SolarPeace: UN-Resolution «Climate Change by Radioactivity» .

Author: Wolfgang Rehfus Date: 7.8.2009 Deutsche Version	● The «Climate Change by Radioactivity» ● Order of magnitude ● Effects ● Global and local solution
Annexes: 1.) 27.1.2011 2.) 18.3.2011 3.) 20.4.2011 4.) 31.5. bis 9.8.2011 5.) 1.9.20011	Annexes: 1. Core question and core problem -The end of the nuclear debate 2. JAPAN nuclear catastrophe: UN Resolution on Security and energy needed urgently! 3. Austria calls for "Rethinking international" with action plan "Get out of nuclear" 4. Global energy transition accelerated by Fukushima (Press) 5. Survey shows: Swiss nuclear power plants don't not know what they are doing! PS ...
Climate Change	Top
Nuclear power plants cause a climate change too. Too much CO2 leads to climate collapse, a radioactive contaminated climate doesn't allow life.	The facts are obvious, the interpretations compelling. «Climate Change by CO2» can not be denied any more. It produces the effects of climate warming caused by the release of greenhouse gases. Consistent action will hopefully reduce these greenhouse gases in time. In contrast «Climate Change by Radioactivity» designates a climate change, which is caused through artificially produced radioactivity. Both can reach terrible extents and one may not be used to discount the other. But while the whole world discusses «Climate Change by CO2», the nuclear industry and supporting organisations promote the alleged “climate friendly, CO2-free” nuclear energy as a solution to climate change. However it is not important whether nuclear energy is CO2-free or not. Nuclear power plants produce large quantities of radioactivity and cause by themselves a dangerous «Climate Change by Radioactivity», because in a climate contaminated by radioactivity no life is possible.¹⁾	¹⁾ cf. Öl & Gas or Uranium? ... CO2 or Radioactivity? ... Renewable Energies? (German), SolarPeace.ch, 12.2.2007 cf. «Natural Power – Lifestyle and Necessity», SolarPeace.ch, 2.5.2008 cf. The Catastrophe of Fukushima, Video speech by the physician, author and speaker Dr Helen Caldicott, 15.5.2011 cf. Internal Radioactive Emitters – Invisible, Tasteless, and Odorless, Dr Helen Caldicott, 14.7.2011 cf. Retten Atomkraftwerke das Weltklima?, Dr. Franz Alt, 15.6.2008; and Atomenergie kann das Weltklima nicht retten, GLOBAL2000, 14.04.2006 cf. Energiewende oder der Untergang des Abendlandes, Hans Kronberger, 19.7.2009 cf. Warning: Oil supplies are running out fast; Catastrophic shortfalls threaten economic recovery, says world's top energy economist, International Energy Agency (IEA), 3.8.2009
Order of magnitude	Top
Prof. Dr. Richard L. Garwin (nuclear physicist) ^{3), 4)} The «Climate Change by Radioactivity» within the nuclear reactors operated world-wide corresponds to radioactivity in an order of magnitude equivalent to one Million Hiroshima nuclear bombs (the production of two years). Taking into account that the nuclear power plants are operated since decades, this produced «Climate Change by Radioactivity» adds up to the equivalent of a multiple of one Million Hiroshima nuclear bombs.	The nuclear energy produced in a nuclear power plant is strictly speaking a by-product, since in the reactor only 0.1% of the fuel is converted into energy, thus 99.9% remains as radioactive waste.²⁾ The produced radioactivity can be set free by technical or human failure, terrorist attacks, natural catastrophes or gradually in so-called “save storage locations” due to geological changes and/or by the run of the time. In addition there is the risk of abuse: «The spent fuel from nuclear plants contains enough plutonium to fabricate about 30 nuclear weapons from a single year of operation of each power reactor.» Therefore each nuclear power plant can be abused in order to enable the production of nuclear weapons.³⁾ Already in April 2001 the US nuclear physicist Richard L. Garwin explained the quantity of radioactivity in a nuclear power plant at the Nuclear Control Institute in Washington: «Since a reactor in one day produces as much radioactivity as a 50-kt nuclear explosion, and fuel in a reactor has typically been there for an average of two years, a typical nuclear reactor has in its core the long-lived radioisotopes from 30 megatons of fission.» ⁴⁾ The Hiroshima nuclear bomb corresponded to a 12.5 kt nuclear explosion.