Obama's Nuclear Giveaway

[SHRED]

Buried in the budget is a plan to underwrite the nuclear industry’s revival.

— By Kate SheppardThu Feb. 4, 2010 3:00 AM PST

In September 2007, the city of San Antonio and NRG Energy announced a partnership to build two new nuclear reactors—the first new nuclear project to be initiated in the United States in decades. The project represented, one of the partners promised, "a milestone for our long-term energy future."

The project, initially estimated to cost $5.8 billion, quickly became a leading candidate for a Department of Energy (DOE) program in which the government would guarantee loans to finance new nuclear plants. In less than a year, however, the plant's projected cost had more than doubled to $13 billion. By April 2009, an independent report had calculated that the real cost of the plant could be as high as $22 billion. In December, San Antonio's municipal utility, CPS, announced it was bailing out of the venture entirely and suing NRG, arguing that NRG and Toshiba—which was contracted to construct the reactors—had lied about the price tag of the venture.

After this debacle, one would think the government would be wary about underwriting projects with such dicey finances. Yet the Obama administration's 2011 budget proposes tripling the loan guarantee program—from the $18.5 billion that Congress has already approved to $54.5 billion. The program's expansion is just one of several signs that the Obama administration is throwing its muscle behind the nuclear industry's push for a massive expansion.

http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/02/obamas-nuclear-giveaway

Have you just about had enough?



:argh:

[GliderGuider]

1. Huh? What's wrong with nuclear power?

:hide:

[SHRED]

2. sarcasm noted

[Kalun D]

8. One Word

Chernobyl

300,000 to 400,000 dead and counting

150 mile radius uninhabitable for 600 to 900 years.

[GliderGuider]

9. I agree - Chernobyl proved that nuclear power is ineffective as a population control measure.

Chernobyl was a shocking waste of resources! With all that money spent on technology, we only got a reduction of 300,000 people. I'm glad we're sticking to fossil fuels. That gives us a much better chance of achieving a long-term drop in world population, and at a much lower cost per death.

[FBaggins]

10. Within 75-80 years...

...almost every single person who lived within 100 miles of Chernobyl will be dead.

Such stunning casualty counts must be prevented!

I've heard that even reading the word Chernobyl has been shown to result in death within 50 years for a high proportion of readers.

[Kalun D]

11. Move to Chernobyl Then

If it's so great

Like the lawyers for Dow chemical and agent orange.

Agent Orange couldn't have caused these problems.

Well then we'll bring a 55 gallon drum of agent orange into the courtroom and you can take a dunk in it.

[FBaggins]

12. What a ridiculous response

I correct the wildly incorrect notion that hundreds of thousands of people died and that means that I'm saying it's perfectly safe?

It's as if you claimed that the subway crash in DC last year killed 850 people (instead of 9) and was proof that nobody should ever ride a train again... and I pointed out how ridiculous you sounded (you did)... and you replied with "why don't you go stand in front of a train then!"

As if that makes you look LESS ridiculous?

[Kalun D]

15. Facts

the ridiculous response is that just a few people died at Chernobyl

like what is the "official" count? around 50, sure whatever you want to think...

It's pretty easy to calculate how many got a lethal dose just by proximity and duration

the official toll is absolutely ridiculous.

But hey it's what the people pushing nuclear want to hear, so it must be right ehh?

[FBaggins]

18. I never said it was 50.

Merely that 300,000 plus is ridiculous.

And it is.

[Kalun D]

19. Link

Read the link I gave and tell me why the number is wrong

merely making the statement doesn't do jack

and let's see your link of what you think the toll is

cuz all I've ever seen is 50 and 300,000-400,000.

[Nederland]

20. I read the link

Your link is to a photo-journalist's site. The only reference I could find to 300,000 people dying was this line:

How many people died of radiation? No one knows - not even approximately. The officials still keep the death toll at around 30 people, while unofficial sources already put the figure of 300,000 and sometimes over 400,000.

I wonder what she means by "unofficial sources". I wonder why you believe the "unofficial sources" are correct and the "official sources" are wrong.

As far as I am aware, there have been three serious reports on the disaster:

1) The Chernobyl Forum, a collection of organizations from various governments and the UN, produced a report which said there were 57 direct deaths, and 4000 "predicted deaths" from thyroid cancer. The Chernobyl Forum later revised those numbers downward.

2) The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) produced a report that argued that as of 2006 more than 10,000 people were affected by thyroid cancer and 50,000 cases are expected in the future.

