from wickedlocal news - Chris Nord, of Newburyport's C-10 Research and Education Foundation, a nuclear power industry watchdog, says many residents within the 10-mile radius of the Seabrook plant are not aware that they live within the "sacrifice zone," an official term given the area by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Additionally, he says, they may not be aware that the 2006 Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) study conducted by the National Academy of Science determined there are no safe levels of radiation exposure, and that women and children are more vulnerable than men to health problems associated with exposure.
Nord, a 30-year resident of the region, will discuss the nuclear power industry within the timely context of climate change. He perceives the need to find "truly sustainable energy solutions to the growing ecological crisis of climate change."
"We are living through one of the most extraordinary ecological transitions of all time. We have outstripped our environmental underpinnings and with our present global economy we need to face the possibility of environmental collapse," Nord says.
Nord has been an outspoken critic of nuclear power due to the unresolved long-term health dangers and homeland security issues associated with the industry. He says that in addition to the findings of increased risks of exposure, there is the unsolved issue of waste disposal and security. He questions whether nuclear power should continue to be part of the sustainable energy constellation.
"The nation has still never figured out what to do with nuclear waste, the toxic poisons that are still being stored onsite," ...current administration is in a push to include nuclear power as part of the energy plan for the future and yet we have 300,000 years that we need to keep this toxic waste safe."
C-10's primary role as an agency is to conduct "real time" monitoring of the radiation levels emanating from Seabrook Station. They have posted 17 stations within the neighboring Massachusetts area that have been collecting data since Seabrook opened in 1990. They also monitor security and safety at the plant.
The foundation receives its funding through a 10 percent assessment from the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, or MEMA.
For information visit www.c-10.org.
HAASE COMMENT: time to recycle spent fuel
Burying spent fuel is "an outdated strategy" Domenici...the Yucca Mountain project "foolhardy." He said reprocessing spent nuclear fuel makes a lot more sense than burying it underground.Domenici went a lot further saying that the "strategy for spent nuclear fuel has become badly outdated in light of advances that could reprocess the fuel and leave only a very small percentage of the original material behind as waste." He said this material could be stored in salt formations in New Mexico, presumably at WIPP.
He said the U.S. no longer needs Yucca Mountain to manage spent nuclear fuel. His bill would divert the money going into the nuclear waste fund to be used to develop reprocessing sites and temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel nearby. The legislation would direct DOE to find the sites. This sounds like son of GNEP, with its emphasis on reliable fuel services, but with more political clout.
There is a lot of support for his view in Congress which is deeply frustrated over years of delays in developing the geologic repository located about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. It is also a signal that Congress is finally going to grapple with spent fuel reprocessing because of the energy and financial value of irradiated fuel that comes out of a reactor.
