March 11, 2013 Helen Caldicott Foundation presented a two day Symposium on Fukushima which was an amazingly informative and “mind altering” experience. More than 100,000 people have become exiles having been permanently evacuated from the area surrounding this nuclear plant.The Symposium was held here in New York City at the New York Academy of Medicine. Two American sailors who were exposed to radiation as they entered the rescue area told the their story. News we never hear from main stream media.
Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free
A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy
In 2007, Dr. Caldicott commissioned a report entitled Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy [http://ieer.org/projects/carbon-free-nuclear-free/], which details how the United States could generate all the energy it needs by 2050 with a combination of renewables that are inexpensive and readily available, along with concerted energy conservation. It is a prescription for survival in our overheating planet.
Why We Must End The Nuclear Energy Age
The Medical Implications of Fukushima,Chenobyl and the Nuclear Age
The answer to climate change is not building more nuclear power plants.
It is a hazard-filled strategy for reducing global warming, according to a new book: Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change, produced by the non-profit Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), documents accident, proliferation and contamination threats associated with reviving the nuclear industry as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The book also details economically competitive alternative fuel sources which can address U.S. and world electricity needs.
Dr. Brice Smith, senior scientist at IEER and author of the book, explained, “Nuclear power is a very risky and unsustainable option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Trading one potentially catastrophic health, environmental and security threat for another is not a sensible energy policy.”
The book “lays out a set of criteria for evaluating proposals aimed at limiting climate change, including:
-comparative costs of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector;
-risks of catastrophic accidents with long-term health and environmental impacts;
-potential for compromise of power plant integrity by terrorist attacks;
-proliferation and other security impacts; and
-management of wastes”
The author concluded, “Were there no alternatives, the severity of the threat facing humans and the environment from global climate change might warrant serious consideration of the risks of nuclear energy. But it is irrational to incur the proliferation headaches of nuclear power when alternatives are clearly available. We need an energy policy that is not steeped in subsidies but centered on cost, reliability and environmental sanity.”