|
CLEAR LIES Part 5:
NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE: Bush(![[search]](seal%20nuclear%20nightmare%20bush%20speech%20analyzed_files/image001.jpg) )’s Own
Brand of State-Sponsored Terrorism against the U.S.
Introduction
The
entire Bush speech that introduced Clear Skies is so full of lies,
manipulations, disinformation, and blatantly false promises that it would
require a book to address each statement. In this series, I have selected
16 statements from the text of the speech and divided them into what I
consider the Initiative’s five main issues: conservation (lack of),
environmental health (devastation of), freemarket
solutions (failure of), science (absence of), coal (dominance of), and
nuclear energy (state sponsored terrorism).
Bush Clear Skies Speech quotes in bold
italics.
“We will promote…nuclear power,
which produces no greenhouse gas emissions.”
Lack of greenhouse emissions is the ONLY
thing nuclear power has going for it. But this is like saying “nuclear
warheads do not contain anthrax.” They are still lethal! Here are some
facts:
Most nuclear plants in the US were built at least three decades ago and are
now deteriorating. But the nuke barons see a potentially huge profit in
keeping them going because the loans taken out to build the plants are
almost paid off. Enter Bush, who has made relicensing
these disasters-waiting-to-happen a snap. Relicensing
is supposed to be a rigorous process that should require a major, even
total plant overhaul. But, thanks to Bush, relicensing
is merely an empty formality. Aging plants are now being relicensed at an astoundingly rapid pace. Proof is not
even required that the repairs prescribed by inspectors have been made and
area residents near the plant are often not even informed that its happening. And they most certainly should be:
According to the Federal Register notice, each relicensing
is expected to be responsible for the release of 14,800 person-rem of radiation and the deaths of 12 people during its
20-year life extension. Nice little fact to know if you happen to be living
and raising kids in the area!
And then, of course, there is the danger
of terrorism. Since 9/11, most nuclear plants remain inadequately guarded –
if at all. It was not until the second week of February, 2002, that the
Bush administration issued a press release stating it would “soon” order
the nation's 103 nuclear power plants to improve security. The Nuclear
Energy Information Service revealed in October, 2001 that, under Bush, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) “has been "experimenting" with
a plan to allow the nuclear industry to police itself on reactor security
from terrorist assaults. This outrageous scheme comes after a decade-long
series of tests of such security at U.S. reactors demonstrated conclusively that over 50%
of those reactors tested could not resist a determined land-based
intruder.” Under Clinton, the DOE had asked to move TA-18, a facility at Los Alamos containing several burst reactors and tons of
weapons-grade uranium and plutonium to a safer location. In Sept. 2001, Bush
denied the request.
Then there is the problem of nuclear
wastes—especially level-4 spent fuel rods, which are a national security
risk in and of themselves. The only safe way to
store these extraordinarily dangerous materials (which could, in a single “accident”
render several hundred square miles uninhabitable for a 50-200 years, is in
special “dry casks” of steel, lead and cement, which must then be buried in
a geologically stable area. This of course, is very costly. So what is the
Bush solution? In September, 2003, the DOE proposed reclassifying
high-level wastes as “incidental to processing,” so they could be handled
more cheaply, and even reprocessed. Japan and France stopped reprocessing any nuclear wastes because
of the extreme hazard it posed. Former British nuclear weapons specialist
Dr Frank Barnaby of the Oxford Research Group stated in May, 2000, that
nuclear reprocessing operations would ‘make it virtually inevitable that
terrorists will acquire the plutonium they want from the fuel, and make
nuclear weapons with it.” In fact, says Barnaby, once the material was
obtained, it would not be difficult for a clever terrorist to make a dirty
bomb: “A second-year graduate” could do it.
Last but not least: nuclear power will
be one of the most costly forms of energy to the taxpayer. Not only that,
but taxpayers will be paying for it for nearly 20 years before it’s even
available! The Bush energy plan calls for the industry to generate 50,000
more megawatts of power by 2020. To achieve this will require $1.3 billion
for research, development and deployment. The Bush scheme also calls for
the use of federal lands for new plants and for taxpayers to pay for 50% of
the cost of establishing new reactors during all the initial stages of
development. It will also require the taxpayer to eat $590 billion of the
predicted cost of a nuclear accident, while the industry’s own liability is
capped at $10 billion. And of course, none of this figures in the cost of
storing nuclear wastes—a cost, both economically and in risk, that will be
born largely by “recipient states” such as Nevada—whether they want the
risk and cost or not.
Japanese Study Shows that Radiation
Leak from Nuclear Reactor Could Kill 400,000, Render Huge Area
Uninhabitable for 50 years
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20031028a2.htm
. Nuclear Information and Resource
Service : “1,200 Could Die Under Bush Relicensing
Plan” http://www.mothersalert.org/relicensing.html
Here Today, There Tomorrow:
Commercial Nuclear Reactor Sites are Terrorist Targets
http://www.neis.org/literature/Reports&Testimonies/full_terrorist_report_10-22-01.htm
Articles from the “Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists” (founded by Albert Einstein)
“Defusing nuclear terror” By Jeffrey T. Richelson
March/April 2002
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2002/ma02/ma02richelson.html
“What, me worry?” by Daniel Hirsch Jan/Feb 2002
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2002/jf02/jf02hirsch.html
“What About the Spent Fuel Rods?” Robert Alvarez Jan/Feb 2002 http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2002/jf02/jf02alvarez.html
The Weapons Complex: Who’s Guarding
the Store? By Danielle Brian,
Lynn Eisenman & Peter D. H. Stockton
Jan/February http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2002/jf02/jf02brian.html
|