Pro Life Sarah Palin Embraces Nuclear Abortion Machines

Living within 50 miles of a Nuclear Reactor INCREASES YOUR CHANCES OF GIVING BIRTH TO A STILLBORN CHILD...so please Sarah Palin, explain how you, a Pro Life Christian woman can embrace and endorse the building of 45 new NUCLEAR ABORTION MACHINES?

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Sarah Palin Is Energy Nut Case-Calls For Socialized Energy

CNN just carried Sarah Palin's speech from Toledo Ohio on Energy...the lady is a religious nut case with no firm grasp on the topic of Energy. She touts experience that is not there, and with every word out of her mouth, it becomes obvious that she is without a clue. First, her drill baby drill is offensive, and shows zero respect for the environment. This should not be a surprise as she has filed two law suits objecting to the Federal Government's placement of animals onto the endangered species list...why you might ask...because having. as example. Polar Bears on the list interferes with some of her own pet projects. Putting whales on the endangered species list in Alaska endangers her own SECOND BRIDGE TO NOWHERE, a $600 Million dollar bridge to serve the 7,000 residents of Wasilla, Alaska.

Her beloved pipeline might not even be built, and even if it makes it from the drawing board into reality, it represents a drop in the bucket, not a solution. When you put it into perspective, when you realize we would not see a cubic foot of gas from said pipeline before 2025, she is blowing smoke up our collective asses.

She goes on to say that she and John McCain will see to it that America will build 45 New nuclear reactors by 2030...sorry, but it cannot be done, and even if the obstacles could be overcome, are we prepared for Socialized Energy that rapes the American Taxpayer, and the American energy consumer, while ruining our environment, bringing cancers and birth defects to our doorsteps?

1. There is a horrific manpower shortage in the nuclear industry, and it will take at least one decade to address that shortage. The reality is simple...there are not enough qualified and trained employees to build, manage and operate 45 new reactors by 2030.

2. Even if the manpower issues were resolved, there is not enough manufacturing base to get the necessary parts to meet Sarah Palin's timeline for 45 new reactors. Further, the NEI, the NRC and our government is wrongfully assuming that American Communities will welcome these new reactors with open arms, assumes they can simply force communities already hosting old, outdated and problematic reactors into accepting FURTHER RISKS.

3. Wall Street will not fund 45 new reactors, which is why the nuclear industry wants our tax dollars to build those nuclear reactors, even though they will be owned and operated by private for profit companies. What is wrong with this picture? With our taxes, we build the reactors, but our government gives them over to private companies that will then BILL US FOR OUR ENERGY, energy being supplied because we built the facility...talk about a redistribution of wealth. Additionally, if Nuclear Energy is so SAFE, VITAL and SECURE, end the Price Anderson Act that keeps every American from getting nuclear accident insurance to protect their own assets, their own homes, their own health!

Further, nuclear cannot exist as a viable industry unless it remains always a socialized industry subsidized with our taxes in a never ending bailout. GNEP (the Global Nuclear Energy Program) asks the American Taxpayer to underwrite a $1.5 -$5 Trillion dollar nuclear reprocessing plant that might not even work. Further, and very important...the fuel that would be created if the process does work cannot be used in the 45 AP1000 Nuclear Reactors that John McCain wants to build! Even more deplorable, GNEP makes America the nuclear waste dump for the entire world's nuclear energy programs and reactors. Are you as a citizen prepared to have China, Russia, North Korea and other rogue nations wastes being shipped across the world's oceans to the doorsteps of America? Are you willing to risk your child, your wife, your husband, your mother having CANCER in the name of reprocessing fuel for a country that abuses human rights, oppresses the people of Tibet, imprisons their populations, putting them into forced labor camps, using them in the name of Capitalizing China?

Are you, your children and their children's children prepared to pay the costs that this international socialized Energy Program will bring about? With every new reactor comes more breast cancer, more childhood leukemia, more birth defects, more stillborn children. Nuclear Energy is AN ABORTION MACHINE that every Pro-Life American should be up in arms about. Sarah Palin is a hypocrite to claim she is Pro Life will endorsing a Energy Program that puts the unborn child at a far greater risk than abortion ever has or will. GNEP will make America the world's Nuclear Waste Dump, and with that new global responsibility, we are inviting a Holocaust into America of proportions that will far outstrip those visited upon the Jews with Germany's NAZI Death Camps.

Nuclear Power Causes Leukemia

In a recent German study, there was a causal link shown between a child's distance to a nuclear reactor, and leukemia. We have all for years suspected, and the government is finally admitting that the production of nuclear energy causes cancer deaths in the local community. The NRC plays down this fact by claiming the risk is within ACCEPTABLE LIMITS. Tell that to the families who pay the price of losing a loved one.

I bring this up, as there was an article published in Connecticut wherein the parents of a young woman who died of bone cancer decried the claim on http://www.mothballmillstone.org that the local nuclear plant might have played a contributory part in the death of their daughter. There is a chance that such a claim is true, just as there is a chance that Millstone is a contributory factor in many of the stillborn deaths that occur in the area.

Margaret and David Beacham's daughter, Erin, died at 23 of bone cancer, and through their attorney, they have issued a statement denying any correlation between their daughter's Leukemia and the aging, dangerous Millstone Reactor. It seems doubtful that the parents could absolutely know this for fact, as the nuclear industry routinely takes advantage of the fact that often times, there can be more than one potential causal source for a person's cancer. As example, former DOE employees with cancer, have to show there is a greater than 50 percent chance that their employment in the nuclear industry caused/contributed to same. There is anecdotal evidence that a woman's proximity to a nuclear reactor can increase her risk of giving birth to a stillborn child by as much as 25 percent. Other anecdotal evidence shows that cancer rates drop significantly in areas surrounding nuclear reactors when said facilities are shut down and decommissioned. Seems to us, that the time has come for our government, for the NRC to spend whatever it takes to create a Nuclear Cancers National Registry, and to perform extensive Health Studies in every reactor community in America. As example, we here in the community surrounding Indian Point find it odd that Entergy is spending considerable sums on off site Environmental Monitoring, but will not make the results public.

Mothball Milestone from what GNB can gather did not state that Erin's cancer was caused by Millstone, but did point out that her Leukemia could be linked to the radiological contaminants from the site. It seems, that such a statement is probably true, and that there is a good chance that close proximity to said nuclear facility may have contributed to, or increased the risk that the Beacham's child could contract such a deadly cancer. WE would suggest, that without proper health studies, and a National Registry, we just don't have enough information available to rule out Millstone as a contributing factor in many still born deaths, and many cancers, including Leukemia in our children, and breast cancer in women.

Families Decry Anti-Nuke Web Site
Kin of deceased listed on Internet say deaths not radiation-related

By Patricia Daddona , Published on 12/23/2007

Lisa and Leonardo Blanco's 7-month-old son, Collin, died last year when his walker rolled down a driveway into a trailer towed by a pickup truck.

Margaret and David Beacham's daughter, Erin, died at 23 of bone cancer.

Fred and Dorothy Weaver are pursuing a medical malpractice claim over the death of their infant son, Damarius, who died the day he was born.

Lisa Blanco of Gales Ferry, Margaret Beacham of North Stonington and the lawyer representing the Weavers, who live in New London, said this past week that those deaths had nothing to do with radiation exposure from Millstone Power Station.

The Web site of an anti-nuclear group, http://www.mothballmillstone.org, had suggested these and three other deaths “may be linked” to such emissions. That segment of the Web site was taken down two weeks ago.

German Study Confirms What We Already Knew-Reactor Causes Leukemia

What if it WERE YOUR CHILD?

The United States government, the nuclear industry, and America's 104 nuclear reactors and their NRC licensees have used every trick in the book to eliminate, deny or discredit any report that showed a link between the operation of a nuclear reactor, and cancer. Yesterday, a new study out of Germany shows a link between children who live near a nuclear reactor, and Leukemia.

The study reports that 37 children living within three miles of a nuclear reactor (think Peekskill)had developed Leukemia between 1980 and 2003. The statistical average for the area studied should have only been 17. At what cost nuclear power? Are we as a society willing to say TO BAD, that is a small price to pay for the convenience of a nuclear society? Are you willing to tell those 20 families that their child MUST DIE so that you can save a few dollars each month on your electric bill?

The data from the study convincingly shows that children living within 50 kilometers (just over 30 miles) of a nuclear reactor are at an increased risk of contracting cancer. More importantly, the studies states that these children could be struck down with various cancers, including Leukemia before the age of five.

Child cancer risk higher near nuclear plants: study
Sat Dec 8, 8:48 AM ET
Story Link
BERLIN (Reuters) - A German study has found that young children living near nuclear power plants have a significantly higher risk of developing leukemia and other forms of cancer, a German newspaper reported on Saturday.

"Our study confirmed that in Germany a connection has been observed between the distance of a domicile to the nearest nuclear power plant ... and the risk of developing cancer, such as leukemia, before the fifth birthday," Suddeutsche Zeitung newspaper quoted the report as saying.

The newspaper said the study was done by the University of Mainz for Germany's Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BFS). A copy of the report was not immediately available.

The researchers found that 37 children within a 5-kilometer (3-mile) radius of nuclear power plants had developed leukemia between 1980 and 2003, while the statistical average during this time period was 17, the paper said.

The newspaper cited an unnamed radiation protection expert familiar with the study who said its conclusions understated the problem. He said the data showed there was an increased cancer risk for children living within 50 kilometers of a reactor.

German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said in a statement that he would examine the study. He said the BFS should also evaluate its findings.

Germany plans to prematurely shut down all of its nuclear power plants by the early 2020s.

(Reporting by Louis Charbonneau)

Radioactive Farming? by Hattie Nestel

How are farmers to know if their fields are radioactive? Radioactivity is not discernible through our usual senses of taste, hearing, sight, smell, or touch. The Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor, five miles from Massachusetts and New Hampshire borders in southern Vermont, emits radiation that impacts the health and safety of all three states.

“Each day, a nuclear reactor releases more than 100 chemicals into the air,” states Joseph Mangano, national coordinator of the Radiation and Public Health Project. “These chemicals, which are created only in nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors, are radioactive and cause cancer by damaging cells. After entering the body through breathing and food, each chemical affects the body in a different way. Iodine 131 attacks the thyroid gland, strontium 90 seeks out bone and cesium 137 disperses throughout soft tissues. The fetus and infant with undeveloped immune systems and rapidly diving cells are most affected.”

Radioactive elements from a nuclear reactor enter water of adjoining rivers or lakes or are released into the air. Airborne releases can land in agricultural fields hundreds or even thousands of miles away from their source. Unwitting organic farmers or their customers have little knowledge that foods certified “organic” are actually grown on contaminated soil. Ingesting contaminated crops or animal products can cause leukemia, thyroid diseases, cancers, heart disease, infertility, Down Syndrome, spontaneous abortions, immune deficiency diseases, and congenital birth defects which will be passed on to succeeding generations.

Rosalie Bertell, a cancer research scientist, has spent much of her life studying low-level radiation including ten years writing a comprehensive book entitled, No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth. She states that there is a general nuclear illiteracy in the U.S. and “. . . only scientists are fully aware of the subtle cumulative nature of damage from low-level radiation.”

In the 2005 Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report, the National Academy of Sciences state that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation. However, the public is kept in the dark about ongoing radioactive emissions, the dangers they pose, and the health consequences suffered by exposed populations. Federal and local governing agencies tend to protect corporate interests rather than public health. There are little accountability and few avenues for public input.

At stake are another twenty to forty years of relicensing for every reactor in the country. Forty-seven have already applied and received this extension from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A broad-based coalition needs to unite and say a resounding NO to nuclear power and a hearty YES to sustainable, safe, locally controlled energy options that will allow farmers to have truly organic crops.

Resources: Nuclear Power is Not the Answer by Helen Caldicott, 2006 Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change by Brice Smith, 2006 (publ. IEER)

Deadly Deceit: Low level Radiation, High Level Cover-up by Gould and Goldman, 1990.

Author Hattie Nestel lives in Athol, Ma. 25 miles from Vermont Yankee. She works with Citizens Awareness Network, CAN@NUKEBUSTERS.ORG to shut down Vermont Yankee.

Hattieshalom@verizon.net
978-249-6224