 |
|
|||
 Wisconsin has no “moratorium” on building nuclear reactors. Indeed, Republicans blocked passage of a moratorium in 1983. 1) There must be a federal facility for high-level radioactive waste from all reactors; and 2) The cost of a reactor’s construction, operation, decommissioning and waste disposal must be “economically advantageous” compared with “feasible alternatives.” This fiscally conservative statute has capped the number of Wisconsin reactors at three. Alternative, gas-powered generators currently cost one-fifth that of new nuclear reactors, and they don’t need a disaster evacuation plan. No federal nuclear waste dump has been tested or opened. The Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel said editorially Feb. 21, 2004, as if to sound reassuring, “the country's best minds are working on the waste issue." The nuclear power waste dilemma is so daunting, so complex and overwhelming that 50 years of research has failed to produce an answer. The shut-down Genoa reactor on the bank of the Mississippi River, and the operating Point Beach and Kewaunee sites on the shore of Lake Michigan have, through default, become high-level radioactive waste storage sites. No one wants this dangerous and deadly waste in their backyard. AB 555 co-sponsor Phil Montgomery thinks the current law’s restrictions “are so out of line with reality that you could never meet them.” The reality is that nuclear power cannot be economically beneficial. Private insurance corporations refuse to sell policies to reactor operators. Professional insurance assessors looked at nuclear reactors and decided their risks are too big. That’s reality. The reality is that the federal Price Anderson Act provides government (single payer) reactor accident insurance at taxpayer expense to cover nuclear accidents. The vast majority of people in the U.S. do not use nuclear energy, but everyone pays the cost. Communities across the country have paid with their health and environment. Every step of the radioactive chain for nuclera power, i.e. the mining, milling, fuel fabrication, reprocessing, storage and reactor sites themselves have atrocious histories of contamination. No new nuclear reactors, not here in Wisconsin, not anywhere. Take time to work for an energy future that does not leave a deadly scrap pile for hundreds of thousands of years.
The Spring 2008 issue of the Nukewatch Quarterly contains a 4-page pull-out section aimed at educating legislators about nuclear power. Page 5 Enviro' Groups Agree: No Nukes Nuclear Power = Racism Nuclear is NO Solution to Global Warming/Climate Change California Rejects Nuclear Power Yucca "Proposed High-level Radioactive Waste Dump" May Never Open Yucca Mountain is Deeply Flawed Nuclear official’s stark farewell: Scrap Yucca Nuclear Reactor Construction Costs “Lift the moratorium on new nuclear plants” Rebuttal State should look to truly clean energy sources
|
|
|||
|
Help Keep More Nuclear Reactors Out of Wisconsin Please contact your State Legislators and urge them to Vote No on any Assembly Bill that would weaken or repeal the common sense state law that protects the public from unnecessary new nuclear power reactors in Wisconsin (state statute 196.493). If passed, the repeal would encourage more nuclear power in Wisconsin and increase the likelihood that the state will become a national high-level nuclear waste dumpsite. If passed, the repeal would eliminate two legal requirements that must now be met before new reactors can be built in Wisconsin: 1) That a federal nuclear waste storage site must be in operation; and 2) that reactor-generated electricity must be economically advantageous to the ratepayer compared with alternatives. A special Nuclear Power Committee and the Wisconsin Legislative Council have recommended repeal of these precautionary, conservative requirements. Their effort is part of an industry push for more reactors radioactive and waste production nationwide. Pro-nuclear propaganda has it that nuclear power is “cheap” and “carbon free.” But nuclear waste management will cost hundreds of billions of dollars over a period of at least 300,000 years; and the mining, milling and production of reactor fuel creates millions of tons of carbon pollution that the industry ignores. The proposed Yucca Mountain dump site in Nevada is unfit and should never open. One Nuclear Regulatory Commission member said Feb. 7, 2007 that the Yucca project must be scrapped. This would put Wisconsin higher on the list of potential dump sites, especially if tons of new waste is produced by new reactors. The time to express your opinion is now. Please call, write, email and/or visit your legislators as soon as possible. Call the Legislative Hotline at 800-362-9472 Senate: (608) 266-2517 State Assembly: (608) 266-1501 Below you can find a sample letter. Contact your representative to keep more nuclear reactors and more deadly radioactive waste out of Wisconsin. Date ___________Dear Representative/Senator ____________ Please vote No on any repeal of state statute 196.493 ― a common sense law that protects the public from unnecessary pollution and nuclear waste. 1) That a federal nuclear waste storage site must be in operation and accepting waste fuel; and 2) that reactor-generated electricity must be economically advantageous to the ratepayer compared with alternatives. A special Nuclear Power Committee has recommended (March 5, 2007) repeal of these precautionary and fiscally conservative requirements. Its effort is part of an industry-wide push for more reactors (and waste production) nationwide. Pro-nuclear propaganda has it that nuclear power is “carbon free” and “cheap.” But the mining, milling and production of reactor fuel creates millions of tons of carbon pollution and greenhouse gases that the industry ignores, and nuclear waste management will cost hundreds of billions of dollars for at least 300,000 years. The proposed Yucca Mountain dump site in Nevada is unfit and should never open. A Nuclear Regulatory Commission member said Feb. 7, 2007 that the Yucca project must be scrapped. This puts Wisconsin near the top of the list of potential national dump sites, especially if thousands of tons of new waste is produced by new reactors. On April 12, the state of California rebuffed a similar attempt to repeal conditions on reactor construction. Wisconsin should do the same. Please vote No on repeal of State Stat. 196-493. Sincerely, ______________________________________ Name
|
