France gets 75% of it's power from nuclear. Japan has used nuclear power for years & they were victims of nuclear weapons during the war. Nuclear power for peaceful purposes & with moderation does benefit the environment. The EPA & Pew Center support nuclear power on a case by case basis. Sure, wind, lightning, geothermal & solar are fine-those energy sources have been around since time started while nuclear has been around since the 1950s. The alternative energy sources don't generate as much energy & many people also have the NIMBY attitude when it comes to windmills. Nuclear power with guidelines benefits the ecology.

It must be noted that since 1996, ecologists are split on the topic of nuclear power. Nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gases. The newer nuclear powerplants emit less waste, don't require as much Uranium & they've now understood how to make more energy in nuclear powerplants using less Uranium. Audubon Magazine has published letters from ecologists who support nuclear or atomic power. Stephen Tindale, former executive Director of Greenpeace U.K. used to be against nuclear power, but Mr. Stephen Tindale now supports nuclear power. Greenpeace U.K. in it's 2009 recommendations was neutral on the topic of nuclear power. Yes, they suggested alternative energy sources. But Greenpeace Great Britian or U.K. unlike past years didn't condemn nuclear powerplants & perhaps they're rethinking their earlier view. The fact is that since 1996, more ecologists are rethinking or have reconsidered their prior position against nuclear powerplants & there are ecologists who support nuclear or atomic power. Nuclear powerplants can be consistent with ecology.

France gets 75% of it's power from nuclear. It must be noted that since 1996, ecologists are split on the topic of nuclear power. Nuclear power don't emit greenhouse gases. The newer nuclear powerplants emit less waste, don't require as much Uranium.

Sure, I support wind, lightning, geothermal & solar. But nuclear power with guidelines benefits the ecology. Japan has used nuclear power for years & they were victims of nuclear weapons during the war. Nuclear power for peaceful purposes & with moderation does benefit the environment.

Ecologists who support nuclear power won't go away & more ecologists have moderated their views on this.

Read these:

Why do people fear nuclear power? – SciForums.com
100+ posts – Last post: May 25, 2004
Sr-90 and Cs-137 both have half-lives of 30 years. …. basis for its chart, including the Iodine 131 which you pass off as irrelevant. …… Better that it is burned rather than just emitted but, like very few of these …… oil/coal burners (and one obsolete and dangerous hydroelectric dams) …
http://www.sciforums.com/Why-do-people-fear-nuclear-po... – 447k – Cached – Similar pages
CNTA Letters
Nuclear plants emit 100 times less radiation than coal fired plants. …… oil, or gas and that advantage will grow because coal burners will have to …… only against radioactive iodine-131, which doesn't exist at SRS. …. It contains cesium-137 and some strontium-90 in a salt that is mainly sodium nitrate. …
http://www.c-n-t-a.com/letters.htm – 265k – Cached – Similar pages

And according to the American College for Preventative Medicine: The annual dose of background radiation received by an average person in the United States comes from the following sources: radon gas, 55%; internal radiation, 11%; cosmic rays, 8%; terrestrial radiation, 8%; and manmade products, 18%. Less than 1% of the radiation from manmade products comes from nuclear power plant releases and fallout. Typically, little of this dose is from I-131 because of the short half-life of the element: it decays (loses its level of radioactivity) rapidly and rarely exists at any meaningful level in the environment. http://www.iodine131.org/q3.htm

Read these:

Why do people fear nuclear power? – SciForums.com
100+ posts – Last post: May 25, 2004
Sr-90 and Cs-137 both have half-lives of 30 years. …. basis for its chart, including the Iodine 131 which you pass off as irrelevant. …… Better that it is burned rather than just emitted but, like very few of these …… oil/coal burners (and one obsolete and dangerous hydroelectric dams) …
http://www.sciforums.com/Why-do-people-fear-nuclear-po... – 447k – Cached – Similar pages
CNTA Letters
Nuclear plants emit 100 times less radiation than coal fired plants. …… oil, or gas and that advantage will grow because coal burners will have to …… only against radioactive iodine-131, which doesn't exist at SRS. …. It contains cesium-137 and some strontium-90 in a salt that is mainly sodium nitrate. …
http://www.c-n-t-a.com/letters.htm – 265k – Cached – Similar pages

And according to the American College for Preventative Medicine: The annual dose of background radiation received by an average person in the United States comes from the following sources: radon gas, 55%; internal radiation, 11%; cosmic rays, 8%; terrestrial radiation, 8%; and manmade products, 18%. Less than 1% of the radiation from manmade products comes from nuclear power plant releases and fallout. Typically, little of this dose is from I-131 because of the short half-life of the element: it decays (loses its level of radioactivity) rapidly and rarely exists at any meaningful level in the environment. http://www.iodine131.org/q3.htm

In the 1980s, the cancer rate for young people in Monroe County was below the state average. In the ’90s this rate grew, and in the first half of 2000 the cancer rate for this group in Monroe was greater than the state average. For the period 1999-2004, there is data to compare the Monroe under 25 cancer rate to both the Michigan and U.S statistics. The rate was 23.5 per 100,000 in Monroe County, 21.5 per 100,000 in Michigan and 19.5 per 100,000 nationwide, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

These numbers include all types of cancers reported for this group.

There could be many environmental exposure risks in the Monroe area, but we noted in our last feature:

Dr. Janette Sherman, adjunct professor at Western Michigan University’s Environmental Institute and author of “Life’s Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer,” has spent her career researching environmental causes of cancer. She said that cancer among young people should be viewed as an indicator for radiation problems associated with nuclear plants.

Radioactive isotopes such as iodine 131, cesium 137 and strontium 90 are passed on to people through cow’s milk, she said. “They come out of the stack and fall on the ground. They permeate the water and are eaten in food.”
Michigan cow (Photo: Technically Nina via Flickr.com)

Michigan cow (Photo: Technically Nina via Flickr.com)

Children are particularly vulnerable to this radiation, she said. “It doesn’t take 40 years to get leukemia if you are a kid.”

Sherman said that her analysis of leukemia statistics in the United States indicates that kids living near power plants are more likely to get the disease.

Sherman said that the rise in cancer rates around Fermi is significant.

“I think people ought to be concerned,” she said. “We don’t need to have nuclear power. We have solar and wind and conservation.”

More data from studies could only be a good thing when the lives of Monroe's young people are impacted disproportionately.

You see, I also worked at the Fermi plant for 8.5 years collectively first for the Asst. Project Mgr, then for the Quality Assurance Manager that answered only to the NRC, and finally as a laborer that climbed and crawled through every inch of that plant. How many nuke plants in the world, and how many problems to date? Russia doesn't count because everything they did never considered the health and well being of their people anyway. Sweden, one of the most environmentally sound countries is full of nuke plants. There biggest problem is again the disposal of radioactive waste.

This same opposition would be wise to focus their attention on the second largest, filthy coalburner in the country instead. Yeah, cancer rates in Monroe are definitely up. It's been commented about in our hospital system plenty. Where was all this opposition against running that coalburner for decades without any scrubbers as a minimum precautionary health measure? It's too late now for all the people that have suffered bronchial problems and probably cancer from that coalburner, not to mention the methyl mercury occurring in our lakes. I live on the water too and won't eat anything from there. Ever see the big tumors on large walleye? Take one look at the brown smoke emitting from those stacks on a regular basis if you want to start the cancer trail.

There was also the Holcim concrete plant in Ida emitting so much pollution from burning tires you could smell it, and see it driving down US 23, yet Senator Richardville was ready to write an amendment to keep that plant going to save 350 jobs. It's been downsizing to close for years. Holcim was fined hundreds of thousands by the EPA for going over the particulate limits by 7x's the acceptable amount for public safety. I didn't see a big opposition to Holcim, but the opposite. And we're worried about the Fermi III plant? How absurd.

I seem to be the only one consistently writing against Monroe's coalburner, the mercury polllution, the trash dump that is far too close to Lake Erie, and the now closing Holcim Plant. Out of all of these polluting industries the Fermi II Plant is clean by comparison using boiling water to turn its turbine. As for the radioactive waste, like I said–too late anyway . That's what the land was purchased for decades ago. I think people in this area need to pick their environmental fights better.

I am glad, however, that someone is finally doing an air study of the Monroe area. A friend and myself talked about getting funding to do such a study. We were going to gather data based on homes from nearest to farthest in proximity to Monroe's coalburner in a pattern of concentric circles with a 5 mile radius for each, i.e., 1-5 miles, 6-10 miles, etc., away from the plant.