Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [hreg] Fw: Nuclear Power No Global Warming Answer

Expand Messages
  • Claude Foster
    Please gong this actor.
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 6, 2001
      Please gong this actor.


      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: mike [SMTP:mlandrus@...]
      > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 6:08 AM
      > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [hreg] Fw: Nuclear Power No Global Warming Answer
      >
      > FYI:
      > > Nuclear Power No Global Warming Answer
      > > Source: Boston Globe - Sep 04,2001
      > >
      > >
      > > OP/ED: AMONG THE many departures from the truth by opponents of the
      > Kyoto
      > > protocol, one of the most invidious is that nuclear power is ''clean''
      > and,
      > > therefore, the answer to global warming.
      > >
      > > We heard this during the last round of talks in Bonn, and we can expect
      > to
      > > hear more of the same as we move closer to the next round of Kyoto talks
      > > that are coming up in Marrakesh in October and November.
      > >
      > > However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is nonsense. Not only does it
      > > contaminate the planet with long-lived radioactive waste, it
      > significantly
      > > contributes to global warming.
      > >
      > > While it is claimed that there is little or no fossil fuel used in
      > producing
      > > nuclear power, the reality is that enormous quantities of fossil fuel
      > are
      > > used to mine, mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a nuclear power
      > > plant, as well as to construct the enormous concrete reactor itself.
      > >
      > > Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing
      > one
      > > net calorie of energy. (During the 1970s the United States deployed
      > seven
      > > 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants to enrich its uranium, and it is still
      > > using coal to enrich much of the world's uranium.) So, to recoup the
      > > equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in preparation and
      > construction
      > > before the first switch is thrown to initiate nuclear fission, the plant
      > > must operate for almost two decades.
      > >
      > > But that is not the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear
      > > plants at the end of their 30- to 40-year operating life will require
      > yet
      > > more vast quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by radioactive
      > piece,
      > a
      > > nuclear reactor and its surrounding infrastructure is a massive
      > operation:
      > > Imagine, for example, the amount of petrol, diesel, and electricity that
      > > would be used if the Sydney Opera House were to be dismantled. That's
      > the
      > > scale we're talking about.
      > >
      > > And that is not the end of fossil use because much will also be required
      > for
      > > the final transport and longterm storage of nuclear waste generated by
      > every
      > > reactor.
      > >
      > > >From a medical perspective, nuclear waste threatens global health. The
      > > toxicity of many elements in this radioactive mess is long-lived.
      > >
      > > Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless, odorless, and invisible and
      > remains
      > > radioactive for 600 years. Concentrating in the food chain, it emulates
      > the
      > > mineral calcium. Contaminated milk enters the body, where strontium 90
      > > concentrates in bones and lactating breasts later to cause bone cancer,
      > > leukemia, and breast cancer. Babies and children are 10 to 20 times more
      > > susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults.
      > >
      > > Plutonium, the most significant element in nuclear waste, is so
      > carcinogenic
      > > that hypothetically half a kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in
      > > everyone on Earth.
      > >
      > > Lasting for half a million years, it enters the body through the lungs
      > where
      > > it is known to cause cancer. It mimics iron in the body, migrating to
      > bones,
      > > where it can induce bone cancer or leukemia, and to the liver, where it
      > can
      > > cause primary liver cancer. It crosses the placenta into the embryo and,
      > > like the drug thalidomide, causes gross birth deformities.
      > >
      > > Finally, plutonium has a predilection for the testicles, where it
      > induces
      > > genetic mutations in the sperm of humans and other animals that are
      > passed
      > > on from generation to generation.
      > >
      > > Significantly, five kilos of plutonium is fuel for a nuclear weapon.
      > Thus
      > > far, nuclear power has generated about 1,139 tons of plutonium.
      > >
      > > So, nuclear power adds to global warming, increases the burden of
      > > radioactive materials in the ecosphere and threatens to contribute to
      > > nuclear proliferation. No doubt the Australian government is keen to
      > assist
      > > the uranium industry, but the immorality of its position is
      > unforgivable.
      > >
      > > Dr. Helen Caldicottis founding president of Physicians for Social
      > > Responsibility. This column originally appeared in the Sydney Morning
      > > Herald.
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.