Democrats shoot themselves in the head on Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant!

Democrats shoot themselves in the head on Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant!

We at Left-Atomics only hope that this idiocy ends at some point, before it's too late. Well, at any rate, more applications for new nuclear plants are being filed with the NRC, and thats a good thing...even if it's not enough to really effect pollution, particulate, CO2, etc. We need a real plan for hundreds of new NPPs. More, along with my promised diary on nuclear 'waste' later...

From The Office of Attorney General:

"NEW YORK, NY (December 3, 2007) – Governor Eliot Spitzer, New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, and Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano today announced the submission of papers to deny the relicensing of the Indian Point nuclear power plant.  The papers filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identify dangerous deficiencies – including those related to terrorism, earthquakes, evacuation plans, and the surrounding population density – in Entergy’s relicensing application for Indian Point.

"The Indian Point relicensing application wholly fails to address a number of crucial issues, and it should not be granted in its present form," said Governor Spitzer.  "I have repeatedly stated that we should close Indian Point as soon as there is sufficient replacement power available, and in the interim we will continue to insist that all environmental, safety and security issues are fully evaluated and addressed, in order to protect the health and safety of the communities surrounding the plant."

"We cannot continue to roll the dice with the operation of Indian Point -- there is simply too much at stake," said Attorney General Cuomo.  "The NRC has repeatedly ignored the danger that Indian Point poses to New Yorkers – from its vulnerability to a terrorist attack, to its incapability to withstand potential earthquakes, to its lack of a plausible evacuation plan in the event of a catastrophe.  We must do what is safest for New York and close Indian Point.  Furthermore, opposing the relicensing in 2013 is only step one."

"I applaud Governor Spitzer and Attorney General Cuomo for taking the lead in opposing the relicensing of Indian Point and continuing to fight its continued operation," said County Executive Andy Spano.  "This is not only my position, but the position of our Board of Legislators which passed a resolution to that effect back in 2003.  The efforts to intervene in this highly complex and time-consuming process are simply Herculean.  We are proud to be standing together as we move ahead in this long process to protect the residents of Westchester County."

Well, there it is folks...the Democratic Party's leading liberal lights act as dimwits on energy, again.  The equally liberal NY Times, but somewhat more incisive, reported, however:

In a statement on Monday, Governor Spitzer said that the Indian Point relicensing application "fails to address a number of crucial issues." Although he did not go as far as Mr. Cuomo in calling for an immediate shutdown, Mr. Spitzer said the plant should close as soon as an alternative source of power could be found. The two reactors have a combined capacity of 2,069 megawatts. ...

It was not clear from the state’s filing how New York proposed to meet its goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and keeping the region’s grid supplied with energy on peak days, although opponents of the plant insist that efficient use of electricity could take up any slack should the reactors be shut down.

A duh. Ya' think? NOT! There ARE NO ALTERNATE forms of reliable energy! These types of views are DANGEROUS folks, dangerous.  Anything that will be used to replace the over 2,000 MWs of CO2 and particulate free power will boost NY State's emissions of all these and will knock NY DOWN the ladder of states that are moving away from CO2,/particulate/NOx and Sulfite (they burn it all in NY folks, coal, gas even oil...right across from Indian Point in fact!).

It shows the priority of many anti-nuclearites once in power: coal yes, CO2 yes, NOx yes, nuclear NO!

'nuff said.

David Walters

•  Indian Point is an unsafe disaster

  in waiting that needs to be closed NOW! I'd appreciate it if you one issue wonders would stop attacking my Democratic State leadership.

  by Bouwerie Boy on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 07:19:05 PM PDT

  •  At Least They Closed the One

    that they built without a damn emergency cooling system.

    Two more to go.

    by Uthaclena on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 07:33:17 PM PDT

  •  They have no plant Bouwerie, none.

    All they have is the very mistaken belief, similiar in fact to yours, that IPNNP is a "disaster" which, in fact, it is not. But the real point is that if you get your way, there will be more deadly pollution right now from the two Mirant plants across the river which burn OIL and COAL.

    Your priority seems to be over the fact that Indian Point "may" be a disaster when the facts are that the fossil plants are killing people NOW. I don't get your priorities.

    The Dems (ore Republicans for that matter) have no plant to resolve this constridiction. End Indian Point, increase death from fossil. Your choice.

    David Walters

    by davidwalters on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 07:34:51 PM PDT

    •  What's the design life on Indian Point?

      How old is it now?

      by Phoenix Rising on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 07:36:56 PM PDT

      •  Unit 2 went on line in 1974 and Unit 3 went on li

        in 1976. Both are rated for 40 years. Since almost all NPPs in the US were "over built", the actual life of these plants is probably at least 60 years which is why the NRC has generally allowed the 20 year increase in life.

        Newer III and III+ generation plants that they are planning on building in the US all have 60 year lifespans with expectation they may go to 80 or 100 years of actual operation.

        David Walters

        by davidwalters on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 08:01:57 PM PDT

      •  Original Licenses Expire in 2013 but...

