Milena Velba And Wendy Pregnant

The nuclear lobby, an iron

... new problems are not the consequences of accidental failures but the successes of technology (...) The progress of science and technology during the last century has been such that dangers have grown even faster than solutions

Small is beautiful. EF Schumacher. 1973.

amazing how accustomed we are in the Canary Islands to fuel all sorts of free and self-interested claims of certain characters who believe themselves to be innovative in any particular field. While some galleries are given uncompromising coverage, dissenting voices are censored or at least do not enjoy those same media pulpits. This is the case of the statements made by Mr. Benicio Alonso last January, raising the possibility of introducing nuclear power in the Canary Islands as an alternative for energy supply of the islands (Benicio Alonso proposes to introduce the nuclear energy in the Canaries. La Opinión. 20/01/2011) . The absence of a fair and reasoned debate to justify certain arguments that sometimes are thrown to the four winds with much lightness (Canary is a people proud to be atomic) and only goal headlines completing certain interests or bias debate, is an example of the poor quality of democracy that pervades the Canary Islands. These characters all you get is to shore up old strategies in a time when human civilization needs a change at the social, economic and political order to restore a society adrift.

Draws attention to some statements in this subject and that Canary has never been an energy policy, everything is very politicized if we consider that Mr. Alonso is a director of the Advisory Council Endesa, a company with clear interests in the nuclear sector, and a member of the executive of PP island of Tenerife, a political party that has openly shown its intentions to boost power generation by nuclear means. The nuclear dilemma requires an objective debate, independent and public to ascertain their suitability and to avoid statements such as lack of content that the waste problem is almost solved, as they are testing ways to greatly minimize these (B . Alonso dixit).

A position endorsed by Alonso himself last Friday on 18 (Benicio Alonso supports nuclear energy in the Islands. La Opinión. 03/18/2011) despite what happened in Japan and that the actual International Atomic Energy prohibits this type of plants on islands s (No nuclear plants in the Canaries. La Opinión. 21/01/2011) . In his speech he also seems to forget that uranium reserves are limited (these facilities could be operational in about 50 years) and a firm commitment to nuclear energy would imply a massive construction of reactors. Some experts put the depletion of uranium in the short term of 30 years. It may seem opportunistic

criticize power generation by nuclear means at this time but is well known that the incident occurred a few days in Japan is not the only major nuclear accident occurred in recent human history (how many have been hidden by the nuclear lobby?) and there is ample literature that calls into question the suitability of nuclear energy, at least since the 60's. The basic reasons, an overwhelming forcefulness, four and are strongly documented and justified (The Nuclear Mirage. Why nuclear energy is not the solution but part of the problem. M. Coderch and Núria Almiron. 2008) :

1. Safety not guaranteed. In a society where selfishness and envy are the drivers of competitive attitudes in turn are the seeds of conflicts that do not guarantee peace, it seems unreasonable to exclude that some day you happen to one of the thugs who thrive under the connivance of the West, threatening a nuclear power plant. The same environmental movement has repeatedly demonstrated the insecurity of these facilities. (intelligence services warned that nuclear plants are vulnerable English. The Country. 21/03/1911) .

2. Uneconomical. Is there a nuclear plant promoted exclusively by private agents? No, all have been built by state agencies or regulated monopoly environment where the risk is borne by consumers or the state itself and not by the electricity operator that exploits it.

3. nuclear proliferation risk. Has served as something the ratification of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970?

4. The dilemma waste. An unsolvable dilemma for deactivation because there is only one antidote, pass the time on a scale that exceeds all human perspective (25,000 years). This brings the dilemma to the problem of the location of waste stores. Who wants to live next of a nuclear graveyard? Any compensation to these cities these stores is a just retribution against a problem you know its potential?

The nuclear lobby, a group of very active individuals and companies through the media, with great economic power and political influence can modify the English government's nuclear strategy (The Government accepts that nuclear can run more than 40 years.'s Office. 16/02/2011) , has failed to refute any of these issues but it has been very adept at making believe the public that nuclear energy can help improve human life. His influence has been and is equally overwhelming that the arguments against them, demonstrating that hold an iron. Accidents as serious as that of Theree Mile Island (1979) and especially that of Chernobyl (1986) caused the provosts of the lobby withdrew their strategies over time, displaying other maneuvers more subtle than the headlines away from the media. The wide and deaf campaign launched since the first oil crisis in 1973, according to which nuclear energy is an option to evaluate a scenario of excessive increase in oil prices, it should be noted the credit of the nuclear industry. Since the 90's, most notably during the first decade of the century, the nuclear lobby has shown an unparalleled skill to get to combine two seemingly opposed concepts such as ecology and atomic energy through the problem that has been most discussed in recent times, the problem of climate change, last leitmotiv from the environmental movement. Clear demonstration that they have managed to move subtly between the pipes is social and political power have managed to introduce nuclear energy as an alternative solvent, always according to his speech interested in solving a problem, climate change, rooted in the misconception that the production problem is resolved (Small is beautiful. EF Schumacher. 1973) and completely disregarding the idea that in a finite world is impossible to satisfy infinite needs. What a great immorality, to try to solve a problem with an alleged environmental eminently green solution that actually hides a devilish problem. A bill will lie sovereign worldwide when least expected.

The man has proven not to learn from their mistakes and throughout history there are conspicuous examples. In the post-Fukushima new stage, which will face global society, two points seem clear:

1 - Nuclear power plants, which unfortunately continue to build (The pro-nuclear weapons in Spain watch (for now). 20.03.2011. The Country) , will have to invest more money on safety. This will mean higher costs will undermine their competitiveness.

2. A nuclear accident is totally uncontrollable, which is already anticipated in Ullrich Beck's Risk Society few months before the Chernobyl disaster. Is uncontrollable by both the lack of knowledge about how to resolve a critical situation as the melting of a central core, and by the ignorance of the effects of treatment will result in the liberation of humanity high doses of radioactivity. Surely term introduced in the food chain and reproductive animals, plants and human being. (radioactive iodine in milk, spinach and water. Public. 19/03/1911) . A vicious loop that places man as the cause of the greatest disasters as well as ultimate victim of his depraved inventions. A fair price.

Figure 1: Nuclear power plant in Antwerp. In presseurop.eu
Figure 2: Nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island. In www.energie-nuclear.net