Entire populations of North American fish already are being affected by several emerging diseases, a problem that threatens to increase in the future with climate change and other stresses on aquatic ecosystems, according to a noted U.S. Geological Survey researcher giving an invited talk on this subject August 3 at the Wildlife Disease Association conference"A generation ago, we couldn't have imaged the explosive growth in disease issues facing many of our wild fish populations," said Dr. Jim Winton, a fish disease specialist at the USGS Western Fisheries Research Center. "Most fish health research at that time was directed toward diseases of farmed fish."
In contrast, said Winton, recent studies in natural aquatic systems have revealed that, in addition to being a cause of natural death, infectious and parasitic fish diseases can produce significantly greater mortality in altered habitats leading to population fluctuations, extinction of endangered fish, reduced overall health and increased susceptibility to predation.
In addition, said Winton, populations of certain fish species have suffered catastrophic losses after non-native diseases were first introduced into a water body. Examples include whirling disease in the intermountain west and the recent introduction of viral hemorrhagic septicemia in the Great Lakes.
"The scientific community is increasingly concerned that global trade, extensive habitat alteration, accumulations of contaminants and other human-caused stresses stressors, including climate change, will affect the distribution or severity of fish diseases and contribute to increasing population-scale losses in these important natural resources," Winton said.
Disease is often ignored as a factor affecting wild populations of fish and wildlife because the effects are difficult to observe and quantify, noted Winton. But as cold-blooded animals, fish are highly dependent on environmental conditions, especially temperature, to help maintain critical physiological processes such as immune function that can affect whether a fish gets a disease or parasite, how it is affected by it, and how the disease progresses.
In particular, said Winton, some fish – such as salmon, trout and muskellunge - have a fairly narrow range of water temperatures they can live in. "If that temperature is exceeded over a period of time, not only may die-offs occur, but also, the increased stress and altered immune function will lead to greater levels of infectious or parasitic diseases which is why global warming is of particular concern.
Winton said that increased scientific recognition of fish diseases as a potential population-limiting factor in wild populations of fish is partly the result of the emergence of high-profile diseases such as whirling disease in wild-spawning rainbow trout in the Rocky Mountain West, viral hemorrhagic septicemia in the North Pacific Ocean and the Great Lakes, and a fungal-like disease, ichthyophoniasis, in adult Chinook salmon in the Yukon River.
The 58th annual meeting of the Wildlife Disease Association (WDA) will be August 2-7, 2009, in Blaine, Wash. The theme is Wildlife Health from Land to Sea: Impacts of a Changing World. USGS scientist Dr. Jim Winton, is presenting the paper, "The ecology of emerging diseases among populations of wild fish
in Blaine, Wash.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Climate change causing oceans to become more acidic, endangering sea life
Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are a major contributor to climate change, and now a new study has confirmed that atmospheric CO2 is also affecting the ocean chemistry, potentially threatening marine life.
Montana State University scientist Robert Dore has been taking samples of water in the Pacific Ocean for almost two decades.
"We're sailing out of Honolulu harbor. We're in the harbor right now and just about to break away from the dock."
I reached Prof. Dore on board the research vessel Kilo Moana, about to leave for a point in the Pacific known as Station Aloha, where he has been studying the ocean water since the late 1980s.
"We've been going to the same spot in the Pacific Ocean, and we've been measuring a whole suite of different chemical, biological, physical measurements to try and characterize long-term change in the open ocean environment. And one of the key things that we measure is CO2 levels. And we've been able to document this progressive invasion of atmospheric CO2 into the ocean."
Scientists expected that as atmospheric CO2 increased, more and more of the carbon dioxide would be absorbed into the ocean, affecting the chemical balance of the seawater, with a potentially harmful impact on shellfish and coral in particular.
"As carbon dioxide dissolves in water, or seawater in this case, it forms a weak acid, carbonic acid," Dore explains. "And therefore, as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere goes up and that exchanges with the surface seawater, it drives the pH down, makes it more acidic."
The seawater samples Dore and his colleagues have analyzed confirm what the theory predicts.
"The pH of the ocean out here has been decreasing. And it has been decreasing at pretty much the rate that we'd expect from the physics and the chemistry."
