Well it’s official. At approximately 11:00 am today VY powered down for the last time. There may finally be peace in the area as the protesters, most from well outside the evacuation zone I might add, have officially become unemployed. They can move on to another area and chain themselves to the perimeter fence of another nuclear facility. If they don’t mind the cold and would like to enjoy the benefits of no sales tax maybe they should consider Seabrook N.H.
Comments | 25
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
They aren't done yet...
The know-nothing crowd (Sachs, Katz, and company) will always find something to bitch about. It’s already started.
If I were Entergy, I would drag the process out as long as possible.
A silver lining
I hope those from Northampton will stop by once in a while to see the memorial they help create in Vernon and maybe spend a few dollars here.
One good thing about the plant closing is the beast in Montpelier may be finally starved into a fiscally responsible diet. They managed to basically extort money out of Entergy in the name of “economic development” since they have no concept of allowing economic development to create itself in a business friendly environment.
So it will be interesting to see what will happen here once this Vermont allowed version of “corporate welfare” dries up. There’s sure to be some wailng and gnashing of teeth in Montpelier then.
Nuclear power is extraordinarily well documented
There’s a bit of hyperbole written here.
I did not know there was a public list of VTY protestors to know for sure that most are “from well outside the evacuation zone.”
Moreover, anti-nuke people are rarely a “know-nothing crowd.” The immense potential threat (short term and/or long term) of nuclear power is extraordinarily well documented.
In current terms, it does indeed provide adequate power needs, but at what cost in the event of a catastrophic breakdown, as well as the danger to future generations so callously overlooked by supporters for current energy needs, at any cost.
Yes it is
And so is climate change but that doesn’t stop the (mostly) right wing climate change denier crowd from being “know nothing” either. Peas in a pod putting politics over science. I’ve sparred with many an anti-nuke, including Sachs on this very forum and have found precious few who actually bother with the science.
It’s well documented that many of the protesters at the meetings and getting arresting are from “outside the evacuation zone” but personally, I don’t care where they are from.
Funny how you then engage in your own hyperbole and false characterizations right after calling Mike and I out.
Not exaggerating or falsifying anything
I wasn’t exaggerating or falsifying anything. I simply don’t buy your “know nothing” theory. I don’t believe in that kind of over-generalizing.
But I will say, it’s impossible to generalize that protesters do not “bother with the science” when discussing the problems or possibilities of nuclear energy. It is all too generally known.
The Three Mile Island accident happened on March 28, 1979. Somebody with equal or greater “knowledge” to yours knows enough of the dangers that “No new nuclear power plants have been ordered since the Three Mile Island accident, and some partially completed projects have been abandoned…” http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucprob.html
That no new nuclear U.S. power plants have been ordered for over 35 years suggests much more than anything you can say on the topic.
Thanks for proving my point
http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2014-11-08/construction-well-underway-mammoth-vogtle-nuclear-site-rural-eastern-georgia
They are also building two new plants in South Carolina.
Stick to weed.
Corrected
I’ll take the “new plants” correction, even from a snark.
Well while it might be true
Well while it might be true that 2 new nuclear plants are being built in Georgia, this might not be such a great thing for those living in the vicinity of the state. Tornadoes anyone? There is this:
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclear_power/Georgia-nuclear-fact-sheet.pdf
The problem is that they can get permission to build these plants still, the question remains as to whether the plants are the best, safest, most viable way to garner power. It would be interesting since this area of Georgia already has 2 existing plants to research any evidence of cancer spikes. Even more interesting to see if there’s a noticeable increase in the next 30 to 50 years after these two plants go into operation. But, heh, might not even be necessary or possible if there are any problems at the plants as the entire state and half the south will become uninhabitable.
Here’s what I see as the major problem with nuclear plants, if there’s a mistake or accident you can end up with a Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, if there’s an accident at a wind farm something might fall down but that’s the extent of it, if there’s an accident at a solar farm the panel quits working. Big difference.
Oh look, a cancer epidemic
Oh look,
“Some people did get jobs,” former Shell Bluff resident Annie Laura Stephens told theGrio, “but a lot of us got something else. We got cancer.” Well fancy that, it appears that there has been a veritable cancer epidemic in the neighborhood since the 1st reactors were put in. Also appears that the neighborhood is one of poverty with folks with very little political power living nearby. http://thegrio.com/2012/01/25/nuclear-plants-and-cancer-epidemics-in-a-poor-black-georgia-town-environmental-racism-in-the-21st-ce/
Seems like many citizens of Georgia aren’t all that thrilled about the new plants. Here’s a pretty comprehensive list of articles about issues, problems, etc.
http://www.bredl.org/nuclear/Vogtle.htm
Like I said, wind turbine falls down, solar panel quits working, nuclear plant implodes contaminating thousands of miles of surrounding area after creating cancer spikes in surrounding area before implosion. Big difference.
