Nuclear Power?

Nuclear Power leads to Nuclear weapons

Sheldon from Doylestown — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:59:40 EDT

The weapon design and arms control communities agree that it is not the capability to design a nuclear device that determines the pace of a country’s acquisition of a first weapon, but, rather, the availability of nuclear weapons materials that can be turned to weapons purposes. For a nation-state, the material for weapons can come from uranium enrichment plants (highly enriched uranium), or reactors and nuclear fuel reprocessing plants (plutonium), or both.

Regardless of its isotopic composition, the minimum amount of plutonium required to make a pure fission nuclear explosive, with a yield equivalent to one to 25 kilotons of chemical high explosives, is quite small, on the order of 1 to 3 kilograms (kg), with the exact amount depending on the level of design expertise and the desired nuclear explosive yield. The minimum amount of highly enriched uranium required is a few times larger—5 to 10kg.

While far from ideal for military applications, the isotopic composition of the plutonium typically produced in civil power reactors does not pose a serious obstacle to fabricating efficient and powerful weapons, as well as crude terrorist devices.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf

The proliferation of nuclear weapons is inextricably linked to nuclear power by a shared need for enriched uranium, and through the generation of plutonium as a by-product of spent nuclear fuel. The two industries have been linked since the very beginning and a nuclear weapons free world requires a non-nuclear energy policy. http://www.cnduk.org/index.php/information/info-sheets/briefings.html#nuclearpower

The Economics of Nuclear Reactors

Sheldon from Doylestown — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:42:34 EDT

HOPE AND HYPE VS. REALITY IN NUCLEAR REACTOR COST

THE ECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR REACTORS:
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf

A response to a "Nuclear Options" group post

Dianne — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:53:42 EST

It is unfortunate that due to the dangers of climate change and America’s dependence on foreign oil that anyone, anywhere, would be speculating about the expansion of nuclear power/energy.

You are writing on a subject that needs to be presented honestly and I cannot imagine that you can honestly say the things that you do in just your first paragraph.

Uranium mining takes up a tremendous amount of land area and whether it produces 100 times less radioactive or toxic waste than coal power plants is not a positive point. That it produces and leaves behind both radioactive and toxic waste in the very high volumes that it does is what should be considered when dealing with nuclear power/energy. This is not a compare and contrast situation.

If you are fully informed and willing to be honest with your readers you would not, or better yet; could not say that nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are emitted by the production of nuclear power/energy. Plutonium does not miraculously appear at a nuclear power reactor. There is a process that gets it there and you, nor anyone else, can separate the process from the product.

You are apparently not considering the carbon emissions created during the use of very heavy equipment while engaged in the mining process, the mining process itself, the coal fired plants used in the uranium processing, or transporting the nuclear fuel to the reactor site.

Uranium ore is the source of the plutonium that is used in our nuclear reactors. Uranium ore has to be mined, like coal, to be used as a fuel source for the production of nuclear power/energy. Uranium is both radioactive and a chemical toxin. Additionally, numerous heavy metals are present in uranium ore.

Uranium milling consists of chemically separating uranium from other ore components. A thousand tons of ore must be processed to get just 2 tons of uranium. The waste produced is known as “mill tailings” which are often left near the land surrounding the mine, creating another dangerous legacy of the mining process. For typical uranium concentrations, the tailings contain 85 percent of the radioactivity in the original ore along with toxic chemicals and heavy metals. Furthermore, the volume of mill tailings is enormous and the majority of the radioactive components are extremely long-lived. Unfortunately, a large portion of mill tailings in the United States were “grandfathered” when more protective standards began to be implemented in the late 1970s, leaving behind more than 100 million tons of uranium waste with limited regulatory oversight.

The mill tailings can infiltrate surrounding waterways. {In 1979, near Churchrock, New Mexico, a United Nuclear uranium mill tailings dam broke, dumping nearly 100 million gallons of liquid radioactive tailings and 1000 tons of solid tailings into a surrounding area, spreading nearly 60 miles from the facility. The Rio Puerco River was contaminated and the local Native American tribe was devastated since their water source was forever rendered toxic by the tailings. Please don’t say that 1979 was a long time ago. When some of the waste has a 200 million year half life, 1979 was not that long ago}

After the uranium ore is milled, it is converted to uranium hexafluoride. It is then further enriched through a chemical process known as gaseous diffusion. Enrichment is required to increase the percentage of Uranium-235, the isotope of uranium needed for nuclear power or nuclear weapons. In natural uranium, U-235 concentration is too low, even after milling and conversion. The end results of gaseous diffusion are called a) the “product,” in which the percentage of U-235 has been increased and b) the “tails,” which is predominantly U-238, also known as depleted uranium, in which the percentage of U-235 has been decreased. Uranium Enrichment has been the largest contributor of wastes to the DOE’s materials inventory.

Nuclear power would not be considered cheap by any stretch of the imagination without our tax dollars supporting it with subsidies. See if any investor would touch it if it were not so subsidized by our federal tax dollars.

How you arrived at your numbers stating that nuclear power produces 70% of the non carbon dioxide polluting electricity in the U.S. is flawed if you did not include the full process of producing nuclear power/energy, i.e. mining, milling, transport, waste storage. It seems that proponents and supporters of nuclear power/energy are very willing to skew numbers and statistical data when promoting it to the general public. If it is so great, why is that necessary?

You might want to look into the realities of reprocessing spent fuel. No matter what you do, or how many times you run it through, there will be hotter, dirtier radioactive waste each time. It will never be a closed fuel cycle, never.

No, it is still not easy to see why numerous countries around the world are interested in nuclear power. There are reasons that there are financial and political obstacles for nuclear power here in America. The biggest reason is that the majority of people have a voice and all voices have the opportunity to be heard. And for those who don’t have the opportunity to be heard, there are people willing to speak up and speak out for those Americans who suffer from the effects of nuclear power/energy expansion who may be in a minority, and who, for whatever reason, cannot speak for themselves. This is America and we tend to not be willing to make one group of people suffer for the comfort and financial enhancement of others. This is America and we prefer to look for solutions that do no harm when we have the option to do so.

The U.S. is not behind the rest of the world, we have moved on ahead of the rest of the world. We are a civilized nation attempting to move into the future with our energy policy, we are not trying to revive a dirty, dangerous dinosaur from the past.

It is unfortunate that you think that the problems that we face with spent fuel and nuclear waste are largely political. I read your four point solution to nuclear waste in your article Short & Long Term Solutions for Nuclear Waste and they were not only farfetched, they were very expensive and not very practical.

I am not sure that you are considering the full breadth of the nuclear power/energy issue. There are a number of areas to which you don’t seem to give any consideration. There are a number of reasons beyond technology that nuclear power/energy is wrong for America and Americans.

It is environmentally wrong because the nuclear fuel cycle is dirty, extremely and irreversibly polluting. The long-term radioactive wastes that are produced on both ends of the fuel cycle are so harmful to this environment we may never recover if you continue on this path. Every aspect of our environment is adversely affected.

The air, with toxic uranium mining and milling emissions which include but are not limited to CO2.
Our water when only one third of it is returned to our waterways and what is returned is thermally affected, and surface and underground water that has been affected by plutonium runoff and tritium's radioactive contamination (once that is done you cannot undo it), the fish that ingest the radioactive water and subsequently the local people who consume the fish as one of their food sources.
The earth with the radioactive materials being buried and seeping into the soil affecting vegetation, the animals that eat the vegetation and subsequently, the people who eat the vegetation and the animal

Can you tell us:

How uranium mining and milling needed to produce the new nuclear power/energy that you propose will not adversely affect communities, which are primarily minority and poor, their water supplies, and their land?
How uranium mining and milling needed to produce the new nuclear power/energy being proposed will not adversely affect the climate with its release of toxins, including but not limited to CO2, into the atmosphere, in any way, (including all emissions that take place with the use of coal fired plants used to process the uranium) ?
How any health study related to the nuclear power industry develops its health effects data, has researched and compiled data and statistics on how nuclear power/energy waste, or any other nuclear materials affect the most vulnerable of Americans, including children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with compromised health? Does it not matter to you that by not using the most vulnerable when developing this data that these toxins and contaminants may be causing the rise that we see in our country in birth defects, developmental defects such as autism, and chronic childhood asthma? You [should] know that tritium passes through the placenta and can cause defects that affect that family through more than one generation if the fetus is female, because the eggs are within that female fetus already so they are also adversely affected. Why is the promotion of nuclear power/energy worth that?
How the nuclear power/energy industry intends to deal with the radioactive waste materials generated by the creation and production of expanded nuclear power/energy and new nuclear weapons? (Right now they depend on an agreement with the federal government that the taxpayers pay for it.)
How the nuclear power/energy industry intends to deal with the radioactive waste materials already generated by the creation and production of the existing nuclear power/energy and nuclear weapons?
How, with a shrinking water supply in the regions targeted for expansion of the nuclear power/energy industry, the communities affected will not be compromised in any way by the amount of water used by these facilities?
How tritium releases will be monitored and by whom?
How tritium releases will be halted?
How transport of any of this nuclear power/energy materials needed in this process will be safely executed whether by road, rail, waterway, or air?