⁵⁾ Thus, an average nuclear power plant produces a daily quantity of radioactivity equivalent to four Hiroshima nuclear bombs, which each year adds up to radioactivity in the order of magnitude of 1460 Hiroshima nuclear bombs. In a nuclear reactor even radioactivity exists in the order of magnitude of 2920 Hiroshima nuclear bombs (the production of two years). The five Swiss nuclear power plants alone contain radioactivity in an order of magnitude of approximately 10’000 Hiroshima nuclear bombs! The roughly 440 nuclear power plants world-wide in operation for decades, contain radioactivity in an order of magnitude of *about one million Hiroshima nuclear bombs* (the production of two years). But they generate only 3.3% of the global energy supply. Still some countries are building additional nuclear power plants.⁶⁾	²⁾ cf. Nuclear power plants and iodine tablets - risks and side effects (German), SolarPeace.ch, 12.11.2004 cf. Wasting the Future - Radioactive waste , David Sweeney, energyscience.org.au, Nov 2006 cf. "Nightmare Nuclear Waste", DECHETS LE CAUCHEMAR DU NUCLEAIRE, Arte TV, Eric Guéret et Laure Noualhat, 13.10.2009 ³⁾ cf. «The spent fuel from nuclear plants contains enough plutonium to fabricate about 30 nuclear weapons from a single year of operation of each power reactor.», Prof. Dr. Richard L. Garwin (nuclear physicist), «The Future of Nuclear Energy,», Chicago, 25./26.9.2008 (Copy ) cf. „AKW-Exporte sind Wahnsinn“ (Exports of nuclear power plants are madness), Frankfurter Rundschau, 9.8.2010 ⁴⁾ cf. «Can the World Do Without Nuclear Power? Can the World Live With Nuclear Power?», Prof. Dr. Richard L. Garwin (nuclear physicist), Nuclear Control Institute, 9.4.2001 (cf. copy page 5 ) ⁵⁾ cf. Hiroshima nuclear bomb à 12.5 kt (Copy ), International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW, Peace Nobel Price 1985, www.facts-on-nuclear-energy.info) ⁶⁾ cf. Study: Nuclear energy on downward trend worldwide, German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, 30.08.2009 cf. 'Only 3,3% of the energy consumed world-wide is produced in the 440 nuclear power plants', International Energy Agency, Paris, IEA, 01.07.2005; cf. also Die Träume der Atomlobby, Dr. Franz Alt, 2004 cf. also Obama and Nobel Prize Laureates seek Nuclear-Ban, SolarPeace.ch, 20.1.2009
Effects	Top
«What do you prefer: To save energy and use solar power, resulting in fewer cancer patients as well as genetic disorders, or to use nuclear power?» (Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Karl Bechert, nuclear physicist) ⁷⁾ «The quantity of radioactivity, which is present in a reactor, is larger than the quantity of radioactivity spread by a nuclear bomb - significantly larger.» (Prof. Dr. C. F. von Weizsäcker, nuclear physicist) ⁷⁾	This artificially produced radioactivity - this «Climate Change by Radioactivity» – radiates from the human perspective for eternal times and cannot be destroyed. Already for a long time this «Climate Change by Radioactivity» has developed for a long time; and must urgently be brought to the forefront of the international agenda and gain global awareness with the same priority as «Climate Change by CO2». Artificially produced radioactivity is probably the most hostile climate of all. The adverse health effects and the difference between artificially produced and naturally occurring radioactivity are comprehensibly summarised in the «Medical memorandum for the industrial use of nuclear energy» by Dr. med. Max Otto Bruker.⁷⁾ The research work of Dr. Rosalie Bertell (alternative Nobel Prize 1986) and the study «ECRR 2003 - Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk» (Brussels 2003) analyse the effects of radioactive low dose radiation during normal operation of nuclear power plants. ⁸⁾ And in the recently published article «Murderous Uranium» the journalist and author Claus Biegert describes the fate of many thousand humans in the contaminated uranium extraction areas.