Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth About Nuclear Power. The nuclear industry seeks to revitalize itself by manipulating the public’s concerns about global warming and energy insecurity to promote nuclear power as a clean and safe way to curb emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce dependence on foreign energy resources. Nuclear Power is Dirty. Each year, enormous quantities of radioactive waste are created during the nuclear fuel process, including 2,0. U. S. More than 5. U. S. Uranium, which must be removed from the ground, is used to fuel nuclear reactors.
The production of 1,0. These uranium tailings have contaminated rivers and lakes. A new method of uranium mining, known as in- situ leaching, does not produce tailings but it does threaten contamination of groundwater water supplies. Serious Safety Concerns.
Despite proponents’ claims that it is safe, the history of nuclear energy is marked by a number of disasters and near disasters. The 1. 98. 6 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine is one of the most frightening examples of the potentially catastrophic consequences of a nuclear accident. In addition to uranium, plutonium can also be used to make a nuclear bomb.
One country that the U. S. The most important subsidy for the nuclear industry and the most expensive for U. S. Taxpayer dollars would be better spent on increasing energy conservation, efficiency and developing renewable energy resources. Wind power already is less expensive than nuclear power.
![PDF Nuclear Power: A Dangerous Waste Of Time PDF Nuclear Power: A Dangerous Waste Of Time](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c2/e1/2d/c2e12da239dddee7b8a5f158bae83883--nuclear-family-nuclear-reactor.jpg)
Call the Capital Switch Board (1- 2. Congressional Representative and your Senators and urge them to oppose subsidies to the dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear industry.(PDF version).
Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Locations and Inventory. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RS2. Dec. Available at: http: //ncseonline. RS2. 20. 01. pdf. General Accounting Office (GAO).
- Radioactive waste management: nuclear power is the only energy-producing technology which takes full responsibility for all its wastes.
- Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy. Chicago time, the nuclear reaction. The nuclear power industry in the U.S.
- Radioactive waste is.
- Highly-toxic and dangerous mixture of. Nuclear Power: A Radioactive Waste of Time.
- Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth about. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Low- Level Radioactive Waste: Disposal Availability Adequate in the Short Term, but Oversight Needed to Identify Any Future Shortfalls. GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U. S. Senate, June 2. Available at: http: //www. World Information Service on Energy (WISE), Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS).
Nuclear power: a dangerous waste of time greenpeace.org. Greenpeace International Nuclear Power: power: a dangerous waste of.
Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change. Nuclear Monitor, Feb. Available at: http: //www. Chornobyl. info. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. A Reevaluation of Cancer Incidence Near the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant: the Collision of Evidence and Assumptions. Environ Health Perspect (1.
NUCLEAR POWER IS A DANGEROUS WASTE OF TIME 2 Nuclear Power is a Dangerous Waste of Time Nuclear power is among the alternative sources of energy that has been.
Behrens B, Holt M. Nuclear Power Plants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack.
Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RS2. Feb. Available at: http: //www. Lyman, Edwin. Chernobyl on the Hudson? The Health and Economic Impacts of a Terrorist Attack at the Indian Point Nuclear Plant.
![PDF Nuclear Power: A Dangerous Waste Of Time PDF Nuclear Power: A Dangerous Waste Of Time](http://www.energybc.ca/images/nuclear/800px-Nuclear_waste_container_2010_nevada.jpg)
Union of Concerned Scientists, 2. Available at: http: //www. Scully Capital Services, Inc. Business Case for New Nuclear Power Plants.
Report prepared for the Department of Energy (DOE), 2. Available at: http: //www. Congressional Budget Office cost estimate of S. Energy Policy Act of 2. PDF Version. Page Updated October 8, 2.
