nukenet : Messages : 8028-8057 of 8057

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)


   Thanks to Freida Berryhill for this:

   http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7654627
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7654627



_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8056

From: "Bill Smirnow" <smirnowb@...>
Date: Fri Oct 7, 2005 3:07 am
Subject: [NukeNet] University of Denmark Scientists Develop Hydrogen Tablet [9/20/2005]

smirnowb@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

    Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:19:45 EDT
Subject: University of Denmark Scientists Develop
Hydrogen Tablet

Source:
http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInforma
tionExternal/NewsDisplayArticle/0,1602,6487,00.htm
l
==================================================
====

University of Denmark Scientists Develop Hydrogen
Tablet
20 September 2005

Author: Michael Strangholt
Provider: University of Denmark

Scientists at the Technical University of Denmark
have invented a technology
which may be an important step towards the
hydrogen economy: a hydrogen tablet
that effectively stores hydrogen in an inexpensive
and safe material.

With the new hydrogen tablet, it becomes much
simpler to use the
environmentally-friendly energy of hydrogen.
Hydrogen is a non-polluting fuel, but since
it is a light gas it occupies too much volume, and
it is flammable.
Consequently, effective and safe storage of
hydrogen has challenged researchers
world-wide for almost three decades. At the
Technical University of Denmark, DTU, an
interdisciplinary team has developed a hydrogen
tablet which enables storage and
transport of hydrogen in solid form.

â€œShould you drive a car 600 km using gaseous
hydrogen at normal pressure, it
would require a fuel tank with a size of nine
cars. With our technology, the
same amount of hydrogen can be stored in a normal
gasoline tankâ€, says
Professor Claus Hviid Christensen, Department of
Chemistry at DTU.

The hydrogen tablet is safe and inexpensive. In
this respect it is different
from most other hydrogen storage technologies. You
can literally carry the
material in your pocket without any kind of safety
precaution. The reason is that
the tablet consists solely of ammonia absorbed
efficiently in sea-salt.
Ammonia is produced by a combination of hydrogen
with nitrogen from the surrounding
air, and the DTU-tablet therefore contains large
amounts of hydrogen. Within
the tablet, hydrogen is stored as long as desired,
and when hydrogen is
needed, ammonia is released through a catalyst
that decomposes it back to free
hydrogen. When the tablet is empty, you merely
give it a â€œshotâ€ of ammonia and it
is ready for use again.

â€œThe technology is a step towards making the
society independent of fossil
fuelsâ€ says Professor Jens NÃ¸rskov, director of
the Nanotechnology Center at
DTU. He, Claus Hviid Christensen, Tue Johannessen,
Ulrich Quaade and Rasmus Zink
SÃ¸rensen are the five researchers behind the
invention. The advantages of
using hydrogen are numerous. It is CO2-free, and
it can be produced by renewable
energy sources, e.g. wind power.

â€œWe have a new solution to one of the major
obstacles to the use of hydrogen
as a fuel. And we need new energy technologies â€“
oil and gas will not last,
and without energy, there is no modern societyâ€,
says Jens NÃ¸rskov.

Together with DTU and SeeD Capital Denmark, the
researchers have founded the
company Amminex A/S, which will focus on the
further development and
commercialization of the technology.

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8055

From: "Michael Mariotte" <nirsnet@...>
Date: Wed Oct 5, 2005 7:55 pm
Subject: [NukeNet] Stop EPA's Carcinogenic Yucca Radiation Rule!

nirsnet@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

NIRS Action Alert

Tell EPA its cancer-causing

proposed Yucca Mountain radiation regulations

are outrageous!

No one deserves cancer, especially not children!

Take Action: Send comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) blasting its proposal to allow a 1 in 36 cancer rate for persons exposed to the radioactive wastes that would leak from Yucca Mountain, Nevada if they are ever buried there. Forward this alert to your friends and family to do the same. Sample comments, instructions on how/where to submit comments, background information, and talking points follow below.

Sample Comments:

(feel free to copy and submit verbatim, or to use to write you own comments; also see talking points below for additional ideas to add)

Re: EPA’s proposal for revised radiation release regulations for the proposed national high-level radioactive waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (Docket Identification Number OAR-2005-0083)

EPA’s proposed double standard must be withdrawn. The proposal would protect people for the first 10,000 years to currently applied standards of protection, but would then doom future generations after that time to a 1 in 36 cancer rate (or even worse, up to a 100% cancer rate, due to EPA mathematical manipulation), and a 1 in 72 fatal cancer rate (or even worse). Such proposed cancer rates and fatal cancer rates are horrifying, and EPA must withdraw such an unacceptable proposal. This is a complete violation of principles of inter-generational equity, as well as public health and environmental protection.

EPA’s proposal to allow 350 millirem per year radiation doses to people living downstream from the leaking dump – the equivalent of 58 full chest x-rays per year – would not only cause cancer, but also birth defects, genetic damage, and other maladies, and at alarming rates, and must be withdrawn. Current standards of 15 millirem per year from all pathways, and 4 millirem per year from drinking water, must be applied for the full regulatory period at Yucca Mountain, extending to the period of peak radiation doses (hundreds of thousands of years into the future) and beyond.

These proposed regulations allowing 350 millirem per year radiation doses are completely unacceptable and must not be allowed to set a precedent to be applied at other radioactively contaminated sites across the country because they represent a large-scale weakening of environmental and public health protection standards, the worst such standards, by far, in the Western world, in violation of international norms. This inter-generational immorality must also not be applied to other EPA jurisdictions, such as non-radioactive, toxic and hazardous chemical contaminated sites.

Sincerely,

Name

Street Address

City, State, Zip

Phone

How/Where to Submit Comments:

Submit comments by EPA’s November 21^st deadline in any of the following ways. Be sure to include the Docket Identification Number OAR-2005-0083:

Email comments to a-and-r-docket@..., Attention Docket No. OAR-2005-0083. Be sure to include your name, organizational affiliation if any, snail mail address, email address, or other contact info. with your comments.

Via EPA’s EDOCKET website. Go to http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Then click on “Quick Search” in the left hand column. In the search window, type in the docket identification number OAR-2005-0083. The search could take 30 seconds. This will bring you to the “Docket Search Results” page. At that point, click on OAR-2005-0083. At the resulting page, you can submit a comment by clicking on the “Submit Comment” button and following the subsequent instructions.

Snail mail, via: EPA Docket Center, Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. Attn. Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0083.

Fax: fax comments to 202.566.1741, Attn. Docket No. OAR-2005-0083.

Background:

First the good news. On July 9, 2004, the State of Nevada and a coalition of environmental organizations, including NIRS, won a major legal victory. The federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that EPA must re-write portions of its 2001 Yucca radiation release regulations, because EPA’s cut off of regulations at 10,000 years was not “based upon and consistent with” recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, as required by federal law. NAS had explicitly rejected a 10,000 year cut off as arbitrary, and recommended “[t]hat compliance with the standard be measured at the time of peak risk, whenever it occurs,” and that “peak risks might occur tens to hundreds of thousands of years or even farther into the future.” The court ruling was a major blow to the schedule and prospects of the dangerous proposal to bury 77,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste on geologicially unsuitable, sacred Western Shoshone Indian land at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Now the bad news. On August 22, 2005 EPA published its proposed revisions to the Yucca radiation release regulations – and they are HORRENDOUS. Dr. Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research – who served on EPA’s advisory panel regarding high-level radioactive waste repository regulations in the 1980s -- has said of the recent Yucca regulatory revisions: “I consider this the worst single action that the EPA has taken on radiation issues ever since I began analyzing them almost 25 years ago.”

Nevada grassroots groups such as Citizen Alert, Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, Sierra Club, Public Interest Research Group, and National Environmental Trust kicked off the resistance to this outlandish EPA proposal on September 30^th, marking the 8^th annual “Nevada is Not a Wasteland!” Day. Members of these groups and other concerned citizens spoke out against EPA’s proposal at official hearings in Amargosa Valley near Yucca as well as in Las Vegas this week. Next week, national environmental groups will hold a press conference and speak out at the EPA hearing in Washington, D.C. Both the State of Nevada and a coalition of environmental groups are making preparations to challenge the EPA in court once again. You can help bolster this groundswell of outraged resistance by submitting comments to EPA and forwarding this alert.

Talking Points:

• Disregarding all applicable, long-establisihed laws, regulations, and inter-generational morality, the EPA has proposed – as Dr. Makhijani of IEER dubs it – a “double-standard standard.” EPA’s proposal would, for the first 10,000 years post-burial of the wastes, retain its original Yucca regulations permitting a lifetime cancer rate of 1 in 835 people exposed to Yucca’s leaking radioactivity (in other words, a 15 millirem per year permitted radiation dose). But after 10,000 years, EPA now proposes allowing a 1 in 36 lifetime cancer rate (this figure calculated using the recent findings presented in the National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report – NAS BEIR VII) for persons downstream (a 23-fold increase in “allowable” radiation to 350 mrem/yr, equivalent to 58 chest x-rays per year!). About half of those cancers would be fatal.

• To make matters worse, EPA’s 350 mrem/yr figure is not a maximum permitted dose to the public, but rather an average dose, so large numbers of people would, under the rule, get doses far higher, with proportionately higher risks. EPA even changed the kind of average from the mean (add all the individual doses and divide by the number of doses, thus including very high doses in the average) dose in the original rule to a median dose (the middle dose value, with an equal number of dose values above and below it – meaning that very high doses are simply disregarded). In the U.S. Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Total System Performance Assessment for Site Recommendation, at the time of peak dose (after the waste packages corrode and fail), the mean dose of the many computer simulations is about 600 mrem/yr whereas the median dose is about 200 mrem/yr. So Yucca wouldn't meet a standard that required the mean to be less than 350 mrem/yr, but would if the median were used, instead of the mean. DOE calculations reveal the median results in doses of about 1,000 mrem/year, enough to produce cancer in 1 of every 10 people exposed. But that is just the average dose. Under EPA’s proposed rule, half of the radiation scenarios would result in doses higher than that -- indeed, there is no upper limit for the half of the exposures that

would be above the median. Incredibly, EPA proposes no upper limit to dose at all. So dozens of the 300 or so computer-simulated radiation exposure scenarios that DOE would run would result in doses above the 350 mrem/yr or 1,000 mrem/yr doses. In other words, under the proposed EPA standards, significant numbers of people could be exposed to radiation doses that would produce a statistical 100% chance of inducing cancer in the exposed persons.

• EPA’s proposal would set a very dangerous precedent that could be applied across the U.S., not just at Yucca Mountain. EPA has for decades declared any radiation dose above 15 to 25 mrem/yr to be "non-protective of public health." Its general policy has been to regulate exposures to limit cancer rates to1 in 10,000 persons exposed, or even to 1 in 1 million persons exposed. For example, EPA limits radioactivity in drinking water to 4 mrem/yr, air emissions at 10 mrem/yr, and Superfund cleanups to the equivalent of roughly 0.03 to 3 mrem/yr. EPA has gone on record, again and again, that radiation doses of 100 mrem/yr produce unacceptable levels of risk. But EPA’s 350 mrem/yr proposed standard for Yucca would be a 23-fold increase in “allowable” radiation over the 15 mrem/yr standard, and would more than triple the amount of radiation exposure EPA has repeatedly stated produces unacceptable levels of risk. If EPA gets away with this, it could set a precedent to rollback cleanup efforts at other radioactively contaminated sites across the country, including other radioactive waste dumps, nuclear power plant sites, and nuclear fuel chain facilities. There is the added danger that EPA could attempt to apply such inter-generational double standards to other polluted sites suffering non-radioactive, toxic and hazardous material contamination, allowing for much higher cancer rates (and other disease rates) to future generations.

• EPA’s proposal is a shoehorn designed to weaken the standards so that the geologically unsuitable site can still be licensed, rather than requiring the site to meet public health and environmental protection standards. If the Yucca Mountain site cannot meet public health and environmental protection standards, as it clearly cannot, then the dump should never be opened. DOE has publicly predicted doses of 200 to 300 mrem/year at 200,000 to 300,000 years after burial of the waste, so now EPA proposes weakening the standards just enough so that Yucca could still be licensed. EPA’s proposal represents raw politics, is antithetical to science-based public health and environmental protection, and would doom residents near Yucca to cancer and death at horribly high rates. All this, just so the nuclear establishment can maintain the illusion of a solution for the high-level radioactive waste dilemma, so that building new reactors and keeping the old ones running can be “justified.”

• EPA’s proposed 350 mrem/yr dose would not just occur for a brief time and then

decrease to far lower levels. Under EPA’s proposed rule, these large doses would be

permitted to occur year after year, generation after generation, forevermore into the future (well, out to a million years, after which time regulations would end). It is hard to conceive of a proposed environmental regulation or action that raises such serious questions of inter-generational immorality. EPA is in essence proposing to permit an action that will kill significant numbers of people in an ongoing fashion for hundreds of thousands of years on end, people who had no say in the decision nor received any supposed benefit from it, or from the nuclear reactors that generated the high-level radioactive wastes in the first place. Those future generations would bear only the cost, a large human cost. EPA explicitly admits to such deadly double standards, advocating a “Strong Principle of Justice” for the first 5 or 6 generations (roughly 150 years), a “Weak Principle of Justice” for a further 5 or 6 generations after that, and then a “Minimal Principle of Justice” beyond that. EPA’s proposal certainly would represent a horrible injustice for future generations. It is quite ironic, for the U.S. Dept. of Energy has explained its rush to open the Yucca dump as a matter of inter-generational responsibility, in that current generations created the high-level radioactive waste and thus should solve the problem so that future generations need not worry about it. Future generations would have much to worry about if EPA’s proposal stands.

• EPA’s use of Colorado’s higher level of “background radiation” in an attempt to justify allowing added doses of 350 mrem/yr to persons living downstream from Yucca’s leaking radioactive wastes is twisted and unacceptable. EPA cites the national average for background radiation as 350 mrem/yr. But even this is wrong and misleading. About two-thirds of that figure is due to radon exposures within houses and buildings. Only natural radiation, such as from cosmic rays and other natural sources that people are exposed to outdoors, which is difficult to avoid or control, should be considered “natural background.” EPA’s proposed 350 mrem/yr dose from Yucca’s leaking radioactive wastes would be in addition to the background radiation (including indoor radon) that people would already be exposed to. It should be noted that residents near Yucca are also exposed to additional radioactive contamination from the nearby Nevada Test Site’s nuclear weapons explosions and “low” level radioactive waste shipments and dumping. In NAS’s recent BEIR VII study, it reported that about 1 in 100 Americans will contract cancer just from the non-radon component of background radiation. A full three percent of the American public can already be expected to contract cancer from their exposure to outdoor natural radiation plus indoor radon, so that “background” 350 mrem/yr is far from safe. Thus, EPA is proposing that a full 6% of the public living downstream from Yucca be allowed to contract cancer, half of that from “background” (including radon), and half from the leaking dump’s radioactive wastes. EPA has deceptively tried to blur the distinction between “background radiation” and Yucca’s leaking wastes, both of which are harmful to human beings.

• Another casualty of EPA’s proposed rule is the Safe Drinking Water Act standard limiting radiation in drinking water to 4 mrem/yr, which EPA would only enforce for the first10,000 years, but would then replace with the 350 mrem/yr all pathway exposure limit. Water is a precious resource, especially in arid areas such as Nevada and southeast California – Yucca’s watershed -- which will require more, not less, protection as time goes on. Yucca’s radioactive wastes will leak into the underlying drinking water aquifer, which will become the primary pathway for harmful doses to people downstream. The Safe Drinking Water Act standard should be applied to protect Yucca’s aquifer and the people downstream for as long as the high-level radioactive wastes remain hazardous, hundreds of thousands of years into the future.

• Incredibly, EPA has claimed that “the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.” EPA also states “This proposed rule does not have tribal implications…[and] does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, [or] on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes…” . This is preposterous. Yucca Mountain is sacred and still used as a ceremonial site by the Western Shoshone Indians, who retain rights to the land under the Treaty of Ruby Valley signed by the US government in 1863. The Western Shoshone traditional lifestyle, lived at and near Yucca since time immemorial, may again return to that area someday. And it’s been known for decades that children are much more vulnerable than adults to radiation’s harmful impacts. Tell EPA that indigenous peoples and children are not expendable!