        They were actually built in the early 70's to last longer than 40 years (the original license length) and certain practices were instituted in the 80's to allow the plants to last at least an additional 20 years.  Most plants of the IP2 and 3 type have had their licenses extended another 20 years.  IP has held off this process for awhile (probably) because of the anti-nuke climate in NY.  

        by nuketeacher on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 08:04:39 PM PDT

  •  And Your Qualifications Are???

    Do you say it is an unsafe disaster in waiting because you know something the NRC doesn't know?  Is it something you believe to be true because it must be true because you first believe nuclear power is inherently unsafe?

    The extremely unlikely release of radioactive material from IP is far less of a problem than the guaranteed release of everything under the sun from the coal plants.

    by nuketeacher on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 07:57:49 PM PDT

    •  How much of NYC electricity is from IP?

      Do you happen to know?

      by Plan9 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 05:57:18 AM PDT

  •  BB, can you tell me

    how Indian Point falls under the remit of Cuomo? It may be that I don't understand the subtleties of the New York system, but I'm not sure how the Attorney General has any responsibility for that area.

    Also, if you happen to know, I'd be interested to hear how often he has visited Indian Point power station and met with the management there, since this is an issue he clearly has some interest in.

    thanks.

    by Joffan on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:43:51 AM PDT

•  Rather... Strident, Isn't This?

  "Idiocy" and "dimwits..." Sorry, I'm really not inclined to listen seriously to anyone who is so absolutely certain of their position that they need to resort to ridicule.

  I've read some of your posts; despite being an environmentalist from way back, I accept that we may need some nuclear as a transition technology. But there remain too many long-term issues unresolved for me to agree, yeah, let's pull out all the stops and let the nuclear genie be our saviour, our magic bullet.  I remember all of the high-falutin' advertising from the '60's; the "energy too cheap to meter." Requiring the Price-Anderson Act, renewed regularly to get insurers to sign on.

  Yeah, I know... dead miners, boiler explosions, particulate matter, CO2. But, there's that tricky half-life thing that engineers and physicists love to say 'Don't worry! It's not that bad! We've got it covered!"

  An environmental perspective is not an either/or thing; it's additive, if not multiplicative.

  My vote is to develop better efficiencies, and a lifestyle requiring less high-powered toys, no, not "back to nature," but living within our biospheric budget.

  But maybe I'm just a dimwitted idiot without any real perspective. You people are the experts aren't you? Glad your niche is so well-lit.

  by Uthaclena on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 07:31:47 PM PDT

  •  First off all, my use of perjoritive terms

    for the State leadership of the NY Democratic Party is deserved.

    "Idiocy" and "dimwits..." Sorry, I'm really not inclined to listen seriously to anyone who is so absolutely certain of their position that they need to resort to ridicule.

    I do not use those those terms from any one who responds to my diary here. (also, my spelling tonight seems to be very bad, so sorry about that too).

    To wit:

    I've read some of your posts; despite being an environmentalist from way back, I accept that we may need some nuclear as a transition technology. But there remain too many long-term issues unresolved for me to agree, yeah, let's pull out all the stops and let the nuclear genie be our saviour, our magic bullet.  I remember all of the high-falutin' advertising from the '60's; the "energy too cheap to meter." Requiring the Price-Anderson Act, renewed regularly to get insurers to sign on.

    Then you remember too that "home grown coal" was going to be our answer, and natural gas. How's that working? Things change. The 'cheap too meter' was from the 50s, actually. Never a promise but bad PR. Anyway, it is the cheapest base load power out there right now. It is the safest, and Price-Anderson has yet to pay out a single dollar. If we replaced coal with nuclear over the next 20 years, we'd drop the US CO2 output by almost 40% and elininate 10s of thousands of deaths...deaths from coal, going on right now, and no deaths from nuclear in the US, ever.

    Yeah, I know... dead miners, boiler explosions, particulate matter, CO2. But, there's that tricky half-life thing that engineers and physicists love to say 'Don't worry! It's not that bad! We've got it covered!"

    You don't seem to take it seriously though by your seemingly downplaying tone of this. The 'tricky half life' thing is why this is a safe energy source. There isn't much of it to begin and it's so managable as to NOT be a problem, which is why it isn't a problem now or in the past. Don't you get? It's not creating problems because it's safely kept out of harms way.

    My vote is to develop better efficiencies, and a lifestyle requiring less high-powered toys, no, not "back to nature," but living within our biospheric budget.

    But maybe I'm just a dimwitted idiot without any real perspective. You people are the experts aren't you? Glad your niche is so well-lit.

    I don't think you are dimwitted, I thik you are simply uneducated in the last 25 years of advancement for nuclear technology and what is being proposed, or how they have delth with older plants like Indian Point. I think you are being narrowminded for being, in effect, irresponsbile toward the real polluting technology out there: coal and oil, which is, in fact, what you will get if Indian point is shutdown.

    David Walters

    by davidwalters on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 07:57:57 PM PDT

  •  the numbers are in

    there is no way that we can power the world on renewables currently. Maybe if you killed off about 5.5 billion people, but aside from that, never. it just isn't enough.

