Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Within the past year, estimates of the cost of nuclear power from a new generation of reactors have ranged from a low of 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to a high of 30 cents. This paper tackles the debate over the cost of building new nuclear reactors, with the key findings as follows: * The initial cost projections put out early in today's so-called "nuclear renaissance" were about one-third of what one would have expected, based on the nuclear reactors completed in the 1990s. * The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial "nuclear renaissance" projections. * There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear reactors are the worst option from the point of view of the consumer and society. * The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors. * Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh. * The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors.

Within the past year, estimates of the cost of nuclear power from a new generation of reactors have ranged from a low of 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to a high of 30 cents. This paper tackles the debate over the cost of building new nuclear reactors, with the key findings as follows: * The initial cost projections put out early in today's so-called "nuclear renaissance" were about one-third of what one would have expected, based on the nuclear reactors completed in the 1990s. * The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial "nuclear renaissance" projections. * There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear reactors are the worst option from the point of view of the consumer and society. * The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors. * Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh. * The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors.

More trains filled with depleted uranium are coming to Utah. Even as state regulators consider a moratorium on new shipments of the radioactive material -- which becomes more hazardous over time -- the U.S. Department of Energy plans to ship another 14,800 barrels of it to the EnergySolutions Inc. disposal site in Tooele County. Part of the $1.6 billion in federal stimulus money for the Savannah River cleanup site in South Carolina will pay for rail cars filled with depleted uranium to be buried in Utah during the next 13 months. "This is exactly the situation we were hoping to prevent by asking the state Radiation Control Board to enact a moratorium on depleted uranium," said Christopher Thomas of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah.

More trains filled with depleted uranium are coming to Utah. Even as state regulators consider a moratorium on new shipments of the radioactive material -- which becomes more hazardous over time -- the U.S. Department of Energy plans to ship another 14,800 barrels of it to the EnergySolutions Inc. disposal site in Tooele County. Part of the $1.6 billion in federal stimulus money for the Savannah River cleanup site in South Carolina will pay for rail cars filled with depleted uranium to be buried in Utah during the next 13 months. "This is exactly the situation we were hoping to prevent by asking the state Radiation Control Board to enact a moratorium on depleted uranium," said Christopher Thomas of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah.

More trains filled with depleted uranium are coming to Utah. Even as state regulators consider a moratorium on new shipments of the radioactive material -- which becomes more hazardous over time -- the U.S. Department of Energy plans to ship another 14,800 barrels of it to the EnergySolutions Inc. disposal site in Tooele County. Part of the $1.6 billion in federal stimulus money for the Savannah River cleanup site in South Carolina will pay for rail cars filled with depleted uranium to be buried in Utah during the next 13 months. "This is exactly the situation we were hoping to prevent by asking the state Radiation Control Board to enact a moratorium on depleted uranium," said Christopher Thomas of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah.

The name Poison Canyon offers a hint of what's faced by those trying to clean up abandoned uranium mines in the West. The area north of the village of Milan contains some of the 259 abandoned uranium sites in New Mexico that need cleanup. State officials are pressuring the federal government to direct more money to those areas because of their unique hazard of radioactivity. "In this case, a pile of rocks is more than just a pile of rocks," said New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division Director Bill Brancard. There are hundreds of thousands of safety issues at abandoned hardrock mines in 13 western states, according to the Government Accountability Office. Thousands of sites, many dating to the 19th century, also are considered environmentally damaged.

The name Poison Canyon offers a hint of what's faced by those trying to clean up abandoned uranium mines in the West. The area north of the village of Milan contains some of the 259 abandoned uranium sites in New Mexico that need cleanup. State officials are pressuring the federal government to direct more money to those areas because of their unique hazard of radioactivity. "In this case, a pile of rocks is more than just a pile of rocks," said New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division Director Bill Brancard. There are hundreds of thousands of safety issues at abandoned hardrock mines in 13 western states, according to the Government Accountability Office. Thousands of sites, many dating to the 19th century, also are considered environmentally damaged.

The name Poison Canyon offers a hint of what's faced by those trying to clean up abandoned uranium mines in the West. The area north of the village of Milan contains some of the 259 abandoned uranium sites in New Mexico that need cleanup. State officials are pressuring the federal government to direct more money to those areas because of their unique hazard of radioactivity. "In this case, a pile of rocks is more than just a pile of rocks," said New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division Director Bill Brancard. There are hundreds of thousands of safety issues at abandoned hardrock mines in 13 western states, according to the Government Accountability Office. Thousands of sites, many dating to the 19th century, also are considered environmentally damaged.