The lower pH levels — measuring increased acidification — varied seasonally and also from year to year. It also varied with depth.
The effect was particular striking at about 250 meters down, and again at 500 meters. Dore and his colleagues came up with two possible explanations. It could be that surface water picked up CO2 and then moved to those depths. Or there could be a biological explanation.
"So you can think of it as algae growing at the surface, taking up CO2, [they] die, sink, bacteria eat them. CO2 comes back out at some deeper depth. It's just a way of actually transporting the signal [measured CO2] to depth more quickly than just mixing."
Dore's laboratory measurements are not just equations and charts in his paper. He says they have a real-world impact.
"It's important to realize that acidification of the oceans is really happening. And it can have negative impacts on a whole variety of marine life from fisheries to coral reefs. It's potentially catastrophic."
Montana State University environmental scientist John Dore's paper appears this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Montana State University scientist Robert Dore has been taking samples of water in the Pacific Ocean for almost two decades.
"We're sailing out of Honolulu harbor. We're in the harbor right now and just about to break away from the dock."
I reached Prof. Dore on board the research vessel Kilo Moana, about to leave for a point in the Pacific known as Station Aloha, where he has been studying the ocean water since the late 1980s.
"We've been going to the same spot in the Pacific Ocean, and we've been measuring a whole suite of different chemical, biological, physical measurements to try and characterize long-term change in the open ocean environment. And one of the key things that we measure is CO2 levels. And we've been able to document this progressive invasion of atmospheric CO2 into the ocean."
Scientists expected that as atmospheric CO2 increased, more and more of the carbon dioxide would be absorbed into the ocean, affecting the chemical balance of the seawater, with a potentially harmful impact on shellfish and coral in particular.
"As carbon dioxide dissolves in water, or seawater in this case, it forms a weak acid, carbonic acid," Dore explains. "And therefore, as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere goes up and that exchanges with the surface seawater, it drives the pH down, makes it more acidic."
The seawater samples Dore and his colleagues have analyzed confirm what the theory predicts.
"The pH of the ocean out here has been decreasing. And it has been decreasing at pretty much the rate that we'd expect from the physics and the chemistry."
The lower pH levels — measuring increased acidification — varied seasonally and also from year to year. It also varied with depth.
The effect was particular striking at about 250 meters down, and again at 500 meters. Dore and his colleagues came up with two possible explanations. It could be that surface water picked up CO2 and then moved to those depths. Or there could be a biological explanation.
"So you can think of it as algae growing at the surface, taking up CO2, [they] die, sink, bacteria eat them. CO2 comes back out at some deeper depth. It's just a way of actually transporting the signal [measured CO2] to depth more quickly than just mixing."
Dore's laboratory measurements are not just equations and charts in his paper. He says they have a real-world impact.
"It's important to realize that acidification of the oceans is really happening. And it can have negative impacts on a whole variety of marine life from fisheries to coral reefs. It's potentially catastrophic."
Montana State University environmental scientist John Dore's paper appears this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
SCENARIOS: Fate of climate change bill in Congress
The fate of U.S. climate control legislation is in the hands of the Senate, where it faces an uphill climb. Democratic leaders hope to put it to a vote in October.
The House of Representatives narrowly passed its version of a bill to mandate reductions in industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
Here are some scenarios on how the battle in Congress could play out in coming months:
* BARBARA BOXER'S 'TWEAKS'
The California Democrat, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, says she's taking the House-passed bill and making some "tweaks." Boxer says she will formally introduce her bill in early September.
Environmentalists and others speculate Boxer might opt, as a starting point, for a slightly higher goal for reducing carbon emissions -- say 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, instead of the 17 percent in the House bill.
A big question is whether and how Boxer will "tweak" the initial sale or giveaway of pollution permits utilities and manufacturers will be required to obtain. President Barack Obama wanted all permits to be sold; the House ended up doing nearly the opposite, with 85 percent being given away. Boxer is under pressure from all sides.
Senator John Kerry says the Senate bill will have tougher controls than the House-passed bill to discourage abusive financial market speculation on trading of pollution permits.
Boxer and other committee heads have been given a late September deadline for producing a bill.
