Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Bush's Nuclear Deal with India Is a Disaster for World Safety and the Environment

By Alexander Zaitchik, AlterNet. Posted September 10, 2008.


Why is everyone from John McCain to Barack Obama in favor of a plan that could launch a new nuclear arms race?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Alexander Zaitchik

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

A bitter closure is finally at hand for the long international debate over the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. In a controversial statement issued in Vienna on Saturday, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which regulates the legal nuclear trade worldwide, granted India an unprecedented waiver to buy nuclear material and technology despite its refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its possession of nuclear weapons.

The decision is the penultimate step in changing the law to allow U.S. firms to help develop India's nuclear energy sector. With large majorities in the House and Senate supporting the deal -- including senators Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John McCain -- passage by Congress is likely during the opening session of 2009, despite dead-ender opposition by a handful of lawmakers led by Congressman Edward Markey, D-Mass. Passage by Congress would end a long and bloody political process that began in the summer of 2005, when George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed a joint statement in Washington outlining a new strategic partnership, including a pledge by the United States to end India's nuclear pariah status.

Saturday's vote in Vienna was a long time coming. Immediately after the 2005 announcement, proponents and critics began digging trenches on either side of the deal, which the Bush administration viewed as its best shot at a meaningful post-Iraq foreign policy legacy. Some boosters went as far as to liken it to Nixon's going to China. By the time Bush and Singh met in New Delhi in March 2006 to sign the Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, the battle lines were marked and the battle cries well rehearsed.

Boosters in both capitols hailed the pact as heralding a historic geostrategic realignment, cementing ties between the world's oldest and biggest democracies. The nuclear deal, they said, would accomplish three things: It would bring India in from the nonproliferation cold by opening its civilian reactors to U.N. inspectors; help the growing country of more than 1 billion people meet surging energy demand; and reduce pressures on global oil supplies and atmospheric carbon counts. Critics decried the proposed exemption as a potentially fatal blow to the already creaking legal infrastructure of the nonproliferation regime. How, they asked, can we reward India for going nuclear without making a farce of the rules binding the rest of the world's non-nuclear nations? What's more, critics warned, sending uranium to India would fuel a nuclear arms race in South Asia.

For years the sides have waged battle in Washington, New Delhi, Vienna, New York and beyond, with overlapping political mini-dramas at times resembling a shifting pattern of Chinese trick rings. Few news stories have been so taxing on the public's attention. Supporters in Washington and New Delhi had to battle domestic and international critics, all the while recalibrating the terms of the bilateral deal. Last weekend's breakthrough comes after numerous rounds of under-the-radar negotiations and arm-twisting inside the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, both of which were required to approve aspects of the waiver before the pact could be ratified by Congress.

As recently as last month, the fate of the deal was in serious doubt. At the NSG's August meeting, an alliance of small European nations demanded, with the quiet backing of China, the insertion of a series of conditions and asterisks to the exemption that were unacceptable to India. But between the August meeting and last Saturday, the European opposition front was crushed under pressure from Washington. Bush then leaned hard on Chinese President Hu Jintao to accept to the deal, which China has never liked because of its implications for the balance of power in its dangerous backyard.

The result is an unprecedented change in international law allowing a non-NPT signatory state to purchase uranium and high-end reactor technology on the world market. In exchange, India will open its civilian plants to U.N. inspectors, in line with a much-criticized partial inspection plan approved by the IAEA last month. India's military nuclear installations, meanwhile, will remain off limits. Most importantly for India's nuclear weapons program, New Delhi can now import uranium to develop the civilian nuclear energy sector, while reserving the country's meager domestic ore deposits for the expansion of its nuclear arsenal, currently estimated to consist of fewer than 100 bombs.

Already some Pakistani officials are saying the deal will lead to an aggravated arms race between the two nuclear states, likely forcing China to participate as well.

