Start A Petition

Public Pressure on the Rise Against Nuclear Power in California

Environment  (tags: pollution, environment, nuclear waste, Hanford site, protection, humans, destruction, habitatdestruction, habitat, energy, activism, politics )

- 1894 days ago -
The bitter battle over two stricken southern California reactors has taken a shocking seismic hit

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Hilary S (65)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 1:05 am
as much as i favour non-fossil fuel sources (and building reactors is a fossil-fuel hungry activity), and believe the danger to human life of nuclear power counts heavily against it, james lovelock, a scientist who developed the gaia theory - - suggests that nuclear power is less damaging to the planet. he describes the planet as an organism which behaves to preserve itself. we are merely visitors here, and like any messy and inconsiderate visitor we do seem to be wearing out our welcome,

Past Member (0)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 1:14 am
Noted. Thanks.

Christeen A (371)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 2:46 am
As it should be. Thank you.

Carol H (229)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 3:45 am
glad to hear!!!

Past Member (0)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 6:44 am

Kit B (276)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 7:48 am

Thank you, Kit for signing the petition. Please share the petition link on your social media platforms.
Signed and shared

Past Member (0)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 8:57 am
noted thanks

lee e (114)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 9:48 am
Love EcoWatch, spent a long time on the site - signing petitions - I've signed some before, but never really explored - thanks for the article! Thanks too to Hilary S for your interesting site - I heard of gaia theory but never visited their site - I'll have to check out more about it - very interesting, but with our nuclear plants as antiquated and in jeopardy as most of them are - I'd sooner go anti-nuke right now!

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 10:16 am
This story demonstrates the real reason why nuclear power is not cost-effective in the U.S.

There is a prior discussion of the issue here:

Edison apparently installed the faulty system without sufficient verification by either themselves or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), which manufactured it. The potential problem was, apparently, reported by engineers somewhere along the line, but MHI and Edison did not investigate further for fear of what it might find. The motive, apparently, was that Edison did not want to risk going through the licensing process again, which it would have to do in case of another redesign.

I mentioned in the other thread that this was because the relicensing process was "onerous" and subject to "political corruption" ... and here we see exactly the problem that motivated Edison to try to dodge the system. If safety-standards are met, in most industries, licensing is a rubber stamp, but not for nuclear plants. The public consultation opens up the plant to protests in the middle of the process, and eleccted officials, who get votes from those protesters, can put pressure on the NRC. This is the "political corruption" to which I referred. The trouble is that if any entity, whether a corporation, person, or whatever, sees the system in which it operates as rigged and hostile, it will simply not play by the rules, and it looks like this is happening with nuclear operators.

Something the public does not see is that there is a reason why people pay for inactive generating stations. The turbines have to be constantly maintained or they will have to be fully replaced. Because the industry at least tries to maintain the facade that the relicensing process is not ridiculously long and risky, it keeps them maintained throughout the process rather than replace them afterwards which, under normal circumstances, would be a whole lot more expensive. Assuming that the plant will reopen, the "payment for services not rendered" is usually the cheaper option.

Jane H (139)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 12:36 pm
signed and noted

Winnie A (179)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 2:31 pm
It's about time . . . .

Eternal Gardener (745)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 3:14 pm
A very logical reaction!

Jan Sam (8)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 3:29 pm
thank u

Wednesday April 17, 2013, 4:11 pm
read and noted on 4-17-13 all of these reactor sites need to be totally taken off line and be dismantled piece by piece they are no good for our environment and anything else that is in its path we need to invest in cleaner forms of energy that has no bad effects on the environment.

. (0)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 4:20 pm
The reaction is not surprising.

Ro H (0)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 5:11 pm

Lisa W (143)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 5:15 pm
I am against anything nuclear...noted, thank u Cal!

Lynn D (0)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 5:25 pm
Noted, thank you!

Philip Heinlein (474)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 5:40 pm
keep the pressure on... no more nukes. its time to push for more renewable energy.

John B (185)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 5:49 pm
Thanks Cal for the link to the excellent article by Harvey Wasserman. The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station should be shut down and the taxpayers of California reimbursed. I certainly hope Sen. Boxer and Sen. Markey hold public hearings and soon. Nuclear energy should be abandoned worldwide! Read and noted.


Candy B (29)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 6:56 pm

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here. You can search here using the form below

pam w (139)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 6:59 pm
"8 million people who live within 50 miles of San Onofre....

Not to mention it sits adjacent to a major highway along the coast....

Jason S (50)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 7:06 pm
Good posting, thanks

Mike H (252)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 7:35 pm
I dont trust nukes

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 10:45 pm
Hi everybody :)

I'm really curious. Why do people oppose nuclear power so much more strongly than, say, coal? I could put down half a dozen arguments in favour of this energy source over nearly any other, but I want to know what concerns, valid or misconceived, people have. I would also be happy to put any misconceptions to rest, or verify and confirm well-founded objections.

John De Avalon (36)
Thursday April 18, 2013, 11:10 am
Whoever thought building nuclear power stations in an earthquake zone was a good idea in the first place?

Nimue Michelle Pendragon Gaze (339)
Thursday April 18, 2013, 4:54 pm

Isa Villanen (44)
Saturday April 20, 2013, 2:13 pm
The nuclear plant accidents have been serious and caused long term effects in many countries outside the county of origin. Lets think about the Tshernobil accident a few decades back... We had radioactive pollutin here, in Finland, and we couldn't trust any wild foods like berries or mushrooms The worst part of it all is the nuclear waste, still powerful enough for a dirty bomb. I say no to nuclear power.
Signed, shared, noted - and read

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday April 22, 2013, 9:56 pm
Hi Isa :)

Chernobyl was the most extreme nuclear disaster in history. The WHO estimates that as a result, roughly forty people died in total. While that is large for any industrial accident, many widespread industries have had far worse. In fact, it's not even the worst kind of power-station accident in terms of deaths. The biggest one of those, I believe, was the Banqiao Dam break, where depending on how one counts them, there were between 26,000 and 145,000 deaths. Yet hydroelectric power is often the cleanest reliable and controllable power-source available, so the industry proceeds. More importantly, there has never been a leak from any nuclear power-station where construction began after 1980. Once the computing-revolution started, plants could be designed with sufficient safety-measures that they have a 100% safety-record, which is pretty incredible as industries go. The contamination from Chernobyl was very widespread, but again, there has never been any contamination from any plant designed with the use of modern (1980s) computers in mind.

Nuclear waste is not quite as large a problem, technically at least, as it is often perceived. Technology exists to completely deplete low-radioactive waste, and a lot of high-radioactive waste could be reprocessed into more fuel (if that were legal in the U.S., but it's not as a result of an old law from the Cold War meant to avoid antagonizing the Soviet Union). Dirty bombs have been studied by security-experts and, apparently, found not to be as dangerous as often presented. From what I've read, to get a significant spread of radioactive material with the concentration needed to make people sick even after cleaning, you would need an enormous amount of radioactive material and a very, very large bomb.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Environment

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.