- ‹ previous
- 394 of 1150
- next ›
Another "Incident" at French Nuclear Plant
A security incident has occurred at a French nuclear site already under scrutiny due to other scares this summer. Reuters reports that two fuel units became snagged in a reactor at Tricastin in southern France on Monday morning when site workers were removing them for maintenance. The reactor building was evacuated. The incident was still being dealt with on Monday evening.
The incident is the latest of several that have highlighted safety concerns in France's nuclear industry, the biggest in Europe, accounting for 80 percent of French power generation. In July, 8,000 gallons of liquid containing nonenriched uranium was accidentally poured onto the ground and into a river at Tricastin, prompting safety checks at all of France's 19 nuclear sites. Weeks later, around 100 staff at the site were contaminated with a low dose of radiation.
An apt reminder that nukes are one of the deadlier solutions to our energy troubles.
Julia Whitty is Mother Jones' environmental correspondent, lecturer, and 2008 winner of the Kiriyama Prize and the John Burroughs Medal Award.
Digg
Reddit
Twitter
Facebook
Buzz Up!
StumbleUpon
MySpace
LinkedIn
Delicious
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Julia may be a prize winner in some areas, but I would guess none involve composing objective contributions.
Because commercial nuclear power is so regulated, we must report every "incident," no matter how small. The total number of "incidents" reported in France or the U.S. means little unless one applies an understanding to the level of severity of those risks.
Furthermore, there has never been a reported death due to commercial nuclear power in a western country. To imply nuclear power as "deadlier" is irresponsible and fear mongering. There is just no research to validate Julia's biased reporting. I can only assume she is playing to her audience in order to garner more support.
Sadly, this thinking only delays real solutions to another Blue Marble posting regarding recent research showing that elimination of fossil fuel (coal) power generation would stop the increase in atmospheric green house gases even if transportation contributions continued at current levels. That article does not suggest what we would do to replace all that lost generation capacity ? over 50% of what the U.S. consumes ? but all real experts agree that the so-called "green" sources of wind and solar cannot come close to replacing that capacity. The only real solution is build nuclear now.
Julia may be a prize winner in some areas, but I would guess none involve composing objective contributions.
Because commercial nuclear power is so regulated, we must report every "incident," no matter how small. The total number of "incidents" reported in France or the U.S. means little unless one applies an understanding to the level of severity of those risks.
Furthermore, there has never been a reported death due to commercial nuclear power in a western country. To imply nuclear power as "deadlier" is irresponsible and fear mongering. There is just no research to validate Julia's biased reporting. I can only assume she is playing to her audience in order to garner more support.
Sadly, this thinking only delays real solutions to another Blue Marble posting regarding recent research showing that elimination of fossil fuel (coal) power generation would stop the increase in atmospheric green house gases even if transportation contributions continued at current levels. That article does not suggest what we would do to replace all that lost generation capacity ? over 50% of what the U.S. consumes ? but all real experts agree that the so-called "green" sources of wind and solar cannot come close to replacing that capacity. The only real solution is build nuclear now.
Nuclear power in France is safe. Nobody has every died from it. People die from a lack of electricity. You Americans are just jealous of us, in everything. We make the best wine and cheese.
yeah, sure, just watch how high the numbers are of people (who were exposed to the 8,000 gallons of liquid containing nonenriched uranium, as well the 100 staff at the site who were contaminated with radiation) who come up with cancer and other exotic diseases in the near future!
Lori, notice "NONenriched uranium", it was not enriched, so just get off of it. We are doing very well in France. You Americans are just jealous of our lovers and wine.
I'm no proponent of expanded nuclear power (at least not without a much stronger regulatory system), but I'd appreciate it if the author could provide some evidence for nuclear power being "one of the deadlier solutions to our energy troubles."
It seems to me that mercury and particulate emissions from coal burning plants are likely to significantly outpace nuclear power on an excess mortality basis. Coal would fall even further behind if you consider climate effects.
For example, according to this book, coal burning power plants were responsible for about 45,000 excess deaths in the United States in 1990.
"Other scares" -- does the writer really think anyone was scared? No-one believes, any longer, that any attribution of fault 'x' to nuclear power is ever done except by fossil fuel interests seeking to divert attention from the fact that their income depends on our continuing to tolerate faults 'X', 'Y', and 'Z'.
This particular incident was exactly as hazardous as when a housekey momentarily jams as you try to get it into or out of the lock.
I am a proponent of expanded nuclear power, and would try to wean government off fossil fuel tax revenues so that, in its job of regulating nuclear power, it is not tempted to excessive severity. (Only about half the time that new nuclear power stations in the USA are expected to take to begin production is actual construction time; the rest is filing permit applications and waiting for approval.)
Julia may be a prize winner in some areas, but I would guess none involve composing objective contributions.
Because commercial nuclear power is so regulated, we must report every "incident," no matter how small. The total number of "incidents" reported in France or the U.S. means little unless one applies an understanding to the level of severity of those risks.
Furthermore, there has never been a reported death due to commercial nuclear power in a western country. To imply nuclear power as "deadlier" is irresponsible and fear mongering. There is just no research to validate Julia's biased reporting. I can only assume she is playing to her audience in order to garner more support.
Sadly, this thinking only delays real solutions to another Blue Marble posting regarding recent research showing that elimination of fossil fuel (coal) power generation would stop the increase in atmospheric green house gases even if transportation contributions continued at current levels. That article does not suggest what we would do to replace all that lost generation capacity over 50% of what the U.S. consumes but all real experts agree that the so-called "green" sources of wind and solar cannot come close to replacing that capacity. The only real solution is build nuclear now.
You are right Barry, you Americans should follow the lead of the French.
Hey frenchy,
Maybe we will listen to you .. IF .. you can learn to defend your own country..?
How many frogs does it take to defend paris..? WE don't know, it has NEVER happened...!!! HAHAHAHAH
You cheese eating surrender monkeys BETTER learn to fight for yourselves, since our country is VERY tired of always saving your ASS...!!!
Get your women to start raising some warriors instead of gay boys, and then we will talk...
BIll