"Danger Zone: Aging Nuclear Reactors"
Is it safe to extend the life of the aging US fleet of nuclear power plants -- even those whose obsolete designs match those of the failed reactors at Fukushima?
Is it safe to extend the life of the aging US fleet of nuclear power plants -- even those whose obsolete designs match those of the failed reactors at Fukushima?
"TOKYO -- A year after a huge earthquake and tsunami caused nearly catastrophic meltdowns at a nuclear plant, Japan is still grappling with a crucial question: was the accident simply the result of an unforeseeable natural disaster or something that could have been prevented?
"Regulators on Friday told the owners of the nation's nuclear reactors to implement new safety rules based on the lessons learned from the earthquake and tsunami that crippled Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant a year ago. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) said it authorized its staff to issue three immediately effective orders implementing some of the more urgent recommendations."
"As many as 12 of Britain's 19 civil nuclear sites are at risk of flooding and coastal erosion because of climate change, according to an unpublished government analysis obtained by the Guardian."
"FUKUSHIMA, Japan -- Yoshiko Ota keeps her windows shut. She never hangs her laundry outdoors. Fearful of birth defects, she warns her daughters: Never have children."
"Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko said Tuesday the agency wasn't on pace to meet its own timeline for improving safety at U.S. nuclear plants in response to the meltdown at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant a year ago."
"The NRC will soon issue its first orders in response to the Fukushima accident, but it is also weighing a host of regulatory changes that could impose extra costs on the operators of the 104 reactors in the U.S."
As the anniversary of the 2011 Japanese nuclear power plant disaster nears, the question is asked: would a disaster at Indian Point nuclear power station -- 38 miles north of New York City -- be any less likely? Any less catastrophic? Are plans for preventing or responding to a catastrophe any less realistic?
"The Nuclear Energy Institute and the National Mining Association, Monday filed a federal lawsuit seeking to reverse the Obama administration's withdrawal of one million acres of public land in Arizona from uranium mining for 20 years."
"The Union of Concerned Scientists has documented 15 'near-misses' at 13 U.S. nuclear plants during 2011 and evaluates the response of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to each event in a report released today."
"A new independent report from Japan details just how close that country came to a "devil's chain reaction" of nuclear plant after nuclear plant melting down and sending a plume of radiation over the city of Tokyo and its 30 million inhabitants."