THE SECOND SILENT SPRING: Pesticides don’t just kill pests

Originally posted on APP Advocate Precautionary Principle:

THE SECOND SILENT SPRING: Pesticides don’t just kill pests. New research out of the Netherlands provides compelling evidence linking a widely used class of insecticides to population declines across 14 species of birds. Those insecticides, called neonicotinoids, have been in the news lately due to the way they hurt bees and other pollinators. This new paper, published in Nature, gets at another angle of the story – the way these chemicals can indirectly affect other creatures in the ecosystem. There are many studies that show that neonics harm bees. “I think we are the first to show that this insecticide may have wide-scale, significant effects on our environment,” said Hans de Kroon, an expert on population dynamics at Radboud University and one of the authors of the paper.
READ MORE: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140709-birds-insects-pesticides-insecticides-neonicotinoids-silent-spring/
Direct link to the study: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13531.html#ref-link-43

View original

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

2 ACTION ALERTS NEED YOUR COMMENTS!

1st ACTION ITEM;

Please write to all the NRC Commissioners in support of the Chairperson MacFarlane idea to update the NRC Regs in a effort to make it clear for all Plant owners and the public on the decommissioning process for nuclear plants and the handling of “HBF” (high burn fuel). Please ask the Commissioners to have the NRC open a old cask with HBF in it to check on condition of this highly dangerous fuel and the cask condition.

Here are the email address:
Chairman@nrc.gov
CMRSVINICKI@nrc.gov
CMRMAGWOOD@nrc.gov
CMROSTENDORFF@nrc.gov

2nd ACTION ITEM;

THE EPA WOULD LIKE YOUR COMMENTS! DEADLINE AUGUST 3rd.
Both proponents and opponents of nuclear power expect the
Environmental Protection Agency in coming months to relax its rules
restricting radiation emissions from reactors and other nuclear
facilities. EPA officials say they have no such intention, but they
are willing to reconsider the method they use to limit public
exposure—and the public’s level of risk. Comment by August 3, 2014.
The EPA is seeking public input here http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0689-0001 upper right corner “comment now”.

Thanks for your activism.

Sincerely,                                     nukewasste

Gene Stone, ROSE

Posted in ACTION ALERTS, NUCLEAR NEWS & INFO | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Recommendations for temporary storage of Nuclear Waste at San Onofre

How long will SONGS  be a Nuclear Waste Dump? That answer is unclear at best. But for sure it will be here longer than anyone wants. So it will be safest and cheapest to store it right the first time! SCE and NRC love’s to say the risks are small, but they don’t like to tell us how BIG a nuclear waste accident can be.  Anyone remember Chernobyl and Fukushima?

ROSE advocates relocation of nuclear waste as soon as is feasible from the SONGS site to a less populated area and a less earthquake prone area. Temporary or permanent, although a permanent situation is preferred.

1. Storage of dry cask of any type should be within it’s own building to protect them from the salt air at San Onofre as some other countries do .

2. The best canister we have seen is the V-19 German canister. The V-19 and 21 canisters are an example of a better made product for our site at San Onofre. It is not meant to be a recommendation to buy, just the type of construction method we may want to look at.

3. There should be a fuel pool with crane on site to mitigate any accident with any of the dry casks.

4. There should be some type of pressure or radiation monitoring of cask in real time which the V-19 canister has.

5. NRC needs to update it’s procedures to include inspections of decommissioned cask storage areas on a regular and timely basis.

6. DOE needs to set a firm date as to when they will takeover SONGS nuclear waste and exactly how they will do that.

Donna Gilmore talking about dry cask storage for San Onofre Nuclear (Waste) Generating Station

Posted in Answers & Solutions, NUCLEAR NEWS & INFO | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Notes from David G. Victor SCE/CEP Chairman

Here are two important notes from David G. Victor SCE/CEP chairman.  Reading these carefully will give you insight into David’s understanding and misconceptions of how Southern California should proceed with the decommissioning of SONGS and it’s new life as a Nuclear Waste Dump, and how in the world to work with the NRC.

Overall in my opinion he is starting to get the complexities in decommissioning a Nuke Plant with 8,4 million people within a 50 mile radius and the lack of real direction and oversight by the NRC.

To read these note click on the links below.