Nuclear power: a dangerous waste of time. Nuclear power: a dangerous waste of time greenpeace. Catalysing an energy revolution. Nuclear power: a dangerous waste of time Introduction The nuclear power industry is attempting to exploit the climate crisis by aggressively promoting nuclear technology as a low- carbon means of generating electricity. Nuclear power claims to be safe, cost- effective and able meet the world s energy needs. But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, nuclear power undermines the real solutions to climate change by diverting urgently needed investments away from clean, renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency.
As this briefing outlines, nuclear power is expensive, dangerous and a threat to global security. And, when it comes to combating climate change, it cannot deliver the necessary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in time; any emissions reductions from nuclear power will be too little, too late and come at far too high a price. This briefing outlines why nuclear power is a woefully inadequate response to the climate crisis and how, in contrast, renewable energy and greater energy efficiency can deliver in time to tackle climate change, without any of the dangers posed by nuclear power. It also explores the key environmental, health and security issues affecting every stage of the nuclear process: the unsolved problem of radioactive waste; the risk of catastrophic accidents; and the dangers posed to global security. As a typical example, the briefing highlights fundamental problems with the very latest generation of nuclear plants known as the European Pressurised Reactor. In defiance of logic, nuclear power has benefited for over half a century from massive financial support in the form of taxpayers money.
Yet it is barely possible to conceive of a more complex and risky way of heating water to produce steam and generate power. It is now time to give priority to simpler, cheaper and more reliable ways of meeting consumer demands for electricity. The unresolved legacy of nuclear power: radioactive materials a continuing threat When atoms are split, a lot of energy is released. Put simply, this is what nuclear energy is. It sounds innocent enough, but nuclear processes produce dangerous radioactive materials. These materials emit radiation that can be very harmful for people and the environment, not only now but also for hundreds of thousands of years to come.
Exposure to radioactivity has been linked to genetic mutations, birth defects, cancer, leukaemia and disorders of the reproductive, immune, cardiovascular and endocrine systems. Commercial nuclear reactors use uranium as fuel. Even before it is ready to be used as fuel, a series of processing steps causes serious environmental contamination (see figure 1). When a uranium atom is split, it produces not only energy but also highly dangerous radioactive waste. On average, uranium ore contains only 0.
The overwhelming majority of the materials extracted during uranium ore mining is waste containing other hazardous radioactive and toxic substances. Most nuclear reactors require one specific form of uranium, uranium- 2. U- 2. 35). This form represents only 0.
To increase the concentration of U- 2. Box 1). Enriched uranium is then put into fuel rods and transported to nuclear reactors where electricity is generated. Nuclear power plant operation transforms uranium fuel into a rich, highly- toxic and dangerous cocktail of radioactive elements, such as plutonium. Plutonium is the manmade element used in nuclear bombs, lethal in minute quantities and dangerous for about 2. In contrast to nuclear power, renewable energy is both clean and safe.
Technically- accessible renewable energy sources are capable of producing six times more energy than current global demand. Greenpeace International Nuclear power: a dangerous waste of time. Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant, Cumbria, UK (c) Greenpeace / Nick Cobbing Figure 1: Greenpeace International Nuclear Power: power: a Greenpeace dangerous waste International of time 3. Box 1: Depleted Uranium (DU) a dangerous by- product of nuclear power Depleted Uranium (DU) is a by- product of uranium enrichment.
Currently a worldwide stock of more than 1. Britain and the United States used it to provide armour for tanks and piercing tips for munitions in the Gulf War. Despite contravening health physics guidelines, the British and American governments waited years before starting to screen soldiers following their exposure to DU. In 2. 00. 4, Gulf War veteran Kenny Duncan won a landmark court case against the British government. After years of repeatedly denying that Duncan s ill- health was the result of exposure to DU, the government was forced to recognise the impacts DU had actually had on his health and award him a war pension.
Duncan s three children, born after his exposure to DU, suffered health problems similar to those experienced by many Iraqi children. These included immune system suppression and deformed toes.