* 99 OTHER SENATORS' TWEAKS
The magic number is 60 in the Senate. That's how many votes are needed in the 100-member Senate to rescue bills from opponents' delaying tactics. Reaching 60 votes on the Senate floor will require plenty of deal-making and just about every senator could get involved. Among the possibilities:
-- A lower target for reducing emissions. Some moderates want a 14 percent reduction in carbon output by 2020.
-- Prominent senators like John McCain demand that nuclear energy be included in the "cap and trade" program lowering carbon emissions and letting companies sell pollution permits to each other.
-- Coal-state senators want more breaks and some of them are in a strong position to influence the legislation.
-- If the Senate manages to pass a bill, differences would still need to be worked out with the House, probably early next year.
* THE RENEWABLES ROUTE
Some senators who are lukewarm about a sweeping climate change bill argue there's not enough time to pass one this year. Their solution: Just pass legislation already approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee requiring utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity by 2021 from renewable sources like solar and wind power. The bill also encourages other clean energy investments.
Senate Democratic leaders would like to couple this with the bigger cap and trade climate bill. But if that's not possible, they could opt for the renewables piece, which also would expand some offshore oil drilling.
* LEAVE IT TO EPA
If Congress fails to pass a climate change bill by the end of the year, when countries from around the world meet in Copenhagen to mull coordinated steps to slow global warming, Obama has a fall-back plan: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is poised to go ahead, maybe next March, with its own rules on limiting carbon emissions. Environmentalists think federal legislation would be more effective, but if that's not politically possible, regulation by the executive branch might be the next-best option.
The House of Representatives narrowly passed its version of a bill to mandate reductions in industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
Here are some scenarios on how the battle in Congress could play out in coming months:
* BARBARA BOXER'S 'TWEAKS'
The California Democrat, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, says she's taking the House-passed bill and making some "tweaks." Boxer says she will formally introduce her bill in early September.
Environmentalists and others speculate Boxer might opt, as a starting point, for a slightly higher goal for reducing carbon emissions -- say 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, instead of the 17 percent in the House bill.
A big question is whether and how Boxer will "tweak" the initial sale or giveaway of pollution permits utilities and manufacturers will be required to obtain. President Barack Obama wanted all permits to be sold; the House ended up doing nearly the opposite, with 85 percent being given away. Boxer is under pressure from all sides.
Senator John Kerry says the Senate bill will have tougher controls than the House-passed bill to discourage abusive financial market speculation on trading of pollution permits.
Boxer and other committee heads have been given a late September deadline for producing a bill.
* 99 OTHER SENATORS' TWEAKS
The magic number is 60 in the Senate. That's how many votes are needed in the 100-member Senate to rescue bills from opponents' delaying tactics. Reaching 60 votes on the Senate floor will require plenty of deal-making and just about every senator could get involved. Among the possibilities:
-- A lower target for reducing emissions. Some moderates want a 14 percent reduction in carbon output by 2020.
-- Prominent senators like John McCain demand that nuclear energy be included in the "cap and trade" program lowering carbon emissions and letting companies sell pollution permits to each other.
-- Coal-state senators want more breaks and some of them are in a strong position to influence the legislation.
-- If the Senate manages to pass a bill, differences would still need to be worked out with the House, probably early next year.
* THE RENEWABLES ROUTE
Some senators who are lukewarm about a sweeping climate change bill argue there's not enough time to pass one this year. Their solution: Just pass legislation already approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee requiring utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity by 2021 from renewable sources like solar and wind power. The bill also encourages other clean energy investments.
Senate Democratic leaders would like to couple this with the bigger cap and trade climate bill. But if that's not possible, they could opt for the renewables piece, which also would expand some offshore oil drilling.
* LEAVE IT TO EPA
If Congress fails to pass a climate change bill by the end of the year, when countries from around the world meet in Copenhagen to mull coordinated steps to slow global warming, Obama has a fall-back plan: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is poised to go ahead, maybe next March, with its own rules on limiting carbon emissions. Environmentalists think federal legislation would be more effective, but if that's not politically possible, regulation by the executive branch might be the next-best option.
Africa united at climate change negotiations
Africa’s position at climate change negotiations was viewed as unified and strong, in fact, as a region, Africa was “probably the most unified”, said Department of Environmental Affairs international cooperation DDG Alf Wills.
