Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
NucNews
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Real people. Real stories. See how Yahoo! Groups impacts members worldwide.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Messages 30872 - 30901 of 30901   Newest  |  < Newer  |  Older >  |  Oldest
Messages: Show Message Summaries   (Group by Topic) Sort by Date v  
#30901 From: Ellen Thomas <et@...>
Date: Tue Jan 5, 2010 6:46 am
Subject: Licence application for US deconversion plant
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Will someone please tell me what this means?

Ellen Thomas
et@..., 202-210-3886

---

Licence application for US deconversion plant

04 January 2010

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/IT-Licence_application_for_US_deconversion_pla\
nt-0401105.html

International Isotopes has submitted its licence application to the
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for its proposed depleted
uranium deconversion and fluorine extraction processing facility in
Hobbs, New Mexico. The NRC licence review is expected to take 18-24
months to complete. The facility will remove fluorine from depleted
uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) left over from the uranium enrichment
process - and use it to manufacture high-value fluoride gases. The
company plans to select a design and construction contractor in 2010
and may also initiate some pre-licence construction activities at the
Hobbs site, subject to NRC approval. Construction of the facility is
scheduled to be completed by the end of 2012. International Isotopes
president and CEO Steve Laflin commented, "The submission of this
licence application represents another significant accomplishment for
the company and is the most recent milestone ion our continued
progress towards construction of this unique, commercial,
environmentally friendly nuclear facility. The project is on target
and on schedule."




Ellen Thomas <et@...>
Proposition One in 2010 Campaign
PO Box 27217, Washington, DC 20038
202-682-4282 (dc) - 202-210-3886 (cell)
http://prop1.org - http://propositiononein2010.blogspot.com

Yes, We Can ...
Convert the War Machines ...
Provide for Human Needs ...
Think Globally, and Act Locally ...
Build Solar Panels and Windmills, Not Missiles and Bombs ...
IN OUR LIFETIMES!

LET THE VOTERS DECIDE!!!

#30900 From: "R Rands" <rrands@...>
Date: Mon Jan 4, 2010 10:46 pm
Subject: HuntingtonNews-net WV enrichment plant contamination
dominouglias
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Two stories, 3 & 4 Jan 2010:
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/local/100103-rutherford-localpowerplantcleanup.htm\
l
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/local/100104-rutherford-localpaducah.html
Further item(s) to come

Jan. 3, 2010

ONE OF A SERIES: Paducah Nuclear Plant Clean Up Still Faces Significant
Hurdles
What Can Piketon (Portsmouth) Expect?

By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter

Huntington, WV (HNN) - Scanning previous internet "news" reports, two stand
out in regard to the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant: A Tornado and
suspicions regarding buried Huntington Pilot Plant materials.

Scioto and Pike Counties in Ohio often experience more intense wind bursts
when summer thunder storms form and occasionally turn to tornadoes. On July
11, 2009, NBC reported that "some damage" had been reported at the plant
from a "tornado-like storm," based on word from public information officer
Jack Williams the damage did not impact plant operations.

In 1993, residents complained about an alleged 2.5 hour "unreported
  release." They alleged 13 workers were checked for exposure but no sirens
sounded. However, after investigation, those responsible for the plant
indicated that the 'release' was not a threat to those outside the plant.
The Portsmouth facility has sirens for public notification.

Among citizen complaints , one had concerns about "ground water
contamination from the burial of contaminated material from a nickel plant
in West Virginia" (Note: Actually, the Huntington Pilot Plant/Reduction
Pilot Plant buried at Piketon along with the trucks and railcars.) ANSWER:
ATSDR considers contamination from other sites only when it impacts the
exposure levels of the population being evaluated, and in this specific case
will not be addressing the above site in this public health assessment.
(Actually arsenic and other contaminants were alleged but found not viable.
SEE: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/portsmouthgas/pgd_p2.html#publicb1)

Finally (but not all inclusively) the following has been widely reported:

1954-1990 Radioactive gasses, fluorides, and hexavalent chromium are vented
to the atmosphere, mostly at night with venting monitors shut off.
PCB-contaminated oil, trichloroethylene, and nickel carbonyl are dumped in
massive quantities on the south and east sides of the reservation near
Little Beaver Creek and Big Run Creek. The venting and dumping are conducted
with no outside regulation or notification to surrounding residents. The
full extent of venting and dumping remains unknown.

The Portsmouth facility remains in transition. The Centrifuge project did
not receive government loan guarantees; a citizen advisory board begins
ramping up work --- first by attending seminars concerning options and clean
ups at other similar plants --- on the Piketon facility.

Other sites that discuss Piketon issues:
http://www.ohioneighbors.net/html/chronology.html and
http://www.mail-archive.com/pen-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu/msg32710.html

For an illustration of concerns, progress and lack thereof, we will examine
some issues that have surfaced regarding the Portsmouth/Piketon's similar
facility in Paducah, which is further advance in the decommissioning and
clean up process.


PADUCAH CHALLENGES

Plans have been stated for the who, what, when, and how issues at the
Kentucky plant. Yet, the funding for cleaning up and implementation has been
often cut and modified, even as remediation choices are approved.

Here's how a comprehensive Courier Journal report described the site in a
2000 article. In fact, the Western Criminology Review contains an article
published in 2007: State-Corporate Crime and the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion
Plant (http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v08n2/29.bruce/bruce.pdf):

Nearly every creature that swims, walks or flies near the Paducah uranium
plant carries unseen poisons that have escaped from the nuclear-fuel
factory.

From the furtive mink to the darting sunfish to the soaring redtailed hawk,
nature's denizens now have new, lifelong companions - chemical and
radiological contamination, reports obtained by The Courier-Journal show.

Toxic chemicals have entered the Western Kentucky food chain, and
abnormalities similar to birth defects have already shown up in at least one
species.

A half-century of emitting, burying and dumping waste from the vast plant
built to safeguard America has caused ecological damage for miles around, a
10-month investigation by the newspaper has found.

Streams, ponds, underground water, soil, plants and animals have been
contaminated with some of the most dangerous chemicals known, including
plutonium and dioxin.

The U.S. Department of Energy, Kentucky officials and the company that
leases and runs the plant say environmental conditions at the site are
improving. They note that polluted areas on plant grounds and in a
surrounding wildlife area, which is used for hunting, fishing and camping,
are marked and roped or fenced off.

And they have assured workers and the public that the contaminants pose no
''imminent'' danger.

(From Louisville Courier Journal, June 26, 2000 )


CORPORATE STATE CRIMES

"Sloppy safety practices, concealed health concerns, and decades of
ignorance, expediency and poor oversight have left workers, nearby wildlife
and the land itself damaged by chemical and radioactive toxins. Workers have
inhaled the radioactive dust, chemicals have seeped into the ground water,
and debris dumped off the site has created pockets of radiation. And the
silent devastation is being seen in creatures ranging from insects to
bobcats-an ominous warning to the humans who share the same soil, water,and
air. In this case, as acknowledged by the federal government, a series of
decisions from the

governmental level to the plant operators ensured PGDP workers, the
environment, and public safety were victims of state-corporate crime." One
academic study presents theoretical framework that helps clarify how such
harms occur and how the state-corporate roles alter over time.

Although nuclear workers seem to have a fruitless fight in gaining
compensation for their patriotism, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson stated
(obviously not very seriously) "nuclear workers' compensation is a nation
debt long due to our Cold War veterans who've paid the highest price for
their service."

However, the AEC has adopted a narrow definition of "workers," it does not ,
for now, include those involved in allied sites where, for instance,
radioactive nickel was recycled, leading to the workers contracting cancers.
Nor, does it account for property owners and individuals living near the
atomic plants, gaseous diffusion plants, or plants ran by major corporations
utilizing contaminated materials from atomic sites.

Here's how the Western Criminology article defines a "state" crime:
State-initiated corporate crime (such as the Challenger explosion) occurs
when corporations, employed by the government, engage in organizational
deviance at the direction of, or with the tacit approval of, the government.
State facilitated state-corporate crime (such as the Imperial Food Products
fire in Hamlet) occurs when government regulatory institutions fail to
restrain deviant activities either because of direct collusion between
business and government or because they adhere to shared goals whose
attainment would be hampered by aggressive regulation.
http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v08n2/29.bruce/bruce.pdf


HOW MUCH WASTE

Enough radioactive scrap metal rests at Paducah to construct a full size
replica of the battleship Missouri; enough low-level radioactive waste would
cover 22 football field a yard deep; ground water would make for 880,000
residential swimming pools; and 37,000 cylinders of spent uranium cylinders
stretched end to end would cover 70 miles.

Anyone remembering such flicks as "Silkwood" or "China Syndrome" will
appreciate that in June 1999, a false claim suit against Lockheed Martin and
the Natural Defense Council alleged that Lockheed falsified environmental
safety reports and caused massive damage by mishandling radioactive and
chemical materials. When the U.S. government joined as a plaintiff on the
hazardous waste issue (2003), the Washington Post went national: Workers at
PGDP had been "exposed to dangerous fission byproducts without their
knowledge". In the following years allegations and evidence of harm to
workers, the community, and the environment continue mounting, not just
related to PGDP, but at Piketon, Oakridge, and, though, uttered only in the
privacy of likeminded thinkers, Huntington, WV.

NEXT: Deception for National Good

=========================

Jan. 4, 2010

PART 2 OF A SERIES: Paducah, Piketon, Other Workers Deceived (Poisoned?) for
Greater National Good

By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter

Huntington, WV (HNN) -- During their Cold War service, employees of the
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant "were generally happy in the belief that
their efforts were protecting the country," states Paul Becker (University
of Dayton) and Alan Bruce (Quinnipiac University) in the Western Criminology
Review article "State Corporate Crime and the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion
Plant" (2007).

Due to the threat of missiles from Russia and China, the public supported
the nuclear industry, accepted the sense of urgency and as a result
"environmental concerns were less important than the pressing demands of the
Cold War," a 2000 Department of Energy report stated.


GREATER NATIONAL GOOD

The need to maintain supremacy in the race to build more and more nukes with
larger and larger destructive capacities assured citizens and workers that
the U.S. could "win" a confrontation through a so-called mutually assured
destruction policy, which, inevitably brought the nuclear nations to a
mindful ground zero --- no one wins, everyone loses due to the fallout and
destruction. Fears of bombs falling in the Heartland led to a home accessory
not shared like a swimming pool --- a fallout and/or bomb shelter.

Under these fearful perceptions, including the posted orange and black
public fallout shelter signs on numerous larger structures, health, safety
and environment took a back seat as the expedience of goal achievement
trumped concerns for the individuals and environment, leading to a culture
of "rule bending" at atomic plants and those related thereto, such as by
performing recycling of radioactive materials.

With billions of dollars in defensive and offensive weapons, the nuclear
program shifted from 'bombs' to 'power,' which allowed the private
corporations that had assisted in Manhattan bomb projects unbeknownst to
themselves, to begin developing a new, so-called cleaner energy source.

Relying upon "trust," workers accepted management's attitude that exposure
to radiation and certain chemicals was minimal, according to an Office of
Oversight , Environmental Safety and Health report released in 2000. For
instance, Paducah managers encouraged workers to wear personal (rather than
protective) clothing. Carelessness and lack of knowledge led to
contamination of the plant's lunch room and theatre, the report stated. In
fact, some workers willingly took part in radiation experiments by breathing
and drinking uranium, the DOE and journal article state. Paducah was part of
the rule, not a safety exception. Edward Teller, head of the AEC's Reactor
Standards Committee, in 1953 responded to a safe distance from reactors by
stating, "enforcement of safety regulations must not stand in the way of
rapid development of nuclear power," the criminology article reported.

(Editor's Note: By contrast, several retired Huntington Pilot Plant workers
recall that employees of the facility changed clothes going to work and
showed after work.)

Collaborating and essentially exposing the former need to know classified
materials, USA Today on August 16 , 2000, published POISONED WORKERS,
POISONED PLACES, which explained one conjecture at that time of radioactive
contamination on American soil from building bombs , reactors, and other
nuclear components.

One method of continuing status quo exposure was simply to not test. For
instance, Union Carbide , Paducah's operator in the 50s, asked for studies
concerning "visible radioactive dust" at PGDP in 1953 and 1959. In 1960 , a
request was made for neptunium exposure; it didn't happen due to fears the
union would request hazard pay.

The corporate/state culture at Paducah (and as implied in USA Today's study
many other) concealed knowledge of the radioactive truths. As Paducah
examples:


1. There were ten leukemia deaths among long term health issues; one was the
comparative norm;

2. The Washington Post in 1999 reported workers receiving levels up to 133
times higher than the norm and in 2001 the DOE acknowledged one in ten
workers received doses above regulatory limits (and others went Untested)

3. Between 1994-1999 Nuclear Regulatory inspectors observed workers pounding
on a uranium process line with a hammer, smuggling beer into the plant,
performing tasks without proper training, and sleeping during handling of
liquid uranium hexafluoride.

4. Uranium, fission products and other waste was released "into ditches,
ponds and streams with subsequent flow into the Big and Little Bayou creeks,
ultimately reaching the Ohio River (Office of Oversight, Environmental
Safety Health 2000).

5. Scrap materials, such as wood and metals from PGDP property, were not
screened for contamination before sold to the public. For instance, a
computer donated to a school was contaminated with radiation.

6. Radioactive black ooze seeped from the ground in 1999 and beryllium was
discovered in soil, surface and ground water samples beneath the plant (some
155 times natural levels)

7. Although a recreation/wildlife area has been constructed around portions
of the plant as remediation, neptunium was 509 times as high as in a normal
environment, cesium was 326 times normal, and eleven contaminants spread
extensively (but the truth will remain unknown as more than 25% of safety
concern records were destroyed prior to 1993.

8. On May 31, 1994 the PGDP was identified for priority cleanup and added to
the EPA's Superfund national priorities list. Cleanup was to be completed by
this year; $1.3 billion was allocated and up to $5 billion estimated.
(Huntington had numerous industrial sites on August 11, 1997 added to the
Superfund list. Several of the locations are still operating; several have
documented remediation undertakings available; some have been archived as no
longer of interest to the EPA unless additional evidence is found.)

(Note: These impacts summarized from the State Corporate Crime (2007)
article.)

The Paducah plant is undergoing cleanup. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson in
1999 apologized for "concealing information that caused PGDP workers to be
placed in danger." It stated: On behalf of the U.S. government, I am here to
say I am sorry . We are apologizing to the workers in Paducah. From the
evidence that has been uncovered recently, it's obvious that the U.S.
government was not forthcoming about possible exposure to plutonium, and
that was wrong. We should have been straight with our Employees"


AFTER TEN YEARS MANEUVERING, LAW SUIT PROCEEDS

At Paducah, one of many land owners discovered his ground water tainted by
pollution from the plant. Among one government proposal (not implemented)
was to buy up all the private lands of about 120 families to limit
liabilities, the Energy Department for about a decade has been paying the
West McCracken Water District about $65,000 a year to provide free municipal
water to homes whose well water was tainted by the pollution.

Meanwhile, in 2007, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled water
leaks hurt property values and allowed a federal suit to go forward. It was
filed by 16 homeowners who claim 10 billion gallons of polluted water
damaged 82 pieces of property resulting in losses of property, plants,
crops, livestock and wildlife. (Smith, et al. v. Carbide Chem, et al., from
Courier Journal, 2007).


