I am in Russia meeting with business, government and scientific leaders about opportunities for partnership between our two countries. One of the most important areas where we need to work together is on nuclear power and nuclear security.
In a speech I delivered earlier today, I mentioned a letter that Albert Einstein wrote to President Roosevelt in 1939, at the dawn of the atomic era. Einstein's letter correctly predicted that nuclear power would become "a new and important source of energy in the immediate future." But he went on to alert the President to another possibility -- less certain, but much more ominous -- that Germany was seeking to create "extremely powerful bombs of a new type," capable of destroying an entire port and some of the city that surrounds it.
More than 70 years after Einstein's letter, the fundamental challenge he outlined remains one of the most critical issues scientists and our governments must grapple with: harnessing the power of nuclear fission for peaceful and productive uses while guarding against the most horrific and destructive weapons the world has ever known.
No nation can tackle this challenge alone. We must face it together.
Russia has a proud tradition of scientific and technological achievement. Through robust cooperation today, we can bring our brightest minds together to promote the peaceful use of the atom in a manner that is safe, secure and minimizes proliferation risks.
President Obama and President Medvedev have made nuclear cooperation a priority. Our nations have agreed to broaden and deepen collaboration to strengthen security at nuclear facilities, to help prevent proliferation and acts of nuclear terrorism, and to promote safe and responsible civil nuclear energy.
The U.S.-Russia Agreement for Cooperation in the Field of Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy which recently entered into force, represents a major step forward in U.S.-Russian cooperation on civilian nuclear power. The agreement allows for stronger commercial ties, provides new opportunities to collaborate on research and development, and advances our nonproliferation and nuclear security objectives.
In addition to promoting safety, the U.S. and Russia have a special responsibility to reduce nuclear dangers. The signing and ratification of the New START Treaty was a historic moment in our relationship and an important milestone for nuclear security and nonproliferation. It built on long-standing and ongoing cooperation between our countries in these areas.
For example, together we have accelerated the return of Russian-origin Highly Enriched Uranium, including both fresh and spent fuel from other countries. Working together and with others, we have returned approximately 1,590 kilograms of HEU to Russia for final disposition -- which is equivalent to more than 60 nuclear weapons.
The U.S. and Russia have partnered to accelerate the conversion of Russian research reactors from the use of highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium. This complements ongoing international efforts that have converted 23 research reactors since 2004.
Russia and the United States have both shut down our weapons-grade plutonium production reactors -- an enormous nonproliferation achievement. Last year, Russia permanently shut down its last operating weapons-grade plutonium production reactor.
Our two countries have gone even further -- each committing to convert 34 metric tons of surplus weapons plutonium into mixed oxide fuel for civilian reactors.
Additionally, since the late 1990s, we have partnered with Russia to install radiation monitors that can detect smuggled nuclear and radiological material at Russian border crossings. Each side agreed to fund 50 percent of the total work scope of approximately 380 border sites. We are on schedule to complete all airports, seaports, and vehicle and rail crossings by the end of 2011.
Our cooperation is helping keep dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists. Looking ahead, the U.S. and Russia have the opportunity to share our experience and work with other countries to promote nuclear security and to combat terrorism. Together, we can help peaceful nuclear energy realize its potential -- and grow our economies, strengthen our security and build a healthier, safer planet.
Strong suspects are Strontium 90 CS134 CS137 Iodine 131
http://counterpunch.org/sherman06102011.html
After all, it is their job to protect all of us, even the youngest of us.
Don't lie and tell us it's budget cuts. This is truly a national security issue.
Without an exhaustive study of this issue, when Professor Chu promotes safe nuclear power, he could be accused of practicing sloppy science.
This means that we will probably let the inefficient and dangerous LWR expire in favor of the molten salt varieties. After all, only a reactor that can passively shut down, that can fission spent nuclear fuel, and that can fission thorium is the ONLY kind of reactor we would ever need.
I learned a bunch about how we should not use solid fuel to power planetary civilizations!
"Japan May Shut All Nuclear Reactors by Next April"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43334220/Japan_May_Shut_All_Nuclear_Reactors_by_Next_April
What is right for the Germans, may not be correct for other countries. Germany has a strong socialist Green Party. The French political and energy model is quite different.