⁹⁾ With a disaster in the context of «Climate Change by CO2», the situation can often be helped directly thereafter. Humans can go there and save what can be saved and begin reconstruction, e.g. as with the hurricane «Katrina» in New Orleans. With a disaster in the context of «Climate Change by Radioactivity» this is not possible, as the area is no longer habitable for indefinite times. If in New Orleans an accident would have set free the radioactivity from a nuclear power plant due to technical-human failure or due to the consequences of the hurricane «Katrina», then not even a thought for reconstruction would exist. US nuclear physicist Richard L. Garwin summarises: «Reactor accidents... too horrible to think about.»¹⁰⁾ As of today there exist no safe storage locations for nuclear waste, nor will that ever be the case, since the legislators in different countries require a security guarantee of one million years for final nuclear waste disposal (cf. USA and Germany). One does not have to be an engineer, in order to recognise that such a security guarantee is never possible and would require not calculable, practically infinite costs.¹¹⁾ Whoever promotes nuclear energy as sustainable, clean & green, or as a solution to climate change, falsely abuses the attributes of renewable energies and suppresses the fact that radioactivity is produced in nuclear power plants. On a legal level also questions of international law and human rights arise apart from the observance of constitutional principles for the preservation of the quality of life as well as the means of livelihood.¹²⁾	⁷⁾ cf. "Medical memorandum for the industrial use of nuclear energy" (German), Dr. med. Max Otto Bruker u.a. cf. also Radiation and Health , Dr. Bill Williams, energyscience.org.au, Nov 2006 cf. also Nuclear power plants and iodine tablets - risks and side effects (German), SolarPeace.ch, 12.11.2004 cf. also Atomenergie und Gesundheit, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW, Peace Nobel Price 1985, www.facts-on-nuclear-energy.info) ⁸⁾ cf. "The play down of radioactive low dosis radiation" (German), Dr. Rosalie Bertell, USA cf. ECRR 2003 - Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, Brussels 2003 ⁹⁾ cf. "Mörderisches Uran", Claus Biegert, natur+kosmos, Heft 06/2009; cf. also the summary "Verheerender Uranabbau", Sonnenseite.com, Clean Energy Project, 13.07.2009 cf. Uranium Mining: Australia and Globally , Dr. Gavin M. Mudd, energyscience.org.au, Nov 2006 ¹⁰⁾ cf. «Can the World Do Without Nuclear Power? Can the World Live With Nuclear Power?», Prof. Dr. Richard L. Garwin (nuclear physicist), Nuclear Control Institute, 9.4.2001 (cf. copy page 6 ) ¹¹⁾ cf. USA: NRC adopts 1 million year rule for Yucca Mountain, Reuters, 17.2.2009 cf. Security requirements for the final storage of radioactive waste, Ministry of Environment Germany, 15.07.2009 cf. Nuclear Expensive ($3.40/kWh) and Uninsurable, Sonnenseite.com 2011 ¹²⁾ cf. «UN Declaration of Human Rights should be applied to the question of avoidable radiation exposures», ECRR 2003 - Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, Brussels 2003 cf. Swiss local government in Kilchberg informs public about radioactivity & solution Natural Power (German), SolarPeace.ch, 25.11.2008
Solution	Top
UN-Resolution «Climate Change by Radioactivity»	The «Climate Change by Radioactivity» should be addressed immediately by the General Assembly of the United Nations.¹³⁾ The basis of an effective global solution could be a UN-Resolution, which obligates the governments: (a) to inform their population about the «Climate Change by Radioactivity»; (b) to guarantee that the purchase of Natural Power (electricity generated from renewable energies) will not cause extra costs; (c) to assure that suitable economic conditions for investments in renewable energies are guaranteed on a long-term basis; (d) to renounce bringing new nuclear power plants into operation; (e) to support a world-wide prohibition of marketing and building new nuclear power plants; (f) to shut down existing nuclear power plants as soon as possible; as well as (g) to store and permanently supervise the radioactive wastes already existing as securely as possible.	¹³⁾ cf. United Nations (UN) cf. Obama and Nobel Prize Laureates seek Nuclear-Ban, SolarPeace.ch, 20.1.2009 cf. United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009, 7.-18.12.2009, Copenhagen cf. also Copenhagen Climate Council, U.N. Climate Change Conference, Copenhagen 2009 cf. Don’t nuke the climate !, over 270 organizations all over the world, coordinated by "Sortir du nucléaire". 2009.