Prominent critics of the deal say this is no surprise, and that an arms race in Asia is only the most immediate aspect of the deal's geopolitical fallout. "This is a nonproliferation disaster of historic proportions," says Daryl G. Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association. "The India-specific exemption from NSG guidelines severely erodes the credibility of global efforts to ensure that access to peaceful nuclear trade and technology is available only to those states that meet global nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament standards." Henry Sokolski, a member of the congressional commission on proliferation and terrorism, goes further, calling the deal "Nonproliferation's 9/11."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: india, nuclear deal

Alexander Zaitchik is a freelance journalist.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Unconstitutional
Posted by: fanny666 on Sep 10, 2008 1:10 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is directly unconstitutional for the United States to aid in nuclear proliferation.

According to Article 6, section 2 of the US Constitution, all international treaties that the Congress has ratified and the president has signed become the "supreme law of the Land."

This includes the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Critically, this includes Article 6, which makes disarmament mandatory.

Article 6 states, "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

Helping India to increase its arsenal is in direct violation of the NPT. Violating the NPT is in direct violation of the US Constitution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Unconstitutional Posted by: teel
» RE: Unconstitutional Posted by: JSquercia
» NONSENSE! BE FAIR! Posted by: sanman
» RE: NONSENSE! BE FAIR! Posted by: fanny666
» TELL THE TRUTH! Posted by: sanman
» RE: Unconstitutional Posted by: cstx37
Welcome the the Death Machine and Company{LLC}
Posted by: Krain61 on Sep 10, 2008 3:04 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are Merchants of Death
that is why the world HATES US
And now they want to be just like us
Good Advertizing hun

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

manmohan singh is an angloamerican spy and agent=shame for India
Posted by: avatar_singh on Sep 10, 2008 3:49 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
may 9th , 2007.

This ( rejected thrice by the public in general election) prime minister(installed at american behest) manmaohan singh is trying to enter parliament again through vack door-he filled nomination through assam with help of sonai gandhi congress(of whoioch he is not a leader or person of any singificance).
such is the democracy we live in.
i thought democracy meansd people electing the party and primeminister to be elected through that elelctable persons.
but as for american definigitn of democracy like in stooge s in afggansitana nd iraq we have an americana tooge who doe snot need to boyther wabout indian opinion because he has not been s-chosen by the indian people for the post but isntalled by a foreing country to make idnia run for foreing.es nbenefit.
and we are celebrating 150 yrs of what?
return of the company and corporate again?(not called ast or west india company this time but same nevertheless)..

the media now decries that the polling rate in india is rapdly going down that in india where the people have always been enthusiatic to vote. doe sit not occur to media that pepel are now refusing to rubber stamp the primeminsiter sna his cabinet when the people have already rejected such lots and still unelectable person gets chosen as prime minister of foren minister(jaswant singh) with no popular support anbut only because angloamerican agents in india want that to be. For several general elections the people have rejected the so called loiberalization and wasnhington consensus policy of govet. of india but each time new govt is elected the media astrats telling that economic and foreing policy msut not change even though people have overwhelmingly voted agasint that.
media brings irraneous cause for defeat of incumbent govt liek communalism and all russbih but never mentions that people have thrwon that american dictated policy.
tsuch is the genesisi of indian eelctorate disilluionment with voting -all due to corruption of media and jourtnalists along with the biusisness class of india(thse days traitor FICI is organising more conferences than the govt. of india for interministerial meetings!.



How india is being treacherously enslaved by angloamerican agents likes of (unelectable and defeated in democratic election ) this pm manmohan singh and the english media inside india.

a great misconception is that so caled liberalization and globalization was brought to india by this manmohan singh. In fact soon after victory in iraq war in febraury 1991 the bush no. first declared a new world order in which he explicitly said that he will open up the world for american business. In fact his trade seccratary immeditealy annomnuced that she will make sure that america open up the thighs of thrid world countries as a slwoly and surely to american business(true analogy to a rape)-that was given the name liberalization and globalization for which the british and americans had been working since 1986. What was left for america to do was install maleable stooges inside the thrirld world countries. escpeally those types who are unelctable and have no mass base of their own-- in other words who are not elelctable democratically but installed from above through media and other manipulations.
this manmohan singh in india fulffiled that criteria of being unliked and unelctable insignificant person who was willing to act on arder of his american masters -if they had asked him to turn communist he would have done that.it isa sad refletion on india that since 1986 we have has only weaklings as our prime minsiters and fincnace minsiters not to speak of non mentionable defence misnters who made sure that indians nuclear and missle programme got stuck at 1986.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perhaps you should have your own blog?..Please
Posted by: BigElectricCat on Sep 10, 2008 5:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua Holland or someone out there in alternetland, can anything be done about avatar_singh's constant filibustering posts? It's rather annoying. Maybe you could at least educate him/her on the concepts of paragraphs and white space.