DU continues to be used in arms despite there being no full understanding of its impact on human health and the environment. Hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years Nuclear waste is categorised according to both its level of radioactivity and how long it remains hazardous. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimates that, every year, the nuclear energy industry produces the equivalent of about 1 million barrels (2. Low and Intermediate- Level Waste (LILW) and about 5. High- Level Waste (HLW).
These numbers do not even include spent nuclear fuel, which is a high- level waste too. Low and Intermediate- Level Waste includes parts of dismantled nuclear power plants (concrete, metals), but also disposable protective clothing, plastics, paper, metals, filters and resins. Low- level and intermediate waste remains radioactive for periods ranging from minutes to thousands of years and needs to be maintained under controlled conditions for these durations.
Even so, large volumes of radioactive waste are discharged in the air and the sea every day. Extremely dangerous High- Level Waste includes materials containing highly- radioactive elements. High- level waste can be radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years and emits large amounts of hazardous radiation. Even a couple of minutes of exposure to high- level waste can easily result in fatal doses of radiation.
It therefore needs to be reliably stored for hundreds of thousands of years. Putting this into perspective, humankind has been on Earth for the last 2. The safe and secure storage of the dangerous waste needs to be guaranteed throughout this period, which potentially spans many Ice Ages.
It s no wonder that a solution for dealing with nuclear waste has still not been found. Figure 2: Plutonium is one of the highly radioactive elements in nuclear waste. Used to make nuclear bombs it is also a security risk.
It takes 2. 40,0. Today 4,0. 00 BC 6,0. BC 8,0. 00 BC 1. 0,0. BC First monument at Stonehenge Invention of wheel First settlements in Turkey Introduction of agriculture 4 Greenpeace International Nuclear power: a dangerous waste of time.
Checking levels of radioactive waste at Buryakovka dump, Russia (c) Greenpeace / Clive Shirley No solution to radioactive waste Reprocessing creates even more hazardous waste Some spent nuclear fuel is reprocessed, which means that plutonium and unused uranium are separated out from other waste, with the intention to reuse it in nuclear power plants. A limited number of countries France, Russia and the UK conduct reprocessing on a commercial scale. Consequently, dangerous nuclear waste and separated plutonium are repeatedly transported across oceans and borders and through towns and cities.
However, the term reprocessing is misleading. The process actually leads to more hazardous waste flows. Only part of the radioactive material is recovered and further processed as nuclear fuel; the rest results in large volumes of various types of radioactive waste that is often difficult to store. Nuclear reprocessing plants discharge large volumes of radioactive waste on a daily basis with serious environmental impacts. A study published in 2.
La Hague nuclear reprocessing plant, in northwest France. According to a 1. UK, there was twice as much plutonium in the teeth of young people living close to the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant than in the teeth of those living further away. Reprocessing of nuclear waste endangers our health and does not decrease the radioactive waste problem. It has been estimated that, over the next 4. Rokkasho reprocessing plant, to be started in Japan, will be very large relative to other nuclear operations and will lead to exposure of members of the public to radiation equivalent to half of that released during the Chernobyl catastrophe. See Accidents page 6) Burying the problem?
The nuclear industry wants to bury the problem of radioactive waste by storing it in deep geological repositories. However, not a single one has yet been built. It appears to be impossible to find suitable locations where safety can be guaranteed for the timescales necessary.
Construction of the Yucca Mountain waste site in Nevada, in the United States, began in 1. The US Geological Survey has found a fault line under the planned site 7 and there are serious doubts about the long- term future movements of underground water that can transport deadly contamination into the environment. Proposals for an underground dump in Finland suffer from similar concerns (see Case Study, page 1.
Given the immense difficulties and risks associated with the storage of dangerous nuclear waste, it s not surprising that the nuclear industry tries to dump it out of sight. One such example is Russia during the Soviet era, nuclear facilities were built in closed cities (in, for example, the Urals and Siberia), resulting in a history of nuclear disasters, environmental contamination and public health scandals, all of which were kept secret by the Soviet government.