More Bad News From Fukushima

More bad news coming out of the severely crippled Fukushima nuclear plant.

TOKYO — About 100 tons of highly radioactive water leaked from one of the hundreds of storage tanks at the devastated Fukushima nuclear plant, its operator said Thursday, calling the leak the worst spill at the plant in six months. ( NY Times )

Related news:

Study claims USS Reagan crew exposed to extremely high levels of radiation near Fukushima

Iodine-131 Levels Reach New High Near Fukushima Plant

Japan says Fukushima plant to be scrapped : Levels of the radioactive isotope Iodine-131, in the surrounding waters near the Fukushima plant, have risen to a new high of 4,385 times the legal level.

Japan's Nuclear Crisis at Maxium Alert

Plutonium has been found in the soil surrounding Japan's Fukushima nuclear complex putting the country on 'maximum alert'. Plutonium is one of the most dangerous substances on the planet and highly carcinogenic. Officials from Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency stated that the levels found were low and of no risk to human health. Evidence of plutonium means a partial meltdown has already occurred.

Plutonium Found Leaking Out Of Japan Nuclear Plant

Great News!!! We're Getting More Nuclear Plants!!

I'm not serious about the headline but the reality is the Obama administration is planning to offer loan guarantees to fund the construction of nuclear plants.  If the plants are going to be such a boon and savior why do they need the guarantees?  Probably because they are only able to get funding if the federal government guranatees it.  I'm sure there exists a minimum price that consumers will pay for the power too.  To make the deal even sweeter the government will find a cheap/free way for the companies to get rid of the waste.  What an awesome deal for the taxpayer.  We subsidize the construction, guarantee a minimum return, take out the garbage and let somebody else enjoy the profit. 

The problem lies in the business as usual approach to policy that supports private profits and shifts all the risk to the public.  It seems like nothing can be done without a government guarantee or subsidy.  If that is the case maybe we need to revisit the "free market" concept and decide if we want it free or just pretend.

U.S. Electricity Mix

The source of electricity across the U.S. vary greatly. If a minimum standard for renewable sources is to be set we need to examine what is currently on line. Check out the map and dataset available at ManyEyes and see where your state fits. Biggest surprise to me was Vermont with 72% nuclear. Maybe it has one plant and has a low total generation that skews the number a bit.

Are You Living Close to a Nuclear Site?

You may be living near a nuclear site and may not really know what it does. As part of compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency the U.S. has to file a report about civilian nuclear sites. The Federation of American Scientists has a copy of the report. There is some debate as to the sensitivity of the report and whether it was meant for public release. However, if you live near one you may find out more about it and if you don't know you may find out that a site is closer than you think.

It is important for people to know what is in their backyard. I think once people realize the extent of the nuclear sites they may begin to wonder whether nuclear power is really an option. I'm sure if given the choice people would vote for renewables and conservation over nuclear.

Nuclear Stimulus

As this "stimulus" bill drags on it becomes more like a giant spending bill with special projects. Here is an example of the backlash being triggered.

SpeakUp Now Against Another Bailout: Exclude Nuclear from Economic Stimulus Package The US Senate is currently debating the economic stimulus package. Spending money wisely to create jobs that will come online quickly should be the sole criterion for allocating this money. But when it comes to nuclear power plants, it’s expensive money. Too expensive. Tell your Senator to EXCLUDE NUCLEAR from the stimulus package.
Exelon Needs Tax-payer Money A new provision slipped into the economic stimulus bill could allow up to $50 billion more in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for the construction of new nuclear reactors, including Exelon’s proposed project in Victoria County. This Exelon project is voracious. It eats tax dollars and guzzles all our water. How much? According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, it costs about $1.5 million per job created by nuclear power. That’s a lot of money to create one job. You and I will be paying that bill if the nuclear industry receives this bailout. Is this the best use of money to create jobs in Victoria? One job at the Exelon nuclear plant will consume 34 million gallons of water per year. In stark contrast, at VISD, Victoria’s largest employer, one job consumes just seven gallons of water.	1. Contact Your Senator SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON 202-224-5922 Click here to contact Senator Hutchison. SENATOR JOHN CORNYN 202-224-2934 Click here to contact Senator Cornyn 2. Sign our online petition.
Take Action Now Please call or write your senators and tell them to be sure to exclude nuclear energy from the stimulus package. If you were to get your friends, co-workers, and neighbors to write their senators that would really help, too. Here are some talking points: Nuclear jobs in Victoria County are wasteful of precious taxpayer dollars. Nuclear jobs in Victoria County come at the expense of the last remaining water in the Guadalupe River Basin—this is the wrong place. The Nuclear Industry Institute admits it takes $1.5 million dollars to create one job in the nuclear industry. Allowing the nuclear industry to access stimulus money won’t create jobs in Victoria County for many years. Wall Street will not fund new nuclear plants because the economics don’t make sense. Why should taxpayers? Nuclear is too expensive for Victoria. Thank you for speaking up.