    An alternative to coal is needed NOW. not maybe 20 years from now, but now. heck we needed it years ago, and its already too late. but we may as well start anyway, on the off chance that someone figures out how to sequester large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.

    we need nuke plants. The waste CAN be recycled, so there is no half life to really worry about.

    by Dude1701 on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 08:35:54 PM PDT

  •  "Too cheap to meter..."

    ... actually referred to fusion, not nuclear fission.
    

    by enochthered on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 09:18:15 PM PDT

    •  Actually ...

      Lewis Strauss is attributed to that phrase, and nobody really knows what he was referring to.

      From the New York Times, September 17, 1954:

      "Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter," he declared. ... "It is not too much to expect that our children will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age."

      Lewis L. Strauss

      Speech to the National Association of Science Writers, New York City, September 16th, 1954

      From the New York Times, August 7, 1955:

      Lewis L. Strauss, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, recently said:

      "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter; will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history; will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age. This is the forecast of an age of peace."

      What can you make of that? Nowhere is nuclear mentioned. In fact, Strauss mentions ending famine, transportation, conquering disease, and living longer by understanding what makes us age, but the word "nuclear" does not appear.

      Since Strauss was chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission at the time, these four words have been associated with nuclear energy (particularly nuclear fission) ever since; however, except for Strauss, I have never heard or read anywhere of anyone other than the likes of Public Citizen, Greenpeace, IEER, NIRS, etc., etc. -- the propaganda farms -- actually using this phrase.

      These groups all take it to mean that the US was promised an infinite source of energy that would be free for the taking. That is a rather naive interpretation, but useful for their purpose of spreading more lies. This phrase is so nebulous, we can't tell what it means.

      For example, we have lots of things that are "too cheap to meter." In the US, local telephone service, cable TV, and in many areas of the country, broadband internet are all "too cheap to meter." That doesn't mean that they cost nothing; it doesn't mean that we don't pay for these services; and it certainly doesn't mean that they are cheap. Rather, nobody is charging us by the minute, by the call, by the show, by the gigabit, or whatever. We pay for the service and use whatever we want. "Too cheap to meter" is not that exotic of a concept.

      by bryfry on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:43:06 AM PDT

      •  I'm envious.

        (Sorry... off the topic.)

        "In the US, local telephone service, cable TV, and in many areas of the country, broadband internet are all "too cheap to meter.""

        "Rather, nobody is charging us by the minute, by the call, by the show, by the gigabit, or whatever. We pay for the service and use whatever we want."

        Wow... in my country, we only dream of such things. Perhaps, some day, my children will enjoy such wonders of civilized information and telecommunications network infrastructure.

        by enochthered on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:58:12 PM PDT

        •  Well, Americans are spoiled

          I've even had gas heat that was "too cheap to meter" -- that is, the landlord paid the bill. The rent for this apartment was higher than for an apartment with electric heat (where the renter payed the bill), but I could crank the thermostat up as much as I liked and not pay a dime extra. I always preferred to conserve energy and keep the thermostat low, but I had friends with the same deal who wore shorts at home all through the winter.

          Europe doesn't have quite so many things that are "too cheap to meter," for example, local telephone calls. They are typically billed per unit time. This is why I have opted for voice over IP for my landline phone.

          by bryfry on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 04:15:24 AM PDT

•  Good for NY Dems

  by Lefty the playwright on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 08:48:14 PM PDT

•  Unpleasant Truths

  It is true that nuclear power may need to be significantly increased to reduce GHG emissions. It also appears true that any non-nuclear replacement for Indian Point in the next few years would increase GHG emissions.

  It is also true that nuclear power has a pretty good safety record.

  However:

  These plants are over 30 years old.  Perhaps it might make sense to replace them with plants using newer technology?

  Also, if a catastrophe happened, it is essentially impossible to evacuate the New York metropolitan area.  Perhaps locating nuclear plants this close to major cities is not the best choice of location?

  by Justanothernyer on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 09:18:59 PM PDT

  •  I have to ask ...

    Are you the type of person that goes out and buys a new car every two or three years?

    There are many people who do that. Then again, there are others who keep their cars for a long time, and run them as much as they can.

    Does this mean that these old cars are dangerous? In some cases, yes, but in others, if the car has been well maintained, the "old" cars are no more of a danger than new cars fresh off of the assembly line.

    The difference between cars and nuclear power plants is that cars are very lightly regulated, in comparison. When I owned a car, I had to have it inspected once a year. This inspection process was fairly cheap, but not very thorough. Nuclear power plants, on the other hand, are constantly monitored by the regulator, and they cannot be operated after their license expires without getting the license extended, which involves a thorough review by the regulator.

    If the plants are unsafe, then they should be shut down. I very much believe this. However, it is up to the experts -- the NRC, which regulates nuclear power plants in the US -- to determine whether these plants are sufficiently safe to continue operation, should the owner want to keep these plants running. This type of decision should be based on safety, which is a very technical issue. It should not be decided by the political whims of a few ambitious politicians.

