a greedy utility feasting at the taxpayer trough to build another large polluting power plant. We expect Texans to oppose the NRG Energy project, and we expect to help Texans with their opposition.

	THE NEW NUKE FRAUD BY LABELING NUCLEAR POWER AS "CLEAN," A CROOKED U.S. CONGRESS ALLOWS THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY TO RAID TAX FUNDS WITHOUT LIMIT, MAKING THIS BILL A SMOKESCREEN FOR YET ANOTHER EXPENSIVE AND DANGEROUS ENERGY FRAUD FOISTED ON AMERICANS BY THE SWINDLERS THEY EAGERLY ELECTED. - RDM
House Energy Bill: A Portfolio of Benefits for Clean Energy Scott Sklar RenewableEnergyAccess.com August 5, 2007
Passage of the energy bill and tax package rests in the hands of the informal group of about 25 Democrats from oil and gas-producing states, Republican leadership in the House and about 5 Democratic Senators and a part of the Republican leadership in the Senate who are reportedly opposed to the $17 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry that are used to offset the cost of H.R. 2776's tax incentives that are primarily for renewable energy and energy efficiency. ...The loan guarantee program however came under fire, since nuclear power was included as a “clean technology.” Section 9202 in the House energy bill did not give the nuclear industry $50 billion in loan guarantees that got play in the national media; however, it prevents Congressional appropriators from being able to exclude any eligible project from the guarantees. It does not prevent appropriators from being able to set a cap on the amount of guarantees that the Department of Energy (DOE) can give out.
Fluor Awarded Contract to Support Planned New Nuclear Plants at South Texas Project Flour Corporation August 16, 2007 Fluor Corporation announced today that its Power Group was awarded a contract by Toshiba International Corporation, a U.S. business unit of the Toshiba Corporation, for engineering, procurement and construction-related services for two new nuclear reactors planned for the South Texas Project Nuclear Generating Station in Bay City, Texas. Later this year, STP's 44-percent owner, NRG Energy, Inc. plans to apply to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a combined construction and operating license to build two Advanced Boiling Water Reactors, known as STP Units 3 & 4, which will be adjacent to the two existing reactors (STP Units 1 & 2). NRG announced on Aug. 9, 2007, that it had contracted with Toshiba to provide key reactor components as well as early engineering, procurement and construction-related services for these planned reactors. "These two new reactor units for the South Texas Project could very well be the first new nuclear power plants built in the United States in more than two decades," said Alan Boeckmann, Fluor Corporation's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

A catastrophe at a nuclear fission power plant could make a city uninhabitable -- a total loss. The response to Hurricane Katrina reportedly hit $2 BILLION PER DAY. What would the cost be for a core meltdown such as we almost experienced with the "safe" reactors at Three Mile Island? Only fools would accept such risk, which is exactly what the U.S. Congress did in authorizing the Price Anderson Act. -- Richard D. Masters

The Price-Anderson Act November 2005

The liability limit for DOE facilities is $10 billion subject to adjustments for inflation. In the event of a nuclear incident involving damages in excess of the limits established in the Act, Congress could take further actions, including the appropriation of funds.

Price-Anderson Act: Unnecessary & Irresponsible Nuclear Information and Resource Service

"Disasters on the scale of the Chernobyl accident lead to harmful effects on the population, territorial losses without any military action, and to thousands of billions of roubles' worth of damage, and are, therefore, hard to justify by the need for electric power."
Chernobyl, Insight from the Inside
Vladimir M. Chernousenko, Scientific Director of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences Institute of Physics in Kiev's Task Force for the Rectification of the Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident

-- DEFUNDING NUCLEAR AND FOSSIL ENERGY --
A VERY IMPORTANT LETTER FROM
THE NUCLEAR INFORMATION & RESOURCE SERVICE

Dear Friends,
    We are working to build new coalitions of renewable energy groups and trade associations, safe energy and environmental groups, businesses and others to redirect our nation's energy priorities away from nuclear power and fossil fuels and towards the renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies that can cleanly and sustainably power our future and at the same time address the global climate crisis.
    Our first effort is below: a letter to Congress seeking a budget shift from nuclear and fossil fuel programs to renewable and efficiency programs in the Fiscal Year 2007 federal budget. This recommends a modest shift, as FY 07 is already well along; as the letter notes, we will be recommending greater resources for renewable and efficiency programs for FY 2008.
    Because the new Congress intends to act on FY 07 budget issues very quickly, we intend to get this letter to Congressional leaders next week!
    We encourage all national, regional and local organizations to sign on. Please let us know by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 26. Please reply to this e-mail with your name, organization, city and state.
Thanks for your help and support!
Michael Mariotte, Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service   nirsnet "at" nirs.org   301-270-6477

