Eco-Nature Care™

Just when you thought the federal government was doing nothing they made a step towards stopping false claims on food packaging. There are many false claims that we see daily in the supermarket and unfortunately conventional grocery stores do not play the role as a fate keeper. I am a label reader and enjoy reading how the front panel conflicts with the back panel. Unfortunately, retailers have become so caught up in the bottom line they have lost the role of building credibility with consumers that what was in the store was properly labeled. Most retailers have a review committee to over see new items. At the same time there is a Price called slotting that may over step the review of the products integrity for the dollars offered to the retailers to stock. Shame that the retailers you use to know has gone by the way side. Even Natural Retailers have lost their way. Why they make claims of their integrity most buyers are not equipped in Natural to make review products. Unfortunately like in the Wild West Big Retailers and Big Manufacturers can control what we eat….the government is under staffed and is ill equipped to face off with the titans of the food industry….so what else is in my cranberry juice? Can you really have zero trans fats? As Cy Sims would say. ” an educated consumer is our best customers”. It is time to change how America Eats not with a TV show but Consumers pushing back and demanding fair advertising.

WASHINGTON — The Food and Drug Administration is notifying a number of food manufacturers whose labels contain false or misleading claims, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in an open letter to the industry Wednesday.

Among those notified are companies making nutrition claims authorized for use with adults, but not for infants and young children under 2; misleading “healthy” claims that don’t meet well-established definitions for use of the term; trans fat-free claims that lead consumers to believe the product is a healthy choice when it is also high in saturated fat; and juice blends presented as consisting entirely of a single juice.

“These examples and others that are cited in our warning letters are not indiciative of the labeling practices of the food industry as a whole,” said Hamburg in her letter. “In my conversations with industry leaders, I sense a strong desire within the industry for a level playing field and a commitment to producing safe, healthy products.”

The FDA will soon issue new draft guidance for front-of-pack calorie and nutrient labeling and recommendations for nutritional criteria for foods that make dietary guidance statements such as “eat two cups of fruit a day for good health.”

“We intend to work closely with food manufacturers, retailers and others in the design process, and I hope that every food processor will contribute its views on how we can do this in the best way possible,” Hamburg said.

I am one of those people who think when will we do something about climate change. At the same time being a contributor to the negative impact. The other day I saw a Starbucks drive thru with cars lined 6 deep…all pumping out carbon because it was more convenient to stay in the car and order..
a coffee in a cup that adds to the landfills in America. The bottle of Shampoo from Loreal has NO identification of what kind of plastic is the cap….The Body Cream from Nivea with a pump that is a recycling nightmare….we are creatures of comfort..While we wait for the UN or America to do something maybe we need to make changes in each of our lives….to help us I found a great location.
Blue Horizon.

Act Now to Offset Your Climate Impact and Stop Global Warming Pollution

Welcome to e-BlueHorizonsSM, where you can act now to help prevent the damaging effects of climate change on our natural environment. In fact, your action on e-BlueHorizonsSM will help fight global warming and offset your own climate impact in two very important ways:

Greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Your action will cause the retirement of verified greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions offsets (a.k.a, “carbon offsets” or “carbon credits”), a tradable environmental currency that can sometimes be used as a license to pollute. When you retire offsets, you remove them from relevant registries and take them permanently out of circulation, thereby preventing their future use.

Carbon sequestration through reforestation. In addition to retiring carbon offsets in your name, we’ll donate 50 percent of the net proceeds from your transaction to The Conservation Fund, the nation’s foremost environmental nonprofit organization, to support it’s “GoZero” climate change initiative. Since 1985, The Conservation Fund has been working across the 50 states to promote reforestation and preserve sensitive wildlife habitats, working landscapes, recreation areas, and open space.

