Nuclear Power is a Crime Against Humanity
and can be No Solution to Climate Change
- nuclear power is poisoning our biosphere, and is so dangerous that it should not be an option - its use is immoral and criminal and can be no "cure" for climate change
nobody has the right to shackle future generations with nuclear waste and inevitable radioactive pollution for any reason whatsoever, nor to take the risk of catastrophic accidents which are known to happen
- fossil fuels are also poisoning our planet, changing its climate to such an extreme degree that human civilization and natural systems will suffer dire consequences
- investors need to pull out of oil, coal, gas, uranium and nuclear ASAP and get on track for climate change
- wind and solar are GOOD BUSINESS with plenty of money to be made right away - also geothermal and wave - there are lots of possibilities and opportunities - algae, biogas etc., entirely within our reach simply through ingenuity and implementation
- nuclear industry reversal and environmental remediations, including research and development, for nuclear de-comissioning, waste management, etc., will create huge long-term markets ripe for investment
- we can build a strong sustainable economy without fossil fuels and nuclear power - one which can be healthy for the planet and its inhabitants by using truly clean and green renewable resources
Nukes are NOT clean, #CO2/#carbon-free, #green, safe, or affordable! Put #PandorasPromise back in the box >>
"The people that are saying we need nuclear power and we have the technology to safely store nuclear waste for 250,000 years are the same ones who claim that we can't use solar because we have no way to store the electricity overnight! If we have the technology to do one, we ought to be able to figure out the other." - Arnie Gundersen, Fairewinds Associates
"Nukes are not carbon-free" | C.A.N. Coalition Against Nukes
When the nuclear industry claims that nuclear power is "carbon -free", it is basically taking advantage of the fact that many people don’t know the difference between a "carbon footprint" and "direct carbon emissions". Our individual direct CO2 emissions are basically limited to whatever CO2 we exhale when we breathe- but our carbon footprint is much larger than those limited emissions. Our individual carbon footprint depends on how much gasoline we use, how much electricity we use, and, in general, how much of anything and everything we consume or use. Studies that show nuclear is carbon-neutral are considering only the direct emissions, not the carbon footprint.
That limited and simplistic approach is scientifically and mathematically incorrect. If we take a good hard look at the carbon-footprint of nuclear power, we discover that it has the largest carbon footprint of any energy source other than the fossil fuels. Very large carbon emissions are generated by various different stages in the production of nuclear energy, thereby increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Tons of carbon emissions are generated by [the following] activities which are all necessary in the production of nuclear energy..."
whats up: Nuclear Power Crimes Against Humanity & Environment
working towards a complete and legally sound case with a list of specific crimes and claimants, supporting documents, co-signers, etc., to bring before both The International Criminal Court and The United Nations
A Simple Statement On Nuclear Power and Climate Change - NIRS
We're getting a little tired hearing nuclear industry lobbyists and pro-nuclear politicians allege that environmentalists are now supporting nuclear power as a means of addressing the climate crisis. We know that's not true, and we're sure you do too. In fact, using nuclear power would be counterproductive at reducing carbon emissions. As Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute points out, "every dollar invested in nuclear expansion will worsen climate change by buying less solution per dollar..."
The simple statement below will be sent to the media and politicians whenever they misstate the facts. We hope you and your organization will join us and sign on in support here.
"We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power."
Please sign the petition at http://www.nirs.org/petition2/
Tough Talk From Environmental Activist Dr. Helen Caldicott
Marianne Schnall: What is the one message you are most hoping to get out there?
Helen Caldicott: There isn't one message, there are three. One is that we are in dire danger from global warming and that unless we pull our socks up and stop burning coal and stop driving our SUV's around doing five miles to the gallon and stop fracking and natural gas, we're doomed. The temperature is on the way to be three degrees centigrade hotter by the middle of the century, which is almost antithetical to human existence, and six degrees by the end of the century - this is the top leading scientific data now that is available. I mean, we're killing the earth! Overtly. And we don't love our children enough, because if we did, we would be taking the necessary steps to stop burning coal and saving energy, you know.."
more > Marianne Schnall: Tough Talk From Environmental Activist Dr. Helen Caldicott | Huff Post Green
Nukes are NOT clean, carbon-free, green, safe, or affordable! Put Pandoras Promise back in the box >>
whats up: WHY NUKES CAN'T SAVE THE PLANET FROM CLIMATE CHANGE