3) Greenpeace released a report which predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl.

Of the three, the Greenpeace report is the one that is almost universally dismissed by experts. They point out that the report assumes that every single cancer case in the area that exceeded the pre-disaster cancer rate was caused by Chernobyl. This is a ridiculous assumption because it is a known fact that there was an increase in cancer rates that followed the dissolution of the USSR's health system. An intelligent measurement of the deaths caused by the accident would at least try to factor this out. Moreover, it is difficult to see how you can get to 93,000 deaths from only 270,000 cancers given that the vast majority of the cancers would be thyroid cancer which has a 30 year survival rate of 92%.

So where does that leave us? If you dismiss the Greenpeace report as inaccurate, you can choose between a report written by an organization that explicitly opposes nuclear power and one written by governments and organizations of which some have a vested interest in downplaying the effects. In my opinion, nobody can claim to be the author of an unbiased report. Regardless, none of these reports, not even the widely dismissed Greenpeace report, says that 300,000 people have died from the accident.

Most of this info can be gleaned from the Wikipedia page on the disaster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

[Kalun D]

21. Lukashenko

Lukashenko said it was okay to re-inhabit some of the areas in Belorus, why don't you go live there?

Seriously, go by the IAEA's estimate of what's safe and go live there to prove it.

It's exactly the same as agent orange, all the paid for scientists and lawyers saying it's safe. PROVE IT.

that's the main thing wrong with nuclear power, the waste, it's the worst garbage ever produced by man, it lasts for 1000's of years and countries/governments just don't last that long. What happens to that "safe" storage after the government is gone? Well you can be damn sure that the nuclear power companies and THE PEOPLE THAT SHILL FOR THEM don't give a damn.

"Your link is to a photo-journalist's site."

you didn't look close then, it's about 1/4 text. So going by that your opinion is suspect because you can't even properly examine evidence. Her father is a nuclear physicist and there's a lot of facts on her pages including discussions with some of the clean-up workers and officials on site.

apparently the Geiger counters were off the scale for the 2 days that they left the 50,000 residents in Pripyat. Additionally there were about 500,000 workers involved in the clean up and containment.

""Of the three, the Greenpeace report is the one that is almost universally dismissed by experts.""

I bet, dismissed by the experts that said only 50 died no doubt.

so you have 3 numbers and you dismiss the one that claims the most and credit the one in the middle and the one that claims the least?

Well of course you do, you're biased.

""10,000 people were affected by thyroid cancer""

then thyroid is the only type of cancer from radiation?

""not even the widely dismissed Greenpeace report, says that 300,000 people have died from the accident.""

I'll have to ask Elena where she got the number, she has been around ground zero after all.

[FBaggins]

25. Some simple replies -

""10,000 people were affected by thyroid cancer""

then thyroid is the only type of cancer from radiation?

"Radiation" is not a blanket event that has homogeneous effects. There are different types of radiation and different ways of coming in contact with it. Take alpha particles. You can be quite close to a high level of alpha particle radiation and be just fine... because they generally can't get past the outer (already dead) layers of your skin. But if you ingest those particles, they can be a problem.

But even ingesting radioactive material (which we do all the time) isn't necessarily a big problem because you get rid of most of what you ingest. It's only in your body for a short time, so the damage is limited if you don't continually ingest more of whatever the substance was.

In the case of radioactive iodine (part of the chernobyl event), however, there is a problem. Your thyroid absorbs iodine in your diet (it needs it to produce the hormones that it is responsible for) and it can't tell the difference between normal and radioactive iodine. So if you ingest some of that you don't get rid of it a day or two later... it stays in your thyroid. Some is not always a problem (we actually use the stuff to combat some types of thyroid cancer after they have been removed), but lots of it (and there's little doubt that many locals got lots of it) can cause thyroid cancer.

"Your link is to a photo-journalist's site."

you didn't look close then, it's about 1/4 text. So going by that your opinion is suspect because you can't even properly examine evidence.

Which doesn't change the fact that it's a photo-journalist's site. Your claim (as with the others) makes zero sense.

Her father is a nuclear physicist

So she's genetically predisposed to understanding the science?

Additionally there were about 500,000 workers involved in the clean up and containment.

I hadn't read that before (on edit - it looks like the number is close to twice that high), but if true that would be very good news. Do you know why?

so you have 3 numbers and you dismiss the one that claims the most and credit the one in the middle and the one that claims the least?