Join us today in the fight against global warming and climate change.
Act now to Fight Global Warming. Free Carbon Calculator.
Environmental Defense Fund American Carbon Registry Carbon Offset Providers Coalition Chicago Climate Exchange

I am not underscoring the issue of the trainers death in Orlando last week, but thousands of marine wild life dies every day because we have littered the seas with plastic and other junk. Maybe we should think about building a BIG tank in the center of the country and bring all of the birds, fish and mammals in the Pacific Ocean and transport them to the new tank. We are responsible for destroying there other tank so isn’t only fair?

Are There Really ‘Continents’ of Floating Garbage?

Trash

pattern_2Since stories have started surfacing more recently, many have wondered, if the rumors are true. Are there really ‘continents’, or massive
floating garbage patches residing in the pacific ocean? Apparently, the rumors are true, and these unsightly patches are reportedly
killing marine life and releasing poisons that enter the human food chain, as well. However, before you start imagining a plastic version of Maui, keep in mind that these plastic patches certainly aren’tsolid surfaced islands that you could build a house on! Ocean currents have collected massive amounts of garbage into a sort of plastic “soup” where countless bits of discarded plastic float intertwined just beneath the surface. Indeed, the human race has really made its mark. One enormous plastic patch is estimated to weigh over 3 million tons altogether and cover an area roughly twice the size of Texas.

Plastic_ocean_trash_5

But if there is an unfathomably massive collection of plastic junk out there, then why doesn’t everyone already know about it, and why aren’t we doing something about it? Well, there are several reasons. First, no one is keen to claim responsibility for these monstrosities, which exists in one of the most remote spots on the planet. It’s easier to ignore than to deal with, at least in the short term. Most of the
plastic is floating just below the surface where explorers, researchers, and scientists can get a good close-up view, but it is nearly impossible to see the massive quantities of submerged trash in
photographs taken from great distances. This makes it easier for naysayers to disregard the problem as a mere myth, in spite of all of the well-documented research to the contrary. Clean up seems nearly
impossible at this point, so even those who are well aware of the situation have adopted the famous ostrich cliche of burying their heads in the sand. Even so, this polluted, chemical filled junk is finding it’s way onto our dinner tables.

Sadly, marine researcher Charles Moore at the Algalita Marina Research Foundation in Long Beach says there’s no practical fix for the problem. He has been studying the massive patch for the past 10 years, and said the debris is to the point where it would be nearly impossible to extract.

“Any attempt to remove that much plastic from the oceans – it boggles the mind,” Moore said from Hawaii, where his crew is docked. “There’s just too much, and the ocean is just too big.”

The trash collects in this remote area, known as the North Pacific Gyre, due to a clockwise trade wind that encircles the Pacific Rim. According to Moore the trash accumulates the same way bubbles clump at the center of hot tub.

Ian Kiernan, the Australian founder of Clean Up the World, started his environmental campaign two decades ago after being shocked by the incredible amount of rubbish he saw on an around-the-world solo yacht race. He’ll says he’ll never be able the wipe the atrocious site from his memory.

“It was just filled with things like furniture, fridges, plastic containers, cigarette lighters, plastic bottles, light globes, televisions and fishing nets,” Kiernan says. “It’s all so durable it floats. It’s just a major problem.”

Kiernan says it’s killing wildlife in a vicious cycle. Holding an ashtray filled with colorful pieces of plastic he told The Sydney Morning Herald, “this is the contents of a fleshy-footed shearwater’s stomach. They go to the ocean to fish but there ain’t no fish – there’s plastic. They then regurgitate it down the necks of their fledglings and it kills them. After the birds decompose, the plastic gets washed back into the ocean where it can kill again. It’s a form of ghost fishing, where it goes on and on.”

A Dutch study in the North Sea of fulmar seabirds concluded 95 per cent of the birds had plastic in their stomachs. More than 1600 pieces were found in the stomach of one bird in Belgium.

The United Nations Environment Program says plastic is accountable for the deaths of more than a million seabirds and more than 100,000 marine mammals such as whales, dolphins and seals every year.