Expansion of the nuclear power/energy industry is morally wrong for a number of reasons:

Morally wrong because we don't need new and efficient ways to indiscriminately kill millions of people at once to be secure as a nation. That comes with the nuclear weapons proliferation aspects of nuclear power/energy development.
Morally wrong because you know that mining and mill tailings have ruined Native American lives, lands and waters.
Morally wrong because these toxins and contaminants may very well be the contributors to the cause of the increases that we see in chronic childhood asthma, autism, and other physical & developmental disorders in our children.
Morally wrong because you know that nuclear industry workers who are not executives and engineers are still riddled with work related illnesses.
Morally wrong because these nuclear expansion projects are being kept alive, (even though the people of this country have spoken out in huge numbers against them whatever name you tag on it), because some government insider wants these contracts and the lions share of the money related to these nuclear projects to go to affiliated entities. (My heart sank over and over again when I read who the contractors were for a nuclear industry Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that was done; after almost every name, Haliburton was listed as who he or she was affiliated with. I am sure that you recall all of the closed door, secret meetings that Dick Cheney had with the energy corporations.)

Expansion of the nuclear power/energy industry is fiscally wrong for our country in any economic scenario.

Fiscally wrong because this country does not have the money for, nor do we need, anymore nuclear expansion. It is backward looking and is not the best use of our limited resources.
The money that is being spent on this process could be used for unmet human needs that we currently face in this country. Our health care systems, our education systems, our diplomatic corp, our rapid (and thorough) responses to our natural disasters, our enlisted military pay and family care, our research and development into a number of areas including alternative energy sources, and our advancements in non-war related science and engineering.
Again, with the debt that we are carrying, you know that we cannot afford to carry this dinosaur into our future beyond the yoke that it has already burdened us with.

Referenced: Appendix C of Code Red Alert: Confronting Nuclear Power in Georgia 1 (published by Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, May 2004. (Copyright 2004 Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. All rights reserved.) www.cleanenergy.org/Code%20Red/FinalCodeRed.pdf

Evaluating Energy Technology in the 21st Century

Herbie Robinson — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:12:30 EDT

Back in the 1950s, we only thouht about one thing when we designed a technological marvel. How it worked and how much it cost to build. We didn't consider:

1. Safety of the General Public.

2. Safety of the Operators.

3. The Envronmental.

4. Cost of Disposal.

In the past 50 years, we have learned a lot of hard lessons:

1. We really don't want to kill and maim our friends and neighbors.

2. If we poison the evironment, we eventually poison ourselves and our children.

3. We have to pay for getting rid of things, now: Burying it doesn't work any more.

So when we evaluate a power technology, we must consider the costs and evironmental impact of the entire life cycle, not just building the power generation technology. This includes both the life cycle of the generation technolocy and the fuel it consumes (if any). This includes all the operating costs, including insurance.

It also goes to say that when evaluating any technology, that any government subsidies for that technology are part of the cost (even if the person or organization building the power facility doesn't bear the costs).

Herbie Robinson, BSEE, Cornell, 1974.

Nuclear Power Is Contraindicated as a Solution to Global Warming

Sheldon from Doylestown — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:26:51 EDT

Nuclear Power Is Contraindicated as a Solution to Global Warming Because of Nuclear Mutagenesis. Watch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4397307903287515932

Nuclear Power Is Contraindicated as a Solution to Global Warming Because of Excessive Cost: "When it comes to nuclear power specifically, every dollar invested in new US nuclear electricity will save approximately 2-11 times less carbon, and will do so roughly 20-40 times slower, than investing in the same dollar in energy efficiency and "micropower" (cogeneration plus renewables minus big hydro dams). Buying new nuclear capacity instead of efficiency causes more carbon to be released than spending the same money on new coal plants!

"These conclusions and the empirical evidence supporting them are summarized in "Forget Nuclear," and fully documented in "The Nuclear Illusion," available for download here, which is to be published in early 2009 by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' journal Ambio. (courtesy of rmi.org)

Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming Program has said, "Switching from coal to nukes is like giving up smoking and taking up crack."

Here is the Natural Resources Defense Council's position on Nuclear Power: http://nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf.

Make a small statement. Join our My.BarackObama.com group, Nuclear Power?, here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NuclearPower

Barack Obama is a man of integrity. Our belief is that when all the facts about nuclear power are presented to him clearly, that he will reject it as an option.

The large utilities eager to build nuclear power plants are now suddenly pressing Congress about global warming. Very convenient. But is nuclear power a solution for the problem of global warming? Hmmm, No.

1)Nuclear power plants are too expensive to build. The nuclear power industry refuses to accept responsibility for the unique risks of nuclear power and demands massive federal subsidies so that they can rake in profits on their suspect investments. To quote the Rocky Mountain Institute (rmi.org) position on nuclear power: "Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change. The power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change." Quoting the Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC): "Our national electricity needs could be met, while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent or more, through a combination of increased energy efficiency, wind power, solar power, advanced coal-fired plants with carbon capture and storage, and high-efficiency natural gas turbines."

2)Nuclear power is extremely unsafe. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has acknowledged in a reference document "that early containment failure cannot be ruled out with high confidence for any of the plants." Even with the most technologically advanced checks and safeties, eventually some critical part of everything man makes fails. If an explosion occurs at a gas-fired or coal-fired plant, this is not good. But if a nuclear reactor melts down and breaks through its containment vessel, we have at least a regional catastrophe. Large areas of necessary habitable land are rendered uninhabitable, and people die of radiation-caused cancer.

3)To again quote the Rocky Mountain Institute's position on nuclear power: "Nuclear power poses significant problems of radioactive waste disposal."

4)Quoting the NRDC: "Plutonium is a normal by-product of electricity production in conventional reactors. Thus, the same reactors and fuel-processing facilities that are used for energy production can also be used for the manufacture of weapons." "Perhaps the most serious of all the problems that would be exacerbated by dramatically increasing global nuclear capacity is the threat of nuclear proliferation."

Join our My.BarackObama.com group, Nuclear Power?, here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NuclearPower

Nuclear Power is not a good option.

Sheldon from Doylestown — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:56:15 EDT

Nuclear Power is not a good option.

“A widely heralded view holds that nuclear power is experiencing a dramatic worldwide revival and vibrant growth, because it’s competitive, necessary, reliable, secure, and vital for fuel security and climate protection.

“That’s all false. In fact, nuclear power is continuing its decades-long collapse in the global marketplace because it’s grossly uncompetitive, unneeded, and obsolete—so hopelessly uneconomic that one needn’t debate whether it’s clean and safe; it weakens electric reliability and national security; and it worsens climate change compared with devoting the same money and time to more effective options.

“Yet the more decisively nuclear power is humbled by swifter and cheaper rivals, the more zealously its advocates claim it has to serious competitors. The web of old fictions ingeniously spun by a coordinated and intensive global campaign is spread by a credulous press” and boosted by the new nuclear enthusiasts.

http://rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNucIllusion.pdf

Global warming from the carbon in coal, all the other air pollution from coal burning, and the destruction of Montana, Wyoming and Appalachia are all a part of a steamroller bearing down on us, one that if we act and act now, we can dodge to a fair degree. But there will soon be a worse steamroller bearing down on us if you and I let it happen. A planet so poisoned with radioactivity that all life will be sickly.

Nuclear Power is a dinosaur. But not just any dinosaur. It is unsafe, and it is too expensive. And during the nuclear cycle, plutonium for nuclear weapons is produced.

Regardless of the steady propaganda recently pumped into the major media outlets by the nuclear power industry, nuclear power’s time is past. Come on over to our side. We currently are staring at 2 steamrollers, and nuclear power apologists would have their steamroller BIGGER??

Barack Obama is a man of integrity. Our belief is that when all the facts about nuclear power are presented to him clearly, that he will reject it as an option. The large utilities eager to build nuclear power plants are now suddenly pressing Congress about global warming. Very convenient. But is nuclear power a solution for the problem of global warming? Hmmm, No. 1)Nuclear power plants are too expensive to build. The nuclear power industry refuses to accept responsibility for the unique risks of nuclear power and demands massive federal subsidies so that they can rake in profits on their suspect investments. To quote the Rocky Mountain Institute (rmi.org) position on nuclear power: “Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change. True, nukes don't produce carbon dioxide—but the power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change.” Quoting the Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC): "Our national electricity needs could be met, while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent or more, through a combination of increased energy efficiency, wind power, solar power, advanced coal-fired plants with carbon capture and storage, and high-efficiency natural gas turbines." 2)Nuclear power is extremely unsafe. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has acknowledged in a reference document “that early containment failure cannot be ruled out with high confidence for any of the plants.” Even with the most technologically advanced checks and safeties, eventually some critical part of everything man makes fails. If an explosion occurs at a gas-fired or coal-fired plant, this is not good. But if a nuclear reactor melts down and breaks through its containment vessel, we have at least a regional catastrophe. Large areas of necessary habitable land are rendered uninhabitable, and people die of radiation-caused cancer. 3)To again quote the Rocky Mountain Institute's position on nuclear power: "Nuclear power poses significant problems of radioactive waste disposal." 4)Quoting the NRDC: "Plutonium is a normal by-product of electricity production in conventional reactors. Thus, the same reactors and fuel-processing facilities that are used for energy production can also be used for the manufacture of weapons." "Perhaps the most serious of all the problems that would be exacerbated by dramatically increasing global nuclear capacity is the threat of nuclear proliferation."

Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming Program said, "Switching from coal to nukes is like giving up smoking and taking up crack."

Here is the NRDC's position on Nuclear Power: http://nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf.

Make a small statement. Join our My.BarackObama.comgroup, Nuclear Power?, here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NuclearPower

A better bioenergy solution

Todd.B. (office of citizen) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:01:56 EDT

What if you could take any organic material, and turn it into energy, and solve the climate change crisis at the same time?

Research is being planned to demonstrate just such a system at Cornell University.

One of a suite of approaches presently under consideration to reduce our collective carbon footprint involves utilizing an anaerobic biodigester, or as I call it, an artificial stomach. Utilizing bacteria, this system can convert any organic material into a biogas, which would then be burned in a refitted traditional power plant.

McCain's Nuclear Waste: How the Arizona senator doomed his own global warming legislation with billions in nuclear subsidies

Sheldon from Doylestown — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:48:36 EDT

McCain's Nuclear Waste: How the Arizona senator doomed his own global warming legislation with billions in nuclear subsidies

On January 9, 2003—five years before he would become the Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee—Senator John McCain strode to the Senate floor and began a speech by citing the National Academy of Sciences: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." He then pointed to a host of scientific studies that had outlined the negative consequences of global warming. "The United States must do something," he proclaimed, announcing that he and Senator Joseph Lieberman were introducing legislation that day to establish mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions and set up a system for the trading of emissions credits.

Environmental groups endorsed the McCain-Lieberman bill, which compelled major industries to reduce greenhouse gases to 2000 levels by 2010. The League of Conservation Voters called it "a relatively modest reduction" but an "important first step" that would "send an important signal to the global community." It was indeed the first serious attempt in the Senate to impose a cap on global warming emissions.

Ten months later, the bill was defeated by a relatively close margin, 55 to 43. (Then-Senator John Edwards, who missed the vote, had indicated he supported the bill.) Environmental advocates in Washington considered this a decent start considering that six years earlier the Senate had voted unanimously for a nonbinding resolution that signaled opposition to the Kyoto global warming treaty. With this bill, McCain established himself as the undisputed Republican leader on climate change. Convinced that global warming had already led to more droughts and wildfires in his home state of Arizona, McCain vowed to keep fighting for the measure. But within a year and a half, McCain would lose ground and set back the effort to reduce emissions because of a profound political miscalculation, his own stubbornness, and, most of all, his deep attachment to nuclear power.

About a year after their bill was defeated, McCain and Lieberman began drafting a new version. It was close to the original, but with one significant addition: billions of dollars in tax subsidies for the nuclear energy industry.

McCain had long been an advocate of nuclear power. "He feels strongly that nuclear power will be one of the keys to reducing emissions," says Heather Wicke, who was his environmental legislative aide at the time. But environmentalists who had worked with McCain and Lieberman on the first bill were stunned. In one meeting, lobbyists for environmental groups attempted to persuade McCain not to attach nuclear subsidies to the legislation, arguing that doing so would weaken support for the bill. "He shook his finger at us and scolded us," says one participant at the meeting, who recalls McCain saying, "You're wrong and I'm right." Wicke, now the director of policy for the Piedmont Environmental Council, notes that McCain had already made up his mind and that the session was "testy."

In meetings with McCain's staff, environmental lobbyists argued the obvious points, according to Karen Wayland, legislative director of the Natural Resources Defense Council: what to do with nuclear waste, the need to prevent nuclear proliferation, the problem with security at nuclear facilities. They noted that legislation restricting greenhouse emissions in and of itself would create a competitive advantage for nuclear energy companies. They made no headway, so the enviros appealed to Lieberman and his staff. "Lieberman didn't seem to care for this provision," one of the green lobbyists remembers, "but he needed McCain, and McCain was pushing hard" for the nuclear subsidies.

Part of McCain's motivation was political. According to Wicke, he and his aides figured that these subsidies could attract several pro-nuclear Republicans, and they had their eyes on Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Senator Liddy Dole of North Carolina. Wicke was concerned at the time that the nuclear subsidies would cost the measure support and that a bill loaded with money for the nuclear energy industry would contradict McCain's high-profile opposition to subsidies—which was partly responsible for his reputation as a fiscal conservative and a maverick. In June 2003, McCain had joined 47 other senators to vote for an amendment stripping an energy bill of up to $16 billion in subsidies for the nuclear power industry. (The amendment lost by a two-vote margin.)

Wicke heard from staffers for several senators who had supported McCain and Lieberman's original bill that these senators might oppose the measure if the new version contained nuclear subsidies. "It made me nervous," she recalls. But McCain remained firm in his belief that the billions for nuclear power would draw in more Republicans.

In May 2005, McCain and Lieberman reintroduced their climate change bill—with the subsidies. McCain acknowledged that "friends" in the environmental movement were opposed to the nuclear provision. He spoke at length in the Senate to defend this part of the bill: "The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our energy mix is an unsustainable position.... I, for one, believe it can and should play an even greater role, not because I have some inordinate love affair with splitting the atom, but for the very simple reason that we must support sustainable, zero-emission alternatives such as nuclear if we are serious about addressing the problem of global warming.... I am a green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy."

His friends were not persuaded. While the Environmental Defense Fund and the National Wildlife Federation continued to support McCain, the Natural Resource Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and others mounted a fierce campaign against the new bill. On June 22, 2005, it came up for a vote and was defeated 60 to 38. Several Democratic senators who had backed McCain's original legislation—Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)—defected, and McCain picked up no new Republicans. (Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both voted for it.) "The staff didn't fully appreciate how much opposition there would be to the nuclear provision," Wicke says, adding, "I could say it was a bit of miscalculation.... It did stymie this climate change legislation." After collecting 44 supporters for the first bill, McCain had lost ground.

Sometime after the vote, the NRDC's Wayland attended a meeting McCain held with representatives of environmental organizations. McCain was unapologetic about his decision to tie his climate change measure to nuclear power subsidies. "He said that environmentalists had lost power and influence because they did not support nuclear power," Wayland recalls, "and that renewables would never be more than 1 or 2 percent of the active energy supplies. I tried to argue with him and got nowhere. It was hard to a get a word in edgewise." After the meeting an upset Wayland, engaging in retail therapy, headed to a store and bought several pairs of shoes.

In January 2007, McCain and Lieberman again introduced their climate change bill, and the nuclear subsidies remained in the bill. (Public Citizen estimated the subsidies would run to at least $3.7 billion.) But in fall of 2007, the McCain-Lieberman bill was eclipsed by legislation introduced by Lieberman and Republican Senator John Warner. This bill called for deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions—though not as great as many scientists advocated—and it contained no special subsidies for nuclear power. The Lieberman-Warner measure immediately became the major piece of pending climate change legislation in the Senate. McCain and his bill were essentially out of the picture. He was, at the time, busy campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination.

"To his credit, he was a leader in the Republican Party on climate change," Wayland says. But by pushing breaks for nuclear power, McCain damaged a cause he had been passionately advocating for, leaving this particular battlefield with self-inflicted wounds.

http://motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-nuclear-waste.html

Video: Al Gore's endorsement of Barack Obama

Sheldon from Doylestown — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:08:02 EDT

Video: Al Gore's endorsement of Barack Obama (15:02) (short commercial at start)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25195391#25201367

Al Gore's Great Endorsement Speech

Dena, St. Thomas — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:12:04 EDT

Wow, has Al Gore learned a lot about giving a speech--dynamic! I hope is he put in charge of energy.

Please Help, Oppose This Recommendation

Dianne — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:01:14 EDT

Hi,
I wanted to share with you that the East Point City Council is having a meeting this evening where people have to sign up between 6:00 pm and 6:20 pm to speak at the 6:30 meeting being held at the law enforcement building.

This is long, but every word is necessary. Please read and show up whether you live in East Point or Not.

This is critical. The City Manager of East Point is recommending that the City of East Point participate in the agreement with MEAG Power on this expansion at Plant Vogtle, (Option 1 of the recommended actions) . The People of the City of East Point should recommend to decline to participate in the Plant Vogtle expansion, (Option 2 of the recommended actions).

Any East Point resident, especially homeowners should attend this meeting and be up in arms about the contract the City of East Point is planning to sign with the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG) Power one of East Point's electricity providers:

that is requiring that the city of East Point sign a contract now for electricity that they say will be generated by two nuclear power reactors at Plant Vogtle that haven't even been licensed to be built yet,
that would commit the City of East Point to using more nuclear generated electricity than it needs or than it already uses,
and that if the City of East Point signs this contract there is something called the MEAG Act, that was voted in favor of by the Georgia Supreme Court, that if any municipality that MEAG Power has an agreement with somehow, for some reason can't pay for the power they have ordered, they are required to raise taxes to pay for it.