I know, I know, I could hit ignore. But then I may also exclude someone of value that gets sucked into avatars black-hole threads.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Factual Errors
Posted by: cstx37 on Sep 11, 2008 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Why is everyone from John McCain to Barack Obama in favor of a plan that could launch a new nuclear arms race?"

“… sending uranium to India would fuel a nuclear arms race in South Asia.”

Make no mistake; there clearly is a danger of a nuclear arms race erupting in South Asia. What is less clear is whether the agreement increases or decreases that danger. In the absence of the agreement, India's civil nuclear program could completely collapse. That would give it no alternative to nuclear arms for the application of its limited supply of indigenous uranium and considerable capability in nuclear technology. The nonproliferation community has given far too little attention to analyzing the possible consequent course of events.

"... the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which regulates the legal nuclear trade worldwide, granted India an unprecedented waiver to buy nuclear material and technology despite its refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its possession of nuclear weapons."

"... an unprecedented change in international law allowing a non-NPT signatory state to purchase uranium and high-end reactor technology on the world market."

To the contrary the precedent is the status India itself had prior to 1992, at which time the NSG adopted a requirement for full-scope safeguards. Even the post-1992 nuclear embargo on India has been leaky, as witness the series of states (France, China and currently Russia) that supplied fuel to the US-built reactors at Tarapur, with American acquiescence, so that India would keep those reactors under international safeguards.

"... New Delhi can now import uranium to develop the civilian nuclear energy sector, while reserving the country's meager domestic ore deposits for the expansion of its nuclear arsenal … ."

For technical reasons, one can obtain more energy per unit mass from uranium if used in a manner optimal for production of electricity rather than weapons. India could, with or without any agreement with the NSG or the US, use its indigenous uranium for weapons production, provided it is willing to pay the price of a reduced electrical production. That remains the case under the agreement, because India's separation plan left eight reactors ineligible for international safeguards and therefore imported uranium, even though these reactors were designed and are intended for production of electricity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comprehensive to a Fare-Thee-Well
Posted by: Russ Wellen on Sep 11, 2008 11:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is definitely a "if you only read one article, read this one" piece on the Indian nuclear deal. As comprehensive as it is comprehensible. More overviews like this would be great, AlterNet. (More from this author, too.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear power plants have NOTHING to do with proliferation of nuclear bombs.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 11, 2008 3:41 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear
Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about
nuclear power.

Page 50: Power reactors make Plutonium 240 [Pu240]. Pu240 is
useless for making bombs. Plutonium bombs require Pu239.
Pu239 is made in reactors that are specialized for making Pu239.
Governments own Pu239 makers, not power companies.

Page 179: The USA is now on Generation 4 reactors. Generation
4 reactors are impossible to melt down, no matter what the
operators do.

Page 180: ""In 2006, more than 435 reactors in thirty two
countries supplied 16 percent of the world's electricity with a safety
record far superior to that of fossil fuel or hydroelectric generation --
and that's including the Chernobyl fatalities."

