PARIS, Nov 25, A French attempt to win a 41-billion-dollar (27.2-billion-euro) contract to build nuclear power stations in the Emirates is at risk over pricing, the La Tribune newspaper reported on Wednesday.
The newspaper reported that the top official at the presidential Elysee Palace, Claude Geant, had held a meeting with the heads of big French companies concerned on Tuesday to discuss a further reduction in the price which the government in Abu Dhabi considered too high.
Present at the meeting were the head of French nuclear power group Areva, Anne Lauvergeon, the head of GDF Suez, Gerard Mestrallet, Christophe de Margerie who leads oil group Total and Henri Proglio of the electricity group EDF, the report said.
The report said that the bidding consortium comprising these companies and the US firm Bechtel were handicapped by the fall of the dollar.
The report said that a few days ago, under political pressure, the partners had reduced the price of their offer to build new-generation EPR (European pressurized reactor) power stations by 10 percent. This was because the offer was considered too high by comparison with bids by competitors.
The rival companies are Hitachi of Japan which is allied with US group General Electric, and the South Korean company Kepco working with another South Korean group, Hyundai.

Blogger Labels: French,Emirates,PARIS,dollar,Tribune,newspaper,Elysee,Palace,Claude,Geant,reduction,government,Dhabi,Present,Areva,Anne,Lauvergeon,Suez,Gerard,Mestrallet,Christophe,Margerie,Total,Henri,Proglio,consortium,Bechtel,partners,generation,European,comparison,Hitachi,Japan,General,Electric,South,Korean,Kepco,Hyundai,competitors,nuclear,billion

Updated 2009-11-25
Well oil went to just under $150 which really makes the original publication even more relative. Even now oil is around $80 which is 8 times as much as it was in 2003 when I originally posted on this issue. This is one of my pet peeves. We can do something, it  is simple if the political will was really there. You just subsidise the good with taxes on the bad. It is amazing how money seems to suddenly find a way to make things work. We have subsidized the bad for far to long. Let’s try something different and promote the good for a change.

I am embarrassed by the Canadian record on environment and wildlife. The reality is most Canadians don’t know what large corporations are doing to the lands. properties are clear-cut just to a point where you can’t see it from the road. Many companies work away from the public so we are not aware of the damage being done. Once we find out the company simply moves to another country and leaves the mess for us to clean up($$$). We need the agencies that are supposed to protect these things to have the power and ability to enforce the rules. It seems virtually all these agencies have been destroyed either by no budget or no enforcement power. The people in these roles are trying but there is only so much they can do until the government motivation clearly shows them that they have the power, money and backing when push comes to shove. Like many other governments ours seem to talk the talk but is barely crawling let alone walking. Things like the tar sands are not helping things. Sure jobs are made but at what cost. Companies have to be held accountable for the damages their products create. We really need a “cradle to grave” solution so companies that cause the most damage pay the most.  

Published 2003-03-10
It’s funny to think that numerous cultures, hundreds of years ago had better power solutions than we have now.

First off, we have more available power than we need in the foreseeable future. All we have to do is look outside the oil/nuclear box for far superior solutions. Once governments around the world subsidize clean, renewable sources instead of oil/nuclear the advances will be far beyond any of our expectations. 

The biggest problem I see in providing clean, renewable sources of power is governments lack of commitment. Sure they all talk environment but then subsidize the large corporations creating dirty, non-renewable sources of power. In Ontario, Canada the provincial government subsidizes Hydro… Technically they don’t… They tell Hydro what the rates will be to the consumer and if Hydro over spends it can borrow the money from the government. This has been going on for over 30 years and now Hydro owes our government billions and is forced into charging $0.043 per KWH for the next 5 years. Far less than the “cost” of the power and it’s distribution. How can renewable sources compete. 

Furthermore, infrastructure has to be put in place to promote better solutions. Perhaps a surcharge for non-renewable, dirty fuel that directly passes to discounts for renewable, clean sources. The only way to succeed is to make the old ways expensive and the new ways profitable. Only then will society change in mass numbers. We could also expect more investment would create cheaper methods of harnessing power. Thus creating an increasing demand for cleaner power. 

The key to future success for any society will be their ability to create infinitely renewable environmentally neutral power sources. Societies that base their power solutions on oil, nuclear or plant sources will eventually fail. Societies that generate more power than they use will become much more powerful in the near term future.

Given what we already know about future power requirements wind, solar, water and lightning are going to be in demand. Once electric cars become more popular these renewable sources may become a necessity. 

With Canada’s resources we should be one of the largest power generators in the world. We have large space to put up wind and solar farms, huge water sources, geo-thermal sources and of course then there is lightning. I would like to see us provide enough power for the world. If it were possible to get all the world governments together just think of the solutions… Desserts, mountains and oceans would become huge power generating locations.   

We have everything we need to provide unlimited clean, renewable power. Now we just need the political motivation. Countries like Iceland, Norway, Finland and Sweden are leading the way. As a Canadian I am embarrassed at our lack of commitment. I would easily pay double the cost if it ensured future generations had clean renewable power sources. It will never be cheap but sometimes you have to consider more than money. I do not want future generations paying for our lack of foresight. In this case even the stupidest person can see clean renewable sources are the way to go.

Internal combustion engines must die. Inherently they “burn” fuel and create emissions. Even solutions like fuel cells may increase precipitation as they emit water droplets. There is little need to use “burning” solutions given all the available options. They have demonstrated long-term unacceptable impacts on our environment.  