No, (s)he "dismissed" the one that was recognizably faulty. They compared cancer deaths before a certain period to cancer deaths after that period and assumed that there was only one cause (chernobyl) for all additional deaths... without accounting for the fact that cancer deaths had gone up substantially all across a larger area that was unaffected by chernobyl (but had other identifiable causes like poor medical care). The better assessment would have been to assume that local cancer deaths would increase at about the rate they had nationwide and then compare THAT to the number of cancer deaths in the population closest to the incident.

But the argument wasn't to entirely dismiss Greenpeace, it was to say that their estimate was recognizably high and therefore set an upper threshold on any rational assessment of cancer deaths. An upper threshold that is almost certainly way too high. So a much higher (300-400k) figure is not supportable.


I'll have to ask Elena where she got the number, she has been around ground zero after all.


Another ridiculous statement (much like others that she makes on her site). I've been to Niagara Falls. I even took pictures. Will you now trust my estimate of how much water passes a given point every hour just because I've been there?

Hint - If you have to ask her where she got the number... then you shouldn't tell anyone ELSE that "merely making the statement doesn't do jack"

[Nederland]

26. A simple question

Would you agree with my assessment that nobody can claim to be the author of an unbiased report?

[bananas]

24. I don't know her source, but several assessments place it in the hundreds of thousands

I don't know her source, but here are some other sources.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x222557

New book on Chernobyl from New York Academy of Science

<snip>

This volume, written by leading authorities from Eastern Europe, outlines the history of the health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. Although there has been much discussion concerning the impacts of nuclear accidents, and Chernobyl in particular, never before has there been a comprehensive presentation of all the available information concerning the health and environmental effects of the low dose radioactive contaminants that were emitted from the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. The official discussions emanating from the IAEA and associated UN agencies (e.g. the Chernobyl Forum reports) have largely downplayed or ignored many of the findings reported in the Eastern European scientific literature and as a consequence these reports have erred on the side of negative findings simply because much of what was known was not included in their assessments. This new book provides a complete and extensive summary of all known research, including that published in Russian and Ukrainian, and provides new insights to the likely long term health and environmental consequences of nuclear accidents.

An article in the Guardian:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x225460

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/10/chernobyl-nuclear-deaths-cancers-dispute

Chernobyl nuclear accident: figures for deaths and cancers still in dispute

<snip>

But other reputable scientists researching the most radiation-contaminated areas of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are not convinced. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus.

Meanwhile, the Belarus national academy of sciences estimates 93,000 deaths so far and 270,000 cancers, and the Ukrainian national commission for radiation protection calculates 500,000 deaths so far.

The mismatches in figures arise because there have been no comprehensive, co-ordinated studies of the health consequences of the accident. This is in contrast to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where official research showed that the main rise in most types of cancer and non-cancer diseases only became apparent years after the atomic bombs fell.

<snip>

(Note: 60,000 in Russia + 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus = 200,000 just for those three countries)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=225460&mesg_id=225487

<snip>

Russian academy of sciences -
Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

<snip>

Abstract

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former. Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

<snip>

The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

<snip>

[FBaggins]

23. "merely making the statement doesn't do jack"

Thanks. Let me know when the realization sets in that this is exactly what you were doing.

Read the link I gave and tell me why the number is wrong

The link doesn't provide anything more than "making the statement"... in fact, she doesn't even go THAT far. She merely claims (without attribution) that someone ELSE had made that statement. SHE makes quite clear that nobody knows... yet you use her as proof that you DO known?

cuz all I've ever seen is 50 and 300,000-400,000.

1) That means you haven't spent any time looking

2) Do you seriously think that this means those are the only two possibilities? You've seen 50 and 300,000 so if we know it HAS to be more than 50 (and it does), then it must be 300,000? It couldn't be 5,000... or 25,000, or 75,000?

That's as ridiculous as the ludicrous statement claim that if you don't agree with 300,000+ then you must think it's safe to live in the sarcophagus full time.

[Kalun D]

16. Logic

You're backing the official death toll then?

So only about 50 died

I'm saying is closer to 300,000 to 400,000.

So you must have a different idea about what is a safe distance to live from ground zero and how long you can be there.

Because a lot more people died that were living further away and weren't exposed for very long. But the official version says they are okay (even though they are dead)

So why don't you go live there to prove that it's safe.

What's so silly about that logic?

It's exactly like agent orange, oh come on...really, it's not that bad.

[FBaggins]

28. You put out a post titled "logic" and then start with that???

You're backing the official death toll then?

