From ToxicLeaks

About Nuclear

The environmental impact of nuclear power results from the nuclear fuel cycle, operation, and the effects of nuclear accidents. The greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear fission power are much smaller than those associated with coal, oil and gas, and the routine health risks are much smaller than those associated with coal. However, there is a "catastrophic risk" potential if containment fails, which in nuclear reactors can be brought about by over-heated fuels melting and releasing large quantities of fission products into the environment. The most long-lived radioactive wastes, including spent nuclear fuel, must be contained and isolated from the environment for a long period of time. The public is sensitive to these risks and there has been considerable public opposition to nuclear power.

The 1979 Three Mile Island accident and 1986 Chernobyl disaster, along with high construction costs, ended the rapid growth of global nuclear power capacity. A release of radioactive materials followed the 2011 Japanese tsunami which damaged the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, resulting in hydrogen gas explosions and partial meltdowns classified as a Level 7event. The large-scale release of radioactivity resulted in people being evacuated from a 20 km exclusion zone set up around the power plant, similar to the 30 km radius Chernobyl Exclusion Zone still in effect.

Featured article

A new study published by Dr Marco Springmann from the University of Oxford proves just how critical the mitigation of climate change is for mankind. The current trends of global warming (that are the direct consequences of the greed of fossil fuel corporations) will cause devastating effects for people throughout the world. This study is the first of its kind and attempts to estimate the number of deaths that will result from the effects of climate change on agriculture. His results are appalling and stress that bringing an end to global warming is the only possible way if we want to avoid cataclysmic disasters on the planet.

he study proves that the current trends of global warming will reduce food availability

Dr Springmann's study clearly indicates that the world food production will be severely reduced by climate change. His assumption is that nothing will change and that global warming will continue to accelerate. Of course the purpose of this premise is to describe the worst case scenario to make sure we don't go there. And yet some alarming signs indicate that many corporations around the world are far from embracing the common goal set at the COP21 of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 °Celsius. For instance, in 2015, four of Australia's biggest banks, Commonwealth, Westpac, ANZ and National Australian Bank loaned $5.5 billion to coal, oil and gas companies in 2015. This clearly proves that it's still “business as usual” for many corporations around the world, and this unfortunately gives credence to Dr. Springmann's assumption. So what will happen if the current trends of global warming continue ? This will cut the increase of agricultural production by one third. The specific causes of this decrease are numerous. The rising temperature in itself would cause stress crops and affect yields. They would also suffer from the lack of water that is going to get worse in some areas like the Southern part of Africa. Finally, the multiplication of extreme weather events will also be profoundly disruptive. But, meanwhile, population growth will continue and this will necessarily lead to a lower food availability. On average, this will mean that the amount of available food per person will decrease by 3.2 %, which represents 99 kilocalories a day. The decrease of fruit and vegetable intake will be especially pronounced, with a 4% reduction. This decrease will inevitably bring about malnutrition and hundreds of thousands of deaths.

(500,000 will die by 2050 from reduced food availability if we don't stop global warming)


- All pages -