• EPA’s proposed standards would be, by far, the worst in the Western world. The French repository program, for instance, would limit maximum doses, estimated to occur hundreds of thousands of years in the future, to 25 mrem/yr. This proposed EPA limit beyond 10,000 years would allow more than ten times higher radiation doses than the French limit. The Canadian program limits doses to about 10 mrem/yr for 10,000 years but does not allow a sudden increase after that. The EPA proposal would allow a sudden jump from 15 mrem/yr to 350 mrem/yr after 10,000 years, a 23-fold increase!

For updates and more background information, please go to http://www.nirs.org, or contact:

Kevin Kamps

Nuclear Waste Specialist

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

kevin@...

202.328.0002 ext. 14

Thank you to Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Citizen Alert of Nevada, Committee to Bridge the Gap, Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes, and Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force for their contributions to this action alert.

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8054

From: "Citizens' Nuclear Information Center" <cnic@...>
Date: Mon Oct 3, 2005 9:08 am
Subject: [NukeNet] Uranium Contaminated Soil Shipped

cnic@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

Media Release
(3 October 2005)

New nuclear research agency inherits predecessor's radioactive waste
problems:
Japanese radioactive soil shipped to the US

The newly formed Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) has inherited the
radioactive waste problems of one of its predecessors, the Japan
Nuclear Cycle Development Institute (JNC). JAEA officially opened for
business on October 1st, but its predecessor, JNC, still has 3,000 tons
of unwanted radioactive soil to dispose of.

A portion of the more radioactive soil (290 cubic meters of
uranium-contaminated soil) was shipped to the US today, allegedly for
refining, but really for disposal.

JNC has denied requests to reveal the name of the US company that will
receive the radioactive soil, but piecing together information obtained
through freedom of information requests, it is now known that the soil
will be sent to International Uranium Corporation's White Mesa uranium
mill in Utah.

In justifying its decision not to reveal the company's name, JNC said
that it feared that the company would refuse to accept the soil if its
name was released. Now that the US company's name has been made public,
we will be interested to see if it does indeed reject the soil.

The uranium was scheduled to be loaded onto the Panamanian ship Bright
Stream and leave Kobe Port today, though the location of the US port
remains unclear.

A further 2,710 cubic meters remains in the Katamo District of Yurihama
Town in Tottori Prefecture. As a result of an October 2004 ruling by
the Supreme Court in favor of Katamo District, it must be removed by
May 2006, or compensation must be paid to the local citizens at the
rate of 50,000 yen per day. (Compensation for the 290 cubic meters
shipped today was paid from March 2005 at the rate of 750,000 per day.)

No indication has been given of what will be done with the remaining
soil, but we hope that a precedent hasn't been set with the first 290
cubic meters. We have no doubt that Japan's nuclear industry would love
to solve its radioactive waste problems by exporting it all to other
countries, but the truth is that countries which are unable to handle
their own radioactive waste are not qualified to produce such waste.

Within two days of its establishment, JAEA has already demonstrated
that it is not a responsible agency. By dumping radioactive waste in
another country, it has shown that it will prioritize expediency over
integrity. Who will trust such an agency in future?

Contact: Philip White (International Liaison Officer) 03-5330-9520

For more detailed information see the following links:

http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit107/nit107articles/
nit107uraniumsoil.html

http://cnic.jp/english/news/newsflash/uransoil7Sep05.html

Citizens' Nuclear Information Center
3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003
Phone: 81-3-5330-9520
Fax: 81-3-5330-9530
http://cnic.jp/english/
cnic@...


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8053

From: "Suzanne Leta" <sleta@...>
Date: Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:49 pm
Subject: [NukeNet] Action Alert: EPA Weakens Standards that Protect the Public from Radiation

sleta@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

ACTION DATE: Sep. 30th, 2005- NEVADA IS NOT A WASTELAND
DAY

A CALL TO ACTION:

Citizen Alert is calling for a national day of action on Sept. 30th,
NEVADA IS NOT A WASTELAND DAY. We need to let the EPA
know that they are committing a terrible injustice to not only
Nevadans and the Native American people of Nevada, but ALL
Americans. Demand that they once again revise their standard
to truly protect the public's health.

TAKE ACTION HERE:
Make your voice heard! Tell them this is an unacceptable
radiation standard and that you stand united with Nevadans in
opposition to the Yucca Mountain Project and declare that
AMERICA IS NOT A WASTELAND!

To Submit Comments:

Go to http://www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca/comments.htm or
e-mail directly to: a-and-r-docket@... Attention: Docket ID
No. OAR-2005-0083

BACKGROUND:

On August 22nd, 2005 the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) proposed its revised radiation protection standard for the
Yucca Mountain Project, the proposed high-level nuclear waste
repository in southern Nevada. This action was in response to a
federal court decision on July 9th, 2004 that vacated the previous
standard due to its inconsistency with federal law and
regulations. Central to the court's ruling was that the 10,000
year regulatory compliance period in the previous standard was
deemed inconsistent with the recommendation of the National
Academy of Science (NAS).

According to the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the EPA was
authorized to develop a Yucca Mountain site specific radiation
protection standard to be consistent with a recommendation
from the NAS. In a 1995 report, the NAS recommended, "That
compliance with the standard be measured at the time of peak
risk, whenever it occurs." Thus, the 10,000 year compliance
period was rejected, and the report goes on to say that " peak
risks might occur tens to hundreds of thousands of years or
even farther into the future."

This new proposed standard again fails to meet the legal
requirements and is an insult to Nevadans, and the public in
general. Dr. Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research (IEER) said, "I consider this the worst
single action that the EPA has taken on radiation issues ever
since I began analyzing them almost 25 years ago."

On September 30th, 1997, Nevada Governor Bob Miller declared
that day and annually thereafter as "Nevada is Not a Wasteland
Day". This was a historic occasion that emphasized Nevadans
will remain united in its opposition to the Yucca Mountain Project
and was made possible because of the work of Citizen Alert and
many other local and national public interest organizations that
have stressed the threat that the Yucca Mountain Project poses
to not only Nevada but to the entire country.

TALKING POINTS:

. In defiance of all applicable laws and regulations, the EPA has
proposed a "two-tiered" standard that keeps the original 15
millirem exposure limit for the first 10,000 years but after 10,000
years is replaced with a 350 millirem (a millirem represents a
unit of absorbed radiation where a typical chest x-ray provides a
dose of about 10 millirem ). This is a blatant disregard to future
generations and an irresponsible policy. The distinction
between the two limits is completely arbitrary and is a laughable
attempt to accommodate the court's ruling.

. This standard sets a horrible precedent because the 350
millirem dose limit is based on natural background radiation
exposure levels. We must not allow the EPA to establish this
dangerous precedent as it is contrary to internationally accepted
radiation protection standards and could seriously impact
hundreds of locations around the country facing radiation
contamination. The EPA is taking a significant step backwards
in its stated mission of protecting public health.

. The EPA appears to be pandering to the needs of the
Department of Energy (DOE) and nuclear industry by tailoring
this radiation exposure standard to fit the Yucca Mountain site so
that it could be licensed. According to the DOE's own estimates,
the maximum dose from the Yucca Mountain site would be
between 200 to 300 millirem per year several hundred thousand
years from now, well within the 350 millirem proposed limit, but
well outside of the 15 millirem limit. With this rule, the EPA has
shown a total neglect for the welfare of not only current
Nevadans but future generations. The EPA is dismissing the
need for generational equity and is instead claiming that future
generations should face some of the highest radiations doses
in the world.

. Another casualty of this proposed rule is the Safe Drinking
Water standard, which would not extend past 10,000 years,
effectively replaced by the inadequate 350 millirem all pathway
exposure limit. Water is an essential resource, which Citizen
Alert demands particular protection. All waters should be
subject to the Safe Drinking Water standard at all times. Again,
dropping the Safe Drinking Water standard after10,000 years
serves the DOE well since water is the most likely path for
radiation to be carried to the environment and people.

. The EPA calculated this standard using what is known as a
Reasonably Maximum Exposed Individual (RMEI). RMEI is
defined as an adult "standard man." The EPA is willingly
ignoring the potential impacts to children, women, mothers, the
elderly, and others who may in fact be more vulnerable to
radiation exposure. In fact, Executive Order 13045 that requires
federal agencies to specifically address the potential impact to
children's health and safety was summarily ignored. The EPA
believes there exists no disproportionate impact to children. Tell
the EPA that children are NOT negligible.

. The most egregious claim set forth by the EPA is their
assertion that this standard has no "tribal implications."
Executive Order 13175 forces the agency to develop a process to
receive input from tribal governments on any potential impact
this standard may have. The EPA arrogantly ignores this order
by declaring this rule will have no "substantial effects on one or
more tribal governments, or on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes." This is absolutely
absurd. Yucca Mountain sits on the sacred land of the Western
Shoshone people and WILL adversely affect the indigenous
population in surrounding areas.

TAKE ACTION HERE:
Make your voice heard! Tell them this is an unacceptable
radiation standard and that you stand united with Nevadans in
opposition to the Yucca Mountain Project and declare that
AMERICA IS NOT A WASTELAND!

To Submit Comments:

Go to http://www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca/comments.htm or
e-mail directly to: a-and-r-docket@... Attention: Docket ID
No. OAR-2005-0083

Contact Citizen Alert for more information:

702-796-5662 (Las Vegas)
775-827-4200 (Reno)
www.citizenalert.org
tonyg@...
hadder@...

Suzanne Leta
Clean Energy Advocate
NJPIRG
11 N. Willow St
Trenton, NJ 08608
609 394 8155 x310
sleta@...

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8052

From: "Suzanne Leta" <sleta@...>
Date: Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:51 pm
Subject: [NukeNet] NRC Senior official says PA kids not protected during an evacuation

sleta@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

Subject: NRC Sr official says PA kids not protected during an evacuation

EFMR Monitoring Group, Inc.
4100 Hillsdale Road

Harrisburg, PA 17112

efmr.org

PRESS RELEASE
September 27, 2005

   Contact:                                                                         (717)-541-1101
Eric Joseph Epstein                                                      ericepstein@...

Children vulnerable during nuclear accident

NRC official states that PA lacks plan for preschool children

A senior Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff Member has filed a NRC Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) determining that:

1. The children in PA are not safe during a nuclear emergency because they are unplanned for; and

2. The NRC 120 day count down for pulling all of PA�s nuclear power licenses should start immediately; and

3. PA never has, and continues not to comply with the Federal Regulations requiring emergency planning for preschool children, and

4. FEMA has been reaching a false finding for emergency planning compliance for the past 19 years; and

5. Petition for rulemaking PRM 50-79 �Emergency Planning for Preschool Children� should be approved and GM EV-2 should be codified into NRC Regulations; and

6. NRC Review of Public Comments on PRM 50-79 leads itself to believe that this violation is shared by other states.

                          1

The DPO was filed by Michael Jamgochian who is the NRC Senior Nuclear Engineer who authored all NRC Emergency Planning Guidelines and Requirements.

This information came from Congressman Todd Platt�s Office who are in possession of this DPO.

The DPO was marked by NRC Congressional Affairs Director of Communications William Outlaw, as �For Official Use Only, Not For Public Release�.

Due to this notation on the DPO, Congressman Platt�s staff was unable to give me, the petitioner of (PRM 50-79), a copy of the document. However, they were willing to read the DPO and allow it�s transcription.

Attached/below is the transcription of this DPO.

For more information on this DPO, contact:

NRC DPO Author - Michael Jamgochain: (301) 415-3224

Petition PRM 50-79 Author - Larry Christian: (717) 245-2662

Co sponsor of Petition PRM 50-79 - Eric Epstein: (717) 541-1101

                          2

9/26/05 DPO Transcription of NRC Senior Nuclear Engineer Michael Jamgochian from Congressman Todd Platt�s Office phone conversation

Differing Professional Opinion
NRC FORM 680
Filed by Michael Jamgochian
9/7/05

From Block 10: Describe the present situation, condition, method, etc, which you believe should be changed or improved.

I believe that FEMA and the State of Pennsylvania does not comply with FEMA guidance that NRC bases it�s licensing decisions on, I believe that the criteria in FEMA GM EV2 must be codified into NRC�s emergency planning regulations, in order to permit the NRC to make a finding that �there is reasonable assurance that protective measures can and will be taken.�

I also believe that the 120-day clock contained in 10 CFR 50.54 (s)(2) should be implemented in Pennsylvania during the rulemaking. My beliefs are base on the fact that in 45 FR 55406, dated August 19, 1980 the Commission state that the NRC will �review FEMA findings and determinations on the adequacy and capability of implementation of State and local plans (and will) make decisions with regard to the overall state of emergency preparedness (i.e. integration of the licensee�s emergency preparedness as determined by the NRC and of the State/local governments as determined by FEMA and reviewed by NRC) and issuance of operating licenses or shutdown of operating reactors. FEMA will approve State and local emergency plans and preparedness, where appropriate, based upon its findings and determinations with respect to the adequacy of State and local plans and the capabilities of State and local governments to effectively implement these plans and preparedness measures.

                      i
These findings and determinations will be provided to the NRC for use in it�s licensing process.� In 45 FR 55403 dated August 19, 1980, the Commission emphasized the importance of preplanning for emergencies by stating, �In order to discharge effectively its statutory responsibilities, the Commission must know that proper means and procedures will be in place to assess the course of an accident and its potential severity, that NRC and other appropriate authorities and the public will be notified promptly, and adequate protective actions in response to actual or anticipated conditions can and will be taken.� Since September 2002, I have been responsible for evaluating the merits of a Petition For Rulemaking (PRM 50-79). After evaluating all public comments received, along with several discussions with the petitioners, FEMA, several state and local governments and NRC staff and management.

I developed a Commission paper recommending that the petition be denied (SECY-05-0045). This SECY was concurred in by FEMA, NRC Office directors and the EDO. I based my recommendations to deny this petition on my fundamental belief that current requirements and guidance, along with state and local government established emergency plans provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of all members of the public, including all public and private schools, daycare centers and nursery schools, in the event of a nuclear power plant incident, and that no new regulations were required. The petition did raise questions about implementation and compliance with relevant requirements and guidelines that were thought to be previously determined to be adequate in the petitioners state and local area.

Accordingly, the petition was recommended to the Commission to be denied and forwarded to FEMA for investigation into implementation problems relating to the preplanning of protective actions for daycare centers and nursery schools. Because the real problem is implementation and not regulations, FEMA committed to the NRC and the petitioners that the implementation concerns relating to the elements in GM EV2 would be full demonstrated and evaluated during the May 5, TMI exercise. The demonstration of the elements in GM EV2 for nursery schools and daycare centers was not adequately demonstrated during the TMI exercise.          ii
Therefore, I can no longer support the stat[e] position to deny PRM 50-79. I believe that my current position is confirmed by letters from PA and supported by the following:

The petitioner stated, and the comment letters from FEMA, PEMA, PA Governor and The Harrisburg Mayor confirmed that the preplanned protective measures for public and private elementary, middle and high schools is very different then the preplanned protective measures for licensed daycare centers and nursery schools. This is not consistent with NRC and FEMA�s regulations and guidelines. FMEA�s GME EV2 require that sate and local emergency plans address, at a minimum, preplanned transportation resources that are to be available for evacuating all schools including daycare and nursery schools. Preplanned evacuation centers will be established for all schools, preplanned alert and notification procedures are to be established for all schools and preplanned public information for parents and guardians for all schools including daycare and nursery schools.

The petitioner state that all the above does not exist for nursery schools and daycare centers in PA. FMEA, PEMA, the PA Governor and the Mayor of Harrisburg have confirmed that all of the above exist only for public and private elementary, middle or high schools and does not exist for nursery schools and daycare centers.

FEMA and PEMA has documented that PEMA will notify daycare and nursery schools of an existing emergency but that it is the responsibility of the daycare and nursery schools and the parents to take the necessary protective actions instead of the state or local government. In a letter dated March 24, 2005, the NRC told the petitioner that protective actions for nursery schools in accordance with GM EV2 would be evaluated in the May 05 TMI offsite exercise. The FMEA report on the TMI exercise did not show an evaluation of all the requirements in GM EV2 for nursery schools and daycare centers.