So only about 50 died

Before posting something titled "logic" - you might wish to actually apply some. Starting your point with such an obvious strawman argument isn't impressive.

Of course you then move on to the ridiculous... so I suppose "strawman" is as far as you go?

[Nihil]

13. Whoooosh! ... (pause) ... Whooooosh! (n/t)

:rofl:

[Kalun D]

17. Your post

is as empty as your argument.

[Nihil]

22. Explanation: Those were the sounds of sarcastic posts going whizzing over your head.

You responded to GG's with the standard indignant knee-jerk post
(complete with ridiculous exaggerations) and, when FBaggins made
a suitably sarcastic reply, that one went over your head too ...

To cap it all, you seemed to think that my amusement was somehow
supposed to be an "argument".

Have a nice day.
:hi:

[Merchant Marine]

27. Context is key to understanding why chernobyl happened, and why it will not happen again

I just read through the wiki article, which gives an excellent summary of the disaster without being too technical.

Did you know that the reactor crew was conducting an experimental shutdown procedure at the time of the accident? That the experiment was supposed to be conducted by the day shift, but due to power grid needs was conducted by the less experienced night shift? Did you know that the Chernobyl reactor was poorly designed, with too large of a steam-void coefficient?

Did you know that the reactor was built without a hard containment vessel, which would have contained the radioactive material blown into the atmosphere? All western plants at the time had and still have a hard containment vessel capable of containing a steam explosion. Did you know that the mechanism for emergency shutdown was poorly designed and glacially slow compared to contemporary western designs? The direct cause of the explosion was the failure of the SCRAM system. The inserted rods displaced coolant in the channels, causing some of them to overheat and shatter, jamming the mechanism.

Actually, do you even know that the explosion was caused by high-pressure steam buildup and a secondary chemical explosion, not a nuclear fission explosion? There's a lot that was learned from the Chernobyl disaster, but the vast majority of persons referencing it are highly uninformed as to the cause. Chernobyl was an extreme worst case scenario that could not happen today due to better understanding and application of modern computerized technology.

[madokie]

14. After typing that I'd be hiding behind a rock wall too

:silly: :evilgrin:

[bananas]

3. And in exchange the nuclear industry has a big give-away to Obama and Congress

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x228696

Nuclear Industy spent $84 million lobbying Congress in 1st 3 quarters of 2009

Nuclear Industry Spent Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Over the Last Decade to Sell Public, Congress on New Reactors, New Investigation Finds

...Growing support for new nuclear power comes after an extensive decade-long campaign in which companies and unions related to the industry have spent more than $650 million on lobbying and campaign contributions from 1999 through 2008, according to a new analysis by former Los Angeles Times reporter Judy Pasternak, now with the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University. In the first three quarters of 2009 alone, the nuclear energy industry spent $84 million lobbying Congress.

"In many ways, the nuclear power industry's efforts to win support are a textbook case of how the influence game is played in Washington," Pasternak reports. "Besides the money spent on lobbying and campaign contributions, the industry, led by the NEI , has created a network of allies who give speeches, quote one another approvingly and showcase one another on their Web sites. The effect is an echo chamber of support for nuclear power."

Two of the industry's celebrity spokespeople, former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and former Greenpeace activist Patrick Moore, have been stumping around the country, writing op-eds, and appearing on TV to extoll the virtues of nuclear power as the co-directors of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, but they rarely, if ever, mention that the NEI created the coalition and is its sole funder.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/media_alerts/nuclear-industry-spent-millions-to-sell-congress-on-new-reactors-0343.html

For some reason that post has "<0 recs", gee whiz how does that happen on "one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet"?.

[NNadir]

4. Since nuclear power is cleaner and safer than biomass, I support outright TVA/EDF type

purchase of nuclear power plants.

It is the only reasonable thing to do.

[wtmusic]

5. An "independent report" financed by anti-nuke group Public Citizen

puts the figure at $22B, about 23% higher than the official figure of $17B. Oh - and NRG is still planning on building with public financing. Not that that will keep the intrepid reporters at Mother Jones from getting hysterical.

[amborin]

6. Obama has long-standing ties to the nuclear industry

they were campaign donors from way back

and, in Illinois, Obama watered down legislation concerning groundwater contamination related to Exelon, a nuclear power corporation

[Radical Activist]

7. How much more is he doing for renewables and efficiency?

Much more, in case you hadn't noticed.
I'm happy to fight Obama on nuclear and clean coal scams if we're at least getting a serious climate change bill.