Please note that all of this is going down really fast with regard to the public knowing about it.

Also, MEAG Power required that the City Council members sign confidentiality agreements, most but not all of the council members signed I think, I am not sure. How can a public servant negotiating on behalf of the public, sign a confidentiality agreement and not share with the public in enough open sessions for the public to be well informed about the issue on everything that is going on???

MEAG Power, who owns shares of Plant Vogtle along with Southern Nuclear's Georgia Power and others, has this set up so that the City of East Point could be burdened with the capitol expense of building these two nuclear power reactors for the next 60 years (they reference 20 years in the attached info, but the total process could commit the City of East Point for a lot longer), and we all know that nuclear reactors cost more to build than any quote currently given. They are trying to convince, (or maybe they have already), convinced the council that this is the best and cheapest option for the City of East Point and it doesn't appear that the City Council has done any home work to show that this is not the case.

If they had done their homework, they would not believe MEAG Power when they say that alternative energy sources would not be sufficient for the City's electricity needs when in fact that is not true. New studies show that solar and wind are both feasible and available to provide electricity service to this area as well as currently being cheaper, and will be even more so in the future.

Please show up en masse, at the Law Enforcement Building in East Point on East Point Street I think, it's next to city hall and the fire station. If you live in East Point show up and make comments to let the City Council know that they should not be signing this contract under any circumstances particularly not since the public citizens of East Point have not had the opportunity to fully study this issue. If you don't live in the city of East Point but care about this issue, show up and show moral support for the citizens of the City of East Point. This is our democratic republic and we need to support each other to make sure that the people elected to represent us, represent us, and not the lobbyist, corporations, and utilities that have money to sway their votes. With our collective will we can accomplish anything, and we need to work together for our common good. If you can't show up email the east Point City Council at council@eastpointcity.org to oppose this recommendation made by the City Manager. Tell them to go with recommendation #2 not to participate.
Please copy and forward this message/information widely, I know it is the last minute, but I only recently found out about this agenda item. If you know any reporters or bloggers let them know so that they can show up and report to the people on this issue that could ultimately, legally raise taxes to further pay for the nuclear industry's bottom line.

They are counting on you not knowing about this so that you can't make public comment. This is an opportunity for action. Fill the place to capacity, to overflow.

Peace & One Love
Dianne

My message has ended and I am sharing the City of East Point agenda item written by the City of East Point starts below.

CITY OF EAST POINT

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM

SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NEW PLANT VOGTLE

EXPANSION PROJECT

( X ) RECOMMENDATION ( ) POLICY / DISCUSSION ( ) STATUS REPORT

( ) ORDINANCE ( ) RESOLUTION ( ) OTHER

Date Submitted: 5/28/08 Date Work Session: N/A Date Council Meeting: 6/2/08

BUDGET IMPACT: $62.9 million amortized over 20 years ($4,143,000/year) beginning in 2036

ANNUAL:

CAPITAL:

FUNDING SOURCE: N/A

CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED ON: June 2, 2008

PURPOSE: To discuss and request the City Council approve the City of East Point’s participation in the new Plant Vogtle expansion project by purchasing 10MW of power.

HISTORY:

I previously communicated to the Council that staff and I had a change of position in terms of my recommendation on the City of East Point’s participation in the new Plant Vogtle Project. This change is based on the following two reasons:

I initially believed that the MEAG credits that the agreement would require us to roll into the new agreement were the existing $30 million in credits that we begin receiving in 2009 and continue receiving over the following 10-year period. In meeting with MEAG officials, they clarified that the credits would actually be new credits generated by our participation in the project; and
In meeting with them last week, we looked at projections of the City’s power capacity based on conservative 2% annual power requirement increases over the next 30 years. In looking at the projection chart (attached) we would not be able to meet total load requirement by 2038. While we have access to 30MW, our projected requirement by 2038 is 9.6MW. Staff is recommending that the City opt in for 10MW, which the City will not begin paying for until 2036 and will have accumulated revenue credits and interest by that time.

As you can see in the heading of the attached graph, the MEAG Power Supply staff have recommended the following purchase of the Plant Vogtle Additional Units nuclear generation project for the City of East Point as follows:

1. Year 2016 - Commercial Operation of Units – 0.0 MW

2. Year 2036 - After selling to Third Parties for 20 Years – 9.6 MW

The 9.6MW purchase from the Plant Vogtle Additional Units Project is necessary in order to meet our growing base load requirements by the Year 2038. In order to participate in the project, the City Council must execute a Power Sales Contract for 9.6 MW (or the 10.0 recommended by staff) before June 15th. There will be no action required by the City Council if you choose not to participate in the project.

The MEAG recommendation of 9.6MW will be sold to a third party buyer for 20 years (beginning the Year 2016) to allow for East Point and other MEAG cities in this project to grow into this nuclear generation. The beginning life of the nuclear project will be an operating license from the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) for 40 years. Our Nuclear generating unit history tells us that this license might also be extended after the original 40 years for another 20 years to make the total life of the project an expected 60 years.

During the 20 years that the output will be sold to third parties on behalf of the City of East Point (Years 2016-2036), the City of East Point will have no payments to make for the project. The third parties under the 20-Year PPA (Purchase Power Agreement) will provide for :

1. Full Cost Recovery of Debt Service, Operation, Maintenance, Decommissioning Costs, etc;

2. An estimated "premium" for the 9.6MW portion of the PPA of $1.5M (NPV of the contract terms stated in Year 2008 dollars) - this premium will be maintained in an interest bearing reserve account on behalf of the City of East Point and provided to the City at the completion of the 20-Year contract to help mitigate future financial obligations when the output of the 9.6MW begins to be received by the City of East Point in the Year 2036.

FACTS AND ISSUES:

· The cost to purchase the recommended 10MW is $62,900,500 over a 20-year period ($4,143,000/year);

· The City can reinvest all or a portion of the $30 million in credits it will begin receiving over the next ten years to defray the future cost of purchasing the 10MW;

· The City can designate all or a portion of annual power sales revenue to an investment fund to defray the future cost of purchasing the 10MW;

· In May 2005, MEAG Power and the other co-owners of Plant Vogtle entered into a joint agreement authorizing the potential expansion of up to two additional nuclear units at Plant Vogtle, expected to come online in 2016 and 2017.

· MEAG Power is entitled to a 22.7% co-ownership of the expansion, but, depending upon the level of interest of Participants, may reduce its level of participation or even totally withdraw from the project at any time prior to July 1, 2008. For this reason, Participant commitments are required by June 15, 2008.

· MEAG Power is currently working with the other co-owners to address permitting and licensing matters. On March 31, 2008, Southern Nuclear filed, on behalf of the co-owners, an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for construction and operating licenses for the new units.

· On April 8, 2008, Georgia Power Company, on behalf of the co-owners, entered into an Engineering, Procurement and Construction agreement with a consortium consisting of Westinghouse and Stone & Webster, Inc. for two AP 1000 nuclear units with 1,100 megawatt capacity. MEAG Power's estimated costs, assuming it elects not to reduce its 22.7% share of the project, including financing expenses is approximately $3.1 billion.

· Each MEAG Power Participant has the option of participating in the proposed expansion project at Plant Vogtle and determining the level, if any, at which it chooses to participate subject to maximum individual levels if the project is over subscribed. Through Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) each Participant also has the option of laying off any portion of its commitment, until 2036, when additional power may be needed by the Participant.

· On May 12, 2008, MEAG Power entered into PPAs with two buyers to sell up to approximately 71% of MEAG Power's maximum share of output from the additional units for the first 20 years of operation. The contracts require the buyers to pay all operating costs, debt service costs on bonds to be issued, decommissioning costs and certain other payments for the term of the PPA. The amount, if any, to be sold will depend upon whether some or all of the Participants elect to commit all or any portion of their individual entitlements to the PPAs. The PPAs also require the purchasers to pay a premium (in addition to their cost obligation) which, together with the structure of the debt service payments and decommissioning payments, will result in an estimated present value benefit to the PPA Participants in excess of $400 million dollars.

· MEAG Power anticipates that it will establish a separate project to finance the costs associated with that portion, if any, of its interest in the additional units that is not committed to either PPA, and separate projects to finance the costs of each portion, if any, committed to a PPA.

OPTIONS:

1. City Council approval to enter into agreement to purchase 10MW of power in the Plant Vogtle expansion project via the PPA option.

2. City Council declines to participate in the Plant Vogtle expansion Project.

3. City Council defined action.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Option 1

DEPARTMENT: Office of the City Manager

CONCURRENCE:

Crandall O. Jones, ICMA-CM Date

Interim City Manager

Nuclear Madness - Interview with Dr. Helen Caldicott

Sheldon from Doylestown — Fri, 02 May 2008 19:53:51 EDT

Please watch: Nuclear Madness - Interview with Dr. Helen Caldicott (YouTube video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpAgzji9KnE

Community Outreach Plant Vogtle Early Site Permit

Dianne — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:47:02 EDT

Greetings,

My name is Dianne Valentin and I would like to share information with you about a project that I am working on with Atlanta Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND). Prior to the end of the Cold War WAND’s acronym stood for Women’s Actions for Nuclear Disarmament. When the Cold War ended the organization thought it could take a new direction. We find ourselves still dealing with nuclear issues.