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND FUNDING LEVELS IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET

December 27, 2006

Dear Representative/Senator:
    We, the undersigned business, environmental, consumer, and energy policy organizations, are writing to offer our recommendations for funding levels in key federal energy programs as you develop the final Fiscal Year 2007 (FY'07) appropriations legislation.
    In general, we support what we understand to be Congress' intent to fund programs in FY'07 at the FY'06 level as being a good starting point for the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) sustainable energy programs.
    We believe that it is essential to sustain funding at or above historic levels (i.e., FY'06 and earlier) for the core renewable energy and energy efficiency programs in DOE as well as in other federal agencies.
    We also note that as work progressed during this past year on the FY'07 appropriations bills, consensus was reached between the Congress and the White House to expand a number of sustainable energy programs as well as launch several new energy efficiency and/or renewable energy initiatives. We believe these programs and funding levels should be a part of the final FY'07 appropriations bill.
    However, we recognize - and fully support - Congress' desire to not increase overall spending limits and, in fact, to move towards significantly reducing the size of the federal budget deficit.
    Therefore, we recommend that any increases in the funding levels for the federal energy efficiency and renewable energy programs be offset by commensurate, or greater, reductions in selected fossil fuel and commercial nuclear power program accounts.
    We believe that a shift in federal funding from mature and/or polluting technologies to cleaner, safer, and sustainable energy sources offers the best option for curbing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing oil imports, and addressing the nation's other pressing energy and deficit-reduction needs within the constraints of a very tight federal budget.
    Our specific recommendations include the following:

Fund all core DOE renewable energy and energy efficiency programs at no less than the FY'06 appropriated levels unless otherwise indicated below;
Restore the DOE geothermal research program to at least its historic level of $27.5 million;
Restore the DOE advanced and incremental hydropower research program to at least its historic level of $5.0 million;
Restore and maintain policy, research, development and demonstration funding for the DOE Distributed Energy program at the FY'06 level of $60 million;
Fund the DOE State Energy Program at the at the U.S. Senate FY'07 level of $49.5 million;
Fund the DOE Buildings Technologies program at the U.S. Senate FY'07 level of $95.3 million; and
Fund the DOE Solar Energy Technologies Program at the House and Senate FY'07 level of $148 million.

We further recommend that these proposed budget figures be viewed as the starting point for higher funding levels in the FY'08 budget for DOE's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
Some DOE programs have been identified by non-partisan groups as wasteful and unjustified federal expenditures. We believe these can be cut to more than offset the very modest increases in the sustainable energy accounts we are proposing as well as to reduce the size of the federal budget deficit. These programs include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

Nuclear Power R&D:

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (FY'06 budget was $60 million)
Nuclear Power 2010 (FY'06 budget was $66 million)
Generation IV (FY'06 budget was $55 million)
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative (FY'06 budget was $25 million)

Fossil Fuel R&D:

Clean Coal Initiative (FY'06 budget was $50 million)
FutureGen program (FY'06 budget was $18 million)
Oil Technology Research and Development Program (FY'06 budget was $65 million)
Ultra-deepwater Drilling Research and Development Fund (FY'06 budget was $50 million)

    Finally, it is important that Congress include clear language restricting the DOE's ability to reprogram funds in a manner that would thwart Congress' intent.
    Enclosed with this letter is some supplementary information providing a bit more detail on each of these recommendations.
    We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these recommendations with you in greater detail and we appreciate your consideration of these views.

