FW: [DOEWatch] Sign petition to UNCSD: Nuclear not sustainable!

["Mercado, Don" <don.mercado@lmco.com>]

Time to send letters explaining the true story, folks!! Now is the time to
strike!

> ----------
> From: 	Bill Smirnow[SMTP:smirnowb@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: 	Monday, February 19, 2001 7:12 PM
> To: 	World Watch Institute; Rainforest Action Network; Rad-UK/Europe
> List; Earth Island Institute; Earth First; DU List; DOE-Watch List;
> Downwinders List; No-Nukes Asia List; Nucnews List
> Subject: 	[DOEWatch] Sign petition to UNCSD: Nuclear not sustainable!
> 
> 
> 
>   Please Sign the petition below & spread this to other lists, NGOs, &
> individuals. See
> http://www.geocities.com/mothersalert/globalwarming2.html
> for reasons as to why Nuclear Power Plants [NPPs] are NOT the solution to
> global warming.Thanks.
> 
> 
>   -Bill Smirnow
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "WISE " <wiseamster@antenna.nl>
> To: <wiseamster@antenna.nl>
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 4:53 PM
> Subject: Sign petition to UNCSD: Nuclear not sustainable!
> 
> 
> * sorry for crossposting *
> 
> Appeal to NGOs to sign petition:
> 
> Nukes sustainable? No way!
> 
> >From 16 -27 April the UN Commission on Sustainable Development
> (CSD) convenes in New York. One of the issues on the agenda for its
>  ninth session (hence CSD 9) will be energy and sustainability.
> The CSD was established to monitor the implementation of the
> outcome of the Rio Earth Summit (1992). Countries report to the
> Commission on the progress made, and the Commission advises the
> UN and its Member States on how to achieve sustainable development
>    in the 21st century.
> 
> A sustainable future obviously does not include nuclear power. Nuclear
>    as a source of electricity still comes with huge radioactive waste
> problems, safety risks and the risk of further proliferation of nuclear
> weapons. However, the CSD apparently needs a robust reminder of
> this. During their previous session, nukes where discussed as an
> inevitable part of the energy-mix of various countries. CSD admitted
> that there's still a few little PR problems to be resolved, but otherwise
>  did not seem to consider nuclear a controversial issue at all. This
> month, the CSD Energy Expert group convenes to prepare CSD9. The
>   energy experts have issued a draft report taking a rather pro-nuclear
> stance.
> 
> Now if an authoratitive institute such as the CSD continues to refuse to
>    label nuclear as NOT sustainable, this would be a trump card in the
>  hands of the nuclear lobby. The latter recently keeps trying to present
>   nuclear power as sustainable, and even as a tool to combat climate
> change.
> 
> WISE Amsterdam in collaboration with Helio International, Earthday
> Network and Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) have
> therefore launched a petition, urging CSD not to consider nuclear as a
>  sustainable source of energy, and in stead work in the spirit of the Rio
>    Declaration towards a sustainable future.
> 
> The text of the petition is pasted below. The petition can be signed
> online at
> www.antenna.nl/wise/csd
> More information about the Commission is also available through this
> website.
> NB> This petition is only open for endorsement by organisations.
> 
> Individuals who support the aim of the petition are encouraged to visit
> the Earthday website to find out what they can do:
> www.earthday.net
> 
> Thank you for making your organisation sign on to the petition and for
>  further distributing the petition among your networks.
> Petition Against the Support of Nuclear Technologies
> 
> TO THE CHAIR AND MEMBER STATES OF
> THE U.N. COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE
> DEVELOPMENT
> 
> 
> Dear Sirs and Madams,
> 
> We, the undersigned NGOs, active in environment, development,
> disarmament and human rights issues, express our deepest regret and
> extreme concern that nuclear energy has been included in the draft agenda
> of
>    the ninth session of the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development,
> and    that this dangerous and unsustainable technology might, in effect,
> be
> given    a fresh start by the actions of the CSD.
> 
> We consider any focus which seems to validate nuclear energy to be against
>   both the spirit of Agenda 21 and the mandate of the CSD.  Moreover, it
> is
> contrary to the interests of developing countries which require
> sustainable,