Page 153: "By 2013 a total of 500 metric tons, or the equivalent of
20,000 warheads, will be turned into low-enriched fuel with the
energy equivalent of three billion tons of coal (thirty million coal
cars)." Old Soviet uranium bombs are being converted into reactor
fuel by oxidizing the pure metallic U235 [burning it] and mixing the
uranium rust with non-fissionable U238. Bombs require pure shiny
reduced metallic U235. Reactors use very impure [2% to 8%]
U235 oxide mixed with U238 oxide or other non-fissionable
material. Bombs require that pure shiny metal U235 or Plutonium
239 slam into pure shiny metal U235 or pure shiny metal Plutonium
239, respectively. Reactors can use converted bomb material as
fuel, but power reactors are NOT a source of bomb material. Once
you have made Plutonium 240, it is useless for making bombs.
There is no way to make it back into Plutonium 239.
Making plutonium239 for bombs requires a special kind of breeder
reactor [not an ordinary breeder reactor] that only governments
who make bombs own.
Any connection between nuclear power and proliferation is purely
delusional. They are not related.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CO2 from electricity generation
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 11, 2008 4:07 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear
Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about
nuclear power.

Page 13 has a chart of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity
production. Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas [CO2]
than any other source, including coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and
wind. Building wind turbines and towers also involve industrial
processes such as concrete and steel making. Wind turbines
produce a total of 58 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour. Nuclear
power plants produce a total of 30 grams of CO2 per kilowatt
hour, the lowest. Coal plants produce the most, between 966 and
1306 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour. Solar power produces
between 100 and 280 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour. Hydro
power produces 240 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour. Natural gas
produces between 439 and 688 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.
Remember the total is the sum of direct emissions from burning fuel
and indirect emissions from the life cycle, which means the
industrial processes required to build it. Again, nuclear comes in
the lowest. Nuclear would produce even less CO2 per kilowatt
hour if the safety were lowered to the same level as other sources
of electricity. Switching from coal to nuclear is a 97% reduction in
electricity's 40% of our CO2 output.

Page 17: Coal kills 24000 Americans and 400000 Chinese every
year. Nuclear has killed ZERO Americans total. Hydro has
killed 1000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Chinese.

Page 257: World CO2 emissions from electricity generation come
to 9,500 million metric tons a year. Using a small footprint,
hundreds of nuclear plants in more than thirty countries cut carbon
emissions by 600 million metric tons every year."

Page 269: "[E]very day the collective households and industries of
America throw away nearly a million tons of garbage containing
toxic heavy metals and dangerous chemicals, as well as plastics that
will never break down. That garbage will be our culture's real
legacy, enduring for millions of years after all the present nuclear
waste has decayed."

Page 290: There is a mistake: She says that the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant in New Mexico is the only nuclear waste repository in
operation. France has one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need 10,000 new nuclear power plants
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 11, 2008 7:16 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The coal industry depends on your irrational fear of all things
nuclear to maintain its $100 Billion per year cash flow. The coal
industry knows perfectly well that nuclear power would have
driven coal out of business long ago if it were not for your
irrational fear of all things nuclear. It is greatly to the coal
industry's advantage for you to continue to advocate sources of
energy, such as solar and wind, that they know just won't work or
are so expensive as to be economically unfeasible. Every time
you advocate wind energy or solar energy as better than nuclear,
you are giving the coal industry a chance to continue causing
global warming for another year. Every time you advocate wind
energy or solar energy as better than nuclear, you are taking us
one year closer to the collapse of civilization and the extinction of
the human race. The only thing we can do to stop global
warming RIGHT NOW is to stop all objections to nuclear power
and unanimously advocate immediate conversion of all coal fired
power plants worldwide to nuclear.

Americans are paranoid about all things nuclear. NMR [Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance] had to be renamed MRI [Magnetic
Resonance Imaging] to get sick people into the scanner. The only
thing that changed was the name, yet patients refused "NMR"
scans, but willingly get "MRI" scans. Apparently, the average
American doesn't know that all matter, including people, is made
of atoms and that atoms have nuclei. The NMR/MRI machine
aligns the spins of the nuclei in the atoms in the patient using a big
magnet. Since different atoms have different nuclear spin
resonances, the NMR/MRI machine can see one element at a time.
I have no idea what the sick sick patients were thinking, but that
kind of thinking is what got us into the climate crisis that we are
now in.

32 countries have nuclear power plants. Only 9 have nuclear
bombs. The 4 biggest sources of CO2 have both. They are the
US, China, India and Russia. Canadian Candu reactors run on
UNenriched uranium. Thus proliferation of nuclear weapons is
an irrelevant issue. Every country should have the advantage of
American and Canadian technology so that nuclear power will be
the safest and cleanest energy available.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Coal contains uranium according to Gwyneth Cravens
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 11, 2008 7:56 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear
Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about
nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens is a former anti-nuclear activist.