Junk science
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
If you are actually interested in learning something, I suggest you read some actual scientific studies.
http://www.idph.state.il.us/cancer/pdf/nuclear%20study%20final%20report%20ERS06_1.pdf
http://nas-sites.org/cancerriskstudy/
http://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull33-2/33205892027.pdf
Your cites include a notice
Your cites include a notice of study, not begun and a study that only emcompassed 2 decades. I have family members with multiple myeloma, leukemia (deceased), brain tumor (deceased). That’s 40% of the family members who lived near a major nuclear facility in the 50s. None developed the cancers within a two decade period but rather 40 years or so. These cancers are exactly what your third study mentions. No one else in the family has cancers of this sort, only skin cancers.
I would counter that any studies of cancer spikes need to cover a longer period of time than 2 decades. I would offer that it’s quite likely that any study that covers a 50 year period of living near nuclear facilities will find cancer spikes. When Chernobyl went as well as Fukushima there were people who suffered quite quickly from the effects of the radiation. It defies logic to say that living near these sorts of facilities won’t develop health issues over a long period of time.
One of your cites only covers 20 years, one is just an announcement of a study and the third you’d best reread, it doesn’t really seem to say what you think it does. Better take those fish out of the barrel before you begin shooting.
Try This
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/26/childhood-leukemia-spikes-near-nuclear-power-plants/
or this
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/43
That’s all I can do for now
Amazing Rosa!
After Mr. P. Reject’s pointless ‘stick to weed’ comment, I thought I’d do a rebuttal but decided to give an inch. After that, what was the point?
Then, when I read his reply to you, I had a feeling you’d pull it down around Putney’s ne’er do well’s ears. Maybe the poor sod saw his feet in the barrel and mistook them for harmless fish…?
Vidda
Don’t be mad at me for your ignorance.
PutneyReject
The emotion of anger would not occur to me. I can be unhappy at being ignorant of something but I doubt it would grow to anger. In any confrontation, anger might be assumed without obvious evidence of it.
People’s concern here and elsewhere apparently weigh more heavily on them than you might imagine. Merely the thought of how can we explain this mess to our grandkids would make most people think twice about what can and does go wrong.
You're trying, I'll give you that much
Personal anecdotes hardly qualify as valid epidemiological study.
The reason I included the link to the “new” study is that the NRC asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to perform an update of the 1990 NCI study. It was pretty clear if one actually understood the links.
I suggest you read the WHO and UNSCEAR reports on Chernobyl and Fukushima before posting.
You are entitled to own opinions but don’t confuse them for facts.
Despite the fact that any NRC
Despite the fact that any NRC commissioned report should be looked at with a skeptical eye, again you’re only going back 20-25 years. There are many reports by accredited scientists that note increased cancer rates, especially in children. http://ecowatch.com/2014/06/14/fukushima-children-dying/
But we can go back and forth about this forever Reject because you are never going to give an inch on the subject. Personally, I am a little more maybe, maybe not than you realize, however in the last 10- years my personal family experience, whether you consider it relevant or not, along with much reading has led me to conclude that it’s much better to deal with the complications of wind and solar than the possible as well as probable complication of nuclear power.
And of course the residents of Woburn Mass as well as Oaks, California were told repeatedly that anecdotes hardly qualified as valid epidemiological studies. Until the numbers got so high that they were able to win court cases against the polluters.
Hyprocrisy
So the fact that the NRC asked an independent outside group, the National Academy of Sciences (one of the most respected and prestigious in the world) to perform a state of the art analysis to update a previous study by the National Cancer Institute is somehow suspect but you link to an article by a member of Nukewatch with a straight face.
Let’s compare the link you provided to the actual report.
“French researchers have confirmed that childhood leukemia rates are shockingly elevated among children living near nuclear power reactors.”
vs.
“There was no increase in AL (acute leukemia)incidence over 1990–2001 and over the entire 1990–2007 period. The results suggest a possible excess risk of AL in the close vicinity of French NPPs in 2002–2007. The absence of any association with the DBGZ may indicate that the association is not explained by NPP gaseous discharges. Overall, the findings call for investigation for potential risk factors related to the vicinity of NPP and collaborative analysis of multisite studies conducted in various countries.”
