NY PSC is still vexed over possible Entergy spin off

When Entergy learned its plan to spin off five of its nuclear power plants into a new, wholly independent company was in jeopardy of being nixed by both the New York Public Service Commission and the Vermont Public Service Board, CEO J. Wayne Leonard said Entergy might consider the option of spinning off its seven other nuclear power plants ... Full Story

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#22 Aug 24, 2010
Cosmic Howdy wrote:
Hey, Northstardust. I for one want to Thank you for your Time , information and work on this isssue. If there was more transparency by this company , all these many layered pro ,confusing arguments would be unecessary . Simple ,truthful, straightford answers would save people alot of angst, and work ..........Maybe, just maybe they would leave the Grannies alone. What does Grannies have to do with anything ? Another smokescreen ? Some of us have respect for Grannies. They still care enough, to put themselves out there .They are still citzens of the USA . Leave them alone.Having to put sunscreen on is a little different than cooling towers collasping. Pipes rusting ,rivers being boiled and polluted.Defend Yankees lack of upkeep .... go ahead explain how a tower collaspes. How they don't know what a pipe is . What Pipe ? Go ahead .Explain the facts . Maybe i'll listen to the rest of your arguments about suncreen , fish getting polluted in russia and the rest of their ridiculous excuses.
Well Cosmic, it ain't over till it's over. All that can be done is stay in frontlines & continue to fight the good fight, along w/others such as yourself & be grateful for the tiny few who continue to stand for the truth despite the ever-present obnoxious trolls.

With the brassknuckled baseball-bat wielding e-thugs assaulting & insulting all who enter the fire-fight, I don't blame the refugees & those who have fled. Gets hot under the bulletproofs after a while.

Gunfire hail & assault rifles get to be a bit much. Glad to take a bullet for the cause, just bothers my asthma.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#23 Aug 24, 2010
From Vermont Yankee, evacuation plans, & more 8/24/2010-center of page top two:

Enexus II

NY PSC is still vexed over possible Entergy spin off
By Bob Audette, Reformer Staff, Monday August 23, 2010,
http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_15863103

... The PSC plans to open a show-cause proceeding on rules that would require Entergy to provide 60 days notice if a transaction could impair the financial integrity of the plants,... Entergy has 30 days to respond to the PSC.
http://www.plattsenergyweektv.com/story.aspx...
See why NY PSC is doing this -- page 16-17 sec.4.4 in yellow box below:

Summation for 2009 to 2010 Legislative Year For the Joint Fiscal Committee Reliability Oversight of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee
From: Fairewinds Associates, dated: July 26, 2010, released: August 12, 2010
Vt Legis.Joint Fiscal Office website - pdf file
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/VY%20Legislati...

Page 16 of 21
4.4. Possible impact on decommissioning in Enexus aftermath

The last Fairewinds Associates report to the JFC discussed the potential problems associated with the Enexus spinoff from Entergy. Since our report was written, both Vermont and New York have rejected the Enexus spinoff.

While this is positive news, Entergy has suggested that it has a legal approach to create a junkbond holding company without seeking approval of either Vermont or New York. Specifically, Entergy CEO J. Wayne Leonard has suggested that Entergy might keep its corporate name on the six old nuclear assets it had planned to spin off as Enexus while at the same time creating a new

Page 17 of 21

and different corporation that would contain all of Entergy's assets and its newer nuclear plants. Without the corporate name being changed, Vermont and New York State might be unable to intervene.

Basically Entergy would strip the assets out of Vermont Yankee and other older nuclear reactors as they planned to do with the Enexus spinoff, but without State involvement. To our knowledge Entergy has not yet begun the legal process of moving its assets to a new corporation.

