Without fixing the problem first, SC Edison admits that the reactor could not run safely for more than 11 months at 100%; but says it can run at 70% power for 5 months. If this proposed experiment fails, we won't know until radiation releases from containment out into the environment again. This time, a cascading event with thousands of already weakened tubes could rupture.There is no way to anticipate a rupture when it is under power, and if that happens,it will be too late. Southern California could become a vast wasteland.
Edison's propositionis completely unacceptable!
There have been no blackouts for the 15 months since it was shut down for leaking radiation.Grid operators say we will have surplus energy without San Onofre on line.
After signing, you will end up on a page asking for a donation to I-Petitions, (not to our cause). That is great if you choose to do so, but we want you to understand that this is entirely optional. You can close the window at that point and you will still be entered on the petition without making a donation.
Please LIKE us on Facebook too.
I worked at San Onofre in the 90's. Safety was a joke. Although there were highly qualified and caring people that worked there, there were also individuals that had obviously risen to the peak of their incompetence. Edison and SDGE managed the site entirely around profits, and safety was only important when it would directly and demonstrably affect the bottom line through bad press or fines from the NRC. My experience at SONGS converted me from believing in nuclear energy to being steadfastly against it, especially as we were privy to events that took place at other facilities that rarely hit the press. Bottom line, this facility is unnecessary and unsafe, and letting Edison tinker with a dangerous and unstable system at the risk of endangering the lives of millions of Southern California residents is reckless.
Sean4 months ago
Deane Isaacs, South Africa7 months ago
Johannes GltizkyGermany10 months ago
There are no highlights yet.