! Order at your electricity supplier a natural power / green energy, which also includes a portion of solar power...	The population can support this global solution actively, if each household orders 100% Natural Power from renewable energies (sun, wind, water, biomass, geothermal) from its electricity supplier. A rising demand for Natural Power will lead to the necessary investments for building-up the required supply of Natural Power. Each order of Natural Power supports the build-up of a power supply with 100% renewable energy and is future-oriented climate protection.¹⁴⁾ Just as it is common knowledge today that for example cars, oil heatings and coal-fired power stations cause «Climate Change by CO2», we must become conscious that all electrical devices (i.e. world-wide millions of light and energy-saving lamps, electric irons and efficient refrigerators, computers and telephones), which are not yet operated with 100% Natural Power, cause «Climate Change by Radioactivity» by using nuclear power. Both, «Climate Change by Radioactivity» and «Climate Change by CO2», must be solved all-out and be terminated as far as possible. The main difference is that nuclear energy and the thereby artificially produced radioactivity can and must be terminated completely or by 100%. On the other hand the consumption of fossil energies only has to be (and can be) replaced partially, i.e. up to 80%, by renewable energies, in order to re-establish the natural balance of greenhouse gases. Then again CO2 can be sufficiently absorbed and converted into biomass through natural processes of plants (i.e. photosynthesis).	¹⁴⁾ cf. «Natural Power – Lifestyle and Necessity», SolarPeace.ch, 2.5.2008 cf. Suppliers of Natual Power (electricity from renewable energies), SolarPeace.ch e.g.: EKZ (Swiss Canton Zürich): Naturstrom Azur cf. "Renewable Energy instead of Nuclear Energy", Dr. Franz Alt, 2007 cf. 'Versorgungssicherheit: Stromlücke entpuppt sich als Stromlüge', DUH-Bundesgeschäftsführer Baake, 13.10.2009 ¹⁵⁾ cf. Global Call To Action, «State of the World Forum», United States, 2009 cf. U.S. House Committee OKs Climate Emissions Cuts: 83% by 2050, ENS, 22.5.2009 cf. also Australia: Renewable Energy Target 20% by 2020, Clean Energy Council, 25.08.2009
	Note on the Iran nuclear issue: The proposed UN resolution is also the basis for a peaceful solution to the nuclear conflict with Iran. Only through a renunciation of the applicable international law for the so-called "peaceful use of nuclear energy" it is democratic, peaceful and constitutionally possible to avoid the construction of nuclear installations and their military abuse to build nuclear weapons cause.¹⁶⁾	¹⁶⁾ cf. Energiewende als Friedenspolitik - Für eine kriegspräventive dezentrale Energiewirtschaft, IPPNW, 28.3.2011 cf. „AKW-Exporte sind Wahnsinn“, Frankfurter Rundschau, 9.8.2010 cf. Iranisches Atom-Virus gefährlicher als Vogelgrippe - aber heilbar, SolarPeace.ch, 7.4.2006; and Ursächliche Lösung im Atom-Konflikt Iran - oder Krieg um Öl?, SolarPeace.ch, 11.8.2005 and Glaubhafte Friedenspolitik erfordert Verzicht auf Atomenergie!, SolarPeace.ch, 24.5.2005
Annex 1	Top
Nuclear power plants produce radioactive ... ... much radioactivity! Once we are aware of these facts, it should be possible to stop the nuclear debate.	Core question and core problem The end of the nuclear debate²⁰⁾ 27.1.2011 The publications and discussions on the voting regarding the nuclear power plant Mühleberg show that hardening of attitudes and, above all, a lack of information lead to no result (e.g. SF Rundschau on 26.1.2011 "Struggle for nuclear power - debate..."). The nuclear debate should be ended. This requires to ask the core question and to identify the core problem: What does a nuclear power plant produce? 1.) Radioactivity 2.) Electricity Already in April 2001, the U.S. nuclear physicists Richard L. Garwin explained the amount of radioactivity in a nuclear power plant at the Nuclear Control Institute in Washington: «Since a reactor in one day produces as much radioactivity as a 50-kt nuclear explosion, and fuel in a reactor has typically been there for an average of two years, a typical nuclear reactor has in its core the long-lived radioisotopes from 30 megatons of fission.»