Atlanta WAND is a local grassroots organization and a chapter of the national WAND organization. Atlanta WAND’s mission is to empower women & men to work politically to reduce violence and militarism and redirect excess military spending towards unmet human & environmental needs.

I am working with Atlanta WAND on a community outreach project designed to increase the awareness of local communities and support their work on environmental and health issues around the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site (SRS) nuclear weapons facility and Plant Vogtle which is a nuclear power plant owned by Georgia Power Company and others.

We are working on this project in Georgia and South Carolina, both of which are adversely affected by SRS and Plant Vogtle. Our organizing and outreach efforts will be occurring in Georgia and South Carolina, particularly in the Georgia counties of Richmond, Burke, Screven, and Effingham, and the South Carolina counties of Barnwell, Allendale, and Aiken.

It is important that we engage in these communities and share with them our outreach capacity and organizing efforts to help minimize the adverse impacts of the nuclear industry on their health and environments in ways that we hope might enhance the work that they may be doing currently.

My specific request is that you share the information below with any community partners, organizations, or individuals that may be interested in participating in or submitting statements to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board regarding blocking the issuance of a Combined Construction and Operating License (COL) to Southern Nuclear Company for two new reactors at Plant Vogtle. Plant Vogtle already has two reactors.

I am aware that some of your organizations are based in areas outside the southeast region of the United States, but we are all adversely affected by the activities and procedures that permit this type of thing to go on. The Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission impact the entire United States with their policies.

We must all be aware that this “early site permit” process secures approval and issuance of a license to build and operate a new nuclear power plant even though submitting the application and securing approval does not commit the application to build new units right away. The licensing process allows them to use it anytime for up to 20 years with any future application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

If the early site permits are issued, the public will not be able to raise concerns about water issues, land issues, public health issues, or safety issues at Plant Vogtle. EVER.

With the concerns that we currently face, no matter what we find out after the permit is issued, even critical data that may emerge moments after the license is issued, our hands are tied, our voices silenced.

In an Information Notice to new reactor license applicants dated April 7, 2008, the NRC informs us that counterfeit parts are being used by the nuclear power industry. Fortunately, the early site permit has not been granted for reactors #3 and #4 at Plant Vogtle, so we can still raise this type of issue on that project.

This type of thing affects all of us regardless of where we live, regardless of which nuclear facility or issue we have to deal with.

Please consider sharing the information provided below and if you know anyone or any organization that would consider participating in the action in Augusta on April 27th and/or April 28th please have them email me or call me at the Atlanta WAND office; 404.524.5999.

I appreciate your patience in reading through this rather long message and I thank you for all consideration given to my request for assistance with this outreach effort.

I bid you peace and blessings,

Dianne Valentin

diannevalentin@gmail.com

404.524.5999

Please read the call to action, critical logistical information, and background information below.

Atlanta Women’s Action for New Directions

Community Action is Needed

This is a Request for Your Support

A Call-Out to the Community!

Tell the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that you have concerns about the proposed expansion of Plant Vogtle from two nuclear reactors to four. Tell the Board that you are concerned about water use, accident risks, security, nuclear waste, and health impacts.

The Action: Email or fax the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board by noon, April 25th to register* to speak at the public hearing being held at the DoubleTree Hotel in Augusta on Sunday, April 27th or Monday, April 28th.

Email: map4@nrc.gov and gpb@nrc.gov
Fax: (301) 415-5599
Postal Mail: Administrative Judge G. Paul Bollwerk, III,

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,

Mail Stop: T-3F23,

U.S. NRC,

Washington, DC 20555-0001

*Registration is encouraged if you wish to make sure that you have an opportunity to speak, it is not required.

Statements in Person:

Come to the DoubleTree Hotel and Convention Center located at 2651 Perimeter Parkway, Augusta, Georgia on

Sunday, April 27th from 4 pm – 6 pm
Monday, April 28th from 7 pm – 9 pm

(Speakers will have five minutes.)

If you can’t be there, Submit Written Statements** and make sure that you reference “Vogtle ESP comments” Submit written statements by:

Statements by Postal Mail:

Office of the Secretary,

Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff,

Mail Stop: O-16C1,

U.S. NRC,

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Statements by Email: hearingdocket@nrc.gov or

Statements by Fax: (301) 415-1101

**You must submit a copy of your written statement to:

Administrative Judge G. Paul Bollwerk, III,

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,

Mail Stop: T-3F23,

U.S. NRC,

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Important Note:

Members of the public who pre-register will receive priority consideration to speak at the meetings. Written pre-registration requests must be e-mailed to the ASLB by noon EDT on Friday, April 25. Each request must specify the session (Sunday or Monday) at which the requester wishes to make an oral statement. The Board reserves the right to conclude a session ahead of the scheduled ending time if all speakers present have made a presentation.

The Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) strongly advises those attending the pre-hearing conference or comment sessions to arrive early to allow time for security screening. The Board also requests attendees avoid bringing unnecessary hand‑carried items, such as packages, briefcases, backpacks, or other items that might need individual examination. Attendees will not be able to store such items outside the rooms, and items requiring inspection could delay a person’s admission to a session. Items that could readily be used as weapons are banned from the room where these sessions will be held. The ASLB’s rules limit signs to 18 square inches, and signs may not be attached to sticks, held above one’s head, or moved about in the room. Attempting to disrupt the pre-hearing conference or the sessions will not be tolerated.

BACKGROUND***:

The first step Georgia utilities are taking to try to get federal approval to build new nuclear reactors along the Savannah River is to apply for an “early site permit.” If the permit is issued, concerns such as water, land, public health, and safety cannot be brought up again even if we learn new information. For example, the new reactors will require tens of millions of gallons of water above and beyond the tens of millions Vogtle is already pulling from the Savannah River—this issue cannot be revisited again if the “early site permit” is granted. If approved, this permit essentially allows the Southern Company and its utility partners in Georgia to use the permit at any time for up to 20 years in any future applications with the NRC. Together, Atlanta WAND, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Center for a Sustainable Coast, Savannah Riverkeeper, and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy legally challenged the permit.

Please feel free to use this background information in your comments:

The Savannah River basin and nearby communities are already suffering; building more nuclear reactors will only make this situation worse. Since the Early Site Permit (ESP) process allows a company to potentially ‘bank’ a site for up to 20 years, the NRC should have to look not only at Georgia ‘today,’ but the Georgia we are likely to live in several decades from now.

Water Use & Supply:

-Vogtle’s 2 existing reactors require huge amounts of water with only 1/3 of what was withdrawn being returned to the Savannah River [~64 million gallons per day (mgd) withdrawal with consumption of ~43 mgd]. That’s more water than many towns and cities in Georgia use!

-Doubling the number of reactors on site will only make this worse. This excess use of water threatens municipalities, industries, agriculture, recreation, and aquatic species. If there is an extended drought—even a drought 20 or 40 years from now, severe consequences could occur.

Water Quality

-The water discharged from nuclear Plant Vogtle is already hotter than what is withdrawn; more reactors will only make this situation worse. Temperature changes negatively affect the fish, plant, and animal life that depend on the river.

-The water intake systems at nuclear power plants can kill fish and fish larvae, among other organisms; having more reactors on site will only make this worse.

Nuclear Waste

-High-level radioactive waste created (used nuclear fuel) has no place to be stored or disposed, nor is it likely that a ‘solution’ will be found in our lifetimes; building more nuclear reactors will only make this situation worse.

-Existing and future projected waste will remain onsite at Plant Vogtle for generations and generations, threatening indefinitely the health of nearby communities and the environment. Yet the NRC in previous cases has refused to even address or consider this very important issue!

Security

-Nuclear plants are vulnerable to terrorist attack and sabotage; building more nuclear reactors will only make this situation worse by providing more targets.

-Plant Vogtle is also very close to the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site, which stores a large portion of the nation’s weapons grade plutonium and other dangerous materials. If an accident or successful terrorist attack occurred, the full impacts to human health and the environment in this region would be immense.

Human Health

-A 1982 Congressional report estimated that if a meltdown occurred at just one of Vogtle’s reactors it could cause 39,000 peak* early injuries, 4000 peak cancer deaths, and 200 peak early fatalities with costs over $60 billion; building more reactors will only worsen these terrible impacts and put more people’s lives and health at risk. These communities are already heavily burdened by pollution in the area. (*Peak means highest calculated value from the study – it does not necessarily mean worst case.)

For more information on nuclear power, see

http://www.cleanenergy.org/programs/programs.cfm?ID=4.

For the NRC’s information on the Vogtle application process, see

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/vogtle.html

***Background information provided by Sara Barczak and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, www.cleanenergy.org.

CO2 Emmissions are a Problem with Nuclear Power

Dianne — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:00:58 EST

The nuclear power fuel cycle is a producer of carbon dioxide. I will reference a section of Code Red Alert: Confronting Nuclear Power in Georgia (published by Southern Alliance for Clean Energy May 2004). I have included the end notes for the section on the uranium fuel cycle that I am posting here. I have placed the section that references the CO2 emissions from two plants in bold, (It is the fifth paragraph under the conversion & enrichment section).

In addition to all of its waste and pollution, please note that the nuclear power industry engages in environmental racism as well. If you think that you are someone who can tolerate the CO2 emissions, are you someone who can tolerate the environmental racism? Please read the next section entitled The Uranium Fuel Chain from Code Red Alert: Confronting Nuclear Power in Georgia in its entirety. The complete document can be downloaded for free on the internet.

THE URANIUM FUEL CHAIN

The production of uranium fuel is highly energy and waste intensive, requiring uranium mining, milling, conversion, enrichment and fabrication. In fact, uranium enrichment has been the largest contributor of wastes to the DOE’s materials inventory.287 Though these fuel operations do not occur in Georgia, several facilities in the southeast do engage in these activities (see Radioactive Southeast Map).

Uranium fuel production impacts broad geographic areas of the nation—negatively impacting states such as Utah that do not even have nuclear power plants. The production of energy at the nuclear reactor generates dangerous, highly radioactive, long-lived waste. This “spent” nuclear fuel is a dangerous residue that threatens local communities. Types of waste created by a one-year operation of a typical 1000 MW nuclear reactor—of comparable size to the nuclear power plants in Georgia— include 179,728 tons of uranium mill tailings, .2 metric tons of plutonium waste, 159 tons of reactor fuels as well as weapons grade plutonium. 288

Mining of Uranium

Uranium ore has to be mined, like coal, to be used as a fuel source. Uranium is both radioactive and a chemical toxin. Additionally, numerous heavy metals present in uranium ore can have adverse health effects. Many uranium mines in the United States are on Native American lands. Nearly one third of these mines are located within the Navajo nation.289 The mines have had a negative effect on the quality of life of Native Americans living near the mines.290 Even though lung cancer was considered rare in Navajo Indians, a report by Dr. Gerald Buker stated, “the risk of lung cancer had increased by a factor of at least 85 percent among Navajo uranium miners.”291

Uranium mines are found around the globe and both the mining and milling processes disproportionately affect indigenous populations. Africa has long served as a source of uranium for the nuclear industry. Describing an observation during a visit to a French-run uranium mine in the early 1980s, a BBC commentary described the injustice and abuse perpetrated at mines as, “Some of the poorest people on earth labor in one of the deadliest environments to power the electric train sets and fuel the bombs of the world’s richest nations.”292

Milling of Uranium

Milling consists of chemically separating uranium from other ore components. A thousand tons of ore must be processed to get just 2 tons of uranium.293 The waste produced is known as “mill tailings,” which are often left near the land surrounding the mine, creating another dangerous legacy of the mining process. For typical uranium concentrations, the tailings contain 85 percent of the radioactivity in the original ore along with toxic chemicals and heavy metals. Furthermore, the volume of mill tailings is enormous and the majority of the radioactive components are extremely long-lived. Unfortunately, a large portion of mill tailings in the United States were “grandfathered” when more protective standards began to be implemented in the late 1970s, leaving behind more than 100 million tons of uranium waste with limited regulatory oversight.294

The mill tailings can infiltrate surrounding waterways. In 1979, near Churchrock, New Mexico, a United Nuclear uranium mill tailings dam broke, dumping nearly 100 million gallons of liquid radioactive tailings and 1000 tons of solid tailings into a surrounding area, spreading nearly 60 miles from the facility. The Rio Puerco River was contaminated and the local Native Americantribe was devastated since their water source was forever rendered toxic by the tailings.295

Conversion & Enrichment

After the uranium ore is milled, it is converted to uranium hexafluoride at Honeywell International, Inc. (formerly Allied Signal, Inc.296) in Metropolis, Illinois.297 It is then further enriched at Paducah, Kentucky through a chemical process known as gaseous diffusion. Enrichment is required to increase the percentage of Uranium-235, the isotope of uranium needed for nuclear power or nuclear weapons. In natural uranium, U-235 concentration is too low, even after milling and conversion. The end results of gaseous diffusion are called a) the “product,” in which the percentage of U-235 has been increased and b) the “tails,” which is predominantly U-238, also known as depleted uranium, in which the percentage of U-235 has been decreased.298 Uranium enrichment has been the largest contributor of wastes to the DOE’s materials inventory.299

Union Carbide operated two of the three U.S. conversion and uranium enrichment plants, at Paducah, Kentucky and at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Goodyear Atomic Corporation, a subsidiary of the Bechtel Company, originally ran the third plant, at the Portsmouth facility in Ohio.300 In the early 1990s, the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC), a wholly owned government company, was formed to operate the nation’s enrichment plants. On July 28, 1998, USEC, Inc. was privatized, resulting in one of the largest privatizations of a federal government enterprise in American history and making the company the leading global marketer and producer of uranium enrichment services.301

Different end uses require different degrees of enrichment. Some enriched uranium can be used for commercial nuclear power plants while some nuclear weapons needs, or naval and research reactors, require further enrichment. Several by products are created. Depleted uranium (DU), for example, which is produced at a larger ratio than the desired enriched uranium, is a heavy metalpoison and is radioactive.302 Depleted uranium is frequently used in armor piercing munitions.

Gaseous diffusion plants, such as Paducah, require an enormous amount of electricity produced largely from coal-fired power plants in the areas surrounding the plant along with large amounts of cooling water for the processing equipment.303 In order to support the United States’ defense effort, the Atomic Energy Commission needed to construct a uranium enrichment plant. Since the Portsmouth plant required electricity amounts that were not available so the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) and its subsidiary, Indiana Kentucky Electric Corporation (IKEC), were organized in 1952 by fifteen investor-owned utilities in the region. In 1955 two coal-fired powerplants, Kyger Creek in Ohio (OVEC’s) and Clifty Creek in Madison, Indiana (IKEC’s) were built and began supplying electricity to the Portsmouth plant.304

In 1998, energy sold to the Department of Energy for use by USEC was 9.2 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) with costs of over $180 million.305 These two old coal plants were also extremely polluting. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, in 1998 Clifty Creek emitted over 9 million tons of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas associated with global warming.306 Additionally, in 1999 both plants rated in the top 100 for coal plants emitting hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxides.307

During the gaseous diffusion process, though the uranium hexafluoride gas produced is highly corrosive and radioactive, the safety precautions around these facilities were questionable at best. Drums full of trichloroethylenecontaminated uranium along with large amounts of other uranium wastes were buried on site at Paducah, with most of the drum contents having leaked away by 1984, and large releases of uranium to surface waters also occurred.308 Portsmouth originally produced highly enriched uranium for naval nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons and now provides enrichment only for commercial nuclear power. It is also a federal Superfund site as the aquifer beneath it is contaminated. Department of Energy estimates for clean up were approximately $163 million.309

Eventually, the resulting enriched uranium is converted into a metallic form and then made into tiny pellets. This is done at seven uranium fuel fabrication facilities in the country, with six located in the Southeast, such as Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. in Erwin, TN, Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (formerly a Division of CBS) in Columbia, SC, and Global Nuclear Fuel Americas, LLC (formerly GE Company Nuclear Energy Production) in Wilmington, NC.310 These pellets are stacked end-to-end like tiny poker chips and encased with a zirconium/aluminum cladding known as Zircalloy in approximately twelvefoot long fuel rods that look like very long pencils. These fuel rods are thenshipped to reactors and inserted into the reactor core in groups known as “assemblies” or “bundles,” approximately 60 per assembly. The reactor cores contain thousands of fuel rods in a large nuclear reactor.311

End Notes

287 U.S. DOE, Linking Legacies, p. 143.288 Dr. Rosalie Bertell, No Immediate Danger, p. 112.

289 Makhijani & Saleska, The Nuclear Power Deception, p. 219.

290 M. Annette Jaimes, Ed., The State of Native America: Genocide, colonization, and resistance, (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1992), pp. 248, 249, 264, 265.

291 Dr. Rosalie Bertell, No Immediate Danger, p. 84. From a monograph entitled “Uranium Mining and Lung Cancer Among Navajo Indians.”

292 Makhijani, Hu, & Yih, Nuclear Wastelands, p. 106.

293 Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, “The Uranium Burden,” Science for Democratic Action, vol. 8, no. 4, Sept. 2000.

294 Dr. Rosalie Bertell, No Immediate Danger, p. 86.

295 Makhijani & Saleska, The Nuclear Power Deception, p. 219; IEER, “The Uranium Burden.”

296 U.S. NRC, Information Digest 2000, NUREG-1350, vol. 12, p.62.

297 Honeywell International, Inc. is the only uranium hexafluoride production facility in the nation, U.S. NRC, Information Digest 2002, pp. 64, 67.

298 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Public Health Assessment for PaducahGaseous Diffusion Plant [USDOE] Paducah, McCracken County, KY EPA Facility ID: KY8890008982, May 21, 2002, p.1.