                           iii

From Block 11: Describe your differing opinion in accordance with the             guidance presented in NRC management directive 10.159

The Commission�s emergency planning regulations, specifically 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1), require nuclear power plant licensees develop and maintain emergency plans that provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective actions can and will be taken for the protection of the public in an emergency. Section 50.47 (a)(2) states that the NRC will base its findings regarding adequacy of these plans on a review by NRC of FEMA, who will determine if the plans are adequate and whether there is reasonable that they can be implemented. NRC and FEMA promulgated NUREG-0654/FEMA REP-1 to provide detailed guidance on the development and implementation of these plans.

Appendix 4 in NUREG-0654 details the requirements for the identification and planning for special facility populations and schools. FEMA GM EV2 provides guidance to assist federal officials in evaluating adequacy of state and local government offsite emergency plans and preparedness for protecting school children during a radiological emergency. The term �school� refers to all public and private schools, preschools, and licensed daycare centers with 10 or more students.

The state and local government offsite emergency plans shall address, at a minimum, preplanned transportation resources available for evacuating all schools including the licensed daycare and nursery schools; preplanned reception and care centers for all schools including daycare and nursery schools, alert and notification procedures for all schools including daycare and nursery schools and public information for parents and guardians of all schools including daycare and nursery schools. No evidence has been presented to show that PA complies with these emergency planning requirements.

                        iv

The consequences of not codifying the state and local government specific resources for daycare and nursery school children is that these children in PA will not have preplanned evacuation capabilities in the event of an emergency. Therefore, the NRC would not be able to find that �there is reasonable assurance that protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency, Thus requiring NRC to implement the 120-day clock contained in 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2) and to grant the petition for PRM 50-79 to codify the criteria contained in GM EV2. The protective actions that were described in the TMI exercise report for nursery schools and daycare centers is that �Municipalities in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are the responsible offsite response organizations for notifying daycare centers located in their geographical/political boundaries in the event of an incident occurring at TMI. The municipal plans and procedures require that daycare centers be notified in an incident at TMI at the Alert, Site Area and General Emergency and/or when Protective Action Decisions are announced.�

The TMI Exercise report further state that �Each municipality has a Notification and Resources Manual that lists the names, address, point of contact and phone number of the daycare center locate in their portion of the EPZ. In every case, the municipalities simulated notification of the daycare centers in a timely manor pursuant to their codified plans and procedures�.

The above TMI Exercise descriptions of how the state and local government will protect the health and safety of the nursery school children taken in conjunction with the following quote from a FEMA letter dated April 29, 2004 to NRC, illustrates a definite lack of compliance with the regulations and guidelines. �Please keep in mind that daycare centers and nursery schools are considered private business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as opposed to elementary, middle and high schools that are considered public institutions. As was stated in a letter dated January 10, 2003, from acting Director of PEMA to the NRC, �Parents are legally required to send their children to public schools unless they opt to enroll them in private institutions. The use of private daycare facilities is voluntary on the parents. There is no legal requirement to send children to them.�                 v
Also from FEMA letter dated July 29, 2004 to NRC �parents should review with daycare centers and nursery schools procedures and plans for the safety and protection of their children, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare issued a bulletin on December 27, 2003, requiring daycare centers to develop an EOP. The enclosed Draft EOP for nursery schools delineates a listing of transportation providers and contact lists for drivers.�

In a letter from PEMA to the petitioners dated July 30, 2004, PEMA stated that �Childcare facilities are, for the most part, private business entities who in conjunction with the parents, should assume responsibility for the safety of their charges. Local government will not treat these business any differently than it does any citizen. Especially in rural areas, municipal government simply may not have the resources to provide shelter. In so far as municipal shelters are available, childcare providers are encouraged to use them�.

�Childcare facilities are, for the most part, private entities who should assume responsibility for their charges. As mentioned in the Daycare planning guide that�s on PEMA�s web site �municipal emergency management agency may be able to help, but it won�t be able to guarantee that you will remain in one group, thus complicating your accountability problems.� Childcare providers should coordinate with municipal government and decide whether to use government provided resources, or to make separate arrangements. Also care of their charges is ultimately the responsibility of the daycare provider and the parents of the children.�

�If time allows, municipal officials will issue a protective action decision. However, localized emergencies or severe time constraints may dictate that the daycare facility operator must choose the most prudent course of action. The sample plan on PEMA�s web site lists considerations (Part II, Check list A) that will help the daycare provider to make that decision.�

                             vi

In a letter from the Mayor of Harrisburg to the NRC dated December 3, 2002, he stated �The exclusion of such facilities in present Radiological Emergency Plans is an omission that is certain to create confusion and chaos in the event that an evacuation would ever be ordered in on of the affected evacuation zones near a nuclear power station. Parents and others would be attempting to reach the nursery schools and daycare centers have thus far generally not put into place any evacuation plan, which means there would be an onsite confusion regarding the safety of the children entrusted to these facilities.�

All of the above documentation, along with the TMI exercise results lead me to conclude that state and local emergency plans do not address preplanned transportation resources available for evacuating all public and private schools including daycare centers and nursery schools established preplanned resources and care centers for all public and private schools including daycare and nursery schools has not been addressed and alert and notification procedures for these schools and public information for parents and guardians of daycare and nursery school children has not been preplanned.

-end

                           vii

Suzanne Leta
Clean Energy Advocate
NJPIRG
11 N. Willow St
Trenton, NJ 08608
609 394 8155 x310
sleta@...

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8051

From: "Citizens' Nuclear Information Center" <cnic@...>
Date: Wed Sep 28, 2005 2:54 am
Subject: [NukeNet] Japanese uranium contaminated soil

cnic@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

We have sent several messages to this list regarding the plans of the
Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Organization (JNC) to ship 290 cubic
meters of uranium contaminated soil to the US for refining and
disposal. Background information is available on the following pages:

http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit107/nit107articles/
nit107uraniumsoil.html

http://cnic.jp/english/news/newsflash/uransoil7Sep05.html

JNC continues to refuse to publish the name of the company to which the
soil is being sent, but information obtained through a freedom of
information inquiry seems to narrow the possibilities to two US uranium
mills in Utah: Shootering Canyon and White Mesa. Of these, according to
DOE's Domestic Uranium Production Report (2003-2004), the operational
status of the former is 'reclamation', whereas the operational status
of the latter is 'standby'. We deduce from this that JNC has contracted
with the owners of the White Mesa mill to refine the above soil. The
name of this company is White Mesa LLC. JNC has neither confirmed nor
refuted this deduction.

   It is expected that the soil will be shipped from Kobe Port early in
October. Previously, newspaper reports suggested that the soil would be
shipped to Seattle, however we don't know whether this is accurate.

As we have stated previously, CNIC opposes this method of disposing of
JNC's radioactive waste. It goes against the principle of not dumping
radioactive waste in another country. JNC has conveniently changed its
labeling of the waste to call it 'uranium ore', but the motivation for
sending the waste to the US is simply to escape an intractable waste
problem caused by its own shoddy practices back in the 1950s and 60s.
JNC is paying for the soil to be taken off its hands, so clearly it has
no value as ore for the US company.

We have continued to relay information obtained from other groups,
which are following this issue more closely, on the assumption that the
above principle is worth defending, regardless of the level of
radioactivity involved (3-4 becquerels per gram). We are also concerned
about the bad precedent that this case sets.

We would be keen to hear of any developments at the US end.

Philip White
International Liaison Officer

Citizens' Nuclear Information Center
3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003
Phone: 81-3-5330-9520
Fax: 81-3-5330-9530
http://cnic.jp/english/
cnic@...


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8050

From: "Boyle, Francis" <FBOYLE@...>
Date: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:06 pm
Subject: [NukeNet] FW: Book: Biowarfare and Terrorism / Francis A. Boyle

FBOYLE@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

Francis A. Boyle

Law Building

504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.

Champaign, IL 61820 USA

217-333-7954 (voice)

217-244-1478 (fax)

fboyle@...

(personal comments only)

-----Original Message-----
From: Clarity Press, Inc. [mailto:clarity@...]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:06 PM
To: fboyle@...
Subject: Book: Biowarfare and Terrorism / Francis A. Boyle



	Press Release / Book Announcement BIOWARFARE AND TERRORISM by Francis A. Boyle Foreword by Jonathan King This book outlines how and why the United States government initiated, sustained and then dramatically expanded an illegal biological arms buildup. Most significantly, U.S. expert Francis A. Boyle reveals how the new billion-dollar U.S. Chemical and Biological Defense Program has been reorientated to accord with the Neo-Conservative pre-emptive strike agenda--this time by biological and chemical warfare. Linking U.S. biowarfare development to the October 2001 anthrax attack on Congress--the most significant political attack on the constitutional functioning of democracy in the United States in recent history--Boyle sheds new light on the motives for the attack, the media black hole of silence into which it has fallen, and why the FBI may never apprehend the perpetrators of this seminal crime of the 21st century. Biowarfare and Terrorism should raise public concern at what the vastly expanded US biowarfare research and purported civilian preparedness programs hold in store for America--and the extent to which the Bush administration is prepared to pursue them, irrespective of their incitement to a global biowarfare arms race, and their likely exposure of the American people in the future to both accidents and reprisals. ABOUT FRANCIS A. BOYLE Francis A. Boyle is a leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University JONATHAN KING is Professor of Molecular Biology at MIT and an authority on the genes and proteins of micro-organisms. Prof. King was a founder of the Council for Responsible Genetics and Co-Chair of its Committee on the Military Use of Biological Research. CLARITY PRESS, INC. http://www.claritypress.com ISBN: 0-932863-46-9 Paper $12.95 2005 Table of contents, synopsis and reviews available at: http://www.bookmasters.com/clarity/b0027.htm Available from: SCB Distributors,15608 South New Century Drive, Gardena, CA. 90248 victor@... Toll-free 800-729-6423* Tel: 1-310-532-9400 * Fax: 1-310-532-7001 or through www.amazon.com or Ingram or Fernwood Books in Canada. Lindsay@... To remove: clarity@...

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8049

From: "Brendan Hoffman" <bhoffman@...>
Date: Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:18 pm
Subject: Re: [NukeNet] Calls Needed To Stop Yucca N-Waste Dump

bhoffman@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

Bennett, while he may oppose Yucca, supports reprocessing.  he deserves thanks
for his Yucca stance but try to include something about how he needs to be aware
that reprocessing is expensive and does not solve the waste problem.  the best
first step is to stop making the waste.

Brendan Hoffman
Organizer, Nuclear Energy & Waste
Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program
Public Citizen
p: 202.454.5130
f: 202.547.7392
bhoffman@...
www.citizen.org/cmep


>>> "Bill Smirnow" <smirnowb@...> 9/21/2005 8:01 PM >>>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)


  Please see bottom pf post for the two Senators to
call. Please forward this e-mail to other lists
and interested parties.

  ----- Original Message -----
From: <shundahai@...>
To: <shundahaialert@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 7:55 PM
Subject: [shundahaialert] YES! Utah Senator jumps
ship on Yucca nuke dump

   Dear friends,

Here is the latest on the fight against the
high-level nuclear dump proposed for the Skull
Valley Goshute Indian reservation in Utah

One important development is that Utah senator Bob
Bennett just announced yesterday that he will
stand with Nevada in a united front against the
nuclear waste dumps proposed for both Yucca
Mountain, NV, on Western Shoshone land, and  Skull
Valley utah, on Goshute Indian land.

This is a fantastic reversal from his previous
position of supporting the Bush regime in it's
attack on Yucca, in order to keep waste out of
Utah.

On the issue of nuclear waste, it has long been
said that if Utah and Nevada interests "don't hang
together, they will hang seperately."

This critical need for solidarity is also
something that has been demanded by both Shoshone
and Goshutes from the beginning. It's good to see
that the politicians are finally coming around.

Unfortunately, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch is still
stuck on supporting the Bush administration's
commitment to the very dangerous, misguided, and
environmentally racist Yucca Mountain nuclear
dump. This is despite the rest of Utah's federal
delegation and state government insisting that it
is time Utah stands with Nevada, just as Goshute
Indians stand with Western Shoshone Indians, to
oppose high-level nuclear waste being shipped and
dumped at either Skull Valley or Yucca Mountain.

Give Senator Bennett a thanks:

Senator Robert Bennett (R- UT)
431 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-5444
www.bennett.senate.gov/contact/emailmain.html


Let Senator Hatch know that he'd better get over
the Yucca Mountain fixation and get on board with
proposals to keep high-level nuclear waste where
it is, and not put communities all across the
country in jeopardy just to dump America's deadly
nuclear garbage on Indian country here in the
Great Basin.

Senator Orrin Hatch, (R- UT)
104 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
Phone:(202) 224-5251
www.hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Offices.
Contact

We can stop both the skull Valley and yucca
Mountain nuclear dumps. The momentum is shifting
toward a better way to deal with America's nuclear
problem.

Feel free to contact our office for any reason.
Also, you are welcome to send us copies of
whatever correspondence you have with these or any
other politicians.

Peace and justice,
Shundahai Network
--------------------------------------------------
-------
Latest News

9-21-05 Bennett no longer supporting Yucca site-
Ogden Standard Examiner
http://www.shundahai.org/092105_OgdenSE_Bennett_Opposes_Yucca.htm

9-21-05 Bennett switches, opposes Yucca- Salt Lake
Tribune
http://www.shundahai.org/092105_SLTrib_Bennett_Opposes_Yucca.htm

9-20-05 Utah official switches gears against Yucca
Mountain- Las Vegas Sun
http://www.shundahai.org/092005LVSun_Bennett_Opposes_Yucca.htm

You can also click on the following link for a
full news listing of the Skull Valley high-level
nuclear waste struggle!
http://www.shundahai.org/skull_valley_info.htm




--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------


Shundahai Network
www.shundahai.org
P.O. Box 1115
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Phone- 801.533.0128
Fax- 801.533.0129
shundahai@...

Online Fundraising Store-
www.cafepress.com/shundahainet
If you are a Myspace user, you can now add us!
www.Myspace.com/shundahai

Shundahai is a Newe (Western Shoshone) word
meaning "Peace and Harmony with all Creation"


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8048

From: "Bill Smirnow" <smirnowb@...>
Date: Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:01 am
Subject: [NukeNet] Calls Needed To Stop Yucca N-Waste Dump

smirnowb@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

  Please see bottom pf post for the two Senators to
call. Please forward this e-mail to other lists
and interested parties.

  ----- Original Message -----
From: <shundahai@...>
To: <shundahaialert@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 7:55 PM
Subject: [shundahaialert] YES! Utah Senator jumps
ship on Yucca nuke dump

   Dear friends,

Here is the latest on the fight against the
high-level nuclear dump proposed for the Skull
Valley Goshute Indian reservation in Utah

One important development is that Utah senator Bob
Bennett just announced yesterday that he will
stand with Nevada in a united front against the
nuclear waste dumps proposed for both Yucca
Mountain, NV, on Western Shoshone land, and  Skull
Valley utah, on Goshute Indian land.

This is a fantastic reversal from his previous
position of supporting the Bush regime in it's
attack on Yucca, in order to keep waste out of
Utah.

On the issue of nuclear waste, it has long been
said that if Utah and Nevada interests "don't hang
together, they will hang seperately."

This critical need for solidarity is also
something that has been demanded by both Shoshone
and Goshutes from the beginning. It's good to see
that the politicians are finally coming around.

Unfortunately, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch is still
stuck on supporting the Bush administration's
commitment to the very dangerous, misguided, and
environmentally racist Yucca Mountain nuclear
dump. This is despite the rest of Utah's federal
delegation and state government insisting that it
is time Utah stands with Nevada, just as Goshute
Indians stand with Western Shoshone Indians, to
oppose high-level nuclear waste being shipped and
dumped at either Skull Valley or Yucca Mountain.

Give Senator Bennett a thanks:

Senator Robert Bennett (R- UT)
431 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-5444
www.bennett.senate.gov/contact/emailmain.html

Let Senator Hatch know that he'd better get over
the Yucca Mountain fixation and get on board with
proposals to keep high-level nuclear waste where
it is, and not put communities all across the
country in jeopardy just to dump America's deadly
nuclear garbage on Indian country here in the
Great Basin.

Senator Orrin Hatch, (R- UT)
104 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
Phone:(202) 224-5251
www.hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Offices.
Contact

We can stop both the skull Valley and yucca
Mountain nuclear dumps. The momentum is shifting
toward a better way to deal with America's nuclear
problem.

Feel free to contact our office for any reason.
Also, you are welcome to send us copies of
whatever correspondence you have with these or any
other politicians.

Peace and justice,
Shundahai Network
--------------------------------------------------
-------
Latest News

9-21-05 Bennett no longer supporting Yucca site-
Ogden Standard Examiner
http://www.shundahai.org/092105_OgdenSE_Bennett_Opposes_Yucca.htm

9-21-05 Bennett switches, opposes Yucca- Salt Lake
Tribune
http://www.shundahai.org/092105_SLTrib_Bennett_Opposes_Yucca.htm

9-20-05 Utah official switches gears against Yucca
Mountain- Las Vegas Sun
http://www.shundahai.org/092005LVSun_Bennett_Opposes_Yucca.htm

You can also click on the following link for a
full news listing of the Skull Valley high-level
nuclear waste struggle!
http://www.shundahai.org/skull_valley_info.htm

--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------

Shundahai Network
www.shundahai.org
P.O. Box 1115
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Phone- 801.533.0128
Fax- 801.533.0129
shundahai@...

Online Fundraising Store-
www.cafepress.com/shundahainet
If you are a Myspace user, you can now add us!
www.Myspace.com/shundahai

Shundahai is a Newe (Western Shoshone) word
meaning "Peace and Harmony with all Creation"

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8047

From: marylia@... (marylia)
Date: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:42 pm
Subject: [NukeNet] NIF, Plutonium and Weapons Design, Oakland Tribune

marylia@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

Hi, all -- good read -- follows up on one of my "favorite" topics, and one
you have certainly heard about over the years...  -- Marylia

Secret laser  experiments  proposed

If approved, Livermore lab could conduct the weapons research

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER
Inside Bay Area
(includes Oakland Tribune/Tri-Valley Herald and other ANG newspapers)
September 19, 2005

U.S. weapons scientists want to fire the worlds largest laser at targets
resembling miniature atom bombs in experiments aimed at a deeper
understanding of the physics in thermonuclear weapons.

Critics say the experiments could lead to new, low-yield nuclear explosives.

Details of the proposed experiments and their purposes are classified,
though weapons scientists say they are not pursuing new kinds of nuclear
bombs.

If approved by federal weapons authorities at the U.S. Department of
Energy, the laser shots would mark an unprecedented use of weapons-grade
plutonium and uranium in a U.S. fusion facility. Shots on the new targets
could begin in 2010 at the National Ignition Facility, a massive laser
complex at Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons lab.

In the 1990s and again in a recent environmental study, weapons scientists
and federal defense officials said the experiments could fill gaps in
understanding of critical aspects of weapons physics.

But Clinton administration weapons officials called the experiments highly
speculative and told a 1995 panel of scientists studying NIFs implications
for development of new weapons that there is no intention on the part of
the Department to pursue these experiments.

At $4 billion, the giant laser is the most expensive scientific
construction project in the nation and one of the more controversial.
Critics say the laser wont achieve its defining purpose of igniting fusion
burn andhas dubious relevance to maintaining nuclear weapons.

The new, classified targets could answer both questions.

When complete in 2008, NIF would be scientists best shot in a half-century
of ion guns, magnetic chambers and other big lasers at creating a tiny star
inside a laboratory through pure fusion; that is, without using a fission
bomb as a lighting match, as in H-bombs.

But with the new, classified targets, weapons scientists would be departing
from pure fusion and exploring thermonuclear explosions on targets very
similar to an atom bomb, with concentric shells of beryllium and
weapons-grade plutonium; just a gram or two of each; containing a mix of
two heavy hydrogen gases, tritium and deuterium.

That's almost identical to the first stage of a thermonuclear weapon, a
grapefruit-sized hollow ball of beryllium and plutonium surrounded by high
explosives that serve as a fission match to touch off fusion.

The experiment and the bomb differ in size and shape; modern primaries tend
to be oblong, shaped like eggs or watermelons; and they differ in the means
of detonation: imploding high explosives for nuclear bombs versus a
crushing fist of X-rays created by 192 beams of intense laser light inside
the Rose Bowl-sized National Ignition Facility.

What theyre doing is trying to make a miniature H-bomb, not a pure fusion
explosion. Theyre on a totally different page than the rest of the fusion
community, said Ray Kidder, a former senior manager over laser research at
Lawrence Livermore and a nonproliferation advocate.

The reason, he said, is obvious to anyone in the weapons world.

The answer is to design new weapons, weapons that have different
characteristics and are based on a different way of making the weapon
detonate, Kidder said. This is an absolutely whole new ball game.

Some other fusion scientists are also concerned that the classified
experiments could taint the international pursuit of fusion energy.

Stefan Atzeni, a physicist at the University of Rome and co-author of a
definitive textbook on laser fusion, said he understands the need of U.S.
scientists to learn more about weapons physics. But he opposes the use of
weapons-grade plutonium in fusion experiments.

Personally, I see these experiments as politically risky, he wrote in an
e-mail last week. They certainly would not have a positive impact on public
perception of fusion: They may be viewed as supporting weapons
proliferation.

The Clinton and Bush administrations concluded that NIF posed no
proliferation risks in part because of the lasers enormous size and cost
&#151; it could not be replicated into a feasible weapon; and because
experiments on NIF could yield rare insights into physics at the extreme
temperatures, energies and pressures found only in stars and nuclear
weapons.

Some physicists, including the late Theodore Taylor, a weapons designer
turned arms-control advocate, warned that the giant laser might open the
door to novel fusion weaponry, driven by high explosives or magnetic
fields.

Such experiments could make it harder for the United States to persuade the
United Nations to limit other nations nuclear research, said Christopher
Paine, a senior weapons analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

How does the United States look objecting to the nuclear energy programs of
other countries while it injects weapons research functions into its search
for fusion energy? Paine said. It puts us in a frightfully hypocritical
position.

This new class of weapons would turn the operation of existing H-bombs
inside out. Since the 1950s, virtually all nuclear weapons in the arsenals
of advanced nuclear powers have been boosted designs. They inject fusion
fuel into detonating atom bomb of plutonium and use the fusion reactions to
split even more plutonium atoms. That dramatically raises the efficiency of
the atom bomb, allowing weapons designers to shrink their size and weight
as fission triggers for thermonuclear weapons.

A possible new class of weapons is closer to fusion bombs, using nuclear
fission as a booster.

In some of the classified experiments proposed for the National Ignition
Facility, scientists would fire at a pellet that looks rather like an atom
bomb but is 100 times smaller. If the target works; if it implodes
perfectly and doesnt squirt out to the sides; the pellet would be crushed
smaller still, and the hydrogen fusion fuel inside would fuse, releasing
trillions of neutrons.

Some neutrons will shatter the atomic nuclei of the plutonium and produce
hot fragments that deliver scads of energy back into the fusion fuel,
making it burn more efficiently. The plutonium becomes an explosive to
boost a tiny fusion bomb.

Its 100 percent about new nuclear weapons that are just what people are
looking for because theyre low-yield weapons with reduced residual
radiation, said Kidder, the retired Livermore laser physicist.

Weapons scientists would not discuss the experiments in detail, saying they
are classified. But in response to written questions, scientists at
Livermore who declined to be identified stressed that the experiments
strictly were intended to improve the understanding of ordinary H-bombs.
The classified shots are not relevant to any new design, they wrote.

It is narrowing uncertainties in weapons physics, not exploring new
weapons, that is the rationale for the classified experiments, according to
Livermores scientists.

If so, Kidder asks, why the secrecy?

You put fission into it, and the world has to be kept out, Kidder said. I
would prefer they did not do any fusion experiments with fission that were
classified. But the whole idea of doing things in a dark corner and doing
things that could lead toward proliferation, I dont favor that.

Contact Ian Hoffman at:
ihoffman@...
###

Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94551

<http://www.trivalleycares.org> - is our web site address. Please visit us
there!

(925) 443-7148 - is our phone
(925) 443-0177 - is our fax



_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8046

From: "Bill Smirnow" <smirnowb@...>
Date: Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:20 pm
Subject: [NukeNet] Study Says Stalin Killed To Prevent Nuclear War

smirnowb@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)





   The March 5, 2003 NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com
Was Stalin killed to avert war?

       Study concludes aides fed him rat poison as
he prepared for nuclear attack on U.S.

       By DOUG SAUNDERS
       Thursday, March 6, 2003 - Page A1


       Terrified that Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin
was about to launch a full-scale nuclear attack on
the United States and a second mass-murder
campaign causing tens of millions of deaths, his
underlings secretly murdered him with rat poison,
a major study concludes.

       When Stalin died on March 5, 1953, the
official explanation was that he had suffered a
brain hemorrhage after dining with senior Soviet
officials, including Lavrenti Beria, head of the
secret police.

       The true cause of his death will likely
never be proven, unless an autopsy is performed on
his embalmed corpse. But the new study by Russian
and U.S. historians argues that he appears to have
ingested warfarin, a flavourless rat poison that
thins the blood and causes strokes and
hemorrhages.

       "The circumstantial evidence is
overwhelmingly in favour of non-fortuitous death,"
said Yale University history professor Jonathan
Brent. "And to support this further, we now have
solid evidence, non-circumstantial evidence, of a
cover-up at the highest level."
       The study is likely to cause a controversy
in Russia, where Stalin's legacy has deeply
divided the public. Some, such as Communist Party
leader Gennady Zyuganov, still call him a hero.

       The view seems to have popular support: One
opinion poll of the Russian public last week found
53 per cent described Stalin's historical role as
"absolutely positive" or "more positive than
negative," and only 33 per cent took a negative
view.

       Prof. Brent is also the director of the Yale
University Press and the editor of a 25-volume
series on the contents of the Soviet Union's
secret archives. He conducted his study with
Vladimir Naumov, a historian who works in Russia
and specializes in Soviet records.

       To be published next month under the title
Stalin's Last Crime, the study shows that Beria
and his colleagues were terrified of the dictator,
who by 1953 had killed tens of millions and
imprisoned countless more. It found that his
dinner companions appear to have waited hours
before calling for medical help, and that they
altered his death records to make the event appear
innocuous.

       "All of the indications are that Stalin was
intent on launching a massive purge of Soviet
society. They all knew it," Prof. Brent said. This
"second terror" would likely have killed tens of
millions of Jews and other Russians, including
many of Stalin's colleagues. Aside from fearing
for their own lives, Prof. Brent said, the Soviets
also feared that Stalin had become dangerous
enough to destroy the world.

       "It wasn't simply that they were afraid for
their own lives, and they were, but it was . . .
the fear of a larger nuclear holocaust that drove
them."

       The study includes new, documentary evidence
that Stalin was attempting to fabricate enough
evidence to accuse the United States of planning a
nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. Among those
who were aware of this plan, and feared its
results, was Nikita Khrushchev, who succeeded
Stalin.

       Stalin himself said in public speeches at
the time that there was a plot to assassinate him
and other Soviet leaders, known as the doctors'
plot because his initial accusations were directed
at Jewish doctors. His version of the plot grew to
incorporate most of the Soviet Jewish population
and the leadership of the United States.

       Two weeks before his death, Stalin had
ordered the building of vast prison camps in
remote Soviet regions, and many believed that he
planned to launch a second campaign of terror
against Jews.

       As a result, Stalin's assassination
conspiracy theory, as a justification for mass
murder, may itself have led to his assassination.

       "One of the most suggestive pieces of
evidence we have is that Beria's first act, after
being appointed head of the ministry of internal
affairs after Stalin's death, was that he
abolished the doctors' plot. Now, why would he
make something like that his first act? The only
explanation for that was that the doctors' plot
represented a huge threat against the Soviet
Union."

       Prof. Brent's study includes a copy of
Stalin's original death certificate, which shows
he fell ill shortly after dinner on March 1,
vomited blood that night and suffered a brain
hemorrhage on the morning of March 2, shortly
after doctors arrived.

       That copy of the certificate has never been
seen or published before; the "official" death
certificate shows him falling ill on the night of
March 2, and doctors arriving shortly afterward.

       The Jewish doctors were due to go on trial
later in March of 1953, and construction of the
camps was to begin shortly afterward. After Mr.
Khrushchev took office, the trials were cancelled,
the doctors exonerated, the camps were never built
and nuclear tensions with the United States were
reduced. According to Prof. Brent, the
assassination likely saved tens of millions of
lives.


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8045

From: marylia@... (marylia)
Date: Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:12 pm
Subject: [NukeNet] GROUP SIGN-ONS NEEDED, Letter to Congress to cut NUCLEAR budget

marylia@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

To sign on, please contact Jim Bridgman at the Alliance for Nuclear
Accountability at
202-544-0217, ext.3, or jcbridgman@... by COB Friday, September 23.

Here is the letter -- read -- and if you agree, send Jim Bridgman your
name, title, organization and organization address.

September XX, 2005

Attn: Appropriations Staff

Dear Energy & Water Conferee:

As you prepare to finalize negotiations on the Fiscal Year 2006 Energy &
Water Development Appropriations bill, we urge you to adopt cuts already
made by the House and Senate to unneeded and risky nuclear weapons and
energy programs while continuing to prioritize assistance for Gulf States
hit by hurricane Katrina. We also urge you to prioritize the cleanup of
contaminated past and present nuclear weapons sites and the dismantlement of
nuclear weapons slated for retirement.

  Fiscal pressures are tight as the deficit is now over $330 billion according
to the latest estimate by the Congressional Budget Office.  Adopting the
following budget recommendations would save taxpayers over $880 million in
the next fiscal year. We also argue that the increases to cleanup and
dismantlements that we support will actually help to save taxpayers' money
in the long run.

  Directed Stockpile Work - We support the House cut of $137.5 million to the
National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA's) request for various
activities under Directed Stockpile Work. In particular, we support the
House cuts of $35 million to the W-80 Warhead Life Extension Program and $10
million to the W-80 Stockpile Systems Program. The W-80 is one of the
warheads slated for reductions, requiring less priority for upgrades in
these two programs.

  Stockpile Services - We support the House cut of $183 million to the NNSA's
request for Stockpile Services. In particular, we support the House cut of
$4 million to the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. Developing new nuclear
weapons is the wrong answer to an important problem. It's unnecessary and
won't work on many targets. The National Academy of Sciences has reported
that exploding RNEP in an urban setting could result in a million civilian
deaths. The president's new nuclear strike plan incorporating the option of
preemption is particularly chilling in this regard.

  Modern Pit Facility - We support the House cut of $7.69 million eliminating
funding for the MPF, a new bomb plant for mass production of plutonium pits
of current and potential new designs. The MPF will cost up to $4 billion to
build and $300 million annually to operate. As the nation plans to implement
the reductions announced in the Stockpile Plan last year following from the
Moscow Treaty and studies of pit aging continue to show longer pit
lifetimes, the rationale for a new pit facility continues to erode.

  Science Campaigns - We support the House cut of $45 million to the NNSA's
request for Science Campaigns. In particular, we support the House cut of
$10 million to the President's $25 million request for enhancing the
readiness of the Nevada Test Site to resume underground nuclear testing. The
United States already holds a clear advantage in having conducted more
nuclear tests than any other nation. Further efforts to enhance the test
site are unnecessarily provocative.

  Additionally, we support the House cuts of $37 million to the NNSA's
Engineering Campaigns, $160 million to its Advanced Simulation and Computing
Campaign, $20.5 million to Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities, and
$33 million to Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization.

  National Ignition Facility - We support the Senate cut of $146 million for
all construction funding. NIF is not required to maintain the safety of the
nuclear arsenal. The NIF continues to face tremendous technical difficulties
and is three-fold over the original budget.

  Plutonium Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX) - We support the House cut of $303
million for construction of the U.S. MOX facility. Problems with the Russian
program have forced delays in the U.S. construction timeline resulting in
$650 million in unused prior appropriations.

