U.S. Rep. Markey (D) moves to suspend all NRC licensing proceedings (new plants and re-licensing).

[enough]

Brief notice here:

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2011/4/7/us-rep-markey-moves-to-suspend-all-nrc-licensing-proceedings.html

In light of the still-unfolding Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, U.S. Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) has introduced legislation, the Nuclear Power Plant Safety Act of 2011, to impose a moratorium on all pending NRC licenses and re-licenses in light of the need to fully understand the safety risks and include remedies into our own regulations. Markey announced the bill at a hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations yesterday.


Link to Markey Statement:

http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=4293&Itemid=125

snip>

“I have introduced legislation, the Nuclear Power Plant Safety Act of 2011, to impose a moratorium on all pending NRC licenses and re-licenses in light of the need to fully understand the safety risks and include remedies into our own regulations. Many other countries have announced similar measures. I look forward to today’s testimony.”

more>

[flamingdem]

1. He's watching our radiated backs nt

[hayu_lol]

2. More needless delays on the part of the...

'sky is falling' clique.

The main reason this problem surfaced was a catastrophic natural event. Plants are more than 35 years old with old technology. Had research, development, planning been allowed to continue over the past 35 years...we would be opening much safer and more reliable plants just about now--the replacements for these old plants.

Just make sure that KBR cannot bid on any of the new plant contracts.

Reason that we have such a surplus supply of 'spent' fuel rods is because the moratorium on reprocessing plants kept new plants from being built. Spent fuel rods contain much usable fuel...with reprocessing, they can be used again and again safely with just the toxic materials removed. Actual waste is very small amounts.

Source: Dr Bill Wattenberg,KGO San Francisco.

[Skidmore]

3. There is no such thing safe nuclear energy.

Period. Especially in light of the waste products and spent fuel storage issue. Enough.

[PearliePoo2]

5. this might be interesting...

:popcorn:
K&R

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. The main reason this problem surfaced is that humans make arrogant mistakes

Mistakes like discounting that a much stronger earthquake was possible on that fault line than the estimates they used while designing that plant. Mistakes like disregarding the warning that there was a 10% chance that an earthquake triggered tsunnami would overtop the seawall built to resist one. Mistakes like installing the emergency back up electricity generators at ground level where they could be flooded and knocked out of operation should the seawall fail to protect the plant.

There are always human errors that ultimately trump human technology, but rarely can so much go wrong for so many for so far for so long as a catastrophic "incident" at a nuclear power plant. Yes we will always have to deal with the consequences of human errors of all kinds, but we don't have to create problems waiting to happen of this magnitude. Next time maybe there will be an "accident" inside a developing nation, and it won't be nuclear power to blame that time either, it will be blamed on bribery or substandard training or pure racism. It is never the fault of the technology, is it?

[PearliePoo2]

10. hayu_lol wrote: "The main reason this problem surfaced was a catastrophic natural event."

I suggest the reason for this catastrophe was not taking into account the POTENTIAL of a natural event. (ie: locating back-up emergency power systems where they were susceptible to tsunami flooding)
Engineering and planning for the "what ifs"....it's KEY.

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. Good for him!

at least someone in Washington has a brain.

[hayu_lol]

6. There are really no entirely safe methods of electrical generation...

9.0 earthquake: wind towers topple. Solar rooftops become trash on the ground. Care to guess about the rest? Coal(sound of laughter).

Life is pure risk...just being and staying alive. We can reduce the risk as much as possible by continuous research.

[flamingdem]

7. But when they f*ck up Nuclear due to recklessness and $ cutting it last hundreds of years nt

[AndyTiedye]

9. and Nukes Spew Radioactivity all Over the World

9.0 earthquake: wind towers topple.

Japan's windmills weathered the earthquake and are still generating power. Windmills tend to be on high ground, so the tsunami would have missed them.

Solar rooftops become trash on the ground.

If the rooftop (solar or otherwise) is "trash on the ground" then the fate of the solar power system attached to your now-destroyed home is the least of your worries.

None of the other power sources are spewing massive amounts of radiation and threatening to release far more at any time.

[AndyTiedye]

11. But That "Trash on the Ground" Isn't Radioactive

9.0 earthquake: wind towers topple.

Japan's windmills weathered the earthquake and are still generating power. Windmills tend to be on high ground, so the tsunami would have missed them.

Solar rooftops become trash on the ground.

If the rooftop (solar or otherwise) is "trash on the ground" then the fate of the solar power system attached to your destroyed home is the least of your worries.

None of the other power sources are spewing massive amounts of radiation and threatening to release far more at any time.

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. I never said there was, but Solar energy is a hell of a lot safer than Nuclear Energy.

Had we spent ALL the money that's been spent on Nuclear Plants and oil drilling over the years on alternative energy, just think how far ahead we'd be. We'd also still have a clean Pacific Ocean and a non-polluted Gulf of Mexico. There IS a better, safer, cleaner way to produce energy than to continue building these horrendously dangerous nuke plants that are destroying our planet.

Wind turbines don't kill or poison hundreds of people if they topple and neither do solar panels that "become trash on the ground." There's a huge difference.