[NukeNet] Reaction to reactor plan positive, officials say

[Susan Sturgis]

Some background:

A study by the Pa. Department of Health found that Luzerne County,  
where the Susquehanna plant is located, as well as neighboring  
Schuylkill County have unusually high rates of polycythemia vera, a  
rare blood malignancy that's been associated with environmental  
exposures including low-level radiation and benzene (see for example  
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf/7802/7802r1.pdf). Another  
recent study by a team of researchers from ATSDR and private  
institutions suggested a link between the high rates of PV and  
environmental pollution (abstract at http://www.abstracts2view.com/ 
hem07/view.php?nu=HEM07L1_1871), but ATSDR and PADOH brass have  
disavowed those findings, saying the research was flawed (see http:// 
blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/feds-backpedal.html). However, at  
least two of the study's authors maintain that there appears to be an  
environmental problem behind the elevated disease rates.

Nuclear plant emissions are but one of many toxic exposures affecting  
residents of Pennsylvania's anthracite coal region. Besides the  
historic and ongoing pollution related to mining, Schuylkill and  
Luzerne counties are also home to one of the nation's highest  
concentrations of power plants that burn waste coal and other waste  
products, including waste fuels. The ash produced by those plants is  
then dumped into nearby abandoned mines under the guise of  
"reclamation." A recent report (online at http://www.catf.us/ 
publications/view/94) from the Clean Air Task Force, EarthJustice and  
others documented numerous groundwater contamination problems with  
these coal combustion waste reclamation schemes. In addition, there's  
a scheme afoot to build a heavily polluting coal-to-oil refinery in  
Schuylkill County; there's a lot of information on that at  http:// 
www.ultradirtyfuels.com.

For more details about the health (and political) problems facing  
this area, also see my blog (www.hometownhazards.com) and that of  
Dante Picciano, a local attorney/geneticist/environmental health  
advocate (www.dante7.com).

-- Sue Sturgis


On Dec 24, 2007, at 3:32 PM, jay sweeney wrote:

> NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet at energyjustice.net)
>
>
>
> Let's not let this go unchallenged!  Send letters to the Scranton- 
> Times Tribune at letters at timesshamrock.com.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jay Sweeney
>
>
> Reaction to reactor plan positive, officials say
> BY JIM DINO
> STAFF WRITER
> 12/24/2007
>
> <email_this_article.gif>
> Email to a friend
> <printversion.gif>
> Printer-friendly
>
> BERWICK — Whether PPL will build a third nuclear reactor at its  
> power plant in Salem Township is the multibillion-dollar question.
>
>
> If the company does move forward, it looks poised to have community  
> support this time, not like the opposition when it built the first  
> two reactors in the early 1980s.
>
> And that lack of opposition is due to the positive effects the  
> plant has had on the local economy and community, one local leader  
> says.
>
> Valerie Anderson, president of the Berwick Chamber of Commerce,  
> said PPL and the plant have proven themselves to the community  
> there. And not just that. The project would make Berwick a  
> boomtown, she believes.
>
> “It would be a big boon to the whole area,” she said. “I see  
> nothing negative about it. New jobs, improving the quality of life.  
> Everything would be enhanced.”
>
> Ms. Anderson said the safety of the plant is without question.
>
> “Safety is not a concern. They do a great job,” she said. “I was  
> born and raised here. If I didn’t think it was safe, I wouldn’t be  
> here.”
>
> Lou Ramos, a PPL spokesman, said PPL is considering the project,  
> because of increased power demands — it can use the power in its 29- 
> county coverage area, or sell it out of town — and the fact that  
> few new facilities are coming online.
>
> “The project will create thousands of construction jobs — and it  
> will take about five years to build the reactor — and then 400 to  
> 600 permanent jobs after the reactor is built,” he said.
>
> Models the company is looking at in Finland and France cost $5 to 6  
> billion, he said.
>
> Herb Woodeshick, who was special assistant to the PPL president for  
> the plant, said the job numbers when the plant was built in the  
> 1970s are similar to what is being predicted for this project.
>
> “At the peak of construction, there were 5,500 construction jobs,”  
> Mr. Woodeshick said. “And there were 1,100 or 1,200 permanent jobs  
> afterward. And there are six outages a year (for maintenance) when  
> another 1,000 workers come in.
>
> “Those people live in the area, and pay wage and real estate  
> taxes,” Mr. Woodeshick added. “And with deregulation, the plant  
> itself now pays taxes.”
>
> Contact the writer: jimdino at standardspeaker.com
>
> ©The Times-Tribune 2007
>>
>
> <email_this_article.gif>
> <printversion.gif>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> _
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
> Change your settings or access the archives at:
> http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/ 
> nukenet_energyjustice.net
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20071228/34f0f1e4/attachment.html