Since his first encounter with the gyre in 1997, Moore created the Algalita Marine Research Foundation to help study the problem. Canadian filmmaker Ian Connacher joined Moore last year to film the garbage patch for his documentary, I Am Plastic.

“The most menacing part is those little bits of plastic start looking like food for certain animals, or the filter feeders don’t have any choice, they just pick them up,” noted Connacher.

Perhaps an even bigger problem is hiding beneath the surface of the islands of garbage. Greenpeace reports that about 70 per cent of the plastic that makes it to the ocean sinks to the bottom, where it then smothers marine life on the ocean floor. Dutch scientists have found 600,000 tons of discarded plastic on the bottom of the North Sea alone.

A study by the Japanese geochemist Hideshige Takada and his colleagues at Tokyo University in 2001 found that plastic polymers soak up the resilient poisons such as DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls. The researchers found that non-water-soluble toxic chemicals can be found in plastic in levels as high as a million times their concentration in water. As small pieces of plastic are mistaken for fish eggs and other food by marine life, these toxins end up at the dinner table. But even without the extra toxins, eating plastic is hazardous to health.

It is estimated that 80 per cent of plastic found at sea is washed out from the land. The journal Science last year predicted seafood stocks would collapse by 2048 if overfishing and pollution continued. If the seafood stocks collapse, a lot of humans will follow. So, is there anything we can do to prevent this?

Greenpeace says embracing the three Rs – reduce, re-use and recycle – would help tackle the problem. Plastic recycling is lagging well behind paper and cardboard. Part of the reason is because many people aren’t even sure what recycling options exist in their area. But there are other challenges for plastic recycling too. Some plastics release toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, and are more expensive to recycle than to simply create a new product from petrochemicals.

The widespread use of bioplastics could largely reduce the amount of plastic strewn around the world. Traditional petrochemical-based plastics are non-degradable and non-renewable; degradable plastic breaks into smaller pieces in UV light but remains plastic. Then there are two kinds of biodegradable plastic that break down in compost – one from a petrochemical resource, the other from a renewable resource such as corn or wheat, which is known as bioplastic. Bioplastic is by far the most environmentally friendly option. Dr Katherine Dean, of the CSIRO, says corporate firms are now becoming increasingly interested in bioplastics.

“When oil prices soared in 2005, that changed a lot of people’s perspective, because bioplastic became quite cost-competitive,” she says. “All of a sudden it wasn’t just about doing the right thing.”

The company Plantic Technologies, has developed biodegradable plastic for everything from food and beverage packaging to medical, agricultural and sporting applications. The chief executive of Plantic, Grant Dow, says once composted, the plastic would become nothing more than carbon dioxide and water.

“For all intents and purposes, it looks like plastic and feels like plastic and does the same thing as plastic in the application,” he says.

“It will only biodegrade in the presence of heat, moisture and bacteria, so it will sit in your cupboard pretty much indefinitely, but when the bacteria get to it in compost, that’s it. It’s gone.”

While parts of our oceans have already become inhospitable soups of plastic and plankton, we can at least mitigate the future consequences by making smart individual choices. Experts say the best way to mitigate the damage down the road is by buying less products that contain plastics or plastic packaging, recycling, lobbying for safer bio-degradable plastics, and by purchasing reusable cloth grocery bags among other strategies.

Posted by Rebecca Sato

Related Galaxy post:

500 Billion Tons of Prehistoric Organic Matter May Massively Accelerate ‘Global Warming’

Sources:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/the-plastic-killing-fields/2007/12/28/1198778702627.html

http://www.cleanup.org.au/au/

http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/the-expedition/news/trashing-our-oceans

