Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“Yucca Mountain probably won’t last 50 years, let alone 10,000 years.”

-Center for Health, Environment and Justice

This isn’t even unfounded speculation; it’s just wrong. Above-ground storage casks sitting out in the rain last more than 50 years; a stronger one underground in the desert definitely would last much longer.

Don’t get tripped up on the big numbers. It’s physics and geology.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Waste

Posted on December 31, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“In the absence of a solution for what to do with nuclear waste, the NRC and DOE are trying to fool the public into believing they have an answer. With so-called low-level waste, the NRC has proposed classifying certain levels of radioactivity as “below regulatory concern” (BRC). This means that any waste with less than the selected levels of radioactivity (the numbers have not yet been set), could be disposed of in the nearest landfill, incinerator, water way or even sewer.”

-Center for Health, Environment and Justice

Yes, things like coffee grounds and orange juice, both of which are radioactive and both of which would be considered low-level waste if they were artificially mixed with uranium and potassium traces, respectively, instead of naturally mixed. What’s the difference?

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Politics and Regulation, Waste

Posted on December 30, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“What happens to the nuclear waste generated by the plant and to the radioactive equipment? Right now, it all stays right there on site. There is nowhere to take it.”

-Center for Health, Environment and Justice

Radioactive equipment is only a small part of each nuclear power plant, and in the past, it has been taken to Barnwell, South Carolina, or Hanford. Nuclear waste is only 3%-5% of the spent fuel stored on site, and in at least one case (Big Rock Point), the spent fuel was transferred to a nearby operating plant.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Waste

Posted on December 28, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“Although the NRC issues licenses to power plants to operate for 40 years, they were never built to last this long. The average operating life of the 20 or so reactors that have been shut down has been around 13 years.”

-Center for Health, Environment and Justice

A classic case of statistical fiddling.
1. The plants were built to last that long; some components were not, and were designed to be replaced.
2. If you average Zion (1973-1998), or Dresden 1 (1960-1978), or Connecticut Yankee (1968-1996), or Maine Yankee (1972-1996), or Shippingport (1957-1982), or Yankee Rowe (1960-1992), or Big Rock Point (1962-1997), or La Crosse (1967-1983), or Millstone 1 (1970-1995), or San Onofre (1968-1992) with experimental reactors that weren’t designed for 40-year lifetimes like Saxton (1961-1972), or the CVTR (1963-1966), or Elk River (1964-1968), or Piqua (1963-1966), or Hallam (1958-1963), or Humboldt Bay (1963-1976), or Pathfinder (1964-1967), or Vallecitos (1957-1963), or Peach Bottom 1 (1967-1974) with ships (NS Savannah: 1962-1970), with military reactors (Hanford N), with plants that shut down due to accidents (Fermi 1: 1963-1972 and Three Mile Island 2: 1979), with plants that didn’t run at all because of political pressure (Shoreham) or were shut down early because of political pressure (Rancho Seco: 1975-1989), and with ones that had legitimate technical problems like Fort St. Vrain (1976-1989), or Indian Point 1 (1962-1974), or Trojan (1975-1992), yes, it could very well be 13 (Why didn’t they throw the IFR in there too? It generated some electricity, after all). But that number doesn’t mean anything by itself–each plant has different circumstances.
3. How was that average worked out? I suspect that it was taken by adding up the years that each plant operated and dividing by the number of plants instead of using the amount of electricity produced by the plants, which would lead to a lower number than you would otherwise get if you do include prototypes, since operational plants are bigger than test reactors.
4. What about the ones that haven’t shut down yet? Why aren’t those included? What about Oyster Creek, which is beginning its 38th year of operation? They’re deliberately including only the plants that (a) weren’t supposed to last that long, (b) had accidents, (c) had problems, or (d) were shut down by politicians, and extrapolating that figure to every operating nuclear power plant and every one that could possibly be built in the future. Operationally, that statistic is meaningless.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Fun With Statistics, Industry Performance

Posted on December 28, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“The basic problem with nuclear waste is that no one knows what to do with it. There’s no way to destroy or detoxify it like you can with some chemical waste.”

-Center for Health, Environment and Justice

Yes, there is; it’s called a fast-spectrum nuclear reactor.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Fuel Cycle, Waste

Posted on December 27, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 2 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“A half century of testing has contaminated vast reaches of the planet, and has resulted in millions of premature deaths by causing birth defects, cancer, and other diseases.”

-Western States Legal Foundation

So where are these millions of dead people? Where are all the people with excess body burdens of radioactive material?

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Environment, Health, Proliferation

Posted on December 26, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Happy Holidays from NIOF


Filed under Site

Posted on December 25, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

NIOF.org Update #51

1. The buttons on the sidebar are now separated into two sections: News Feeds and Site Stuff. I hope this makes it a little less confusing to navigate.
2. The Humor Index has been updated to include the 12 Years of Reactor Licensing. The “Special Pieces” section is now in alphabetical order.
3. The Go Nuclear Jr. Ringer T-Shirt is back, and the Go Nuclear Postage Pal, single Go Nuclear mini buttons, and single Go Nuclear rectangle magnets are back in stock, although the 10 and 100 packs of Go Nuclear mini buttons and 10 and 100 packs of Go Nuclear rectangle magnets aren’t available yet.
4. I’ve corrected the newsletter index; code that is being distributed to other sites should not refer to “our newsletter” instead of “the NIOF newsletter.”

Filed under Activism, Humor, Site

Posted on December 25, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“Instead of promoting conservation and modern energy technologies that are clean and inexpensive to build, the [Canadian] government is betting our future on risky and expensive nuclear power, and polluting coal power.”

-Energy Probe

1. Conservation is to energy as starvation is to food. We pay for conservation by not being able to do things that we used to be able to do.
2. What, may I ask, is more modern than nuclear power? Unless they’re talking about backyard fusion devices that produce less energy than they consume, there hasn’t been a single energy source discovered since nuclear fission.
3. Marine life killed by toxic discharges from solar panel factories and birds killed by windmills might argue with “clean.” And, to quote Sybil Fawlty, “the reason it’s cheap-ish is it’s no bloody good!”
4. Inexpensive to build doesn’t necessarily mean inexpensive. In the US, a utility billing structure that doesn’t allow construction costs to be passed on but does allow fuel costs to be passed on results in utilities building cheap plants that run on expensive fuel–and the result is high costs.
5. I’m glad they’ve finally admitted that nuclear power is clean.
6. Canada is phasing out coal.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Economics, Energy, Environment

Posted on December 25, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 1 Comment »

Bookmark and Share
Nuclear Advocacy Webring
Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Get Your Free Web Ring
by Bravenet.com
taking viagra woman; Order Viagra Cheap gerneric viagra cheap herbal herbal viagra viagra viagra 576.