This is from the TSEPA, a group of citizens concerned about a nuclear plant in their area. Take some time and support them by writing your Senator and Representative.

The Next Generation

Power generation is a vital component to our economy. We cannot address many environmental issues without addressing the generation mix. Finally, electrical infrastructure is need of replacement in many parts of North America. What's next?

In my opinion, nuclear is not the answer. A recent report highlights that many nuclear projects are not viable commercially unless they have government support. I realize that these days nothing looks viable without government support but many critics of alternative/renewable energy say that without tax credits they are not competitive. Neither is nuclear. The only one that is cost-effective is coal but that will only last until emissions are priced in cap-and-trade system.

Conservation is the key to all of it. Using less energy is the best way to relieve capacity constraints on generation. After that renewable energy needs to be combined with a distributed generation network. Until those elements are seriously considered little will change.

Citizens Protest Nuclear Water Pollution

John McCain on Nuclear Waste

He is a big supporter of nuclear energy just not a fan of the waste traveling through his home state. Are you surprised?

Nuclear Radiation in Your Backyard

The Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southeastern Washington state was used in making plutonium for one of the nuclear bombs used on Japan in WWII. As with other nuclear facilities, releases of radioactive elements into the surrounding environment occured. In a project dubbed Green Run, the facility also tested the effects of radiation on humans by deliberately releasing radioactive elements into the local environment. Apparently, it was done to test the ability of military equipment to detect Soviet plutonium facilities. The Washington State Department of Health has a lot of good background information on the facility.

There are many nuclear facilities around the United States that are military and non-military use. Countless reports of contamination and accidents have shown that nuclear power and weapons production are not safe. Now the nuclear power industry is coming back as an alternative source of power generation. Nuclear weapons are not going anywhere as more and more countries seem to be developing them. Somebody has to take the first step in stopping nuclear power development and the non-proliferation treaties need greater enforcement. It took 40 years for the people near Hanford to find out what was happening. What about other countries that do not have Freedom of Information requests or corrupt governments? We may never find out what is happening half way around the world and could contaminate the entire planet until it is too late.

U.S. - India nuclear deal may collapse

The current governing coalition in India may collapse due to a pending nuclear technology deal with the United States. Part of the coalition feels that a deal with the U.S. will jeopardize the country's foreign policy independence. Supporters of the deal say that nuclear fuel and other technology will provide much needed electricity to India's growing economy. Both sound like valid reasons.

India has one problem that is hampering current economic growth. Infrastructure; roads, bridges, ports and electrical grids, are needed in many areas of the country. Nuclear fuel and power plants would help, right? I'm sure they would but what about an alternative model.

China, India and other countries who are developing there economies are, in my opinion, pursuing a development model based on the United States. While the United States is an excellent example of how a dynamic economy can build a nation it has also demonstrated the costs associated with that economy. Countries that are developing could build distributed generation models using renewable energy sources. Developing a consumer economy that does not rely on waste would help build a successful country with all the comforts of life in the U.S. without the negative environmental consequences.

I can understand the desire of people around the world to enjoy life but we all need to change the relationship between ourselves, the economy and the environment.

Will alternative energy gain ground?

Alternative and renewable energy sources are slowly gaining ground. However, the current framework, regulatory or otherwise, is not ready to adapt. A story from a few months ago reported on how a man from Illinois was fined for using biodiesel that he did not pay tax on. Another recent story about our savior, nuclear power. The TVA had to shut down a nuclear plant because the river temperature was too high to cool the reactor. I guess we should have built a bunch of nuclear plants 30 years ago to reduce the chance of global warming.

Just like the internet has "changed everything" alternative and renewable energy sources will do the same. To do so, we have to plan ahead and change to ensure that it will be feasible and competitive. Combined with conservation and eliminating wasteful habits we can find ways to have these energy sources as a regular part of our daily live.

Recycling gone awry

I have written about nuclear power many times and I am not a supporter. Primarily, my objections surround the nuclear waste issue. Nuclear waste has been, and still is, used in making arms. Depleted Uranium (DU) is used to make weapons and armor as it has a higher density than lead. While this may be considered recycling the damage caused to human life is beyond belief. Dr. Helen Caldicott has written about this and the facts behind DU are frightening. I also found an old article about DU and how it was used in the Gulf War 1 and Kosovo.

Nuclear power and it's byproducts are too dangerous to justify any expansion. If you find it being proposed in your area be informed before deciding to support it.

A New Generation

First, I'd like to apologize for dropping off. I was out of town and forgot my laptop. Now let's get back to business.

I'm not a supporter of nuclear energy. I feel the risks are too great and I think it is too expensive. I think the electrical supply system should move to a distributed generation model. Similar to how the internet has given everyone, even me, a way to create content. With distributed generation, every home, for example, has solar panels and/or a small wind turbine. Everything is tied to the grid and power is spread around where it needs to go. Power plants will still be necessary but combining this distributed model with conservation could eliminate the need for nuclear plants. If each home can generate half of it's own electricity use plus cut consumption the need for new plants could disappear. Some techniques/technology for supply management would need to be implemented to compensate for the intermittent nature of solar and wind but I think it is achievable. What about costs? I think per kw solar may be 10 times more expensive then nuclear on pure capital outlay. However, lifetime costs for waste management related to the toxic waste generated by nuclear power and operating costs probably level the playing field. I'll be honest and say I haven't looked extensively at it because there is a lot of number crunching involved and I'm sure a think tank has done it somewhere. I did find a nuclear vs coal comparison that shows some of the costs associated with nuclear. I look forward to the day that electricity is generated in a distributed model. Taxpayers have subsidized a significant amount of the infrastructure so we should use it. Transmission costs and that infrastructure will still need to be supported in some manner. A complex issue but we really have to start looking at all the options so we can come up with positive solutions.

What's in your water?

Since 1996 the nuclear plant in Braidwood, Illinois has experienced several leaks of tritium laced water. Unfortunately the residents did not know about this and have been drinking radioactive water for at least 10 years. In March of 2006 the Illinois Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Exelon which owns the nuclear facility after they acknowledged the spills.

Here are several links to additional information:

Illinois Files Suit

Illinois Obtains Injunction

EPA Illinois Updates

Newshour Report with Video

Good Background Story

The basic premise behind the story is that the company did not adequately disclose the spills and the residents drank the water without knowing it was radioactive. To say exposure to radiation is not healthy would be an understatement. It is likely impossible to determine the health impacts on the residents now and the "incubation" period for cancer is not exactly known. Radiation exposure may cause cancer on a shorter timetable or exacerbate preexisting conditions. There may be increasing cancer rates and other rare diseases right now as a result. Other effects on the citizens may be longer term in the form of damaged DNA, genetic disorders in future generations or who knows what else.

Another spill occurred May 25, 2007. When will it end? How many more times do people need to be unwittingly exposed to pollution/radiation until something is done? Nuclear energy is not a safe alternative and it becomes even deadlier when secrecy and profits are put ahead of public safety. Please don't forget about the people of Braidwood or the dozens of other communities who live near these facilities. Pressure your elected officials for full disclosure and rigid enforcement of regulations in place to ensure that public safety is the most important consideration.

The Nuclear Answer?