    Sincerely,

Jennifer Schafer, President
Cascade Associates, Washington, DC
Carol Werner, Executive Director
Environmental & Energy Study Institute, Washington, DC
Karl Gawell, Executive Director
Geothermal Energy Association, Washington, DC
Michael Mariotte, Executive Director
Nuclear Information & Resource Service, Takoma Park, MD
Michele Boyd, Legislative Director
Public Citizen - Energy Program, Washington, DC
Ken Bossong, Executive Director
SUN DAY Campaign, Takoma Park, MD
Paul Bautista, Interim Executive Director (tentative)
U.S. Combined Heat & Power Association Bethesda, MD

WHY A FUTURE FOR THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS RISKY - A SYNOPSIS OF PRESENTATIONS
Peter Bradford - Former Chair, New York State Public Service Commission and Maine Public Utilities Commission and Former Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
and David Schlissel Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.

US$15bn Plan for Natural Gas, Coal
and Nuclear Hydrogen Power Generation Projects
Engineer Live November 17, 2006
In an effort to further develop this technology, BP and GE have announced that they are to collaborate on power, carbon capture and sequestration technologies.

Who needs terrorists? We've got Republicans!
DOMENICI'S
DIRTY BOMB
REPUBLICANS SNEAK DISPERSION OF
NUCLEAR MATERIAL ACROSS AMERICA

U.S. Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331
Definitions (5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Stop a Blank Check for High-Level Radioactive Waste Transport and Storage in Your State!
Nuclear Information & Resource Service Oct 21, 2006

Urge your elected officials to stop H.R. 5427 – the U.S. Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2007 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill – dead in its tracks!

U.S. Senator Pete Domenici wants to give the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) the authority to open one or more “interim” storage sites for high-level radioactive waste in the 31 states with operating reactors and the 3 states with shut down reactors. DOE’s authority could arbitrarily override the wishes of state officials. The opening of such dumps would not improve the safety or security of the waste, and would initiate unprecedented numbers of waste shipments on the roads, rails, and waterways that would be vulnerable to accidents or attacks. This dangerous scheme must be stopped.
Domenici’s bill could be taken up during the Congressional lame-duck session scheduled for after this Fall’s elections. Thus, newly-elected Congressmembers won’t have the opportunity to vote on it. While you should also contact candidates and try to inject this issue into the campaigns, it’s important to contact your current elected officials as well.

Contact information for elected officials:
Find your State Governor’s contact information
Find your State Attorney General’s contact information

    Contact your U.S. Senators and Representative via the U.S. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121, or find additional contact information at http://www.house.gov/ and
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.
    Urge them to contact Sen. Domenici, the sponsor of this bill. The Governors of CT, ME, NH, and VT, as well as the Northeast Coalition of Governors, already have. So have: 10 State Attorneys General (CA, CT, IL, ME, MN, NH, NJ, NY, VT, WI), IL’s U.S. Senators; the National Conference of State Legislatures; the National Association of Counties; the National League of Cities; and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
    If your elected official has already expressed their opposition to Sen. Domenici, thank them! If not, urge them to do all they can to oppose H.R. 5427 and its undermining of states’ authority to protect the health, safety, and environment of their citizens against the risks of high-level radioactive waste. Urge them to act quickly, as final decisions on this bill will likely be made, behind closed doors, as early as mid November.
    To send a message via the internet to your elected officials on this issue, also see Public Citizen’s web-form
    As an alternative to this dangerous proposal, consider adding your group to the national coalition calling for safety and security upgrades for radioactive waste stored on-site at nuclear power plants.
    See the “Principles for Safeguarding Nuclear Waste at Reactors”
and send your name, title, group name, and full contact information to mboyd@citizen.org in order to sign onto the letter. Note that over 100 diverse national (including NIRS), regional, and local grassroots groups have already signed onto these Principles.

