George Monbiot Nuclear Power Support Challenged

by Brian
(Pen Llyn, Gwynedd)

A report that all people should read very carefully before voting on this issue and in the forthcoming Assembly Elections in May in light of the current situation in Japan.

One small extract from the report just to give you a taster:

"For example, a recent study published by the New York Academy of Sciences put the excess deaths from Chernobyl at 985,000 – in contrast to the IAEA's figure of 4,000.

In fact, the head of the ICRP's scientific secretariat resigned in 2009 because existing dose models could not predict or explain the health effects of radiation exposures to human populations." (page 9/10)

Today someone estimated that the number of casualties arising from the failure of the Japanese Nuclear Reactors will be similar if not worse than Chernobyl, as there is no end yet in sight for stabilising the damaged facility in Fukushima.

For more local news and stories, subscribe to our free Anglesey News here. it's as easy as 1-2-3!

Comments for George Monbiot Nuclear Power Support Challenged

Click here to add your own comments

Apr 23, 2011
Which environmental mess would you rather leave to your children?.
by: Brian o Ben Llyn.

I know that we all have a real problem in realising how damaging and dangerous radioactivity is.

We sort of understand about Carbon Dioxide by now; we live and breathe it every day of our lives so we are very familiar with it.

Not quite the same with nuclear radiation though. We know that it is dangerous but the vast vast majority of us perceive the problem as being over there somewhere and not something we are conscious of having to deal with on a daily basis. It?s one of those hidden killers in our environment.

Atmospheric tests in the 60s and 70s is yet another example of where the nuclear lobby told us we were not to worry; leave it to us we know best. How can killing 1000s of people by one form of nuclear radiation be better/worse than the effect of Chernobyl and or Fukushima?All such incidents clearly demonstrate that despite the assurances from the nuclear industry that there is no risk to the environment, the opposite is the real truth; we should treat any of their assurances with a huge degree of scepticism.

The argument about climate change being worse/better than nuclear radiation, both due to human irresponsibility, merely demonstrates how bankrupt we are as a society; it?s like asking our children ?Which environmental mess would you rather we left you as a legacy? This one or that one??

Why can we not seriously stop and look at what we are creating for our children?s future? Why not invest the money we invest in the traditional outdated and older power generation systems and take a big leap into the future and invest in the newer and sustainable generation methods and may be learn to be more and more frugal with the way we use those resources too?

I?d much rather we did that than build even more contaminating power plants be they Nuclear or otherwise.

Apr 23, 2011
nuclear risk exaggerated
by: Roy

I think you are exaggerating the risk way too much. In fact the fallout from all those tests in the 1950's has had far more impact on public health in the world than either Fukushima or Chernobyl.

reckon George Monbiot has got it right, because he sees the even bigger threat to civilisation as we know it, that is global warming!!

Click here to add your own comments

Return to Wylfa B Yes or No?.

footer for Anglesey page