Below are several power sources and my simplistic assessment of each.

Oil/Natural Gas Sources
Sucks up valuable natural resources, creates an environmental nightmare and there is a dwindling supply. Is there anyone that thinks this is a long-term viable solution any more? I certainly do not! The recent mess where oil has gone from $10-$40 only emphasizes how little supply is really available. To rely on this power solution will only ensure a collapse of a society… Just a matter of when. A transition away from this form of power must be immediate. Dwindling supplies will only increase the cost unless alternatives are found.

Nuclear Sources
What are you crazy??? They have demonstrated their impacts already… Just waiting for the next disaster.  

Plant Sources
To burn plants for fuel does not make sense. They can be used for much more productive uses. “Burning” for power will create problems even if it is as slow as global warming and should be avoided where possible. Besides we need these sources to enrich our current soil without chemicals.

Geo-Thermal Sources
Taking heat generated from the ground is a great power source as long as we only take heat from the first 1km or less of earth. If we start going deeper for thermal sources I have concerns about eventually lowering the earth’s core or creating a man-made catastrophe. Countries like Iceland where this source of power is everywhere are showing us how to benefit. They have so much extra heat they heat roads and sidewalks in cities. No one has a hot water heater in their house, hot water comes direct from city water. They also use it to generate electrical power. Unfortunately not many countries have the abundance that Iceland has but this concept can be applied in every country. 

Wind Sources
The next 3 of these were used thousands of years ago to harness power but somehow we got sold on the “cheaper” bang for the buck in oil. Wind is infinitely renewable and has no known environmental impact. It does have some draw backs… You need wind to generate power, the current wind mill is not pretty and consumes real estate. I have often wondered why no one has created a fan similar to venting fans you see on house roofs. It would seem to be a more effective solution to catch cross flowing winds. Used with solar or water sources makes a complete solution.  

Solar Sources
Solar is infinitely renewable and has no known environmental impact. It does have one draw back… You need sun. As technology improves this solution will certainly become common place. Used with wind or water sources makes a complete solution.  

Water Sources
Water is infinitely renewable and has no known environmental impact. It does have one draw back… You need constant flowing water. The problem is not in the power source but our implementations to harness it. Large power plants like Niagra Falls and super damns should be a thing of the past. They were implemented so only certain people would control power. We need to integrate into the environment to obtain our needs, use the natural flow of water, not force it. As technology improves this solution will certainly become common place. Good water flow can make a complete solution by itself. 

Lightning Sources
The power of lightning is awesome. Working on ways to harness this power would seem to be a worthwhile adventure. Creating a world net that draws power from lightning could in itself provide all the power the world needs in the foreseeable future. This has the potential that usage of power is promoted rather than conservation(at least for a while ). Only concern is that we might draw too much electricity and somehow our planet becomes negatively charged.

Still more fluff, lies and radiation from TMI and the new nuke media machine OpEd News by Harvey Wasserman 25 Nov 09 “…….the hype about alleged green support for new reactors. Latest is a carefully contrived piece of industry fluff from one Anthony Faiola, whose “Nuclear Power Regains Support” has just been featured atop the Washington Post.

This wafer thin installment in the “former environmentalists deem nukes green” series features a Brit named Stephen Tindale who recently left Greenpeace under strained circumstances.Greenpeace is as anti-nuke as ever. Like Patrick Moore, another former Greenpeacer now hiring out to the nuclear industry, Tindale’s tenure with the organization was stormy, and his defection unsurprising to many still with the group.But once again the turn of a single activist was a sufficient hook on which to hang a breathless feature.

Faiola cites “only muted opposition” to new reactors in the US while ignoring the inconvenient reality that none are yet licensed for construction. The thousands of No Nukes arrests in the 1970s and ‘80s came at reactor sites like Seabrook, New Hampshire and Diablo Canyon, California, where construction was already under way.

In fact, today’s safe energy opposition is far beyond corresponding stages when the first reactors were just being proposed. Its decisive advantage comes from true green renewable and efficiency technologies that are four decades further along, and that have all but priced atomic energy wholly out of the marketplace. Only this media-based stab at federal handouts keeps the prospect of new reactors on life support.

Faiola crows that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission “is reviewing applications for 22 new nuclear plants from coast to coast.” Unmentioned is Toshiba-Westinghouse’s flagship AP-1000 design, which the NRC says can’t withstand an earthquake, hurricane or tornado. Also missing are devastating safety critiques from regulators in Finland, France and Great Britain of the “standardized” reactor being pushed by France’s taxpayer-financed AREVA…………………..But as sure as radiation continues to pour from Three Mile Island, the hype about “green” support for atomic power will continue to spew, while the core of the environmental movement remains staunchly anti-nuke, especially as the price of Solartopian technologies continues to plummet.

OpEdNews – Article: Still more fluff, lies and radiation from TMI and the new nuke media machine

Another hospital reports over exposure KHTS News by Jeremiah McDaniel  November 24 2009 In what is beginning to seem like a recurring scene, another hospital has come forward and reported that some of its patients were exposed to high doses of radiation during CT scans.The overdoses happened at Glendale Adventist Medical Center, where ten patients accidentally received three to four times higher doses of radiation during their procedures…………..

CT scans use higher doses of radiation to get a clearer picture during scans, and Patterson says that CT scans can have up to 250 times higher doses of radiation than conventional x-rays.