Our concern should this corporate change occur is that there would not be enough money to ever fully decommission Vermont Yankee unless the State of Vermont paid for the clean-up.
Section 5.(etc)
http://www.evacuationplans.org/

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#24 Aug 24, 2010
What a diffence a year makes. Time makes one complete revolution, back to the same place. Whew. More folly. Same bat-time, next bat-year. Same Entergy antics, different year, complete w/cool pics. Enjoy!:

July 30th, 2009
From the Voluminous Secret Files of VDB: In Stunning Corporate Tour de Force, Entergy Rebrands Incompetence as Equity
by Philip Baruth
http://vermontdailybriefing.com/...
Mike Mulligan

Roslindale, MA

#26 Aug 24, 2010
Howard Shaffer wrote:
A post by "ScumDog" referred to me, I believe, although they didn't spell my name correctly. I don't mind, since it is a name that has many spellings.
Speaking of names, I and some others use our real names. We are not afraid of being identified with our views. We are not afraid of being identified at all. Can someone tell me why so many hide behind "cute" names?
Entergy Vermont Yankee is a profit making company, engaged in a business for the public good. They and I believe it is a public good, just like the wind company and solar power companies in the state. Note that the a wind company recently threatened to leave the state if they don't get the tax credits from the state! All businesses have the duty to their owners, and the right, to use the provisions of the law to protect themselves. Especially in this era when contingency fee lawyers can "chase ambulances" by running tv adds.
If there is so much objection to an out of state company owning Vermont Yankee, why was the ownership not left with the Vermont utilites? Can someone explain that to me?
Speaking of distant ownership, the company that owns the wind farm here in New Hampshire, and was proposing one in Vermont is in Spain. Is this OK because its not nuclear?
Finally, I don't support everything VY has done, and embarassed by a few things. But I realize that nothing is perfect. VY is safe and reliable, and I support them. How else could they have run 350+ days? Some opponents are on a crusade to end all nuclear power, as stated by Ms.Katz on the State House steps on April 29, 2009. They want to "throw out the baby with the bath water."
The "Eugenics Grannies" are using outdated science to spread scare stories. See the "Yes,Vermont Yankee" blog. The Belarus governement realizes the scare story they were sold after the terrible Chernobyl accident and are now repopulating evacuated towns.
“If there is so much objection to an out of state company owning Vermont Yankee, why was the ownership not left with the Vermont utilities? Can someone explain that to me?”

So that lets Entergy off the fiduciary hook...why was Entergy so stupid as to purchase it.

See that is why VY should be shutdown, Entergy’s defense is Vermont forces us to purchase VY? How stupid is that.
Mike Mulligan

Roslindale, MA

#27 Aug 24, 2010
Howard Shaffer wrote:
All reactors have been paying two separate charges for years, as a requirement of their licenses.
1- Used fuel disposal. 0.1 cents per kw-hr sold.
2- Decommissioning - 0.1 cents per kw-hr until fund is sufficient.
The money is in the bank, controlled by the NRC. The plants can't get it out for their own use.(Congress is pretty sharp.)
Plants have sued the government to get the used fuel money back, because the government didn't take the used fuel the way the law says. So the plants had to spend extra money for used fuel casks for on site storage. Why didn't the government take the used fuel? No place to put it. Why not? Anti-nukes in Nevada opposed Yucca Mountain, and Senator Reid demagoged it. Now Vermont anti nukes can blame VY for "not doing anything about the used fuel." What a deal!! The antis get to blame the government and the plants as a result of their policy of throwing sand in all the gears they can find.
The Eugenics Grannies say that any amount of radiation is harmful, then sit in the sun to protest. If they believed what they say, the would demonstrate at night! Unless they are so uninformed that they don't know that the sun's radiation, both what we can see and feel and what we can't. is nuclear radiation!
No, the nukes made a multibillion dollars boondoggle out of Yucca mountain....and they still could not get it right.
Mike Mulligan

Roslindale, MA

#28 Aug 24, 2010
And remember the Ayn Rand “I hate the government” nuclear industry politically turned it over to the government in the 1970’s because they knew the nuclear industry didn’t have the credibility to carry public credibility...so everyone hoped the US government had the credibility and know how to get the job done.

Then we had Ayn Rand republican “I hate the government” government from president Nixon, Reagan and Bush and Bush...no wonder Yucca Mountain turned into such boondoggle. The republicans nuclearist destroyed the image of government in order to build the nuclear repository owned and run by the governemt.

Now that was smart!

http://www.yuccamountain.org/pdf-news/machine...

The Machine' now a symbol of Yucca project
By BENJAMIN GROVE - Las Vegas Sun

06-MAR-06

WASHINGTON -- In the classic children's book, "Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel," Mike promises that his beloved but outdated machine Mary Anne can still dig a cellar in a single day.