He added that developing countries, in general, were unified on the science of climate change, and agreed that the historical responsibility of climate change lies with the developed world. However, when it came to the finer details, and priority areas of focus, developing countries were very divided.
Wills further explained that within Africa, least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (Sids) placed adaptation to the effects of climate change as top priority, while oil producing countries said response measures were top priority, and the emerging economies, or rapidly industrialising developing countries, like South Africa, placed technology transfer at the top of the agenda.
Environmental Affairs DDG Joanne Yawitch noted that climate change was far reaching, and also ventured into the areas of trade and trade barriers, as well as competition and protection of industries.
“We need to be honest and say that this is an issue for South Africa, it will impact us and we must take it into account at all levels,” she said. She stressed that South Africa needed a clear national response to climate change, as this would put the country in a stronger position at international negotiations.
The Environmental Affairs department said that the impact of climate change on Africa would be devastating. By 2020, it was expected that up to 200-million people in Africa could be affected by water stress, agricultural yields could decrease by 50%, there would be increased food insecurity and stress on ecosystems that support people in rural areas. Coastal flooding from rising sea levels would also affect the continent.
South Africa would be affected by all these issues, which was why the country’s negotiating stance was that both mitigation, and adaptation would need to play a part in the global agreement on climate change.
REACHING A GLOBAL DEAL
It was hoped that an international climate change deal would be struck at Copenhagen in December this year. From the developing world, South Africa played an important role at the negotiations.
Wills and Yawitch represent South Africa at various climate change negotiations as chief negotiators.
Wills said he was still hopeful, and very optimistic that agreement would be reached at Copenhagen, but added that the deal from Copenhagen would likely be a framework, with political support, with the detail to be filled further down the line.
“The negotiations are very difficult,” Wills said, and added that this was for economic and development reasons.
There were three more formal sessions of negotiations leading up to the highly anticipated Copenhagen negotiations in December, starting with a session in Bonn, which would begin later this week.
The formal negotiations would focus on four building blocks of: adaptation; mitigation; technology; and finance.
SA's EXPECTATIONS
Wills said that South Africa had certain expectations from Copenhagen. These were to carve out a deal that was inclusive, fair and effective; strike a balance between adaptation and mitigation; and have a balance between development and climate imperatives.
“The climate regime must be based on the recognition that solving the climate problem will only be possible if it is undertaken within the context of developing countries’ priority of achieving poverty eradication and promoting development,” he said.
South Africa expected a comprehensive international programme on adaptation, which included “massively” up-scaled finance, technology and capacity building – to be established to reduce vulnerability and build resilience of African countries to immediate and future impacts.
Finance flows to the developing world for adaptation would need to come from the developed countries. This would support research and development, early warning and disaster response systems, the building of emergency response systems and the follow-up response, as well as developing sectoral resilience for slow longer-term changes in climate.
With regard to mitigation, South Africa wanted quantified, and legally binding emission reduction commitments for developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol. Wills stressed that the Kyoto Protocol did not expire – the finer details of the new commitment period for the post-2012 period were being negotiated.
Mitigation would also require re-engagement of the US in the full multilateral process, with comparable, binding emission reduction commitments and robust compliance.
South Africa was also insisting that the framework for mitigation action by developing countries should be supported and enabled by finance, technology and capacity building.
The negotiators emphasised that when it came to implementation, predictable financial, technology and capacity building flows were essential to enable developing countries to build more resilient economies and ‘leapfrog’ to low carbon growth and development.
“No money, no deal,” affirmed Wills and Yawitch. While the developed countries were expected to bring money to the table, the developing world would bring action, added Yawitch.
Developing countries would take on nationally appropriate mitigation plans. South Africa would explain to developed nations what mitigation actions it could take on, provided the finance and capacity building resources were available.
The top negotiating officials explained that South Africa was not opposed to a market-based approach to develop financial flows, but noted that this would only form part of a deal, as developed countries had an obligation to put money on the table to be used for mitigation and adaptation. The governance arrangements of these funds would need to be clarified, as conditionalities attached to funds were not desirable.
He added that developing countries, in general, were unified on the science of climate change, and agreed that the historical responsibility of climate change lies with the developed world. However, when it came to the finer details, and priority areas of focus, developing countries were very divided.