²¹⁾ The Hiroshima nuclear bomb represented a 12.5 kt nuclear explosion.²¹⁾ Thus, an average nuclear power plant produces a daily quantity of radioactivity equivalent to four Hiroshima nuclear bombs, which each year adds up to radioactivity in the order of magnitude of 1460 Hiroshima nuclear bombs. In a nuclear reactor even radioactivity exists in the order of magnitude of 2920 Hiroshima nuclear bombs (the production of two years). The five Swiss nuclear power plants alone contain radioactivity in an order of magnitude of approximately 10’000 Hiroshima nuclear bombs! US nuclear physicist Richard L. Garwin summarises: «Reactor accidents... too horrible to think about.»²¹⁾ Given these facts, the produced electricity is irrelevant and nuclear power as a matter of principle is not an option. Once we are aware of these facts, it should be possible to stop the nuclear debate. Only then we will be able to objectively and constructively discuss the best solution for a future-oriented supply of energy and to implement it without further delay.²²⁾	²⁰⁾ Diese Mitteilung zum Kernproblem der Atomenergie wurde vor und nach der Atomabstimmung im Kanton Bern (13.2.2011) an die wichtigsten Medien verschickt. Die Korrespondenz mit der Berner Zeitung (27.1. bis 10.2.2011) , und die Antworten von SF Arena und SF Rundschau (27.1. bis 22.2.2011) zeigen den ausweichenden Umgang mit dem Kernproblem der Atomenergie vor der Abstimmung. Veröffentlichungen nach der Abstimmung: “Beendet die Atomdiskussion”, Leserbrief Blog zur Abstimmung über Mühleberg II, Berner Zeitung, 17.2.2011 "10000 Hiroshima-Atombomben" , Tagesanzeiger, 21.2.2011 ²¹⁾ cf. «Can the World Do Without Nuclear Power? Can the World Live With Nuclear Power?», Prof. Dr. Richard L. Garwin (nuclear physicist), Nuclear Control Institute, 9.4.2001 (cf. copy page 5 and cf. copy page 6 ) cf. Hiroshima Atombombe à 12.5 kt (Kopie ), Internationale Ärzte für die Verhütung des Atomkrieges, Ärzte in sozialer Verantwortung e.V. IPPNW (Friedensnobelpreis 1985, cf. also www.facts-on-nuclear-energy.info and das IPPNW Faltblatt zur Atomenerie: Glaubst du das wirklich? ) ²²⁾ cf. «Natural Power – Lifestyle and Necessity», SolarPeace.ch, 2.5.2008
	The core problem «radioactivity» is the cause of other problems: The radioactivity produced at nuclear power plants is the cause of other problems of nuclear energy. These include the costs in case of damage and the lack of insurability, the true cost of nuclear power, the terrorism risks, the nuclear waste and the medical effects of nuclear power plants.²³⁾	²³⁾ vgl. Atomkraftwerke und Jod-Tabletten: "Risiken und Nebenwirkungen ...", SolarPeace.ch, 12.11.2004, und dort die «Packungsbeilage für Atomkraftwerke und Atomstrom...» , SolarPeace.ch, 12.11.2004
Annex 2	Top
Not only in Japan, the «Climate Change by Radioactivity» is produced for a long time, but in Fukushima it is released in these days...	JAPAN nuclear catastrophe: UN Resolution on Security and energy needed urgently! 18.3.2011 Print version for reading and passing on (German)... (3 pages) The world is shocked. Our sympathy, our sorrow and our hope are directed to the population and the authorities in Japan.³⁰⁾ My deep personal sympathy goes in particular to the Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, who must now constantly inform the public about the nuclear disaster on TV. As well as 100 other political decision makers in over 30 countries the Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan in September 2009 received a registered letter with the SolarPeace Press Release, "Climate Change by Radioactivity" (Naoto Kan was then Deputy Prime Minister & Minister of State).³¹⁾ Corresponding letters were sent simultaneously to the then Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and the then Minister of Foreign Affairs Katsuya Okada, Minister of the Environment Sakihito Ozawa and Minister of Education Tatsuo Kawabata. Not only in Japan, the «Climate Change by Radioactivity» is produced for a long time, but in Fukushima he is released in these days... Read the full press release with all the sources here (German)...	