  Yucca Mountain - We support the Senate cut of $74 million from the Defense
Nuclear Waste Disposal budget. The plan to house irradiated fuel from the
nation's nuclear power plants and high-level waste from nuclear weapons
sites at Yucca is plagued by numerous problems including bad geology, poor
planning, and even fraudulent misconduct. Recent revelations of falsified
water modeling data by the U.S. Geological Survey and the failure to account
for cracks in spent fuel assemblies entering the site after decades of
planning dramatically highlight the need for additional congressional
oversight and a search for a solution based on sound science rather than
wasting additional taxpayer dollars.

  Interim Storage and Reprocessing - We oppose the House language proposing a
new Spent Fuel Recycling Initiative that would transfer commercial nuclear
waste to one or more DOE facilities for interim storage and reprocessing. We
also oppose the larger Senate appropriation of $15 million above the request
for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative that funds reprocessing research.
Reprocessing is massively expensive and creates more waste and
contamination. It presents a security threat by increasing supplies of
separated fissile materials and encourages nonproliferation by setting the
wrong example for other countries looking to separate fissile materials for
bomb production.

  Nuclear Weapons Dismantlement - We support the House action, which boosted
funding for dismantlement to $110.2 million from the President's $35.2
million request. The FY06 request forecasts a slight decline in spending
despite the need to greatly increase the pace of dismantlements to implement
reductions under the Stockpile Plan following from the Moscow Treaty.

  Environmental Cleanup - We support the House increase for DOE environmental
cleanup, including $160 million for Hanford, Washington and $30 million for
the Mound, Ohio site. The President's budget included a large $500 million
cut in the EM budget. The restoration of funds will enable sites to adhere
to legally binding timetables for cleanup which are designed to protect the
public from environmental contamination.

  We hope you agree that at this time of local crisis and fiscal hardship,
taxpayers do not need hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the
modernization of the nation's nuclear arsenal, as well as dangerous and
unproven nuclear waste plans. We urge you to instead prioritize nuclear
weapons dismantlement and cleanup of nuclear contamination, as well as
continued assistance needed by Gulf States coping with the aftermath of
hurricane Katrina.

Sincerely,





_______________________________

Jim Bridgman, Program Director

Alliance for Nuclear Accountability

322 4th Street, NE, WDC, 20002

202-544-0217 x3

FAX: 202-544-6143

jcbridgman@...

www.ananuclear.org




<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
  name="PlaceType"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
  name="PlaceName" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
  name="country-region" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
  name="State" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
  name="Street" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalampft-com:office:smarttags"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
  name="City" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
  name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
  name="address" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
  name="PersonName" downloadurl="http://www.microsoft.com"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
  /* Style Definitions */
  p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
         {margin:0in;
         margin-bottom:.0001pt;
         font-size:12.0pt;
         font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
         {color:blue;
         text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
         {color:purple;
         text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAutoSig, li.MsoAutoSig, div.MsoAutoSig
         {margin:0in;
         margin-bottom:.0001pt;
         font-size:12.0pt;
         font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle17
         {mso-style-type:personal-compose;
         font-family:Arial;
         color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
         {size:8.5in 11.0in;
         margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
         {page:Section1;}
-->
</style>

</head>

<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>

<div class=Section1>

<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>To sign on, please contact Jim
Bridgman at the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City
w:st="on">Alliance</st1:City></st1:place>
for Nuclear Accountability at <o:p></o:p></span></font></b></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>202-544-0217, ext.3, or <a
href="mailto:jcbridgman@...">jcbridgman@...</a> by COB
Friday,
September 23<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>September XX, 2005<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Attn: Appropriations Staff<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Dear Energy &amp; Water Conferee:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>As you prepare to finalize negotiations on the Fiscal Year 2006 Energy
&amp; Water Development Appropriations bill, we urge you to adopt cuts already
made by the House and Senate to unneeded and risky nuclear weapons and energy
programs while continuing to prioritize assistance for <st1:place
w:st="on"><st1:State
  w:st="on">Gulf States</st1:State></st1:place> hit by hurricane Katrina. We
also urge you to prioritize the cleanup of contaminated past and present
nuclear weapons sites and the dismantlement of nuclear weapons slated for
retirement.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Fiscal pressures are tight as the deficit is now over $330 billion

Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94551

<http://www.trivalleycares.org> - is our web site address. Please visit us
there!

(925) 443-7148 - is our phone
(925) 443-0177 - is our fax



_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8044

From: "Bill Smirnow" <smirnowb@...>
Date: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:33 pm
Subject: [NukeNet] Dr Jay Gould Dies

smirnowb@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)



   ----- Original Message -----
From: mitzi

Jay Gould was a great man.  The founder of the
Radiation and Public Health Project and its Tooth
Fairy study, he "died with his boots on".
Peter and I loved him dearly and will miss his
leadership.  He authored many papers, two books
which we have in our collection, Deadly Deceit and
The Enemy Within, about the nuclear industry and
its many dangers to human health and survival.
Doctor of Public Health, Joe Mangano has been his
second and is director of the RPHP.  We know that
he will continue to carry on the important work
that Jay began, and we will continue to do our
best to get baby tooth donors for this important
epidemiological study, testing calcium mimic
strontium90, a reactor-produced isotope that is a
cause of bone and lymph cancers and leukemia.
See www.radiation.org
Mitzi and Pete Bowman
Don't Waste Connecticut
97 Longhill Terrace
New Haven, CT 06515
(203)389-2067
----- Original Message -----
From: Odiejoe@...
To: Galcalay@... ; TurkBev1@... ;
Blanchewcook@... ; Garyblsp@... ;
Lflanders@... ; dfriedson@... ;
clgallagher@... ; MKaku@... ;
HealthyInt@... ; vsidel@... ;
dan@... ; aslater@... ;
SuzanneWarson@... ; mark@... ;
Susannesaltzman@... ; margofrances@... ;
PJSlaterxo@... ; Cb2shiningsea@... ;
scullen@... ; kgrossman@... ;
RSnell9113@... ; mtanzer@... ;
wmw2@... ; d4rn@... ;
rosaliebertell@... ;
aceactivists@... ; johnsrud@... ;
EJSternglass@... ; ss@... ;
jacquelineokittrell@... ;
wkrmd@... ; toxdoc.js@... ;
christo@... ; hdsharma@... ;
bramhall@... ; burton@...
; taj961@... ; upthesun@... ;
JFriedeco@... ; MerBenzRN@... ;
blackrainpress@... ;
NancyBurtonEsq@... ; hcaldic@... ;
dlochbaum@... ; jbbrown@... ;
epstein@... ; kitbob@... ;
fragermark@... ;
mail@... ; sandina@... ;
ncohen12@... ; JFurst1567@... ;
louriado@...
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 6:49 PM
Subject: Death of Jay Gould


Dear Friends:

I'm sorry to inform you that Jay Gould died at
7:15 this evening.  He was 90 years old.

While I don't have any details about services
right now (Friday night), I will tomorrow.  Please
call me (610-666-2985), to take the load off of
Jane, who is understandably exhausted and grieving
right now.

Best to all, Joe Mangano


  ----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell D. Hoffman"
<rhoffman@...>
   September 17th, 2005    PRESS RELEASE
(RESEND -- TYPO CORRECTION IN 1ST
PARA: "FAIRY")

Dear Readers,

Dr. Jay M. Gould, radiation research scientist,
mathematician,
statistician, and author of Deadly Deceit:
Low-Level Radiation / High-Level
Cover-up (1990, with Benjamin A. Goldman) and The
Enemy Within: The High
Cost of Living Near Nuclear Reactors (1996), has
passed away at 90.  His
Tooth Fairy Project and the other important work
of the Radiation and
Public Health Project is expected to continue.
( http://www.radiation.org/ )

Dr. Gould's vision to form a group of independent
scientists to study the
issues of the health risks of nuclear reactors was
unprecedented in the
anti-nuclear movement and has become a standard
for other environmental
movements that want to prove their points
scientifically.

Activists involved in Dr. Gould's Tooth Fairy
Project have said they will
continue to do their best to continue gathering
baby teeth for this
important epidemiological study, which is testing
for the calcium-mimicking
element Strontium-90, a reactor-produced isotope
that is a known cause of
bone and lymph cancers and leukemia.

Dr. Gould died at 7:15 last night (Friday,
September 16th, 2005) in New
York City.  This author spoke to him a couple of
times.  Dr. Gould was a
wonderful and warm human being who will be missed
by everyone who worked
with him.  He is survived by his wife of 36 years,
Jane, and by two
daughters, Diana and Emily, and two grandchildren.

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

For more information, please contact Joe Mangano,
who worked with Dr. Gould
for many years and is Director of the Radiation
and Public Health Project,
at (610) 666-2985 or at Odiejoe@... .


==================================================
========
Contact information for the author of this email:
==================================================
========

*************************************************
** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY
** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
** P.O. Box 1936, Carlsbad CA 92018-1936
** (800) 551-2726
** (760) 720-7261
** Fax: (760) 720-7394
** Visit the world's most eclectic web site:
** http://www.animatedsoftware.com
*************************************************

IF YOU RECEIVED THIS EMAIL IN ERROR AND/OR DO NOT
WISH TO RECEIVE ANY MORE
EMAILS FROM US FOR ANY REASON, PLEASE CONTACT
RUSSELL HOFFMAN AT:

rhoffman@...

MailTo:rhoffman@...?Subject=Unsubscribe-me-please .
Please be sure that "Unsubscribe-me-please"
appears in the subject line.




_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8043

From: "Suzanne Leta" <sleta@...>
Date: Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:14 pm
Subject: [NukeNet] Action Alert: Letters Needed in Reponse to New York Times article

sleta@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

On Wednesday, the New York Times published the following article incorrectly assuming that retiring aging nuclear power plants could affect reductions in global warming emissions. Please submit letters to the editor this weekend reaffirming that we can close the aging plants and replace them with energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable energy generation.

Letters should be no longer than 150 words and should be submitted by email to: letters@... and newjersey@.... Make sure to include your full name and address, as well as your day and night time telephone numbers.

Please feel free to use the letter to the editor (see below) that I submitted on Wednesday as a sample letter. If you are from New Jersey, please highlight the issue of Oyster Creek specifically.

Best,

Suzanne

Phasing Out Nuclear Power is Key to a Clean Energy Future

Aging Nuclear Power Plants May Effect Emissions Pact, printed in Wednesday's paper, did not fully explain the availability of clean, safe and cost-efficient solutions to global warming.

Across the country, environmental groups agree that nuclear power should never be relied on as a strategy to reduce global warming emissions.

Instead, states should cap global warming emissions from the dirtiest power plants and provide incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy generation.

New Jersey, for example, has the economic potential to save 4,186 megawatts of peak electricity demand by 2020. The Oyster Creek nuclear power plant is a mere 650 megawatts. In addition, the state just proposed a goal of getting 20% of our the state�s energy from clean sources like wind and solar by 2020.

There is clearly enough potential for energy efficiency and renewable energy generation to replace Oyster Creek and reduce global warming emissions at the same time.

Suzanne Leta
Clean Energy Advocate
NJPIRG
11 N. Willow St
Trenton, NJ 08608
609 394 8155 x310
sleta@...

Aging Nuclear Power Plants May Affect Emissions Pact

By MATTHEW L. WALD

New York Times

Published: September 14, 2005

WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 - A proposed agreement among nine Northeast states to cap greenhouse gas emissions from power plants casts a new light on arguments in New Jersey and Vermont about whether the licenses of two aging nuclear plants should be extended.

Community groups in both states are opposing the extensions of the licenses beyond their 40-year terms, but environmentalists are generally supportive of the proposed agreement among the governors to reduce these greenhouse gases, which contribute to global climate change. Shutting down the two reactors would mean immediate, substantial increases in the emissions, because it would increase reliance on fossil fuel plants, probably tripling emissions in Vermont and doubling them in New Jersey.

"I think the environmental community is confused right now in terms of where they want to go," said Richard A. Valentinetti, director of Vermont's air quality program, who has been deeply involved in drafting the nine-state agreement. "Obviously there's some real polarization."

Some environmentalists say the goals can be met even without the two nuclear plants, Vermont Yankee and Oyster Creek, and without other nuclear plants whose licenses will expire in the next few years.

"We just have to bust the myth that we need to be using more energy," said Rob Sargent, senior energy policy analyst for the State Public Interest Research Groups, a nonprofit consumer organization. The New Jersey affiliate of his group is a leading voice against Oyster Creek, the nation's oldest commercial nuclear plant. Mr. Sargent said that rising electricity prices would make many new energy-saving technologies practical, but he acknowledged that simply saving money would not be enough to reduce power consumption by the required amount.

Engineers and environmental experts have long predicted that planners would eventually have to choose between greater greenhouse gas emissions and heavier reliance on nuclear power. The debate has been mostly hypothetical, since nobody in the United States has ordered a new nuclear plant since the 1970's, long before global climate change was widely perceived as an issue. It was also hypothetical because there were no limits on carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.

Suddenly, both parts of the question are changing. The governors are proposing a cap on emissions, and renewal of power plant licenses has become imminent.

Oyster Creek opened near Egg Harbor, N.J., in 1969 and its license expires in 2009. A little over half the electricity produced in New Jersey comes from nuclear power, and Oyster Creek alone produces about 9 percent; in 2004 it generated 27.1 million megawatt hours.

In December 2004, the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group came out against a license extension. It said that the plant was designed to last 40 years, and that the decision by Exelon, Oyster Creek's owner, to seek a license extension was "ignoring public safety."

The plant is in a rapidly growing part of the state, the group noted, and it argued that in an emergency evacuation would be impractical.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced on Monday that it had evaluated the application by Exelon for a license extension, and had decided that it merited review.

Vermont Yankee, in Vernon, near the border with Massachusetts and New Hampshire, began commercial operation in November 1972, and its license expires in March 2012. Its capacity is 535 megawatts. In 2004 the reactor produced 3.9 million megawatt hours, which was about 71 percent of the electricity produced in the state. (That production was only about one-third of the electricity consumed in the state, because Vermont is a chronic importer of power.)

Just how much carbon dioxide the two reactors are saving depends on what the replacement power source would be. A megawatt-hour from a coal plant produces about one ton of carbon dioxide. In the long run, power companies could build natural gas plants, which produce only about half a ton per megawatt hour.

The governors' draft agreement gives Vermont a limit of 1.35 million tons of carbon dioxide, approximately equal to its current emissions. But if the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant's output were replaced with coal, Vermont's emissions would increase by nearly four million tons. If natural gas were used, the increase would still be nearly two million tons.

The agreement gives New Jersey a cap of 23 million tons, but if Oyster Creek's output was replaced with coal, the state's output of carbon dioxide would more than double.

Some environmentalists say that greenhouse emissions should be cut by switching to "renewable" fuels, including wind, solar and hydroelectric. Wind-produced power, in fact, is growing rapidly, but over all, electricity from renewable sources in 2004 was about 1 percent lower than in 2003, mostly because of less hydroelectric production. Environmentalists propose reducing carbon dioxide output by building wind turbines. But utility experts say that the amount of wind that a utility grid can tolerate is limited, because wind is intermittent and often unpredictable. In fact, the "capacity factor" of a wind turbine, defined as the amount of power actually produced in a year, compared with the amount that would result from around-the-clock generation, is about 33 percent.

In addition to Vermont and New Jersey, the seven other states in the accord are New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8042

From: Mike Ewall <catalyst@...>
Date: Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:15 pm
Subject: [NukeNet] FirstEnergy pays record fines for Davis-Besse

catalyst@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

Pittsburgh Business Times - September 15, 2005
http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2005/09/12/daily26.html

LATEST NEWS
Pittsburgh Business Times - 9:10 AM EDT Thursday

FirstEnergy unit pays steep NRC fine

A subsidiary of the FirstEnergy Corp. said Thursday it will pay a
$5.45 million fine from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for reactor
head damage that led to a two-year shutdown of an Ohio nuclear plant.

The fine is the largest penalty ever levied by the NRC.

The FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., a division of Akron,
Ohio-based FirstEnergy (NYSE:FE), said it sent the NRC a letter
admitting "full responsibility for the significant performance
deficiencies that led to the reactor head issue."

The NRC said FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. restarted and operated
the Davis-Besse plant in May 2000 without repairing a leak from the
reactor vessel head.

The leaking boric acid was found two years later during a routine
inspection. The corrosion had eaten almost through a 6-inch-thick steel cap.

FirstEnergy companies have more than 13,000 employees in Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, and first began selling electricity to
Pittsburgh-area customers in 1997.


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8041

From: "Brendan Hoffman" <bhoffman@...>
Date: Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:49 pm
Subject: [NukeNet] NYT: Aging Nuclear Power Plants May Affect Emissions Pact

bhoffman@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

September 14, 2005
Aging Nuclear Power Plants May Affect Emissions Pact
By MATTHEW L. WALD
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/national/14nuke.html

WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 - A proposed agreement among nine Northeast states to cap
greenhouse gas emissions from power plants casts a new light on arguments in New
Jersey and Vermont about whether the licenses of two aging nuclear plants should
be extended.

Community groups in both states are opposing the extensions of the licenses
beyond their 40-year terms, but environmentalists are generally supportive of
the proposed agreement among the governors to reduce these greenhouse gases,
which contribute to global climate change. Shutting down the two reactors would
mean immediate, substantial increases in the emissions, because it would
increase reliance on fossil fuel plants, probably tripling emissions in Vermont
and doubling them in New Jersey.

"I think the environmental community is confused right now in terms of where
they want to go," said Richard A. Valentinetti, director of Vermont's air
quality program, who has been deeply involved in drafting the nine-state
agreement. "Obviously there's some real polarization."

Some environmentalists say the goals can be met even without the two nuclear
plants, Vermont Yankee and Oyster Creek, and without other nuclear plants whose
licenses will expire in the next few years.

"We just have to bust the myth that we need to be using more energy," said Rob
Sargent, senior energy policy analyst for the State Public Interest Research
Groups, a nonprofit consumer organization. The New Jersey affiliate of his group
is a leading voice against Oyster Creek, the nation's oldest commercial nuclear
plant. Mr. Sargent said that rising electricity prices would make many new
energy-saving technologies practical, but he acknowledged that simply saving
money would not be enough to reduce power consumption by the required amount.

Engineers and environmental experts have long predicted that planners would
eventually have to choose between greater greenhouse gas emissions and heavier
reliance on nuclear power. The debate has been mostly hypothetical, since nobody
in the United States has ordered a new nuclear plant since the 1970's, long
before global climate change was widely perceived as an issue. It was also
hypothetical because there were no limits on carbon dioxide emissions in the
United States.

Suddenly, both parts of the question are changing. The governors are proposing a
cap on emissions, and renewal of power plant licenses has become imminent.

Oyster Creek opened near Egg Harbor, N.J., in 1969 and its license expires in
2009. A little over half the electricity produced in New Jersey comes from
nuclear power, and Oyster Creek alone produces about 9 percent; in 2004 it
generated 27.1 million megawatt hours.

In December 2004, the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group came out against
a license extension. It said that the plant was designed to last 40 years, and
that the decision by Exelon, Oyster Creek's owner, to seek a license extension
was "ignoring public safety."

The plant is in a rapidly growing part of the state, the group noted, and it
argued that in an emergency evacuation would be impractical.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced on Monday that it had evaluated the
application by Exelon for a license extension, and had decided that it merited
review.

Vermont Yankee, in Vernon, near the border with Massachusetts and New Hampshire,
began commercial operation in November 1972, and its license expires in March
2012. Its capacity is 535 megawatts. In 2004 the reactor produced 3.9 million
megawatt hours, which was about 71 percent of the electricity produced in the
state. (That production was only about one-third of the electricity consumed in
the state, because Vermont is a chronic importer of power.)

Just how much carbon dioxide the two reactors are saving depends on what the
replacement power source would be. A megawatt-hour from a coal plant produces
about one ton of carbon dioxide. In the long run, power companies could build
natural gas plants, which produce only about half a ton per megawatt hour.

The governors' draft agreement gives Vermont a limit of 1.35 million tons of
carbon dioxide, approximately equal to its current emissions. But if the Vermont
Yankee nuclear plant's output were replaced with coal, Vermont's emissions would
increase by nearly four million tons. If natural gas were used, the increase
would still be nearly two million tons.

The agreement gives New Jersey a cap of 23 million tons, but if Oyster Creek's
output was replaced with coal, the state's output of carbon dioxide would more
than double.

Some environmentalists say that greenhouse emissions should be cut by switching
to "renewable" fuels, including wind, solar and hydroelectric. Wind-produced
power, in fact, is growing rapidly, but over all, electricity from renewable
sources in 2004 was about 1 percent lower than in 2003, mostly because of less
hydroelectric production. Environmentalists propose reducing carbon dioxide
output by building wind turbines. But utility experts say that the amount of
wind that a utility grid can tolerate is limited, because wind is intermittent
and often unpredictable. In fact, the "capacity factor" of a wind turbine,
defined as the amount of power actually produced in a year, compared with the
amount that would result from around-the-clock generation, is about 33 percent.

In addition to Vermont and New Jersey, the seven other states in the accord are
New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode
Island.

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8040

From: "Suzanne Leta" <sleta@...>
Date: Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:40 pm
Subject: [NukeNet] NJPIRG Press Statement: Gov Codey Must Intervene in Oyster Creek Proceeding

sleta@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

For Immediate Release: For More Information Contact: September 12, 2005 Suzanne Leta, Clean Energy Advocate 609 394 8155 x310 267 879 4285 (cell) sleta@... Governor Codey Must Intervene in Oyster Creek Proceeding The NRC announced today that Exelon's license extension application for the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant has been has been docketed and that the NRC will begin its technical review of the plant. The NRC also announced that within 60 days of a published notice in the Federal Register, any party who will be affected by the license renewal can file for a hearing and petition to intervene in the process. The notice will be published in the Federal Register very soon; at a recent NRC meeting, the estimated date given was this Friday, September 16th. It is the responsibility of Governor Codey to take every possible action to advocate for the health and safety of New Jersey residents most affected by a potential license extension for Oyster Creek. Governor Codey must represent local and state interests and file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene in the NRC proceedings on Oyster Creek's license extension application. Anything less would be reckless endangerment. *************************************************** NRC NEWS U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs	Telephone: 301/415-8200
Washington, DC 20555-0001	E-mail: opa@...
www.nrc.gov

No. 05-128

September 12, 2005

NRC ANNOUNCES OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION TO RENEW OPERATING LICENSE FOR OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has announced the opportunity to request a hearing on an application to renew the operating license for the Oyster Creek Generating Station for an additional 20 years.

The Oyster Creek nuclear plant is a boiling water reactor located nine miles south of Toms River, N.J. AmerGen Energy Co. LLC submitted the renewal application July 22. The current operating license for Oyster Creek expires on April 9, 2009.

The NRC staff has determined that the application contains sufficient information for the agency to formally "docket," or file, the application and begin its technical review. Docketing the application does not preclude requesting additional information as the review proceeds; nor does it indicate whether the Commission will grant the application.

A notice of opportunity to request a hearing will be published soon in the Federal Register. The deadline for requesting a hearing is 60 days after publication of the notice. Petitions may be filed by anyone whose interest may be affected by the license renewal and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding.

A request for hearing and a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Requests may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 415-1101 or e-mail to HEARINGDOCKET@.... A copy should also be submitted to the NRC Office of General Counsel, by facsimile to (301) 415-3725 or e-mail to OGCMailCenter@....

Information about the license renewal process can be found on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html. The Oyster Creek renewal application is online at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/oystercreek.html.

Suzanne Leta
Clean Energy Advocate
NJPIRG
11 N. Willow St
Trenton, NJ 08608
609 394 8155 x310
sleta@...

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8039

From: "Bill Smirnow" <smirnowb@...>
Date: Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:20 pm
Subject: [NukeNet] Planning The Impossible: Evacuating NYC

smirnowb@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)



   And, in a nuclear explosion, Mr. Hauser added,
there's is the danger of radioactivity. "Rescue
workers might, without any idea of protection, at
the end of the day choose to stay out of the plume
and I can't blame them," he said.


Today, four years after the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks and in the wake of Hurricane Katrina,
there is still no single plan to evacuate all of
New York, which virtually no one believes is
possible. If New York's anthem was about fleeing
the city instead of its lure, its lyrics might
read: "If you can make it out of here, you can
make it out of anywhere."



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/weekinreview/11robe.html

Planning the Impossible: New York's Evacuation

Lief Parsons


   a..              E-Mail This
   b.. Printer-Friendly
   c.. Reprints
By SAM ROBERTS
Published: September 11, 2005
ON New Year's Eve 1999, Fred Siegel writes in "The
Prince of the City," his new book about Rudolph W.
Giuliani's New York, authorities feared that
terrorists would seize on Y2K computer glitches to
strike in Times Square. In response, the National
Guard was secretly mobilized in Brooklyn "as part
of an emergency plan for evacuating Manhattan." As
midnight came and went, the computers hummed on,
the celebration proceeded flawlessly and officials
concluded, Mr. Siegel notes with a tinge of
sarcasm, "Gotham was ready for a future
emergency."

In fact, no plan existed that night for evacuating
all of Manhattan. The guard unit at the Brooklyn
Navy Yard consisted of about 100 troops and 50
trucks, and their mission, in the event of an
attack, was limited to ferrying the injured out of
Times Square.

Today, four years after the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks and in the wake of Hurricane Katrina,
there is still no single plan to evacuate all of
New York, which virtually no one believes is
possible. If New York's anthem was about fleeing
the city instead of its lure, its lyrics might
read: "If you can make it out of here, you can
make it out of anywhere."

Just imagine trying to move more than eight
million New Yorkers - including the high number of
people without cars - through streets that are
clogged on an ordinary day and then through the
tunnels and over the bridges that connect New
York's islands to the mainland and to one another.
"It would not be easy and it would not be pretty,"
said Jerome M. Hauer, the city's former emergency
management director.

History offers little comfort. For example, on
Nov. 25, 1783, British troops began their retreat
from New York (a day still celebrated in some
Irish neighborhoods as Evacuation Day). It took
them a full month.

During World War II, civil defense focused on air
raid shelters, but the advent of radioactive
weapons in the cold war inspired proposals to
evacuate people by boat (after a test-run by a
flotilla of 20 ferries, barges and tugboats up the
East River in 1951, officials figured 100,000 an
hour could be spirited away for six hours; then
the flow "would taper off for lack of equipment").
There were also plans to construct atomic-proof
shelters for 1.5 million beneath city parks, in
underground stations in Washington Heights and
along a Second Avenue subway bored through rock,
and to build two cross-town expressways to speed
the escape from Manhattan.

Even so, a mayoral panel concluded in 1955 that
only a million people could be moved from the
worst danger zones within an hour. "Until more
efficient use of transportation and more than one
hour's warning can be assured," the panel said,
"about three million people, or 37 percent of the
city's eight million population, might be balked
in any attempt to escape the target area except by
walking."

In 1966, the city's civil defense director,
Timothy J. Cooney, admitted the obvious: "If a
nuclear bomb fell in our midst, civil defense
would be an academic question."

Today, the city appears to be better prepared than
ever for disasters, especially natural ones like
hurricanes (a Category 5 hurricane has apparently
never hit the city head on). Officials have maps
of escape routes from vulnerable neighborhoods
near water to 23 reception centers and public
shelters, the ability to mobilize fleets of buses,
and a keen sense of contingencies (like knowing
when bridges would have to be closed because of
high winds and when subway and car tunnels might
flood).

"It's very important to have a sense of order if
you have an evacuation and we are able to mass
37,000 cops in the neighborhoods that need it,
where people are poor or infirm," said Police
Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly. Still, as the
city's Household Preparedness Guide says:
"Evacuation is used as a last resort."

Joseph F. Bruno, the emergency management
commissioner, said the city is prepared to move
from 400,000 to two million people from the path
of a hurricane - a challenge made a little less
daunting by advance warning, knowing which
flood-prone areas to evacuate and identifying how
many poor, elderly, disabled and non-English
speakers live there. Since 9/11, with its hellish
communications breakdowns, New York officials said
they have also vastly improved their ability to
communicate with the public by radio and
television and, to a lesser extent, with each
other.

Still, much of the planning assumes that people
already know what to do (the city's preparedness
guide is available online at nyc.gov/readyny and
two million copies have been distributed in eight
languages), or would telephone the city's
information line, 311, which can handle only so
many calls (about 178,000 two years ago on the day
of the blackout).

"Would it be difficult to move two million people?
Absolutely," Mr. Bruno said. "I hope we never have
to do it."

Which means evacuating eight million would be
beyond difficult. "We have plans for area
evacuations, and if you take them to their logical
conclusion an area could be the entire city of New
York," Mr. Bruno said. "Those are doomsday type
things, a nuclear attack. We're definitely not
throwing our hands up. But it would be a
catastrophic event that would be extremely
difficult for New York City to have to deal with."

How long would it take to virtually empty the
city? "I wouldn't even hazard a guess," Mr. Bruno
replied.

Mr. Hauer, now a consultant in Washington, said
evacuating the whole city would not be impossible,
but would be fraught with nightmarish challenges,
like rescuing people from hospitals and nursing
homes and reversing traffic flows. "It's a matter
of where do you put all those people when you get
them out of Manhattan," he said.

And, in a nuclear explosion, Mr. Hauser added,
there's is the danger of radioactivity. "Rescue
workers might, without any idea of protection, at
the end of the day choose to stay out of the plume
and I can't blame them," he said. "Obviously,
there'd be a lot of self-evacuation."

That's more or less what happens after work every
weekday when half the borough's daytime
population - nearly 1.5 million commuters - leaves
Manhattan to return home. Perhaps there's some
comfort in remembering that, except for the
stragglers, most eventually make it.


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8038

From: "Bill Smirnow" <smirnowb@...>
Date: Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:19 am
Subject: [NukeNet] Re: [abolition-caucus] Greenpeace et. al. are Hypocritical

smirnowb@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)


   I assume almost everyone reading the story below
sees right through it.  Greenpeace opposses both
n-weapons and n-power. Nuclear reactors are simply
stationary radiological nuclear weapons that
business persons/terrorists have placed over much
of the face of the earth[about 440 of them in
addition to their waste and extremely vulnerable
spent fuel pools]. They can melt down and boil off
at any time be that by accident or by the
intention of the other kind of terrorists [the
only ones the public are suppossed to perceive as
terrorists].

