Afinal...
Trump tem um lado bom?
pois sim, de facto tudo para produzir mais, mais, mais e talvez acelerar....
Almaraz e otras más!!!!
a procissão ainda não saíu...
https://www.energias-renovable
Se houver verdadeira pressão....
e:
só o governo português.... nem pio....
E a época dos fogos, grandes mesmo, irá até Novembro
E ora também os sindicatos querem o fecho!
E esta não é a primeira central que o reclama!
Esta a democracia que nos roubam...
Os capitais financeiros e especulativos, têm pavor à democracia:
aquela que é mais que a sua representação através de couisaas chamadas partidos.
Seria bom... mas eles não ganham com isso
Sobre o Padre Fontes
Hoje alguém chamou a minha atenção para este Homem grande que devemos homenagear e honrar:
estive com ele em três ou quatro momentos e já lhe fiz saber do meu grande apreço. Este artigo é um bom recuerdo e presente.
Última hora
Radiation harms. There is no safe level of exposure—and now the federal government is moving to weaken the standards meant to protect us.
President Trump’s Executive Orders are pushing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to weaken radiation protections as part of an effort to accelerate the construction of more nuclear reactors, nuclear-powered data centers, and the expansion of the nuclear weapons complex. These changes could expose people and communities to dramatically more radiation while disregarding decades of evidence about the health risks of even low-dose exposure.
· No exemptions for radiation exposure. Nuclear licensees must be required to track and count all radiation doses and radioactive emissions, with no minimum threshold. Any proposal allowing 25 millirem per year—or any millirem or microrem level—before exposures begin to “count” would effectively permit additional radiation exposure to go untracked. That could mean higher worker doses and increased radioactive releases into our air, water, and sewage, while making it harder to understand the true health impacts of cumulative, low-dose radiation exposure. If radiation is released and people are exposed, it should be tracked and reported and kept to a minimum.
· If new nuclear reactors are as safe and clean as the industry claims, why do our existing health and safety protections need to be weakened to build them? The rush to expand nuclear power should not come at the expense of safeguards designed to protect workers, communities, and the public. If nuclear expansion requires weaker radiation standards to move forward, that should raise serious questions—not justify lowering the bar. Don’t weaken the regulations.
· We MUST retain the goal of keeping exposures to radiation As Low As Reasonably Achievable.
This is not an abstract regulatory debate. It is about how much radiation the government considers acceptable for you, your family, and your community to be exposed to.
Weakening already inadequate radiation standards could double or more allowable exposure—and the resulting cancer risk— And that risk is not distributed equally. Women, children, older adults, workers, and communities living near nuclear facilities face greater risks.
The science is clear that radiation’s harms extend far beyond cancer. Radiation causes immune dysfunction and heart and cardiovascular disease. It could cause infertility, and disruption of pregnancy. In 2021, after a six-year review, the NRC itself rejected the industry proposal to do away with the Linear NoThreshold model. NRC should rely on that decision, not weaken it.
Yet instead of strengthening protections, the federal government is trying to move in the opposite direction.
We know what happens when regulators underestimate radiation risk. Billions of dollars in government compensation have already been paid to people harmed by radiation exposure—including people whose exposures occurred below legal levels at the time. We must not repeat those mistakes to make nuclear expansion dirtier and cheaper.
If radiation standards are weakened while nuclear facilities proliferate, more radioactive materials will be produced, transported, processed, stored, and released into our environment. Once radioactive contamination is released, we cannot simply take it back.
This is a moment when we have to act. Regulators and lawmakers need to hear that public health protections are not an inconvenience to be eliminated in the rush to build more nuclear facilities.
Nuclear Information & Resource Service is fighting to defend science-based radiation protections and ensure that the health of our communities comes before the nuclear industry’s expansion plans.
Artigo imprescindível
Sobre energia e território e paisagem e biodiversidade e tudo. Maria Ramalho, que já aqui mencionei, no dia 18 de Abril, nesse dia estive na Contenda, em recuperação, e na Tomina que continua a ser degradada, e falei da nossa ancestralidade, os nossos egrégios avôs, pretos africanos e na ausência de fronteiras para a Humanidade, pois no dia 18 no Público,aqui interdito de frequentar, a Maria Ramalho tem um artigo de excelência, ainda sobre o Mapa Negro.
Recomendo, quem puder.
As melhores (piores mesmo!) notícias do clima
Aqui:
e irão, Irão mesmo, piorar