Nuclear Propulsion Neg

Download 0.87 Mb.
Size0.87 Mb.
1   ...   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   ...   78

Natives D/A Ext.

Nuclear mining creates unintended pollution that impacts Native Americans

Gerritsen 9 (Jeff, Medicine Resident at Albert Einstein Medical Center, 2/25/9, JPG

Nuclear power is often billed as clean base-load electrical energy. However, few if any nuclear power proponents mention the unintended consequences or the externalized costs associated with this technology to support the unsustainable U.S. lifestyle. A crucial part of this story is told by Native Americans. I have included three shocking, detailed articles outlining these unintended consequences impacting the Native Americans in South Dakota and neighboring states -- in particular the Cheyenne River radiation poisoning from nearby uranium mining impacting the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

Testing = Radiation

Nuclear rocket testing causes radiation – cancer

Rutschman 6 (Avi, writer @ The Acorn, 10/16/6, JPG

The Santa Susana Field Laboratory Panel, an independent team of researchers and health experts, released a report last week concluding that toxins and radiation released from the Rocketdyne research facility near Simi Valley could be responsible for hundreds of cancers in the surrounding areas. The Santa Susana Field Laboratory was built in 1948 by North American Aviation and consists of 2,850 acres in eastern Ventura County. Over the years, it has been used as a test site for experiments involving nuclear reactors, high-powered lasers and rockets. The report was completed by experts in the fields of reactor accident analysis, atmospheric transport of contaminants, hydrology and geology. The study took five years to complete and was funded by the California Environmental Protection Agency. "We want to thank the many legislatures that have attended meetings, provided funds and pressured public agencies into action," said Marie Mason, a community activist and longtime resident of the Santa Susana Knolls area in Simi Valley, who helped to form the advisory panel. The panel originally formed 15 years ago after a 1959 nuclear meltdown that occurred at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory was made public. Concerned about the possibility of facing adverse health affects due to the meltdown, area residents pressured legislators into funding a panel to study the impact of the incident. "We were fearful of what our families and communities may have been exposed to," said Holly Huff, another community member who pushed for the formation of the panel. The first study conducted by the panel was performed by UCLA researchers and focused on the adverse health effects the meltdown had on Rocketdyne employees. Completed in 1997, that report indicated workers did indeed suffer a higher rate of lymph system and lung cancers. Boeing, the current owner of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, has challenged the validity of the studies, calling into question the scientific methods used by researchers. "We received a summary of the report Thursday, and we were not given an advance copy to look through and prepare with," said Blythe Jameson, a Boeing spokesperson. "Based on our preliminary assessment," Jameson said, "we found that the report has significant flaws and that the claims are baseless without scientific merit and a grave disservice to our employees and the community." After the UCLA study concluding that laboratory workers had faced adverse health effects because of the meltdown, the panel was given federal and state funds to conduct another study of potential impacts on neighboring communities and their residents. According to the panel, Boeing was unwilling to disclose a large amount of data concerning the accident and certain operations. This forced the researchers to base some of their studies on models of similar accidents. "One simply does not know with confidence what accidents and releases have not been disclosed, nor what information about the ones we do know of also has not been revealed," the panel stated in its report. After five years of research, the panel concluded that between 260 and 1,800 cancer cases were caused by the field laboratory's contamination of surrounding communities. The incident released levels of cesium-137 and iodine-131, radio nucleotides that act as carcinogens that surpass the amount of contaminants released during the Three Mile Island incident. The report also stated that other contaminants have escaped, and still could, from the Boeing-owned laboratory through groundwater and surface runoff.

Radiation ! – Extinction

Radiation will cause extinction

Grossman 11 (Karl, Journalism prof @ the State U of NY and author of "Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed To Know About Nuclear Power”, 4/25/11 JPG

The answer is no. Nuclear power can never be made safe. This was clearly explained by Admiral Hyman Rickover, the “father” of the U.S. nuclear navy and in charge of construction of the first nuclear power plant in the nation, Shippingport in Pennsylvania. Before a committee of Congress, as he retired from the navy in 1982, Rickover warned of the inherent lethality of nuclear power—and urged that “we outlaw nuclear reactors.” The basic problem: radioactivity. “I’ll be philosophical,” testified Rickover. “Until about two billion years ago, it was impossible to have any life on Earth; that is, there was so much radiation on earth you couldn’t have any life—fish or anything.” This was from naturally-occurring cosmic radiation when the Earth was in the process of formation. “Gradually,” said Rickover, “about two billion years ago, the amount of radiation on this planet…reduced and made it possible for some form of life to begin.” “Now, when we go back to using nuclear power, we are creating something which nature tried to destroy to make life possible,” he said. “Every time you produce radiation” a “horrible force” is unleashed. By splitting the atom, people are recreating the poisons that precluded life from existing. “And I think there the human race is going to wreck itself,” Rickover stated.

Any radiation has the potential to kill

Vines and Petty 5 (Vanee Senior Media Relations Officer @ National Academy of Sciences and Megan – Media Relations Asst, @ NAS, 6/29/5, JPG

A preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even low doses of ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays and X-rays, are likely to pose some risk of adverse health effects, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council. The report's focus is low-dose, low-LET -- "linear energy transfer" -- ionizing radiation that is energetic enough to break biomolecular bonds. In living organisms, such radiation can cause DNA damage that eventually leads to cancers. However, more research is needed to determine whether low doses of radiation may also cause other health problems, such as heart disease and stroke, which are now seen with high doses of low-LET radiation. The study committee defined low doses as those ranging from nearly zero to about 100 millisievert (mSv) -- units that measure radiation energy deposited in living tissue. The radiation dose from a chest X-ray is about 0.1 mSv. In the United States, people are exposed on average to about 3 mSv of natural "background" radiation annually. The committee's report develops the most up-to-date and comprehensive risk estimates for cancer and other health effects from exposure to low-level ionizing radiation. In general, the report supports previously reported risk estimates for solid cancer and leukemia, but the availability of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these estimates. Specifically, the committee's thorough review of available biological and biophysical data supports a "linear, no-threshold" (LNT) risk model, which says that the smallest dose of low-level ionizing radiation has the potential to cause an increase in health risks to humans. In the past, some researchers have argued that the LNT model exaggerates adverse health effects, while others have said that it underestimates the harm. The preponderance of evidence supports the LNT model, this new report says. "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said committee chair Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. "The health risks – particularly the development of solid cancers in organs – rise proportionally with exposure. At low doses of radiation, the risk of inducing solid cancers is very small. As the overall lifetime exposure increases, so does the risk." The report is the seventh in a series on the biological effects of ionizing radiation.


Share with your friends:
1   ...   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   ...   78

The database is protected by copyright © 2019
send message

    Main page