Wills further explained that within Africa, least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (Sids) placed adaptation to the effects of climate change as top priority, while oil producing countries said response measures were top priority, and the emerging economies, or rapidly industrialising developing countries, like South Africa, placed technology transfer at the top of the agenda.
Environmental Affairs DDG Joanne Yawitch noted that climate change was far reaching, and also ventured into the areas of trade and trade barriers, as well as competition and protection of industries.
“We need to be honest and say that this is an issue for South Africa, it will impact us and we must take it into account at all levels,” she said. She stressed that South Africa needed a clear national response to climate change, as this would put the country in a stronger position at international negotiations.
The Environmental Affairs department said that the impact of climate change on Africa would be devastating. By 2020, it was expected that up to 200-million people in Africa could be affected by water stress, agricultural yields could decrease by 50%, there would be increased food insecurity and stress on ecosystems that support people in rural areas. Coastal flooding from rising sea levels would also affect the continent.
South Africa would be affected by all these issues, which was why the country’s negotiating stance was that both mitigation, and adaptation would need to play a part in the global agreement on climate change.
REACHING A GLOBAL DEAL
It was hoped that an international climate change deal would be struck at Copenhagen in December this year. From the developing world, South Africa played an important role at the negotiations.
Wills and Yawitch represent South Africa at various climate change negotiations as chief negotiators.
Wills said he was still hopeful, and very optimistic that agreement would be reached at Copenhagen, but added that the deal from Copenhagen would likely be a framework, with political support, with the detail to be filled further down the line.
“The negotiations are very difficult,” Wills said, and added that this was for economic and development reasons.
There were three more formal sessions of negotiations leading up to the highly anticipated Copenhagen negotiations in December, starting with a session in Bonn, which would begin later this week.
The formal negotiations would focus on four building blocks of: adaptation; mitigation; technology; and finance.
SA's EXPECTATIONS
Wills said that South Africa had certain expectations from Copenhagen. These were to carve out a deal that was inclusive, fair and effective; strike a balance between adaptation and mitigation; and have a balance between development and climate imperatives.
“The climate regime must be based on the recognition that solving the climate problem will only be possible if it is undertaken within the context of developing countries’ priority of achieving poverty eradication and promoting development,” he said.
South Africa expected a comprehensive international programme on adaptation, which included “massively” up-scaled finance, technology and capacity building – to be established to reduce vulnerability and build resilience of African countries to immediate and future impacts.
Finance flows to the developing world for adaptation would need to come from the developed countries. This would support research and development, early warning and disaster response systems, the building of emergency response systems and the follow-up response, as well as developing sectoral resilience for slow longer-term changes in climate.
With regard to mitigation, South Africa wanted quantified, and legally binding emission reduction commitments for developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol. Wills stressed that the Kyoto Protocol did not expire – the finer details of the new commitment period for the post-2012 period were being negotiated.
Mitigation would also require re-engagement of the US in the full multilateral process, with comparable, binding emission reduction commitments and robust compliance.
South Africa was also insisting that the framework for mitigation action by developing countries should be supported and enabled by finance, technology and capacity building.
The negotiators emphasised that when it came to implementation, predictable financial, technology and capacity building flows were essential to enable developing countries to build more resilient economies and ‘leapfrog’ to low carbon growth and development.
“No money, no deal,” affirmed Wills and Yawitch. While the developed countries were expected to bring money to the table, the developing world would bring action, added Yawitch.
Developing countries would take on nationally appropriate mitigation plans. South Africa would explain to developed nations what mitigation actions it could take on, provided the finance and capacity building resources were available.
The top negotiating officials explained that South Africa was not opposed to a market-based approach to develop financial flows, but noted that this would only form part of a deal, as developed countries had an obligation to put money on the table to be used for mitigation and adaptation. The governance arrangements of these funds would need to be clarified, as conditionalities attached to funds were not desirable.
State prepares for climate change
Along with California's efforts to crack down on its own greenhouse gas emissions, state officials have begun preparing for the worst: heat waves, a rising sea level, flooding, wildlife die-offs and other expected consequences from what scientists predict will be a dramatic temperature increase by the end of this century.
California's Natural Resources Agency on Monday issued the nation's first statewide plan to "adapt" to climate change.