“From the time you have your first CT scan, till the time you have your last, all the radiation is cumulative in your body,” said Patterson. “The cumulative effect is what can be overwhelming and eventually increase the chances of cancer.”

As a result of the recent findings Dr. Feldman recommends these tips when going in for a CT scan:

• Ask your physician if they have a GE type scanner
• Has it been recalibrated recently
• What is the radiation dose

Also Patterson recommends asking if it is necessary to get a CT scan or will an x-ray or MRI work

Hometown Station AM 1220 – Santa Clarita Radio – Another Hospital Reports Over Exposure

NUCLEAR ENERGY IS SIMPLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE (& NEW ENERGY IS THE BEST BUY) New Energy News 25 Nov 09 Generating Failure; How Building Nuclear Power Plants Would Set America Back in the Race Against Global WarmingTravis Madsen, Tony Dutzik, Bernadette Del Chiaro and Rob Sargent, November 2009 (Environment Maryland Research & Policy Center)

SUMMARY Expert evidence continues to accrue relegating nuclear energy to the category of “yesterday’s answer.” There is a move afoot in Congress to dramatically up spending for new nuclear energy projects. Bad idea. Look at the evidence. Don’t do it………………………

NewEnergyNews: NUCLEAR ENERGY IS SIMPLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE (& NEW ENERGY IS THE BEST BUY)

As U.S. Probes Radiation at Three Mile Island, Christian Parenti on Enduring “Zombie Nuke Plants” Nationwide Democracy Now 25 Nov 09 Interview with Christian Parenti “………One of the problems is that radiation makes metal brittle, so these plants are in serious disrepair. There were designed to last 40 years and now will be used for 60 years. On top of that, there’s a process called uprating whereby these operators can apply to increase the rate in which to operate the plant and in some cases up to 120% of design capacity. For example, Vermont Yankee outside Brattleboro, Vermont runs at 120% of its design capacity and it’s at the end of its life. All over the country there are these problems of leaks, emergencies and it remains largely under the radar. Many in the environmental movement talk about atomic power in terms of the future and whether or not we should build a new fleet of atomic power plants, how we’ll fight climate change.

That is really not the issue, because new atomic power plants are extremely expensive. If all goes well, which never has in the construction of a single plant in the U.S., it would cost about $10 billion-$12 billion. Generally, they cost more. There’s $18.5 billion on the table.The problem is, the federal government has ensured 80% of any private loans that will be made to build the new plant. But no one in Wall Street is prepared to invest in these things unless they get 100% public insurance. So there’s really not much investment there for it.

There are these firms that would love to get on the gravy train of building atomic power plants; whether or not they ever come on line is another story. They would like to continue to build these indefinitely. That is the lobby behind pushing for atomic energy. Also, basically it functions as a canard to hide the real issue, which is that we continue to burn coal which is extremely dangerous for the climate and the real use of atomic power is to run this fleet of old plants into the ground and we have constantly these small accidents such as the leak a few days ago at Three Mile island.

As U.S. Probes Radiation at Three Mile Island, Christian Parenti on Enduring “Zombie Nuke Plants” Nationwide

Accident casts fresh doubt on nuclear safety, Baltimore Sun 25 Nov 09 In the current issue of Scientific American, Mark Jacobson and Mark Delucchi propose a technically feasible, clean and efficient energy future from wind, water and sun. They note that wind – at 7 cents per kwh and projected to drop to 4 cents by 2020 – is getting cheaper than new nuclear, which is growing more expensive. In addition, wind is 25 times cleaner because of carbon emissions caused by mining, manufacturing and transporting associated with nuclear power.

These recent reports recount worker and environmental contamination, mishandling of nuclear waste, lack of reliability in producing electricity and fiscally risky policies at EDF. As laid out in Scientific American, as well as in the works of Maryland’s own clean energy scholar, Arjun Makihani, from the Takoma-based Institute for Energy and Environmental Research,

EDF’s biggest problem may be that it is marketing an old, expensive and dirty solution to our energy crisis.Three Mile Island reminds us that when there is a mishap at a nuclear power plant – unlike at wind, water and solar plants – what leaks out is radioactive.

Accident casts fresh doubt on nuclear safety — baltimoresun.com

By Amol Sharma, New Delhi and Jay Solomon, Washington

Acumulam-se críticas ao posicionamento da diplomacia brasileira. “É um absurdo recebermos um ditador”, “não podemos negociar com um presidente eleito através de fraudes”, “esse iraniano não respeita os direitos de liberdade de seus cidadãos”, e finalmente, “esse idiota nega a trágica história dos judeus”. Sim, esse presidente é corrupto – coisa que conhecemos bem: estamos em 75° no índice de corrupção da Transparência Internacional; o Irã está em 168º –, é autoritário, e um tremendo imoral (pra não dizer filh* da put*) por ter negado a existência do Holocausto. Mas podemos citar alguns chefes de Estado que têm um pouquinho de Ahmadinejad no sangue, mas não são vistos como párias.

