Re: [CPEO-MEF] Bechtel's Nuclear Nightmares

[loc@icx.net]

--

I'm amazed that CPEO posted a link to this obviously biased anti-Bechtel
and anti-nuclear article.  It's full of misinformation and unsupportable
leaps of logic, and relies heavily on quotes from anti-nuclear activists
to make its points, while ignoring technical reality.

One of many untrue statements: "...dozens of communities living downwind
from nuclear plants that are seeing alarming increases in cancer." The
studies that purport to show this have been scientifically discredited
because the author went looking for communities near nuclear plants with
increases of cancer and discarded those with decreases in cancer (about
half of the total, duh).

By the way, why blame Bechtel for San Ononfre's management decisions?
The plant was built to meet standards at the time and NRC licensed it
(and their standards are incredibly strict).  Unit 1 can generate only
about a third of the energy of the two other units at the site, so
likely it wasn't cost effective to do the modifications.

As far as disposing of the reactor, a more journalistically ethical
article discusses the problems at
<http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/electric/2003/san_onofre.htm>.

The CorpWatch article also cites DOE criticisms of Bechtel.  These are
no worse than criticisms of other DOE contractors, past and present. At
Oak Ridge, Bechtel Jacobs Company is making good progress on cleaning up
sites that have languished for decades.  Are they perfect?  No.  But
then neither is any other major government contractor.  There are lots
of competent technical people doing good work for Bechtel and other
major government contractors.

What I object to is ANY major firm being handed a huge government
contract without going through an open competitive bid process.  That is
the policy concern that should be addressed with Bechtel's (and
Halliburton's) recent contracts for work in Iraq.

My opinions only,

Susan Gawarecki
--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~