Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (1 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   15 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Reject Nuclear Power - Here's Why

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 2 of 4 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Group(s): , Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H2 1/26/13

- Advertisement -

The UK government has said it will not subsidies new nuclear power stations. However this seems to refer to the most overt form of subsidies and not to "hidden " subsidies.

Nuclear power stations are so dangerous that no insurance company will undertake to pay the total costs of a disaster or a terrorist attack. So in order to get them built the government has to limit liability. This is a subsidy.

The cost of decommissioning will be an enormous sum and the final total is unknown.

Any limitation to liability for decommissioning costs will be a subsidy. If the industry does not pay the total costs of disposing of nuclear waste and ensuring it is safe for thousand of years then this is a subsidy. The industry does not pay the total costs of all research into nuclear energy .This is a subsidy.

Nuclear power stations use the same technology as that required to manufacture nuclear weapons


Any country which purifies uranium for use in nuclear power stations can also use its purification plant to manufacture weapons grade fissile material.

Already nuclear power development has been used repeatedly as a cover for developing nuclear weapons. Of the 10 nations which have developed nuclear weapons "six did so with political cover and/or technical support from their supposedly peaceful nuclear program -- India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, North Korea and France' 3 .

- Advertisement -


The resulting nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands for years

Since nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands of years 4 we are dumping our energy problems on future generations instead of using the benign methods of creating energy which are available to us.

The currently favoured "solution' of burying the waste in bedrock and sealing off access for ever is desperate and irresponsible.

The plants and waste deposit storage are vulnerable to terrorist attack

- Advertisement -


Because of their destructive potential nuclear power stations are a major target for terrorists. The 9/11 atrocity would be tiny by comparison. If a large plane were flown into a nuclear power station the disaster would be immeasurably worse than Chernobyl.

John Large, an international expert on nuclear power, has said that if a plane was flown into the nuclear waste storage tanks at Sellafield the whole of the English Midlands could be catastrophically contaminated.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4



I had a consultancy practice in Landscape Architecture from which I have now retired. I am also a writer and painter. I have become increasingly concerned at governments'continuing, and counterproductive, use of violence to solve conflicts. With (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Has our species become insane?

Saving ourselves from the psychopaths

"The worst crimes in UK history'

Reject Nuclear Power - Here's Why

Nuclear Weapons - Hope At Last

Trident the Deterrent - A Terrifying Myth


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
6 people are discussing this page, with 15 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

This is a hugely important topic.... by Jim McCluskey on Saturday, Jan 26, 2013 at 5:11:19 PM
... the world took the wrong direction back in the... by B. Ross Ashley on Saturday, Jan 26, 2013 at 5:18:58 PM
Thorium is Borium...Solar (of all flavors):... Is ... by CaptD on Sunday, Jan 27, 2013 at 4:38:04 PM
All the power you would ever need could come from ... by David Mills on Sunday, Jan 27, 2013 at 8:21:22 PM
click heresnip There is a rash of m... by CaptD on Monday, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:02:01 PM
If you had you wouldn't have written half of this ... by David Mills on Monday, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:16:07 PM
Thanks for this, Ros.   ... by Jim McCluskey on Monday, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:55:12 AM
Unfortunately it won't produce near what you need.... by David Mills on Monday, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:14:22 PM
The first is the little publicized Fukushima fue... by Mark Goldes on Saturday, Jan 26, 2013 at 7:59:41 PM
Thorium would be an entirely different kind of nuc... by David Mills on Sunday, Jan 27, 2013 at 8:28:41 PM
The Future Children of Fukushima The Children o... by Joe Giambrone on Sunday, Jan 27, 2013 at 2:45:19 PM
Regarding the poorly designed steam generator tube... by CaptD on Sunday, Jan 27, 2013 at 4:32:14 PM
A 1.2 Billion Dollar Ripoff by Edison/SDG&E of... by CaptD on Sunday, Jan 27, 2013 at 4:35:32 PM
How would ANY Country afford to pay for a Trillion... by CaptD on Sunday, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:06:21 PM
NRC Reports Incomplete, Inconclusive, Inconsistent... by CaptD on Monday, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:42:16 PM