The Vermont State Senate voted 26 to 4 today to make the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant shut down by 2012 as previously planned. The plant's owner Entergy had been hoping to extend operations at Vermont Yankee, even though the plant saw a cooling tower collapse, & leaked tritium from underground pipes Entergy at first denied were there.
Many people see this as a challenge to the Obama administrations push for nuclear power, especially last weeks announcement of around $8 loan guarantees for nuclear plants in Georgia. Apparently, Obama sees nuclear power as an alternative to coal power plants in the fight to stop global warming. Others prefer conservation & renewables to nuclear power, especially since they point out nuclear power costs more & takes longer to put on line. Other people point to the problem of nuclear waste & nuclear accidents like Three Mile Island & Chernobyl. I oppose nuclear plants because they release radiation during operation, & I agree with John Goffman, Ernest Sternglass, & Thomas Mancuso that there is no safe limit of radiation.
Apparently the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) agrees. In a document called NUREG 1437 The Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal for Nuclear Plants (Vol I part 6.6 second bullet point) the NRC states
The radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle on human populations over time (collective effects) have been considered within the framework of Table S-3. The 100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle, high-level-waste and spent-fuel disposal excepted, is calculated to be about 14,800 man-rem, or 12 cancer fatalities, for each additional 20-year power reactor operating term.
According to a document of the NRC, there will be around 12 cancer deaths for each new nuclear plant. Think about that folks. Proponents of nuclear power say the US needs 200 to 300 new nukes to fight global warming & meet our energy needs. At the cost of 2400 to 3600 extra cancer deaths?