    Finally, I should add that the dangers posed to nearby areas have been vastly overstated. Using history as our guide, we see that the worst accident that occurred in the US -- the Three Mile Island accident, the likes of which has not occurred again in almost thirty years -- caused virtually no harm to people living next door to the plant, much less living in the next city over. This has been demonstrated again and again by multiple studies of the people in the region. Nothing statistically significant has been found.

    The only harm that was done by the accident was the fear surrounding the event, which did very real harm. The idea of such fear and panic in the New York metropolitan area is a genuine concern, I admit. I am less worried about the ability to evacuate everyone from the area than I am about the damage that would be caused by people trying to evacuate the area, with a herd mentality, because they are scared for their lives.

    Nevertheless, I think that proper emergency planning -- including better communication and preparedness, so that nothing like the unnecessary fear surrounding Three Mile Island happens again -- is far easier to implement and far cheaper to the community, both in economic terms and in environmental terms, than simply closing Indian Point because of politics.

    by bryfry on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:09:57 AM PDT

    •  bryfry: your big error

      Indian Point area CANNOT be evacuated.

      The official plan was calling for vehicles that don't even exist in the numbers it cited.

      Even if the plant itself was fine, the way it is run is worthy of the Keystone Cops. Violations that should have been IMPOSSIBLE.

      The company that runs Indian Point, Entergy, couldn't even keep its own headquarters safe from Katrina. . . .Major hurricanes being a well-known hazards in New Orleans...the "bowl" effect, etc. Entergy had to scramble to rent space elsewhere.

      by LNK on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:23:55 AM PDT

      •  I rarely do this ...

        because this phrase is overly abused on this site by idiots who don't know what it means, but in this case, I have to call it.

        Straw Man

        WTF does a hurricane's impact on Entergy's headquarters have to do with Indian Point?! Really ... I seriously want to know.

        Now, are you saying that Entergy was responsible for the maintenance of the levees in lower Louisiana? Is that what you're saying?

        Once again ... say it with me, y'all ... Straw Man

        My point is that if an accident such as Three Mile Island occurred at Indian Point (i.e., half the core melts), will anybody be harmed if nobody evacuates?

        The answer is clearly no. Time and time again researchers have been unable to find any harm done to the surrounding residents as a result of this accident. The fact that Carter is alive (who visited ground zero during the crisis, to his credit) is additional evidence of this.

        Besides, it is not up to you or New York politicians hoping to gain political points to determine whether the operation of Indian Point is fine or not. Thank god. It is up to the regulator.

        My questions are these: Who has been harmed? Who has been killed? In all of the years since the 70's that this plant has been operating, can you show me at least one body?

        Tell me ... WHO?

        Compare that to the alternatives. Coal? Natural Gas? Don't make me laugh. Wind? Well, I can give you names of people who have been killed by wind power in the US, during the time that Indian Point has been in operation. The efforts of all of this "dangerous" wind power are still eclipsed by the amount of energy that Indian Point has safely generated in the same amount of time.

        I don't claim that Indian Point has a perfect record. Nor do I claim that Entergy is a perfect company that always does the right thing. That is why the industry and this plant are regulated. That is why safety is number one, in spite of all of the scare tactics and name calling (really ... "Keystone Cops"? Couldn't you have done better than that?) by people like you, who cannot make your case when it comes to the real issues. So you are reduced to focusing on irrelevant details. That is your big error.

        by bryfry on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:28:34 AM PDT

        •  You'd think that Entergy could get siren working

          I get annoyed at the utility every time I read yet again about the siren that doesn't operate properly. I believe the Nuclear Regulatory Commission fined them recently about that.

          That said, I am grateful that IP replaced fossil fuel plants.  The air is cleaner as a result and the earth's burden of greenhouse gases is less.

          There has never been a need to evacuate a nuclear plant in the US because the containment for the reactor works and the radioactive materials, mainly through natural laws, remain in the containment. And nuclear plants were already fortified before 9/11 and are now even more fortified.  There is nothing a terrorist could do.  And the target area for an airplane dive is way too small.

          It must be endlessly repeated that Chernobyl was a disaster because the reactor had no containment.  Every US reactor has layers of containment.

          by Plan9 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 06:05:50 AM PDT

      •  BFD

        It's pretty hard to impugn Entergy in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. You are applying really silly standards to the nuclear power industry that you would never apply elsewhere. Let me tell you right now that no nuclear operator is omniscient or able to repel acts of God that gut entire cities.

        Why don't you look at the response of Entergy's nuclear plants in the aftermath of Katrina, rather than the relatively trivial details of where Entergy keeps its administrative offices?

        Here ya go:

        Entergy and katrina

        by perdajz on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:45:17 AM PDT

  •  Justan, the plants are designed for 40 years

    but that's really the licensing aspect of them. From the get go there was nothing in the plants that couldn't, from the engineering POV, last twice that. The whole 30 or even 40 year thing is an unfortunate aspect of the propaganda war against nuclear energy.

    I'm am for replacing older plants with the obviously suprior Generation III plants. But the need to build atomic plants is so great that any plants that get shutdown, I hope, with be coal plants, of which there are 1400 of them generating over 350 GWs of power (350,000 megawatts). Less than 300 new nucelar plants can shut these plants down.

