14)  At San Onofre, a meltdown -- an accident beyond comprehension -- is possible.  Therefore, we as citizens, have a duty to contemplate it.  To be aware of what might cause it, and what the real consequences would be for us and our children.  And even though no modern study of the costs has been done, it is inarguable among reasonable people that the cost of a meltdown at San Onofre could reach upwards of a trillion dollars.  In lives, perhaps a million people could get cancer -- even in the unlikely event that an evacuation is somehow 100% successful.  Even more could die if evacuations are hindered for some reason, such as a concurrent wildfire or earthquake or even just a few traffic accidents.  In the event of a meltdown, what are the chances of a perfect evacuation?  Approximately zero.

15)  If Yucca Mountain opens (a dubious assumption) and San Onofre were to shut down today (a less dubious assumption, we hope), it will still take hundreds and hundreds of individual shipments to dispose of the radioactive waste which has already accumulated at San Onofre.  Hundreds and hundreds of chances for a terrorist attack or an accident -- a bridge falling down, whatever.  Two trains colliding.  The federal government has offered hollow assurances that every chemical truck that the spent fuel might pass near on its journey will likewise be carefully monitored to keep the two separated.  But it's a lie.  Lies make the nuclear industry seem safe to the uninformed, but they do nothing to protect the public and nothing to fool the experts (or the terrorists).  It is the duty of all citizens and honest government officials to see through the lies.  If San Onofre stays open, then every few weeks forever, another shipment of extremely hazardous nuclear waste, capable of destroying thousands of square miles, will have to travel through our state to SOMEWHERE.  Somewhere where nobody wants it, either.  After sitting for years -- possibly for decades, and perhaps even for centuries -- on our coast.

16)  San Onofre is a relic of the Cold War.  Nuclear power was touted as "too cheap to meter" by a corrupt government agency which believed their own propaganda.  We now know nuclear power is not cheap.  We know it's not safe.  We know that in 60 years of trying, the best minds have not been able to solve the waste problem.  We know that renewable energy is ready to completely replace coal, oil, and nuclear power for electrical energy generation.  In other words, renewable energy can help solve both the radioactive waste disposal problem AND the global warming problem.

17)  Despite pro-nuclear claims to the contrary by people who, until about five years ago, didn't believe that global warming was happening, nuclear power is a major contributor to global-warming.  Not only do the radioactive gasses emitted by nuclear power plants destroy the upper atmosphere at a terrific rate, but the entire nuclear fuel cycle burns an enormous amount of carbon-based fuels just to exist.  The fifteen hundred workers at each plant also burn lots of carbon fuels getting to and from work, at work, and everywhere else, while accomplishing no long-term benefit for society, and at great risk to society.  All proposed nuclear waste management solutions require enormous amounts of fossil fuels, as the reactor waste is moved to and fro, and guarded for eons.  Eons!  Try to calculate the cost of even one security guard on duty 24/7 for a million years, just to guard your waste (and don't forget to account for inflation)!  Then factor in all the security guards needed to protect the waste created by everyone who comes after us.  If we don't choose renewable energy solutions, society will be wallowing in nuclear waste.  Hundreds of dry casks in California will turn into thousands.  More and more "exclusion zones" where accidents have happened will be created.  Is this the future we want?

18)  Nuclear fuel is not renewable and any sort of nuclear renaissance would just burn up the limited supply faster.  Some say we have only thirty years' worth of cost-effectively recoverable uranium left, others put it around 150 years, tops.  And the price of uranium has skyrocketed in the past few years, going up by more than 1000%, with no end in sight.  So-called "breeder reactors" are extremely dangerous and inefficient and, like the current reactors, generate fission products which must be contained away from human life, in many cases for thousands and tens of thousands of years.  An impossible demand.  An impossible promise.

19)  San Onofre's owners hope to get tens of billions of dollars in federal, state, or public money so they can build a third reactor at the site.  Unit one was closed down in the 1990s because it was inefficient.  Its reactor pressure vessel still remains at the site because no waste management facility will take it.  No one even wants it traveling through their neighborhood, and so it will probably remain here for decades.  Pound for pound, spent fuel is at least ten million times more lethal than the "RPV" (and there is a lot more of it), so you can see that it too, will be very difficult to get rid of.  Nobody wants radioactive waste.  A state law (recently unsuccessfully challenged) prohibits new reactors in California until a solution to the radioactive waste problem is found.  But nevertheless, the license for Unit One can be re-activated and the public has virtually no legal right to stop a "new" third reactor from being built at the site at any time.  The only way to ensure it won't happen is to shut the whole facility down and put the people to work building clean, efficient, safe renewable energy systems.  Or jail them.

