San Onofre: An Accident Waiting To Happen

Watch Nuclear Aftershocks on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Travel to three continents to explore the debate about nuclear power: Is it safe?

What are the alternatives? And could a Fukushima-style disaster happen in the U.S.?

One man's fear monger is another mans change agent...

A must watch video!

San Onofre Long Term High-level Nuke Waste Repository

Residents Organized for Safe Environment (ROSE) Statement of Concern:

ROSE believes that the NRC’s stated alternative to Change the Waste Confidence away from the small step approach to the long-term Waste Confidence program for 200 years to make nuclear power plant sites into nuclear waste dumps for 200 years is shortsighted and completely without regard for the safety of the millions of citizens who populate the areas around these power plants.
This type of decision by the NRC, demands that the public take action to secure its own safety from the hazards of such a nuclear waste dump in their vicinity wherever it is located. It calls into question the very mandate itself of the NRC “Protecting People and the Environment” and leads us to the conclusion that the NRC is no longer capable of Protecting the People and the Environment. This may mean it is time to consider disbanding the NRC and forming a new protective agency led by the citizens themselves who have no vested interest in protecting the nuclear industry.

NRC Draft Report for Comment Dec 2011 Waste storage policy. Background and Preliminary Assumptions For an Environmental Impact Statement.—Long-Term Waste Confidence Update. States
6. Alternatives Under the National Environmental Policy Act
“The proposed action is a change to the Commission.’s current Waste Confidence decision and rule, which requires the Commission to revisit the issue of Waste Confidence every five to ten years. As part of this process, the Commission has revised Waste Confidence twice since 1984, and each time has expanded the temporal scope of its analysis by a few decades. This long-term Waste Confidence update would move away from this small-step approach, and would extend the temporal scope of Waste Confidence by as many as 200 years. The EIS will include an analysis of the impacts of four storage scenarios in order to assess the magnitude and range of impacts and the safety of extended storage. Section 8 of this report discusses these scenarios. As with the current Waste Confidence rule and decision, the Waste Confidence EIS will generically describe the potential impacts of extended storage and will assume that the storage of spent nuclear fuel will continue to be a regulated activity in the future. Unlike the current Waste Confidence rule and decision, this long-term Waste Confidence EIS will not require reconsideration of a possible update to the rule and decision every five to ten years.

The no-action alternative is to continue to review the Waste Confidence decision and rule for updates every 5 to 10 years.”
http://residentsorganizedforasafeenvironment.wordpress.com/

Will SCE and PG&E do to CA what Entergy is doing to VT?

The New York Times is reporting that the federal judge in a lawsuit has determined that Vermont Yankee does NOT have to close as per the state's wishes. In a decision that could have ramifications everywhere there are states' agreements with nuclear utility companies -- including California -- the judge felt that the overwhelming reasons anyone wanted the reactor shut down were radiological safety concerns, and those were the purvey of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ONLY. The NRC has already allowed the dilapidated old Fukushima look-alike to run for another 20 years to age 60 -- the NRC decided this even as its sister plant in Fukushima was melting down and the NRC didn't know (or care) why (it still doesn't)!

The state of Vermont is expected to appeal.

NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/science/earth/vermont-cant-shut-down-nuclear-plant-judge-rules.html

Cancer Risk To Children Near Nukes

Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds analyzes cancer rates for young children near Fukushima using the National Academy of Science's BEIR (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) VII Report. Based on BEIR VII, Fairewinds determines that at least one in every 100 young girls will develop cancer for every year they are exposed to 20 millisieverts [millisievert (1 mSv = 0.001 Sv)] of radiation. The 20-millisievert/ year figure is what the Japanese government is currently calculating as the legal limit of radiological exposure to allow habitation of contaminated areas near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. In this video, Fairewinds introduces additional analysis by Ian Goddard showing that the BEIR VII report underestimates the true cancer rates to young children living near Fukushima Daiichi. Looking at the scientific data presented by Mr. Goddard, Fairewinds has determined that at least one out of every 20 young girls (5%) living in an area where the radiological exposure is 20 millisieverts for five years will develop cancer in their lifetime.

Fukushima Washing Up On Our Shores

Marine debris is beginning to arrive from Alaska to Oregon. The local authorities there are gearing up for identifying types of debris so that studies can be made. If one wishes to participate locally, organize to ask local administrations to begin the identification process of debris before the field washes ashore in quantity. Organize groups to comb beaches and photograph, identify and catalog types of debris that will be arriving on our shores.

There is an app for Android and iPhones to assist with beach cleanup as it allows a short description of the items and a local place name where the debris can be found and a database is built for cleanup crews.

App info at:  http://www.marinedebris.engr.uga.edu/

5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

The year 2011 marked the first serious accident at a nuclear power plant in a quarter century. After the previous disaster at Chernobyl, the world’s nuclear industry axiomatically predicted that another accident—especially in an advanced country operating conventional light-water reactors—would spell the end of nuclear power everywhere. read more.

San Clemente Times Nuke Industry Mouthpiece

Vote Yes at http://sanclementetimes.com/ 

The San Clemente Times is running an amazingly biased little poll that asks, "Will you support the ballot initiative to close nuclear power plants" and then answers the question,  "No Way Where are we going to get the energy?"  SC Times the answer for your readers who don't know is that there is a glut of power in California without nukes.  Notice Below.

CLICK TO ENLARGE 

SC Times perhaps you should have asked if everyone was packed up and ready to move out for generations from our little Mayberry by the sea.

Important San Onofre Nuke Waste Information For 2012

“These reactors produce 50 years of electricity and half a million years of waste. It’s not a particularly good deal.” Danial Hirsch

On Oct. 11, 2011 a forum on the issue of San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station (SONGS) running past it's decommission date of 2013 was held here in San Clemente. Our town is closest to SONGS, which is operated by Southern California Edison. The final speaker was Danial Hirsch of CommitteeToBridgeTheGap.org, a professor at UCLA.

He makes it very clear that "What happend at Fukushima, can happen here in San Clemente." We were just lucky that it did not happen in 2011.

Here is to a lucky 2012