[ RadSafe ] Beyond Nuclear Claims after Washington Post Article

[Roger Helbig]

This was sent to another list by a member Peter -

Dear friends and colleagues,

Please see the exemplary response written to the Washington Post's
industry-serving editorial.  And please send them a response that
educates them on energy and people's awareness of the environment.
Let's remember that it's not all about the supply side, despite the
anxiety that's generated by the nuclear industry -- and that the
cheapest energy is what we don't use.

    Thanks, Peter :^ )}

________________________________
From: Cindy Folkers, Beyond Nuclear [mailto:cindy at beyondnuclear.org]

THE BEYOND NUCLEAR BULLETIN

Washington Post calls Fukushima “non-catastrophic”!
The editorial board needs to hear from you!

We’re outraged. And we expect you were, too. On April 23, 2012, the
Washington Post editorial board writers callously dismissed the
Fukushima nuclear disaster as “non-catastrophic.”

They eagerly promoted nuclear power while omitting inconvenient
deal-breakers such as cost, waste, safety, health risks and human
rights. The paper taunted Germany and Japan - and the anti-nuclear
movement - for looking to renewables but misrepresented Germany’s
successes. And they utterly ignored those who have already paid the
price for the nuclear fuel chain, like indigenous uranium miners, and
its newest victims, the children of Japan whose future has been
stolen. You can review the original editorial here.

Let’s tell the Washington Post what we think about their shoddy editorial!

We rebutted a few of their points below. A longer rebuttal document is
on our website. Please use these mythbusters to send the editorial
board sacks of old-fashioned mail! Write to The Washington Post, 1150
15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20071-0001. Or email or call editorial
page editor, Fred Hiatt at fredhiatt at washpost.com or 202-334-7281. You
can also contact the Ombudsman, Patrick Pexton, at
ombudsman at washpost.com.

Here are some of the WP myths and our responses:

WP: The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was “scary but ultimately
non-catastrophic.”
FACT: Minimizing the still unfolding consequences of the Fukushima
nuclear disaster and dismissing it as “non-catastrophic” is
reprehensible and irresponsible. Radioactive contamination is
widespread and growing. In fact, the accident is not even over, yet.
Thousands are already suffering and countless more will sicken and die
prematurely as a result of their exposure to the Fukushima radiation.
A 20km (12.4 mile) area around the stricken reactors will remain a
“dead zone” for decades and potentially centuries. It is hard to know
what more the Post editorial writers need to qualify as
“catastrophic.”

WP: Nuclear power “is the only proven source of low-emissions ‘baseload’ power.”
FACT: In many regions, peak wind and solar production match up well
with peak electricity demand. Numerous regional and global case
studies have provided plausible plans to meet 100% of energy demand
with energy efficiency and renewable sources.

WP: Germany and Japan are “giving up all of that guaranteed,
low-carbon electricity generation in an anti-nuclear frenzy.”
FACT: Far from “guaranteed,” the Fukushima reactors became a liability
when they were needed most, worsening an already catastrophic
situation. And far from in a “frenzy”,  Germany has already
revitalized home-grown industries like steel and has more people
working in the renewable sector (370,000) than in the nuclear (30,000)
and coal industries (20,000) combined.

WP MYTH: “Japan could still reduce carbon emissions by 25 percent of
its 1990 levels by 2030 without nuclear power. Yet even if that’s
true, it’s hardly a reason to let all of that existing nuclear
infrastructure and know-how go to waste.”
FACT: The nuclear industry has always been in the waste business -
unmanaged radioactive waste. Since December 2, 1942, when scientists
created the world’s first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction, the
industry’s entire infrastructure has gone to waste: here in the U.S.
it has produced more than 67,000 metric tons of irradiated nuclear
fuel - and at least another 10,000 metric tons of radioactive waste
from nuclear weapons - with nowhere to go.

Read the rest of our responses to the Washington Post editorial here.

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=kNIRjpoZInh2uEz4XyDb1op3RbqXG7NA

I am not sure what nuclear power has to do with Democracy in Action -
the anti-nuclear fanatics have very little interest in Democracy since
they silence their opponents.

Thank you for working with us for a nuclear-free world.

The Beyond Nuclear Team
www.beyondnuclear.org