³⁰⁾ cf. The Catastrophe of Fukushima, Video speech by the physician, author and speaker Dr Helen Caldicott, 15.5.2011 cf. Internal Radioactive Emitters – Invisible, Tasteless, and Odorless, Dr Helen Caldicott, 14.7.2011 cf. Radioactive contamination in Fukushima: "Food is nuclear waste", video of a ZDF-Frontal21 broadcast in Japan, Fukushima Central Television, 28.8.2011; cf. the original broadcast: The consequences of Fukushima, ZDF, 9.8.2011 cf. Contaminated seafood and government cover-up at Fukushima, Greenpeace, 11.08.2011 cf. Schäden der Atomkatastrophe Fukushima bereits bei 90 bis 100 Milliarden Euro, Sonnenseite.com, 8.8.2011 cf. Wasser spritzen unter Lebensgefahr: Vier Reaktorblöcke weiter ausser Kontrolle, Neue Züricher Zeitung, 17.3.2011 cf. 10vor10 'Ohnmacht in Japan', Schweizer Fernsehen, 16.3.2011 cf. Tickende Zeitbombe Fukushima, FAZ, 13.3.2011 vgl. Japan-Dossier: Notstand in Japan, Sonnenseite.com, 11.3.2011 bis...; und auch die Chronologie der Katastrophe in Japan, Tagesanzeiger, 11.3.2011 bis... ³¹⁾ cf. SolarPeace letter to Prime Minister Naoto Kan with press release «Climate Change by Radioactivity» (the Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan was then Deputy Prime Minister & Minister of State), SolarPeace, 23.9.2009
Annex 3	Top
«We have clear ideas about how the energy system of the future works: Europe must get out of nuclear. We need more renewables and energy efficiency.» Minister of the Environment Niki Berlakovich ⁴¹⁾ ! Order at your electricity supplier a natural power / green energy, which also includes a portion of solar power...	Austria calls for "Rethinking international" with action plan "Get out of nuclear" 20.4.2011 An important first step towards a binding «UN Resolution on Security and Energy», was initiated by the Austrian Federal Government. The Austrian Federal Government decided on 22.3.2011 the Action Plan «International rethinking of nuclear power to renewable energy and energy efficiency».⁴⁰⁾ The significance of this decision and the goal of a binding «UN Resolution on Security and Energy» is shown, for example in the U.S., where a new type of reactor is nearing approval.⁴¹⁾ The contents of the Action Plan was summarized by the Federal Chancellery of Austria towards SolarPeace.ch:⁴²⁾ «The disaster in Japan demonstrated in a dramatic and tragic way that this [nuclear energy] is neither a sustainable form of energy supply nor is it a viable option for climate protection. Against this background, on 22.3.2011 the Austrian Federal Government adopted the Action Plan "International rethinking of nuclear power to renewable energy and energy efficiency". It explains that the federal government campaigns against the construction of new nuclear power plants and for the strengthening of nuclear safety and the elimination of subsidies and other benefits for the nuclear industry. It will pursue these goals in all relevant bodies also within the framework of the United Nations. The Lord Chancellor has argued this position at the European Council in late March 2011 and led for that purpose intense discussions with the other Heads of State and Governments. To ensure in the meantime the highest safety standards of nuclear facilities, the European Commission will make proposals on the scope and nature of security checks (stress tests), wich are performed subsequently by independent national authorities. The results will be discussed later this year by the European Council and communicated to the public.»⁴²⁾	⁴⁰⁾ cf. Aktionsplan: "Internationales Umdenken von der Kernenergie hin zu erneuerbarer Energie und Energieeffizienz" , Antrag vom Bundeskanzleramt der Republik Österreich, 22.3.2011, and Aktionsplan "Raus aus Atom" beschlossen, Österreichische Bundesregierung, Lebensministerium, 22.3.2011 cf. Weltweiter Atomausstieg. Wir beginnen hier und jetzt!, Unterschriftensammlung mit Ziel einer europäischen Volksabstimmung zum Atomausstieg, GLOBAL 2000 / Friends of the Earth Austria cf. also Bündnis von "Alternativen Nobelpreisträgern" fordert weltweiten Atomausstieg, Right Livelihood Award Foundation, Stiftung World Future Council, 29.3.2011 cf. also Klage gegen Schweizer AKW Mühleberg, ORF.at, 17.05.2011, and Land Vorarlberg beharrt auf Klage gegen Schweiz, ORF.at, 25.05.2011 ⁴¹⁾ cf. Warnings About a New Nuclear Reactor, World Media Foundation, Living on Earth, 15.4.2011 (mit Kommentaren von SolarPeace.ch) ⁴²⁾ cf. Antwort der Österreichischen Regierung zur SolarPeace-Pressemitteilung «UN-Resolution für Sicherheit und Energie dringend notwendig!» , Bundeskanzleramt Österreich, 15.4.2011 cf. auch Antwort der Österreichischen Regierung zur SolarPeace-Pressemitteilung «Klimawandel durch Radioaktivität» , Bundeskanzleramt Österreich, 7.10.2009