It offers strategies to cope with threats in seven sectors from firefighting to public health and water conservation. Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman called the plan an effort to acknowledge the problem and suggested that Californians "recognize their role in solving that problem and alter their behavior so that the change lasts."
The draft is "a good step in the right direction," said Gina Solomon of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group.
"It highlights the importance of local adaptation planning, protecting vulnerable communities and the importance of public education."
But she cautioned: "These are all just words on paper without funding to carry them out.
"The federal government should help states to prepare for climate change. Spending some money now will save billions later, and these strategies save lives."
David Festa of the Washington-based Environmental Defense Fund voiced the hope that the report would "add urgency to our state's desperate water supply situation," noting that the Legislature will consider five new water-related bills when it reconvenes on Aug. 17.
In 2006, California adopted the nation's first comprehensive law to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists have found to be heating the planet.
Last year, state officials laid out a detailed plan to slash the state's emissions to 1990 levels in the next 11 years. And they began to adopt regulations, including the nation's first rule to mandate low-carbon fuel.
California's Natural Resources Agency on Monday issued the nation's first statewide plan to "adapt" to climate change.
It offers strategies to cope with threats in seven sectors from firefighting to public health and water conservation. Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman called the plan an effort to acknowledge the problem and suggested that Californians "recognize their role in solving that problem and alter their behavior so that the change lasts."
The draft is "a good step in the right direction," said Gina Solomon of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group.
"It highlights the importance of local adaptation planning, protecting vulnerable communities and the importance of public education."
But she cautioned: "These are all just words on paper without funding to carry them out.
"The federal government should help states to prepare for climate change. Spending some money now will save billions later, and these strategies save lives."
David Festa of the Washington-based Environmental Defense Fund voiced the hope that the report would "add urgency to our state's desperate water supply situation," noting that the Legislature will consider five new water-related bills when it reconvenes on Aug. 17.
In 2006, California adopted the nation's first comprehensive law to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists have found to be heating the planet.
Last year, state officials laid out a detailed plan to slash the state's emissions to 1990 levels in the next 11 years. And they began to adopt regulations, including the nation's first rule to mandate low-carbon fuel.
A Continuum of Accidents and Deficient Safety Culture
The history of nuclear power is one pock-marked by a deficient safety culture, nonexistent waste solutions, repeated unintentional radiation releases, and both major and minor accidents.
Proponents have revised initial claims of an “inherently safe” technology in the aftermath of catastrophic incidents such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, to now assert total resolution to any and all previous safety problems.
A look beyond those two accidents, though, shows a continuum of accidents across six decades that reflect nuclear’s fundamentally unsafe nature.
Read more
Huge Risks for Terrorism and Proliferation
Nuclear reactors are a risk for terrorist attack. In the final 9/11 Commission Report, Mohammed Atta said that he had considered targeting a nuclear facility in the New York area.
More than seven years after 9/11, and despite Atta’s statements, existing nuclear reactors are not required to be protected against air attack.
Moreover, repeated incidents that show an epidemic of undertrained and overworked security guards clearly indicate that the security of nuclear reactors and radioactive materials are questionable.
Read more
Waste: Eternally Unresolved
Waste is the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry. Despite 60 plus years of operation, no country in the world has found a credible, long-term solution to deal with its nuclear waste problems.
The accumulation of high-level waste in spent fuel ponds or interim storage sites and the dumping of so-called ‘low-level’ radioactive waste into shallow landfills pose serious safety risks.
Reprocessing is No Waste Solution: Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in order to access the plutonium which accounts for about 1% of it, leaves behind 99% of highly radioactive waste to kick down the road. Reprocessing is also prohibitively expensive and poses serious proliferation risks by separating the bomb-ready plutonium from irradiated spent fuel.
Read more
Aging Reactors: Snap, Crackle, Pop?
Old reactors in the U.S. continue to be relicensed for 20 more years. With age, wear, and tear, these sites risk unintentional releases and leaks of radioactive material, breakdowns, and malfunctions.
New Reactor Designs: New Problems?
New reactor designs presented as “advanced” and “inherently safe” in the push to acquire loan guarantees for “innovative technologies” appear to have only minor improvements from the standard Light Water Reactor design and raise new safety concerns related to waste, containment structures, and thermal output.
