(Japan Times) U.S. court victories show how to get rid of nuclear plants

U.S. court victories show how to get rid of nuclear plants

By STEPHEN HESSE

Lawyer Tom Twomey knows far more than most of us about the importance of citizen participation in making energy policy. That's because Twomey has spent four decades keeping a watchful eye on electric power suppliers in New York — and he's learned that what we don't know can hurt us.

Certainly, what he's learned about the hubris and underhand dealings of the U.S. nuclear power industry offers some valuable lessons for Japan. But the most important thing he says he's come to realize is that the participation of public-interest lawyers and the media is critical to ensure that energy providers prioritize safety. And that applies just as much to Japan as the United States, he insists, even though Japan is a far less litigious society in which citizens shy away from challenging government and big business.

...With straight faces, the utility scientists testified that there would never be an accident that would exceed the radiation limits in the regulations. On cross-examination, they were forced to admit that during an accident, maximum radiation safety limits are suspended. In other words, during an accident, an unlimited amount of radiation could spew from a plant but the utility could accurately assure the public the emissions did not exceed safety limits.

The utility scientists also testified that no released radiation would be immediately harmful to the residents living in the vicinity of a nuclear plant. On cross-examination, they were forced to admit that few people die immediately from cancer and leukemia; it takes a period of time for these "health effects," as they euphemistically called them, to occur. In other words, the utility could accurately say, as they are doing now in Japan, that there would be no immediate danger to the residents of the area...

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fe20110522sh.html

Until I encountered the depth of it here on DU, I was completely accepting of our existing nuclear fleet as a way to address AGW, but my studies had led me to the conclusion that it wasn't the best choice going forward for economic reasons. Once I started seeing the evidence presented by the proponents for why we should build more, and the persistence of their false statements regarding the renewable alternatives, I started looking closer at the non-economic considerations around nuclear that I had previously dismissed as being exaggerated by its critics.

What I discovered has shifted my view to one where I accept absolutely nothing about nuclear power without first having it confirmed by independent analysis. I despise lying and that entire industry is built on lies.

especially about the lying that the industry spews.
i have been actively against nuclear energy since the late 1970s when citizens stopped the growth of the industry in the pacific northwest.

I wasn't always sold on nuclear, though it did seem to creep back over the years as the AGW propaganda had an effect and where I'm from is heavily invested in nuke power, the Radio Bikini doc planted the seeds of doubt a couple decades ago, I'm sure.

But I have to say after searching for info on Fukushima and ending up here and seeing your constant efforts to push out reasonable arguments and push back against the clear shilling and appologists at work, I have to say I've reached the same point as you rather quickly.

I think the corner turning for me wasn't about renewables and AGW but the clear bullshit regarding the health and environmental effects of Chornobyl, other accidents and the spin, lies and coverup going on now with the Japanese reactors.

Thanks for your (what must be tiring at times) efforts of pushing back against the huge, vocal pro-nuke contingent here on DU. At times I wish I was as patient and polite as you tend to be. I just saw a clip of a recent Chomsky talk earlier this evening and it reminded me about how important it is to speak truth to power, as often seeing him speak reminds me of that, too.