Annex 4	Top
Press comments on the global energy transition...	Global energy transition: Fukushima accelerates Global energy transition ● Nagasaki mayor calls for shift away from nuclear energy, Japan Today, 9.8.2011 ● "Fukushima markiert den Anfang vom globalen Ausstieg aus der Atomkraft" (Deutschland, Schweiz, Italien, Japan), Greenpeace, 17.7.2011 ● Japan plant Atomausstieg, NZZ, 13.7.2011 und Japan: Kein weiterer Ausbau der Nuklearenergie, EU Umweltbüro, 12.5.2011 ● Japan’s Richest Man Takes on Atomic Future With Solar Plans, Bloomberg, 15.6.2011; Solarrevolution auf Japanisch, Solarmedia, 16.6.2011 ● Sweden: AKW-Neubau aufgekündigt, taz, 7.7.2011 ● UK: AKWs zu teuer, taz, 6.7.2011 ● Italy: Atomausstieg per Volksentscheid, Citizen Times, 12.6.2011 und Italien lehnt AKW ab: Positive Reaktionen, DiePresse.com, 13.06.2011 ● Schwitzerland: Bundesrat beschliesst Atomausstieg, admin.ch, 25.05.2011; Grundsatzentscheid für den Atomausstieg, NZZ, 26.5.2011; Das unerwartet deutliche JA zum Atomausstieg, NZZ, 8.6.2011 ● Nuclear exit in Germany - Die notwendige Wende, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 31.5.2011
Annex 5	Top
Swiss nuclear power plant locations © Atominfomedia, 31.5.2011 (So blöfft die Atomwirtschaft) © moritzleuenberger.net	Survey shows: Swiss nuclear power plants don't not know what they are doing! How much radioactivity do the Swiss nuclear power plants produce? 1.9.2011 Print version for reading and passing on ... (2 pages) Following the nuclear disaster in Fukushima/Japan all Swiss nuclear power plants and the ENSI were asked for information about the daily amount of radioactivity produced and the total existent radioactivity levels in each of the respective nuclear power plants. At the same time the nuclear power plants and the ENSI were asked to disclose these levels of radioactivity in comparison with the radioactivity released by the Hiroshima nuclear bomb. The resulting correspondence (see sources) is impressive. Read... Despite registered letters, the nuclear power plant Leibstadt did not reply to the first request. The response from the nuclear power plants Beznau (AXPO), Mühleberg (BKW) and Gösgen (ALPIQ) were evasive and failed to address the questions. They only referred to internet sites and publications by the Federal Office for Energy (BFE), the Federal Office of Public Health (BAG), the National Emergency Operations Centre (NAZ) and the Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate (ENSI). All nuclear power plants were contacted again. Read... The Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate (ENSI) is the "Federal regulatory authority for nuclear safety of the Swiss nuclear power plants". When asked the same questions about radioactivity in the nuclear power plants, the ENSI replied, that... Read the full press release with all the sources here ...	© Atominfomedia, 15.11.2011 (Fukushima-Reaktoren in Europa) and 3.7.2011 (Mühleberg schon lange unsicher) © Atominfomedia, 27.7.2011 (CH-AKW als Anschlagziel)
PS ...	Top
Please tell others ...	P.S. About 3000 persons, politicians and decision makers world-wide receive the SolarPeace-Information. All emails and letters are created with so-called 'Natural Power', clean electricity generated with 100% renewable energies (sun, water, wind, biomass or geothermal). Increasing demand creates investments and the necessary supply. Each order for 'Natural Power' supports the build-up of a future-oriented energy supply and is an effective contribution to climate protection. Please pass these information over to other interested persons. Cordial thanks!	PDF-print versions for passing on ... UN-Resolution «Climate Change by Radioactivity» Survey shows: Swiss nuclear power plants don't not know what they do! Natural Power – Lifestyle and Necessity Iranian nuclear virus more dangerously than bird flu - however cureable... Causal solution for the iranian nuclear conflict - or war for oil? (German) Showcase: "U.S. Mission Solar Energy Project" (German) SolarPeace-Flyer