Burden

NRC, 15 July 2014 visit

Victor at NRC 15 July 2014 (1)

Posted in Answers & Solutions, NUCLEAR NEWS & INFO | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Questions for SCE


Chris Thompson and Tom Palmisano of SCE,

 
1. How does the recent ruling from the NRC effect the bid process for the cask at San Onofre? The 16 June ruling http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-25/html/2014-14867.htm
2. Will there be a delay in choosing the cask company?
3, Will the bid re-open for another round?
4. Can we the CEP members have a copy of the bid package? (please consider this a request by me)
5. Would you consider a 3 month delay so we could have another event with all the casks companies bidding can present to the public? It is clear that no one wants another “Steam Generator debacle” with the Cask System we choose. It is important to choose the right casks instead of having to redo them in 20 or 40 yrs if we can choose one that may last for 100 yrs.
It was said at our 1st event on dry cask storage that there has never been a problem. That according the NRC records is not the case it seems. The first one on this list is Indian Point the only nuclear plant in a more populated area than San Onofre.
Attached is an PDF version of Information Notice 2014-09, Spent Fuel Storage or Transportation System Misloading, dated June 20, 2014 (ML14121A469), that has been posted to the NRR GCC Web, along with the URL for Web access to generic communications files on the NRC Homepage:http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ doc-collections/gen-comm/info- notices/2014/.
Sincerely,
                                                      Burden
Gene Stone
ROSE and SCE/CEP member
Posted in Answers & Solutions, NUCLEAR NEWS & INFO | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Take action at CPUC today your money is at stake

SanOnofrePileOfMoneyDear Members and Supporters,

San Onofre SubsidiesCalifornia ratepayers have carried the whole financial burden of the San Onofre nuclear generator failures. If your home, business, school, shopping center or city hall is powered by Southern California Edison, you paid for the defective nuclear generators and management failures at San Onofre.
A variety of critical and complex problems related to the non-operating San Onofre nuclear power plant have raised new questions about fairness to ratepayers – a goal that cannot be achieved without requiring financial accountability of utility management and shareholders.

Please tell the California Public Utitlty Commission that it is not fair to ratepayers to pay for costs arising from the installation of unproven technology used in the failed San Onofre nuclear generators.

Take action as a resident by calling on the California PUC to return $1.65 Billion to ratepayers for the failed San Onofre nuclear generators at this link https://secure.sierraclub.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=13930

Thank you for your support.
Continue reading

Posted in ACTION ALERTS, Answers & Solutions, NUCLEAR NEWS & INFO | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Statement from Glenn Pascall, Sierra Club to the California Public Utilities Commission

June 16, 2014

President Peevey and Commission members,

As the Sierra Club’s San Onofre Task Force Chair, I am here on behalf of the 40,000 members of the Angeles Chapter, many of whom are ratepayers affected by the case before you today. Last year our members sent you almost 3,000 letters on this issue.

I will put the matter briefly: Defective technology shut San Onofre ten years earlier than planned. We can all agree that the best economic outcome for our region would be if the entire cost related to this event is paid by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, the maker of the defective technology.

However, that outcome is not feasible. At best, Mitsubishi will pay for the direct cost of the flawed system it sold Edison. The remaining issue is who covers the costs of the plant going off-line and then being shut permanently.

America’s free market economy is based on a system of risks and rewards. Regulated utilities are a partial exception to this model. Investors are guaranteed a rate of return and utility users are guaranteed reasonable rates.

San Onofre involves an issue beyond this neat model. What is fair cost sharing when management fails to perform due diligence on unproven new technology that subsequently fails at a direct cost of several hundred million dollars and total non-performance losses in the billions?

In such a case, to hold management harmless on financial compensation and job security, and to exempt shareholders so there is no impact on profits, is to depart from the American free-market economic system of risk and reward, and to put in its place a form of corporate welfare enforced by a government agency.

The only way to completely avoid this outcome is to entirely refund to ratepayers the extra amount collected from them solely because of the shutdown and closure at San Onofre. Anything less than this represents a departure from the free-enterprise model in which management is accountable and investors hold management responsible for errors and omissions.

In conclusion, it is absurd on its face to make ratepayers responsible for costs related to the installation of an unproven and fatally defective new technology caused by supplier failures of design and manufacture, and management failures of due diligence.

Thank you for consideration of these views.

Glenn Pascall

Posted in Answers & Solutions, NUCLEAR NEWS & INFO | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment