The independent risk analysis has been officially approved. My heart is full knowing our families near San Onofre will finally get the truth about these canisters. We have held them accountable and now we must monitor the panel closely to ensure safety remains the only priority.
May 8, 2018
Final supporters
*Don't be confused when you sign this petition and it takes you to a donation page for iPetitions. We've donated to support them and encourage you to, if so inclined, but your signature has already been recorded without doing so. You can just close the window and you're done.
Thank you!
Edison (SCE) always contends that there is no need to answer the following questions about storing nuclear waste at San Onofre because the probability of having an accident is so low. With a track record of consistent failures, we find that conclusion to be totally unacceptable, (see latest failure here). The maker of the thin-walled, temporary nuclear waste canisters admits that they can crack and leak radiation, even if only from exposure to ocean moisture, if not from natural disasters, human error or terrorism.
We demand answers to these questions from trusted nuclear experts so we can plan accordingly. Edison has the advantage of telling us what we want to hear, without having to validate their overly optimistic conclusions.
By signing this petition, you are making a statement that will be delivered to the appropriate elected representatives, calling for an independent risk analysis study. We intend to establish our own panel of highly qualified experts who value safety over profit, the way we did in our shutdown efforts at San Onofre.
Without knowledge of the facts, we will continue on this path leading to the world's next nuclear disaster, instead of approaching these risks with realistic solutions. Thank you for standing with others who share these concerns.
QUESTIONS
When will the last canister, (each of which holds the equivalent of all the radiation released in the Chernobyl accident), be able to be transported to a safer location?
What options are available if radioactivity from fuel assemblies in pools or in dry cask storage begins to escape into the environment, due to any number of possibilities?
How far could a radiation event spread and what would be the impact on our health, personal property and local-national-global economies?
What kind of compensation for a nuclear accident would be available to a community that is the unwilling host for stranded nuclear waste that the Department of Energy (DOE) was supposed to begin removing in 1998?
If we could actually predict that a devastating earthquake was certain to take place three years from now, how would Edison begin to prepare for it today, knowing that the most recent seismology report from Scripps Institute anticipates an earthquake four times stronger than the plant was designed to withstand?
Updates
May 1, 2018
We just hit 250 signatures and it means everything to me knowing people care about the safety of our coast. My home sits too close to those canisters to stay quiet while Edison hides the truth.
Reached 250 supporters
April 29, 2018
April 26, 2018
I wake up thinking about these canisters sitting just feet from the water and the silence from Edison is deafening. We are working behind the scenes to secure an independent panel because we refuse to let them gamble with our homes anymore.
April 25, 2018
Seeing this kind of momentum confirms that I am not the only one living in fear of what is buried just miles from my home. We are finally forcing a conversation that Edison has spent years trying to ignore.
Reached 100 supporters
April 23, 2018
76 Comments
The level of risk SCE is willing to take of a catastrophic event which will forever alter or end the lives of millions of Californians and crush the Southern California economy is absolutely appalling. If ever there was a reason for government intervention this is it.
I spent many magical summers camping at San Onofre. The issue of dangerous spent fuel and radiation needs to be solved at any cost!
In lieu of a national depository for used nuclear waste, the temporary nuclear waster containers being stored at San Clemente need to impervious to ocean moisture and potential earthquake movement. The current canisters are untested and are not safe!
Storing nuclear fuel waste in crumbling sandstone adjacent a rising ocean has no rational basis. Thank you San Clemente Green for your persistent advocacy.
A more robust cask must be built that can be monitored constantly, A hot cell on site along with design in the cask for robotic empying and repacking of fuel rods if ther are leaks in the original cask.
NOT worth the risks!
Do not bury radioactive spent rods on the beach near San Onofre. They need to be removed from the area entirely!
Share this petition
Share this petition to help it reach more people.
Your share link
The independent risk analysis has been officially approved. My heart is full knowing our families near San Onofre will finally get the truth about these canisters. We have held them accountable and now we must monitor the panel closely to ensure safety remains the only priority.
