Power of Story
Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -

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 (# of views)   15 comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

Reject Nuclear Power - Here's Why

By       Message Jim McCluskey     Permalink
      (Page 3 of 6 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Group(s): , Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 1/26/13

- Advertisement -


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.

- Advertisement -

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.


Safety studies of Sellafield carried out for local authorities tell us that a direct hit by a passenger jet on the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant would contaminate Britain with two and a half times more radioactivity than the amount that escaped during the Chernobyl disaster 5 .

The studies also inform us that up to 2,646lb of the highly radioactive and long-lasting isotope caesium-137 would be released into the atmosphere, contaminating Britain, Ireland, continental Europe and beyond, making swathes of the country uninhabitable and causing more than two million cancers.

In the light of the twin towers atrocity this is a completely unacceptable risk.


- Advertisement -

They epitomise the centralisation of power

There is a burgeoning awareness among citizens that they are more free and more in control of their lives if facilities and decision-making occur at local level; that Big Government should only control those matters which cannot be dealt with locally. Nuclear power is the ultimate way of centralising power, putting it in the hands of experts, multi-national corporations and Big Government. In complete contrast to this, benign methods of supplying power such as wind and water turbines, solar energy, and heat pumps can be in the control of local communities and even, for some provisions, households.


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


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

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 Petition Site */
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 AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView 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