There have been important developments in nuclear energy recently. President Bush touted nuclear energy as part of plan to reduce emissions in response to climate change. In Canada, the federal government recently agreed to support a plan to bury nuclear waste as nuclear energy is being proposed as a solution to meet electricity needs . A major criticism of nuclear energy has been the waste disposal issue and with a plan the nuclear industry hopes to provide a solution.

There will be lots of money to be made in constructing new plants and handling the waste. This will happen unless awareness is raised about the dangers of nuclear energy, no mater how much they are downplayed. Nobody wants to live near one, nuclear accidents are deadly, and the waste is deadly. I've written about nuclear issues before.

Also in the news, Greenpeace released a report (PDF) about tritium hazards associated with Canadian nuclear plant operations and recommended pregnant women and children to move at least 10 km (about 6 miles) away from any nuclear power facility. Most current information rates tritium as "mildly radioactive type of hydrogen that occurs both naturally and during the operation of nuclear power plants." According to the Greenpeace report this risk is underrated.

Page 8 of their report states the following:

"Like most radionuclides, tritium is a carcinogen, mutagen and teratogen. Many scientists have expressed concerns about tritium’s radiotoxicity. However, some radiation authorities continue to assert, rather misleadingly, that tritium is a “weak” radionuclide because the energy of its decay particle is very low. However, paradoxically, in radiation biology the weaker a particle the more effective it becomes. Unfortunately this remains unrecognised in official circles and tritium’s official dose factor (i.e., the dose given by the disintegration of one atom of tritium) is currently very small. Indeed, it is the lowest among common radionuclides by some margin."

Basically, regulators and nuclear plant operators deem the risk to be low while, scientifically, the risk may be much higher. Regardless, would you drink the tritiated water released from nuclear power plants? In Braidwood, Illinois the residents have been doing just that without knowing it. I'll have a story about that tomorrow.

Nuclear technology

I've been reading a book titled The New Nuclear Danger by Dr. Helen Caldicott. It is an eyeopener to say the least. It primarily focuses on nuclear weapons and their development but it makes you think with so many other facts and points made. I'm not going to do a book review here but it is a good read. I have seen it in the discount racks as a new version was released in 2004. I'm reading the 2002 version, which seems dated with all that has gone on militarily in the world, but it is still timely. The Bush administration is obviously chastised here but the book also reflects on the Clinton administration's inability and unwillingness to change the nuclear weapons policy of the U.S.

The environmental impacts of nuclear technology are astounding. The waste generated from nuclear plants and weapons production is astounding and the environmental damage and health effects are widespread. To further compound the problem, depleted uranium is then used in other "conventional" weapons that create additional pollution and health hazards.

Is nuclear energy the answer to the climate change problem and our electricity shortage? I doubt it. The dual use potential of the technology combined with our current inability to handle the waste safely makes it far too dangerous.

Old habits die hard

Bush is at it again with more crazy policies. Read the article on Treehugger about nuclear testing and rebuilding the nuclear arsenal. If you are living in the US please send a letter opposing this development through a campaign conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

I don't get it. Iran is prohibited from developing a nuclear weapons program and then the US is rebuilding its arsenal. It just doesn't make sense and will not help in eliminating nuclear weapons and the environmental damage caused by their development.

Nuclearization of Asia

Two interesting developments surrounding nuclear energy have emerged in recent days.

The United States and India have signed a deal on exchanging nuclear energy technology and supply arrangements.

In a related story, Westinghouse secured a nuclear reactor deal with China.

Why is this interesting? The weapons proliferation aspect is particularly important especially since China will share some technology with Pakistan. The implications are interesting here as the US supplies India and China and China supplies Pakistan. The region is already tense and I'm afraid this creates additional risk.

Environmentally, nuclear power may not be the green alternative it is purported to be. The Pembina Institute has published a study that

"examines the environmental impacts of the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation in Canada through each of the four major stages of nuclear energy production: uranium mining and milling; uranium refining, conversion and fuel fabrication; nuclear power plant operation; and waste fuel management."

Do we as global citizens want nuclear energy spreading around the world?

Read these posts at GATE about China (numerous posts in the December archive) and India's environmental contributions. Finally,a post titled "Nuclear War and Climate Change" should make you feel even more warm and fuzzy.