The Legacy of Nuclear Energy, Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Upon US Indigenous & Communities of Color We are communities that, in partnership with the Peace Development Fund, form the Building Action for Sustainable Environments Initiative (BASE). We are citizens who represent some of the communities in the US who bear the legacy of 50 years of nuclear energy and weapons production. We are indigenous nations, we are Latino citizens and farm-workers, and we are African American communities living near nuclear power and weapon production sites. Reducing and eliminating the wasteful and dangerous means of producing nuclear energy and bringing renewable green energy production and jobs to our communities are the goals in which our communities have a major stake. Our communities suffer from diseases and illnesses that we contend are related to our exposure to the highly toxic processes of mining and milling uranium, the unsafe storage of radioactive materials and the lack of clean-up of sites and facilities, the transportation of highly radioactive waste through our communities, and the lack of safe disposal methods for highly deadly nuclear waste. Cancer, neurological damage, genetic damage, lung disease, respiratory disorders, lupus, and heart problems are among some of the illnesses that affect our communities.

The Legacy of Nuclear Energy, Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Upon US Indigenous & Communities of Color We are communities that, in partnership with the Peace Development Fund, form the Building Action for Sustainable Environments Initiative (BASE). We are citizens who represent some of the communities in the US who bear the legacy of 50 years of nuclear energy and weapons production. We are indigenous nations, we are Latino citizens and farm-workers, and we are African American communities living near nuclear power and weapon production sites. Reducing and eliminating the wasteful and dangerous means of producing nuclear energy and bringing renewable green energy production and jobs to our communities are the goals in which our communities have a major stake. Our communities suffer from diseases and illnesses that we contend are related to our exposure to the highly toxic processes of mining and milling uranium, the unsafe storage of radioactive materials and the lack of clean-up of sites and facilities, the transportation of highly radioactive waste through our communities, and the lack of safe disposal methods for highly deadly nuclear waste. Cancer, neurological damage, genetic damage, lung disease, respiratory disorders, lupus, and heart problems are among some of the illnesses that affect our communities.

Deceptions about our nuclear weapons have "threatened the survival of the human species." Two Years After Nisour Square Massacre, Blackwater Still armed and Dangerous In Iraq Jeremy Scahill Holbrooke on Afghanistan: It's Not Whether You Win or Lose, It's How You Play the Game Danielle Kurtzleben The Tragedy of Our 'Disappeared' Veterans Penny Coleman Why are U.S. Officials Protecting the Pakistan Military on Aid to Taliban? Gareth Porter Honduras: "People are In The Streets Every Day" Jessica Pupovac A Statement On My Friends, Three U.S. Hikers Reportedly Detained at Iran/Iraq Border Shon Meckfessel More stories by Daniel Ellsberg RSS icon World RSS Feed RSS icon Main AlterNet RSS Feed Advertisement Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg Digg What is Digg? * 62 diggs Burning Questions for the Authors of 'Marijuana Is Safer' The authors of a new book on misconceptions about marijuana respond to the torrent of comments on an excerpt published on AlterNet. On August 6, AlterNet posted an excerpt from the new book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why are We Driving Americans to Drink? (Chelsea Green, 2009). Reader response was overwhelming. Within hours, the excerpt was.... * 58 diggs 10 Awesome Things Would Happen If Health Reform Passes Forget the fearmongering scare tactics of the right, here's how your life will actually be better. The truth about health care reform. * 45 diggs Lou Dobbs Tours Single-Payer Systems Abroad and Realizes... Has CNN's government-out-of-my-face bloviator actually had a change of heart when it comes to Obama's health plan? * 34 diggs Right-Wing Militias Haven't Always Been Racist- they are now There are growing signs that militias are on the rise again and now their target isn't just government, but Blacks and Latinos. * 29 diggs 7 Ways We Can Fight Back Against the Rising Fascist Threat | Why the right-wing extremism must be stopped in its tracks or else