O presidente Hu Jintao promove forte censura na China, que se expande até a este texto, já que a internet por lá não tem quase nada de internet. Na terra de Jintao também não há liberdade de expressão e os direitos trabalhistas parecem ser medievais, mas todos os países adoram aumentar o fluxo de capital com o descomunal mercado chinês. O ignóbil ex-presidente americano, Bush Jr., manteve-se no poder através de eleições duvidosas, mas todos continuavam negociando com o Tio Sam. Já o Silvio “Vida Loka” Berlusconi é dono de três das sete emissoras de sinais abertos na Itália; além disso, o premiê já disse que Benito Mussolini nunca matou ninguém, apenas “mandava as pessoas de férias para o exílio”. Todos os países citados têm mercados importantes, e por isso, esses defeitos passaram e passam incólumes.

Receber o maluco do presidente Ahmsadksdf, é uma posição diplomática ambiciosa, e condizente com a história da política internacional brasileira: não viramos as costas para quem nunca nos fez mal. Ao dialogar com um “inimigo” do mundo ocidental, o Brasil tenta assumir uma posição avançada na política internacional, tomando as rédeas das negociações com uma nação-problema, que fica apenas atrás da Coréia do Norte. E esta, é um exemplo do porquê é necessário dialogar com os “inimigos” do ocidente, pois o isolamento dos mesmos resulta em mais problemas, que por sua vez podem eclodir em uma desnecessária guerra (redundância). Além disso, claro, negociar com Ahmsdiuah tem um objetivo econômico.

O Brasil adota, desde a época de Fernando Henrique, uma posição que não segue automaticamente os EUA. É um questionamento à representação da posição dos EUA como uma verdade absoluta. Neste caso trata-se de algo bastante coerente, já que os EUA, o líder da pressão contra Irã, é possuidor da maior reserva de armas nucleares; e vale lembrar o passado recente, Washington invadiu o Iraque por que Saddam Hussein possuía armas de destruição em massa (que nunca foram encontradas). E voltando um pouco mais no tempo, vemos que os Estados Unidos apoiaram ostensivamente Saddam na guerra contra o Irã – que teve cerca de 1,5 milhão de mortos. E é exatamente antes desta guerra que vem a inimizade entre Washington e Teerã: desde 1979 com a Revolução dos Aiatolás, quando a embaixada americana foi invadida e reféns foram mantidos por 14 meses. Portanto, independente de qualquer coisa, é preciso prestar atenção e não seguir o país de Barack Obama pra onde ele for. Eles agem através das necessidades deles.

China e Rússia, que antes apoiavam Teerã, agora, certamente pressionados por Israel e Estados Unidos, também entraram em cena: os cinco membros permanentes do Conselho de Segurança da ONU (EUA, França, Reino Unido, China e Rússia), com a ajuda da Alemanha, exigirão explicações do Irã sobre seu projeto nuclear. O país será convocado oficialmente e terá que abrir as portas, mais uma vez, para a AIEA (Agência Internacional de Energia Atômica). Trata-se do Tratado Sobre a Não-Proliferação de Armas Nucleares – que entrou em vigor em 1970 – sendo posto em prática. Mas analisemos a situação internacional dos armamentos nucleares.

Os seguintes países possuem armas nucleares: EUA, Reino Unido, Rússia, China e França. Percebeu que são os mesmos do Conselho de Segurança? Pois é… Aí me vem à cabeça o saudoso barbudo Enéas, que defendia que um país só era respeitado se tivesse um poder bélico considerável, e claro, defendia o projeto da bomba atômica verde e amarela. Mas retomemos o raciocínio. Além dos já citados, mais quatro países detêm a tecnologia de armas nucleares: Índia, Paquistão, Israel e Coréia do Norte. O curioso é que esses países não fazem parte do Tratado Sobre a Não-Proliferação de Armas Nucleares. A partir deste cenário é possível entender porque o Irã se revolta com as fiscalizações da AIEA e já até tentou burlá-las. Afinal, porque os países do Conselho de Segurança não são submetidos à fiscalização? Os países do ocidente defendem a democracia, até mesmo intervêm em alguns países com essa desculpa, e não praticam isso de maneira global. A política interna deve ser democrata mas a externa gerida por uma minoria?

Vale refletir sobre toda a história da política internacional para entender o posicionamento da diplomacia brasileira. É Claro que podem existir erros, afinal a nossa diplomacia nunca esteve tão ativa. E quanto mais se faz, mais é possível cometer equívocos.

Lula e Celso Amorim, na minha opinião, só cometeram um erro (que já aconteceu na relação com outros países): deveriam ter pontuado com mais afinco a posição brasileira da discórdia. Afinal, o cara se mostrou anti-semita e homofóbico, e nós brasileiros, gostamos de sempre falar que em nosso país, todos, independente da cor da pele, da crença religiosa e da opção sexual, vivemos em paz e harmonia. Era também preciso defender que Teerã apresentasse um programa nuclear aberto e sem tentativas de enrolar a AIEA, e não simplesmente defender o direito deles. Seria uma atitude mais harmônica com a vontade do Brasil de conseguir uma cadeira permanente no Conselho de Segurança da ONU. O Brasil deve sim buscar novos parceiros comerciais e dialogar sempre, mesmo que seja com países como o Irã. O diálogo leva ao entendimento, e os novos parceiros comerciais trazem dinheiro. São nossas necessidades que devem ser levadas em conta, e não a de países como os EUA.

Outra coisa: é bom mencionar que as duas nações citadas como problemáticas, Coréia do Norte e Irã, têm em seus passados intervenções ocidentais que prejudicaram seu desenvolvimento como Estados democratas.

