N
there or technological reason why we can not use nuclear energy safely and effectively ... Japan does, France does and does not emit greenhouse gases, so it would be foolish for us not to do so much more effective.
do not know if these words of Barack Obama, October 2009, and were buried by the serious developments in reactors and containers with spent fuel rods from the nuclear power plant Fukushima I, in northeastern Japan: experts say is the greater loss from Chernobyl, and until recently, similar the Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania -1979 - which, as recalled by the New York Times ,
stopped the nuclear industry.
The nuclear emergency in Japan, a country with a reputation as a model for this technology, confirms, yet again, warnings of physical, medical and ecologists: Barry Commoner, Helen Caldicott and Greenpeace, among others, that nuclear is a expensive and very risky to heat water to generate electricity. It's like using a chainsaw to slice butter, with a high vulnerability for the combination, potentially catastrophic design flaws, human error and natural disasters.
No is only the risk of outbreak of reactors, scientists at Kyoto University require that the publication of information about the intensity of iodine-131 releases, while Robert Alvarez, the Institute for Policy Studies, a former adviser to Bill Clinton, said that a single tank with fuel rods used as the plant in Fukushima, or Diablo Canyon and San Onofre, California, contains more cesium-137 that the total deposited in the northern hemisphere for all atmospheric nuclear tests and that a explosion and could release into the atmosphere, perhaps three to nine times the amount of cesium-137 by the disaster in Chernobyl reactor
.
Andy Robinson advised that if any deposits were left without water, could be imminent catastrophic merger of nuclear waste, something more frightening than the meltdown in the process and nuclear power generation which is placed in deposits are highly radioactive materials such as iodine 237
so it was extremely important that the Council for Nuclear Research of the United States warned that debris from the reactor 4 of Fuku-shima were without water
! ( www.lavanguardia.es ).
How to explain that, despite the global risk and that, until now, no solution to the problem stored for centuries as toxic substances, the White House to reiterate that nuclear energy is part of overall energy plan President
and promote the installation of these plants in countries of high seismic risk such as Chile or Mexico? Is this the fatal inertia peak oil, the political-electoral nuclear lobby, the corporate co-option of the regulator, the
global warming and increased the federal subsidy in the sector, that of 8 billion dollars (billion dollars) in 2009 goes to 18.5 billion dollars and 54.5 billion dollars now? Does this in the midst of a fiscal deficit of 1.5 billions (trillions) of dollars and deep cuts to health services, education and support to the community? or is it because according to Russ Baker, from 2003 senior executives and employees of Exelon, the leading operator of nuclear power plants in the United States, made donations to the campaigns of Obama in the Senate and then to the presidency?
Baker says the executive vice president and director of Exelon raised funds for those campaigns, as the chairman of Exelon, who also runs a school council axis of nuclear power and that David Axelrod, chief political strategist for the White House, were advisory that firm.
any case, the tragedy of Fukushima shows that, as he joked in 2000 Dixie Lee Ray, former head of the Atomic Energy Commission, which brings together the leading companies in the U.S. nuclear energy, "" the issue of waste is no problem largest in history. " (Ibid)
0 comments:
Post a Comment