Deceptions about our nuclear weapons have "threatened the survival of the human species." Two Years After Nisour Square Massacre, Blackwater Still armed and Dangerous In Iraq Jeremy Scahill Holbrooke on Afghanistan: It's Not Whether You Win or Lose, It's How You Play the Game Danielle Kurtzleben The Tragedy of Our 'Disappeared' Veterans Penny Coleman Why are U.S. Officials Protecting the Pakistan Military on Aid to Taliban? Gareth Porter Honduras: "People are In The Streets Every Day" Jessica Pupovac A Statement On My Friends, Three U.S. Hikers Reportedly Detained at Iran/Iraq Border Shon Meckfessel More stories by Daniel Ellsberg RSS icon World RSS Feed RSS icon Main AlterNet RSS Feed Advertisement Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg Digg What is Digg? * 62 diggs Burning Questions for the Authors of 'Marijuana Is Safer' The authors of a new book on misconceptions about marijuana respond to the torrent of comments on an excerpt published on AlterNet. On August 6, AlterNet posted an excerpt from the new book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why are We Driving Americans to Drink? (Chelsea Green, 2009). Reader response was overwhelming. Within hours, the excerpt was.... * 58 diggs 10 Awesome Things Would Happen If Health Reform Passes Forget the fearmongering scare tactics of the right, here's how your life will actually be better. The truth about health care reform. * 45 diggs Lou Dobbs Tours Single-Payer Systems Abroad and Realizes... Has CNN's government-out-of-my-face bloviator actually had a change of heart when it comes to Obama's health plan? * 34 diggs Right-Wing Militias Haven't Always Been Racist- they are now There are growing signs that militias are on the rise again and now their target isn't just government, but Blacks and Latinos. * 29 diggs 7 Ways We Can Fight Back Against the Rising Fascist Threat | Why the right-wing extremism must be stopped in its tracks or else

A UK study provides the first contemporary investigation of public perceptions of nuclear power among residents living close to existing nuclear plants. It indicates that responses are not simply 'for' or 'against', but a complex 'landscape of beliefs' that will need complex communication from authorities about plans for new plants. Climate change and energy supply concerns have put nuclear power back on the policy agenda. For example, recent UK government policy proposes that new nuclear power stations should form part of the future UK energy mix(1). As in other countries, many of the candidate sites are those that have existing nuclear facilities. The study examined local response to nuclear power in two UK locations near power stations: Oldbury and Bradwell-on-Sea. It used a technique where participants sorted statements on nuclear power according to how the statements reflect their point of view. The analysis indicated that there are four different 'points of view': * Beneficial and safe. A belief that nuclear power brings both local and global benefits and the power station workers are trustworthy. * Threat and distrust. Nuclear power is unsafe and the government and the nuclear industry are not trustworthy. * Reluctant acceptance. Nuclear power is 'the best of a bad lot'. * There's no point worrying. An indifference to nuclear power and a belief that it is out of our control * These four unique points of view were found at both locations, indicating the results are likely to be reflected in other communities, at least in the UK. Most participants in the study held the first two views.

A UK study provides the first contemporary investigation of public perceptions of nuclear power among residents living close to existing nuclear plants. It indicates that responses are not simply 'for' or 'against', but a complex 'landscape of beliefs' that will need complex communication from authorities about plans for new plants. Climate change and energy supply concerns have put nuclear power back on the policy agenda. For example, recent UK government policy proposes that new nuclear power stations should form part of the future UK energy mix(1). As in other countries, many of the candidate sites are those that have existing nuclear facilities. The study examined local response to nuclear power in two UK locations near power stations: Oldbury and Bradwell-on-Sea. It used a technique where participants sorted statements on nuclear power according to how the statements reflect their point of view. The analysis indicated that there are four different 'points of view': * Beneficial and safe. A belief that nuclear power brings both local and global benefits and the power station workers are trustworthy. * Threat and distrust. Nuclear power is unsafe and the government and the nuclear industry are not trustworthy. * Reluctant acceptance. Nuclear power is 'the best of a bad lot'. * There's no point worrying. An indifference to nuclear power and a belief that it is out of our control * These four unique points of view were found at both locations, indicating the results are likely to be reflected in other communities, at least in the UK. Most participants in the study held the first two views.

Giant loan guarantees could stick taxpayers with the bill At a time of deep partisan and ideological divi -sion in Washington, there aren't many issues that bring together forces from across traditional divides. So when scholars at conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and taxpayer groups such as the National Taxpayers Union agree with environmentalists on something, it's time to sit up and take notice. That's exactly what's happening on the issue of federal subsidies for new nuclear power plants. Fiscal conservatives know that nuclear subsidies are a potential multibillion dollar boondoggle, while environmentalists know that - even beyond the environmental and public safety threats posed by the reactors themselves - there are far better and much cheaper solutions to our energy and global warming challenges."