“Nuclear debate in Iran could mean progress despite West’s growing impatience”
November 24 & 25, 2009
     Outlining Iran’s contradictory signals on the uranium export deal proposed in October [previously covered here], Carol Choksy and Jamsheed Choksy argue that the heated and public debate among Iran’s leaders is a sign of progress on the nuclear issue. Pointing out that other international nuclear agreements, such as SALT and the NPT, required years of negotiation, the writers argue that Iran (unlike Russia) is a “novice” in nuclear negotiations and that the P5+1 and IAEA should pursue “patient engagement” (Foreign Policy).
     Most recently, Iran’s Foreign Ministry indicated that Iran was not opposed to exporting its LEU as long as Western powers provided “100% guarantees” of receiving refined fuel. However, Iran’s suggestion of a simultaneous fuel swap on Iranian soil may be a “non-starter” for the West (Reuters).
Foreign Policy | Reuters

Em “Mossad: Os Segredos da Espionagem Israelita”, Victor Ostrovsky, ex-oficial do exército israelita e ex-agente da Mossad, conta com detalhes arrepiantes a teia criada pelos serviços secretos israelitas para recolher informações acerca do complexo nuclear iraquiano de Ozirak, perto de Bagdad. O enredo criado levou as investigações até Paris e as informações recolhidas junto de um cientista iraquiano, Butrus Eben Halim, permitiram localizar com total detalhe o complexo, e contribuiram para que a arriscada “Operação Esfinge”, executada em 7 de Junho de 1981, fosse bem sucedida. Aqui, a realidade supera a ficção em detalhe, imaginação e suspense.

Mas também se sabe que esta operação foi apenas uma das muitas acções secretas que Israel leva a cabo para prosseguir os seus objectivos estratégicos. No Expresso desta semana, Henrique Cymerman levanta o véu sobre o ataque israelita a um complexo nuclear sírio em 2007, do qual muito pouco se sabia para lá da especulação. Aparentemente, a instalação síria estava a ser financiada por Teerão para servir de reserva, para que um eventual ataque israelita ou norte-americano não comprometesse os avanços do programa nuclear iraniano.

(continua)  

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Monday urged his visiting Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to find a “just solution” with the West to Tehran’s contested nuclear program.

Lula, speaking in a joint media conference with Ahmadinejad, reiterated that Brazil backed Iran’s declared quest for “peaceful nuclear energy in full respect of international accords.”

He appealed to Ahmadinejad to “continue contacts with interested countries for a just and balanced solution on the nuclear issue in Iran.”

Ahmadinejad, for his part, voiced support for Brazil’s bid to one day become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Brazil is to take one of the non-permanent seats — those without the power of veto — in 2010 and 2011.

“We support a reformed UN Security Council and for Brazil to have a permanent seat,” he said.

He argued the council “has failed over the past 60 years because of the veto power of a small number of countries, a source of insecurity for several countries in the world.”

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

The United States and Europe are leading an international campaign against Iran’s nuclear program, amid suspicions the Islamic state is trying to build a nuclear arsenal under cover of a pursuit of atomic energy.

Iran on Monday reinforced its rejection of a UN-brokered deal that would call for Russia and France to enrich its uranium, with a senior official saying no nuclear reactor fuel would leave Iran.

Lula has repeatedly backed Tehran’s nuclear program, and said he opposed international sanctions on Iran.

Ahmadinejad’s visit to Brazil was the key leg of a five-nation tour to sympathetic Latin American and African seen backing Tehran’s vision of a new world order in which the United States is not dominant.

The itinerary began in Gambia, and after Brazil was to continue with Bolivia, Venezuela and Senegal.

Lula, a moderate leftist wary of US influence in the world, has reached out to Iran as part of a broader strategy to implicate Brazil in seeking peace in the Middle East.

In his weekly radio broadcast on Monday, he said: “You can’t move forward by isolating Iran. If Iran is an important player in all this discord, it’s important that someone sits down with Iran, talks with Iran and tries to establish a point of balance, so that we can return to a degree of normality in the Middle East.”

Days before receiving Ahmadinejad, Lula made a point of welcoming visits by Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

On Monday, he announced he would travel to Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Territories in March next year.

The Iranian president was accompanied by a 300-strong delegation, half of which were Iranian businessmen working towards Tehran’s goal of lifting bilateral trade with Brazil from one billion dollars today to 15 billion dollars in the future.

Several protests over his visit have taken place, notably one on Sunday in Rio de Janeiro, where 1,000 members of Jewish, anti-racist and gay rights groups rallied against Ahmadinejad’s tirades.

Sao Paulo’s governor, Jose Serra, who is seen as the leading potential candidate in presidential elections in October next year that will select Lula’s successor, called Ahmadinejad’s visit “undesirable.”

“Democracy and human rights are indivisible and have to be defended in every part of the world,” he wrote in an opinion piece published in the Folha de S. Paulo newspaper.

After his 24-hour Brazilian leg, Ahmadinejad was to depart for Bolivia for talks with his counterpart Evo Morales, then on to Venezuela to see his “friend” Hugo Chavez. Both Morales and Chavez are strongly critical of the United States.

Bookmark & Share

Para quem ainda não leu no blog do green e para dar sequência a história:

Mais uma vez, a Indústrias Nucleares do Brasil S/A – INB, empresa que explora a mina de urânio no município de Caetité, foi autuada  pelo Ibama por descumprimento de condicionante da Licença Ambiental (condicionante 1.4 da Licença de Operação nº 274 de 2002), que determina o imediato informe ao órgão de qualquer acidente ocorrido no empreendimento. Por este motivo, a INB foi multada no valor de R$ 1 milhão.