And she proves it, carving out a perfect hole for the new Popperville town hall _ only to realize she dug herself so deep there was no escape.

So Mary Anne stayed there and adapted to a new role as the building's furnace, and as a kind of museum piece...
I Vote Vermont

Swanzey, NH

#29 Aug 24, 2010
VERMONT
In Vermont's Senate primaries, 25-year Senate veteran Patrick Leahy is facing physician and Navy veteran Daniel Freilich. Pre-primary campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, covering the period ending August 4, show Leahy with a commanding financial lead.[See who donates to Leahy's campaign.]
Leahy's FEC filing shows that he has taken in $4.5 million altogether this election cycle, while Freilich has just over $70,000 in receipts, less than 2 percent of Leahy's total. Freilich appears to have stayed true to his promise to not accept PAC or special interest money in his campaign. Rather, he is relying on donations from individuals, including himself—Freilich has given $12,678 of his own money to his campaign. The long-shot Democratic candidate has used his money to great effect, releasing a campaign ad that spoofs the popular Isaiah Mustafa Old Spice ads. The political ad gained major media attention and has nearly 60,000 views on YouTube.
The winner of the Democratic Senate primary will take on Len Britton, who is uncontested in seeking the Republican nomination. Britton's $1,142 in the bank would put him on a relatively even playing field with Freilich, who has just $522 unspent. Leahy, in contrast, is well ahead of Britton in finances, as well as polls, and reports $3.2 million on hand.
The race for Vermont's at-large House seat features three Republican candidates vying to take on Democratic incumbent Peter Welch, who has held the seat since 2007. Conservative talk radio host Paul Beaudry, retired CEO John Mitchell, and grocery store owner Keith Stern are all hoping to unseat Welch.
All three Republican candidates have taken in similar amounts of money, but they have spent it at different levels. Mitchell has by far outspent his opponents, as well as his means, and reported a negative $1,900 on hand after having taken in nearly $11,000 in his campaign. Beaudry's campaign has received $12,311, the most of the three candidates, and now has $2,647 on hand. Stern's only reported campaign money is a $10,000 donation that he made himself, and he has been frugal with it, with $6,773 remaining on hand according his latest filing.
As an incumbent without a primary to fight through, Welch currently has a massive financial advantage over all of his potential Republican opponents. Welch's pre-primary filing shows that he has over $1 million in his campaign account.
While Democrats appear comfortable for now in Vermont's congressional races, the Republican candidate in Vermont's open gubernatorial race is enjoying a lead in both public support and campaign money. The Republican candidate, current Lieutenant Governor Brian Dubie, is running uncontested for the nomination, and will face one of four Democratic candidates on November's ballot.
Dubie has out-fundraised all of his Democratic opponents, having taken in $1,036,676 this cycle. This is nearly $400,000 more than his nearest competitor, Vermont Secretary of State Deb Markowitz, who has $620,142 in receipts for this election cycle. Also among top Democrat fundraisers are State Sen. Peter Shumlin, with $591,376 in receipts and State House member Matt Dunne, with $337,628....

http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010...
Danielle Kurtzleben

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#30 Aug 24, 2010
Howard Shaffer:
"See the "Yes,Vermont Yankee" blog. The Belarus governement realizes the scare story they were sold after the terrible Chernobyl accident and are now repopulating evacuated towns."

Are you nuts? What a lie. As recently as 2006 there things were dicey at best. People are being forced to move there. Some are too old to care. Others are ignorant of the dangers:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352705,00...
http://josefinmalmqvist.wordpress.com/2008/04...
http://www.gototennisblog.com/2010/08/21/vide...
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/Ch...
http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/Belarus.html
http://news.kievukraine.info/2006/04/chernoby...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4947192.stm

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#31 Aug 24, 2010
Entergy CEO eyes spinoff options
By Bob Audette Brattleboro Reformer, Vt.
Publication: Brattleboro Reformer (Vermont)
Date: Wednesday, November 4 2009

Nov. 4--BRATTLEBORO -- If Vermont refuses to allow Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant to spin off into a wholly independent company called Enexus, Entergy just might have a back-up plan.

