This article gives a number of good economic and environmental reasons why nuclear power should be rejected, and alternative sources of energy developed.  
But it does not mention a very important security reason: that nuclear power reactors can turn into targets in future wars. An attack on them by terrorists or some other enemy, can pollute large areas of land for generations to come, making it uninhabitable and useless for growing crops. With the large dislocation of people from the contaminated area, there would also be many immediate and longer term casualties from nuclear radiation.
So there would be no point in providing potential targets to possible future enemies, when alternative sources of energy would be cheaper and safer.

According to projections by the International Energy Agency and a handful of energy industry experts, 2005 was the first year nuclear power's electricity output dropped behind that of small-scale plants producing low or no carbon dioxide emissions - and that's not counting large hydroelectric projects on the low-carbon side of the balance sheet.
Adam Twine doesn't look like the kind of person the nuclear industry should be scared of. An organic farmer, Twine is skinny, with big round glasses and unruly hair that makes his head look like it's fraying at the edges. How could he possibly be a threat to a multibillion-dollar industry?

Home

Nuclear Power For New Zealand?

Comment by Larry Ross, November 23, 2006

We just heard a report by Australian Government investigators, that nuclear power is safe. The implication is that John Howard's recommendation for 25 nuclear reactors in Australia  is reasonable.

However these investigations did not take into account the US cover up of the deaths resulting from the Three Mile Island nuclear accident.

People tend to forget that in New Zealand we live on what are known as "The Shaky Isles". Major earthquakes can happen and are expected to happen. An earthquake can damage nuclear reactors, releasing clouds of radioactivity that can damage our agricultural trade with other countries.

Another factor is that installations such as nuclear reactors can be classed as safe. However when you add people into the mix, you can have trouble, misunderstandings, incompetency, vindictiveness, stupidity, carelessness and insanity. Not all at once of course. But unforeseen circumstances can suddenly erupt. When dealing with something as potentially dangerous as "nuclear reactors" and related equipment, one mistake, or a series of mistakes and poor judgements, may result in huge damage.

Nor have they considered, that nuclear reactors could well become targets during wartime, or a target for terrorist attack against Australia for sending troops to support US illegal wars in Iraq and possibly elsewhere. An attack on nuclear reactors, cooling ponds, or nuclear waste storage dumps, could unleash devastating clouds of radioactivity that would kill thousands and contaminate the land and living space for many years. Any agricultural industry in a radiated area would be destroyed. 

When considering nuclear power, a nation should consult its own history to see how often it has been at war. It is reasonable to expect that this pattern will continue. That means that if nuclear power is established in a country, there will also be times when that country is at war, or fighting in overseas wars. At such times the country will become a potential target. Military science and technology   has already advanced to the stage where anywhere on earth can be reached by an enemy. It will become worse with time. As proven in Vietnam, Lebanon and the mass bombing and DU poisoning in Iraq , there is no respect for civilians, their land and their infrastructure in today's wars. One can assume that nuclear reactors would be considered as potential targets in this context.

Usually, advocates of nuclear power do not take into account all the costs, and risks - both short term and long term. Nor do they considering the cost of decommissioning the nuclear plant, replacement, and storage of nuclear waste that they can't dispose of.

Australia and New Zealand should be honest and thorough in their investigations of power options, rather than bias their investigations and results in favour of the powerful nuclear lobby.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  http://www.historychannel.com    On "Modern Maverls"


  It was on earlier tonight [Wed., 3/17/2004] and at least twice I heard them state that "no one died at three mile island."  There was more
propaganda at the very close of the program although they did mention that 40 or 45,000 people might have died according to an earlier government study.

  Look for reruns and please call the History Channel and ask them to air "3 Mile Island Revisited"  [available at http://www.envirovideo.com ]
and correct their mistatement that no one died at TMI or is still in the process of dying there right now.
See http://www.historychannel.com for contact data & possible reruns of the show.

  Ask "The History Channel" to look into the massive, ongoing cover up of 3 Mile Island and the signed, notorized statements made by Jane
Rickover, daughter-in-law of Admiral Hyman Rickover and Dr. Rosalie Bertell as well as the statement made by Paul Blanch, former nuclear
engineer of the year regarding the cover up:

1. http://www.mothersalert.org/rickover.html
2. http://www.mothersalert.org/bertell.html
3. http://www.mothersalert.org/blanche.html

  March 28, 2004 is the 25th anniversary of the beginning of the TMI accident. The record needs to be finally set straight. Nuclear power, inherently, is catastrophically dangerous.


  -Bill Smirnow

See Also- Nuclear Power As Human Rights Issue by Bill Smirnow

Competent NZ defence planners would advise against providing future potential enemies with ready-made
nuclear targets in New Zealand.