    David

    by davidwalters on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:32:17 AM PDT

    •  As any anti nuke will tell you

      new plants take too long (and were they supporting nuclear power ten years ago?), so don't replace the old plants... build the new ones alongside them. That way we get twice as much carbon-free power.

      And I'm not apologizing for carbon-free, either; if the phrase can be used of wind and solar, it can damned well be used for nuclear too.

      by Joffan on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:25:38 PM PDT

•  Indian Point, Entergy = special cases.

  This is NOT A GOOD DIARY.

  I don't know the diarist but there have been virtual tag teams of shills for the nuclear power industry posting on Daily Kos.

  I worked for months on Indian Point issues and testified at City Hall.

  Indian Point MUST BE SHUT a.s.a.p.

  I have to dash now, but my three words to the diarist are:

  Conservation.

  Price-Anderson.

  by LNK on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:13:06 AM PDT

  •  Industry schills?

    How you spell that "C-O-A-L"?

    Perhaps....

    "G-A-S".

    If you are going to discuss this then do so, but don't throw insults at other respondents and diaries here on Daily Kos unless you can prove I or others take a DIME from "The Industry". Generally, we are defending the technology. I'm for nationalizing energy companies WITHOUT compensation. Schill my ass.

    That's actuall TWO words not THREE but we'll tack that to your demostrative ignorance of the issue: "testified at city all". Really? I spoke to god and she said you were a pompus fool.

    David Walters

    by davidwalters on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:28:42 AM PDT

    •  If not shills, you're single-issue ideologues

      who happen to be quoting industry shills.

      You might be misguided and uninformed.

      I'd like to hear where you get your ideas and information from, including about 'nationalizing energy companies WITHOUT compensation'

      You might be troll rated for calling me a  pomp(o)us fool .

      I apologize if I have given you offense.

      by LNK on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:22:02 AM PDT

      •  Ah...shill by deflections. Interesting concept.

        Look, then I can call you a shill for coal and gas and oil, OK? Where does that get us? Ultimatly, our sources, much of them, come from the government, or various studies.

        You don't give offense at all. My problem with people calling me or others "shills" is that it is inaccurate and, worse, makes us having discussions about,...shills...and not the actual issues.

        We are here to discuss, in large part, the technology, and the politics. I don't support the industry because I want it nationalized.Down to the tacts in their shiny shoes. But being 'from industry' doesn't make them factually wrong, it just means they have insitutional and profit motives behind what they state. We still have to examine the engineering, the science.

        David

        by davidwalters on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:24:50 AM PDT

•  Hey everybody! Shill Alert!!

  I didn't mean to play 'gotcha' but I recognized something at play here.

  http://ww.sfbg.com/...

  NUCLEAR LIES

  David Walters's letter ["Nukes Are Green," 5/9/07] promoting nuclear power read just like the lies and propaganda that are coming from the nuclear industry. Due to global warming, the nuclear industry now thinks it can scare people into supporting nuclear power. The argument is the same one made by Mr. Walters: it's either coal, gas, or nukes because solar and wind can't supply enough power and aren't reliable enough. Nuclear power, on the other hand, supplies a sufficient amount of reliable energy without emitting any pollution, including greenhouse gases.

  SNIP
  DR. CALDICOTT WEIGHS IN

  The letter of David Walters is plainly wrong.

  Nuclear power is not emission free, producing CO2 at each step of the nuclear fuel chain — mining, milling, enriching, construction and decommissioning of the reactor, and storage and transport of mutagenic radioactive waste for periods of 500,000 years.

  Furthermore, each operating reactor emits carcinogenic radioactive materials into the air and water every second of every day.

  Why does the nuclear industry continue to lie?

  Helen Caldicott, MD

  Matcham, Australia

  by LNK on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:29:09 AM PDT

  •  I agree 100%

    Helen Caldicott is completely a shill! She has been trying to shill her books full of erroneous, irrelevant, and sexually disturbing (that woman has some personal problems) information for decades now.

    Good eye, but it really didn't take much to see where she is coming from. Not much of a "gotcha," in my opinion. Sorry. Anyone with any sense can see that Caldicott is a anti-nuclear book-pedaling shill.

    By the way, do you have any idea when was the last time she actually practiced medicine for a living? That is what she claims to do, after all.

    by bryfry on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:40:45 AM PDT

    •  Caldicott is embarrassingly ignorant

      She campaigned to ban the bomb.  If she was instrumental in stopping testing of nuclear weapons, I salute her.

      But she is ignorant about physics, chemistry, radiation biology, health impacts of radiation, the decay series, the multiple levels of containment at plants, the comprehensive life cycle carbon emissions of nuclear power (they are the same as those of wind power), etc.  (This is often the case with medical doctors; she's a pediatrician; I would not ask her to fix my car or to analyze nuclear plant safety.)

      Nobody can possibly take her seriously since her claims are without any scientific basis.

      by Plan9 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 06:11:28 AM PDT

  •  Do you know what a "shill" is?