According to the Dow Jones Newswire, Entergy Chairman and Chief Executive Officer J. Wayne Leonard said a possible alternative could be to spin off its utility businesses into Enexus and keep its merchant plants under the Entergy umbrella.

Entergy announced two years ago that it wanted to spin off five of its nuclear reactors -- Vermont Yankee, Indian Point and FitzPatrick in New York, Palisades in Michigan and Pilgrim in Massachusetts -- into Enexus.

Those power plants are considered merchant plants because they sell power at market rates rather than through regulated rates.

Entergy has received approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission to go ahead with the spinoff.

The company does not need approval from Michigan or Massachusetts to push forward, but both the Vermont Public Service Board and the New York Public Service Commission have the authority to nix the deal in their respective states.
http://www.allbusiness.com/energy-utilities/u...
I Know More Than You

Merrimack, NH

#32 Aug 24, 2010
northstaridiot wrote:
If what you are saying is true re fuel disposal & decom, kindly prove it please w/a relevant link or source-in English.
So you are too stupid to look it up yourself as usual.

Here is a link the code which mandates the nuclear waste fund fee. I know you prefer a link filtered through an anti-nuke shill like Ray Shadis but I prefer to go to source material

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode42/us...

Howard is only not correct in that all utilities/owners fund their decommissioning costs the same way. In the case of VY, Entergy assumed all responsibility for the fund and ratepayer no longer contribute. In other states without deregulation, the ratepayers normally contribute based on usage.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#33 Aug 24, 2010
I Know More Than You wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are too stupid to look it up yourself as usual.
Here is a link the code which mandates the nuclear waste fund fee. I know you prefer a link filtered through an anti-nuke shill like Ray Shadis but I prefer to go to source material
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode42/us...
Howard is only not correct in that all utilities/owners fund their decommissioning costs the same way. In the case of VY, Entergy assumed all responsibility for the fund and ratepayer no longer contribute. In other states without deregulation, the ratepayers normally contribute based on usage.
Then 'Howard' can answer his own question w/links-yours do not usually work, a time-wasting technique & consequently ignored.

If your info true-would not be an issue, so just more of your customary lies.

Anyone who would hold the indigent poor, ignorant & college students forced to go to Belarus to work to merely survive or work off tuition as examples of 'those not buying scare tactics' is no one I can even respect. You are beneath that so kindly wire it-just wasting your lies, your time & mine.

I encourage all those so delighted by the so called 'success in Belarus' to move there. I not only dare you I double-dog dare you. Heh.
I Know More Than You

Merrimack, NH

#34 Aug 24, 2010
northstaridiot wrote:
yours do not usually work, a time-wasting technique & consequently ignored.
Why are you afraid to read the US code that deals with the nuclear waste fund?
northstaridiot wrote:
Anyone who would hold the indigent poor, ignorant & college students forced to go to Belarus...
I have no idea what you are babbling about but all Howard was referring to is the following story, get back on the meds sugarplum:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Plans_fo...
Idiot Patrol

Rochester, NH

#35 Aug 25, 2010
Now the States are upset because they want to control what a company does outside of their jurisdiction?

If VY does lose its relicensing,(after several years in the courts), will the anit-nukes move to Quebec to carry on their angst? Remember, Hydro-Quebec has a Nuclear Power Plant.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#36 Aug 25, 2010
I Know More Than You wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you afraid to read the US code that deals with the nuclear waste fund?
<quoted text>
I have no idea what you are babbling about but all Howard was referring to is the following story, get back on the meds sugarplum:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Plans_fo...
Then 'Howard' can answer his own question w/links-yours do not usually work, a time-wasting technique & consequently ignored.

If your info true-would not be an issue, so just more of your customary lies.

Anyone who would hold the indigent poor, ignorant & college students forced to go to Belarus to work to merely survive or work off tuition as examples of 'those not buying scare tactics' is no one I can even respect. You are beneath that so kindly wire it-just wasting your lies, your time & mine.

I encourage all those so delighted by the so called 'success in Belarus' to move there. I not only dare you I double-dog dare you. Heh.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#37 Aug 25, 2010
Entergy's spinoff scheme is a warning to Vermonters

If the owner of Vermont Yankee, Entergy Corp, issued a warning about Vermont Yankee, would that warning have credibility?

Of course it would. With the company long touting its safety, a shift to issuing a warning about Vermont Yankee would get attention.

Well, Entergy has been issuing a warning -- but we've just not noticed it as a warning.

At the legislative hearing on Dec. 2, Sen. Bill Carris, D-Rutland, questioned Entergy's Vice President, Jay Thayer, asking, "I don't think we understand the ‘Why?'" But Mr. Thayer provided legislators with no satisfactory answer as to why Entergy was making such efforts to spinoff Vermont Yankee and five others of its aging nuclear power plants.

There is a good reason, one found in Entergy's own recent history with another of its spinoffs.

Interesting picture, facts about the reactor & more:
http://www.replacevy.org/4.shtml
Anywhere

New York, NY

#38 Aug 25, 2010
I have to ask this question. Wasn't this issue decided a while ago? Why is it still being discussed? I realize I don't follow VY issues very much for several reasons: I know very little about how nuclear power works and don't care to learn; Of all the things to worry about - VY is at the bottom of my list - right before getting kidnapped by aliens. But to continue discussing an issue that seems to be settled, is silly. But maybe it's not and if so I apologize.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#39 Aug 25, 2010
Anywhere wrote:
I have to ask this question. Wasn't this issue decided a while ago? Why is it still being discussed? I realize I don't follow VY issues very much for several reasons: I know very little about how nuclear power works and don't care to learn; Of all the things to worry about - VY is at the bottom of my list - right before getting kidnapped by aliens. But to continue discussing an issue that seems to be settled, is silly. But maybe it's not and if so I apologize.
There's a bustle in the hedgerow. Hark! Sounds are coming out of the castle.

When Entergy heads to the drawing board & starts planning new & different activities, they're up to no good. We now know this & seen this movie before & cut to the chase scene from here.

Resultant 'creativity' is followed by complicated schemes that make Wall St financiers look like boy scouts. Is someone from the Corleone clan running the show? Or just a consultant?

The scuttlebut begins b/c they're obviously up to no good, w/their supporters & employees condemning the critics as 'paranoid' & 'fearmongering', also part of the movie.

Completed end of July, released 8/12/2010:
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/VY%20Legislati...
Although mere sight of a pdf file makes my eyes begin to glaze, it's really an easy read & chock full of sketchiness, including this gem:
- Page 16 of 21
4.4. Possible impact on decommissioning in Enexus aftermath
The last Fairewinds Associates report to the JFC discussed the potential problems associated with the Enexus spinoff from Entergy. Since our report was written, both Vermont and New York have rejected the Enexus spinoff.

While this is positive news, Entergy has suggested that it has a legal approach to create a junkbond holding company without seeking approval of either Vermont or New York. Specifically, Entergy CEO J. Wayne Leonard has suggested that Entergy might keep its corporate name on the six old nuclear assets it had planned to spin off as Enexus while at the same time creating a new
- Page 17 of 21
and different corporation that would contain all of Entergy's assets and its newer nuclear plants. Without the corporate name being changed, Vermont and New York State might be unable to intervene. Basically Entergy would strip the assets out of Vermont Yankee and other older nuclear reactors as they planned to do with the Enexus spinoff, but without State involvement.

To our knowledge Entergy has not yet begun the legal process of moving its assets to a new corporation. Our concern should this corporate change occur is that there would not be enough money to ever fully decommission Vermont Yankee unless the State of Vermont paid for the clean-up.
8/20/2010:
Electric Power Daily (20-Aug-10)
New York began pre-emptive action Thursday to protect the financial integrity of Entergy's nuclear plants, opening up a show-cause proceeding that could lead to new reporting rules for the company.

The public service commission said it wants the opportunity to review any possible financial changes made by Entergy that could significantly affect the economic strength of its two nuclear power plants: the James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Station in Oswego County and Indian Point Energy Center in Westchester County.
Should the commission go forward with the proposed rule, Entergy will be required to provide a 60-day notice of any transaction that could impair the financial integrity of the nuclear plants, including activities not now under the commission's jurisdiction
http://www.plattsenergyweektv.com/story.aspx...

- 8/23/2010:
NY PSC is still vexed over possible Entergy spin off
http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_15863103
Howard Shaffer

Swanzey, NH

#40 Aug 25, 2010
To be published in Executive Intelligence Review
Belarus to Repopulate Chernobyl Exclusion Zone
by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski*
On July 23, Novosti, Interfax, Interia, other Belarusian, Russian, and Polish news agencies announced that the government of Belarus decided to resettle hundreds of thousands of people back into the 2,000 ghost-villages in the Chernobyl exclusion zone from which they had been hastily removed 24 years ago.
That panic-stricken reaction to the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor mishap was a fatal error on the part of Soviet authorities, influenced in part by exaggerated recommendations coming from international radiation protection bodies, such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
A short-term evacuation of people from an area near the Chernobyl power station, for example from a town of Prypyat, situated 3 km from the burning reactor, was a reasonable precautionary measure in the developing crisis. But, as radiation dose rates decreased rapidly by orders of magnitude, there was no sense in keeping the inhabitants of Prypyat away from their homes, where now the radiation level is similar to that in the streets of Warsaw (Jaworowski 2010).
Even more senseless was relocation of people from localities in Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia, far distant from the only really dangerous area comprising only 0.5 square kilometers, and reaching out to a maximum distance of 1.8 km southwestward from the Chernobyl reactor. But relocation was carried on even after 1986, resulting in the uprooting of 336,000 persons from their homesteads. Now they can come back again.
Already 10 years ago, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) made clear that these measures were exaggerated (UNSCEAR 2000). Relocations gained nothing in respect to health, as there was no real detectable health hazard. On the other hand, they led to enormous societal losses (ostracism and pauperization of evacuees, exclusion from use of vast “contaminated areas,” losses of property and infrastructure), and an epidemic of psychosomatic afflictions among the evacuees (diseases of digestive and circulatory system, headache, depression, anxiety, escapism, learned helplessness, unwillingness to cooperate, overdependence, alcohol and drug abuse, and suicides).
The “contaminated areas” were defined as those where fallout of radioactive cesium-137 was above 37 kilobecquerels (kBq) per square meter. In the Soviet Union, this covered more than 140 000 square kilometers of land. But the Chernobyl fallout also reached many other countries. Cesium-137 fallout of more that 185 kBq/m2 was found in Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Great Britain, Greece, Romania, Switzerland, and Turkey. People in those countries were not relocated. A cesium-137 level higher than 37 kBq/m2 corresponds to an annual dose of 1.6 milisieverts (mSv), or about a half of the average natural radiation dose in these so-called “contaminated areas.”
Howard Shaffer

Swanzey, NH

#41 Aug 25, 2010
Normal soil contains about 50 natural radioisotopes biologically much more dangerous than cesium-137. Their total activity in the top 10 cm layer of soil is 400 kBq/m2 (Jaworowski
1
2002), which is more than 10 times higher than the Soviet “relocation limit.” The promoters of the 37 kBq/m2 limit probably did not consider this fact. They also did not take into account that in many countries, where the natural radiation dose rate reaches to as much as 100 times greater than the average annual radiation dose received by inhabitants of the so-called “contaminated areas” in the Soviet Union, no increased incidence of neoplastic diseases and genetic disorders was ever registered. Just the opposite: The health of these populations is better than in countries with low natural radiation background. Compared with other noxious agents, ionizing radiation is rather feeble. Nature seems to have provided living organisms with an enormous safety margin for natural levels of ionizing radiation—and also, adventitiously, for man-made radiation from controlled, peacetime sources (Jaworowski 1999).
The current decision of the government of Belarus is an important political event which may bring a positive change in acceptance of nuclear power by the public. It probably results from years of studies reviewed by UNSCEAR which show that the Chernobyl catastrophe caused a minuscule risk for the general population. The only fatal victims were among the employees of the power station and rescue workers. There is no increase of neoplastic mortality among these workers, nor of cancer incidence and hereditary diseases among the inhabitants of “contaminated areas”(UNSCEAR 2008).
Ultrasound monitoring of the thyroid gland is carried out each year for almost all inhabitants in the so-called “contaminated areas.” As a result of such enormous mass screening, up to now a total of about 5,000 thyroid cancers have been detected in children and adults from the “contaminated areas.” This corresponds to 0.1% of the population living there. Most of these cancers are “occult thyroid cancers” which do not cause clinical symptoms, and have nothing to do with the radioactive iodine-131 dispersed from the Chernobyl reactor. The normal incidence of occult thyroid cancers in the population of Belarus is 9%; in the United States 13%; and in Finland 35%. About 90% of thyroid cancers are curable. In many thousands of Swedish and British patients who have received doses of radioactive iodine-131 much higher than the doses absorbed by people in the “contaminated areas,” no increase in thyroid cancers was detected, but rather the opposite: a 38% deficit of cancers among the Swedish patients, and 17% deficit among the British ones.
Calculating by unit of energy produced, the Chernobyl catastrophe caused 0.86 deaths per gigawatt of electricity produced per year, which is 47 times less than for hydroelectric power stations (40 deaths per GWe-year), including the 230,000 fatalities caused by the 1975 collapse of the dam on the Banqiao river in China.
The government of Belarus took into account the recommendations of a report jointly published in 2002 by four UN organizations: the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF). World Health Organization (WHO), and United Nations Office for Coordination of Human Affairs (UNOCHA).
Howard Shaffer

Swanzey, NH

#42 Aug 25, 2010
In strong words, the report stated that the enormous effort and billions of dollars spent on mitigation of the effects of Chernobyl accident, did not produce a positive result, but rather aggravated the situation of 7 million people defined as “victims of Chernobyl,” and petrified psychological effects of the catastrophe and of the wrong Soviet decisions. The report recommended that the three post-Soviet countries and the international organizations abandon the current policy, based on the misguided expectation of mass radiation health effects, which led to the useless expenditure of giant resources. The report presented 35 practical recommendations needed to stop the vicious cycle of Chernobyl frustrations, social
2
degradation, pauperization and the epidemic of psychosomatic disorders. In practice, the recommendations suggested removal of all the restrictions that had been imposed. Most important among them was that the relocated individuals should be allowed to return to their old settlements.
This last recommendation was fulfilled by the government of Belarus, which should be commended for its courage in standing up to the Chernobyl hysteria, for years cultivated by Greenpeace and other Greens. We come back to normalcy.
*Zbigniew Jaworowski is a multidisciplinary scientist who has published more than 300 scientific papers, four books, and scores of popular science articles, including many in 21st Century.
He been a member of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) since 1973, and served as its chairman from 1980-1982.
References
Z. Jaworowski, 1999. Radiation risk and ethics. Physics Today, Vol. 52: pp. 24-29
Z. Jaworowski, 2002. Ionizing radiation in the 20th century and beyond. Atomwirtschaft- Atomtechnik, Vol. 47, pp. 22-27.
Z. Jaworowski, 2010. Observations on the Chernobyl disaster and LNT. Dose-Response, Vol. 8: pp. 148-171, available at: http://dose-response.metapress.com/media/h147...
UNSCEAR, 2000.“Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation.” United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR 2000, Report to the General Assembly. Annex J: Exposures and Effects of the Chernobyl Accident, pp. 451 - 566. United Nations.
UNSCEAR, 2008.“Health effects due to radiation from the Chernobyl accident” Draft report A/AC.82/R.673, pp. 1-220. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.
3

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Entergy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
S&WB taps New Orleans capital projects director... (Jan '14) Jan '14 setup 1
Entergy Provides Preliminary Third Quarter Earn... (Oct '13) Oct '13 Fukushima Radiati... 1
Entergy Corp. (ETR) Updates FY13 Earnings Guidance (Oct '13) Oct '13 Fukushima Radiati... 1
Entergy Recognized as Worldwide Leader in Clima... (Oct '13) Oct '13 Fukushima Radiati... 1
Nuclear power plant in Mississippi emits smoke ... (Sep '13) Sep '13 BDV 2
VY still lobbies for new license (Oct '10) Oct '12 Mike Mulligan 134
Troubled Michigan nuclear plant shut down for m... (Apr '12) Apr '12 BDV 1

Entergy People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE