|
 Yesterday the Rutland Herald published the below editorial by Peggy Farabaugh. I refute it below in a letter submitted this am to the Herald. I do not know if it will be published due to its length and I believe its points are worthy. - gfv
...........
"Yankee critical to clean environment
June 21, 2006
By PEGGY FARABAUGH
As the Nuclear Regulatory Commission begins the public process for evaluating Vermont Yankee's application license renewal, the plant's environmental and socioeconomic impact now take center stage.
Vermont Yankee has assisted the state in maintaining a clean environment while also supplying one-third of the state's power for over a generation. The plant efficiently produces abundant, emission-free electricity on a relatively small amount of land, and is central to maintaining the state's pristine environmental character.
Many prominent environmentalists from green organizations such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club have recently endorsed nuclear power because it can meet consumer demand, while reducing greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, that cause global warming, as well as toxic emissions that cause harmful health consequences...."
You can read the full article here:
http://rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060621/NEWS/606210324/1039/OPINION03
.............
Rutland Herald Editor,
In response to Mrs. Peggy Farabaugh’s commentary 6/21/06, Yankee Critical to Clean Environment, the Herald fails to mention that Ms. Farabaugh was on the Vernon VT selectboard (3/03- 3/06) and that Mr. Farabaugh is employed by Entergy Vermont Yankee. Vernon and Vermont Yankee have a symbiotic relationship. Each makes the other’s wallet thicker.
Mrs. Farbaugh claims, ”Vermont Yankee has assisted the state in maintaining a clean environment.”
I carry Potassium Iodide in my wallet.
I hear the evacuation siren go off each month.
I have read the “minimally changed” (since pre 9-11) evacuation plans.
I have researched the dry casks soon to be left on the Connecticut River banks in the “pristine” environment.
I perceive the 5oo+ tons of radioactive waste in the pool above the reactor is an invitation to terrorism.
Two former environmentalists have endorsed nuclear, not because it can meet the increasing demand for baseload power but because, in the case of J. Patrick Moore, a bit player in the original founding of Greenpeace, Moore is cashing in on his stale, marginal association to Greenpeace for the benefit of his own wallet.
Currently he collaborates with Christine Todd Whitman, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and former Republican Governor of New Jersey, to promote the building of more nuclear reactors.
I wonder if Whitman and Moore have spoken with the Douglas Administration. The Vermont Guardian on June 9, reported that the Department of Public Service and the state utilities have been in discussions about the need for a new baseload power generator in the state and nuclear is not off the table. In fact with the 6/22/06 announced sale of Green Mountain Power to a Canadian firm, the company now has better borrowing ability to fund a new reactor.
There is speculation as to whether Patrick Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace. Paul Watson, another co-founder of Greenpeace claims Moore "uses his status as co-founder of Greenpeace to give credibility to his accusations. I am also a co-founder of Greenpeace and I have known Patrick Moore for 35 years.... Moore makes accusations that have no basis in fact.” Watson says this in a San Francisco Examiner article, Solutions instead of Sensationalism, 7/31/05.
I don’t know if Ms. Farabaugh read any parts of the extensive MIT study to which she refers. Please permit me to include some direct quotes from the MIT study of July 2003, The Future of Nuclear Power. (chaired by Ernest Moniz / John Deutsch- executive summary page 9)
“Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.
Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas
Safety. We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle, beyond reactor operation.
Waste. Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain.
Proliferation. The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.
On page 13 the MIT study states, “Today, nuclear power is not an economically competitive choice.
I invite Ms Farabaugh or anyone from the nuclear industry front group, the Vermont Energy Partnership, to respond to this data from the MIT Future of Nuclear Power study of 2003. If Ms Farabaugh is actually a “associate professor of environmental health and safety with Tulane University’s- (Isn’t Entergy from New Orleans also?) distance learning program, her students deserve education from someone less attached to the industry teat.
Gary Sachs
Brattleboro VT
|