FUNDING CUTS

The Paducah plant ranks #15 among atomic clean up sites. Hanford, a nuclear
reservation in Richland, Washington is number one. 75% of funding goes to
the ten worst of 65 sites. Paducah and others endured higher percentages of
cuts, particularly under the George W. Bush cuts beginning in fiscal 2002.
The stimulus package Congress approved under President Obama contained
$144,729,000 for the western Kentucky site. The money will accelerate the
removal of over 50 years of legacy waste and environmental contamination
stemming from enriched uranium production. Among the wastes, 9,700 tons of
volumetrically contaminated nickel (mostly nickel ingots). Reclamation of
the nickel will bring jobs to compensate for layoffs in decommissioning the
Paducah site. Still, in FY 2008, Paducah took a $20 million reduction in
clean up funds in Bush's $96 million budget proposal.


ISSUES

These are a few of the issues highlighted in the 2000 Courier Journal
investigation:


A. The levels at Paducah weren't on the scale of Love Canal or Times Beach,
but they exceeded standards the state had set for the Energy Department. The
contaminated soil is now stored at the plant in more than 11,000 55-gallon
drums, most of which are buried;

B. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which cause cancer and other diseases
in animals and possibly in humans, have been found at levels ranging from
traces to significant concentrations in fish, hawks, mice, rats, mink,
raccoons and a bobcat;

C. Incomplete records suggest that almost 9 ounces of highly radioactive
plutonium were released into the air and water and buried at the plant,
greater than the amounts released at most other Department of Energy nuclear
sites. Traces of plutonium and neptunium were found in soil samples 11 years
ago as far as nine miles from the plant, and traces of neptunium were found
in apples, but there apparently was no further investigation;

D. Streams that flow off site are now believed to be carrying small amounts
of radioactive material into the Ohio River, the DOE recently conceded.
Though diluted by the Ohio's huge flow, radioactive substances may build up
in sediment and enter the food chain;

E. Underground, three plumes of water contaminated with trichloroethylene, a
suspected carcinogen, and radioactive technetium are spreading northward
from the plant, and one is believed to have reached the river. Traces of
contaminants have penetrated as far as 14 stories below ground.

Although neither the Paducah plant nor the one in Piketon are on the Fortune
500 list of the worst areas, the 2000 article indicated that the Energy
Department data is often unknown. Workers have told of employee lists being
destroyed. Other records too. The DOE in 2000 told the Louisville reporters,
"it's plan for attacking surface water contamination that documentation
pertaining to specific releases from the plant's storm sewer system
currently is not available." The EPA said "lack of information on the
primary pathways for contaminants.. Completely inappropriate."


UNKNOWNS

USA Today completed an investigation August 16, 2000 titled POISONED WORKERS
AND POISONED PLACES which included "Preliminary Partial Dose Estimates From
the Processing of Nuclear Materials at Three Plants during the 1940s and
1950s. Although USA Today commissioned an impartial study of three plants:
Simonds Saw & Steel Co. (Lockport, NY); Harshaw Chemical Co. (Cleveland,
Ohio); and Electro-Metallurgical Co., (Tonawanda, NY), the study generalizes
these conditions as common place at nearly all of the atomic plants
operating in that era.

Of specific interest to Huntington readers, the report indicates inadequate
safeguards when a plant was selected for a standby shutdown, such as the
Huntington Pilot Plant, which remained in that status from about 1960-1979,
when it was demolished and buried.

The article contains a map of states where recycled uranium was handled.
Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, as well as Kentucky are listed.

The USA Today series begins with the following statement:

"A USA TODAY investigation finds that the government's reliance on a vast
network of private plants, mills and shops to build America's early nuclear
arsenal had grave health and environmental consequences. Federal officials
knew of severe hazards to the companies' employees and surrounding
neighborhoods, but reports detailing the problems were classified and locked
away.

"The full story of the secret contracting effort has never been told. Many
of the companies that were involved have been forgotten, the impact of their
operations unexamined for half a century. Yet their history carries profound
implications for the thousands of people they employed, as well as for the
thousands who lived - and still live - near the factories.

"At a time when the nation is reassessing the worker ills and ecological
damage wrought by large, government-owned nuclear weapons plants, the record
of the private companies that did the work before those facilities were
built has had little scrutiny.

"Most of the contracting sites were in the industrial belt: through New
England, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, around the Great Lakes and
down the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys. They were in big cities such as
Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago and St. Louis. And they were in smaller
communities, such as Lockport, N.Y., Carnegie, Pa., and Joliet, Ill."

COMING SOON : RETIREE INTERVIEWS

#30899 From: roger Herried <rogerh@...>
Date: Tue Jan 5, 2010 5:33 am
Subject: Top 100 Energy Stories Dec. 28th 2009 – Jan . 3rd 2010
rogerh@...
Send Email Send Email
 
 

Top 100 Energy Stories Dec. 28th 2009 – Jan. 3rd 2010

As was expected the last week was a vacation week for most Americans so the volume of news was low. However, what happened was nothing of the sort.  The news was mostly pretty bad stuff.

The lead story has to be the explosion and deaths of two scientists in India’s nuclear center that takes the lead. The Indian nuclear industry continues to grow as possibly the most dangerous hot spot in the world We covered a story here not long ago that points to the fact that almost all of India’s nuclear power and weapons infrastructure is located in one of the country’s most politically unstable regions. With the poisoning of 55 workers a month ago, just prior to Obama’s finalization of the 123 treaty with the U.S. it appears that Japan, one of the most cautious countries, now with its own scandal relating to secret U.S. dealing has called for India to sign international treaties that allow the IAEA the right to inspect its weapons operations, as part of that country’s push to become a player in India’s commercial nuclear expansion. It is America’s almost complete abdication of past policies. including millions in bribe money from foreign nationals to the democratic party that opened up this disaster, and of course it it this continued failure of anyone in the U.S. anti-nuclear leadership to even bring this travesty up. Too late now. The damage is done.

Russia and the U.S. continue to knock heads over a new START treaty due to concerns over how Obama appears to be pulling back from his agreement to stop constructing a shield across Europe. The earlier Bush version has shifted to a more covert version that has yet to be covered by the U.S. media, and has become the main sticking block between the two countries.

The n-waste battle in Utah has taken a turn for the worse as the Eastern half of the country continues to use the west as its nuclear toilet. The South-Texas story took a sad turn, as the local utility went ahead and paid its share of the the project rather than kill it. There are stories on uranium development a bunch of safety stuff, and due to low content a lot of news from the previous week that makes the last few weeks some of the most dense activity in some time. Don’t forget to check out the scandal around one of the NRC’s commissioners.  Bechtel got canned as the contractor to decommission ORNL’s K-25 gaseous diffusion nightmare, the state of Washington put out its report card on the cleanup at Hanford and many more.

#30898 From: Ellen Thomas <et@...>
Date: Tue Jan 5, 2010 5:38 am
Subject: Obama presses review of nuclear strategy
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Obama presses review of nuclear strategy
Pentagon is rethinking the unthinkable: Making major changes to Cold
War arsenal

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff  |  January 3, 2010

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/01/03/obama_presses_review_of_nu\
clear_strategy?mode=PF

CHARLIE MISSILE ALERT FACILITY, Mont. - After an hourlong ride down a
nearly deserted highway covered in ice and snow, the two young
officers arrive for their shift at this highly secure outpost deep in
the northern Rockies.

Air Force Captain Chris Ferrer and Lieutenant Moses George, carrying
a bulky orange briefcase of secret codes, descend some 75 feet
underground to a capsule protected by a 4-foot-thick door of steel
and concrete. They will spend the next 24 hours ready to receive a
presidential command to launch dozens of nuclear missiles from silos
buried across north-central Montana.

It is a routine that is virtually unchanged from the 1960s. The
targets, most of them in Russia, also remain largely unchanged from
the Cold War. And there are few signs that will change anytime soon.
"We're not going anywhere for decades to come,'' predicted the two
officers' boss, Lieutenant Colonel Pete Bonetti, 41, of Providence.

But top US officials are now questioning why the United States still
pursues a strategy based on the ability to annihilate its former foe.
In a thorough review expected to be completed early this year, the
size, structure, and even the very mission of America's nuclear
arsenal are being reconsidered as part of President Obama's pledge to
reduce the role of the world's most deadly weapons.

Obama has already reached a tentative agreement with Russia to reduce
the number of warheads on both sides from about 2,200 to between
1,500 and 1,675 in the next several years, while also slashing the
missiles and submarines designed to carry them to between 500 and
1,000. The so-called Nuclear Posture Review, led by the Pentagon,
could recommend going even further, to 1,000 warheads or fewer, top
administration officials have told Congress.

The review is shaping up to be a major showdown for Obama this year.
It is taking on some of the most sacred cows of the nuclear program.
For the first time, influential voices, including a former top
nuclear commander and senior Obama advisers, are proposing that one
leg of the nuclear arms "triad'' - a $30 billion-a-year enterprise
made up of land-, air-, and sea-based weapons - be eliminated.

Another historic change under consideration is adopting a
"no-first-use'' policy, a public declaration stating the United
States would not use nuclear weapons first, a step long advocated by
arms control advocates who believe it would reduce the incentive for
other nations to develop nuclear weapons.

Also on the table, the officials say, is explicitly limiting the
nuclear arsenal's mission to deterring other nuclear weapons - not
chemical or biological attacks or halting a massive conventional
military assault, as current policy stipulates.

"The US-Soviet standoff that gave rise to tens of thousands of
nuclear weapons is over, but the policies developed to justify their
possession and potential use remain largely the same,'' said Daryl
Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a
Washington think tank and leading advocate of disarmament. "Unless
the United States reduces its reliance and emphasis on nuclear
weapons, other states will have a cynical excuse to pursue or to
improve the capabilities and size of their nuclear forces.''

Potential threats studied
The review is assessing the potential threats over the next decade
that would require nuclear weapons, seeking to match the arsenal and
strategy to emerging dangers like North Korea, a rising China, and
nuclear terrorism - and away from the far less likely massive nuclear
exchange with Russia, according to several administration officials
who are familiar with the review.

Unlike the last nuclear weapons review, conducted in 2001 by the Bush
administration, it is intended "to provide a basis'' for future arms
reductions, according to the Pentagon.

Yet as a recent visit to several nuclear bases demonstrated, the
nuclear weapons enterprise is one of the most entrenched in the
national security bureaucracy. Strong opposition to major changes is
building in the Pentagon and Congress as military officers and
defense contractors with a major stake prepare to fight deep cuts to
land-based nuclear weapons or the fleet of nuclear bombers, the
mostly likely targets of reduction, according to interviews with
current and former commanders, top officials, and leading specialists.

Many also express fear that reducing the arsenal too much will be
destabilizing at a time when Russia, China, and other nations are
modernizing their inventories of nuclear weapons and the United States is not.

"There is no broad-based consensus in the policy community on how
important US nuclear weapons are to US security in the post-9/11
era,'' said Clark Murdock, a former strategic planner at the Pentagon
who is now a senior adviser at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic
and International Studies in Washington. "During the Cold War few
disputed that nuclear weapons were a core component of US national security.''

Submarines favored
The ability of a behemoth submarine like the USS Maryland to
disappear beneath the waves makes it and 13 other Navy "boomers,''
capable of carrying 24 Trident nuclear missiles each, the least
likely to be recommended for cuts, military officials and private
analysts said.

Nearly 600 feet long and four stories high, the "Fighting Mary'' was
impossible to miss when it was docked at the mouth of the St. Mary's
River in southeastern Georgia in late November. But enemies have
almost no way of knowing its location after it leaves port, making
the sub nearly invulnerable to attack. And it can remain at sea for
extended periods: Last year, over several deployments, the Maryland
was underway a total of nearly nine months out of the year.

"They get underway and disappear for all intents and purposes,'' Rear
Admiral Barry Bruner, commander of Submarine Group 10, said in a
recent interview at his headquarters in Kings Bay, Ga.

At any given time, four of the subs are on patrol, two of them ready
in under an hour to launch their missiles at targets as far as 4,000
miles away. Six are stationed in Georgia, eight in Washington State.

Some arms control groups believe US security interests could be met
with fewer submarines and various studies have recommended as few as
eight or nine, which would save billions of dollars. Already the Navy
has plans to reduce the fleet to 12 by 2030 as it replaces the
submarines with a new model.

But for war planners, they also bring more bang for the buck. Under
the terms of the proposed treaty with Russia, each submarine and its
24 Trident missiles would count as only one "delivery system,''
unlike the land-based missiles, which each count toward the total allowed.

A recent study by the Air Force Association, the main advocacy group
for the Air Force and not traditionally the biggest Navy booster,
concluded that if the United States were to choose to deploy its
nuclear weapons on only one platform, it should keep the submarines.
It was a remarkable statement given the traditional of interservice
rivalries in among the branches of the military.

Bombers could go
The Air Force's 114 long-range nuclear bombers - including the B-52
and B-2 stealth bombers and more than 1,000 nuclear missiles - are
believed to be the most vulnerable of the three legs of the triad.

Some former commanders and a growing number of specialists contend
they have far less military value now that an all-out nuclear war
with Russia is unlikely. Among them is retired General Eugene
Habiger, former commander of the US Strategic Command, which oversees
all US nuclear weapons, and the man who until 1998 was responsible
for America's nuclear war plan.

"I would recommend giving up the bomber leg,'' he said in an interview.

The bomber force emerged with the dawn of the nuclear age, when a
pair of B-29 bombers dropped the atomic bombs on Japan in the closing
days of World War II, destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killing
hundreds of thousands of people. After 1945, bombers were the sole
element of America's nuclear deterrent, until intercontinental
ballistic missiles and nuclear-armed submarines were introduced in 1959.

Their crews are still ready to be in the air within hours, officials
said, though the exact time needed to launch them is classified.

"We still maintain the same capacity we had during the Cold War,''
said Colonel Steven Basham, commander of the Second Bomb Wing at
Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

But sustaining the bomber leg will require billions of dollars in new
investments, according to the Air Force. The B-52s, which make up the
majority of the bomber fleet, are more than four decades old. The
bombers used by Basham's Second Bomb Wing were built in 1960 and
1961. The cruise missiles carried by the B-52s first came into
service in 1962 and there is no plan for a replacement.

There are other drawbacks. The recent study published by the Air
Force Association concluded that land-based missiles and nuclear
submarines are more likely to survive a devastating first strike than
bombers. The study, to the surprise of many longtime observers,
recommended gradually retiring the nuclear bomber force.

Nonetheless, there remains fierce resistance to scrapping the nuclear
bombers both inside and outside the Air Force. Supporters assert
that, unlike land-based missiles already on alert in fixed locations
or nuclear subs that must remain undetected, bombers, by being sent
aloft, can signal US intent to use nuclear weapons to help defuse a
possible crisis, such as with North Korea or Iran.

In other words, it is the only nuclear saber that can be rattled.

"Rolling the bomber fleet onto the flight line could be the first
step in escalation,'' said Adam B. Lowther, a faculty researcher at
the Air Force Research Institute at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama.

There are other military arguments to support maintaining the bomber
leg. For example, only bombers are currently outfitted to carry the
special version of B61 nuclear bomb designed to strike deeply buried
targets, which some assert might be needed to take out the nuclear
program of a threatening nation or terrorist group.

"Bombers are and will remain critical components of the strategic
nuclear triad because they possess great flexibility and
versatility,'' said General Frank Klotz, commander of the Air Force
Global Strike Command at Barksdale Air Force Base.

There is also likely to be significant political opposition. Like the
land-based missile and submarine forces, the bombers have strong
political backers in the states where they are located, including
Louisiana, Missouri, and North Dakota.

Missiles under review
Even if it moves to eliminate the bomber leg of the triad, the Obama
administration, is almost certainly going to have cut some of 450
intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, now spread across
Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming if it wants to bring the US
arsenal down to 1,000 warheads or less.

But even members of his own party - including senators he will need
to pass his proposed arms control treaty with Russia - could stand in his way.

"While we may not oppose modifications or some reductions to our
nuclear force, we are certain that the ICBM force as currently
constituted provides an extraordinary benefit to our national
security while delivering high value to the taxpayer,'' six
Democratic and five Republicans senators told Secretary of Defense
Robert M. Gates in a letter last fall.

The Minuteman III missiles, which can travel more than 6,000 miles
and hit their targets in 30 minutes, are considered the most reliable
of all three legs of the triad. The missile crews have the most
reliable communications with the president - the only person who can
order a nuclear launch - and 99 percent of the missiles are
traditionally on alert ready to launch within minutes.

The silos and launch centers, meanwhile, are disbursed and hardened
against attack, requiring a large-scale first strike by Russia to
take them out.

An adversary "would have to expend everything they have,'' said
Colonel Michael Fortney, commander of the 341st Missile Wing at
Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana.

The missile wing, which maintains and operates 150 missile silos
spread across 14,000 square miles of rolling hills and steep
plateaus, is responsible for 15 missile alert centers, each ready to
launch at least 10 missiles.

Fortney, like many senior military officers interviewed for this
story, said he is prepared to work under a new nuclear policy regime,
but warned that as the United States goes to lower numbers of
warheads it means that every weapon left becomes more important to
ensure that the nuclear arsenal maintains its capability and
credibility to deter potential enemies. That is likely to require new
investments in missiles and warheads, he suggested.

"There is somewhat of a greater sense of urgency,'' he said, "to make
sure that the systems stay on alert.''

Threats variable
The nuclear review is taking place as threats against the United
States, from former enemies, rogue nations, and potential terrorists,
remain in flux. Even the vestiges of the old Soviet Army seemed to
stir recently, giving ammunition to those who want to keep the
nuclear force closer to its current levels.

In a November exercise code-named "West,'' 13,000 Russian and
Belorussian troops practiced putting down a popular uprising and
storming a beachhead. Then, according to local media reports, the
Russian Air Force simulated a nuclear attack on Poland.

Word of the exercise immediately set off alarm bells in Warsaw, which
had been under Soviet domination for 40 years but is now a member of
the US-led NATO military alliance. It also underscored that Obama's
plans to deemphasize nuclear weapons are not necessarily held by
other nuclear powers.

"The Russian leadership is absolutely committed to their nuclear
weapons,'' said C. Franklin Miller, a former National Security
Council official who is now an unpaid adviser to the US Strategic
Command, the military headquarters based in Nebraska that oversees
all US nuclear weapons. "The Chinese certainly believe in their arsenal.''

Miller and others also point out that Russia also has a 10-to-1
advantage over the United States in so-called "tactical'' nuclear
weapons, smaller bombs that could be used on the battlefield to take
out large formations of troops. Those weapons are not covered in the
proposed arms reduction treaty with Russia, although senior
administration officials have said they intend to include them in
future negotiations.

Indeed, the actions of other nuclear weapons states have some
concerned that the United States could set off a new nuclear arms
race if it cuts its arsenal to 1,000 weapons or fewer.

Henry Sokolski, director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education
Center and a member of a high-level commission that advises the
government on weapons of mass destruction, has argued that reducing
the US arsenal dramatically could lead China or other powers that now
have hundreds of nuclear weapons to try to reach parity by building
up their arsenals - what he calls the destabilizing prospect of a
"packed nuclear crowd.''

But others, like Kimball, note that Russia and the United States have
95 percent of the world's nuclear arms and that there would be plenty
of warning if a country like China, which is estimated to have 350
weapons, tried to catch up.

"The United States and Russia each deploy more than 2,000 strategic
warheads, most of which exist only to deter a massive nuclear attack
by the other,'' he said. "No other country possesses more than 300
nuclear warheads, and China currently has fewer than 30 nuclear-armed
missiles capable of striking the continental United States.''

Bryan Bender can be reached at <mailto:bender@...>bender@....



Ellen Thomas <et@...>
Proposition One in 2010 Campaign
PO Box 27217, Washington, DC 20038
202-682-4282 (dc) - 202-210-3886 (cell)
http://prop1.org - http://propositiononein2010.blogspot.com

Yes, We Can ...
Convert the War Machines ...
Provide for Human Needs ...
Think Globally, and Act Locally ...
Build Solar Panels and Windmills, Not Missiles and Bombs ...
IN OUR LIFETIMES!

LET THE VOTERS DECIDE!!!

#30897 From: Ellen Thomas <et@...>
Date: Mon Jan 4, 2010 10:19 pm
Subject: A quiet but HUGE no nukes triumph
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
From: <vcolley@...>

A quiet but HUGE no nukes triumph

December 23, 2009 Columbus Free Press

Harvey Wasserman

As the Copenhagen climate talks collapsed, an unheralded but hard-fought No Nukes victory moved us closer to a green-powered Earth.

It happened in upstate New York, where the Unistar Nuclear Energy front group asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to delay its application to build a reactor at Oswego, near Syracuse. Meanwhile, in Texas, the San Antonio city council's deliberations over building two new reactors has disintegrated into recriminations, resignations and firings over a multi-billion-dollar price jump in projected cost estimates, a furor that could doom reactor construction there as well. In Vermont, Entergy has threatened to shut its Yankee reactor if the legislature does not approve a complex maneuver that would allow its owners to escape certain financial liabilities.

Throughout the US, while the corporate media hypes a "renaissance" of new nukes, facts on the ground say the opposite is happening. The longer that trend continues, the more likely we are to win a world powered by the Solartopian technologies that really work, including wind, solar, geothermal, sustainable bio-fuels, increased efficiency/conservation, and more.

The Oswego postponement stems from the successful national grassroots campaign sparked by NukeFree.org and others dating to late 2007. When the Bush Administration asked for $50 billion in loan guarantees to build new reactors, a well coordinated campaign rose up, complete with a music video from Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne, Graham Nash, K'eb Mo and Ben Harper (www.nukefree.org). With help from key Congressional Democrats, a wide range of organizations and individuals rallied to get the $50 billion package out of the proposed energy legislation. Grassroots opposition has since beaten the proposed guarantees two more times.

It is as yet unclear what new reactor funding will come from Washington in the near future. There is still an $18.5 billion loan guarantee fund left over from the Bush Era. But the Department of Energy has run into serious political and procedural problems in administering the money. It may soon announce one or more new reactor projects designated to get the money, possibly including one in Georgia, where ratepayers have been put on the line to underwrite construction even if the plant never opens.

Republican proposals for virtually unlimited future loan guarantees are now being targeted for a Climate Bill and other legislation that may or may not make it through Congress in the coming months. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and other industry supporters are pushing hard for major federal financing. The Obama Administration has made some pro-nuclear rumblings, but remains elusive in terms of firm commitments.

Because the reactor industry cannot get private financing for new reactors, all the pro-nuke rhetoric in the world will mean nothing without federal subsidies. After 50 years, the industry doesn't have Wall Street's backing. Nor can it get private liability insurance in case of a major disaster. And it still lacks a solution for its radioactive waste problem.

Perhaps most critically of all, the longer new construction is delayed the less competitive the industry becomes. Licensing lead times are still unknown, while projected construction schedules require 5 years or more to build a reactor even under optimal conditions. Cost estimates are literally all over the map, with $7-9 billion for a 1000 megawatt reactor being currently used as a benchmark. But even that is not expected to last. The Oswego project involves a design financed by the French government. This latest setback indicates even they may not be as bullish on reactors as they hype would indicate. As Michael Mariotte of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service puts it, "Unistar's postponement is just another indicator that new reactors will not be built unless American taxpayers are forced to take the financial risk."

Thus as the dust settles from the failures in Copenhagen, the US might look to the conference's host country. In the 1970s a powerful Green movement stopped the Danes from going nuclear. Instead, as even the New York Times's pro-nuclear Thomas Friedman has recently acknowledged, Denmark successfully focussed on wind power. Today the wind industry is one of Denmakr's top employers, and is a major source of both clean green energy and significant financial profit.

Throughout the world, the cost of renewables is plummeting while reactor prices soar. So if America's thus-far successful grassroots campaign against massive federal loan guarantees and other nuclear bailouts can continue, we just might find ourselves on a parallel path to a green-powered Earth.

--
Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH is at www.harveywasserman.com, along with HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE US. He is Senior Editor of freepress.org and Senior Advisor to Greenpeace USA.


Don't forget to check out articles from 2008 and 2009

Harvey Wasserman

"A quiet but HUGE no nukes triumph "
  December 23, 2009

"Curbing carbon's just the tip of our great green leap"
  December 13, 2009

"Now WE must earn Obama's Nobel"
  December 11, 2009

"Tonight Obama's escalation will be IMMEDIATELY opposed"
  December 1, 2009

"What's the carbon/health footprint of another senseless war?"
  November 30, 2009

"Still more fluff, lies and radiation from TMI and the new nuke media machine"
  November 24, 2009

"For Obama it's one (term) if by war, two if by peace"
  November 16, 2009

"The reactor relapse takes 3 hits to the head "
  November 12, 2009

"Hall of Fame benefit takes rock & roll to a new level"
  November 3, 2009

"Is this Tom Friedman's "Walter Cronkite Moment" on Afghanistan? "
  October 29, 2009

"Beware a Times/Pentagon "virtual coup" on Afghanistan"
  October 24, 2009

"Is the climate bill being fossil/nuked? "
  October 14, 2009

"That Nobel screams: "Out of Afghanistan & Go for Solartopia!""
  October 10, 2009

"Obama will also lose the Afghani Olympics"
  October 3, 2009

"Obama's LBJ moment"
  September 27, 2009

"Tom Friedman's idiocy atomique"
  September 22, 2009

"Will the Corporate Supremes now dance on democracy's corpse?"
  September 14, 2009

"Obama has fed his Green Jones to King CONG "
  September 6, 2009

"BonTaj Roulet blazes new ground raising green for Greens"
  September 3, 2009

"The clock is ticking ever faster for Leonard Peltier"
  August 11, 2009

"How Leonard Peltier could leave prison by August 18 "
  July 30, 2009

"Today we all stand before Leonard Peltier’s Parole Board"
  July 28, 2009

"Walter Cronkite, 3 Mile Island & "Lamar's Folly" in the Climate Bill"
  July 21, 2009

"Big Nuke's desperate radioactive hoax in impoverished Ohio"
  June 18, 2009

"The GOP’s 100-reactor/trillion-dollar energy plan goes radioactive"
  June 11, 2009

"The NYTimes finally reports the economic disaster of new nukes"
  May 29, 2009

"The 8 green steps to Solartopia"
  May 26, 2009

"Who will pay for America's Chernobyl roulette? "
  April 26, 2009

"How Chernobyl could happen here"
  April 21, 2009

"Yet another $50 billion for rust-bucket nukes?"
  April 10, 2009

"Cracking the corporate media's Iron Curtain around death at Three Mile Island"
  April 1, 2009

"Three Mile Island: 30th anniversary of the worst nuclear accident in US history"
  March 28, 2009

"People died at Three Mile Island "
  March 24, 2009

"France's nuke power poster child has a money melt-down"
  March 19, 2009

"Is this the end of the age of the automobile?"
  March 9, 2009

"Obama's excellent atomic omission"
  February 26, 2009

"Feds ignore jet crashes at operating reactors"
  February 20, 2009

"Was George Washington a gay pot smoker?"
  February 15, 2009

"Another spectacular $50 billion no nukes victory for the forces of Solartopia"
  February 12, 2009

"Why is that $50 billion radioactive antique toilet still in the stimulus bill?"
  February 9, 2009

"A $50 billion nuke debate at Democracy NOW!"
  February 6, 2009

"A $50 Billion nuke power bomb is dropping toward Obama’s stimulus package"
  January 31, 2009

"This President’s Day remember that George Washington raised hemp and probably smoked it"
  January 29, 2009

"A ten-point Solartopian starter agenda for the Age of Obama"
  January 19, 2009

"Obama's stimulus money must NOT be wasted on nuke reactors"
  January 8, 2009

Read Articles by Year:
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000



#30896 From: Ellen Thomas <et@...>
Date: Mon Jan 4, 2010 10:16 pm
Subject: Loan Program May Stir Dormant Nuclear Industry
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
From: <vcolley@...>
 

Loan Program May Stir Dormant Nuclear Industry

By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: December 23, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/business/energy-environment/24nuke.html?hp

WASHINGTON — When experts on power grid reliability asked themselves recently how a cleaner energy future would look, seven of eight regional councils imagined how their systems would work with 10 percent wind power.

Only one, representing the southeastern United States, chose a radically different option: doubling nuclear power capacity.

Thirty years after the American nuclear industry abandoned scores of half-built plants because of soaring costs and operating problems like the Three Mile Island accident, skepticism persists over whether the technology is worth investing in.

Yet the pendulum may be swinging back. The 104 plantsnow running have sharply raised their output, emboldening utilities across the country to make a case for building new ones.

And the industry is about to get a big boost. In the next few days, the Energy Department plans to announce the first of $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for building new reactors.

The guarantees were authorized in a bill passed by Congress in 2005.

It has taken four years for the department to set up a system to evaluate applications and determine how much the borrowers will be charged for the guarantees to compensate the government for taking the risk.

Industry experts think the first guarantee will go to the Southern Company to build two units at its Vogtle nuclear plant near Augusta, Ga.

The money will flow amid a national credit squeeze and intense jockeying among the nation’s wind, solar,geothermal and nuclear sectors. Each is trying to cast itself as an ideal “clean” energy option as the nation moves toward reining in the carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming.

All of these sources could potentially benefit under a cap-and-trade system that is being considered in Congress as part of climate change legislation. Such a system would set a ceiling on carbon dioxide emissions and allow trading of pollution permits, handicapping the carbon-intensive coal and natural gas sectors.

Historically Republicans have been more enthusiastic than Democrats about nuclear power. So as the climate bill winds its way through the Senate, some Democratic members are seeking to add to the $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for the nuclear industry to attract Republicans and some industrial-state Democrats. (The House version passed in June, 219 to 212.)

Some of the foremost Congressional climate change campaigners are unenthusiastic.

Representative Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who has hounded the nuclear industry for decades over safety questions and who is a sponsor of the House bill, does not favor direct aid to the nuclear industry. He argues that a cap-and-trade system would give the nuclear sector the only boost it deserves.

If that system goes into effect, he said, nuclear power “will be able to compete more effectively in a new marketplace. How effectively they can compete is going to be the question.”

Others see combining a cap-and-trade system with a nuclear aid package as a sensible tactic to get Congress to address environmental problems.

“One can argue it certainly is bringing about an unusual marriage of interests here,” said Philip R. Sharp, an Indiana Democrat who served in the House of Representatives from 1975 to 1995 and led a House committee with jurisdiction over the electric system.

“It is one of the potential paths for actually getting real action and real legislation,” said Mr. Sharp, who now heads the nonpartisan group Resources for the Future.

Economic issues have helped scramble alliances on the state and local level, too. Because new reactors create so many jobs and big tax revenue, the Democratic governors of Maryland and Ohio are working hard to get them built in their states.

State legislatures from Louisiana to South Dakota and local governments from Port Gibson, Miss., to Oswego, N.Y., are also on record favoring new reactors.

Peter A. Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who is now vice chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, questions the wisdom of direct aid to the industry.

Unlike cap and trade, in which industries buy and sell the right to release carbon dioxide in a market-oriented system, he said, the loan guarantees finance projects that the private sector deems too risky.

The government would be “picking some winners and bestowing a lot of taxpayer support on them,” he said.

By Mr. Bradford’s count, of 28 reactors that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission now lists as planned, half have had major delays, large increases in estimated cost or have been canceled.

If new plants built with government guarantees prove to be a commercial success, the program costs taxpayers nothing; if they prove too expensive to finish or are completed but cannot earn enough to repay the loans, the taxpayer is on the hook.

Complicating the challenge, the forthcoming loan guarantees amount to only $18.5 billion, and the nuclear industry says it needs tens of billions more.

President Obama’s energy secretary, Steven Chu, acknowledged that the sum was small. He said it could finance at most perhaps one plant for each new reactor design, making it hard to determine which design was most practical.

“If I were a power company, maybe one of each would not be helpful,” he said. He suggested that the nuclear industry would need to build two or three of each.

But Dr. Chu insists that nuclear power will be an important piece of any climate solution.

“We have a dormant nuclear industry,” he said. “We have to start it up in a way that gives the people who are going to make investments the confidence that this is economically viable.”

Mindful of the challenges posed by global warming, some environmentalists are cautiously evaluating their positions on nuclear power.

“There is an increasing number of people who have spent their lives as environmental advocates who believe that carbon is such an urgent problem that they have to rethink their skepticism about nuclear power,” said Jonathan Lash, the president of the World Resources Institute, who puts himself in that category.

“But there are many people who are passionate environmentalists who are also passionate opponents of nuclear power, and remain so,” he said.

Among the foes is Karen Hadden, executive director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition in Austin, Tex., which is fighting a nuclear project there that is in line for a loan guarantee. While she strongly favors carbon limits, she said, she opposes construction of reactors.

She warned that money for solar, wind and geothermal projects could get siphoned off “in these multibillion-dollar projects that may or may not ever get built.”

Daniel L. Roderick, senior vice president for nuclear plant projects at GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a partnership between General Electric and Hitachi of Japan, said that a year and a half ago, there were expectations that more than 20 units would be under construction by now in the United States. “That number is currently zero,” he said.

Nonetheless, G.E. and other companies have invested tens of millions of dollars in plans for reactors they hope to build around the world, including dozens in the United States.


Growth and Skepticism in Nuclear Power

A blog about energy, the environment and the bottom line.
Go to Blog »



#30895 From: Ellen Thomas <et@...>
Date: Tue Jan 5, 2010 12:31 am
Subject: Armenia Approves New Nuclear Plant Over Green Objections
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Armenia Approves New Nuclear Plant Over Green Objections

By Gayane Mkrtchyan
YEREVAN, Armenia, December 28, 2009 (ENS)

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2009/2009-12-28-01.asp

Armenia has cleared the way for a new nuclear
power plant, despite green groups' objections
that its location could put the country's capital at risk.

Earlier this month, the government approved the
creation of Atomstroyexport, a joint
Russian-Armenian company that will own the station.

"Today we are taking a political decision, we are
giving our agreement to the creation of a joint
venture with our Russian partners," said Prime
Minister Tigran Sargsyan on December 3.

Armenia plans to finish the new generating unit
by 2016, and it will replace the Metsamor plant,
which produces 40 percent of the country's power
but is nearing the end of its life. Without the
nuclear plant, Armenia would be largely dependent
on gas imported from Russia or Iran.

"The new nuclear power station will become a
security zone for Armenia in the energy system. A
nuclear reactor is necessary as an energy
resource that can ensure the self-sufficiency of
the country," said Sevak Sarukhanyan, an
economist and deputy director of the Noravank think tank.

Sargsyan said the new station is crucial to
efforts to revive Armenia's economy, which has
suffered both from the post-Soviet collapse and
the blockade imposed by Azerbaijan and Turkey.

"If we do not build the nuclear power station
then, of course, our competitive position will significantly worsen," he said.

Construction of the plant will take five or six
years, and it should have a working life of 60
years, which will guarantee Armenia's electricity supply far into the future.

Ecological groups, however, remain strongly
opposed to the plans. Hakob Manasaryan, head of
the Union of Greens, said the government did not
explore other energy options in its rush to
approve a new nuclear plant. He worries that
Armenia, which is prone to earthquakes, could see
a disaster such as the one that struck Ukraine's
Chernobyl reactor 23 years ago.

"I have the impression that the officials are
thinking only of the next 15 or 20 years. A new
structure, with a capacity of 1,200 megawatts
should be at least 100 to 150 kilometers (60 to
90 miles) from big cities. The existing Metsamor
station, which is just 20 km in a straight line
from the capital, does not even meet this condition," he said.

"There is not one safe working reactor. Of course
it is good if it is super-modern, which means, it
is less dangerous, but who can vouch for that?
And with a capacity of 1,200 megawatts, the
consequences of the risk could be more
significant. The construction of a new reactor in
the same place [as the Metsamor plant] is even
more dangerous," said Manasaryan.

But Areg Galstyan, deputy energy and natural
resources minister, said new reactors are built
to far higher safety standards than
Chernobyl-type nuclear power stations, and that
the ecologists have nothing to worry about.
[]



Armenia's Metsamor nuclear power station (Photo
courtesy <http://www.nti.org/index.php>Nuclear Threat Initiative)

The Metsamor power station sits in the Ararat
Valley, in the very heart of Armenia, and is
surrounded by the towns of Armavir, Echmiadzin
and Metsamor. Its first unit started producing
power in 1976, and the second in 1980.

According to Armenia's Department of State Atomic
Control, the structure was strengthened after the
devastating earthquake of 1988. The waste is not
stored permanently on site, but is sent to Russia for disposal.

Sarukhanyan said an atomic plant is probably the
cleanest possible option for Armenia – compared
to a fossil fuel or hydro station – and would
allow the country to become a major exporter to
neighboring countries. That could even include
selling power to Turkey, if a peace deal agreed this year is ratified.

"What would happen to Armenia, if there is
another war in Georgia? You can say the same
thing about Iran. If, because of the tense
political situation, our gas supplies are cut,
then we would face an energy collapse," he said.

At the moment, Armenia's electricity network has
the capacity to export 200 megawatts to Turkey.
After the two countries normalize their ties,
Yerevan could upgrade the power lines and become
a major source of energy for eastern Turkey, which is growing quickly.

Stepan Safaryan, a parliament deputy from the
Heritage party, said this could prove a major source of revenue for Armenia.

"All predictions about global energy resources,
and particularly for electric energy, in the next
decade show a tendency towards growth. There are
developing countries in the region, therefore in
the long term we have not only a market but also
chances of creating our own electricity," he said.

Sargsyan in spring even announced that Turkish
companies would be welcome to participate in the
tender for the plant's construction, which was
organized by Australia's Worley Parsons.
Nationalists were shocked by his comments at the
time but Sarukhanyan said they need not have
worried, since the only serious bidder for the
project was the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation.

Sarukhanyan said top western companies would not
be prepared to invest such large amounts of money
in exchange for a non-guaranteed return.

"For Russia it is a realistic decision, however,
since it will have a leading position in
Armenia's energy sector. For a French or American
company, it would be a doubtful deal, since the
Armenian economy remains closed," he said.

But Safaryan worries that Armenia is becoming
over-dependent on Russia, which already dominates
much of the Armenian economy, including the telecom and electricity sectors.

"This will lead to a deeper dependence by our
country with all the political consequences
inherent in that," he said. "In this, like in any
other sector, the existence of an alternative and
of diversification is a question of independence and sovereignty."

{Gayane Mkrtchyan is a journalist with
Armenianow.com. This article originally appeared
December 24, 2009 in Caucasus Reporting Service,
produced by the <http://www.iwpr.net>Institute for War and Peace Reporting}




Ellen Thomas <et@...>
Proposition One in 2010 Campaign
PO Box 27217, Washington, DC 20038
202-682-4282 (dc) - 202-210-3886 (cell)
http://prop1.org - http://propositiononein2010.blogspot.com

Yes, We Can ...
Convert the War Machines ...
Provide for Human Needs ...
Think Globally, and Act Locally ...
Build Solar Panels and Windmills, Not Missiles and Bombs ...
IN OUR LIFETIMES!

LET THE VOTERS DECIDE!!!

#30894 From: Ellen Thomas <et@...>
Date: Mon Jan 4, 2010 6:42 pm
Subject: Obama's nuclear-free vision mired in debate
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

Obama's nuclear-free vision mired in debate

Pentagon officials have pushed back against the president's goals to shrink the U.S. stockpile and reduce the role of such weapons in foreign policy, sources say.

Nine months after President Obama laid out his nuclear agenda in Prague, Czech Republic, last April, internal debate in Washington persists. (Shawn Thew / European Pressphoto Agency / April 5, 2009)

By Paul Richter
January 4, 2010
Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-obama-nuclear4-2010jan04,0,2198537,full.story

Reporting from Washington - President Obama's ambitious plan to begin phasing out nuclear weapons has run up against powerful resistance from officials in the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies, posing a threat to one of his most important foreign policy initiatives.

Obama laid out his vision of a nuclear-free world in a speech in Prague, Czech Republic, last April, pledging that the U.S. would take dramatic steps to lead the way. Nine months later, the administration is locked in internal debate over a top-secret policy blueprint for shrinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal and reducing the role of such weapons in America's military strategy and foreign policy.

Officials in the Pentagon and elsewhere have pushed back against Obama administration proposals to cut the number of weapons and narrow their mission, according to U.S. officials and outsiders who have been briefed on the process.

In turn, White House officials, unhappy with early Pentagon-led drafts of the blueprint known as the Nuclear Posture Review, have stepped up their involvement in the deliberations and ordered that the document reflect Obama's preference for sweeping change, according to the U.S. officials and others, who described discussions on condition of anonymity because of their sensitivity and secrecy.

The Pentagon has stressed the importance of continued U.S. deterrence, an objective Obama has said he agrees with. But a senior Defense official acknowledged in an interview that some officials are concerned that the administration may be going too far. He described the debate as "spirited. . . . I think we have every possible point of view in the world represented."

The debate represents another collision between Obama's administration and key parts of the national security establishment, after scrapes over troop levels in Afghanistan and missile defenses in Eastern Europe.

But more than those issues, the future of U.S. nuclear weapons policy is directly tied to a series of initiatives Obama has advanced as a prime goal of his presidency.

"This is the first test of Obama's nuclear commitments," said former U.S. Ambassador Nancy E. Soderberg, who held senior foreign policy positions in the Clinton administration. "They can't afford to fall short at the outset."

Congress called for the nuclear review, the third such study since the end of the Cold War, placing the Pentagon in charge. Similar reviews were conducted near the beginning of the Clinton and the George W. Bush administrations, but Obama's is the first in which substantial changes stand to be made both in the number of U.S. nuclear weapons and in how they are used.

The government maintains an estimated 9,400 nuclear weapons, about 1,000 fewer than in 2002. But Obama believes that stepping up efforts to reduce the stockpile will give U.S. officials added credibility in their quest to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the cornerstone international arms-control pact.

The timing of the administration debate on the nuclear review is crucial, because a key international meeting on the treaty is planned for May in New York.

Also looming this year are other elements of Obama's nuclear agenda, including renewal of an arms-reduction treaty with Russia and a push for Senate ratification of a global ban on nuclear testing.

The nonproliferation treaty has been weakened in recent years by the spread of nuclear technologies to countries such as North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. But nonnuclear countries are wary of intrusive new rules, arguing that though the United States preaches nuclear arms control to others, it has failed to live up to its own promises to disarm.

For Obama, the stakes are high. The difficulties posed by challenges in Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea and the Middle East underscore the need for progress on arms control.

Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in part because of expectations that he would make good on his pledge to reduce the nuclear threat.

Obama would not be the first president to suffer setbacks on nuclear policy at the hands of politics and the U.S. bureaucracy. President Clinton and Defense Secretary Les Aspin had ambitious plans to overhaul nuclear policy. But their 1994 review quickly bogged down in internal disagreement, and ended largely by preserving the status quo.

Obama has vowed to move toward abolishing American nuclear weapons, but has acknowledged that the process may not be completed in his lifetime.

The president told world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September that his administration would soon set out a new nuclear posture policy statement that "opens the door to deeper cuts and reduces the role of nuclear weapons."

But the process of doing so in Washington has encountered difficulty on several scores, according to those who described the talks.

A core issue under debate, officials said, is whether the United States should shed its long-standing ambiguity about whether it would use nuclear weapons in certain circumstances, in hopes that greater specificity would give foreign governments more confidence to make their own decisions on nuclear arms.

Some in the U.S. argue that the administration should assure foreign governments that it won't use nuclear weapons in reaction to a biological, chemical or conventional attack, but only in a nuclear exchange. Others argue that the United States should promise that it would never use nuclear weapons first, but only in response to a nuclear attack.

Pentagon officials question the value of such public declarations, contending that foreign governments may not even believe them, said the U.S. officials and others.

During the Cold War, Soviet officials declared that they would use nuclear weapons only in response to a nuclear attack. But when Soviet archives were opened, it became clear that "there were scenarios where they would have contemplated first use," said Charles Ferguson, a former State Department official who now heads the Federation of American Scientists.

The lingering skepticism that resulted could carry over to similar U.S. declarations, limiting their worth, some officials have argued.

A "no-first-use" policy may represent a bigger step than the Obama administration would be willing to take, private analysts said.

Instead, they think the administration might hedge its policy by saying, for instance, that the United States would use nuclear weapons only in situations that threatened its existence.

Another issue being debated is how to scale back the U.S. stockpile while continuing to provide nuclear protection to allies, in part to keep them from developing their own nuclear arsenals. The U.S. maintains hundreds of nuclear weapons overseas for such purposes.

For instance, some U.S. submarines in the Pacific carry nuclear-tipped torpedoes, which, Ferguson said, many Japanese officials like for their possible deterrent effect against a growing Chinese navy. Because nuclear weapons provide such assurance to a key ally, some U.S. officials are reluctant to cut back on the capability.

For similar reasons, some U.S. officials want to keep about 200 U.S. bombs at European bases, providing security for Eastern European countries.

Another debate is whether the U.S. needs three major delivery systems for its nuclear weapons -- long-range missiles, submarines and bombers. But eliminating one of them would face strong resistance from the affected military services and the lawmakers who support them.

The senior Defense official said the nuclear posture debate centers on the different ways toward the twin goals of nonproliferation and deterrence.

"We are not looking at whether to reduce the roles of nuclear weapons and whether to reduce [their numbers]," he said.

"We're looking at how."

paul.richter@...

Julian E. Barnes in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.


Ellen Thomas <et@...>
Proposition One in 2010 Campaign
PO Box 27217, Washington, DC 20038
202-682-4282 (dc) - 202-210-3886 (cell)
http://prop1.org - http://propositiononein2010.blogspot.com

Yes, We Can ...
Convert the War Machines ...
Provide for Human Needs ...
Think Globally, and Act Locally ...
Build Solar Panels and Windmills, Not Missiles and Bombs ...
IN OUR LIFETIMES!

LET THE VOTERS DECIDE!!!

#30893 From: Ellen Thomas <et@...>
Date: Tue Jan 5, 2010 3:32 am
Subject: What's News, 100104
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
 What's News

Updated - Monday, January 4, 2010

http://nucnews.com/whatsnew.php

#30892 From: false <savorsuccesslady3@...>
Date: Mon Jan 4, 2010 3:18 am
Subject: DC Area Stand Down: Radioactive Groundwater Due to Hit Chesapeake Bay
savorsuccess...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Another DC Area Stand Down -
As Radioactive Groundwater Due to Hit Chesapeake Bay
 
Cathy Garger
 
Axis of Logic exclusive
Sunday, Jan 3, 2010

 

Not far from the political wheeling and dealing, hidden from view outside Washington, DC, one of the most stunning cover-ups in environmental criminal history quietly gurgles below our feet. For outside the awareness of nearly 17 million residents exists a total news blackout of nuclear power plants that have leaked radioactive chemicals into the groundwater of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

 

To be clear, it’s not that media coverage of the polluted, oxygen-deprived Chesapeake Bay with its forty percent “dead zones†doesn’t exist. In fact, mid-Atlantic news coverage has been glutted for years with “save the Bay†rhetoric, public awareness campaigns, and half-hearted clean-up efforts. And while the dead-and-dying Chesapeake receives no shortage of coverage in the local media, the only pollution you’re going to hear about is that which does not concern radioactive contamination of the Chesapeake Bay.

 

Nuclear poisons aside, the defiled Chesapeake is forever in the news. In May, 2009, President Obama donned his cape and made like a cartoon super hero to [ostensibly pretend to] jump in to protect and restore the Chesapeake with an Executive Order. Thanks to dutiful White House staffers, the greater DC metro area media ravenously devoured such fanfare - as is par for the course on the poor Chesapeake’s woes. Well, on some of the Bay’s woes, that is –

 

Continued here:

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_57993.shtml

 

Please do not reply to this email address as it does not forward to me. Kindly use the email link on the bio page on the website

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/garger.shtml to send any comments.

Thank you.

 
 Cathy Garger
 Columnist
 Axis of Logic


#30891 From: "pzimmer3" <pzimmer3@...>
Date: Mon Jan 4, 2010 1:44 pm
Subject: Depleted Uranium, Low-Level Radiation and Deformed Babies
pzimmer3
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Uranium Weapons, Low-Level Radiation and Deformed Babies

by Paul Zimmerman

A dramatic increase in the number of babies born with birth defects was recently
reported by doctors working in Falluja, Iraq [1]. One of the proposed causes for
this alarming situation is radiation exposure to the population produced by
uranium weapons. The international radiation protection community dismisses this
explanation as completely unreasonable because (1) the radiation dose to the
population of Iraq was too low, and (2) no evidence of birth defects was
reported among offspring born to survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. This so-called scientific explanation is deeply disturbing, for it
is out of touch with the current knowledge base. Abundant evidence exists which
clearly demonstrates that birth defects are being induced by levels of radiation
in the environment deemed safe by the radiation protection community. In light
of this knowledge, uranium contamination cannot be summarily dismissed as a
hazard to the unborn.

The destruction of the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl produced a different type of
radiation exposure from that portrayed for the atomic bomb. In Japan, victims
were exposed to an instantaneous flash of gamma radiation and neutrons delivered
from outside their bodies. In contrast, the Chernobyl accident scattered
microscopic radioactive particles from the reactor's core throughout Europe
which was then inhaled and ingested by the populace.  In this situation, those
contaminated began receiving ongoing, low-dose exposure internally.  According
to the current theory of radiation effects embraced by the radiation protection
community, there is no qualitative difference in the two types of exposure. What
matters is the total amount of energy delivered to the body. Thus, the health
effects experienced by the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be considered
to be representative of the health effects produced from any type of radiation
exposure. In the case of birth defects, this assumption has been proven wrong. 
As a result of the external exposure in Japan, there was no increase in the
incidence of birth defects among children whose parents were exposed to the
bombings [2]. In contrast, radiation-induced birth defects have been documented
in populations receiving low doses of internal contamination.  In light of this
contradiction, it's obvious that the accepted theory of radiation effects is in
error and needs to be corrected. The information which follows will demonstrate
the hazard to the unborn produced by radioactive material vented into the
environment.

1.  In the book Chernobyl: 20 Years On, a chapter is devoted to discussing the
birth defects in children who, while gestating in the wombs of their mothers,
were exposed to radioactivity released by the Chernobyl reactor [3]. The author
provides an overview of dozens of studies which confirm that low levels of
radiation present in many areas of Europe after Chernobyl were responsible for a
wide variety of birth defects. These birth defects occurred where radiation
exposure was judged by the radiation protection agencies to be too low to
warrant concern.  Fifteen studies were cited which demonstrated an increase in
the incidence of a wide variety of congenital malformations. Other studies cited
confirmed increases in the rate of stillbirths, infant deaths, spontaneous
abortions, and low birthweight babies. An elevated incidence of Down's syndrome
was also documented. In addition, an excess of a variety of other health defects
were detected which included mental retardation and other mental disorders,
diseases of the respiratory and circulatory systems, and asthma.

In a separate chapter of the same book, Alexey Yablokov of the Russian Academy
of Sciences provided a review of the extensive body of research conducted after
Chernobyl.  Regarding studies on birth defects, he cited an increased frequency
of a number of congenital malformations which included cleft lip and/or palate
("hare lip"), doubling of the kidneys, polydactyly (extra fingers or toes),
anomalies in the development of nervous and blood systems, amelia (limb
reduction defects), anencephaly (defective development of the brain), spina
bifida (incomplete closure of the spinal column), Down's syndrome, abnormal
openings in the esophagus and anus, and multiple malformations occurring
simultaneously [4].

2.   The wide range of birth defects produced by the Chernobyl accident cannot
be accounted for by the data collected from the survivors of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. This is one compelling thread of evidence that something is amiss in
the current field of radiation protection. But there is a further problem.  The
proposed threshold dose of radiation capable of interfering with the development
of a fetus, again based on the research from Japan, is between fifty and one
hundred times greater than what the radiation protection community insists was
the typical exposure in the areas of Europe where the elevated frequency of
birth defects was documented. How are we to make sense of these contradictions?
Chromosome studies conducted in the contaminated regions provide the answer.

In individuals exposed to ionizing radiation, peripheral lymphocytes, those
lymphocytes which circulate in the blood, have an elevated occurrence of certain
types of misshapen chromosomes [3,5]. Of particular interest are dicentric
chromosomes which are produced when radiation breaks both strands of the DNA
double helix in two neighboring chromosomes and the genetic material is then
misrepaired. An increase in the relative frequency of these aberrantly shaped
structures serve as a biological indicator of radiation exposure which is immune
to lies and political propaganda.  More specifically, the increased rate of
these aberrations is proportional to the dose of radiation received. Thus, their
frequency can be used to determine the true level of exposure in contaminated
individuals. Studies of this type were conducted in Europe subsequent to the
Chernobyl accident [3]. These studies demonstrated that the official dose
estimates published by the radiation protection agencies were woefully in error,
greatly underestimating the true level of exposure of people throughout Europe. 
This discrepancy casts further doubt on the scientific integrity of those
organizations who are supposedly protecting the world from radioactive
pollution. When combining the studies of chromosome aberrations with the studies
of birth defects, the science speaks for itself: the population in many areas of
Europe received much higher doses from Chernobyl than claimed and birth defects
were induced by much smaller doses than suggested by current radiation
protection science.

3. As the clouds of fallout from Chernobyl wafted around the planet, governments
broadcast reassurances to their anxious citizens that there was no cause for
concern, that doses to the public would be too low to produce detrimental health
effects. Politically motivated, this advice was medically ill-conceived. What
became evident after the accident was that children who received exposure to
Chernobyl fallout, while still in the wombs of their mothers, experienced an
elevated risk of developing leukemia by the time of their first birthday [6,7].
Relevant to this discussion is the fact that a gene mutation occurring in utero
is one cause of infant leukemia [8,9].)  In countries where unimpeachable data
was collected for levels of fallout deposited in the environment, doses to the
population, and the incidence of childhood leukemia, an unmistakable, uniform
trend emerged: the studied population of children born during the 18-month
period following the accident suffered increased rates of leukemia in their
first year of life compared to children born prior to the accident or to those
born subsequent to the accident after the level of  possible maternal
contamination had sufficiently diminished. This was confirmed in five separate
studies conducted independently of one another: in Greece [9], Germany [10],
Scotland [11], the United States [12], and Wales [13]. Again here is evidence
that defects are being induced in fetuses that we are told by the radiation
protection community are not possible. According to the European Committee on
Radiation Risk (ECRR), these results provide unequivocal evidence that the risk
model of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) for
infant leukemia is in error by a factor of between 100-fold and 2000-fold, the
latter figure allowing for a continued excess incidence of leukemia as the
population of children studied continues to age [6].

4.  Other types of chromosome studies have been performed which demonstrate that
radiation in the environment is producing damage to DNA that is being passed on
to offspring.  Minisatellites are identical short segments of DNA that repeat
over and over again in a long array along a chromosome. These stretches of DNA
do not code for the formation of any protein. What distinguishes these
minisatellites is that they acquire spontaneous repeats through mutation at a
known rate, which is 1,000 times higher than normal protein-coding genes. Dr.
Yuri Dubrova, currently at the University of Leicester, first realized that
these stretches of DNA could be used to detect radiation-induced genetic
mutations by showing that their known rate of mutation had increased subsequent
to exposure.  Dubrova and his colleagues studied the rate of minisatellite
mutations in families that had lived in the heavily polluted rural areas of the
Mogilev district of Belarus after the Chernobyl meltdown [14]. They found the
frequency of mutations being passed on by males to their descendants was nearly
twice as high in the exposed families compared to the control group families.
Among those exposed, the mutation rate was significantly greater in families
with a higher parental dose. This finding was consistent with the hypothesis
that radiation had induced mutations in the the reproductive germ cells of
parents and then transmitted to their offspring. This was the first conclusive
proof that radiation produced inheritable mutations in humans.

Minisatellite DNA testing has also been performed on the children of Chernobyl
"liquidators" i.e., those people who participated in post-accident cleanup
operations. When the offspring of liquidators born after the accident were
compared to their siblings born prior to the accident, a sevenfold increase in
genetic damage was observed [15,16].  As reported by the ECRR, "for the loci
measured, this finding defined an error of between 700-fold and 2,000-fold in
the ICRP model for heritable genetic damage" [6]. The ECRR made this further
observation: "It is remarkable that studies of the children of those exposed to
external radiation at Hiroshima show little or no such effect, suggesting a
fundamental difference in mechanism between the exposures [17].  The most likely
difference is that it was the internal exposure to the Chernobyl liquidators
that caused the effects".

5. In November 2009, Joseph Mangano of the Radiation and Public Health Project
published a study of newborn hypothyroidism near the Indian Point nuclear
reactors in Buchanan, New York [13]. Hypothyroidism is a disease characterized
by an insufficient production of the hormone thyroxine. One cause of the disease
is exposure to radioactive iodine which selectively destroys cells in the
thyroid gland. Currently, the only environmental source of radioactive iodine is
emissions from nuclear power plants. According to Mangano, four counties in New
York state flank Indian Point and nearly all the residents of these counties
live within 20 miles of the reactor complex. During the period 1997 to 2007, the
rate of newborn hypothyroidism in the combined four-county population was 92.4%
greater, or nearly double, the U.S. rate. The rate in each of the four counties
separately was above the U.S. rate, and in two of the counties, the rate was
more than double the national rate. In the period 2005-2007, the four county
rate was 151.4% above the national rate. These finding were consistent with the
fact that the local rate of thyroid cancer is 66% greater than the U.S. rate
[14].

Mangano's study raises important questions regarding our common welfare.  We
live with assurances by government and industry that nuclear reactors are
operating within guidelines sponsored by the radiation protection agencies. 
What radiation they emit are dismissed as too low to warrant concern. An yet,
babies born to mothers living in proximity to Indian Point are suffering an
increased rate of hypothyroidism.  Either the reactor complex is emitting more
radiation than publicly known, or once again, there is an error in the safety
standards published by the radiation protection community.

6. Are weapons containing depleted uranium a cause for concern for producing
birth defects? Given that uranium inside the human body targets the reproductive
system, the elevated rate of birth defects in Iraq strongly suggests that DU
exposure is involved. In experimental animals exposed to uranium compounds,
uranium has been found to accumulate in the testes [20]. Among Gulf War veterans
wounded by DU shrapnel, elevated levels of uranium have been found in their
semen [21]. In light of this discovery, the Royal Society cautions that this
raises "the possibility of adverse effects on the sperm from either the
alpha-particles emanating from DU, chemical effects of uranium on the genetic
material or the chemical toxicity of uranium [21]." In experiments on female
rats, uranium was found to cross the placenta and become concentrated in the
tissues of the fetus [20,21,22].  When DU pellets were implanted into pregnant
female rats, a direct relation was observed between the amount of contamination
in the mother and the amount of contamination in the placenta and the fetus
[23,24]. Most importantly, once dissolved within the body, uranium's primary
chemical form is the uranyl ion UO2++. This form of uranium has an affinity for
DNA and binds strongly to it [25]. This fact alone is should be sufficient to
halt the scattering of DU aerosols amidst populations. Internalized uranium
targets human genetic material! Needless to say, this fact is totally ignored by
the International Commission on Radiological Protection and related
organizations when determining safe levels of exposure to uranium and assessing
the risk posed by uranium for inducing birth defects.

7.  In infants, hydrocephalus is a condition characterized by increased head
size and atrophy of the brain. The frequency of this birth defect has increased
dramatically in Iraq since the first Gulf War [26]. A small and admittedly
incomplete study conducted in the United States lends credence to the hypothesis
that DU exposure is the causative agent [26]. Rural and sparsely populated
Socorro County is located downwind of a DU-weapons testing site, the Terminal
Effects Research and Analysis division of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology. On average, 250 births occur yearly in the county.  An investigation
by a community activist revealed that between 1984 and 1986, five infants were
born with hydrocephalus. (The normal rate of hydrocephalus is one case in every
500 live births). According to the demonstrably incomplete State of New Mexico's
passive birth defects registry, between 1984 and 1988, 19 infants were born
statewide with the condition, three of these within Socorro county. Regardless
of which accounting is correct, the results are disturbing given that Socorro
contains less than 1% of the state's population.

8.  To conclude, the current dogma regarding radiation effects cannot account
for the increase in genetic malformations in populations exposed internally to
low levels of radiation. Something is deeply wrong with the current science of
radiation safety.  Given this, statements by the radiation protection community
regarding the impossibility that low levels of uranium can cause birth defects
are suspect.  Numerous studies demonstrate that uranium produces a wide range of
birth defects in experimental animals [20,26].  Further, numerous in vitro and
in vivo studies conducted in the last twenty years have proven that uranium is
genotoxic (capable of damaging DNA), cytotoxic (poisonous to cells), and
mutagenic (capable of inducing mutations) [27]. These effects are produced
either by uranium's radioactivity or its chemistry or a synergistic interaction
between the two. These findings lend plausibility to the idea that the observed
increased incidence of deformed babies in Iraq is related to depleted uranium
munitions [26].

Paul Zimmerman is the author of A Primer in the Art of Deception:  The Cult of
Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science.  A more technical, fully
referenced presentation of the ideas presented in this article can be found
within its pages. Excerpts, free to download, are available at
www.du-deceptions.com.

Bibliography

[1]  Chulov M.  Huge Rise in Birth Defects in Falluja.  guardian.co.uk. 
November 13, 2009. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/13/falluja-cancer-children-birth-defect\
s#history-byline
[2]  Nakamura N.  Genetic Effects of Radiation in Atomic-bomb Survivors and
Their Children: Past, Present and Future.  Journal of Radiation Research.  2006;
47(Supplement):B67-B73.
[3]  Schmitz-Feurerhake I.  Radiation-Induced Effects in Humans After in utero
Exposure:  Conclusions from Findings After the Chernobyl Accident.  In C.C.
Busby, A.V.Yablokov (eds.):  Chernobyl: 20 Years On.  European Committee on
Radiation Risk.  Aberystwyth, United Kingdom: Green Audit Press; 2006.
[4]  Yablokov A.V.  The Chernobyl Catastrophe -- 20 Years After (a meta-review).
In C.C. Busby, A.V. Yablokov (eds.):   Chernobyl: 20 Years On.  European
Committee on Radiation Risk.  Aberystwyth, United Kingdom: Green Audit Press;
2006.
[5]  Hoffmann W., Schmitz-Feuerhake I.  How Radiation-specific is the Dicentric 
Assay?  Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. 1999;
2:113-133.
[6]  European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR).  Recommendations of the
European Committee on Radiation Risk: the Health Effects of Ionising Radiation
Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes. Regulators' Edition. 
Brussels; 2003.  www.euradcom.org.
[7]  Low Level Radiation Campaign (LLRC).  Infant Leukemia After Chernobyl. 
Radioactive Times: The Journal of the Low Level Radiation Campaign.  2005; 
6(1):13.
[8]  Busby C.C.  Very Low Dose Fetal Exposure to Chernobyl Contamination
Resulted in Increases in Infant Leukemia in Europe and Raises Questions about
Current Radiation Risk Models.  International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health.  2009; 6:3105-3114.
[9]  Petridou E., Trichopoulos D., Dessypris N., Flytzani V., Haidas S.,
Kalmanti M.K., Koliouskas D., Kosmidis H., Piperolou F., Tzortzatou F.  Infant
Leukemia After In Utero Exposure to Radiation From Chernobyl.   Nature.  1996;
382:352-353.
[10]  Michaelis J., Kaletsch U., Burkart W., Grosche B.  Infant Leukemia After
the Chernobyl Accident.  Nature.  1997; 387:246.
[11]  Gibson B.E.S., Eden O.B., Barrett A., Stiller C.A., Draper G.J.  Leukemia
in Young Children in Scotland. Lancet. 1988; 2(8611):630.
[12]  Mangano J.J.  Childhood Leukemia in the US May Have Risen Due to Fallout
From Chernobyl.  British Medical Journal.  1997; 314:1200.
[13]  Busby C, Scott Cato M.  Increases in Leukemia in Infants in Wales and
Scotland Following Chernobyl: Evidence for Errors in Statutory Risk Estimates. 
Energy and Environment.  2000; 11(2):127-139.
[14]  Dubrova Y.E., Nesterov V.N., Jeffreys A.J., et al.  Further Evidence for
Elevated Human Minisatellite Mutation Rate in Belarus Eight Years After the
Chernobyl Accident.  Mutation Research.  1997; 381:267-278.
[15]  Weinberg H.S., Korol A.B., Kiezhner V.M., Avavivi A., Fahima T., Nevo E.,
Shapiro S., Rennert G., Piatak O., Stepanova E.I., Skarskaja E.  Very High
Mutation Rate in Offspring of Chernobyl Accident Liquidators.  Proceedings of
the Royal Society. London.  2001;  D, 266:1001-1005.
[16]  Dubrova Y.E., et al.  Human Minisatellite Mutation Rate after the
Chernobyl Accident.  Nature. 1996; 380:683-686.
[17]   Satoh C., Kodaira M.  Effects of Radiation on Children.  Nature.  1996;
383:226.
[18]  Mangano J.  Newborn Hypothyroidism Near the Indian Point Nuclear Plant. 
Radiation and Public Health Project.  November 25, 2009.  www.radiation.org
[19]  Mangano J.  Geographic Variation in U.S. Thyroid Cancer Incidence and a
Cluster Near Nuclear Reactors in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.  
International Journal of Health Services.  2009; 39(4):643-661.
[20]  Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).  Toxicological
Profile for Uranium.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 1999.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp150.html
[21]  Royal Society.  Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium Munitions: Part II. 
London: Royal Society, March 2002.
[22]  Albina L., Belles M., Gomez M., Sanchez D.J., Domingo J.L.  Influence of
Maternal Stress on Uranium-Induced Developmental Toxicity in Rats.  Experimental
Biology and Medicine.  2003; 228( 9):1072-1077.
[23]  Arfsten D.P., Still K.R., Ritchie G.D.  A Review of the Effects of Uranium
and Depleted Uranium Exposure on Reproduction and Fetal Development.  Toxicology
and Industrial Health.  2001; 17:180-191.
[24]  Domingo J.  Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity of Natural and
Depleted Uranium: A Review.  Reproductive Toxicology.  2001; 15:603-609.
[25]  Wu O., Cheng X., et al.  Specific Metal Oligonucleotide Binding Studied By
High Resolution Tandem Mass Spectrometry.  Journal of Mass Spectrometry.  1996;
321(6) 669-675.
[26]  Hindin R., Brugge D., Panikkar B.  Teratogenicity of Depleted Uranium
Aerosols: A Review from an Epidemiological Perspective.  Environmental Health. 
2005; 26(4):17.
[27]  Zimmerman P.  A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists,
Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science.  2009.  www.du-deceptions.com

#30890 From: "energyqu" <energyqu@...>
Date: Mon Jan 4, 2010 7:28 am
Subject: A Tiny Solar Cells That Can Be installed On The Cloth
energyqu
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
A very revolutionary discoveries about the solar cells that very tiny which can be installed even on a cloth, shirt or a tent has been done by Scientists at Sandia National Laboratories. They also have 14.9% efficiency level because only consume an estimated 100 times less silicon to produce the same amount of electricity compared to standard solar cells. Read more at http://earthalternate.blogspot.com/ 

#30889 From: Ellen Thomas <et@...>
Date: Mon Jan 4, 2010 5:01 pm
Subject: Nuclear Calendar 100103
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
[]  []
[]  [] Submit Calendar Items
[]  [] []
 

Nuclear Calendar

 
January 4, 2010 Receive updates by email

Note: Calendar entries for 2011 have been posted on the web version of the Nuclear Calendar at www.fcnl.org/NuclearCalendar.
Dec. 17-Jan. 11 House of Representatives end of session recess.
Dec. 25-Jan. 19 Senate end of session recess.
Jan. 5 Congress convenes in a pro forma session.
Jan. 8 Noon-1:30 p.m., Shahram Chubin, Wilson Center, " Iran's Nuclear Ambitions in Context." Wilson Center, Fifth Floor Conference Room, Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington. RSVP online. Webcast on the Wilson Center website.
Jan. 12 House of Representatives convenes for legislative business.
Jan. 12 2:00-4:00 p.m., Richard Weitz, Hudson Institute; Matthew Rojansky, Partnership for a Secure America; Ellen Laipson, Stimson Center; James Dobbins, RAND; Hillel Fradkin, Hudson Institute; and Alex Vatanka, Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst, Iran's Nuclear Challenge: U.S. Options. Hudson Institute, 1015 15th St, NW, Sixth Floor, Washington. RSVP to Richard Weitz by email.
Jan. 13-14 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists hosts its first annual Doomsday Clock Symposium. New York.
Jan. 15 11:00 a.m., House Foreign Affairs Committee, field hearing on " The Impact of U.S. Export Controls on National Security, Science and Technological Leadership," with John Hennessy, Stanford University, and William Potter, Monterey Institute of International Studies. At Stanford University, room and building TBA, Palo Alto, CA.
Jan. 15 Defense Department's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation reports to the Secretary of Defense and to Congress on the status of the Airborne Laser System of the missile defense system ( Public Law 110-417, Sec. 235).
Jan. 18 Martin Luther King Jr. Day (federal holiday).
Jan. 18 Conference on Disarmament first session for 2010 begins. Geneva.
Jan. 18-? Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance Rose Gottemoeller and Russian Foreign Ministry's Security and Disarmament Department director Anatoly Antonov hold a ninth round of negotiations on a strategic nuclear arms reduction treaty (estimate). Geneva.
Jan. 19 Massachusetts special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.
Jan. 20 Senate convenes for legislative business.
Jan. 20 4:00-5:30 p.m., Houston Wood, University of Virginia; David Albright, Institute for Science and International Security; and Jeffrey Lewis, New America Foundation, " The History of the Gas Centrifuge and its Role in Nuclear Proliferation." Wilson Center, Fifth Floor Conference Room, Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington. RSVP online. Webcast on the Wilson Center website.
Jan. 20-22 or week of Jan. 25 Senate floor action on the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009, S. 2799. Broadcast and video and audio webcast on C-SPAN2.
Jan. 21-22 Middle Powers Initiative, "Atlanta Consultation III: Fulfilling the NPT," Carter Center, Atlanta (closed). For information, contact Jim Wurst by email.
Jan. 22 Time TBA, Missile Defense Agency conducts a Ground-Based Interceptor test, FTG-06, for the missile defense system. Reagan Test Site, Marshall Islands, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA. The test will simulate an Iranian missile attack on the United States.
Jan. 25 4:00-5:30 p.m., Sidney Drell, Hoover Institution; George Shultz, former Secretary of State; and Philip Taubman, CISAC, " Working Toward a World Without Nuclear Weapons: Sidney Drell and George Shultz in Conversation with Philip Taubman." Stanford University, Tresidder Memorial Union, Oak Lounge, Palo Alto, CA.
Jan. 26 or 27 9:00 p.m., President Obama gives the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress (estimate). Broadcast and video and audio webcast on C-SPAN, and broadcast on other networks.
Jan. 27 5:30 p.m., Thomas Pickering, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, "The U.S., Iran, and the Greater Middle East." National Committee on American Foreign Policy, 122 E. 66th St., New York. Reservations by Jan. 22 at (212) 224-1120.
Jan. 28-29 University of Georgia, " Legal Framework for Strengthening Nuclear Security and Combating Nuclear Terrorism." Vienna, Austria.
Jan. 29 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Wilson Center, " Peace and Security on the Korean Peninsula," with keynote address by Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg and with 13 other speakers. Wilson Center, Fifth Floor Conference Room, Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington. RSVP online. Webcast on the Wilson Center website.
Jan. 29 Due date for comments on the National Nuclear Security Administration's draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Y-12 National Security Complex. Comments may be submitted by email.
Jan. 30 Defense Department submits an annual report to Congress on the threat posed to the United States by weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles ( 50 U.S. Code Sec. 2367).
Jan. 30 Defense Department submits an annual report to Congress on the current and future military strategy of Iran ( Public Law 111-84, Sec. 1245).
Jan. 31 President Obama submits an annual report to Congress on a plan to secure nuclear weapons, material, and expertise in the former Soviet Union ( 22 U.S. Code Sec. 5952 note). The report is usually included as an appendix in the annual report to Congress on how the Cooperative Threat Reduction (Nunn-Lugar) Program can contribute to implementing the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT or Moscow Treaty) and to securing Russian nuclear weapons and material ( Treaty Document 107-8, Sec. 2(1)).
Jan. 31 President Obama reports to Congress on U.S. engagement with Iran ( Public Law 111-84, Sec. 1241).
Jan. 31 Defense Department submits to Congress the Ballistic Missile Defense Policy Review ( Public Law 110-417, Sec. 234).
Jan. or Feb. Senate Armed Services Committee, vote on the nomination of Donald Cook to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration.
Jan. or Feb. Senate floor votes on the nominations of Philip Coyle to be Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; Laura Kennedy to be U.S. Representative to the Conference on Disarmament; and Philip Goldberg to be Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research.
Jan. or Feb. Missile Defense Agency attempts to shoot down a ballistic missile with the Airborne Laser. Edwards Air Force Base, CA.
Jan. or Feb. National Academy of Sciences releases a report on Sustaining and Improving the Nation's Nuclear Forensics Capabilities (estimate).
Feb. 1 President Obama submits the federal budget to Congress.
Feb. 1 President Obama submits an annual National Security Strategy report to Congress ( 50 U.S. Code Sec. 404a).
Feb. 1 Defense Department submits the Quadrennial Defense Review to Congress ( 10 U.S. Code Sec. 118).
Feb. 1 National Nuclear Security Administration submits a biennial plan and budget assessment to Congress on the modernization and refurbishment of the Nuclear Security Complex for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 ( Public Law 111-84, Sec. 3116)
Feb. 1 Director of National Intelligence submits an annual report to Congress on the acquisition by foreign countries of technology for the development or production of weapons of mass destruction ( 50 U.S. Code Sec. 2366). Previous reports are posted on the National Counterproliferation Center website.

An email version of the Nuclear Calendar is published every Monday morning when Congress is in session. Subscribe on FCNL's website. Unsubscribe on FCNL's website, or send an email to nuclearcalendar-unsubscribe@....

© 2009 Friends Committee on National Legislation, 245 Second Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002 | 202-547-6000 | www.fcnl.org

The editor is David Culp. The publication is made possible by generous contributions from the Colombe Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Lippincott Foundation, the Nuclear Threat Initiative the Ploughshares Fund, and the individual contributors and supporters of the Friends Committee on National Legislation and the FCNL Education Fund.
 


#30888 From: Ellen Thomas <et@...>
Date: Mon Jan 4, 2010 4:53 pm
Subject: What's News, 100103
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
 What's News

Updated - Sunday, January 3, 2010

http://nucnews.com/whatsnew.php

#30887 From: Proposition One In 2010 Campaign <et@...>
Date: Sun Jan 3, 2010 12:41 pm
Subject: What's News, 100101
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
 What's News

Updated - Friday, January 1, 2010

http://nucnews.com/whatsnew.php

#30886 From: Proposition One In 2010 Campaign <et@...>
Date: Sun Jan 3, 2010 12:42 pm
Subject: What's News, 100102
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
 What's News

Updated - Saturday, January 2, 2010

http://nucnews.com/whatsnew.php

#30885 From: Proposition One In 2010 Campaign <et@...>
Date: Fri Jan 1, 2010 2:11 pm
Subject: What's News, 091231
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
 What's News

Updated - Thursday, December 31, 2009

#30884 From: Proposition One In 2010 Campaign <et@...>
Date: Fri Jan 1, 2010 2:08 pm
Subject: What's News, 091230
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
 What's News

Updated - Wednesday, December 30, 2009

#30883 From: "grobhak" <grobhak@...>
Date: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:06 pm
Subject: China's World’s Largest Solar-powered Building
grobhak
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
The world's largest solar-powered building with area of 75,000-square-meter and equipped by 5000 square meter of solar panel array have been built in Dezhou,China. This magnificent office building known as the Sun and the Moon Altar micro-row buildings will serve 95 percent of energy needs for the building itself. Read more at http://earthalternate.blogspot.com/ 

#30882 From: <theroyprocess@...>
Date: Tue Dec 29, 2009 8:20 pm
Subject: Gammafet - Personal Radiation Detector
theroyproces...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
http://www.gammafet.com/
INTRODUCING THE gammaFET® Model P1
 Personal Radiation Detector

Finally an affordable gamma detector $59.95 ($3.95 S & H)
P1
P1 closeupAudacity Screen
Audacity screen shot: thoriated lantern mantle for three minutes.

 
Designed for your personal safety, gives an audible and visible warning of radiation levels
. Use in the field with the flashing LED, or at your PC with the supplied sound card cable. Audio out is <2Vpp.
2.25" x 2.25" x 1.0"
Drop resistant to 6'.
1.6 oz. incl. 9V battery
4000 hours of use from one alkaline cell
Visible low battery indicator
Greater than one flash per minute means a potentially hazardous 0.5 R/yr level.
Detects all ionizing radiation above 8KeV: gamma, x ray, beta, neutron, muon, proton
100% Made in the USA.
5 Year warranty
User's Guide
Short 6MB Video

email: info@...
 
 

#30881 From: Ellen Thomas <et@...>
Date: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:25 pm
Subject: What's News, 091229
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
 What's News

Updated - Tuesday, December 29, 2009

http://nucnews.com/whatsnew.php

#30880 From: Ellen Thomas <et@...>
Date: Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:41 pm
Subject: Top 100 Energy Stories Dec. 21st – 27th 2 009
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
From: roger Herried <rogerh@...>

Top 100 Energy Stories Dec. 21st – 27th 2009

Anybody have a best of the year list of articles?  What’s your pick for the top nuclear stories for 2009? I’m considering putting together a special addition of the bulletin just to put the year in perspective.

In a major surprise, considering just the week before UAE had claimed that it was putting off making any decision over picking a contractor for who would win their $40 billion construction of reactors, the country which has a dismal human rights track record, came out and selected South Korea as the contractor for their multi-reactor construction plan.  And we have to thank Obama for this considering that just the week before he personally signed Bush’s treaty that set up this disastrous event.  This really sticks in my craw because first and foremost it represents a huge shot in the arm to the nuclear industries super-ego, but it also represents a failure of the anti-nuclear movement in this country to take international issues seriously as there has not once been a peep out of over this or also the disastrous 123 treaty that Obama also licked up that allowed India to become a nuclear club player without having to fulfill international treaty obligations. Isn’t it about time we see a single major group in this country call for the Nobel committee to pull his peace prize as we are watching as countries like Japan have now pointed out his duplicity in failing to truly reverse the Bush Policy, and in fact with North Korea and Iran, fall into the same kind of traps.  Worse yet, with Obama’s Afghanistan decision, combined with the shift towards supporting India, we are potentially watching a new nuclear failed state in Pakistan setting up what could very well be Bush’s proverbial Mushroom cloud warning.  Yeah, Obama, there is evil in the world, and its America’s global foreign policy that most the world believes that best fits that definition! Bush’s GNEP agenda is now a matter of years from becoming reality as american anti-nuclear activists all but ignore the implications.

Oh, and yeah, how about that the global community failed to reach any kind of binding agreement on climate-change.  Harvey Wasserman suggests that this is a good thing in that the nuclear component that was being pushed globally and in the U.S. may lose some of its momentum. Yet, in the week following the talk’s collapse, China and as mentioned above UAE came out with announcements to push nuclear.  Anybody think that this isn’t more than a mere coincidence?

In other stories there was a 220,000 gallon tritium spill in Canada, The Swiss government gave an open ended license renewal to a reactor there, and against the will of people in South Africa the government has decided to go ahead with new reactor construction. We are also watching as one of the most destabilized countries in the world, Nigeria also was given a blessing to start developing a new reactor program by the IAEA. Any wonder such a poor country with few power lines as to who the recipient of that power will be?

Not a big news week other than DOE accidentally blowing up a building and a major scandal uncovered about one of the NRC’s commissioners but then, if you really think that that gives you permission not to review just what happened then you aren’t paying attention… There’s 100 stories, and some of the best from last week are carried over, if you didn’t check them out or are following the major battle out in Utah, or want to see Helen Calidicott’s speech, then make sure to look!!!  Season’s Greetings.


#30879 From: Reaching Critical Will <et@...> (by way of Ellen Thomas <et@...>)
Date: Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:41 pm
Subject: NPT News in Review, 12 May 2009
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
From: Reaching Critical Will <nir@...>

Dear all:
 
Please find the seventh edition of Reaching Critical Will's daily NPT newsletter, the NPT News in Review, online for download in PDF format at http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/NIR2009/No7.pdf.
 
In this edition:
  Finding the balance
  News in Brief
  Educating for disarmament
  Will the NPT finally open its arms to the Nuclear Weapons Convention?
  What 1540 could be: An equitable approach to non-proliferation in a globalised world
  Nuclear Bailout: the Costs and Consequences of Renovating the Nuclear Weapons Complex
  Are New Nuclear Warheads Needed for Safety and Reliability of the U.S. Arsenal?
  What's On: Calendar of Events
 
Below is the editorial and News in Brief printed in this edition. In addition, stay tuned to the Reaching Critical Will blog for updates on the NPT throughout the day and find all government and NGO statements online.
 
In peace,
Ms. Ray Acheson
Project Director, Reaching Critical Will
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, UN Office
 

Finding the balance
Ray Acheson | Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

Front page article from the NPT News in Review, the daily NGO newsletter from the third session of the
Preparatory Committee for the 2010 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference
Tuesday, 12 May 2009

Monday saw the conclusion of statements on Cluster Three, peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and on “other provisions of the Treaty, including Article X.” Article X contains provisions for withdrawing from the NPT, requiring states to give notice to other NPT parties and to the UN Security Council three months in advance.

Delegations expressed diverging views on both subjects. The crux of both is finding a balance between respecting the rights and obligations of states parties. Amid all the attention given to a few recent, isolated compliance cases, many delegations have emphasized the need to adopt measures to ensure or reinforce obligations over rights.

With nuclear energy, most states firmly reminded the Committee that the non-nuclear weapon states are already obligated to place their nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards and argued that they should not be expected to take on additional obligations, such as ratifying the Additional Protocol­especially since nuclear weapon states are not obligated to have their facilities under any safeguards.

However, in the debate between rights and obligations, needs sometimes seem forgotten. For example, additional verification authority (especially that provided by the Additional Protocol) will be a necessary condition for achieving and ensuring compliance with a nuclear weapon free world. This is a view that is compatible with the approach taken by the International Panel on Fissile Materials, which recommends that all states parties to a prospective fissile materials treaty adhere to the Additional Protocol as the verification standard. Thus, the Additional Protocol may be ultimately seen as a necessary disarmament measure.

Some states have expressed concern that the so-called “nuclear renaissance” will lead to increased probabilities of proliferation of “sensitive” technologies to “irresponsible” actors, and thus the fuel cycle and related technologies and materials need to be placed under stricter controls. However, the Egyptian delegation questioned the rhetoric of “responsible” versus “irresponsible” nuclear technology or states, asking, if “emerging nuclear programs should only give birth to proliferation-resistant reactors without front or back ends [of the fuel cycle], would not those States who continue to run front and back-ended heavy water reactors be, by definition, irresponsible? Or must we consider that what is irresponsible for some is responsible for another?”

A similar debate, between those concerned with the potential consequences of withdrawal from the Treaty and those concerned with restrictions of states rights as spelled out in international law, occurred during discussion of Article X. While some states wish to clarify the requirements for withdrawal, others warn that any added conditions to the process of withdrawal could potentially undermine international law by contravening the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Further, several delegations seem to equate withdrawal from the Treaty with a threat to international peace and security under any circumstance. Some of these delegations also support measures intended to make withdrawal from the Treaty more costly in general, regardless of whether the withdrawing state has actually violated any of its obligations. These views are often coupled with a call for an immediate convening of the UN Security Council.

While it would be a worthwhile pursuit to adopt some common understandings or measures in order to respond to withdrawal from the Treaty by states that have committed material breaches of their obligations, it is also important to ensure there are appropriate mechanisms for establishing the context and conditions of the withdrawal.

It would also be beneficial to explore incentives to encourage states parties to remain party to the Treaty, through a general strengthening of the Treaty’s existing provisions and fulfillment of its past commitments. For example, the Norwegian delegation suggested reaffirming the Treaty’s viability through a “forward-looking outcome of the 2010 Review Conference;” enhancing nuclear cooperation and IAEA capacity; codifying security assurances within the NPT context; and further strengthening the review cycle.

The attempt to balance rights and obligations under the NPT will undoubtedly continue to be a focus of debate at the Review Conference, but a careful consideration of what will lead to the strongest disarmament regime possible offers the best guide forward.

Michael Spies contributed analysis to this article.

News in Brief
Michael Spies | Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

News in Brief section from the NPT News in Review, the daily NGO newsletter from the third session of the
Preparatory Committee for the 2010 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference
Tuesday, 12 May 2009

Preparation for the 2010 RevCon

• On Tuesday morning, the chair will open the floor for general comments on his draft recommendations.
• States decided to allocate the same agenda items to the main committees as in 2005.
• States decided to defer consideration of the final document until the RevCon in keeping with past practice, following a suggestion from New Zealand and in light of divergent views.
• States also decided on a number of other procedural issues pertaining to the RevCon, agreeing to some measures to cut the cost of background documentation, authorizing the bureau to work intercessionally, and inviting intergovernment and non-government organizations to attend the RevCon.

Highlights from the Cluster 3 Discussion

Fuel supply assurances
• The IAEA described progress toward establishing a three-tiered mechanism for fuel assurances, based on its current legal authority, including market-based assurances and a LEU fuel reserve.
• Many delegations expressed support for the IAEA’s efforts to establish a nuclear fuel bank, including the EU, US, UK, France, and Norway. Norway also expressed support for the German fuel cycle proposal.
• Malaysia said that the fuel bank proposal still requires additional study regarding its legal, political, technical, and economic dimensions.
• In response to fuel assurances, Egypt observed that current efforts to create supply assurances did not seem to be arising from concerns over supply but rather from concerns of supplier states.

Discussion of multilateral fuel cycle approaches
• Turkey, the ROK, and Indonesia cautioned that multilateral approaches should not impede on the right of states to make decisions about their own development of the fuel cycle.
• China, Indonesia, and Iran called for in-depth studies to assess political, economic, security, and/or technical dimensions of multilateral approaches. Cuba called for in-depth negotiations and for any proposal to be adopted by consensus. Iran said any proposal should be taken up by the IAEA General Conference and not by the Board of Governors.
• Several delegations warned against measures that would effectively result in the denial of technology or compromise rights, including Brazil, Switzerland, Malaysia, Nigeria, and Iran. Brazil warned that multilateral approaches must not impede the rights of states that adhere to comprehensive safeguards. Switzerland said it does not envisage support for proposals that in effect strengthen existing monopolies or aim in principle to restrict the rights of states. Malaysia and Iran warned that any approach must not introduce any new non-proliferation commitments beyond existing ones. Nigeria said any measures must not impose “unnecessary” limitations on nuclear transfers.
• The ROK urged for more attention to be paid to multilateral approaches to the back end of the fuel cycle, including waste management.
• New Zealand said any proposal must include measures related to safety and security of nuclear materials, especially related to transport on the high seas.
• Austria said any proposal should increase transparency, further international security, and create conditions for nuclear disarmament.
• Egypt argued against the concepts of proliferation-sensitive technologies and irresponsible nuclear states.

Discussion of other nuclear energy issues
• The EU proposed an action plan on promoting the responsible development of nuclear energy, focusing on promoting assistance, safety, security, safeguards, transparency, and development of multilateral approaches to the fuel cycle.
• Norway cautioned that nuclear energy might not always be the right way to generate electricity and welcomed the establishment of IRENA.
• Austria said that in light of the economic costs and the problem of waste, nuclear power is not a sustainable solution to climate change.

Highlights from the Focused Discussion on Withdrawal from the Treaty

• The United States reiterated its past positions regarding the need to develop an understanding on responding to the withdrawal of treaty violators.
• The EU also reaffirmed its past positions and proposals, as set forth in a 2007 working paper.
• Several delegations, including Australia, the EU, Japan, and Russia, supported the principle that nuclear materials and facilities provided to a state, while party to the Treaty, should remain in peaceful use and under safeguards after that party were to withdraw.
• Several delegations, including the EU, Japan, Russia, Canada, also supported the principle that a withdrawing state should remain liable for violations committed while party to the Treaty.
• Several delegations expressed the view that, in the case of withdrawal, any materials supplied under Article IV should be returned to the supplying state. Russia said that any materials that could not be returned should remain under lifetime IAEA safeguards.
• Russia expressed support for clarifying the requirement of Article X, specifically recommending that a notice to withdraw should be submitted in writing and provide sufficient detail of the reasons for withdrawal.
• States expressed divergent views on whether any withdrawal constitutes a threat to international peace and security. Canada and Norway suggested any withdraw would constitute a threat to international. Russia and Cuba disputed any such automatic link. The ROK noted a withdrawal could constitute a threat.
• A number of delegations, including Russia, Cuba, and Iran, expressed opposition to revising Article X or undermining the sovereign right to withdraw.
• States expressed divergent views on a response mechanism, particularly on the question of whether a withdrawal should trigger an automatic meeting of the UN Security Council or the IAEA Board of Governors, or if an extraordinary session of states parties should be convened.
• Indonesia opposed bringing withdrawal cases to the Security Council, expressing support instead for extraordinary sessions of states parties.
• Several delegations advocated for the Security Council to convene immediately upon receiving a notice of withdrawal. Russia expressed opposition to any immediate meeting of the Council, noting that the body itself must decide whether any particular case constitutes a threat to the peace.

Discussion of Other Issues

Institutional Reform
• Canada provided further details on its proposals to achieve further reform of NPT institutions and the review process. Canada specifically called for: annual general conferences; establishment of a standing bureau; and establishment of a NPT support unit with the Office of Disarmament Affairs.
• Norway expressed support for the ideas of holding annual meetings and for establishing an NPT support unit.


#30878 From: roger Herried <rogerh@...> (by way of Ellen Thomas <et@...>)
Date: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:55 am
Subject: Top 100 Energy Stories Dec. 21st – 27th 2 009
rogerh@...
Send Email Send Email
 
From: roger Herried <rogerh@...>

Top 100 Energy Stories Dec. 21st – 27th 2009

Anybody have a best of the year list of articles?  What’s your pick for the top nuclear stories for 2009? I’m considering putting together a special addition of the bulletin just to put the year in perspective.