And don't tell me about our grandchildren. Without nuclear power our race won't live another 100 years. As our technology improves we are finding more and more ways to accidentally kill ourselves as a species. It is imperative we colonize somewhere beyond earth. This can't really be done without nuclear power.
which of course is nuclear energy, a passive killer
To start, please sign the petition with Beyond Nuclear to call upon NRC to suspend the operation of the 23 GE Mark I Boiling Water Reactors in the US. http://www.beyondnuclear.org/
I want more than stuffing waste into a mountain or over stockpiling barrels of spent fuel in waste pools and calling the issues resolved. Tell me that you've found a way to degrade the radiation of the waste generated and THEN tell me nuclear is "safe."
When serious accidents occur, the damages can be extreme and the effects can last virtually forever. We have no need to endure this level of risk. Explain why we should encourage unnecessary damages? We have much better ways to make electricity. If nuclear power was banned, and nuclear weapons were banned, there would be no legitimate reason to mine uranium, enrich uranium, or create plutonium. that would make it easy to determine that any reactor activities could only be done for illegal means. That would place great hardship on someone trying to obtain nuclear material or any use of it once obtained.
We already and currently have the technology to power our entire nation (and the world) with totally safe and clean green renewable energy.
It is also affordable, if you take into consideration the subsidies that our nuclear industry gets, they prices we pay for the power, and the un-calculated cost of pollution and damage the spent fuel and leaks cause.
We haven't even sincerely tried yet. But the calculation using our current technology don't lie. Covering even 10% of the state of New Mexico with solar cells would power our entire nation.
Then add to that, the rest of New Mexico. most of West Texas, Arizona, Nevada and you get the picture. Then add to that all the wind generation turbines that could be built around our Great Lakes region.
And those are just two basic ideas that don't include any new innovations or technologies.
If you say such projects are expensive, then tell me how much does a nuclear power plant cost. Then tell me exactly how many trillions we have spent securing oil in the Middle East. And how much will it cost to undo the damage caused by the coal in Appalachia and the oil spills in the Gulf.
The price of not converting to green energy is too high.
And just imagine, all the millions of people that would be put to work building all these massive green energy farms. And imagine the impact on our economy when the cost of future energy drops dramatically. How many businesses and industries could start and thrive if energy prices go way down?
People who work in nuclear power plants may be exposed to higher levels of radiation than the general public, although their exposure levels are monitored carefully. Emissions of radiation from nuclear power plants are carefully monitored and controlled. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), nuclear power plant operations account for less than one-hundredth (1/100) of a percent of the average American's total radiation exposure.
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/MedicalTreatments/radiation-exposure-and-cancer
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/perspective.html
http://www.cleanenergyinsight.org/interesting/wednesday-fact-series-npps-dont-cause-cancer/
and it is silly arguing about the dangers of radiation
for every article you link to saying it isn't significant, I can point to 10 that say it is
there is no point in arguing that
if that is what you believe, nothing I say or show you will change your mind
the majority of the world already knows that radiation is detrimental to health
I don't need to convince you if that is where you are coming from
The issue I brought up is that people have been fooled into thinking that leaks can be prevented
and they can't
"Green Party of California makes major announcement urging immediate closure of nuclear power plants at Diablo Canyon, San Onofre to 'promote safety' for humans, environment
GREEN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS RELEASE
SAN FRANCISCO (May 3, 2011) - The Green Party of California - the state's only ballot-qualified environmental political party - at a news conference here today in front of PG&E called for the immediate closing the state's nuclear power plants at Diablo Canyon and San Onofre.
The Greens, meeting at their statewide convention this past weekend, approved a resolution calling for the "immediate closure and decommissioning of the state's nuclear power plants at Diablo Canyon and San Onofre... to promote the safety of all Californians and our fellow living beings, and to protect our natural environment."
The Green Party noted the "Fukushima nuclear power plant catastrophe in Japan is a wakeup call for all Californians that this energy source is neither safe nor sustainable...The entire nuclear power life cycle is already fraught with inherent risk and is multiplied by the possibility of human error."
In a recent letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein noted that "roughly 424,000 live within 50 miles of the Diablo Canyon and 7.4 million live within 50 miles of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.""
http://www.cagreens.org/press/pr110502.shtml
I am seriously considering changing parties.