20)  In the 1960s, the public that originally accepted San Onofre was blatantly lied to, and that is now well-documented.  Citizens who now spend the time to wade through the current lies, who learn about radiation's effects, have no trouble rejecting this technology.  Virtually every supporter had, or still has, a financial connection to nuclear power -- it pays their bills, it provides for their retirement, it sends their kids to college, it buys their yacht.  But virtually every detractor either dropped out of the industry to become a whistleblower of conscience, or studied nuclear power independently and simply reached a logical conclusion.  The more the public knows about nuclear power, the less they like it.  And the more they know about the renewable energy alternatives, the more they know that those are the way to go, not nuclear.

21)  The nuclear industry is filled with people who fear knowledge.   In an honest debate, they quickly prove that, while they might be experts in, for instance, ground-assault security, they know nothing of the biological consequences of tritium.  Or perhaps they think they understand the biological consequences of tritium, but will not consider the engineering problems caused by the potential for 100-foot tsunami waves -- it's out of their area of expertise.  Pro-nukers invariably assume that all the problems outside their little area of understanding have all been solved, but they are wrong.  And, things which would be just "problems" for other industries are fatal flaws for nuclear technology.  Reactor engineers are not pediatricians (and no pediatrician works for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, you can be sure of that).

22)  No national, open debate about nuclear power has ever occurred.  Any public focus has always been couched in lies brought about by the fears of enemy forces within and without, real and imagined, named and unnamed.  A realistic attitude about nuclear power cannot be cubby-holed by false promises, dark threats, or threats of darkness.  A realistic attitude cannot be the product of lies believed, however strongly or frequently those lies are told.  A realistic attitude cannot misrepresent the health risks or the financial risks.  It also cannot ignore the alternatives.

23)  The biological consequences of radiation poisoning are horrendous.  An infinite variety of deformities are possible.  Pro-nukers like to claim that "radiation" causes "evolution" but in reality, DNA strands join and divide in unique patterns without any need for radiation to destroy those delicate molecules, each comprised of billions of atoms, on which life depends.  Radiation can help trigger every known type of cancer, as well as heart disease and many other ailments.  Pro-nukers even like to claim that a little radiation is good for you -- like a vitamin.  But any beneficial effect that has ever been noted must always be balanced against the long-term consequences.  Even medical radiation treatments to "cure" cancer also can cause cancer, and this is a well-known and fully-accepted medical fact.  Small doses of radiation can kill, and the amount of hazardous waste produced in just one minute at San Onofre could wipe out a city if it got out -- and sometimes it gets out, and sometimes people in the community undoubtedly die because of it, even though the plant's owners deny every death they cause.  Mere micrograms, or at most a few milligrams of Polonium-210, a product of nuclear reactors, was all that was used to kill British citizen and ex-KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, and leave a trail of contamination from Russia to London.  Radioactive materials are extremely dangerous in vanishingly-small quantities.  But the pro-nukers would have you believe it's health food!

And...

24)  San Onofre's State overseers (the CEC, the CPUC, the CCC, etc.) claim that their hands are tied -- that "federal" regulations "prohibit" the state agencies from "considering health and safety issues."  And if you read the Nuclear Regulatory Commission web site's description of these so-called statutes, agreements, regulations, and laws, you might be tempted to believe that the Feds have somehow taken away your right to life (for, a sufficiently radiative environment will kill you). But look at the actual state statutes by which authority was relinquished.  There lies the truth about who gave up what and who took what.  California gave up authority on one condition: That the feds would handle the nuclear issue, the whole kit-and-kiboodle, safely.  That California's citizens would be protected.  So how would the CEC, the CPUC, the CCC, or any other commission, or all of them put together, know if our safety is being protected when they immediately wash their hands (in tritiated water, no doubt) of all health and safety issues, and have done so since the 1962 agreement relinquishing authority to the federal government was first signed (with the old A.E.C. (Atomic Energy Commission))?  Dozens of countries far smaller than California (geographically, by population, and / or by economic power) have complete control of their own nuclear facilities (let alone, the 100+ countries which have so far been wise enough not to have any nuclear power facilities on their soil).  So why are California's elected and appointed officials arrogantly "playing dumb"?  They keep saying they couldn't close California's nuclear power plants if they wanted to.  Can't they at least have the good sense to want to?

Recommend this article...

Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:

Comments (1)

Write Comment

Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed. Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button. Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:
Comment:
Code:*
	I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4