    If you were to say "Patrick Moore" is a shill for the nuclear industry, it would be hard to disagree...he actually works for the nuclear industry. I'm for actually getting rid of private ownership of energy industries across the board and make them public power entities. Secondly, we are talking about the technology, not the "industry", which, in this case, around nuclear, can barely defend itself in any event (see Yucca Mountain).

    If you want to attack nuclear energy, by all means. But stop trying to end the discussion with lying charges of "shill" everytime you disagree with your opponent.

    I don't believe Caldicott is a shill for coal and gas (although they would hardly disagree with her on nuclear). I think she is a lot worse: she is WRONG, she falsifies here data, totally exaggerates and will, like Harvy Wasserman, her American counter-part, say almost anything against nuclear to make nuclear 'scary' to the public. But they are not shills, they are just very wrong.

    David Walters
    Full name, not a FAKE one.

    by davidwalters on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:58:39 PM PDT

    •  Most of the "facts" that Caldicott

      talks about are not even wrong.

      They are simply irrelevant.

      by bryfry on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:52:42 PM PDT

      •  Dr. Caldicott is absolutely correct

        as is Harvey Wasserman. Dr. Caldicott, in particular, got started with radiation and public health when the public policy of America was misrepresenting to the people what bombs and fallout would do.

        You might be too young to remember 'duck and cover' exercises.

        My mother was in charge of local Civil Defense when I was young. She was a scientist for the Navy and she also evaluated the hazards of a proposed nuclear power plant. She shared with me her conversations with members of the AAAS and her observation that nuclear scientists didn't know enough about biology to understand the effects of radioactivity.  BTW, she did research and teaching and was nobody's shill. The power plant was never built, and the area suffered no energy problems or pollution from other sources. Lots of pollution from cars, though.

        I have a lot of experience in corporate PR and recognize where you sound like shills using 'weasel words'.......

        Do you have credentials to present here that would justify your claims and your attacks on the credibility of doctors and scientists advocating against the way radiation is used?

        by LNK on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:16:37 AM PDT

        •  OK, you asked for it

          ...
          http://enochthered.wordpress.com/...

          This link takes you to a blog that often specializes in showing Caldicott's own madness when talking about nuclear energy. I actually respected, used to, her views on nuclear war. But as the multiple filings under her name here on the Physical Insights (//ethhthered) shows, she is just so factually wrong as not to be funny. Mitch, who runs this blog, completely tears here apart on everything.

          Even where she politely disagrees with me from the Bay Guardian, she is factually incorrect:

          She writes:

          "1. Nuclear power is not emission free, producing CO2 at each step of the nuclear fuel chain — mining, milling, enriching, construction and decommissioning of the reactor, and storage and transport of mutagenic radioactive waste for periods of 500,000 years."

          Wrong. "Every step" includes fission, the actual production of energy...no CO2. She leaves that out. The amount of CO2 from mining, milling, etc is totally dependent on the percentage of nuclear energy as the prime electrical source for EACH of these steps. Ergo, in France, it produces NO CO2 because at every step except mining (and this is changing too depending on the form) there is no CO2 production since the CO2 footprint in France from electrical power used is almost zero. Get it? She doesn't. She doesn't care. The more nuclear the LESS CO2.

          "2. Furthermore, each operating reactor emits carcinogenic radioactive materials into the air and water every second of every day."

          Liar. She can't prove this. The amount of "carciongenic" radioactive material is completely and absolutely mearusured. The average yearly measurement at any NPP in the US is 15 milirem if you lived in the control room of a NPP. She uses the same sources as the NRC. The average dose received by anyone in the US is 350 milirem. She makes this stuff up...there is no evidence by anyone that the doses are higher. The minimal radiaition at any NPP is LESS than that of any large granite building in the US (a lot less actually). It is less than the coal tailings at a coal plant. She makes this stuff up.

          "3. Why does the nuclear industry continue to lie?"

          Kettle, black.

          David

          by davidwalters on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 02:59:20 AM PDT

        •  On Wasserman.

          Wasserman is even worse than Caldicott. He stated the Japanese nuclear plant that was shutdown after this years 7+ earthquake "almost melted down". Liar. It did JUST THE OPPOSITE. It shutdown exactly as it was designed to.

          Go to Counterpunch.org and look up his stuff on nuclear energy (look up Nader's too, who makes the amazing statement that 'transportation of spent nuclear fuel emmits CO2!!!!). Find me one statement Wasserman makes that IS true. Then we can discuss this.

          David Walters

          by davidwalters on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:01:45 AM PDT

          •  But wait! There's more...!!!!

            Since we're talking Caldicott...from Physical Insights...just the BEGINNING of exposing how messed up she is (messed up being the techo-babble for being a very poor spokesperson for the anti-nuclear movment: they ought to can her).

            Quotes from Caldicott's book are block quoted. Mitch's replys are not....

            Thousands of patients with cancers are exposed to exceptionally high doses of radiation, from radionuclides of Caesium and cobalt, in hospitals every day, even today. And it saves their lives.