Background: U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (Republican, New Mexico), powerful chairman of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Energy and Water Development, has proposed creating “consolidation and preparation” (CAP) facilities – centralized “interim” storage sites – for commercial high-level radioactive waste in every state with nuclear reactors.
    Despite the agency’s abysmal radioactive waste management record, Sen. Domenici would grant the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) final say over the location of such “interim” storage sites – thus the ability to override Governors, State Legislatures, State Attorneys General, as well as county and local governments. And if a state refuses to name one or more CAP facilities, Sen. Domenici’s bill would allow DOE to build a regional “parking lot” dump for high-level radioactive wastes from multiple states in that “un-cooperative” state.
    The opening of CAP facilities would happen in a frighteningly short three and a half year long “streamlined” period. The license would be for 25 years of “interim” storage (if 25 years can be called “temporary”!), although waste could – and almost certainly would -- remain at CAP facilities for significantly longer than that. DOE has admitted its proposed national repository for high-level waste – targeted at Yucca Mountain, Nevada -- won’t open for another 11 years, till 2017, at the earliest. Sen. Domenici himself has admitted it would take an additional 30 years, or more, to transport wastes to Yucca.
    Even after those 41+ years, Yucca would not be able to accommodate all the waste generated by that point in the U.S., meaning that the excess waste would remain stuck back at the reactor sites. In fact, any waste generated after 2010 – just three years from now – will be excess to Yucca’s legal capacity limit.
    This half-baked scheme could very well result in helter-skelter “Mobile Chernobyl” waste shipments through numerous states, for no good reason whatsoever. High-level radioactive waste could be rushed onto the roads, rails, and waterways across America, bound for hastily built “overflow parking lot dumps” from which it would have to be moved again someday, doubling transport risks. Transporting radioactive waste is the stage in the nuclear fuel chain that is most vulnerable to accidents and attacks. Each shipping container would hold 40 to 240 times the long-lasting radioactivity released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. This is nothing to rush into!
    To see how close such road and rail shipment routes could come to you, go to http://www.ewg.org/reports/nuclearwaste/find_address.php and type in your address to find out. Proposed barge shipment routes on the bays, rivers, lakes, and coastlines of America (look for the links under the year 2004 listing).
    Sen. Domenici’s dangerous scheme, just like the scientifically indefensible Yucca Mountain dump proposal, is merely an attempt to create the “illusion of a solution” (as Michael Keegan of Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes has put it) to the radioactive waste problem, in order to justify license extensions at old reactors and to build new reactors for the first time in over 30 years.
    For a detailed analysis of H.R. 5427 prepared by Michele Boyd at Public Citizen, go to Summary of Nuclear Waste Storage Provision in the FY2007 Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill (Sec. 313 of H.R. 5427) Public Citizen also has an easy way to write your elected officials on these issues.
    For copies of the letters from elected officials that have already been sent to Sen. Domenici in opposition to this proposal, contact me and I’d be happy to email it to you.
    We’ve stopped similar dangerous proposals time and time again for many years, and we can do it again now! For example, the “Private Fuel Storage” dump targeted at the Skull Valley Goshutes Indian Reservation in Utah – another supposedly “interim” storage site proposal – was likely killed after a bitter ten year struggle in early September. This was a tremendous environmental justice victory. Read more about it at http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/scullvalley/svnews090706.htm. Of course, we’ve also successfully stopped “interim” storage near Yucca Mountain at the Nevada Test Site for over a decade – another battle that is heating back up again… Thanks!

Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Waste Specialist
     Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS)
     6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340
     Takoma Park, Maryland 20912
     301.270.6477x14      kevin@nirs.org      www.nirs.org

According to Open Secrets, George W. Bush got more money from the nuclear energy industry in 2000 than any other federal candidate. In the 2002 election cycle, "the nuclear power industry [gave] $8.7 million to federal candidates and committees."
Seventy percent went to the GOP.
Bush's Nuclear Madness
Joshua Holland Peninsula Peace and Justice Center April 2, 2006

Nuclear Waste Debate
Ben Lando UPI September 15, 2006
Domenici Honored by French for Nuclear Work
Andy Lenderman The New Mexican December 13, 2005
From Senate Job to Nuclear Lobbyist — Twice
Mike Stuckey MSNBC March 22, 2006
Buying Support for Yucca Mountain
Las Vegas Review-Journal (NV) September 25, 2006
List of U.S. Nuclear Plants and Operators
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Senator Domenici's Funding Sources
Center for Responsive Politics 2002 Race: New Mexico Senate
365 Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Power Greenpeace
About Face: The Role of the Arms Lobby In the Bush Administration's Radical Reversal of Two Decades of U.S. Nuclear Policy - A World Policy Institute Special Report
William D. Hartung and Jonathan Reingold May 2002

ROMNEY IGNORED THE VOTERS - WILL HE NOW BE THE REPUBLICANS' CHOICE?
Strong Backing Seen For More Wind, Solar
and Conservation Before Resorting to Nuclear
Civil Society Institute

NUCLEAR OR RENEWABLES? YOU DECIDE.
AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION PREPARES TO LAUNCH
1000 NEW NUCLEAR POWERPLANTS ACROSS AMERICA,
THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF CHERNOBYL DROPS A BOMB