Beyond ecological imperialism Climate change isn't just a battle between rich and poor - it shows how an obsession with economic growth is a dead end o guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 December 2009 12.30 GMT So the Copenhagen summit did not deliver any hope of substantive change, or even any indication that the world's leaders are sufficiently aware of the vastness and urgency of the problem. But is that such a surprise? Nothing in the much-hyped runup to the summit suggested that the organisers and participants had genuine ambitions to change course and stop or reverse a process of clearly unsustainable growth. Part of the problem is that the issue of climate change is increasingly portrayed as that of competing interests between countries. Thus, the summit has been interpreted variously as a fight between the "two largest culprits" - the US and China - or between a small group of developed countries and a small group of newly emerging countries (the group of four - China, India, Brazil and South Africa), or at best between rich and poor countries. The historical legacy of past growth in the rich countries that has a current adverse impact is certainly keenly felt in the developing world. It is not just the past: current per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world are still many multiples of that in any developing country, including China. So the attempts by northern commentators to lay blame on some countries for derailing the result by pointing to this discrepancy are seen in most developing countries as further evidence of an essentially colonial outlook. But describing this as a fight between countries misses the essential point: that the issue is really linked to an economic system - capitalism - that is crucially dependent upon rapid growth as its driving force, even if this "growth" does not deliver better lives for the people. So there is no questioning of the supposition that rich countries with declining populations mu

Beyond ecological imperialism Climate change isn't just a battle between rich and poor - it shows how an obsession with economic growth is a dead end o guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 December 2009 12.30 GMT So the Copenhagen summit did not deliver any hope of substantive change, or even any indication that the world's leaders are sufficiently aware of the vastness and urgency of the problem. But is that such a surprise? Nothing in the much-hyped runup to the summit suggested that the organisers and participants had genuine ambitions to change course and stop or reverse a process of clearly unsustainable growth. Part of the problem is that the issue of climate change is increasingly portrayed as that of competing interests between countries. Thus, the summit has been interpreted variously as a fight between the "two largest culprits" - the US and China - or between a small group of developed countries and a small group of newly emerging countries (the group of four - China, India, Brazil and South Africa), or at best between rich and poor countries. The historical legacy of past growth in the rich countries that has a current adverse impact is certainly keenly felt in the developing world. It is not just the past: current per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world are still many multiples of that in any developing country, including China. So the attempts by northern commentators to lay blame on some countries for derailing the result by pointing to this discrepancy are seen in most developing countries as further evidence of an essentially colonial outlook. But describing this as a fight between countries misses the essential point: that the issue is really linked to an economic system - capitalism - that is crucially dependent upon rapid growth as its driving force, even if this "growth" does not deliver better lives for the people. So there is no questioning of the supposition that rich countries with declining populations mu

Dr Dominique Raynaud is an expert at climatic change issues. Along with other researchers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore he received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007. Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth is partially based namely on the research of Raynaud. Dr. Raynaud was on a visit to Sofia where he delivered a lecture on the preparation of the conference on climate change in Copenhagen. - Mr. Raynaud, how real is the threat of global warming? - Generally the stakes are rather high. Take Africa for example. This continent is already in a very dangerous situation. The sea level will rise by 50 or 80 cm or even more by the end of the century. This means there will be a lot of problems in many coastal countries. In Bangladesh, for instance, thousands of people will have to be evacuated. Millions of people will have to immigrate, increase of conflicts is very possible etc? - You believe the future of the Earth is to an extent in the hands of the people. Do you think that they, though, can really be motivated to change the status quo? - People should be educated, things should be explained to them. This issue should not be abandoned; people should be persuaded without being compelled. We are talking of a threat, of a possibility, not about something that will for sure happen. I also hope we are wrong. But even if we are right, this will happen for good because we will have to change our lifestyle. - What do you think of nuclear energy? A lot of discussions are currently being held in Bulgaria on the necessity of constructing a second NPP?

Dr Dominique Raynaud is an expert at climatic change issues. Along with other researchers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore he received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007. Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth is partially based namely on the research of Raynaud. Dr. Raynaud was on a visit to Sofia where he delivered a lecture on the preparation of the conference on climate change in Copenhagen. - Mr. Raynaud, how real is the threat of global warming? - Generally the stakes are rather high. Take Africa for example. This continent is already in a very dangerous situation. The sea level will rise by 50 or 80 cm or even more by the end of the century. This means there will be a lot of problems in many coastal countries. In Bangladesh, for instance, thousands of people will have to be evacuated. Millions of people will have to immigrate, increase of conflicts is very possible etc? - You believe the future of the Earth is to an extent in the hands of the people. Do you think that they, though, can really be motivated to change the status quo? - People should be educated, things should be explained to them. This issue should not be abandoned; people should be persuaded without being compelled. We are talking of a threat, of a possibility, not about something that will for sure happen. I also hope we are wrong. But even if we are right, this will happen for good because we will have to change our lifestyle. - What do you think of nuclear energy? A lot of discussions are currently being held in Bulgaria on the necessity of constructing a second NPP?