O Acidente, denunciado pelo Greenpeace, foi escondido durante dias. A INB, após a nossa denúncia, se viu obrigada a manifestar-se. Alegou ter vazado apenas solvente orgânico e não ter havido nenhuma contaminação.

O IBAMA vistoriou o local no dia 18/11, mais de 20 dias após o vazamento.

De acordo com o relatório técnico, a equipe constatou a efetividade do vazamento do solvente orgânico contendo urânio, que transbordou dos tanques de processamento para a caixa de brita. Devido à forte chuva, esse material transbordou ainda para o sistema de drenagem das águas pluviais, atingindo a canaleta de drenagem, que direciona a água para a Barragem do Córrego do Engenho.

Como resultado, constatou-se a contaminação de 15 metros cúbicos de material (terra e brita), retirado da caixa de brita, e 33 metros cúbicos de solo contaminado da canaleta de drenagem.

Ou seja, diferentemente do que veiculou a INB, houve sim contaminação e houve também vazamento de urânio.

O Ibama também notificou a empresa a apresentar relatório detalhado sobre o acidente na Unidade de Concentração de Urânio – URA. Fica no ar a questão: Se a INB tentou esconder o vazamento, será que apresentará um relatório que apresente dados verdadeiros e contundentes sobre o vazamento de seu próprio empreendimento??

Semana passada, dia 16/11, ocorreu outro acidente, que também não foi comunicado ao IBAMA. Este porém, não recebeu nem um tipo de autuação, pois apesar do descumprimento, foi  considerado de pequenas proporções pelos técnicos do IBAMA.

Matéria de 13/11

Após a denúncia do vazamento, feita terça-feira (10), a INB foi obrigada a se pronunciar. Soltou uma pequena nota dizendo que o vazamento teria sido muito menor do que o informado por diversas fontes da própria empresa. Disseram também que teriam sido apenas solventes orgânicos e que teria tudo sido facilmente contido. A empresa não teria parado suas atividades.

            Resolvemos tentar fazer contato mais uma vez, na esperança de que agora fôssemos respondidos e que essas contradições fossem esclarecidas. Em resposta a acessoria de imprensa da INB, nos confirmou que a mina está parada sim. Teria sido parada pela CNEN, para poder averiguar o vazamento. Se tudo foi facilmente contido, há necessidade de estar parado por 15 dias? E por que, noticiaram na imprensa que a mina não estaria parada, se esta, está interditada pela CNEN? Seria para minimizar o acidente? Essa com certeza é a intenção dos carros de som da INB que circulam pela cidade de Caetité dizendo que nada demais aconteceu.

Se ainda não houve nem uma conclusão por parte da CNEN, que há alguns dias tem uma equipe de técnicos tentando averiguar os impactos do acidente, por que a empresa está divulgando que nada aconteceu?

            É a velha prática da INB… Em seu site, por exemplo, dizem que “Recente pesquisa divulgada pela Fundação para o Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico em Saúde (Fiotec) comprova que as atividades da INB não provocam danos à saúde da população de Caetité/BA, onde a empresa mantém unidade de exploração de urânio.”

            Analisando este estudo, fica bem claro em todo o texto que o estudo não traz nenhuma conclusão. O Próprio Dr. Antônio Sérgio, um dos pesquisadores que realizou o estudo, nos deixou bem claro: “Tudo o que foi encontrado nessa primeira etapa não representa resultado definitivo e nem conclusivo. Tratam-se de observações iniciais e tendências. Volto a ressaltar a importância de um tempo maior de observações”. Ele ainda ressaltou: “Acreditamos que o monitoramento de saúde de populações vizinhas às área dessas anomalias geológicas também deva ser realizado. Ainda de fundamental importância é o monitoramento do “background” de radiação ambiental e a avaliação de percepção de risco dessas populações expostas”, mostrando que estes estudos, condicionantes do licenciamento da INB nunca realizados, ainda precisam ser feitos e são de suma importância para que se possam tirar conclusões sobre o assunto.

Não é tão simples quanto a INB divulga, mas para quem lê seu jornalzinho espalhado pela cidade com a manchete: “Pesquisa científica comprova: mineração de urânio não aumentou casos de câncer”, fica parecendo que está tudo resolvido.

            Quanto ao vazamento, a acessoria de imprensa da empresa acabou por nos admitir que sim, havia urânio, além de solventes orgânicos. E que, segundo nossa fonte, existiria outros solventes que não os orgânicos, como por exemplo querosene, nesse meio todo. Ao que tudo indica, nossas informações estão certas. Será que foram apenas 500 l (que não necessariamente é pouca coisa) e que tudo foi contido?

            As autoridades nos dirão. O IBAMA, que segundo condicionante do licenciamento da mina, deve ser sempre informado desse tipo de acontecimento, não foi comunicado. Mais uma vez a INB descumpre o licenciamento. Questiono: se tudo foi contido, o que eles têm a esconder? O IBAMA, que está se organizando para visitar o local, deve nos responder. Tomara que essa resposta não venha tarde demais, como no vazamento de 2000, que o IBAMA só ficou sabendo seis meses depois, tarde demais para averiguar a extensão e proporção da contaminação. Que o IBAMA averigue e tome as medidas cabíveis pelo descumprimento da condicionante.