             "...the long-term medical consequences of radiation were just beginning to appear, in the form of an increased rate of leukemia among Japanese atomic bomb survivors."

            These are the medical consequences of very high doses of whole-body ionizing radiation exposure. That these grave medical consequences of very large doses of ionizing radiation exist, and what they are, has never, ever, been in any dispute. Very high doses of ionizing radiation kill people.

            "Nonbiodegradable, and some virtually potent forever, these toxic nuclear materials..."

            Radionuclides are non-biodegradable! My god.

            If one synthesises a biodegradable polymer, such as a lactide-derived polyester, and labels it with say Tritium or Carbon-14, the radioactive polymer is still biodegradable.

            All radionuclides intrinsically, inevitably, decay over time. This is one of the most intrinsic and fundamental aspects of the phenomenon of radioactivity.

            Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, such as benzo[a]pyrene, are strongly mutagenic, and correspondingly carcinogenic and teratogenic, and exposure to these compounds in the environment has the potential to cause increased incidences of cancer, decades into the future, and leave future generations with legacies of genetic disease, birth defects and so forth, as a result of mutation of genes reproductive cells in generations exposed to these pollutants.

            This is the legacy we leave to future generations with the continued use, and expanded use, of dangerous fossil fuels.

            These persistent organic pollutants in dangerous fossil fuel waste are not biodegradable, and their nuclei are for the most part, stable. They do not break down over time, or decay. At all.

            "Each 1 GW nuclear (power) reactor contains as much long-lived radioactive material ("fallout") as would be produced by 1000 Hiroshima-sized bombs."

            Radioactive material is not "fallout" until is is dispersed in the atmosphere in the form of dispersed dust, volatile and particulate contamination. Arguably, the Chernobyl disaster created radioactive "fallout" contamination, kind of analogous to that produced by a nuclear weapon.

            But in practice, what circumstances are required for such dispersion to be created with any other nuclear reactor?

            "A "meltdown", in which the fissioning nuclear fuel overheats and melts, penetrating the steel and concrete structures that encase it, could release a reactor’s radioactive contents into the atmosphere..."

            Can a "meltdown" destroy the steel reactor vessel of a nuclear reactor? Theory shows it’s extremely doubtful, and experience, at Three Mile Island, says no. Even if the pressure vessel is destroyed, could the massive reinforced concrete containment building be destroyed by hot, partially molten, fuel? For all practical intents and purposes, such an idea is regarded as impossible.

            "One need not be a scientist or nuclear engineer to take part in this important debate; in fact, an over-specialised approach tends to confuse the issue. The basic questions involved ultimately go beyond the technical problems related to reactor safety and radioactive waste management."

            What? In other words, is Caldicott trying to tell us that the science and engineering does not matter? These are the most fundamental aspects of the debate. On a foundation of scientific and technological fact, the complex political and social debate over nuclear technology can proceed in a sensible, informed manner.

            "How can we ensure the longevity of the social institutions responsible for perpetuating that isolation?" (the isolation of radioactive waste from the environment over the long term.)  "And what moral right do we have to burden our progeny with this poisonous legacy..."

            Social institutions do not perpetuate the longevity of that isolation. Half a kilometer of solid rock perpetuates it. We know from history, from the nuclear fission waste under the rock at Oklo, and from, say, the great Pyramids, that these great structures of rock will carry our legacy over the time frames required.

            Permanent geological repositories,  such as that under construction by Sweden’s SKB, deal with the radioactive waste permanantly, and once it’s sealed, it’s dealt with, safe forever. These repositories require no monitoring or maintainence by future generations.

            Well, that’s Chapter 1, and the Introduction, covered.

            Thanks to Mitch from Physical Insights for this.

            David Walters

            by davidwalters on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 04:05:10 AM PDT

            •  Don't forget

              That this is a woman who goes around telling people that "every male in the Northern Hemisphere has a tiny amount of plutonium in his testicles." Not only can you find this little tidbit in the books that she writes, but I've heard hear say this on the radio as well.

              While it somewhat disturbing that this woman seems to be obsessed with testicles, we might wonder: is this true? Well, maybe yes, and maybe no, but that doesn't matter because this statement is absolutely meaningless.

              Who cares about a teeny, tiny, insignificant amount of a substance with relatively low activity? After all, every man and woman has all sorts of radioactive substances in his or her body. Take tritium, for instance, which is far more radioactive than plutonium (per unit mass). All of us have a tiny amount of tritium in us too. I know this because an average glass of water contains over one billion tritium atoms. Is this a problem? No.

              What about americium-141? It's an alpha emitter like plutonium, but it is significantly more radioactive than most plutonium isotopes, and not much less radioactive than plutonium-238. In fact, it is a decay product of plutonium-241, so if there is any Pu-241 in a guy's testicles then there's surely some Am-141 in there too.

              Most of us have some of this "dangerous substance" (Am-141) in our homes, and worst yet, we brought it into our homes on purpose! It entered inside the smoke detectors that we purchased to warn us in case our houses catch fire.