Page 75: A coal fired power plant gives you 100 to 400 times as
much radiation as a nuclear power plant. Worldwide, an average
person gets 0.01 millirem/year from nuclear power plants, the same
as eating one banana. Bananas contain potassium and some of the
potassium is radioactive potassium 40. This has always been the
case.

Page 99: There was an epidemic of PSYCHOSOMATIC illnesses
caused by the Chernobyl accident.

Page 100: Only 50 deaths can be directly attributed to radiation at
Chernobyl. [In the USA, only robots do that dangerous work, and
our containment buildings work.]

Page 196: The captured fly ash [from a COAL fired power plant]
includes arsenic, lead, molybdenum, cadmium, chromium, uranium
and thorium. The fly ash is mixed with water, then dried out.
Coal waste goes into bowling balls, golf balls, wallboard, paving
materials and land fills. Mercury is an invisible gas as it exits the
stacks. "Coal-fired plants are the biggest producers of mercury
emissions in the country, spouting fifty unregulated tons per year."
"A 1,000-megawatt coal plant also freely disperses about twenty-
seven metric tons of radiological material a year, exposing people to
much more low-level radiation than a nuclear plant would."

Page 197: "If you live within fifty miles of a coal-fired plant,
you're exposed to 0.03 millirem a year. Living near a nuclear plant
exposes you to 0.009 millirem a year." "Those [soft coal burning]
plants give off four hundred times more radio nuclides a year than a
nuclear plant-one to four millirem." "In the United States in 1999,
coal combustion produced over 1,000 tons of uranium and 2,500
tons of thorium. This is enough fissile material to exceed the
amount consumed by all the nuclear power reactors in the country
in a year. After World War II, when scientists believed uranium to
be rare, they considered extracting it from fly ash."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Natural Background Radiation according to Gwyneth Cravens
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 11, 2008 8:16 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear
Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about
nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens is a former anti-nuclear activist.

Page 35: Your golf clubs may contain depleted uranium [DU].
Don't worry, and don't confuse DU with spent fuel. DU is what is
removed from the uranium to make it enriched in U235. DU is
pure U238. U238 has such a long half life that it is almost not
radioactive. DU is safe to handle, but don't eat it because it is a
chemical poison. Heavy metals in general are poisons, radioactive
or not. DU has other uses that depend on its high density.

Page 70: Natural background radiation where the author happens
to be at the time is higher than what people living at Chernobyl are
getting. The US national average background radiation is 360
millirems/year.

Page 71: The natural background radiation in northeastern
Washington state is 1700 millirem/year.
The natural background radiation on the Zuni uplift is 500 to 700
millirem/year.
The natural background radiation in New Mexico is greater than the
calculated dose from the Three Mile Island meltdown, if you were
next to the reactor.
A chest x-ray gives you 10 millirem.

Page 72: The natural background radiation inside Grand Central
Station is 600 millirem/year because Grand Central Station is made
of granite. [ALL rocks are radioactive.]
The allowed exposure to the public from a nuclear power plant is
15 millirem/year.
A set of dental X-rays gives you 39 millirem.

Page 74: Smoking a pack and a half of cigarettes a day gives your
bronchial airways 1300 millirems/year according to the NCRP OR
8000 millirems/year according to the National Academy of
Sciences.

Page 76: The cancer rate in New Mexico is much lower than the
national average but the natural background radiation is much
higher than average. The highest rates of cancer are around heavy
industry, chemical factories and petrochemical factories. [Benzene,
a petroleum distillate, is a very powerful carcinogen.]

Page 77: Natural gas contains radon, a radioactive gas.

Page 86: Among 80000 nuclear bomb survivors from Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, the cancer rate was only 6% higher than expected.
Radiation is very weak at causing cancer.