      Burying the waste is just what should be done
with extreme security around them for hundreds of
thousand of years at least. That's something we
have to thank the commercial nuclear industry for.
Mr. Hoerner who posted this, is by his own
admission, a nuclear engineer. I think it only
fair of him to inform us of this every time he
makes a post of this sort. His paycheck and
probably his ideology are dependant upon and
inextricably interwoven with a pro-commercial
nuclear power agenda.

   http://www.tmia.com/sabter.html
http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html


    Bill Smirnow
     Anti-Nuclear Activist


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Hoerner" <jim_hoerner@...>
To: <Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 9:09 PM
Subject: [abolition-caucus] Greenpeace et. al. are
Hypocritical


> How Greenpeace learned
> to love the bomb
>
> ------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
> Posted: August 19, 2005
> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
>
>
> By Joshua Gilder
> � 2005 http://www.WorldNetDaily.com
>
>
> In an irony worthy of the anti-war satire, "Dr.
Strangelove, or How I
> Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb,"
the anti-nuclear activist
> group Greenpeace � which was formed to protest
nuclear weapons � has now
> taken to protesting against nuclear disarmament.
>
> To understand this Stranglovian turn of events,
one has to go back to the
> 1980s, when our previous "cowboy president,"
Ronald Reagan, signed the first
> of a series of treaties that, for the first
time, reduced the number of
> Soviet and U.S. nuclear missiles, and in the
case of the intermediate-range
> nukes in Europe, eliminated them all together.
>
> The problem remained, however, that while the
missiles themselves were
> destroyed, the warheads they were designed to
deliver remained in
> frightening numbers. With the collapse of the
Soviet Union in the early
> '90s, the United States was faced with the very
real possibility that some
> impoverished Russian nuclear scientist � or
disaffected military officer or
> simply a janitor with the right key � might sell
one of these still lethal
> bombs on the black market, where it would end up
in the hands of terrorists.
>
> In fact, such a scenario very nearly played out
in 1994.
>
> That was when the United States learned that
Iran was trying buy
> weapons-grade uranium stored in unsecured
facilities in Kazakhstan. In a
> highly secret operation known as "Project
Sapphire," the United States flew
> two C-5 transport planes to bring the uranium
back to the Oak Ridge
> laboratory in Tennessee. Reportedly, empty
canisters with Iranian addresses
> were found in the room nearby. The United States
later compensated the
> Kazaks for the uranium, which was estimated to
be enough to make somewhere
> between 20 and 50 bombs.
>
> It was to get control of this kind of situation
that the ingenious and
> highly successful Megatons to Megawatts program
was created. Originally run
> by the Department of Energy, the program is now
carried out by a fully
> privatized company, the United States Energy
Corporation, at no cost to the
> American taxpayer. USEC buys uranium from old
Soviet bombs, dilutes it in
> Russia through a multi-step process that makes
it useable in nuclear power
> plants (but no longer useable to make nuclear
bombs) and then markets it to
> power companies in the United States.
>
> In its 11 years of operation, USEC has turned
some 9,839 nuclear warheads
> into fuel. The chances are reasonably good that
your computer is being
> driven (or your light bulb lit, or house heated)
by electricity derived from
> a Russian bomb that was once mounted on a
missile and aimed at an America
> city.
>
> Notice the three essential elements of this
program:
>
> - It actually eliminates the bomb-grade uranium;
>
> - It pays for itself, so it doesn't have to rely
on the sometimes
> unpredictable whims of Congress to keep going;
and
>
> - It gives the Russians a fairly hefty monetary
incentive to keep control of
> their warheads and stick with the program.
>
> Following on USEC's success, Duke Power,
together with the Department of
> Energy, is gearing up a similar program to deal
with Russia's weapons-grade
> plutonium � and this is where Greenpeace's
strange behavior comes in.
>
> As the modified (non-weapons grade) plutonium
fuel � known as MOX � was
> being trucked out of the port of Charleston on
its way for the first test in
> a U.S. civilian reactor, Greenpeace activists
followed in a convoy to
> protest.
>
> Other opponents of nuclear power soon piled on
because � in the words of the
> co-director of Nukewatch � "It will worsen our
country's nuclear waste
> problem." Instead, Greenpeace, Nukewatch and
their colleagues propose that
> Russia bury its plutonium.
>
> The problem is, of course, that what's buried
can easily be dug up again,
> and that simply telling the Russians to bury
their weapons-grade plutonium
> gives them no financial stake in keeping it
safe. Meanwhile it will remain a
> highly valuable commodity to many people who
might like to buy it, such as
> the mullahs in Iran, or even al-Qaida.
>
> There's nothing new about using plutonium as
fuel � 30 or so civilian
> reactors in Europe already do, and many new ones
are planned for Japan. The
> fact is, plutonium is potentially a much more
efficient fuel than uranium
> and could significantly reduce the cost, already
low, of nuclear-generated
> electricity, making it an even more compelling
alternative to other sources
> of energy � which is the reason opponents of
nuclear power have spent the
> last three decades trying to stop its use in the
United States.
>
> Until this spring � when Duke carried out the
its first test of MOX fuel at
> its Catawba plant in South Carolina � they had
been successful, and they
> still hope to kill the program.
>
> And that's why they find themselves standing in
the way of nuclear
> disarmament � the very thing they are
purportedly for. You probably have to
> be an anti-nuclear activist not to appreciate
the irony.
>
>
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45849
>
>
> --
> Hold the door for the stranger behind you. When
the driver in the adjacent
> lane signals to get over, slow down. Smile and
say "hi" to the folks you
> pass on the sidewalk. Give blood. Volunteer.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor --------------------~-->
> <font face=arial size=-1><a
href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hkk1u05/M=3623
29.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705059835:T
M/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1124852948/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfu
lr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992
> ">Fair play? Video games influencing politics.
Click and talk back!</a>.</font>
> ------------------------------------------------
--------------------~->
>
> To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus,
send an email from the account you wish to be
subscribed to:
abolition-caucus-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
abolition-caucus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Do not include a subject line or any text in the
body of the message.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abolition-caucus/
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:
>     abolition-caucus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8037

From: Mike Ewall <catalyst@...>
Date: Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:04 am
Subject: [NukeNet] NRC Approves Utah Nuclear Waste Dump

catalyst@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

September 9, 2005

News Release

Sept. 9, 2005

Contact: Melissa Kemp (202) 454-5176
Michele Boyd (202) 454-5134

Approval of Private Fuel Storage Means Dangerous and Unnecessary Storage of Highly Radioactive Waste in Utah

Statement of Wenonah Hauter, Director, Public Citizen�s Energy Program

Today�s decision by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) to approve a temporary high-level radioactive waste storage site, Private Fuel Storage (PFS), on Native American land in Utah, is a significant mistake, made for all the wrong reasons. PFS is an unnecessary, irresponsible and unethical proposal that will do nothing to address the nuclear waste problem this country faces.

The primary motivation for PFS is the nuclear industry�s need for a publicly presentable waste solution that it can use in its push for a nuclear renaissance. Despite what has been claimed, PFS will not consolidate waste in one safe and secure place. As long as we continue to operate nuclear reactors, waste will always remain near cities and communities around the country, because irradiated fuel must be stored on-site for at least five years to allow it to cool before it can be transported.

In addition, PFS will mean the transportation of waste through densely populated urban and suburban areas across the country. The project will rush transportation forward and increase the number of times waste is moved. Even if all possible precautions are taken, and they have not been, the shipping of nuclear waste is a dangerous undertaking and should be absolutely minimized. Accidents of some nature are unavoidable.

PFS will also bring risks to Utah. The dump is not planned for permanent storage and will simply place the waste storage containers on concrete pads above ground. There will be no waste repacking facility on-site, as there are presently at reactors, to deal with accidents or problems. The temporary nature of PFS is also questionable, as it is dependent on the opening of Yucca Mountain, which continues to have significant problems and may never open.

Today�s irresponsible and misguided approval of this proposal should illustrate how far the NRC has strayed from its mission of protecting public health and safety.

###

Public Citizen is a national, nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, visit http://www.citizen.org/.

New Eye On Energy Newsletter Available
The September issue of Public Citizen�s monthly energy newsletter Eye On Energy is now available! Articles this month include:

The Ever-Rising Price of Gas
Lax Radiation Standards Proposed for Yucca Mountain
Westar Energy Fined for Illegal Contributions to Congress
New Nuke for North Carolina?
New Power Plants Could Pollute Bush's Crawford Ranch

Click here or visit www.EyeOnEnergy.org to read it online. You can also find a PDF version of the newsletter in a convenient 2-page format that you can print out and bring with you to meetings or give to your friends!

Update: Thanks for Taking Action!

Two weeks ago, we sent you an appeal to take action on a rulemaking at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to ensure nuclear plants that seek to operate for twenty years beyond their original anticipated lifetime were subjected to the same level of scrutiny that a brand new nuclear plant would be. We�re pleased to report that over 700 of you submitted comments to the NRC supporting the petition! Combined with our friends over at the organization Riverkeeper, over 1200 comments were received by NRC, completely overwhelming their staff and quite possibly setting a new record.

Great work! Thanks for helping to shine a light on some of the NRC�s most outrageous practices.

INVITATION to DC Premier of Documentary "Homeland: Four Portraits of Native Action"

Public Citizen encourages people to attend the upcoming screening of the documentary film Homeland: Four Portraits of Native Action by Katahdin Productions. Homeland tells the story of Mitchell and Rita Capitan, co-founders of Eastern Navajo Din� Against Uranium Mining (ENDAUM) and three other leaders from Native American communities who are passionately struggling to preserve their sovereignty, protect their lands, and preserve their way of life.

Nearly all Indian nations sit on land threatened by environmental hazards - toxic waste, strip mining, oil drilling, and nuclear contamination. Homeland tells the stories of just four of these tribal nations, chronicling the efforts of the remarkable Native American activists who are working to stop and reverse the devastating affronts of multi-national energy companies and the dismantling of 30 years of environmental laws.

This feature-length film premiered in February 2005 at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival, where it won the Fund for Santa Barbara Social Justice Award for Documentary Film, and the Audience Award for Documentary Film. The Washington DC screening will take place on Wednesday, September 14, 2005, at Landmark's E Street Cinema (555 11th Street NW). All funds from tickets and sponsorships will benefit ENDAUM. Visit www.katahdin.org or call (202) 466-8585 to purchase tickets for $15.

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8036

From: Mary Olson <nirs@...>
Date: Fri Sep 9, 2005 6:47 pm
Subject: [NukeNet] e- vote on nukes MSN Money - CNBC TV: Investing

nirs@...

Are you in favor of nuclear power as a source of energy?

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

The pro-nukes are leading -- It seems you have to send an email to vote...
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Promos/P129167.asp?ShowResults=1&HasV\
otedTwice=
<http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Promos/P129167.asp?ShowResults=1&Has\
VotedTwice=>

MSN Home My MSN Hotmail Shopping Money People & Chat Sign InWeb Search:

Search MSN Money:

More of CNBC

L I V E V O T E
RESULTS

Total Votes: 131

Yes
89%

No
11%

Votes tallied every 60 seconds.

Read Squawk Box's blog

Join the Squawk Box Message Board

E-mail your comments on today's Squawk Box Poll

Do you favor nuclear power?
'Squawk Box' wants to know whether the U.S. should build more nuclear reactors.
The nuclear power industry could get a lift from the energy bill signed by President Bush. The legislation gives tax credits to utilities that operate reactors, guarantees loans taken out to pay for reactors, and subsidizes risk insurance. But basic concerns remain, particularly over the question of where to put the radioactive waste. Do you favor nuclear power? Register your vote, and e-mail "Squawk Box" to explain your thoughts. And watch CNBC's "Squawk Box" at 9:10 a.m. ET on Monday as guests debate nuclear power. Read more from CNBC.com: Stock picks: PepsiCo, Motorola Video: Apple unveils new iPod Stock picks: Gilead Sciences, Anadarko Petroleum
MSN Money Search MSN Money \| Message Boards \| Site Status \| Site Map

If you have a comment or question about a show, you can call CNBC Viewer Services at 877-251-5685, or send an e-mail message directly to your favorite show from our Email CNBC page.

Feedback Help

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8035

From: marylia@... (marylia)
Date: Fri Sep 9, 2005 1:10 am
Subject: [NukeNet] Livermore Lab Security Critized

marylia@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

Hi, peace and justice colleagues. Here is the latest on the inability to
secure plutonium at Livermore Lab and certain other facilities in the
nuclear weapons complex. My copy of the Valley Times has a beautiful banner
headline across page 3.  This version is taken from the San Jose Mercury
News, which is a "sister" paper in the Knight-Ridder chain. Same article,
same author. Read on...  --Marylia Kelley

September 3, 2005

Security at labs criticized in report

by Betsy Mason
Knight Ridder
San Jose Mercury News


An independent report is highly critical of security throughout the U.S.
nuclear weapons complex, including Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.

The report, commissioned by the Department of Energy, recommends
consolidating weapons-grade nuclear materials. Though Livermore is not
specifically mentioned, such a move would involve removing plutonium and
highly enriched uranium from the lab.

``Nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials should be consolidated at
fewer, better protected sites and where practical, in underground storage
sites,'' wrote retired Admiral Richard Mies who conducted the security
review.

The report, released Thursday, identifies the isolated Nevada Test Site and
an underground storage site at the Idaho National Laboratory as logical
choices for storing nuclear materials.

Consolidation is not a new idea. The National Nuclear Security
Administration, the semi-autonomous branch of the Department of Energy that
oversees the nuclear weapons complex, discussed the idea of moving the
plutonium from Superblock, Livermore's plutonium facility, to Los Alamos
National Laboratory. And last year, then Secretary of Energy Spencer
Abraham mentioned consolidation of nuclear materials in a speech at the
Savannah Rivers Site in South Carolina.

Mies also notes that several other reports over the years have drawn
similar conclusions, including a draft report from the Secretary of Energy
Advisory Board released in July, but that the Department of Energy still
has no complex-wide consolidation strategy.

``We believe that getting the material out of certain sites where it can't
be protected, Livermore being one, should be top priority,'' said Peter
Stockton of the Project on Government Oversight.

The oversight group released its own report on the weapons complex in May
that pointed out that security forces at Livermore Lab are equipped with
far less lethal and less powerful weapons than other sites with nuclear
materials, because of the lab's proximity to suburban neighborhoods.

A Livermore-based watchdog group, Tri-Valley Communities Against a
Radioactive Environment, has been advocating removal of plutonium from
Lawrence Livermore for decades. ``We believe that plutonium cannot be made
safe here at Livermore,'' said Tri-Valley CARES director Marylia Kelley.
``It is quite vulnerable to an insider threat or a motivated terrorist
attack.''

The Mies report also criticized the Energy Department for lacking a
comprehensive strategic security plan for the weapons complex and for a
``low regard for security -- set in a deeply rooted culture of ingrained
behavior, attitudes and values.''

The National Nuclear Security Administration, established in 1999 to
oversee the nuclear weapons complex, is hampered by a lack of a team
approach, inadequate training, understaffing, and an absence of
accountability, according to the report.

National Nuclear Security Administration Administrator Linton Brooks said
70 percent of Mies' recommendations have already been implemented,
including consolidating security responsibilities under a single office and
identifying protective force skills needed to secure nuclear weapons
facilities.

``Admiral Mies correctly identified a number of institutional concerns that
we have also recognized and have worked to change during the last three
years,'' Brooks said.


About The Mercury News | Mercury News Jobs | About the Real Cities Network
| Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright | RSS
Feeds

###

Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94551

<http://www.trivalleycares.org> - is our web site address. Please visit us
there!

(925) 443-7148 - is our phone
(925) 443-0177 - is our fax



_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8034

From: "Citizens' Nuclear Information Center" <cnic@...>
Date: Wed Sep 7, 2005 4:09 am
Subject: [NukeNet] Uranium-Contaminated Soil Radioactivity

cnic@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

CNIC has been asked to give details of the radioactivity of the 290
cubic meters of uranium-contaminated soil to be shipped to the US for
refining. Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute (JNC) is being
particularly uncooperative in regard to information that could be of
use to anti-nuclear activists. Nevertheless, we have extracted the
following:

Dose Rate (JNC figures)
Maximum surface dose rate: 4.2 micro-sieverts per hour (approx. 36.8
milli-sieverts per year)
Average surface dose rate: 0.85 micro-sieverts per hour (approx. 7.4
milli-sieverts per year)

Radioactivity (Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport figure)
4 becquerel per gram

The 4 becquerels per gram figure was provided verbally by an officer of
the Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport when we went to seek
information under freedom of information. Our main purpose was to get
the name of the US company that would take the soil, but we were
unsuccessful on that point. When JNC was confronted with this figure,
it said that the radioactivity was 3 becquerels per gram.

The basis for these two radioactivity figures is unclear, except that
JNC said that it never measured the radioactivity directly. It said
that it calculated the figure from the dose rate. We haven't delved
further, so we can't say whether the calculation took into
consideration all the uranium isotopes and their daughters. One must be
skeptical about JNC's claim not to have measured the radioactivity
directly, but 3-4 becquerel per gram is plausible.

Uranium Concentration
Based on the above, we would expect the uranium concentration to be in
the order of 200-350 ppm.

US Company's Name
Regarding the US company's name, JNC said that it doesn't have the
company's permission to release the name, so it doesn't plan to do so.
We understand that residents of Okayama Prefecture have been pursuing
this under freedom of information, but so far without success. Perhaps
an easier route would be through a question in the Diet, but that won't
be possible till after the election. If the information is important,
we would have to say that time is running out at this end.

Hopefully the above is of some use.

Philip White
International Liaison Officer

Citizens' Nuclear Information Center
3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003
Phone: 81-3-5330-9520
Fax: 81-3-5330-9530
http://cnic.jp/english/
cnic@...