299 U.S. DOE, Linking Legacies, p. 143.

300 Taylor G. Moore, III, “The fateful choice in uranium enrichment,” Time Bomb: A Nuclear Reader from The Progressive, (Madison, WI: The Progressive, Inc., 1980),pp. 23-26. This article also discusses the complicated issue of the Separative Work Unit (SWU), which is the unit of measurement for determining the cost of theend product, the amount of energy required to boost a kilogram of natural uranium from U-235 content of 0.7 percent to 3 percent U-235.

301 U.S. Enrichment Corporation, Inc., 1998 Annual Report, pp. 1, 29; Schwartz, Atomic Audit, p. 346.

302 Makhijani & Saleska, The Nuclear Power Deception, pp. 215-220.

303 U.S NRC, NUREG-1437, vol. 1, May 1996, pp. 6-24, 6-25.

304 Ohio Valley Electric Corporation, 2000 Ohio Valley Electric Corporation and Subsidiary Corporation Annual Report, http://www.ovec.com/AnnualReport.pdfConfirmed in conversation with Ohio Public Service Commissioner Leon Wingjet on June 13, 2000 that Kyger and Clifty Creek plants power U.S. EnrichmentCorporation’s Portsmouth facility.

305 OVEC, Annual Report 2000, p. 18.

306 U.S. EPA, “Plant Summary CO2 Emissions Data by Unit,” 1998. www.epa.gov/acidrain/emission/in/983_co2.htm

307 Clear the Air, “Lethal Legacy,” April 2000, pp. 21, 26, 30.

308 Makhijani, Hu, & Yih, Nuclear Wastelands, pp. 206.

309 Ibid.

310 U.S. NRC, Information Digest 2002, p. 64; Information Digest 2000, pp. 62.

311 Daniel Ford, Meltdown: The Secret Papers of the Atomic Energy Commission, pp. 95-96.

Demand that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Deny EnergySolutions Licence To Do This

Dianne — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 02:57:41 EST

Below is an article that was posted on the Tennesseean.com website on November 22nd. We are not paying attention while this type of thing is happening.

I often speak at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's hearings when they take public comment on nuclear related issues. They need to hear from more people in order for us to protect ourselves from this type of situation.

Please require that your member of Congress demand that this insanity ends. None of us are safe with this type of thing going on. Demand that no new licenses be issued until the waste that we already have in this country is dealt with. We have not disposed of the very first nuclear waste that we generated over 50 years ago and we are going to give out licenses so that we can accept it from other countries????

Write and call the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, any Congressional Committee dealing with nuclear issues, energy, waste, transportation, our ports, health & safety, your local, state, and federal representatives and be very clear that we will not accept this. Fill their phone lines and inboxes with your concerns about the licensing of this process. Don't let this precedent be set.

Dick Cheney and his secret deals and secret meetings with his energy industry friends is selling us down the river in a canoe with no ores, headed directly toward a barge carrying foreign nuclear waste.

We can't let them do this to us without our voices being heard. They may have more money, but we have more people, more voices. Make your voice heard on this issue. Remember in Dr. Suisse's Horton Hears a Who it took that one extra voice, that one small voice to proclaim; "We Are Here, We Are Here!". We must exercise and exert our collective will.

Please read the article below and get on the phone and on email to those listed above.

Peace,

Dianne

Thursday, 11/22/07

Firm wants to process overseas nuke waste in Tennessee

Associated Press

CHARLESTON, S.C. — A company that disposes of radioactive nuclear waste by burying it wants to ship 20,000 tons of the material from overseas through ports in Charleston and New Orleans, raising fears because of the large amount.

EnergySolutions Inc. wants to ship about 200,000 cubic feet of waste into the United States, process it in Tennessee before burying it at a site in Clive, Utah, where the company is based.

"That's a lot of waste," said Arjun Makhijani, executive director of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a nuclear watchdog group.

"As far as I know, it's unprecedented for such a large amount to come to this country for disposal."

In a statement Tuesday, EnergySolutions argued that licenses had been granted
to companies that import radioactive items from France and the Czech Republic.

The company also said it is a leader in safe handling and disposal of radioactive materials.

However, two congressmen wrote in a letter to federal regulators who will ultimately decide if the material can be shipped to the U.S. that EnergySolutions had not said exactly where the waste would come from, other than "reactors, fuel cycle facilities, research facilities, and material licenses or facilities equivalent to U.S. Superfund sites."

Limits may be exceeded

Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas, and Ed Whitfield, R-Kentucky, also argued that some of the waste could exceed federal radiation limits, meaning it would not be allowed to enter the country and would have to be shipped back to Italy.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman David McIntyre said the agency will begin taking public comments on EnergySolutions' application soon.

The approval process typically takes six months.

EnergySolutions, which handles radioactive waste for hospitals, universities and companies, has operated a nuclear waste landfill site in South Carolina since 1971.

But under legislation passed earlier this year, that landfill will close to all but three states next year — South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut.

If EnergySolutions gets approval, it's not clear where the materials would be unloaded in Charleston.

"We don't handle any radioactive materials," said Byron Miller, spokesman for the State Ports Authority.

The Operative Word is Not "Weapons", it's "Nuclear"

Dianne — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:42:44 EST

We have to face that we are being led down a path that is false from it beginning. It is fantastic that Barack Obama has spoken out regarding nuclear weapons, but nuclear is the issue. We are still dealing with the prospect that our future President Obama is ill informed about nuclear energy being an alternative that will help us curb global warming. Nuclear energy is one of the most egregious emitters of CO2 and we have to stop being led by the nuclear industry to believe that this is clean energy.

Time to wake up and act like we know the facts.

Peace,

Dianne

Obama gets the vision: rid the world of nuclear weapons

Aaron Tovish — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:08:58 EDT

I have to admit to being unfaithful, not to my wife of course, but to Barack.

When John Edwards came out clearly and forcefully for nuclear abolition I made a couple of donations to his campaign. John may be a bit inclined to polarize, but the issue of nuclear weapons is so important that I was overjoyed that one of the top three Democratic candidates had embraced global elimination.

Then Obama spoke at DePaul and he addressed directly the criticism I leveled at him in my first blog. Recall that he had praised Kissinger and company but had ducked the central point of their January 2007 Wall Street Journal article: the need to reassert the vision of a nuclear weapon free world. This time he came out loud and clear:

"Here's what I'll say as President: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons."

So now two of the three are for abolition! I am not holding my breath for the third.

But I am in a quandry. Do I forsake John for Barack? I think I will just be a bigamist for awhile!

So my next donation will go to Obama to even him up with Edwards. But in the longrun, what I will be looking for is which candidate makes achieving a nuclear-weapon-free world a regular feature of his campaign pitch. This is critical, just look at how all this was report:

"Edwards’s campaign also blasted Obama for parroting the former senator in a foreign policy speech he gave Tuesday in which he said he wanted to work towards ending nuclear proliferation."

You do not have to be a policy wonk to know there is a world of difference between 'nonproliferation' and 'disarmament'; one is what the other guy is supposed to do, the other is what you are supposed to do also. The trouble is the press is stuck in old think; if candidates are going to get their ideas about nuclear disarmament heard by the voters (who are very receptive to it) they are going to have to hammer at it. So let's see who hammers hardest: Edwards or Obama?

At this point I would give the edge to Edwards, he said:

"And I will lead an international effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons"

In my book leading beat seeking any day. The world is ready to go.

So stay tuned.

PS:

Anyone one who has Ted Sorensen's respect has mine. I had the privilege of working with him to achieve a ban on nuclear test explosions. He is examplary.

Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety

Dianne — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:53:48 EDT

Reading Walter C. Jones' 8/8/07 piece in the Augusta Chronicle on Johnny Isakson expressing his reasons for supporting Plant Vogtle concerned me a great deal. Part of my concern is that he sits on the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety and makes the statements that he made.

The electricity produced by nuclear power in and of itself is relatively benign, however the waste, including high levels of CO2, which has been created to get us to the production of that electricity will harm you, your children, your grandchildren, and generations after them.

The nuclear industry uses enormous amounts of electricity, (created by coal-fired power plants), in their gaseous diffusion plants. Enormous amounts of cooling water are needed and used, and the highly corrosive and radioactive uranium hexafluoride gas is produced. All have adverse environmental impacts.

The waste is pervasive in its movements through our earth, air, and water. It has proven itself to be more than difficult to contain. It has proven itself deadly. Sometimes it will kill you slowly; sometimes it will kill you quickly.

But don't be fooled. Nuclear waste is not just a byproduct created at the end of the nuclear weapons, nuclear fuel, or nuclear energy production cycle. The ugliness begins at the beginning.

The Uranium ore needed to produce nuclear power or nuclear energy has to be mined. Uranium is both radioactive and a chemical toxin. Part of the uranium mining process is milling which consists of chemically separating uranium from other ore.

The waste produced is known as milling tailings. In some cases these highly radioactive tailings are left on and near the land surrounding the mines creating another legacy of dangerous waste.

For typical uranium concentrations, the tailings contain an extremely high percentage of the radioactivity in the original ore, along with toxic chemicals and heavy metals, such as lead and arsenic which adversely affect the environment and human health.