In a major surprise, considering just the week before UAE had claimed that it was putting off making any decision over picking a contractor for who would win their $40 billion construction of reactors, the country which has a dismal human rights track record, came out and selected South Korea as the contractor for their multi-reactor construction plan.  And we have to thank Obama for this considering that just the week before he personally signed Bush’s treaty that set up this disastrous event.  This really sticks in my craw because first and foremost it represents a huge shot in the arm to the nuclear industries super-ego, but it also represents a failure of the anti-nuclear movement in this country to take international issues seriously as there has not once been a peep out of over this or also the disastrous 123 treaty that Obama also licked up that allowed India to become a nuclear club player without having to fulfill international treaty obligations. Isn’t it about time we see a single major group in this country call for the Nobel committee to pull his peace prize as we are watching as countries like Japan have now pointed out his duplicity in failing to truly reverse the Bush Policy, and in fact with North Korea and Iran, fall into the same kind of traps.  Worse yet, with Obama’s Afghanistan decision, combined with the shift towards supporting India, we are potentially watching a new nuclear failed state in Pakistan setting up what could very well be Bush’s proverbial Mushroom cloud warning.  Yeah, Obama, there is evil in the world, and its America’s global foreign policy that most the world believes that best fits that definition! Bush’s GNEP agenda is now a matter of years from becoming reality as american anti-nuclear activists all but ignore the implications.

Oh, and yeah, how about that the global community failed to reach any kind of binding agreement on climate-change.  Harvey Wasserman suggests that this is a good thing in that the nuclear component that was being pushed globally and in the U.S. may lose some of its momentum. Yet, in the week following the talk’s collapse, China and as mentioned above UAE came out with announcements to push nuclear.  Anybody think that this isn’t more than a mere coincidence?

In other stories there was a 220,000 gallon tritium spill in Canada, The Swiss government gave an open ended license renewal to a reactor there, and against the will of people in South Africa the government has decided to go ahead with new reactor construction. We are also watching as one of the most destabilized countries in the world, Nigeria also was given a blessing to start developing a new reactor program by the IAEA. Any wonder such a poor country with few power lines as to who the recipient of that power will be?

Not a big news week other than DOE accidentally blowing up a building and a major scandal uncovered about one of the NRC’s commissioners but then, if you really think that that gives you permission not to review just what happened then you aren’t paying attention… There’s 100 stories, and some of the best from last week are carried over, if you didn’t check them out or are following the major battle out in Utah, or want to see Helen Calidicott’s speech, then make sure to look!!!  Season’s Greetings.

#30877 From: Ellen Thomas <et@...>
Date: Tue Dec 29, 2009 3:04 am
Subject: April 2010 Walk for Nuclear Disarmament from Washington, DC to New York City
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT - YES, WE CAN! IN OUR LIFETIME!

http://nptwalk2010.wikidot.com/

WELCOME to the (in)formation site for the April 2010 Walk for Nuclear Disarmament from Washington, DC to New York, NY through Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, Princeton, and points between.

Our walk will depart Washington, DC on April 8, 2010. We will walk about 15 miles each day (some days more, some less) while meeting, eating and staying with supportive groups and individuals in cities and towns along the way, covering about 250 miles in 21 days.

Our objective: to support the United Nations, US President Barack Obama, and over 70% of Americans who want Earth to know "the peace of a world without nuclear weapons," by working towards a solution at the 2010 Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review at the UN during May of 2010.

This site is an organizing tool in development. You won't find flashy designs or graphics ­ just useful information, readily available. If you want to join this walk or otherwise support the cause ­ elimination of nuclear weapons by 2020 and conversion of the nuclear weapons economy ($50 Billion/year!) to a sustainable peace economy ­ then this is the
place for you.

We want to include many groups in this issue-based coalition. Students and youth, Seniors, Artists and Entertainers,
Academics, Caregivers, Lovers of Peace and Justice, the Environment, Wisdom and Sanity ­ nuclear weapons are bad for ALL of us, and we hope you all will support or even walk with us, whether for a mile, a hundred yards, even a few steps.

The mass and inertia of our 70-year-old, multi-trillion dollar weapons complex is vast. We believe that US President Obama's desire for disarmament is sincere, but he cannot do it alone. Americans in the streets - peaceful, respectful, colorful, creative, diverse and determined - WE are the grassroots support that he needs. The opportunity for progress is Now. And we know that only by working together ­ with the "fierce urgency of 'now'" ­ can we hope to get it done.

We hope you will join us.

If you have more questions or any suggestions, please contact us by phone at 202/682-4282, or by email at marxjay(at)gmail.com.

Thank you for your interest, and your participation or support!

Jay Marx and Ethan Genauer
Walk Co-Coordinators
Proposition One in 2010! Campaign

Signs and Banners (samples):
YES, WE CAN!
IN OUR LIFETIME!
NIX NUKES NOW!
NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND ECONOMIC CONVERSION
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS NATIONAL SECURITY
NUKE DISARMAMENT = HEALTH CARE FOR THE PLANET
STOP THE MADness NOW! TRY MAS (Mutually Assurred Survival)!
NO WAR! NO WARMING!
DON'T NUKE THE CLIMATE!
GET RID OF NUKES - BEFORE THEY GET RID OF US!
NOW'S OUR CHANCE!
STOP NUCLEAR HYPOCRISY!
USA LEAD THE WAY! Disarmament and Transformation Now!


#30876 From: Ellen Thomas <et@...>
Date: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:53 am
Subject: What's News, 091228
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
 What's News

Updated - MOnday, December 28, 2009

http://nucnews.com/whatsnew.php

#30875 From: Viviane Lerner <vivlerner@...>
Date: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:25 pm
Subject: Priest guilty of fortitude
vlerner2002
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Johnson: Priest guilty of fortitude

By Bill Johnson
Denver Post Columnist
POSTED: 12/25/2009

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_14067987

As the seven-person jury filed from the courtroom, having just
returned two guilty verdicts against him, Father Carl Kabat rose from
his chair and applauded them.

The St. Louis priest was convicted in Greeley on Tuesday of criminal
mischief and trespassing, both misdemeanors, for cutting a hole in a
fence that guards a Minuteman III nuclear missile silo in Weld County
last August, draping antiwar banners around the silo, saying a prayer
and trying unsuccessfully to pry open its lid.

It is what Carl Kabat does. He has spent the better part of the past
three decades in prison for staging similar protests here and across
the United States against the missiles, whose very existence he calls
"simply insane."

Weld County Court Judge Dana Nichols sentenced the 76-year-old priest
to the 137 days he spent in county jail following his arrest and gave
prosecutors time to seek restitution to F.E. Warren Air Force Base
for damages.

I don't have many heroes, but Carl Kabat is one of them. I deeply
admire men of conviction, particularly those who buck the system and
gnaw relentlessly at it in the pursuit of peace.

I was introduced to him years ago, not long after he was released
from the federal penitentiary in Florence, having done 10 hard years
for staging a similar missile silo protest.

He sat down with me for dinner, shrugged and acted as if he had just
served an hour in third-grade detention.

"Do you know how many men I ministered to in Florence?" I remember
him saying over and over as I marveled that any man would so freely
give up his liberty in the pursuit of a cause so many people over the
years have abandoned.

I caught up with him this week as he rushed to get home to St. Louis
to spend Christmas with his younger sister, his only surviving
sibling, and the rest of his family.

I asked him of his applauding the jurors, some of whom wept as they
filed out.

"They were good people, intelligent, serious and thoughtful. They
were good eggs," he said.

He had fired his court- appointed lawyers during the two-day trial, a
preplanned move he had insisted on so he could address the jury
personally.

"I don't know you," he told them during closing arguments, "but you
are my sisters and brothers. We're all God's children, and we have to
look after one another. We have to be significant actors."

"Significant actors" is one of Carl Kabat's favorite expressions. It
means going outside of yourself, he always says, to take positive
action against that which you know to be wrong.

He had wanted, he explained, for one or more on the panel to see the
righteousness of his cause and hang the jury.

"What are you going to do?" he said. "I applauded them to thank them.
They had given it thought."

We talked for a long time, about the law and morality, him recalling
a time long ago that he stepped off a bus and saw a sign.

"It said 'black water' and 'white water.' I kick myself to this day
that I didn't take a drink of black water, even one swallow. What
could they have done to me?"

I asked him, as I always do, if he planned yet another protest
anytime soon. And for the first time ever, Carl Kabat hedged.

"I'm 76 years old, older than my old man when he died, so I might be
living on borrowed time," he said.

"I might have died in prison, I might die on the way to St. Louis.
Either way is OK with me. I am just going to take my life and the
message day by day."

Bill Johnson writes Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Reach him at
303-954-2763 or wjohnson@....

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_14067987#ixzz0avVNuhED

=====

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.

#30874 From: Ellen Thomas <et@...>
Date: Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:18 am
Subject: What's News, 091227
nucnews
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
 What's News

Updated - Sunday, December 27, 2009

http://nucnews.com/whatsnew.php

#30873 From: Viviane Lerner <vivlerner@...>
Date: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:18 am
Subject: A Quiet but HUGE No Nukes Triumph
vlerner2002
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
http://snipurl.com/tv7ea [Oped news]
December 23, 2009

A Quiet but HUGE No Nukes Triumph

By Harvey Wasserman

In the wake of Copenhagen, an unheralded but hard-fought No Nukes
victory has moved us closer to a green-powered Earth.

It has happened in upstate New York, where the Unistar Nuclear Energy
front group asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to delay its
application to build a reactor at Oswego, near Syracuse. Meanwhile, in
Texas, the San Antonio city council's deliberations over building two
new reactors has disintegrated into recriminations, resignations and
firings over a multi-billion-dollar price jump in projected cost
estimates, a furor that could doom reactor construction there as well.
And in Vermont, Entergy has threatened to shut its Yankee reactor if
the legislature does not approve a complex maneuver that would allow
its owners to escape certain financial liabilities.

Throughout the US, while the corporate media hypes a "renaissance" of
new nukes, facts on the ground say the opposite is happening. The
longer that trend continues, the more likely we are to win a world
powered by the Solartopian technologies that really work, including
wind, solar, geothermal, sustainable bio-fuels, increased
efficiency/conservation, and more.

The Oswego postponement stems from the successful national grassroots
campaign sparked by NukeFree.org and others dating to late 2007. When
the Bush Administration asked for $50 billion in loan guarantees to
build new reactors, a well coordinated campaign rose up, complete with
a music video from Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne, Graham Nash, K'eb Mo
and Ben Harper ( http://www.nukefree.org ).

With help from key Congressional Democrats, a wide range of
organizations and individuals rallied to get the $50 billion package
out of proposed energy legislation. Grassroots opposition has since
beaten the proposed guarantees two more times.

It is as yet unclear what new reactor funding will come from Washington in the
near future. There is still an $18.5 billion loan guarantee fund left over from
the Bush Era. But the Department of Energy has run into serious political and
procedural problems in administering the money.

It may soon announce one or more new reactor projects designated to get the
money, possibly including one in Georgia, where ratepayers have been put on the
line to underwrite construction even if the plant never opens.

Republican proposals for virtually unlimited future loan guarantees are now
being targeted for a Climate Bill and other legislation that may or may not make
it through Congress in the coming months. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and other
industry supporters are pushing hard for major federal financing. The Obama
Administration has made some pro-nuclear rumblings, but remains elusive in terms
of firm commitments.

Because the reactor industry cannot get private financing for new
reactors, all the pro-nuke rhetoric in the world will mean nothing
without federal subsidies. After 50 years, the industry doesn't have
Wall Street's backing. Nor can it get private liability insurance in
case of a major disaster. And it still lacks a solution for its
radioactive waste problem.

Most critically of all, the longer new construction is delayed the less
competitive the industry becomes. Cost estimates are literally all over the map,
with $7-9 billion for a 1000 megawatt reactor being current used as a benchmark.
But even that is not expected to last. The Oswego project involves a design
financed by the French government. This latest setback indicates even they may
not be as bullish on reactors as they hype would indicate. As Michael Mariotte
of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service puts it, "Unistar's postponement
is just another indicator that new reactors will not be built unless American
taxpayers are forced to take the financial risk."

Thus as the dust settles from the failures in Copenhagen, the US might
look to the conference's host country. In the 1970s a powerful Green
movement stopped the Danes from going nuclear. Instead, as even the New York
Times's pro-nuclear Thomas Friedman has recently acknowledged, Denmark
successfully focussed on wind power. Today the wind industry is one of Denmark's
top employers, and is a major source of both clean green energy and significant
financial profit.

Throughout the world, the cost of renewables is plummeting while
reactor prices soar. So if America's thus-far successful grassroots
campaign against massive federal loan guarantees and other nuclear
bailouts can continue, we just might find ourselves on a parallel path
to a green-powered Earth.

---------
Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH is at
http://www.harveywasserman.com, as is HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE US.  He
is senior advisor to Greenpeace US, and senior editor of
http://www.freepress.org.

Author's Bio: HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE US is available at
http://www.harveywasserman.com/, as is A GLIMPSE OF THE BIG LIGHT and clues to
the whereabouts of the Holy Grail.
=====

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.

#30872 From: "Global Network" <globalnet@...>
Date: Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:15 am
Subject: Global Network 2010 Space Organizing Conference in India
brucekgag
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ACHIEVING
A NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND MISSILE DEFENCE FREE ASIA
 
 NAGPUR, INDIA 
 
                                                                                 OCTOBER 9-12, 2010

October 9, 2010

11.00-12.00   Registration
12.00-13 00   Lunch
13.00-14.00   Welcome and Introduction
14.00-17.00   Plenary Session I: Can Humanity Survive?
- Weapons of Mass Destruction
- Climate Change and the role of Space Technologies
- Outcome of Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Committee
- StratCom, Space Domination and Global Control
- Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS)
- Climate Change,Violence and Political Control
17.00-18.00  Cultural Programme
18.00-20.00  Plenary Session II: Problems and Prospects of Nuclear Disarmament in Asia
- India, Pakistan and the NPT
- India Conflict with Pakistan (including Kashmir)
- India Conflict with China
- India-US Nuclear Deal
- South Korean and Japanese perspectives
October 10, 2010

09.00-11.00  Plenary Session III: The Danger of Missile Defence and Weaponisation of Space in Asia
- Indian Space Programme
- India and Missile Defence
- Drones in Pakistan
11.00-13.00  Plenary Session IV: Asia and Terrorism - The War In Afghanistan and the role of NATO
13.00 Lunch
15.00-17.00  Plenary Session V: Prospects of Asian Union
- Perspectives from around Asia
16.00-18.00 Adoption of Nagpur Declaration
20.00 Dinner
 
October 11, 2010
09.00-11.00 Global Network Annual Meeting and Strategy Discussion
11.00-12.00 Interaction with Youth Groups
12.00-14.00 Visits and presentations at Educational Institutions
14.00 Lunch
16.00-18.00 Sight seeing
 
October 12, 2010
 
Visit to Sewagram Ashram where Mahatma Gandhi spent time during the freedom struggle of India.  The ashram served as the headquarters of Mahatma Gandhi for six years, from 1934 to 1940. Gandhi built the Sewagram Ashram himself, with the material that was available locally. He lived at the ashram, amidst lush green surroundings, without any facilities of electricity and telephone.



**  If you have interest in attending this international space organizing conference please let us know as soon as possible so we can pre-arrange for housing, Visa's, transportation and other important tasks.  This will be an exceptional life changing experience for all of us.
 
 
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
globalnet@...
www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/  (blog)

Messages 30872 - 30901 of 30901   Newest  |  < Newer  |  Older >  |  Oldest
Advanced
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help