"You need to understand the real causes of the disaster in order to know in what direction you should develop alternative sources of energy. In this sense, Chernobyl has not taught anything to anyone... (It's) not just us: the Americans, the French, the English, the Japanese, are all hiding the real causes of accidents at their own nuclear power stations." -- Viktor Bryukhanov

Chernobyl Boss: "True Cause of Disaster Was Hidden"
Christian Lowe Reuters April 25, 2006

Ukraine Remembers Chernobyl
Tom Warner Financial Times (UK) April 25, 2006
...an anti-nuclear forum put on by environmentalist groups, speakers claimed the risk of future disasters was growing as memories of Chernobyl faded and governments returned to nuclear power. “There is everything to fight for and everything to lose,” Antony Froggat, an anti-nuclear campaigner, declared at the environmentalist conference. With most of the world’s power-generation infrastructure ageing and governments under pressure from the Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse gases, he said “the next 10 years will be a unique period of investment that will set in place trends in the power industry for generations”.
Hospital Number Six: A First-Hand Report
"This could happen to us."
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Aug/Sept 1986
How Radiation Victims Suffer
Herbert L. Abrams Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Aug/Sept 1986
Estimating Long-Term Health Effects
F. von Hippel & T. Cochran Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Aug/Sept 1986
What Happened at Reactor Four
Gordon Thompson Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Aug/Sept 1986
Nuclear Deception: Soviet Information
Erik P. Hoffmann Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Aug/Sept 1986
A Chronology of Soviet Media Coverage
Alexander Amerisov Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Aug/Sept 1986
Nuclear Deception: the U.S. Record
Barton J. Bernstein Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Aug/Sept 1986
Chernobvl: Worst but Not First
Walter C. Patterson Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Aug/Sept 1986
The International Response
David A.V. Fischer Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Aug/Sept 1986
Armand Hammer’s Unique Diplomacy
Steve Weinberg Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Aug/Sept 1986
The U.S. Media’s Slant
W. Dorman and D. Hirsch Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Aug/Sept 1986
A Nuclear Power Advocate Reflects on Chernobyl
Alvin M. Weinberg Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Aug/Sept 1986

RELEASED
THE DIFFICULT TRUTH ABOUT THE CHERNOBYL CATASTROPHE:
THE WORST EFFECTS
ARE STILL TO COME
Greenpeace 2006

For millions of inhabitants of the planet the explosion of the fourth block of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant on the 26th of April 1986 divided their life into two parts: pre and post Chernobyl. All mixed into the word “Chernobyl” are technocratic adventurism and the heroism of liquidators, human solidarity and the cowardice of

