Nuclear Energy

Recommendations

Info

Throughout the world there are around 20 different designs under development for Generation-III and III+ reactors. However, a 2005 Greenpeace study on Nuclear Reactor Hazards by four eminent nuclear experts noted that most of these are “evolutionary” designs that have been developed from Generation II (i.e. current) reactor types with some modifications, but without introducing drastic changes. A typical example is the EPR design: it is simply a slightly modified version of the French N4 and German Konvoi reactors (the two latest Generation II PWRs currently in operation in France and Germany respectively), with some improvements. The study noted that it is doubtful if the modifications which are hailed to be safety improvements will work as claimed. On the contrary, it has several other modifications which actually reduce safety. The study concludes: “All in all, 'Generation III' appears as a heterogeneous collection of different reactor concepts. Some are barely evolved from the current Generation II.” The modifications are primarily aimed at cost-cutting and better economics, although the nuclear industry fallaciously claims that these new designs are safer as compared to currently operating reactors “in the hope of improving public acceptance” of nuclear power (our emphasis). clxix More recently, US and UK regulators reviewing the designs of some of these latest reactors have raised serious concerns about their design (discussed in detail in Chapter 6). Therefore, these latest series of nuclear reactors no more safer than present reactors. On the contrary, they are inherently more dangerous! That is because many of the Generation III reactors are of large designs, of 1000 MW and above, and so they are inherently more dangerous than the present reactors because they have much more radioactivity in their core. For instance, the EPRs being constructed in Finland and France are of 1650 MW, and so, in the event of a serious accident, the impact would be more devastating than Chernobyl – the Chernobyl reactor was of 1000 MW capacity! Therefore, the EPR needs more stringent quality control just to match the safety level of present day reactors; however, as we discuss in detail in Chapter 6, it is doubtful if even present-day safety standards will be met! In an attempt to reduce costs and complete the project on schedule, the nuclear companies constructing these reactors have selected cheap, incompetent subcontractors, and have overlooked safety-related problems!! …................. In her classic work, “Nuclear Power is not the Answer to Global Warming or anything else”, Dr. Helen Caldicott, the pioneering Australian antinuclear activist and pediatrician who co-founded Physicians for Social Responsibility writes: “Statistically speaking, an accidental meltdown is almost a certainty sooner or later in one of the 438 nuclear power plants located in thirty-three countries around the world.” clxx In its greed for profits, the world's nuclear industry is pushing to making her grim foreboding come true sooner than later. 54
Even asssuming that there will not be another Chernobyl, the damage caused by radioactive waste from nuclear plants for our future generations will be no less worse than Chernobyl. In the words of Helen Caldicott again: “Nuclear power produces massive quantities, hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste, which will get into the water, concentrate into the fish, the milk, the food, human breast milk, fetuses, babies, children. Radioactive iodine causes thyroid cancer. Twelve thousand people in Belarus had thyroid cancer. Radioactive Strontium 90 causes bone cancer and leukemia, [it] lasts for 600 years. Cesium 137 - all over Europe now - in the reindeer, in the lands, in the food, lasts for six hundred years, causes brain cancer. Plutonium, the most dangerous substance on Earth, 1 millionth of a gram cause cancer, lasts for 250,000 years. Causes lung cancer, liver cancer, testicular cancer, damages fetuses so they are born deformed. “Therefore, nuclear waste for all future generations will cause cancer in young children because they are very sensitive, [will cause] genetic disease, congenital deformities. Nuclear power is about disease, and it's about death. It will produce the greatest public health hazard the world has ever seen for the rest of time. We must close down every single nuclear reactor in Europe and throughout the world...” (Emphasis ours) clxxi 55
Page 1 and 2:
NUCLEAR ENERGY Technology From Hell
Page 3 and 4: Introduction Part I: Government Pla
Page 5 and 6: yet to find solution to the problem
Page 7 and 8: Mithivirdi: A powerful movement of
Page 9 and 10: eing proposed to be set up in the c
Page 11 and 12: nuclear power plant accident, in ou
Page 13 and 14: was subsequently endorsed by the he
Page 15 and 16: Atoms are so small that they can’
Page 17 and 18: called enriched uranium. [Note that
Page 19 and 20: of a nuclear power reactor. A typic
Page 21 and 22: Coolant: A liquid or gas circulatin
Page 23 and 24: Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor Hea
Page 25 and 26: Is Nuclear Energy Safe? Chapter 3 A
Page 27 and 28: iii. Gamma radiation: This is akin
Page 29 and 30: haematopoietic system). Radiation c
Page 31 and 32: Part III: Radiation Emission in Nuc
Page 33 and 34: The radioactivity from the tailing
Page 35 and 36: power plant contains an amount of l
Page 37 and 38: Tritium is a particularly scary mat
Page 39 and 40: Plutonium cxi Named after Pluto, th
Page 41 and 42: Firstly, reprocessing does not redu
Page 43 and 44: sports and fishing were also banned
Page 45 and 46: detail the impact of these 'once th
Page 47 and 48: We today know for a fact that the n
Page 49 and 50: Till 2005, there were at least 10,0
Page 51 and 52: The report mentions 16 “events”
Page 53: In an article published in The Nati
Page 57 and 58: fossil fuels. It has now come up wi
Page 59 and 60: Opinion of Credit Ratings Agencies
Page 61 and 62: it acknowledged that the expected c
Page 63 and 64: plant owners to use much more of th
Page 65 and 66: was the Vice-President of the USA):
Page 67 and 68: 6. Blithely Ignoring Health Costs S
Page 69 and 70: Is Nuclear Power Green? Chapter 5 S
Page 71 and 72: Energy Balance attempts to make an
Page 73 and 74: nuclear energy as compared to elect
Page 75 and 76: Table 1: Estimates of Total and Nuc
Page 77 and 78: � At the end of 2009, there were
Page 79 and 80: Therefore, despite all the optimism
Page 81 and 82: 1. Reviewing the Nuclear Renaissanc
Page 83 and 84: certification also runs out in 2012
Page 85 and 86: nuclear phase-out plans which are n
Page 87 and 88: lower house (Bundestag) to pass a b
Page 89 and 90: UK and French nuclear safety author
Page 91 and 92: The second and more important reaso
Page 93 and 94: eactor or two, but considering that
Page 95 and 96: Pre-Independence Period India’s N
Page 97 and 98: Secretary to the DAE. The 1958 Reso
Page 99 and 100: The reality has been quite differen
Page 101 and 102: Narora Uttar Pradesh PHWR 220 x 2 4
Page 103 and 104: Background Part III: US-India Agree
Page 105 and 106:
2. New Reactors Even before the Ind
Page 107 and 108:
clearance, indicative of the fact t
Page 109 and 110:
producing electricity from these re
Page 111 and 112:
matters of negotiations”. cdxliii
Page 113 and 114:
arm of Indian big industry, had ext
Page 115 and 116:
India’s Nuclear Installations: Sa
Page 117 and 118:
extremely sensitive material used i
Page 119 and 120:
area due to uranium mining. cdlxxxi
Page 121 and 122:
women complained of fatigue, weakne
Page 123 and 124:
India: World’s most unsafe, most
Page 125 and 126:
the AEC has not instituted an award
Page 127 and 128:
The biggest deficiency in the Rajas
Page 129 and 130:
The bed of the Thane creek, which i
Page 131 and 132:
Fires have also occurred repeatedly
Page 133 and 134:
workers are exposed to radiation, a
Page 135 and 136:
can't catch anything else, and ther
Page 137 and 138:
up in 1971 at Kalpakkam to lead the
Page 139 and 140:
Tulsunde (population 800), Janshipa
Page 141 and 142:
are going to be correspondingly hig
Page 143 and 144:
governing the computers and systems
Page 145 and 146:
guidelines.” It’s unbelievable
Page 147 and 148:
The Sustainable Alternative to Nucl
Page 149 and 150:
especially bad in the rural areas,
Page 151 and 152:
of the human body. In particular, t
Page 153 and 154:
While the costs of large dams are h
Page 155 and 156:
Demand Side Management Potential to
Page 157 and 158:
such absolutely non-essential uses?
Page 159 and 160:
The US has the highest installed wi
Page 161 and 162:
Solar water heaters are a very simp
Page 163 and 164:
Renewable Energies: Poised for a Le
Page 165 and 166:
(iii) Small Hydro Power The governm
Page 167 and 168:
Indian villages are spread over wid
Page 169 and 170:
Energy about the huge potential of
Page 171 and 172:
anticipating a change in NSG rules,
Page 173 and 174:
� Privatise the public sector, in
Page 175 and 176:
countries - recycling rubbish in th
Page 177 and 178:
inflows of foreign capital (also kn
Page 179 and 180:
analyse. We must develop our politi
Page 181 and 182:
xxvii I. Semendeferi, “Legitimati
Page 183 and 184:
lxxxvii Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jam
Page 185 and 186:
cliii The IAEA maintains an interna
Page 187 and 188:
cciv Mycle Schneider, et al., “Th
Page 189 and 190:
cclxxi “Nuclear power: a dangerou
Page 191 and 192:
cccxxxv “The postponement of the
Page 193 and 194:
cdi “Uranium imports boost Indian
Page 195 and 196:
cdlxix Dhirendra Sharma, India’s
Page 197 and 198:
dxxxviii “Nuclear power in India
Page 199 and 200:
dxciii M. V. Ramana, ibid. dxciv Mu
Page 201 and 202:
dclix Union of Concerned Scientists
show all

Nuclear Energy

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?