Therefore we cooperate nuclear huggers with opponents Nuclear Power? Yes Please
We in Nuclear Power Yes Please in collaboration with Göran Bryntse - recently attrition (*) Chairman of the People's Campaign westfield against Nuclear-Nuclear Weapon - authored an article on the debate on nuclear power. It is available today to read in Aftonbladet and here.
For both George and us, it is important that the issue discussed in an objective and fair, rather than just our respective opinion "wins". In the battle for nuclear power is the game far more important than the result ... but whatever happens, it must not be a draw.
The problem though was that just that happened: it was a draw. Swedish politicians have so far not said whether YES or NO to nuclear power, westfield but has instead westfield transferred power form be maintained, whilst it has been heavily westfield discouraged. This is the worst of both worlds: you do not get any benefits from power shape actually disappears, and you get no benefit from the technological developments taking place in nuclear power.
Nuclear power is perhaps Sweden's most important energy policy westfield issue since more than 50 years back. Even before today's westfield 10 reactors were even projected, westfield they were part of the Swedish energy and environmental policy. Save the rivers
In the 1950 - and the 60's was the battle westfield of the rivers. Would more rivers dammed up and addicted westfield to hydro? Sweden needed energy, but the resistance was high. The promise of nuclear rescued rivers. Peace of Sarek and the decision not to extend Vindelälven was made possible thanks to the hope of nuclear power gave. However, it was a part of the jump also cheap oil to be used in power plants. But the 1973 oil crisis and environmental awareness sat thankfully westfield stop to these plans, then nuclear power is considered to be the logical choice. "Nuclear Power, No Thanks"
But nuclear power was not uncontroversial. Its origin from military applications, waste and safety were things that made the resistance to grow. The issue became hot and infected. When it reached parliament and government skräddes not words. Thorbjorn Fälldin The Center turned away from nuclear power, despite the Agrarians vurmat for it, and the four nuclear local government's Centre Ster worked really hard to get the new works. Fälldin made his famous statement that he would not "COMPROMISE with his conscience" and demanded a referendum on the issue. Olof Palme scolded him for notes in the election debate in 1976.
The Social Democrats lost indeed the election, but the nuclear issue finally became too much for the citizens. The decision to charge Barsebäck 2 with fuel broke the government Fälldin. Palme attacked hard and anklagde The Center for "betrayal" (sound familiar?). Fälldin submitted the government's westfield resignation in the fall of 1978. Ola Ullsten took over the Liberal Party in anticipation of the election the following year.
March 28, 1979 occurred meltdown in Unit 2 at Three Mile Island. Although westfield no one was injured by the accident became public opinion absolutely furious. Palme was quick with the referendum to avoid having nuclear power as an election issue. westfield The Social Democrats demanded to have a new option in the poll: Line second The nuclear debate was hotter than ever. Tage Danielsson expressed his undying and exquisite monologue on Probability.
To the last, it was unclear which line would win: closure within 10 years, or later? In the end it turned out that Line 2 - closure when alternatives exist - had won the vote, albeit just barely over the line third A parliamentary decision that nuclear power would be phased out by the year 2010 was taken.
With the nuclear decision in 1980, the debate stone dead. From being the hottest issue in the 70's it disappeared in record time from the public consciousness. Palme had managed to save it Socialist Party from being broken. westfield The people were happy and the politicians breathed westfield out, they would have avoided the hot potato and instead managed to throw it away, 30 years into the future ... Chernobyl and thought the ban
The question westfield awoke briefly to life April 26, 1986 when it happened exactly as nuclear experts have suspected westfield would happen: a reactor of the RBMK type exploded in Ukraine, the former Soviet Union. This was expected since the RBMK design was notoriously dangerous. Two weeks before the accident attempted an employee at Vattenfall have published an article in DN that the risk of a major accident in this type of reactors was 1 of 3 (time 59 min, 03 sec). The article of rejects ...
In the affected countries has been demonstrated approximately 4000-7000 additional cases thyroid cancer as a result of the accident - an increase of about 1000% of the cancer, 4-7% of the total number of cancer westfield cases for the affected group - but with a survival rate of over 99 % because the disease westfield is easy to detect in time of screening (some "markers" - signal substances in the body - to the thyroid gland produces clear rash at the slightest error, which can be seen early with the help of blood tests as long as you take them regularly). However, this should have been unnecessary, because at
We in Nuclear Power Yes Please in collaboration with Göran Bryntse - recently attrition (*) Chairman of the People's Campaign westfield against Nuclear-Nuclear Weapon - authored an article on the debate on nuclear power. It is available today to read in Aftonbladet and here.