leaders (frightened to warn their citizens about the terrible outcomes and, by that, strongly increasing the number of innocent victims), the sufferings of many and the self-interest of others. Chernobyl brought into our lives new terminology, such as “liquidators”, the “children of Chernobyl” and “Chernobyl AIDS”.
    In the past twenty years it has become clear, that nuclear energy conceals dangers, in some aspects, even greater than atomic weapons: the ejecta from this one reactor exceeded the radioactive contamination caused by the nuclear weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by one hundred times. It has become clear that one nuclear reactor can contaminate half of the Earth and that no longer, not in one single country, could citizens be assured that the state will have the forethought and wisdom to protect them from nuclear misfortunes. The fate of thousands of soldier-liquidators was sealed by the phrase in one of the documents of the former USSR Ministry of Defence dated 9th July 1987. “... the fact of the proximity of work performed on the core [on liquidation] should not be reflected, nor the total radiation dose, if they [liquidators] did not reach the degree of radiation sickness…”.
    The "Chernobyl' Forum" - a group of specialists, including the representatives of the IAEA, the UN Scientific committee on the influence of atomic radiation, the WHO, other UN programs, as well as the World Bank and the staff of some of the state organizations of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine presented a report, "Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programs” on the threshold of the Chernobyl anniversary, in September 2005. The basic conclusions of the medical portion of the report of the "Chernobyl Forum" are that 4,000–9,000 people died, or will die, from radiogenic cancer (which against the background of spontaneous cancers "will be difficult to identify"). That report indicates that 4,000 cases of childhood radiogenic cancers of the thyroid gland were resolved via medical operations. That report acknowledges that certain increases in the cataracts of liquidators and children from the contaminated regions have been discovered. The report concludes, generally, that the consequences of the catastrophe "for the people’s health proved to be not so significant, as they were first considered to be".
    A more objective point of view was well-expressed by the UN General Secretary, Kofi Annan: "…the exact number of victims may never be known, but 3 million children require treatment and…many will die prematurely…
    Not until 2016, at the earliest, will be known the full number of those likely to develop serious medical conditions…because of delayed reactions to radiation exposure…many will die prematurely... ". Radioactive fall-outs from Chernobyl clouds touched many territories, where more than three billion people live. More than 50% of these territories across 13 European countries were dangerously contaminated by radionuclides from Chernobyl (and in 8 further countries - more than 30 % of their territories). It will be the fate of many future generations to suffer the echoes of Chernobyl in these countries according to inexorable statistical and biological laws. 9 In reality, the number of childhood thyroid cancers caused by Chernobyl in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia is much greater than is indicated by the IAEA and/or the WHO. It is also impossible to consider those having undergone medical operations as having been "cured" - for in reality they will have had their health compromised by disruptions of their hormonal and immune systems and by living on medication. Thyroid cancer is only one of many pathologic changes in this organ under the effect of the radiation. For each case of cancer there are many tens of cases of other diseases of this important endocrine gland. Disturbances of health, connected with radiogenic changes in the thyroid gland, already touched not several, but many tens of thousands of individuals. In the following 30-50 years they will touch many thousands more.
    The worsening of health related to radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident (especially – in children’s health), in the “Chernobyl” territories of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia is without scientific doubt. Dozens of diseases are explicable neither by the effect of the screening methodologies, nor by social and economic factors.
    I will not repeat here the content of the following report, but I will highlight some of the reasons for such serious differences in the estimation of the consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe between the side of the atomic energy industry and from the side of many independent experts. Some former Soviet officials have not only forbidden doctors to connect current diseases with the Chernobyl irradiation, but have also classified some Chernobyl related materials, making these materials difficult, and at times impossible, to obtain. In order to overcome these political manipulations, a rigorous scientific approach has been applied in the assessment and selection of material provided in this report. Statistically significant variances of the health of the population in the affected territories, with identical ethnic, psychological, geographical, social and economic characteristics (which are differentiated only by the exposure to the Chernobyl irradiation) are explained via the consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe.
    The following report, in its concentrated form, presents to the English speaking reader material that was previously difficult to access (published in Belarus, Russian and Ukrainian literature). There are many scientific studies on the consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe on health, published in these three countries but to date, little of this information has been available via Western journals. It should be noted that since 1959 there has been an understanding between the IAEA and the WHO, that the WHO will “coordinate" its position with the IAEA on atomic-related health issues. With the valuable assistance of many independent specialists from Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and many other countries, I hope that this report will be among many further objective examinations of the true scale of the Chernobyl catastrophe to be published in the near future.
   -- Member of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, Former Councillors For Ecology And Public Health To The President Of The Russian Federation Councillors for Russian Academy of Science, Prof. Dr. biol. A. Yablokov

Whether we like it or not there is a nuclear revival going on. We prefer to call it a relapse. From Poland to Italy, from Vietnam to Chili, more and more countries are talking nuke-speak again. We are about to be thrown back 30 years in development and experience. Not only is this bad because it will increase the danger of proliferation, the amount of radioactive waste, the number of accidents et cetera, it will also take so many resources, energy, attention and disrupt social stability in many places. This all will in itself block further development of a true clean and safe energy future.
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Washington, D.C.

ADVANCES	FUTURE	STORAGE	VEHICLES	APOLLO	FUEL CELLS
AIR & SPACE	SECURITY	PEOPLE	POLITICS	OIL	CLIMATE
SHIPS & SUBS	HEALTH	AMAZING H	ZEPPELINS	COAL	VIDEO
PRODUCTION	NUCLEAR	BIOFUELS	PROMOTION	ARCHIVE 1	ARCHIVE 2


	The International Clearinghouse for Hydrogen Commerce www.hydrogencommerce.com CONTACT

Radioactive Waste Project Fact Sheets

Reactor Watchdog Project Fact Sheets

Nukes and Climate Change Fact Sheets

Nuclear Power Relapse Fact Sheets

Lousiana Energy Services

Radiation Fact Sheets

Environmental Justice Fact Sheets