May 8, 2018
Final supporters
*Don't be confused when you sign this petition and it takes you to a donation page for iPetitions. We've donated to support them and encourage you to, if so inclined, but your signature has already been recorded without doing so. You can just close the window and you're done.
Thank you!
Edison (SCE) always contends that there is no need to answer the following questions about storing nuclear waste at San Onofre because the probability of having an accident is so low. With a track record of consistent failures, we find that conclusion to be totally unacceptable, (see latest failure here). The maker of the thin-walled, temporary nuclear waste canisters admits that they can crack and leak radiation, even if only from exposure to ocean moisture, if not from natural disasters, human error or terrorism.
We demand answers to these questions from trusted nuclear experts so we can plan accordingly. Edison has the advantage of telling us what we want to hear, without having to validate their overly optimistic conclusions.
By signing this petition, you are making a statement that will be delivered to the appropriate elected representatives, calling for an independent risk analysis study. We intend to establish our own panel of highly qualified experts who value safety over profit, the way we did in our shutdown efforts at San Onofre.
Without knowledge of the facts, we will continue on this path leading to the world's next nuclear disaster, instead of approaching these risks with realistic solutions. Thank you for standing with others who share these concerns.
QUESTIONS
When will the last canister, (each of which holds the equivalent of all the radiation released in the Chernobyl accident), be able to be transported to a safer location?
What options are available if radioactivity from fuel assemblies in pools or in dry cask storage begins to escape into the environment, due to any number of possibilities?
How far could a radiation event spread and what would be the impact on our health, personal property and local-national-global economies?
What kind of compensation for a nuclear accident would be available to a community that is the unwilling host for stranded nuclear waste that the Department of Energy (DOE) was supposed to begin removing in 1998?
If we could actually predict that a devastating earthquake was certain to take place three years from now, how would Edison begin to prepare for it today, knowing that the most recent seismology report from Scripps Institute anticipates an earthquake four times stronger than the plant was designed to withstand?
Updates
May 1, 2018
We just hit 250 signatures and it means everything to me knowing people care about the safety of our coast. My home sits too close to those canisters to stay quiet while Edison hides the truth.
Reached 250 supporters
April 29, 2018
April 26, 2018
I wake up thinking about these canisters sitting just feet from the water and the silence from Edison is deafening. We are working behind the scenes to secure an independent panel because we refuse to let them gamble with our homes anymore.
April 25, 2018
Seeing this kind of momentum confirms that I am not the only one living in fear of what is buried just miles from my home. We are finally forcing a conversation that Edison has spent years trying to ignore.
Reached 100 supporters
April 23, 2018
76 Comments
CEO's and Directors of companies that operate or retire NPPs should be required to live next door to those sites.
The level of risk SCE is willing to take of a catastrophic event which will forever alter or end the lives of millions of Californians and crush the Southern California economy is absolutely appalling. If ever there was a reason for government intervention this is it.
I spent many magical summers camping at San Onofre. The issue of dangerous spent fuel and radiation needs to be solved at any cost!
In lieu of a national depository for used nuclear waste, the temporary nuclear waster containers being stored at San Clemente need to impervious to ocean moisture and potential earthquake movement. The current canisters are untested and are not safe!
Storing nuclear fuel waste in crumbling sandstone adjacent a rising ocean has no rational basis. Thank you San Clemente Green for your persistent advocacy.
A more robust cask must be built that can be monitored constantly, A hot cell on site along with design in the cask for robotic empying and repacking of fuel rods if ther are leaks in the original cask.
NOT worth the risks!
Do not bury radioactive spent rods on the beach near San Onofre. They need to be removed from the area entirely!
Share this petition
Share this petition to help it reach more people.
Your share link
Petitions like this
Other petitions you might want to support
Scan to share
Anyone who scans this can sign the petition.
CEO's and Directors of companies that operate or retire NPPs should be required to live next door to those sites.