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8033

From: "Michael Mariotte" <nirsnet@...>
Date: Tue Sep 6, 2005 6:31 pm
Subject: [NukeNet] NIRS Statement on UN Chernobyl Report

nirsnet@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

Statement of Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), on UN Chernobyl Report

September 6, 2005

“A press release issued yesterday by the International Atomic Energy Agency about a United Nation’s Chernobyl Forum report on the health consequences of the 1986 Chernobyl accident demonstrates once again how habitually and dramatically the nuclear industry understates the impacts of a reactor accident. Although the report itself remains unavailable to the public, the press release states that 4,000 people are likely to die as a result of the Chernobyl accident. This is in stark contrast to industry propaganda that insists the deaths of only about 32 to 36 emergency responders can be directly attributable to the accident.

However, the press reports to date indicate that, despite these findings, the UN is downplaying the accident’s impacts. To downplay the loss of 4,000 lives, not to mention the non-fatal cancers and other health effects, hundreds of billions of dollars in damages and permanent loss of land-use demonstrates an obscene disregard for human life and wellbeing. Such consequences are entirely unacceptable for an industrial accident of any sort.

And the real consequences, when considering the entire affected population, are likely to be much higher: the 4,000-fatality estimate appears to be based on a population of only 600,000 exposed individuals. Given that tens of millions of people were exposed to Chernobyl radiation, a study using the standard method of accounting for radiation damage (the “linear no-threshold” method) among the entire affected population would be expected to find far greater casualties.

This is especially significant considering that the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in June 2005 (in a report entitled “Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, VII”) reaffirmed the “linear no-threshold” model and concluded that there is no safe exposure level to radiation.

NIRS urges full disclosure of the report to the public. Until this happens, the scant information made available to date clearly is insufficient to provide knowledgeable analysis on the report, nor does it allow for peer review of the report’s findings and conclusions.”

Contact: 202-328-0002; nirsnet@...; www.nirs.org

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8032

From: "Citizens' Nuclear Information Center" <cnic@...>
Date: Fri Sep 2, 2005 2:27 am
Subject: [NukeNet] Japanese uranium-contaminated soil

cnic@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

According to the Japan Times, the uranium-contaminated soil is going to
Seattle. That is presumably just where it will be unloaded from the
ship. Still no information on the US company.

I'm not familiar with using the ADAMS system. If anyone who knows how
to use the ADAMS system notices this one, please let us know.

Philip White


Citizens' Nuclear Information Center
3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003
Phone: 81-3-5330-9520
Fax: 81-3-5330-9530
http://cnic.jp/english/
cnic@...


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8031

From: marylia@... (marylia)
Date: Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:54 pm
Subject: [NukeNet] Article on Livermore Lab worker's widow

marylia@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

2005 ContraCostaTimes.com and wire service sources
http://www.contracostatimes.com

Posted on Tue, Aug. 30, 2005

Bittersweet win for lab worker's widow

*By Betsy Mason*
*CONTRA COSTA TIMES*

More than five years after her husband Carl died and four years after
her first attempt to file for compensation for his death, Joyce Brooks
has finally gotten justice from the Department of Labor in the form of a
$275,000 check.

Before he died, Carl asked Joyce to pursue restitution from the
Department of Energy for his illness, which he believed was caused by 32
years at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, including work as a beryllium
machinist.

It has been a long hard road for Brooks. Her claim was denied three
times. But she persisted, and now she has what she was looking for: an
admission of guilt.

Experts at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
who deal with any claim that is not clear cut, decided it was "more
likely than not" that Carl, 70, died of chronic beryllium disease from
exposure at the lab.

"For me, I found out what caused his death, and that was a big part of
it," Brooks said. "It wasn't a matter of the money."

Carl was initially diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis, but he believed
the beryllium was to blame.

He died six months later.

Motivated by her promise to her husband, Brooks refused to give up until
she proved her husband's hunch true.

Each time her claim was denied, Brooks went back to work. She tracked
down more experts on beryllium disease, uncovered more lab reports,
mined her husband's personal files for travel documents and medical
charts, gathered every scrap of evidence she could get her hands on, and
filed again. The resulting six-inch stack of evidence, including
40-year-old x-rays, finally tipped the scales in her favor.

"I don't want to be big about it, but I took the Labor Department to
task," Brooks said.

She's the first to point out help she has had along the way. She credits
Inga Olsen of Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment
with encouraging her to keep trying and intervening with a hug when
things got tough.

"Joyce is unusual because she had the skills and conviction to stick
with it," Olsen said. "She's been willing to do the work above and
beyond what most people would be willing to do."

Olsen joined Tri-Valley CARES shortly after President Clinton signed the
Energy Employees Compensation Act into law in December 2000 and has been
helping sick workers and their families file claims ever since.

Brooks also had the support of Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo, who
co-sponsored the compensation act and lobbied to get the sick worker's
resource center that opened in Livermore in 2004. Tauscher's office made
calls on Brooks' behalf to the departments of Energy and Labor urging
prompt consideration and trying to find out why she had been denied, and
is working with a handful of other claimants who have asked for help.

"I'm relieved to see Joyce finally receive this compensation after four
long years, and I hope other East Bay families will see their claims
completed soon," Tauscher said. "I intend to continue to work to reform
this program and improve its efficiency, so that families don't have
such ridiculously long waits in the future."

The Department of Labor is processing claims as quickly as possible,
said Peter Turcic who directs the compensation program. His staff is
"working like crazy" to stay ahead of the claims that keep pouring in at
the rate of 300 to 500 a week.

"We have a very dedicated staff," Turcic said. "They are doing what I
believe is a really great job getting as many payments made as quickly
as possible knowing that individuals have been waiting a long time."

Part of the hold-up for claimants has been the need to complete a site
evaluation for each facility that characterizes what kind of work was
going on, and what workers may have been exposed to, Turcic said. This
has been completed for Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and so far 49
claims totaling $6.9 million have been paid under "Part B" of the act
which deals with radiation cancers, beryllium disease and silicosis.

Ten claims have been paid under "Part E," which covers any toxic illness
for a total of $1.2 million. In addition, $270,965 has gone toward sick
workers' medical bills.

Brooks received payment from both Part B and E. But some workers have
been waiting for years for a decision on their claims, and others are
trudging through the appeals process after having their claim denied.

Francine Moran worked as an administrative assistant at Lawrence
Livermore for seven years, overseeing installation and maintenance of
copy machines all over the lab. She often spent hours in areas where lab
workers were in protective clothing, but she was unprotected. Today she
has gastronoma and has had six major abdominal surgeries in five years.
Her claim has been denied twice but she's not giving up.

"I appealed again and told them that I don't accept that answer," Moran
said.

That's the right attitude according to Brooks.

"I had never thought that this would go through," Brooks said of her
payment. "I want the others to know this: If you're sure, don't give up."

Brooks is sharing her compensation with her five children. She also
hopes to help a granddaughter pay for college, something she knows would
have made Carl proud.

But there is still a note of sadness in Brooks' voice as she talks about
her victory.

"It's bittersweet. I'm not jumping for joy, because I lost someone and
no amount of money can change that."

BENEFITS ASSISTANCE

Workers or survivors who need information or assistance to apply for
benefits may call toll-free 866-606-6302, or visit the resource center,
2600 Kitty Hawk Road, suite 101, Livermore, CA 94551.

/ /

Betsy Mason covers science and the national laboratories. Reach her at
bmason@... <mailto:bmason@...> or 925-847-2158.

ends

Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94551

<http://www.trivalleycares.org> - is our web site address. Please visit us
there!

(925) 443-7148 - is our phone
(925) 443-0177 - is our fax



_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8030

From: "Suzanne Leta" <sleta@...>
Date: Tue Aug 30, 2005 4:27 pm
Subject: [NukeNet] Close Oyster Creek action alert: Submit public comments by Sept 6th

sleta@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

Close Oyster Creek supporters,

Hello! I just came back to Trenton after directing NJPIRG's citizen outreach office this summer, and was happy to hear that over 150 people came to the NRC's meeting on Oyster Creek last week. This fall, we will continue our work on the Close Oyster Creek campaign and the Stop Exelon's Energy Takeover campaign.

This week, please submit comments to the NJ DEP in support of requiring Oyster Creek to install a closed-cycle cooling system as part of their water permit, to hold another public hearing on this issue and to extend the public comment period by an additional 60 days. The comments are due by September 6th. (see below for more information)

If the NJ DEP requires Oyster Creek to install closed-cycle cooing system, Exelon could decide it is not worth the investment to keep the plant open (towers cost $740 million with another $145 million in annual maintenence) and retire the plant on schedule. Submit your comments to the NJ DEP today!

Best,

Suzanne

****Public Comment NEEDED****

HELP CLOSE THE LOOP

TAKE ACTION TO SUPPORT THE BEST OPTION FOR THE BAY AND MARINE LIFE

Attend the Public Hearing on August 29 or Send Comments by September 6, 2005.

After 35 years of exterminating marine life, Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant in Lacey Township, NJ, is being directed by the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to implement technologies that will eliminate a major source of destruction to the Barnegat Bay ecosystem.

Exelon (parent company of AmerGen, which operates the facility) is seeking to renew their pollution discharge permit that regulates the cooling water system at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant. The current permit (a once-through cooling system) removes and destroys 1.4 billion gallons of life-rich estuarine waters from Barnegat Bay and discharges 1.4 billion gallons of chlorinated, super-heated, nearly lifeless wastewater each year.

Relief at Long Last: The NJDEP has recently issued a draft permit that calls for Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant to install a closed-cycle system and identified it as the "Preferred Alternative" - Alternative # 1. A closed-cycle system, also called a �closed-loop system,� draws water into plants for cooling and re-circulates it, expelling the heat through cooling towers. Some water must be replaced, but closed-cycle cooling reduces water intake by 95% and dramatically decreases the number of fish, eggs, and larvae that are destroyed by once-through systems by being entrained (sucked into system), impinged (pinned on screens), or fatally scalded.

In the draft permit, NJDEP states �closed-cycle cooling is the only cooling water intake structure technology available to the facility to reduce entrainment.� NJDEP�s decision sends a strong message to Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant that the State will no longer allow them to destroy the marine environment. Instead, Exelon must upgrade the facility to adequately protect, improve, and restore the health of Barnegat Bay. The installation of a closed-cycle cooling system will:

� Save trillions of animals -- including 13 million fish and shellfish PER YEAR such as: blue crabs, striped bass, winter flounder, bluefish, grass and sand shrimp, blackfish, bay anchovies, menhaden, spot, and spearing.

� Eliminate fish kills caused by thermal shock from the discharge.

� Stop the dumping of up to 365 tons of toxic chlorine into the bay per year. Current allowable discharge levels are 20 times the lethal level of many estuarine organisms including striped bass, bunker, and mummichogs (killis).

� Create hundreds of jobs building the new closed-loop system including cooling towers.

Potential Roll-Back Option Looms: Although NJDEP states that the closed-loop system is the #1 Preferred Alternative, if the facility can demonstrate that Alternative #1 is unavailable, the State allows for a fall-back option-- the use of �mitigation� measures. This option, called �Alternative #2,� is unacceptable, as it will allow the continued destruction of marine life in Barnegat Bay.

Exelon Has the Resources and Responsibility to Build a Closed-Loop System: Exelon, the recent purchasers of Oyster Creek Power Plant, has the financial resources to install a closed-loop system. According to Exelon, it is �one of the nation�s largest electric utilities with 5 million customers and $15 billion in annual revenues.� The company expects to �generate $3.7 billion of cash between 2004-2006 after funding capital expenditures.� Exelon made a decision to buy Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant, and has a responsibility to meet NJDEP�s recommendations to protect the environment. Indeed, Exelon�s recent brochure states, �We are a staunch protector of South Jersey wildlife and natural resources.�

Public Comment Period is Poor Timing�At Best: The timing for public comment is bad news, as it is the last week of the summer season and just before school starts. It is an unreasonable time of year to obtain fair and honest public review and comment. Citizens are urged to request an extension to the comment period and an addition public hearing.

****Public Comment NEEDED****

HELP CLOSE THE LOOP

TAKE ACTION TO SUPPORT THE BEST OPTION FOR THE BAY AND MARINE LIFE

Attend the Public Hearing on August 29 or Send Comments by September 6, 2005.

NJDEP issued a draft New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit renewal to the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating facility on July 19, 2005. Visit http://www.nj.gov/dep/dwq/hot.htm to view the Public Notice and Fact Sheet.

A public hearing will be held at the Lacey Township Municipal Building, 818 Lacey Road, Ocean County, NJ, from 1:00-4:00 pm and 7:00-9:00 on August 29^th.

Public comments are due September 6^th, 2005. Send comments to:

Howard B. Tompkins, Chief

Attention: Comments on Public Notice NJ0005550

Bureau of Point Source Permitting, Region 1

P.O. Box 029

Trenton, NJ 08625

Howard.Tompkins@...

Citizens are urged to attend the hearing and/or write comments. Be sure to include the following:

Request an additional public hearing (due to the first public hearing being held at a time when many citizens are out-of-town).
Request a 60-day extension of the public comment deadline (to provide enough time to hold another public hearing and give sufficient time to comment).
Support NJDEP's "Preferred Alternative" - Alternative # 1 - requiring a closed-cycle cooling system.
Oppose NJDEP's Alternative # 2 allowing the Applicant to "select, install, properly operate and maintain a combination of design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration measures" since closed-cycle cooling is the "best available technology" and restoration measures have not been proven to be effective in offsetting the loss of marine life from once-through cooling systems.

This is a critical opportunity to finally stop the marine life-killing machine � the once through cooling water system at Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant. If you would like more information, contact the groups below:

For more information:

� American Littoral Society: 732-291-0055

� Clean Ocean Action: 732-872-0111, or visit www.cleanoceanaction.org for a detailed position paper.

� Save Barnegat Bay: 732-830-3600

Prepared by Clean Ocean Action, August 23, 2005.

Suzanne Leta
Clean Energy Advocate
NJPIRG
11 N. Willow St
Trenton, NJ 08608
609 394 8155 x310
sleta@...

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8029

From: "Citizens' Nuclear Information Center" <cnic@...>
Date: Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:01 am
Subject: [NukeNet] More on Japanese uranium contaminated soil

cnic@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

Immediately after sending the last mail, more news came in.

JNC indeed began transporting the uranium contaminated soil today, but
almost immediately one of the bags containing the soil rolled off the
back of the truck and rolled about 30 meters down the hill. As a
consequence they had to stop further transports for the day. It was
just the eighth of 33 bags scheduled to be transported today. They say
the bag did not break and no soil was spilled.

Each bag contains around 700 kilograms and 552 will be transported in
all.

Apparently the plan is to send the uranium contaminated soil from Kobe
Port to the US at the beginning of October.

Philip White

Citizens' Nuclear Information Center
3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003
Phone: 81-3-5330-9520
Fax: 81-3-5330-9530
http://cnic.jp/english/
cnic@...


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

#8028

From: "Citizens' Nuclear Information Center" <cnic@...>
Date: Mon Aug 29, 2005 5:37 am
Subject: [NukeNet] Japanese uranium contaminated soil

cnic@...

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@...)

We have sent a couple of messages previously about the plan of Japan
Nuclear Cycle Development Institute (JNC) to send uranium contaminated
soil to the US for refining. See the articles at the following links:

http://cnic.jp/english/news/newsflash/uransoil15Aug05.html

http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit107/nit107articles/
nit107uraniumsoil.html

JNC continues to refuse to disclose the name of the US company to which
they intend to send the soil, but they plan to begin transporting the
soil today (August 29th) from where it has been left in Tottori
Prefecture. We assume it is being sent to a port (possibly Kobe) and it
seems that shipment to the US is imminent.

CNIC opposes the transport of radioactive waste overseas. The fact that
in this case the level of radioactivity is not high does not alter that
fundamental principle. JNC has changed its label for the soil from
'suteishi', which literally means 'thrown away waste rock', to 'uran
kouseki', which means 'uranium ore', but simply changing the label
doesn't change the fact that it is radioactive waste.

We recognize that it is up to organizations in the US to decide whether
they will take action. We are simply providing information to enable
them to mobilize if they think it is worth their effort.

Philip White

Citizens' Nuclear Information Center
3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003
Phone: 81-3-5330-9520
Fax: 81-3-5330-9530
http://cnic.jp/english/
cnic@...


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net