submitted to the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag at https: / / epetitionen.bundestag.de 30 July 2009.
The publication was rejected for unspecified reasons clarified by the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag.
See also my post " ePetitionen be censored? "
wording of the petition / What you want to reach specific with your petition?
Which is the decision or action or matter you want to complain
? (Brief description of the object of your petition)
The German Bundestag should adapt the following points of nuclear law:
1.Endlagerung is to make recoverable
2.Endlagerung only by the federal government
3.Endlagerkosten due on importing / promotion
4.Gebühr covers actual costs
5.Verantwortliche and users are personally responsible.
6.Gewährleistung safe removal
7.Ausfuhrverbot radioactive material
8.Sicherheit of the facilities from disasters and terrorist attacks
9.Keine radioactive emissions.
10.Angemessene insurance
11.Verjährung
Please explain your petition!
The law must be adapted to the experience with radiant waste. deal
with radioactivity, the state economically and responsibly:
1.The storage of nuclear waste has to be such that the stored products can always be relocated.
The term disposal means the safe storage of radioactive material to decay of radioactivity. Practice shows that this is not likely to happen without rearrangement of the substances. All known deposits have been uncertain for some time.
2.The storage of nuclear waste must be made by the federal authority.
exception is a short storage (Voschlag: 3 months).
Economic interests must not jeopardize safety.
3.For each imported radioactive material is on import for final disposal fee to pay. Similarly, for material that is potentially contaminated.
The costs are clearly and directly paid / less incentive for illegal disposed of.
4.Zur determination of the fee to take the costs incurred by the clearing of the camp aces and expect these costs to the amount of stored materials and the previous operating time of the camp highly anticipated on the storage period.
traps for storage actually costs less than was paid, then the excess payment will be refunded after the final disposal. Burden of proof lies with the beneficiaries.
traps for storage costs more than already paid, then these costs be requested by users.
This includes costs resulting from accidents or disasters.
users include owners (including partners / shareholders) and operators of nuclear facilities as well as the users of nuclear power or their successors.
5.All natural persons who are to decide on the handling of radioactive material for the effects to make you personally liable because they bear a special responsibility.
This limitation the policy as for operators and for its investors and shareholders.
6.Wer radioactive material must introduce evidence that apply in the promotion of the radioactive material, the same or stricter rules in Germany and how they are applied without exception. Otherwise, an import is to be refused. (Overall responsibility)
7.The Run radioactive material in Germany is prohibited. (Preventing terrorist abuse)
8.Kernanlagen and bearings must be protected against disasters. Especially against earthquakes, plane crashes or terrorist attacks. Unsafe equipment shall be closed immediately. have to deal
9.Anlagen the radioactive material to ensure that no radioactivity enters the outside. Not even air or waste water.
10.The cost of a worst case scenario must be adequately insured.
11.Verjährung enters with radioactivity has subsided.
This petition does not discuss the suitability of storage facilities.
If you give suggestions (such as keywords or questions) for the online discussion
do this can field use.
Notes:
I consider the points set out here sober considered neutral and for understandable, understandable, useful and necessary.
requires the storage of radioactive substances periods, the human experience are beyond any culture.
To avert unforeseen dangers, it is necessary to design a repository so that it always evacuated and the hazardous materials can be removed.
Where radioactivity in ground water, the affected areas are large areas contaminated for hundreds of thousands of years.
Compare ca.6.000 years ago began in Europe, metal (copper) to process. Tools were still made of stone and bone.
ie, a repository must be designed to move from time to time to. Any other direction is irresponsible.
main concern of this petition:
repository must always be accessible and can be overcome again ordered!
This petition does not discuss the suitability of storage facilities.
The reason for the expenses incurred arises principally with the order and promoting the material, but no later than the import. Therefore, it is necessary to put this event back the necessary funds.
The safe operation of a repository is so important for the welfare of the population that is not the job of a profit-oriented private sector must be left. This must be one for the good of the population targeted government is responsible.
Therefore, set the ultimate disposal to not return home, but directly to pay the import of the material.
The fees for material that is already in circulation must be paid in a transitional phase.
Through trial repository won in the last 40 years, an insight into the risks and costs. If one approach the experimental repositories aces for cost estimation, so it's easy at the expense of about 55,000,000,000,000 € for the next one million years for the stored materials in the Asse. (Estimated: 2.2 billion euro per 40 years)
The comparison is valid since the estimates for stability at the opening of the bearing cup was similarly evaluated as positive for all other bearings are debating today.
Other interesting points:
* drinks from the cup, it feeds not only the Braunschweiger Land but with the Oker and Aller and the Weser with contaminated water.
* A rock to get water resistant is not certain possible - even for several hundred thousand years.
* It is appalling that 50 cars are insured slightly better than a nuclear power plant must be insured (liability).
* Question: What are the technical, however, the emitted material again to fill in the original uranium mines back? - There are probably following the reduction in the original Faces the same risks as domestic mines?
0 comments:
Post a Comment