Page 90: At Chernobyl, only 13 to 30% of the reactor's 190 metric
tons of fuel evaporated. .13X190=24.7 tons.
.3X190=57 tons. [Much lower than the previous estimate of 200
tons, and trivial compared to what coal fired power plants give
you.]

Page 98: There is a table of millirems per year from the
background in a list of inhabited places. Here are some of them.
Chernobyl: 490 millirem/year
Guarapari, Brazil: 3700 millirem/year
Tamil Nadu, India: 5300 millirem/year
Ramsar, Iran: 8900 to 13200 millirem/year
Zero excess cancer deaths are recorded. All of the above readings
are natural except for Chernobyl.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Choose either nuclear power or extinction
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 11, 2008 11:16 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Downloaded from:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

'Six steps to hell' - summary of Six Degrees as published in the Guardian
23 April 07:

1ºC Nebraska ...shortened... These innocuous-looking hills were once desert, part
of an immense system of sand dunes that spread across the Great Plains from
Texas in the south to the Canadian prairies in the north. Six thousand years ago,
when temperatures were about 1C warmer than today in the US, these deserts may
have looked much as the Sahara does today. ....shortened... devastating
agriculture and driving out human inhabitants on a scale far larger than the 1930s
“Dustbowl” exodus.....shortened...

2ºC ....shortened...Two degrees is also enough to cause the eventual complete
melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which would raise global sea levels by seven
metres. ...shortened...

3ºC Scientists estimate that we have at best 10 years to bring down global carbon
emissions if we are to stabilise world temperatures within two degrees of their
present levels. ....shortened... 3C may be the “tipping point” where global
warming could run out of control, leaving us powerless to intervene as planetary
temperatures soar. The centre of this predicted disaster is the Amazon, where the
tropical rainforest, which today extends over millions of square kilometres, would
burn down in a firestorm of epic proportions. ...shortened... Once the trees have
gone, desert will appear and the carbon released by the forests’ burning will be
joined by still more from the world’s soils. This could boost global temperatures
by a further 1.5ºC – tippping us straight into the four-degree world.
....shortened...

4ºC At four degrees another tipping point is almost certain to be crossed; indeed,
it could happen much earlier. ....shortened... hundreds of billions of tonnes of
carbon locked up in Arctic permafrost – particularly in Siberia – enter the melt
zone, releasing globally warming methane and carbon dioxide in immense
quantities. ....shortened...

5ºC ....shortened... methane hydrates. This unlikely substance, a sort of ice-like
combination of methane and water that is only stable at low temperatures and high
pressure, may have burst into the atmosphere from the seabed in an immense
“ocean burp”, sparking a surge in global temperatures ....shortened... . Today vast
amounts of these same methane hydrates still sit on subsea continental shelves. As
the oceans warm, they could be released once more in a terrifying echo of that
methane belch of 55 million years ago. In the process, moreover, the seafloor
could slump as the gas is released, sparking massive tsunamis ....shortened...

6ºC ....shortened... end of the Permian period, 251 million years ago. By the end
of this calamity, up to 95% of species were extinct. The end-Permian wipeout is
the nearest this planet has ever come to becoming just another lifeless rock drifting
through space. ....shortened... most of the world’s plant cover was removed in a
catastrophic bout of soil erosion. Rocks also show a “fungal spike” as plants and
animals rotted in situ. Still more corpses were washed into the oceans, helping to
turn them stagnant and anoxic. ....shortened...
Whatever happened back then to wipe out 95% of life on Earth ....shortened... we
mess with the climatic thermostat of this planet at our extreme – and growing –
peril.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The nuclear deal is Good news
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 11, 2008 11:30 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.csiro.au/news
/PermafrostCarbon.html
"the three-year study concluded that accounting for carbon stored
deep in the permafrost more than doubles – to more than 1500
billion tonnes – previous estimates of the world’s high-latitude
carbon inventory
With temperatures in the higher latitudes estimated to rise by
as much as eight degrees by the end of this century, the world
could experience a major melt of large tracts of permafrost in
Canada, Russia, Alaska, Norway, Sweden, Finland and
Greenland"

We MUST replace all coal fired power plants by 2015. The only
choice that actually works is nuclear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]