For both George and us, it is important that the issue discussed in an objective and fair, rather than just our respective opinion "wins". In the battle for nuclear power is the game far more important than the result ... but whatever happens, it must not be a draw.
The problem though was that just that happened: it was a draw. Swedish politicians have so far not said whether YES or NO to nuclear power, westfield but has instead westfield transferred power form be maintained, whilst it has been heavily westfield discouraged. This is the worst of both worlds: you do not get any benefits from power shape actually disappears, and you get no benefit from the technological developments taking place in nuclear power.
Nuclear power is perhaps Sweden's most important energy policy westfield issue since more than 50 years back. Even before today's westfield 10 reactors were even projected, westfield they were part of the Swedish energy and environmental policy. Save the rivers
In the 1950 - and the 60's was the battle westfield of the rivers. Would more rivers dammed up and addicted westfield to hydro? Sweden needed energy, but the resistance was high. The promise of nuclear rescued rivers. Peace of Sarek and the decision not to extend Vindelälven was made possible thanks to the hope of nuclear power gave. However, it was a part of the jump also cheap oil to be used in power plants. But the 1973 oil crisis and environmental awareness sat thankfully westfield stop to these plans, then nuclear power is considered to be the logical choice. "Nuclear Power, No Thanks"
But nuclear power was not uncontroversial. Its origin from military applications, waste and safety were things that made the resistance to grow. The issue became hot and infected. When it reached parliament and government skräddes not words. Thorbjorn Fälldin The Center turned away from nuclear power, despite the Agrarians vurmat for it, and the four nuclear local government's Centre Ster worked really hard to get the new works. Fälldin made his famous statement that he would not "COMPROMISE with his conscience" and demanded a referendum on the issue. Olof Palme scolded him for notes in the election debate in 1976.
The Social Democrats lost indeed the election, but the nuclear issue finally became too much for the citizens. The decision to charge Barsebäck 2 with fuel broke the government Fälldin. Palme attacked hard and anklagde The Center for "betrayal" (sound familiar?). Fälldin submitted the government's westfield resignation in the fall of 1978. Ola Ullsten took over the Liberal Party in anticipation of the election the following year.
March 28, 1979 occurred meltdown in Unit 2 at Three Mile Island. Although westfield no one was injured by the accident became public opinion absolutely furious. Palme was quick with the referendum to avoid having nuclear power as an election issue. westfield The Social Democrats demanded to have a new option in the poll: Line second The nuclear debate was hotter than ever. Tage Danielsson expressed his undying and exquisite monologue on Probability.
To the last, it was unclear which line would win: closure within 10 years, or later? In the end it turned out that Line 2 - closure when alternatives exist - had won the vote, albeit just barely over the line third A parliamentary decision that nuclear power would be phased out by the year 2010 was taken.
With the nuclear decision in 1980, the debate stone dead. From being the hottest issue in the 70's it disappeared in record time from the public consciousness. Palme had managed to save it Socialist Party from being broken. westfield The people were happy and the politicians breathed westfield out, they would have avoided the hot potato and instead managed to throw it away, 30 years into the future ... Chernobyl and thought the ban
The question westfield awoke briefly to life April 26, 1986 when it happened exactly as nuclear experts have suspected westfield would happen: a reactor of the RBMK type exploded in Ukraine, the former Soviet Union. This was expected since the RBMK design was notoriously dangerous. Two weeks before the accident attempted an employee at Vattenfall have published an article in DN that the risk of a major accident in this type of reactors was 1 of 3 (time 59 min, 03 sec). The article of rejects ...
In the affected countries has been demonstrated approximately 4000-7000 additional cases thyroid cancer as a result of the accident - an increase of about 1000% of the cancer, 4-7% of the total number of cancer westfield cases for the affected group - but with a survival rate of over 99 % because the disease westfield is easy to detect in time of screening (some "markers" - signal substances in the body - to the thyroid gland produces clear rash at the slightest error, which can be seen early with the help of blood tests as long as you take them regularly). However, this should have been unnecessary, because at
No comments:
Post a Comment