              Now when Caldicott starts worrying about my smoke detector more than my testicles, I might consider taking her seriously, but until then, I'll just continue to laugh at her. This is just another example of the things that this woman babbles on and on about to scientifically illiterate audiences -- things that are not even wrong, but completely irrelevant.

              by bryfry on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:45:23 AM PDT

              •  Er ...

                Make that americium-241 ... damn typos.

                by bryfry on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:47:33 AM PDT

              •  Smoke detectors

                Here's the passage from Nuclear Madness, where the good doctor discusses Am-241 in smoke detectors:

                In recent years, this deadly material has been used to power tens of millions of ionising smoke detectors, which, if damaged by fire, release this carcinogenic element into the air in powdered form, to be inhaled by unsuspecting people.

                What will happen to these devices? Most often, they end up in local dumps, where the Americium eventually migrates into the soil and future food supplies.

                Many states, including California, require smoke
                detectors in hotels, rental rooms, and apartments. There is no program that requires collection of these extremely dangerous devices. The NRC has specifically excluded Americium-241 from further regulations, so that it is free to be scattered to the four winds.

                I testified in New York City when the NRC was considering using Americium in fire detectors in the late seventies. My discussion was factual and warned of the impending dangers. But they went ahead and used it anyway.
                

                by enochthered on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:51:50 PM PDT

                •  Ah ... I see

                  Well, more clear evidence that Caldicott is nothing more than an irrational, raving Luddite, without any common sense whatsoever.

                  Anyone care to venture what the lives-saved to lives-lost ratio is for Am-241 smoke detectors since the dear Dr. Caldicott so adamantly warned the NRC in the 1970's?

                  By the way, you are becoming quite the Caldicott expert.

                  So perhaps she does believe that there is americium in my testicles. You, Luke, are excluded from this fate, however, since she explicitly states that it is males in the "Northern Hemisphere" have such things in their gonads. I don't know whether this is meant to imply that men from the Southern Hemisphere (for example, Australians and New Zealanders -- she is Australian after all) are somehow superior, because they have radiologically "clean" equipment, or whether this is some sort of dark indication of her fascination with the genitalia of men from the north. ;-)

                  Whatever it is, it's the sure sign of a loony.

                  by bryfry on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 04:03:16 AM PDT

            •  Just one thing...

              
              ...My name isn't Mitch. I'm not sure where you pulled that one from, but don't worry about it, no offence taken or anything.

              Cheers,
                Luke

              by enochthered on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:53:22 PM PDT

              •  I was TRYING to make you anonymous, no

                really! You don't use our name that often so I wanted to respect that. Oops! Sorry. Won't happen again.

                Luke, you need to set up a dairy here on the daily kos 'cuz it's where there is a lot of...action.

                David

                by davidwalters on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:30:33 PM PDT

•  NIH study on coal

  David, could you post the NIH study on coal tht calims so many deaths?

  I'm surprised that the claims of Spitzer, etc, made it through both the civil and political bureaucracy, as there are so many errors. Does someone understand why they were not saved the embarrassment of being so spectacularly wrong?

  by KStreet on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:17:44 AM PDT

  •  KStreet, I will try to find it.

    I saw the 2003 study. I have to go looking for it. In the mean time, here is an article from MSNBC quoting from an EPA (Not NIH) study:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

    Figures are lower, 23,000 deaths. The one I say had over 30,000. These are not 'maybe' or 'what if' deaths, they are happening now. And that is just in this country. It's worse in developing countries.

    I'll try get together a diary that has the deaths listed from various sources of generation (and transport fuel) and we can discuss it.

    David

    by davidwalters on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:53:46 PM PDT

    •  Even more interesting:

      www.cleartheair.org/dirtypower.

      they have an interesting map, which again quotes from the EPA study, that shows the dirtiest states...all of whom burn coal with their resultant deaths and asthma, etc. The shit needs to go. Only nuclear and conservation can do this.

      David

      by davidwalters on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:02:10 PM PDT

    •  Here is one of the studies used by the NIH

      "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/eurtc1.pdf"

      Has fascinating methods for determining coal deaths (and deaths from many sources of generation).

      David Walters

      by davidwalters on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:07:40 PM PDT

    •  The lastest study on coal use from Texas

      This one I hadn't seen before:

      http://cta.policy.net/...

      Premature Mortality from Proposed New Coal-fired Power
      Plants in Texas A research brief by Public Citizen’s Texas Office...

      The 19 coal-fired power plant units studied in this research brief will emit over 100,000 tons of these two pollutants every year. This pollution will cause 240 premature mortalities per year and nearly 12,000 premature mortalities over the expected lifetimes of the plants. As the company with the largest number of new coal units planned, TXU dominates these figures. Pollution from TXU’s proposed new units can be expected to cause 177 premature mortalities per year, and 8,869 premature mortalities over the lifetimes of the units.

      This was the plan CANCELED by TXU this year and substituted with about 4 NPPs...ergo the death threat subsides. Unfortunately, TXU is sill going to build about 6 of these plants so the numbers of actual deaths from coal remain a threat.

      David

      by davidwalters on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:13:47 PM PDT