Conscripts Were Exposed To High Levels Of Radiation Former soldiers suffering from radiation poisoning are suing the Chilean treasury and Nuclear Energy Commission for US$85 million. The men were exposed to high levels of radiation whilst guarding the same nuclear facility in Santiago in the late 1980's. The Soldiers were all guarding the same nuclear facility in Santiago between 1988-1989. Over 60 ex-guards of the La Reina Nuclear Reactor and Research Center cited various health problems in filing their lawsuit against the state. The men in question secured the facility as part of their national military service duties between 1988-1989 and show symptoms of dangerous over-exposure to radiation. The case presented by the Santiago law firm Alfredo Morgado reads: "This petition demands compensation from the state on behalf of the victims who have died or continue to suffer as a result of radiation poisoning." The lawsuit also points to the "non-existent help" the government has offered to the men. Amongst the medical conditions cited are various forms of cancer, bone and nerve degeneration, digestive problems, migraines and diarrhea. Some of the men also claim compensation for medical conditions and congenital defects allegedly passed on to their children. Among the petitioners are the families of soldiers who died as a result of the contamination. Guillermo Cofre died in 1989 after being asked to clean up a nuclear waste spill with a towel. "His military uniform had melted, almost as if he had fallen in acid," his father said. Both Guillermo and his companion on the task Luis Gomez Naranjo died of leukemia within 18 months of the accident. The families of the deceased are suing for over US$3.5 million each, while the remaining petitioners are each claiming between US$1 to 1.5 million for current and future health complications. The case is being heard at the Santiago Court of Appeals. The lawsuit comes at a time of increased lobbying efforts o

Conscripts Were Exposed To High Levels Of Radiation Former soldiers suffering from radiation poisoning are suing the Chilean treasury and Nuclear Energy Commission for US$85 million. The men were exposed to high levels of radiation whilst guarding the same nuclear facility in Santiago in the late 1980's. The Soldiers were all guarding the same nuclear facility in Santiago between 1988-1989. Over 60 ex-guards of the La Reina Nuclear Reactor and Research Center cited various health problems in filing their lawsuit against the state. The men in question secured the facility as part of their national military service duties between 1988-1989 and show symptoms of dangerous over-exposure to radiation. The case presented by the Santiago law firm Alfredo Morgado reads: "This petition demands compensation from the state on behalf of the victims who have died or continue to suffer as a result of radiation poisoning." The lawsuit also points to the "non-existent help" the government has offered to the men. Amongst the medical conditions cited are various forms of cancer, bone and nerve degeneration, digestive problems, migraines and diarrhea. Some of the men also claim compensation for medical conditions and congenital defects allegedly passed on to their children. Among the petitioners are the families of soldiers who died as a result of the contamination. Guillermo Cofre died in 1989 after being asked to clean up a nuclear waste spill with a towel. "His military uniform had melted, almost as if he had fallen in acid," his father said. Both Guillermo and his companion on the task Luis Gomez Naranjo died of leukemia within 18 months of the accident. The families of the deceased are suing for over US$3.5 million each, while the remaining petitioners are each claiming between US$1 to 1.5 million for current and future health complications. The case is being heard at the Santiago Court of Appeals. The lawsuit comes at a time of increased lobbying efforts o

While the Maralinga Tjaratja people are excited and relieved about this week's land hand-back, the veterans who served at the British nuclear testing site are still fighting for compensation. Yesterday, the final parcel of land at Maralinga was returned to the Tjaratja people after years of remediation work by the Federal Government. However, the thousands of Australian servicemen involved in the series of atomic tests there in the 1950s are still battling for their compensation and are turning to the British courts for justice.

While the Maralinga Tjaratja people are excited and relieved about this week's land hand-back, the veterans who served at the British nuclear testing site are still fighting for compensation. Yesterday, the final parcel of land at Maralinga was returned to the Tjaratja people after years of remediation work by the Federal Government. However, the thousands of Australian servicemen involved in the series of atomic tests there in the 1950s are still battling for their compensation and are turning to the British courts for justice.

