Dear Readers,
It should be noted that the property value ALONE of San Onofre, if it were converted to condos, a seaside resort, hotels and such, even though it's a relatively small nuke facility in terms of land-area allocated, would probably FAR OUTWEIGH its "income" to the state as a nuke facility -- not even counting against it the deaths it causes in the local community, from both regular (as in, daily) and "unplanned" (but common enough to be called regular, too) radioactive poison gas releases; not counting the problem of what to do with the highly radioactive and dangerous used nuclear reactor cores; not counting the risk of an accident or terrorist act that could kill hundreds of thousands of Californians; not counting the fraud involved in keeping the plant open (SCE, the owner, lies about everything and nearly went bankrupt several years ago because they are so greedy); not counting the fossil fuel used by the 1400 or so workers going to and from the plant each day; not counting the valuable metals (such as titanium) that are made unrecycleable by being used in a nuke facility where they become poisoned with radiation; not counting the AGENT-PROVOCATEURS who infect our society and destroy our democracy in order to keep the local activists confused, the press silent, and the plant running; not counting the cost-benefit to the state that a renewable energy industry would bring in jobs and exports; not counting the unreliability of the power they mistakenly call "baseline;" not counting the FACT that Yucca Mountain will probably never be built (and shouldn't be); and not counting thousands of other things.
Shutdown is the only reasonable alternative -- unless we LIKE a future consisting of dying gruesome and painful deaths in poverty-stricken quarantine zones, which will be our fate -- perhaps as early as tomorrow or today -- if we keep San Onofre open.
In the press release shown below, among other mistakes, it should say "thousands of tons" not "hundreds of tons." It should demand IMMEDIATE SHUT-DOWN of San Onofre. It should recognize that Senator Kehoe has been on NUMEROUS committees which have, one by one, continued to permit San Onofre to operate FOR DECADES. She has abdicated her responsibilities OVER AND OVER AGAIN. This meeting won't change a thing, except to make it look to some like democracy is in action. It's not.
Naturally, the meeting is being held during regular business hours so that most people cannot attend. They never miss a trick.
Sincerely,
Ace
At 12:36 PM 10/11/2007 -0400, "Michael Mariotte" <nirsnet@nirs.org> wrote:
>Dear Friends:
>
>
>
>Below is an Alert from our friends at Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. We hope as many of you as possible will take advantage of this opportunity to tell your state legislators what you think about nuclear power!
>
>
>
>Michael Mariotte
>
>Nuclear Information and Resource Service
>
>nirsnet@nirs.org
>---------------------------------------
A4NR
>PO 1328
>
>San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406
>
>www.a4nr.org
>
>(805) 704-1810
>
> ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS
>
>KEHOE, Chairwoman
>
>
>
>When: Oct 23, 2007 Time: 2pm to 6pom
>
>Where:: Oceanside City Hall Chambers
>
> 300 North Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA
>
>What: INFORMATIONAL HEARING
>
>Subject: A Status Report on Nuclear Power
>
>
>
>Please take this opportunity to speak to California's legislators on the economic impacts of California's reliance on aging nuclear plants and new reactor designs proposed for our state.
>
>
>
>Last year, California's legislators tasked the California Energy Commission to analyze the costs, benefits and risks of the state's reliance on aging nuclear plants and this year we have seen a few legislators propose possible future reactors in our state. These actions call for public participation to ensure that all concerns are addressed to ensure California's energy future will be a product of responsible energy planning.
>
>
>
>The generation of energy using nuclear reactors has led to the production of hundreds of tons of high-level radioactive waste currently stored on our fragile coast. What are the real costs of this energy source and should our state continue to allow these reactors to continue to operate beyond current license terms? Among the issues that must be reviewed in depth to determine the economic impacts of operating reactors beyond their original design life are:
>
>
>
>· Plant aging
>
>· Waste production, safety, storage and eventual transportation
>
>· Terrorism, acts of malice and insanity
>
>· Offsite waste possibilities (including reprocessing and deep geological storage)
>
>· Safety culture
>
>· Aging workforce
>
>· Impacts from problems at other reactors (ex. Davis-Besse)
>
>· Seismic issues (including lessons learned from recent quake in Japan 7000 MW offline indefinitely)
>
>· Radioactive isotopes found offsite and in the environment (ex. Tritium)
>
>· Water issues (including 316 (b) 2nd Circuit Court decision)
>
>· Fuel supplies (rising costs of Uranium)
>
>
>
>The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility respectfully requests that all other legislative actions to further nuclear relicensing or new reactors be held in abeyance until the CEC analysis is complete, adopted and recommendations are implemented. Furthermore, the Alliance requests that this Committee recommend that no further actions be taken by California's utilities towards license renewal or new reactors until the above criteria are met.
>
>
>
>California is blessed with a coastline that is beyond compare. Billions of people flock to our beaches, visit our theme parks, climb and ski our mountains. Are we willing to risk this abundance on a short-sighted, expensive and heavily subsidized energy future that will leave behind a legacy of highly radioactive waste on our fragile earthquake active coast forever?
>
>
>
>California does not need to make a Sophie's Choice for our energy future; we have made great strides for a clean energy future that will be the template for the world. We thank Senator Kehoe's Committee for the opportunity to share our concerns.
>
Note: These hearings were canceled due to the raging fires