            Acionamos também o MPF e esperamos que algo seja feito por parte desse respeitado órgão.

            A verdade virá a tona, como já está acontecendo.

Protecting Georgians from Unfair Costs for New Reactors November 24th, 2009 › Clean Energy › Sara Barczak “……………..Historical Boondoggles
In the 1970s and 80s the utility industry made a huge financial mess when they built nuclear reactors. There were construction delays and huge cost overruns; many projects were canceled after spending billions of dollars. The industry blamed their problems on changing regulations but it was Wall Street that stopped the nuclear boom. Some reactor projects came in with massive overruns compared to others……………….

Nuclear Socialism
The main thing the utility industry learned from the last generation of nuclear plants was how to pass risk on to their customers. Plant Vogtle is at the head of the line competing for federal nuclear loan guarantees – billions of taxpayer funds are to back these shaky new reactor proposals. What was never learned but should have been was that the full financial risk of these reactors should belong entirely to the utility that builds them.

CleanEnergy Footprints » Archive » Protecting Georgians from Unfair Costs for New Reactors

Nuclear power as the solution to our carbon emissions problem? Biocitizen By Kurt Heidinger on Nov 24, 2009 Today we learn, courtesy of the Washington Post, that “nuclear power is the “new” solution to humanity’s carbon emissions problem”.

I post this as a reminder that technocrats always claim technology will save the world from the excesses of…um, well…technology.

That, after over 40 years of experimenting in broad daylight, no technocrat has devised a safe way to dispose of radioactive waste never clouds the horizon of these cheerful boosters. And the costs? Nuclear power is cost-competitive (as long as you don’t figure in 20,000 years of waste management).

Perhaps our carbon emissions problem is not a problem of technology; perhaps our carbon emissions problem is caused by our stubborn investment in an unsustainable kind of human inhabitation?

(What was it that Darwin said about critters that don’t adapt to the conditions of their environment?)

What if, instead of committing ourselves to funding a new generation of nuclear power plants, we committed ourselves to living sustainably?………………….Today we know we cannot escape ecology—but you’d never know it by reading today’s WaPo article.

Nuclear power as the solution to our carbon emissions problem?

What To Do With Zombie Nuke Plants  CBS News November 24, 2009 by Christian Parenti: Thirty Years Affter The Three Mile Island Partial Meltdown, Old Plants Pose The Real Nuclear Power Threat.  Oyster Creek Generating Station, .. the oldest in the country, was slated to close in 2009 when its original forty-year license was ending. It had seen four decades of service, using radioactively produced heat to boil water into high-pressure steam that ran continuously through hundreds of miles of increasingly brittle and stressed piping.
Tritium is a form of hydrogen. In August workers found another tritium leak coming from a pipe buried in a concrete wall. Radiation makes metal brittle, so old pipes must be routinely switched out for new ones. The second leak was spilling about 7,200 gallons a day and contained 500 times the acceptable level of radiation for drinking water.

That leaking pipe had erroneously–or perhaps fraudulently–been listed in paperwork as replaced. How this error occurred remains unclear. What seems likely is that the plant’s previous owner, GPU Nuclear, was deliberately skimping on maintenance as it approached the end of the plant’s license. Then Oyster Creek was sold to Exelon and won relicensing.

How many other mislabeled, brittle, old components remain in the plant’s guts is impossible to determine without a massive audit and investigation. Unfortunately, stories like this are all too common: crumbling, leaky, accident-prone old nuclear plants, shrouded in secrecy and subject to lax maintenance, are getting relicensed all over the country. ………………new nukes are not the issue. New atomic plants are prohibitively expensive. If enough public subsidies are thrown at the industry, one or two gold-plated, state-of-the-art, extremely expensive nuclear power stations may eventually be built, at most.

The real issue is what happens to old nukes. The atomic power industry has a plan: it wants to make as much money as possible from the existing fleet of 104 old, often decrepit, reactors by getting the government to extend their licenses. The oldest plants, most of which opened in the early 1970s and were designed to operate for only forty years, should be dead by now. Yet, zombielike, they march on, thanks to the indulgence of the NRC. ……………….

Over the past two decades the NRC has also promulgated rules that effectively exclude from consideration many of the grounds on which the public could intervene to oppose relicensing. For example, the public cannot raise the issue of terrorism. Nor can it question maintenance plans, or waste storage plans, or even evacuation procedures. …………………..

This fleet of poorly regulated zombie plants is the real story of nuclear power. Building hundreds of new nukes to save us from climate change is a pipe dream–the time and expense necessary for that would be impossible to overcome in the decade or two remaining. And so the debate about the future of atomic power in the age of climate change functions mostly as a smoke screen behind which these old, leaky, crumbling plants are being pushed to the limit of their endurance. Half the fleet has already been relicensed and many up-rated to run at more than 100 percent of their designed capacity. To avoid dangerous accidents over the next two decades, the industry must be subject to real oversight. For that to happen, the NRC must be reformed.

What To Do With Zombie Nuke Plants – CBS News

a0818 BC-EU-ThePollute dEast  -11/24/2009

The Hays Daily News By ARTHUR MAX Associated Press Writer

DNIPRODZERZHYNSK, Ukraine (AP) — Twenty years ago, when the Iron Curtain came down, the world gagged in horror as it witnessed firsthand the ravages inflicted on nature by the Soviet industrial machine. “……….Drifting along Ukraine’s Dnieper River, past this one-time powerhouse of Soviet rule, requires slicing through clouds of black and orange exhaust from a metallurgical plant.