Exposing and stopping NRC Chairmen and Commissioners' 31 year-long noncompliance with their vital statutory duty to NRC employees Dear NRC Chairman and Commissioners You (as other agency heads) are non-compliant with one of your most (if not most) vital statutory duties to your employees - to assure they are adequately protected from NRC violations of the bedrock values of the federal civil service - the "merit systems principles." Such violations are termed "prohibited personnel practices (PPP's)" and include the whistleblower reprisal type PPP. (The "merit systems principles" and "prohibited personnel practices" are codified at 5 U.S.C. §2301 and §2302.) You simply cannot reduce your duty to "prevent PPP's," per 5 USC §2302(c), to "issue policy about PPP's" and/or "hold training about PPP's" - to "prevent PPP's" you must assure that NRC employees are, in objective fact, adequately protected from PPP's. If they are not adequately protected from PPP's, you are not complying with your duty to "prevent PPP's."

There's still nowhere to put that toxic waste Nuclear electricity is affordable and emission free People opposed to nuclear energy applications point to the high initial price tag of enormous nuclear generating facilities that can … read more provide enough reliable electricity for several million people; they often overlook the resulting low cost per unit of power when spread over that large market. There are 104 nuclear plants operating in the US today. Many of us who are old enough to remember the controversies surrounding their construction can remember how many times we were told that nuclear power plants are frighteningly expensive and that they always cost more than predicted. We even remember that electrical power prices often increased immediately after the plants went into operation due to the effect of adding those big, expensive plants into the utility rate base. What many people who consider "news" media to be their only information sources rarely understand, however, is that the 104 plants currently operating provide the US with 20% of its electric power at an average production cost of about 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour. They also do not understand that after a few decades of operation and revenue production, the initial mortgages on those plants are largely paid off. The best information of all, which is not really "news" and does not get regularly published on the front page, is that the plants still have at least 20 years of life remaining during which they can produce emission free, low cost power. The companies that own the plants and their stock holders understand the economics pretty well; that is why 18 applications for 25 new plants have been turned into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission already with more in the pipeline. All of the used fuel - what some people call waste - is being carefully stored in a tiny corner of the existing sites, just waiting to be recycled into new fuel. It still contains 95% of its initial potential energy, but

There's still nowhere to put that toxic waste Nuclear electricity is affordable and emission free People opposed to nuclear energy applications point to the high initial price tag of enormous nuclear generating facilities that can … read more provide enough reliable electricity for several million people; they often overlook the resulting low cost per unit of power when spread over that large market. There are 104 nuclear plants operating in the US today. Many of us who are old enough to remember the controversies surrounding their construction can remember how many times we were told that nuclear power plants are frighteningly expensive and that they always cost more than predicted. We even remember that electrical power prices often increased immediately after the plants went into operation due to the effect of adding those big, expensive plants into the utility rate base. What many people who consider "news" media to be their only information sources rarely understand, however, is that the 104 plants currently operating provide the US with 20% of its electric power at an average production cost of about 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour. They also do not understand that after a few decades of operation and revenue production, the initial mortgages on those plants are largely paid off. The best information of all, which is not really "news" and does not get regularly published on the front page, is that the plants still have at least 20 years of life remaining during which they can produce emission free, low cost power. The companies that own the plants and their stock holders understand the economics pretty well; that is why 18 applications for 25 new plants have been turned into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission already with more in the pipeline. All of the used fuel - what some people call waste - is being carefully stored in a tiny corner of the existing sites, just waiting to be recycled into new fuel. It still contains 95% of its initial potential energy, but

As the nation settles in for a long and increasingly contentious health care debate, residents of the CSRA are starting to draw battle lines of their own regarding the future of the Savannah River Site (SRS). According to the Department of Energy's Strategic Plan for the Savannah River Site, the 310-square-mile site is poised to become the DOE's premier location for new energy initiatives. It's got the land, the infrastructure, the brainpower and the workforce. All it needs are the initiatives. Skeptics of such an energy park, however, suspect the only real initiative the DOE is interested in involves prolonging its involvement in nuclear activities. "I think it's all a big ruse," says the Sierra Club's Susan Corbett. "What they really want are more nuclear missions."

As the nation settles in for a long and increasingly contentious health care debate, residents of the CSRA are starting to draw battle lines of their own regarding the future of the Savannah River Site (SRS). According to the Department of Energy's Strategic Plan for the Savannah River Site, the 310-square-mile site is poised to become the DOE's premier location for new energy initiatives. It's got the land, the infrastructure, the brainpower and the workforce. All it needs are the initiatives. Skeptics of such an energy park, however, suspect the only real initiative the DOE is interested in involves prolonging its involvement in nuclear activities. "I think it's all a big ruse," says the Sierra Club's Susan Corbett. "What they really want are more nuclear missions."

As the nation settles in for a long and increasingly contentious health care debate, residents of the CSRA are starting to draw battle lines of their own regarding the future of the Savannah River Site (SRS). According to the Department of Energy's Strategic Plan for the Savannah River Site, the 310-square-mile site is poised to become the DOE's premier location for new energy initiatives. It's got the land, the infrastructure, the brainpower and the workforce. All it needs are the initiatives. Skeptics of such an energy park, however, suspect the only real initiative the DOE is interested in involves prolonging its involvement in nuclear activities. "I think it's all a big ruse," says the Sierra Club's Susan Corbett. "What they really want are more nuclear missions."

The Town of Vian and the Cherokee Nation are asking the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to overturn a decision that re- commends approval of a commercial disposal well in the city limits. I-MAC Petroleum Services of Muskogee is seeking to construct the well for disposal of salt water that comes from the natural gas drilling process at wells in arkansas. Greg Riepl, a geologist for I-MAC, said that arkansas doesn't have a lot of underground rock formations that are conducive for water disposal. "arkansas put a moratorium (on salt water injection wells) until they can gin up some regulations," because some of the gas companies were not following the existing rules, Riepl said. Ideal sites for injecting salt water are thick formations that are porous and permeable so that fluids can move through them, Riepl said.

The Town of Vian and the Cherokee Nation are asking the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to overturn a decision that re- commends approval of a commercial disposal well in the city limits. I-MAC Petroleum Services of Muskogee is seeking to construct the well for disposal of salt water that comes from the natural gas drilling process at wells in arkansas. Greg Riepl, a geologist for I-MAC, said that arkansas doesn't have a lot of underground rock formations that are conducive for water disposal. "arkansas put a moratorium (on salt water injection wells) until they can gin up some regulations," because some of the gas companies were not following the existing rules, Riepl said. Ideal sites for injecting salt water are thick formations that are porous and permeable so that fluids can move through them, Riepl said.

Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, which has one proton and two neutrons, where a normal atom of the element would have one proton and no neutrons. It is produced naturally when hydrogen is bombarded by cosmic rays, and is also a by-product of reactions that drive nuclear power plants. Tritium atoms almost invariably bind to oxygen atoms, to create tritiated water. The isotope is a weak source of radiation, emitting low-energy beta particles that cannot penetrate the skin, and are therefore not dangerous outside the body. If inhaled or swallowed, however, the beta particles present a radiation hazard. As with all poisons, the risk depends on the dose.Trace levels of tritium are present naturally in all water supplies and are not harmful. Higher exposures, however, may cause cancer, and have also been linked to birth defects in the children of people who are exposed.

Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, which has one proton and two neutrons, where a normal atom of the element would have one proton and no neutrons. It is produced naturally when hydrogen is bombarded by cosmic rays, and is also a by-product of reactions that drive nuclear power plants. Tritium atoms almost invariably bind to oxygen atoms, to create tritiated water. The isotope is a weak source of radiation, emitting low-energy beta particles that cannot penetrate the skin, and are therefore not dangerous outside the body. If inhaled or swallowed, however, the beta particles present a radiation hazard. As with all poisons, the risk depends on the dose.Trace levels of tritium are present naturally in all water supplies and are not harmful. Higher exposures, however, may cause cancer, and have also been linked to birth defects in the children of people who are exposed.

"Death triggers fear among kin of other patients The death of a radiation victim on Monday, who was undergoing treatment at AIIMS, has created panic among families of other victims. Kin of four critically ill victims, undergoing treatment in AIIMS, Apollo and army hospitals, are doubtful about their recovery. Most of the victims are the sole bread-winners for their families. Sources said AIIMS was not equipped to handle radiation cases. This has resulted in the death of one of the five patients admitted to the hospital. "AIIMS does not have the first-hand experience in treating such patients who are exposed to radiation," said sources. The condition of the two patients admitted to AIIMS is reported to be critical. Dismissing the claims, doctors at AIIMS said the victims were being provided with medical care on a par with international standards. "We are treating these patients according to the international protocol to be followed in such cases as there is no specific treatment for such cases and only supportive treatment could be given," said Dr AB Dey, Professor, Department of Medicine at AIIMS. He said the next four weeks would be crucial for the patients. "Next four weeks are very critical for these patients and we are taking every possible measure to save their lives. Only after four weeks we will be able say something about the future course of treatment," added Dey."

Nuclear power plants are being pushed as part of climate-change legislation. But the focus should be on renewable power sources, which are getting cheaper and don't produce radioactive waste. As the Senate debates climate legislation that could reinvent the country's energy infrastructure, it is richly ironic that lawmakers who consider themselves rock-ribbed fiscal conservatives are among the strongest backers of nuclear plants -- a vastly expensive, inefficient and dangerous source of energy that requires massive taxpayer bailouts. Senate Republicans and many moderate Democrats are seeking to lard up prospective climate and energy bills with billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other subsidies for nuclear power, even though it makes no sense as a solution to climate change and is a terrible option from an economic, environmental and national-security standpoint. Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), whose bipartisan effort to restructure the cap-and-trade climate bill (which Republicans like to deride as "cap and tax") offers its only hope of passage in the Senate this year, signaled their intent to add more nuclear pork to the bill in a recent Op-Ed article. Meanwhile, Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) recently introduced their own alternative climate bill calling for up to $100 billion in clean-energy loan guarantees, most of which would end up going to nuclear plants.

Nuclear power plants are being pushed as part of climate-change legislation. But the focus should be on renewable power sources, which are getting cheaper and don't produce radioactive waste. As the Senate debates climate legislation that could reinvent the country's energy infrastructure, it is richly ironic that lawmakers who consider themselves rock-ribbed fiscal conservatives are among the strongest backers of nuclear plants -- a vastly expensive, inefficient and dangerous source of energy that requires massive taxpayer bailouts. Senate Republicans and many moderate Democrats are seeking to lard up prospective climate and energy bills with billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other subsidies for nuclear power, even though it makes no sense as a solution to climate change and is a terrible option from an economic, environmental and national-security standpoint. Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), whose bipartisan effort to restructure the cap-and-trade climate bill (which Republicans like to deride as "cap and tax") offers its only hope of passage in the Senate this year, signaled their intent to add more nuclear pork to the bill in a recent Op-Ed article. Meanwhile, Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) recently introduced their own alternative climate bill calling for up to $100 billion in clean-energy loan guarantees, most of which would end up going to nuclear plants.

"It's everyone's nightmare scenario: After a 65-year hiatus, nuclear bombs are again used as weapons. But despite the evident dangers posed by their existence, nine nations cling to nukes, and a few others, such as Iran, seem to want them. The existing nuclear powers resist disarmament because they believe, or claim to believe, in a number of myths about how easy bombs are for rogue regimes to get -- and how useful they are once in hand. 1. We can't eliminate nukes because countries would cheat and build them in secret. 2. Nuclear weapons are a guarantee of security. 3. As long as there is nuclear energy, there will be nuclear weapons. 4. If all nations dismantled their nuclear arsenals, a cheater with just a few weapons could rule the world. 5. Nuclear weapons are the only way to become a global power."

New research reveals that thyroid cancer rates near the Indian Point nuclear power plant are among the highest in the nation. Government statistics show that, compared to the U.S., thyroid cancer rates are 106 percent higher in Rockland County; 102 percent higher in Putnam County; 87 percent higher in Orange County; and 42 percent higher in Westchester County. These figures are alarming. Unfortunately, Westchester County Health Commissioner Joshua Lipsman maliciously attacks this research, done by the Radiation and Public Health Project. RPHP, which I direct, comprises professional scientists. Our research is factual, while he has no proof to support his statements. My colleagues and I have published 25 papers on radiation health risk in scientific journals, including the esteemed Lancet and British Medical Journal. All papers were peer-reviewed by expert scientists who found them to meet high professional standards. Lipsman never published a single journal article on radiation health.

New research reveals that thyroid cancer rates near the Indian Point nuclear power plant are among the highest in the nation. Government statistics show that, compared to the U.S., thyroid cancer rates are 106 percent higher in Rockland County; 102 percent higher in Putnam County; 87 percent higher in Orange County; and 42 percent higher in Westchester County. These figures are alarming. Unfortunately, Westchester County Health Commissioner Joshua Lipsman maliciously attacks this research, done by the Radiation and Public Health Project. RPHP, which I direct, comprises professional scientists. Our research is factual, while he has no proof to support his statements. My colleagues and I have published 25 papers on radiation health risk in scientific journals, including the esteemed Lancet and British Medical Journal. All papers were peer-reviewed by expert scientists who found them to meet high professional standards. Lipsman never published a single journal article on radiation health.