After being converted to uranium hexafluoride it is further enriched through the process of gaseous diffusion. Enrichment is required to increase the percentage of Uranium-235 (half-life of 700 million years). Considered to be the "product", it's the isotope needed for nuclear power and weapons.

Uranium-238, aka depleted uranium, another byproduct of gaseous diffusion, is a heavy metal and radioactive. Uranium-238 can be used to breed plutonium-239.

The radioactive and toxic wastes are process and production outcomes. Remember, all of this and we haven't even gotten to the nuclear reactor for the production of the first nuclear energy generated kilowatt.

I can't imagine that Johnny Isakson sits on a Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety and doesn't know this or that this information has not affected his opinion relative to reducing carbon and environmentally friendly energy.

Maybe he is simply one of those folks who doesn't care about the environmental racism and degradation that the nuclear industry's mining and milling processes cause as long as they don't occur in his backyard and he benefits.

Nuclear power is neither cheap, reliable, safe, or environmentally friendly energy. If he were listening he'd know that there are a number of solutions being offered including using nanotechnology to enhance the capacity, efficiencies and capabilities of solar and wind, rather than using it for war has this administration does in weapons and warheads.

Maybe his committee members need to hear from some other outspoken people. I plan to contact them, just in case they don't already know. Others should also.
Peace & One Love
Dianne

Augusta Chronicle
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/080807/met_1388
Isakson backs Vogtle plans
Increase in nuclear power production is needed, he says
By Walter C. Jones | Morris News Service
Wednesday, August 08, 2007

ATLANTA - An application to expand the nuclear-power generation capability at Plant Vogtle in Burke County should be easily approved, Sen. Johnny Isakson said Tuesday.

Associated Press
Sen. Johnny Isakson says nuclear energy is the way to quell dependence on foreign oil. Click photo for options

Mr. Isakson, R-Ga., said the plant's track record and support for the community present a good case for regulators to allow it to build two reactors to meet the state's growing demand for electricity. But his role in the decision will be limited.

"Licensing a nuclear power plant is the least political thing in the world. And it is a very tedious and cumbersome process," he said in an interview while in Georgia during Congress' current monthlong recess.

Mr. Isakson is a member of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, and he said he frequently tells other members that nuclear power provides the surest route to energy independence from the Middle East and reduced air pollution.

"I'm very outspoken with those on the committee who want to reduce carbon emissions that 'you cannot be intellectually for reducing carbon without being for relicensing nuclear power plants,'" he said.

He said he views the issue pragmatically.

"I'm a solutions guy," he said. "A lot of people like to do 'the sky is falling' stuff all the time, but they are long on what's wrong in the world and short on solutions. Nuclear power is the way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; generate cheap, reliable, safe, environmentally friendly energy
in abundant capacity."

Hello group members!

Aaron Tovish — Thu, 31 May 2007 06:25:17 EDT

I want to introduce myself: My name is Aaron Tovish; I live in Vienna, Austria, vote in NYC. I have worked on nuclear disarmament issues for over 30 years. This issue intersects strongly with peace and justice issues and energy and environment issues.

I am the International Manager of the 2020 Vision Campaign of Mayors for Peace. M4P is headquartered in Hiroshima, Japan, so I work for its Mayor, Tadatoshi Akiba. M4P and the Mayor have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize this year.

You can find out more about the organization and the campaign at our websites:

www.mayorsfropeace.org and www.2020visioncampaign.org

I have a blog (under my name) about nuclear weapons policy, which I encourage you to read and comment upon.

I am not entirely happy with the position Senator Obama has taken on nuclear weapons; it would, in my opinion, benefit from being more farsighted. We have found that our vision of a nuclear-weapon-free world by the year 2020 really inspires people. In the three and a half years of the 2020 Vision Campaign, the membership of M4P has more than tripled, it now stands at 1700 cities in 121 countries and growing fast.

We are all busy, but I will try to do my best to keep up with the group's discussions.

From the American Library Association's Booklist Review of Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer.

Sheldon from Doylestown — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:33:47 EDT

"For starters, enormous amounts of fossil fuel are burned during the nuclear energy process, and nuclear reactors use and pollute vast amounts of water. Radioactive emissions do escape and are released from nuclear facilities, and man-made radioactive elements regularly enter the food chain and our bodies to deleterious effect. Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to natural disasters and to terrorists; all nuclear plants generate plutonium, seeding the proliferation of nuclear weapons; and we have yet to discover a safe place or method for storing waste that remains deadly for millennia. Add to that the scandalously corrupt and hypocritical economics and politics of nuclear power. So numerous and so severe are the problems Caldicott precisely records and clearly interprets that, as it stands today, nuclear power is a costly, dangerous, even ludicrous technology."

Please view our new mybarackobama group and then make a small statement by joining at Link

Watch Obama's excellent speech at the DNC Meeting.

Sheldon from Doylestown — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:16:49 EDT

If you haven't already watched this speech, please do. We must make sure that Barack Obama is the next President of the United States. (Click on the following youtube Link. If necessary, wait for downloading.)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=siSe8Qb91wQ

Victory2008.net - Barack Top Ten - 4-19-07

Barack Daily Buzz - Victory2008.net — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:34:59 EDT

1) Obama Closes the Gap in National Polls - Creating a Dual Frontrunner Race
4-19-07
Aaron Blake and Sam Youngman - The Hill

2) Obama Says Laws Should Be Strengthened to Prevent Mentally Ill From Buying Guns
4-19-07
Nedra Pickler - Associated Press

3) Gun Control Debate Sparked Anew by Virginia Tech Shootings
4-19-07
Aamer Madhani and Rex W. Huppke = Chicago Tribune

4) Candidates Seek Votes in Cyberspace - Obama First Candidate to Sign Up 100,000 MySpace Friends
4-19-07
Nedra Pickler - Associated Press

5) Republicans Prefer Obama Over Clinton - Hillary Maintains Slight Lead Over Barack Among Democratic Voters
4-19-07
Spero News

6) Hugh Increase in Hillary's Negatives Changing Presidential Race - Obama Now Only 5 Points Behind Clinton
4-19-07
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann - RealClearPolitics.com

7) Democrats 2008 - Clinton - 39% - Obama - 24% - Edwards - 21%
4-19-07
Angus Reid Global Monitor

8) Obama, the Internet and Grassroots Politics
4-19-07
Nick Winnie - City on a Hill Press - Santa Cruz California

9) Meeting at the Virtual Town Hall - Next Generation of Voters Wades into Presidential Politics
4-19-07
Sena Christian - Sacramento News & Review

10) The New Math - Advantage Obama
4-19-07
Donald Lambro - Townhall.com
Link

Victory2008.net - Barack Top Ten - 4-18-07

Barack Daily Buzz - Victory2008.net — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:32:32 EDT

1) Obama Moves to Top of Rasmussen Reports Poll: 33% of Likely Voters Would Definitely Vote for Obama
4-18-07
RasmussenReports.com

2) Obama Strongly Disagrees with Supreme Court Decision Departing from Safeguards for Pregnant Women
4-18-07
Politics on the Hudson

3) Obama's Response to Secretary of Defense Gates' Iraq Statement
4-18-07
Business Wire - Chicago

4) Barack's Big Army - Troop Strength Tops Hillary's
4-18-07
Ian Bishop - New York Post

5) Obama to Host Town Hall Forum in Nashua New Hampshire on Friday
4-18-07
Nashua Telegraph

6) Harvard Survey Shows Youth Vote Boost Favoring Obama and Giuliani in Presidential Race
4-18-07
Aaron Blake - The Hill

7) Democrats See Early Edge in 2008 Race with Better Fundraising and Bush's Poor Ratings
4-18-07
William L. Watts - MarketWatch

8) Obama - New Face - New Hope for the White House
4-18-07
Kelly Quimby - The West Georgian - Carrollton Georgia

9) What Obama and Clinton Fans View Online - Obama Supporters into Indie Films and Blackberrys
4-18-07
Kate Kaye - ClickZ News

10) Kucinich Says Clinton and Obama Continue to Vote for War Funding
4-18-07
Dennis J. Kucinich - The Free Press
Link

Nuclear Power is a better option??

Sheldon from Doylestown — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:08:17 EDT

Nuclear Power is a dinosaur. www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid508.php. But not just any dinosaur. It is unsafe, and it is too expensive. And during the nuclear cycle, plutonium for nuclear weapons is produced.

Regardless of the steady propaganda recently pumped into the major media outlets by the nuclear power industry, nuclear power’s time is past. www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid1151.php Come on over to our side. We currently are staring at 2 steamrollers, and nuclear power apologists would have their steamroller BIGGER??

Make a small statement. Join our new mybarackobama group: Nuclear Power? Link

To all members of Nuclear Power?

Sheldon from Doylestown — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:34:00 EDT

Thank you for joining "Nuclear Power?"

If you know of anyone within mybarackobama.com that should see the link to our group Link, please send it to them.

We need Barack Obama to be our next President, but Barack's advisors have advised him badly on this issue. Polite pressure needs to be put his advisors so that Barack revises his opinion, which is currently pro-nuclear.

All the best,

Sheldon