Proponents have revised initial claims of an “inherently safe” technology in the aftermath of catastrophic incidents such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, to now assert total resolution to any and all previous safety problems.
A look beyond those two accidents, though, shows a continuum of accidents across six decades that reflect nuclear’s fundamentally unsafe nature.
Read more
Huge Risks for Terrorism and Proliferation
Nuclear reactors are a risk for terrorist attack. In the final 9/11 Commission Report, Mohammed Atta said that he had considered targeting a nuclear facility in the New York area.
More than seven years after 9/11, and despite Atta’s statements, existing nuclear reactors are not required to be protected against air attack.
Moreover, repeated incidents that show an epidemic of undertrained and overworked security guards clearly indicate that the security of nuclear reactors and radioactive materials are questionable.
Read more
Waste: Eternally Unresolved
Waste is the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry. Despite 60 plus years of operation, no country in the world has found a credible, long-term solution to deal with its nuclear waste problems.
The accumulation of high-level waste in spent fuel ponds or interim storage sites and the dumping of so-called ‘low-level’ radioactive waste into shallow landfills pose serious safety risks.
Reprocessing is No Waste Solution: Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in order to access the plutonium which accounts for about 1% of it, leaves behind 99% of highly radioactive waste to kick down the road. Reprocessing is also prohibitively expensive and poses serious proliferation risks by separating the bomb-ready plutonium from irradiated spent fuel.
Read more
Aging Reactors: Snap, Crackle, Pop?
Old reactors in the U.S. continue to be relicensed for 20 more years. With age, wear, and tear, these sites risk unintentional releases and leaks of radioactive material, breakdowns, and malfunctions.
New Reactor Designs: New Problems?
New reactor designs presented as “advanced” and “inherently safe” in the push to acquire loan guarantees for “innovative technologies” appear to have only minor improvements from the standard Light Water Reactor design and raise new safety concerns related to waste, containment structures, and thermal output.
Environment and Health
PSR’s Environment and Health Program addresses an array of environmental health issues relevant to health professionals and concerned citizens in the United States and around the globe. We invite you to join the growing constituency of health professionals who are bringing a critical voice to the forefront of environmental health decision-making.
Curbing global warming...
Heat waves, intense drought, disease outbreaks, and flooding -- this is the forecast given by the world’s most renown climate experts who now warn that unless action to curb global warming is taken within the next ten years, we will pass a “tipping point” beyond which devastating consequences will become unavoidable. The need for mandatory controls on emissions of the heat-trapping gases that drive global warming is urgent. Drawing on the expertise of medicine and public health, PSR is dedicated to fighting for laws and regulations that protect human health from the dangers of global warming by reversing the current trends of increasing emissions and rising temperatures.
...and reducing toxic pollution.
Each year, the tens of thousands of chemicals that permeate our environment exact an immeasurable toll on public health. From acute poisonings to chronic diseases, the effects of exposure to toxic chemicals vary widely and are particularly dangerous for certain groups, such as pregnant women and their developing fetuses. PSR brings the voice of medical and public health professionals to the forefront of environmental health decision-making and fights to protect today’s and tomorrow’s generations from toxic degradation of the environment.
Curbing global warming...
Heat waves, intense drought, disease outbreaks, and flooding -- this is the forecast given by the world’s most renown climate experts who now warn that unless action to curb global warming is taken within the next ten years, we will pass a “tipping point” beyond which devastating consequences will become unavoidable. The need for mandatory controls on emissions of the heat-trapping gases that drive global warming is urgent. Drawing on the expertise of medicine and public health, PSR is dedicated to fighting for laws and regulations that protect human health from the dangers of global warming by reversing the current trends of increasing emissions and rising temperatures.
...and reducing toxic pollution.
Each year, the tens of thousands of chemicals that permeate our environment exact an immeasurable toll on public health. From acute poisonings to chronic diseases, the effects of exposure to toxic chemicals vary widely and are particularly dangerous for certain groups, such as pregnant women and their developing fetuses. PSR brings the voice of medical and public health professionals to the forefront of environmental health decision-making and fights to protect today’s and tomorrow’s generations from toxic degradation of the environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)