> mostly decentralized, low-cost energy systems, adapted both to their needs
> and the availability of their capital, labor, and natural resources.
> Nuclear
> power will not fulfill those requirements.
> 
> Nuclear power is not a clean, safe or sustainable energy source.
> Worldwide,
>   nuclear power has been plagued by high cost, erratic performance,
> endemic
>   technical problems, the risk of catastrophic accidents, and
> environmental
> problems such as routine radiation releases, radioactive waste management
> and the high cost of decommissioning.
> 
> However, financially-pressed nuclear vendors are eyeing the developing
> world as a 'last gasp' market for their products, and are stepping up
> their
> lobbying efforts at U.N. conferences, including the Climate Change
> negotiations and the CSD.
> Over the past decade in most countries the overwhelming momentum of
> energy policy has moved towards phasing out, or not developing nuclear
> energy in the first place.  Virtually all countries agreed in November at
> The
> Hague, during the discussions on the U.N. Framework Convention on
> Climate Change (FCCC), not to include nuclear energy in projects of the
> Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) that will be established under the
> Kyoto Protocol.
> 
> At their last meeting, the governments of the G8 stated their commitment
> to
> "encourage and facilitate investment in the development and use of
> sustainable energy, underpinned by enabling domestic environments,
> (which) will assist in mitigating the problems of climate change and air
> pollution.  To this end, the increased use of renewable energy sources in
> particular will improve the quality of life, especially in developing
> countries."
> 
> 
> 
> Non-G8 countries are taking similar positions.  Turkey cancelled plans for
> a
> nuclear plant at Akkuyu, with its Prime Minister stating that, "the world
> is
> abandoning nuclear power."  The countries of AOSIS (the Alliance of Small
> Island States) have "reaffirmed (their) position that nuclear energy
> should
> not be included in the CDM". (Apia, August 2000).  And, a group of twelve
> Latin American nations made clear, in discussions on the Convention, that
> they "do not accept the use of nuclear power as an energy source
> alternative
>    in project-based activities." (FCCC/SB/2000/4, 1 August, 2000)
> 
> Therefore, we urge you to preserve the integrity of the CSD process by
> ensuring that any indications of support for non-sustainable energy
> technologies, particularly nuclear energy, are excluded from CSD 9
> debates,
> exhibitions and other activities.  The CSD should focus on promoting
> clean,
> secure and sustainable forms of energy for the welfare of present and
> future
>  generations, as per the aim of Agenda 21.
> === END
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
> eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
> Click here for more details
> http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/488116/_/982639082/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
> 
> The Magnum-Opus Project
> DOE Watch List--Solver of Mysteries 
> Subscribe: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/doewatch 
> DOEWatch page:  http://members.aol.com/doewatch 
> 
> Oak Ridge and its' industry minions use supplanted activist organizations
> fabricating mysterious illness directions to hide HF emission/toxic
> effects and nuclear human experiment war crimes.
> 
> Oak Ridge and other gas diffusion sites are primarily Bhopal like chemical
> affected areas and secondarily a Chernobyl like radiation affected area.
> Gas diffusion sites are also affected with high coal power emissions and
> compounded with heavy metal toxins and hundreds of other toxic exposure
> from the plants.
> 
> These exposures cause shortened longevity, impacted learning, and produce
> a gullible population for political and industry profiting.
> 
> Gulf War affected have related fluoride toxic effects from nerve gases.
> 
> In common with GW and DOE gas diffusion ills are long term halogen toxic
> insult via bioconcentration into the lymphatic system, impairment of
> macrophages, and damage to mitochondria of cells resulting in immune
> protection damage and resultant rise of viral, bacterial, microplasma, and
> fungal cell damage.
> 
> In the new millenium, the truth will set all  free to enter a kinder and
> gentler time for environment and health.
> 
> 
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html