Conscious Choice: Nuclear Reactions

April 2005 | Choice Feedback

Nuclear Reactions

THE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) analysis of the environmental impact of a new reactor at Exelon’s Clinton site on Clinton Lake is overly optimistic about the extent to which the reactors will not affect the lake and fishery, as well as the costs and risk associated with nuclear power.

Our concerns revolve partially around the plant’s tremendous appetite for water needed to regulate the reactor’s temperature. The proposed new reactor will likely utilize a closed-cycle cooling tower, withdrawing millions of gallons of water from the lake, lowering its average level, and increasing the lake temperature. Disturbing water temperatures and levels in the lake can have a dramatic impact on the health of aquatic life, which could potentially affect fishing and other recreation.

Security is a major source of concern as well. After 9/11, Clinton Lake and others around the state were closed to public access, hurting the local economy. Adding another reactor could increase the appeal of Clinton as a target. The 9/11 Commission Report noted that the original plan for 9/11 included crashing air planes into nuclear plants; commercial reactors are not required to maintain defenses against air attacks. Further, Clinton, like all Exelon plants, is guarded by the private security firm Wackenhut — the same company hired by the NRC to conduct mock assaults to test plant security. In January, Illinois Attorney general Lisa Madigan submitted comments to the NRC along with six other state AGs supporting a petition to increase nuclear plant security standards; the petition is still under review.

The impact a new plant will have on electricity prices is also excluded from formal consideration at the stage. The nuclear industry survives only because of continuing massive subsidies, and meanwhile we have tremendous wind resources right here in our backyard that can provide more jobs with less cost and less environmental harm.

Dr. Samuel Galewsky, No New Nukes member and a professor of molecular biology at Millikin University, called on the NRC to fund an independent epidemiological study last month by Dr. Ernest Sternglass, professor at the University of Pittsburgh, and prompted U.S. Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to issue a similar call for NRC to further investigate possible links between nuclear power and increased infant mortality. — Sandra Lindberg, Bloomington, IL.

A SHORT NOTE to express sincere thanks for your cover article on nuclear power! We recently had a discussion on this subject and I trust you have stimulated many people’s interest.
— Gertrude Novak, Chicago

THANK YOU for the cover story on atomic energy and renewables. We do need alternatives to nuclear energy. — T. Seastron, Evanston

I JUST read your incredible [nuclear power] article in [Feb.] Conscious Choice online. Congratulations and thank you! It was wonderful. I really appreciate all of your research and hard work in making it happen. — Julie Enszer, (Nuclear Policy Research Institute)

Radio Feedback
UNFORTUNATELY, [Loyola University’s] WLUW [radio station] may not be as big of a “success” as it appears to be. While programming has remained in tact, it seems to me that WLUW has become significantly more focused on raising money from the community rather than providing services for the community after being taken over by Chicago Public Radio. Furthermore, WLUW has never disclosed the monetary terms of the Chicago Public Radio/Loyola University management agreement to its donors and the station continues to mislead the public by promoting itself as entirely volunteer driven in flyers posted around the city.

I encourage anyone who supports the station to request full disclosure of the WLUW budget and the terms of the management agreement with Chicago Public Radio before contributing to any future fundraising efforts. Chicago Public Radio may have kept WLUW alive, but the station is in danger of becoming corrupted by corporate management tactics and programming could begin to suffer soon if action is not taken. — Brad Knutson, WLUW Volunteer, 1999-2004

Sudan Crisis
I HAVE been increasingly dismayed by reports of genocide in the Sudan, and today I read an article by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times that broke my heart.

A Sudanese government-backed militia called the janjaweed is seeking to clear the area of all non-Arabs, pillaging and burning African villages, and having already killed at least 70,000 people. Horribly similar to the Rwandan genocide several years ago, this insanely brutal activity will only continue if we fail to act.

The late Senator Paul Simon said after the Rwandan genocide, “If every member of [the U.S.] House and Senate had received 100 letters from people back home saying we have to do something about Rwanda, when the crisis was first developing, then I think the response would have been different.” Former President Bill Clinton has said that his greatest regret is not having taken more action in Rwanda at that time. Genocide in Rwanda is seen in hindsight, however, the tragedy in the Sudan is unfolding right now.

We have power to help stop this, you and I can make sure that our Congressional representatives know we care and want to see action. There are in fact various things our government can do — from sanctions to freezing the assets of those Sudanese officials who support the genocide — but our government will assuredly not act unless we, the people, raise our voices.

Tell your senators and congressmen you want the American government to use its strongest influence to stop this tragedy. You can look on www.savedarfur.org or www.darfurgenocide.org for further information about the crisis.

This is a moment to use our democracy, to raise our voices loudly and clearly, and extend our love to those in desperate need. Let us pray for our Sudanese brothers and sisters in need, and do what we can to save them. — Marianne Williamson, Internet

Seal slaughter
THE ANNUAL Canadian subsidized Seal slaughter is about to begin. A worldwide collective of animal welfare and environmental groups will be joining the protests and the boycott of Canadian seafood and tourism. If the Canadian government continues to support this marine mammal massacre. This unsustainable seal cull is bad for the seals, the arctic ecology and the people of the Atlantic coast, who are in need of real economic means now that the Grand Banks have been over-fished. For a complete list of the unified opposition to the seal “hunt,” visit: www.protectseals.org, or www.hsus.org. — Jeff Kunz, Internet

Non-Toxic Cosmetics
THANKS FOR printing Rebecca Ephraim’s excellent and timely article “The Ugly Side of Pretty.” Cosmetics are the federal Food and Drug Administration’s stepchild — ignored and unsupervised — and readers need to know the health risks from the heavily advertised products they use on their bodies every day.

Thanks also to the Washington-based Environmental Working Group for devising Skin Deep, the “sophisticated online rating system that ranks brand-name products on their potential hazards”

Another way of protecting us is the bill that Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-9) introduced into Congress in 1999: Safe Notification and Information For Fragrances. Known as sniff, it requires any fragranced cosmetic containing a known allergen or toxin to say so on its label or be declared “misbranded” and removed from the market. The bill has languished in the Subcommittee on Health since then, but Rep. Schakowsky plans to broaden it to cover fragranced cleaning products and re-introduce it into the 109th Congress. — Lynn Lawson, Evanston

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: