----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 4:24
AM
Subject: [Biofuel] How would any of you
answer this one?
Hi Michael,
Re your quote from Herron as follows:
snip
Our only real sources of useful and practical energy are oil,
gas, coal and nuclear. It's true that our oil supply will eventually decrease,
but coal is nearly inexhaustible and newer methods of processing it eliminate
the smoke and by-products.
Nuclear is the energy of the future and must be
de-politicized. It will be totally clean, very economical and inexhaustible.
In the meantime let's stop hindering our search for oil, including Alaska,
off-shore and on federal lands.
Firstly, our uses of, and search for sources of energy are limited
only by our imagination. Our current love affair with oil and other fossil
fuels is but a temporary aberration. Necessity will force us to use of
renewables. Wind energy is but one, solar another, tidal energy is at present
almost unharnessed, geothermal (just drill a hole in your backyard and keep
going down until you reach useable heat - the New Zealanders currently lead
the world in geothermal power) equally so. There are many other completely
renewable and environmentally supportive means of energy production, but that
is not the nub of this post. I wish only to address the statement that nuclear
is the energy of the future.
Not only is this not the case. Use of
this form of power would eventually remove the possibility of any future at
all for the human race.As evidence, I offer the following blast from a medical
doctor when the Australian government recently toyed with the idea of nuclear
power
Nuclear Power Isn't Clean; It's Dangerous - and Uneconomic
By Dr. Helen Caldicott
Among the many departures from
the truth by opponents of the Kyoto protocol, one of the most invidious is
that nuclear power is "clean" and, therefore, the answer to global
warming. However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is
nonsense. Not only does it contaminate the planet with long-lived radioactive
waste, it significantly contributes to global warming.While it is claimed that
there is little or no fossil fuel used in producing nuclear power, the reality
is that enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich
the uranium needed to fuel a
nuclear power plant, as well as to
construct the enormous concrete reactor itself. Indeed, a nuclear power plant
must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. (During
the 1970s the United States deployed seven 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants to
enrich its uranium, and it is still using coal to enrich much of the world's
uranium.) So, to recoup the equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used
in preparation and construction before the first switch is thrown to initiate
nuclear fission, the plant must operate for almost two decades.
But
that is not the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear plants at
the end of their 30- to 40-year operating life will require yet more vast
quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by radioactive piece, a nuclear
reactor and its surrounding infrastructure is a massive operation: Imagine,
for example, the amount of petrol, diesel, and electricity that would be used
if the Sydney Opera House were to be dismantled. That's the scale we're
talking about. And that is not the end of fossil use because much will also be
required for the final transport and longterm storage of nuclear waste
generated by every reactor.
>From a medical perspective, nuclear
waste threatens global health. The toxicity of many elements in this
radioactive mess is long-lived. Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless,
odorless, and invisible and remains radioactive for 600 years. Concentrating
in the food chain, it emulates the mineral calcium. Contaminated milk enters
the body, where strontium 90 concentrates in bones and lactating breasts later
to cause bone cancer, leukemia, and breast cancer. Babies and children are 10
to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than
adults.
Plutonium, the most significant element in
nuclear waste, is so carcinogenic that hypothetically half a kilo evenly
distributed could cause cancer in everyone on Earth. Lasting for half a
million years, it enters the body through the lungs where it is known to cause
cancer. It mimics iron in the body, migrating to bones, where it can induce
bone cancer or leukemia, and to the liver, where
it can cause primary liver cancer. It crosses the placenta into the embryo
and, like the drug thalidomide, causes gross birth deformities. Finally,
plutonium has a predilection for the testicles, where it induces genetic
mutations in the sperm of humans and other animals that are passed on from
generation to generation.
Significantly, five kilos of plutonium is fuel for a nuclear weapon. Thus far,
nuclear power has generated about 1,139 tons of plutonium. So, nuclear power
adds to global warming, increases the burden of radioactive materials in
the ecosphere and threatens to contribute to nuclear proliferation. No doubt
the Australian government is keen to assist the uranium industry, but the
immorality of its position is unforgivable.
NOTE: Dr. Helen Caldicott is founding president of Physicians for
Social Responsibility.
Regards,
Bob.
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing
list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel
at Journey to
Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the full
Biofuel list archives (46,000
messages):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Search the
Biofuels-biz list
archives:
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuels-biz/
