GREEN GROUP REAFFIRMS NUCLEAR OPPOSITION

It was suggested on Saturday's RTE radio's nature programme 'Mooney Goes Wild' that Friends of the Irish Environment [FIE] was reconsidering its opposition to nuclear power.

It appears this confusion arose because of Friends of the Earth's [FoE] Director's comments recently about reconsidering the organisation's position in the wake of James's Lovelock's (author of 'Gaia') widely-reported decision last autumn to support nuclear fuel to replace fossil fuels and so slow down global warming. 'They will change their position within five years' a member of the panel asserted.

FIE emailed in a question for the panel: 'Ask them how long nuclear fuel will last?' Their expert indicated that was a good and unconsidered point. The reply suggested that if all those who are considering using nuclear fuel did so, the world's supply of nuclear fuel would be exhausted 'in 50 years'.

In fact, on 1994 consumption levels assured resources of uranium will last for 54 years. [NEA/OECD, Red Book, 1995] The use of breeder reactors, reprocessing and the possible inclusion of thorium must be weighed against the increased demand since 1994 and the present proposed explosion of the use of nuclear power.

It also creates hazardous waste which will be a burden for future generations. The total volume of radioactive waste produced from reprocessing 4 cubic metres of spent nuclear fuel is 642 cubic metres. This waste is 100 million times more radioactive than uranium ore. The whole process is vulnerable to human error and to political violence.

The use of nuclear fuel is not sustainable. It is a problem, not an answer to anything.


GREEN GROUP REAFFIRMS NUCLEAR OPPOSITION

It was suggested on Saturday's RTE radio's nature programme 'Mooney Goes Wild' that Friends of the Irish Environment [FIE] was reconsidering its opposition to nuclear power.

It appears this confusion arose because of Friends of the Earth's [FoE] Director's comments recently about reconsidering the organisation's position in the wake of James's Lovelock's (author of 'Gaia') widely-reported decision last autumn to support nuclear fuel to replace fossil fuels and so slow down global warming. 'They will change their position within five years' a member of the panel asserted.

FIE emailed in a question for the panel: 'Ask them how long nuclear fuel will last?' Their expert indicated that was a good and unconsidered point. The reply suggested that if all those who are considering using nuclear fuel did so, the world's supply of nuclear fuel would be exhausted 'in 50 years'.

In fact, on 1994 consumption levels assured resources of uranium will last for 54 years. [NEA/OECD, Red Book, 1995] The use of breeder reactors, reprocessing and the possible inclusion of thorium must be weighed against the increased demand since 1994 and the present proposed explosion of the use of nuclear power.

It also creates hazardous waste which will be a burden for future generations. The total volume of radioactive waste produced from reprocessing 4 cubic metres of spent nuclear fuel is 642 cubic metres. This waste is 100 million times more radioactive than uranium ore. The whole process is vulnerable to human error and to political violence.

The use of nuclear fuel is not sustainable. It is a problem, not an answer to anything.
  • No comments found
Add comment