Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 34 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H2'ed 1/26/13

Reject Nuclear Power - Here's Why

By       (Page 2 of 6 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.   15 comments
Message Jim McCluskey

International experts agree that there will continue to be disastrous failures at nuclear power stations and that this cannot be avoided 2 .

As Edward Teller, the great nuclear physicist, said, 'If you [try to] construct something foolproof, there will always be a fool greater than the proof,'

 

Nuclear power stations are prohibitively expensive

Nuclear power stations are so expensive that they are never built without substantial contribution to their costs from citizens in the form of subsidies.

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 .

 

The resulting nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands for years

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Jim McCluskey Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

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...)
 
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

 
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

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

Has our species become insane?

Saving ourselves from the psychopaths

Reject Nuclear Power - Here's Why

"The worst crimes in UK history'

Nuclear Weapons - Hope At Last

Trident the Deterrent - A Terrifying Myth

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend