is to expose the lies and just as many reasons to vote YES 'against Atomic Energy
:
1) Nuclear power has a role and is raised around the world.
NOT 'TRUE.
is not so, nor in relative terms, either in absolute terms. In relative terms the
weight of nuclear power in global production has fallen from 17.2% in 1999
to 13.5% in 2008 (International Energy Agency, 2010).
2) Nuclear power is abundant, it serves to Italy for its energy security and
employs.
NOT 'TRUE.
filonucleare propaganda continues to repeat that in 50 years
fossil fuels may not be enough. That fossil fuels will decline is uncertain, but
uranium is an element that is extracted from the limited resources of uranium and therefore also
50 years will decline.
The employment impact of nuclear power in Italy is estimated at 10 000
places to work, mostly in the construction phase (8-10 years). To center the
binding European targets for renewable sources by 2020 according to a study of
Bocconi the employment impact can generate up to 250 000 in Italy
places of work.
3) Nuclear power costs less.
AND 'FALSE. With the new plants will increase costs.
The most recent estimates made in the USA show that in 2020 the cost of the kilowatt-hour
new nuclear plants will be increased by 75% compared to that of
gas and 27% from wind. It will be the citizens to pay.
4) The electricity in Italy is more expensive because we have not made nuclear power?
BALLE! If
in Italy the electricity costs for households more than in other countries
is not for the lack
of nuclear installations but rather to issues and extra costs
characteristic of the Italian electricity system. The price we pay in bills, the cost of production is about
third, the rest is accounted for by other components linked to
reloading of producers, distribution costs, taxes, disposal of old plants
.
5) The power of the latest generation is completely safe.
ABSOLUTELY NO!
There is no certainty in terms of security: even
the new reactors were designed with safety criteria inherent in an accident and not
are able to regulate itself.
Three European Agency for Nuclear Safety, the British HSE'sND, STUK and the Finnish
the same agency ASN French have resoundingly rejected by
joint statement (November 2009), Areva's EPR.
6) Nuclear power is a clean source that does not normally produce impacts.
DEFINITELY FALSE.
Beyond the risk of severe accidents, nuclear reactors release
radioactivity in air and water during their normal operation and
small accidents which are quite frequent. Workers in Central and
citizens who live near them are always in direct contact with
radioactivity. A survey done in Germany on 17 units has shown a dependency
the onset of childhood diseases (children from 0 to 5 years
) from the proximity to the station. Within a radius of 5 km from the central state,
even detected an increase in tumors embryogenetic (
mother of the fetus in the womb) of 1.6 times the average and 2.2 times of childhood leukemia cases
than expected.
7) We are already surrounded by reactors, then we might as well make it here too.
SO MUCH BETTER WORSE?
The risk in the event of a nuclear incident is timely, that is higher the more neighbors
is the source of radiation. This simple observation underlies
one of the principles of radiation protection.
8) The issue of nuclear waste is resolved.
MAYBE!
The issue of radioactive waste and the most dangerous time of their huge
life (the time it takes for half the radioactivity of an element,
ranging from thousands to millions of years) is still a research problem
essential. The "vitrification", often smuggled
as a solution of the problem, it is only a conditioning phase of this waste and remains open
the problem of their confinement in suitable geological sites.
In the United States since 1978 who is working on a final storage for radioactive waste
the highest intensity in the Yucca Mountain site,
in the desert of Nevada. Its construction cost will exceed $ 54 billion (
and must be paid for with taxpayers' fees), but there is no certainty that will never
running.
9) Nuclear power is the way to cut emissions of greenhouse gases that cause climate change and
is not an alternative to energy efficiency and renewable energy
.
NOT 'VERO.Si estimates that even doubling the current installed nuclear power
, CO2 emissions would be reduced by only 5%. And in Italy the nuclear
would come, however, after 2026.
:
1) Nuclear power has a role and is raised around the world.
NOT 'TRUE.
is not so, nor in relative terms, either in absolute terms. In relative terms the
weight of nuclear power in global production has fallen from 17.2% in 1999
to 13.5% in 2008 (International Energy Agency, 2010).
2) Nuclear power is abundant, it serves to Italy for its energy security and
employs.
NOT 'TRUE.
filonucleare propaganda continues to repeat that in 50 years
fossil fuels may not be enough. That fossil fuels will decline is uncertain, but
uranium is an element that is extracted from the limited resources of uranium and therefore also
50 years will decline.
The employment impact of nuclear power in Italy is estimated at 10 000
places to work, mostly in the construction phase (8-10 years). To center the
binding European targets for renewable sources by 2020 according to a study of
Bocconi the employment impact can generate up to 250 000 in Italy
places of work.
3) Nuclear power costs less.
AND 'FALSE. With the new plants will increase costs.
The most recent estimates made in the USA show that in 2020 the cost of the kilowatt-hour
new nuclear plants will be increased by 75% compared to that of
gas and 27% from wind. It will be the citizens to pay.
4) The electricity in Italy is more expensive because we have not made nuclear power?
BALLE! If
in Italy the electricity costs for households more than in other countries
is not for the lack
of nuclear installations but rather to issues and extra costs
characteristic of the Italian electricity system. The price we pay in bills, the cost of production is about
third, the rest is accounted for by other components linked to
reloading of producers, distribution costs, taxes, disposal of old plants
.
5) The power of the latest generation is completely safe.
ABSOLUTELY NO!
There is no certainty in terms of security: even
the new reactors were designed with safety criteria inherent in an accident and not
are able to regulate itself.
Three European Agency for Nuclear Safety, the British HSE'sND, STUK and the Finnish
the same agency ASN French have resoundingly rejected by
joint statement (November 2009), Areva's EPR.
6) Nuclear power is a clean source that does not normally produce impacts.
DEFINITELY FALSE.
Beyond the risk of severe accidents, nuclear reactors release
radioactivity in air and water during their normal operation and
small accidents which are quite frequent. Workers in Central and
citizens who live near them are always in direct contact with
radioactivity. A survey done in Germany on 17 units has shown a dependency
the onset of childhood diseases (children from 0 to 5 years
) from the proximity to the station. Within a radius of 5 km from the central state,
even detected an increase in tumors embryogenetic (
mother of the fetus in the womb) of 1.6 times the average and 2.2 times of childhood leukemia cases
than expected.
7) We are already surrounded by reactors, then we might as well make it here too.
SO MUCH BETTER WORSE?
The risk in the event of a nuclear incident is timely, that is higher the more neighbors
is the source of radiation. This simple observation underlies
one of the principles of radiation protection.
8) The issue of nuclear waste is resolved.
MAYBE!
The issue of radioactive waste and the most dangerous time of their huge
life (the time it takes for half the radioactivity of an element,
ranging from thousands to millions of years) is still a research problem
essential. The "vitrification", often smuggled
as a solution of the problem, it is only a conditioning phase of this waste and remains open
the problem of their confinement in suitable geological sites.
In the United States since 1978 who is working on a final storage for radioactive waste
the highest intensity in the Yucca Mountain site,
in the desert of Nevada. Its construction cost will exceed $ 54 billion (
and must be paid for with taxpayers' fees), but there is no certainty that will never
running.
9) Nuclear power is the way to cut emissions of greenhouse gases that cause climate change and
is not an alternative to energy efficiency and renewable energy
.
NOT 'VERO.Si estimates that even doubling the current installed nuclear power
, CO2 emissions would be reduced by only 5%. And in Italy the nuclear
would come, however, after 2026.
0 comments:
Post a Comment