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/10/30/MNT5T1NER.DTL

http://www.physorg.com/news112248742.html

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/

Last night at my favorite ” natural super store ” I told the cashier, ” paper”. He stated” we only have paper”! Then I asked why do you make such a big deal over
not have plastic bags but 50% of the stores products are in plastic? Well this is where it turn ugly. He stated back, ” if we did not sell things in plastic we would not have many products on the shelf”. I reject the idea because retailers and manufacturers have a choice. He also stated that the ” natural foods super store”
recycles things like yogurt cups. Here we go again! Ok, if you have the where with all you can bring your yogurt cups to the store….supposedly they send to
preserve to make toothbrushes….but then you throw out the toothbrush and it lands in the landfill. Typical white washing downcycling. I know there are so many big issues to deal with….but ” a plastic bottle is a terrible thing to waste”

I am getting tired of the Al Gore jokes on global warming after the terrible winter we had this year.  One Cold and Snowy Winter

should not derail the facts that the world is getting warmer. The reality is as the world heats up the Climate Changes. We will see

more variation in climate patterns. So maybe we should stop talking of global warming?

YES: Loans will spur reliable clean energy and thousands of new jobs.
More opinion »

* Letters to the Editor
* Pro & Con: Should taxpayers subsidize loan guarantees for nuclear power?
* A transit solution: Raise the gas tax
* Analytical learning is the big loser in test score obsession
* Readers Write 02/23
* Health Care Reform: News and resources

Columns and blogs

* Cynthia Tucker
* Kyle Wingfield
* Jay Bookman
* Bob Barr
* Mike Luckovich
* Jim Wooten
* Neal Boortz

By Nolan E. Hertel

Is all the hoopla over solar and wind energy finally ending? One can only hope, now that President Barack Obama has come out strongly in support of nuclear power, with loan guarantees to build two new reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia. Construction of the new reactors will spur clean energy development and create thousands of jobs.

Even though billions of dollars have been invested in renewable energy resources, solar and wind energy combined account for less than 5 percent of U.S. electricity production — and that’s even with generous tax incentives and technology grants. By contrast, nuclear power provides about 20 percent of the electricity generation in Georgia and nationally.

Solar and wind energy are expensive, eating up resources that energy companies would like to spend elsewhere, or not have to spend at all. Yet we have an obligation to provide a dependable supply of clean electricity to replace aging power plants and to meet a projected 20 percent increase in the need for power by 2030.

The key to addressing our energy needs lies in ensuring a strong comeback of nuclear power in the U.S. For that to happen, Congress will need to take prompt action on the president’s request for more than $54 billion in loan guarantees to support nuclear plant construction. That’s triple the amount Congress approved a few years ago.

The loan guarantees for the new reactors in Georgia are expected to reduce the cost of obtaining private financing by several hundred million dollars.

A number of reactor designers and manufacturers have expanded their facilities and payrolls in anticipation of new business, creating about 15,000 jobs in the process. Still, most of the parts for new reactors must be imported from other countries. Congress should promote policies that help industry expand the number of domestic nuclear suppliers.

Nuclear plant construction will lead to increased labor at all levels. According to an analysis by Oxford Economics, 268,000 jobs would be created during the construction of 52 new reactors. Operation of the new reactors would produce thousands of additional jobs.

Georgia will now rank among the top beneficiaries from the construction of new nuclear plants. The average nuclear plant provides $430 million a year in total output for surrounding communities and nearly $40 per million per year in labor income.

Signs that solar and wind energy are not making the inroads that the administration had once forecast, and will never supply more than a few percentage points of electricity, can be seen in some recent setbacks for both. Oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens, who has been a major investor in wind energy, recently dropped plans for a large wind farm in Texas. Several solar thermal projects have been canceled recently due to public protests. The opposition is a justifiable response to solar thermal’s need for huge amounts of water, a problem that’s especially acute in the arid Southwest.

As intermittent electricity sources, wind and solar energy cannot replace conventional “base-load” electricity generation. In fact, the capacity factor of a wind turbine, defined as the amount of power actually produced in a year, compared with the amount that would result from around-the-clock generation, is about 30 percent. The capacity factor for solar thermal plants is 20 percent. By contrast, nuclear plants have capacity factors of 90 percent.

Instead of pursuing the discredited renewable-energy agenda of narrow interest groups, the administration and Congress should cooperate in plotting a new course for the rest of the 21st century. Our most compelling need is for clean, reliable and affordable energy. Nuclear power is the one source that can meet that need.

Nolan E. Hertel is a professor of nuclear and radiological engineering at Georgia Tech.

NO: Loans waste money on unsafe industry rife with cost overruns.

By Joan King

Americans have never been completely comfortable with nuclear power.

Even before Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, people were uneasy about a technology that produced radioactive isotopes — subatomic particles that can’t be seen or felt but can cause cancer.

Nevertheless, the nuclear power plants were built and began producing electricity. Nuclear power became a part of the nation’s energy mix, and people became comfortable with it. Nuclear power was still controversial, and voters forced shutdowns in some states; but there’s never been a massive call for phase-out as there’s been in Germany.

Instead, some called for a “nuclear renaissance,” but no private investor will touch it because the nuclear industry has a bad record of delays and cost over-runs.

Nevertheless, Wednesday President Barack Obama granted $8.3 billion in taxpayer loan guarantees to the Southern Co. for new reactors at Plant Vogtle.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the potential for default on these loans is about 50 percent. This is unacceptable. The nuclear industry is no longer a young struggling technology. It’s more than 50 years old, well entrenched and very powerful, but it still isn’t self-sustaining and it still hasn’t solved its most basic problems.

1. The industry still has no idea what to do with nuclear waste. The effort to establish a repository has cost billions and gone nowhere. Highly dangerous radioactive material is still stored above ground at nuclear plants across the country.

2. The industry is unable to sustain itself without massive infusions of federal money, and because of its ties to nuclear weapon technology, nuclear power does not, and can never, operate in a completely open and democratic fashion.

The government is forced to oversee and intervene at every step of the operation, but because we want our homes warm in the winter and cool in the summer, and because we want to keep our lights on and shops open for business, we accept this intrusion. Point out the danger to the economy and open government, and we shrug and change the subject.

We ignore physical warning signs: Tritium leaks were recently discovered at the Yankee plant in Vermont.

Groundwater contamination around the plant is 40 times higher than the federal safe drinking water limit, and similar leaks have been found at least 28 of the nation’s other 104 nuclear plants. The most recent leak was discovered earlier this month at Plant Oconee just north of the Georgia-South Carolina border.

Tritium is radioactive. In sufficient concentration it’s carcinogenic. Nuclear power is not safe, not practical and not clean. It isn’t even economically viable. But here’s the good news: It’s not necessary!

Even if the nuclear industry gets its subsidies, new plants can’t be up and running for eight to 10 years. Meanwhile, renewable technology is coming online every day.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, renewable energy usage is rising steadily. For the month of October 2009, renewables’ contribution to the nation’s energy mix exceeded that of nuclear power.

Renewables are ready now. Solar and wind generators can be put to work in a matter of weeks. According to the American Wind Energy Association, 9,922 megawatts of wind power came online in 2009. With figures like this, pretty soon we don’t need any nuclear reactors at all.

Renewables are transforming the way our country gets and transmits its energy. And like any new and growing businesses, they generate jobs!

Loan guarantees to the Southern Co. does nothing but put taxpayer dollars into an old and outdated technology.

Joan King lives in Sautee and is a board member of Nuclear Watch South.

While progress here has lagged, the Scandinavian country has successfully chosen a site for a geological repository after including citizens and local government in the discussion.
February 21, 2010|By Margot Roosevelt

If the United States is at a loss over what to do about nuclear waste, it may be time to check out the Swedish model.

A symposium at the annual meeting of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science in San Diego last week highlighted the Swedish power industry in gaining public support for a geological repository for high-level radioactive waste.

The Scandinavian success comes in stark contrast to efforts in the U.S., where spent nuclear fuel rods have remained for decades in temporary storage at power plants around the country. Meanwhile, Congress has debated where to bury them, decided on a repository under Yucca Mountain in Nevada, and then changed its mind.

The Obama administration, mindful of the fierce resistance of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), has opposed Yucca and, in the 2011 budget, slashed all funding for the project, which is led by the Department of Energy. Also, President Obama has called for “a new generation of safe, clean nuclear plants” and has budgeted $36 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power.

Like the U.S., Sweden, which gets 50% of its electricity from nuclear plants, has faced opposition in its three-decade quest to find a suitable long-term burial site. Protests halted studies at several sites.

And the Swedes had a high barrier to overcome: Under Swedish law, any municipality can veto a repository within its borders.

The key, according to Claes Thegerstrom, chief executive of Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co., was a methodical, deliberate process, with a dash of human psychological insight.

Between 1977 and 1985, the company, a private entity acting on behalf of the nuclear industry, studied the geological suitability of 12 sites. It then conducted scientific feasibility studies of eight sites. By 2002, it had narrowed the search to two municipalities, one south and one north of Stockholm.

The industry worked closely with citizens groups, local politicians and civic groups throughout the process. It was a marked contrast, remarked one former Yucca engineer in the audience, to the process in the U.S., where the public comment period to review 6,000 pages of federal documents was 60 days.

“We looked at how we communicated,” Thegerstrom said, adding that the firm gave no intimation that the waste was safe. Instead, “we started with the basic message: This spent fuel is very dangerous. It exists, so we have to find a solution.”

By the time the choice was narrowed to two sites, Thegerstrom noted, “some basic psychological things played a role. One was to have different options. In our case, we got to the point of having competition. That is a strong driving force.”

The two municipalities came to see the repository as a source of jobs and international prestige and were “eager to be selected.”

Another difference: The U.S. effort was led by the Department of Energy, with Congress pulling the strings, canceling the original plan to have one repository in the East and another in the West, instead anointing Yucca.

I was surprised to see the Gold Medal standings of countries that produce Nuclear Power. On Average 15% of the worlds electricity is made form nuclear power. The French are the outright winners in number of Power Plants and the percentage of electricity made from nuclear almost 80%. The United States is well down the pack with less than 20% of the electricity made from nuclear. As we set out sights on increasing our output I wonder where the nuclear waste is going to be stored. We already have nuclear waste  where nuclear materials have been manufactured and/or where waste has been stored, and where massive leaks, toxic emissions, or unexplained losses have occurred in the processing of nuclear and other toxic materials. Listed with the site is the type of toxic or radioactive leak or “loss.”

• Oak Ridge, TN – mercury, other heavy metals, nuclear (uranium, waste), dioxin
• Barnwell, SC – nuclear (waste)
• Hanford, Richland, WA – nuclear (plutonium, waste)
• Rocky Flats, Colorado – nuclear (plutonium)
• Idaho Falls, ID – nuclear (plutonium)
• Pantex, TX – nuclear (tritium)
• Maxey Flats, KY – nuclear (waste)
• West Valley, NY – nuclear (waste)
• Nuclear Metals, Concord, MA – nuclear (uranium)
• Kerr-McGee, Cimarron, OK – nuclear (plutonium)

The Oak Ridge and Hanford facilities stand out among them as being among the largest leaks of toxic and/or radioactive waste in the world. At Oak Ridge, literally millions of pounds of mercury have leaked into the ground, the aquifer, and a streambed that then winds many miles through the Tennesee countryside and through several towns. In addition, Oak Ridge maintains a hazardous waste incinerator on site, which has been used to “incinerate” nuclear waste and toxic wastes which produce dioxin when incinerated. At the Hanford Works, large amounts of plutonium and other wastes have leaked into the Columbia River, which then winds its way across the entire state of Washington.

So Where will all this waste be stored?  Maybe it is time to figure out a strategy ?

Share of nuclear power in electricity generation.
[edit] Table

Argentina 6.2%
Armenia 43.5%[3]
Bangladesh 0%
Belarus 0%
Belgium 53.8%
Brazil 3.1%
Bulgaria 32.9%
Canada 14.8%
People’s Republic of China China (PRC) 2.2%
Croatia 8.0%
Czech Republic 25.0%
Egypt 0%
Finland 22.0%
France 76.2%
Germany 28.3%
Hungary 37.2%
India 2.0%
Indonesia 0%
Iran 0%
Israel 0%
Italy 0%
Japan 24.9%
Kazakhstan 0%
North Korea 0%
South Korea 35.6%
Lithuania 0
Mexico 4.0%
Netherlands 3.8%
Pakistan 2.4%
Poland 0%
Romania 17.5%
Russia 16.9%
Slovakia 56.4%
Slovenia 41.7%
South Africa 5.3%
Spain 18.3%
Sweden 42.0%
Switzerland 39.2%
Republic of China Taiwan 19.3%
Thailand 0%
Turkey 0%
Ukraine 47.4% 0% 0 0 3 11
United Kingdom United Kingdom 13.5%
United States United States 19.7%
Vietnam 0%
Venezuela 0%
World 15%

The other day I heard a debate on Nuclear Power and I left not really sure what I believed after the shouting back and forth. At the end of the day the headline is we will pay the bill for the plants and the power companies will charge us and then when the fuel is done…nobody wants the fuel rods in their backyard…..so where does it leave us…one more time we continue to close our eyes on Natural Gas as an interim fuel…so here are the pros and cons.
Pros and cons of nuclear power plants As a result of the current discussion how further global warming could be prevented or at least mitigated, the revival of nuclear power seems to be in everybody’s – or at least in many politician’s – mind. It it interesting to see that in many suggestions to mitigate global warming, the focus is put on the advantages of nuclear power generation, its disadvantages are rarely mentioned.

Hopefully, the following summary of arguments for and against nuclear power can fill this gap:
Advantages of nuclear power generation:

* Nuclear power generation does emit relatively low amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). The emissions of green house gases and therefore the contribution of nuclear power plants to global warming is therefore relatively little.

* This technology is readily available, it does not have to be developed first.

* It is possible to generate a high amount of electrical energy in one single plant.

Disadvantages of nuclear power generation:

* The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10′000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards).

* High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built, the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the world.

* Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world.

* During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons (nuclear proliferation).

* The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand.

* The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build new nuclear power plants in a short time.

Sustainability: Is nuclear energy sustainable?

For several reasons, nuclear power is neither «green» nor sustainable:

* Both the nuclear waste as well as retired nuclear plants are a life-threatening legacy for hundreds of future generations. It flagrantly contradicts with the thoughts of sustainability if future generations have to deal with dangerous waste generated from preceding generations. See also here .

* Uranium, the source of energy for nuclear power, is available on earth only in limited quantities. Uranium is being «consumed» (i.e. converted) during the operation of the nuclear power plant so it won’t be available any more for future generations. This again contradicts the principle of sustainability.

Posted: Friday, Dec 01, 2006 at 0101 hrs IST
Updated: Friday, Dec 01, 2006 at 0101 hrs IST

New York, Nov 30: Who is contributing most to global warming? Dumb cattle and not emissions from factories and power plants, says the United Nations.

The increasing world population, a new UN report warns, would lead to further increase in the number of livestock as demand for meat and milk increases and that would mean emission of more greenhouse gases.

Not only that. Cattle are also a major contributor to land degradation and pollution of water, the report says.

The livestock business, the report says, is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops.

Stressing that cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, the UN has called for improved animal diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions.

Beyond improving animal diets, proposed remedies to the multiple problems include soil conservation methods together with controlled livestock exclusion from sensitive areas; setting up biogas plant initiatives to recycle manure; improving efficiency of irrigation systems; and introducing full-cost pricing for water together with taxes to discourage large-scale livestock concentration close to cities.

“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said on Wednesday.

Cattle-rearing is also a major source of land and water degradation, says a new report released by FAO of which Steinfeld is senior author.

—Reuters