As I said, wind and solar aren’t going to replace nuclear power for the foreseeable future so I hope you are more comfortable with coal and natural gas than nuclear.
Cherry-picking "the science"
Of the three studies that PutneyReject cites:
The first one is an Illinois study which shows not significant increase for childhood cancer in areas near nuclear plants, compared with areas not near nuclear plants. However the report does note that other studies have shown higher cancer risks near nuclear plants.
“Cherry-picking” means citing only those studies which support the conclusions that you wish to prove and avoiding contradicting evidence. PutneyReject’s selections are therefore not guided by a fair and objective quest for the truth.
The second citation is a brief document which simple describes how a certain planned study is to be conducted, but does not report any results. So what could be the logic of giving that link as evidence at nuclear power is safe?
The last link is to an article titled: Cancer in Populations Living near Nuclear Facilities, Report of a Survey by the U.S. Cancer Institute.
This report is particularly interesting because it does not unequivocally support the conclusion that PutneyReject claims.
The article acknowledges that there may very well be more cancer deaths near nuclear plants, and explains that this study was not set up in a way which would be sufficiently fine-tuned to measure whether this is true or not true.
Even so this report, cite by PutneyReject as an answer to junk science, concludes that there is a significantly higher incidence of leukemia, but demurs that we cannot be sure that this is caused by radiation from the plant. What I found particularly chilling was the following statement:
“A recent case-controlled study of leukemia cases that occurred near the Sellafield plant concluded that a possible causative feature might be paternal occupational exposures to radiation prior to conception.”
Many years ago, my wife and I attended an NRC presentation in which the speaker acknowledged that radiation from nuclear plants does result in additional cancer deaths. But he said that the increase is so slight as to be “acceptable.”
I am sure that it is of great comfort to any person suffering from cancer to know that their ordeal is “acceptable.”
It's interesting Steven
Well said. It’s interesting Steven to see that after all these years many of us still have to climb a wall to see the other side.
I hope mr mike, putneyreject and the likeminded can join the understanding here because our ‘half-lives’ depend on harm reduction now, more than ever, whether it’s climate change, nuclear plants, police miltarization, recidivistic racism, sexism and violence, etc…
You are quite a presumptuous,
You are quite a presumptuous, yet ignorant poster.
I made no “conclusions” or “claims”, I merely stated posted links to scientific studies that I familiar with and suggested that if one wants to discuss science, use the appropriate sources.
I wonder what makes people so eager to discuss things they know so little about?
"a presumptuous, yet ignorant poster"
After claiming that debunking “junk science” is “like shooting fish in a barrel:” When faced with the facts, PutneyReject now denies ownership of his previous proclamations. In effect, PutneyReject has warned us that his statements are not to be taken seriously.
Please provide proof of these
Please provide proof of these “proclamations”
I’m not sure what “facts” you actually think you presented that I was not aware of or that I am disputing.
Please feel free to elaborate as I always look forward to taking down smug posters like you a notch or two.
"Tea, with an M.D."
http://www.reformer.com/letterstotheeditor/ci_27238085/letter-box
Retired doctor reaches out to VY emplotyees
Editor of the Reformer:
This is an open letter to the laid-off employees at Entergy’s Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.
I am one of “those people” who worked so hard to get the plant closed down. And I want to continue to build connections with those for whom this decision was a real hardship. I am a retired family practice doctor. I will make myself available to any workers and their families who have medical questions (and are concerned about out of pocket costs in deciding how to use the system) for free conversations; either in person, or over the phone, over the next six months.
My phone number is 413-336-1291. This Friday, Jan. 2, I will be at the Twilight Tea Lounge at 41 Main St. Come and have “Tea, with an M.D.” between 6 and 7:30 p.m. I will be available every week, at Brattleboro locations that I will leave on my voice message machine. I believe in the power of community
Opeyemi Parham, Dummerston, Dec. 30
The Abyss of Shortsightedness
This issue before us is not who is right or wrong, or, who has all the facts or who has none.
It is the abyss of shortsightedness.
Have our needs for today so impaired the needs for our future that we see through myopic lens a truth that doesn’t reach the light-sensitive tissues at the back of our eyes?
Instead, we focus only on what we see before us that result in the distant objects of our future, our planet, and our future generations to appear blurred.
Who among us can speak for those who have not yet walked our lands and breathed our air?
~Vidda Crochetta