Over a hill, passengers may catch a whiff of a burning garbage dump. Nearby fields are fenced off by barbed wire with signs warning of radioactivity. Farther along, the cruise passes the world’s third largest nuclear power station.

Upstream from Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, the Dnieper picks up water from the Pripyat River, whose sediment is still laced with radioactive caesium-137 from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster………………….

the [Danube] river bears irreparable scars from the Soviet era………….

On the outskirts of Dniprodzerzhynsk, eight fields are fenced off with barbed wire, hung with yellow triangles warning of radioactivity. Nuclear waste was dumped here many years ago. Uniformed officers patrol the area, and stopped two Associated Press journalists to ask why they were there………..Not far away, Evgen Kolishevsky of the Voice of Nature, a local environmental group, takes a reporter to the foot a mountainous slag heap, below which runs the Konoplyanka river that feeds into the Dnieper. “This is the waste from chemical enterprises and of processing and enrichment of uranium,” he said.

“Dniprodzerzhynsk is one of the most contaminated cities in Europe,” he said, shaking his head.

 

 

 

The Hays Daily News

Exelon draws criticism for late notice on TMI incident

istock analyst (Source: The York Dispatch)By Carl Lindquist, The York Dispatch, Pa.

Nov. 24--Exelon Corp. is facing criticism for waiting hours to inform local officials about an alarm Saturday signaling increased airborne radiation at its Three Mile Island nuclear power plant.

York County Emergency Management Director Kay Carman said Exelon didn’t tell her about the incident until about 10:45 p.m., six hours after the alarm was triggered.

That’s about the same time the general public learned what happened from local media outlets.

“It was a lengthy time,” Carman said, “much longer than we would have hoped for.”

About 175 workers at the plant were sent home after an alarm sounded  …………… The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said 19 workers tested positive for low-level radiation exposure.
Exelon draws criticism for late notice on TMI incident

Protecting Georgians from Unfair Costs for New Reactors November 24th, 2009 › Clean Energy › Sara Barczak Concerned your home or business electric bills will increase needlessly for new nuclear power reactors that may never get built? Or if these reactors get built in Georgia, concerned there’s no telling how high your electric bills could get?

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy shares your concerns. That’s why we’re suing Georgia utility regulators and the Georgia governor right now. We believe they acted illegally after state lawmakers passed a law in 2009 requiring Georgia Power customers to prepay for new nuclear reactors (small customers, that is, since large businesses had enough clout to cut a deal under the Georgia Dome, exempting them from prepaying the way everybody else has to).

We brought this lawsuit to keep ratepayers from having to prepay for two nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro along the Savannah River that Georgia Power and its other utility partners have proposed to build. We’ve asked the Court to review the constitutionality of the so-called “construction work in progress” (CWIP) bill passed earlier this year, the Georgia Nuclear Energy Financing Act (SB 31), and the legality of the Georgia Public Service Commission’s approval of Georgia Power’s request to certify building two new reactors at the Vogtle site.

Many others share our concerns about this consumer rip-off unfolding if the high-risk Vogtle expansion goes forward under the new Georgia law or the Georgia PSC’s ruling:…………….
CleanEnergy Footprints » Archive » Protecting Georgians from Unfair Costs for New Reactors

Mammogram  controversy and using safer alternatives for breast exams, Creative loafing November 24, 2009  by Carol Roberts
So what’s this about mammograms? The iconic breast screening exam has been called into question by a stellar panel from Harvard, Stanford and other such institutions who were tasked by the federal government to determine the efficacy and safety of the test.

So for decades now, the ladies have been lining up to have “the girls” squished, pinched, squeezed and radiated, in the hope that such treatment will result in early detection and improved survival. Instead, this new information is asserting that mammograms do not improve survival and are contributing to rising costs of healthcare by identifying many lumps that aren’t cancer or will never become cancer.
So younger women, in the 40-49 year age group, are told they no longer need to have any mammos at all, and are even exhorted to not examine their own breasts for fear of finding something. Suddenly the fear and expense generated by “false positives” are outweighing the fear and expense of the real thing. Confusion reigns!
It is indeed true that 10-15% of mammograms yield false positives, another 10-15% yield false negatives, that is, a cancer that is present is not detected. Most cancers are found by the patient herself.

But the news has not mentioned the possible damage done by mammograms to the DNA of breast tissue. Radiation exposure results in cumulative damage, that is, repeated exposure to x-rays cause tiny mutations in genetic information. How much damage does it take to create a cancer cell? No one really knows, but it probably varies from one person to another. Is it possible that some women are getting cancer from the mammograms?

So what’s a woman to do? Now she’s told not to examine herself and not to get a mammogram, but what should she do to find out if she might have breast cancer in the early stages, when it is most curable?

Ultrasound is a non-invasive diagnostic technique that has been used for decades as a back-up test to the mammogram. If a lump is found, the architecture of it (solid, cystic, fibrous, mixed) can be determined with an ultrasound. This might be a good test to do more often.

Another answer has been around for a number of years. It has been largely ignored in this country. It’s a non-invasive test called digital thermographic imaging, or thermography, for short.

Mammogram controversy and using safer alternatives for breast exams | Daily Loaf