To all,
Make No Mistake!
The aim of nuclear power.....is to make spent fuel (nuclear waste)
from which atom bombs are fabricated. Even easier, dirty bombs.

Weapons are made what ever they tell you. That is why 40 sovereign
countries have nuclear power. It is steam from the heat that makes
electricity. We can make electricity from many non-toxic sources.

Dr. Roy had the answer to eliminate nuclear waste in 1979. It is
available to a company that contracts with us.

Regards,
Dennis F. Nester
Phoenix, Arizona
http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess
----------
(excerpt by Russell Hoffman)

At each step, an "inconsequential" (so they say) loss occurs, which ends up in our air and water, and then in our lungs and in our guts and brains. You are a filter for your environment. If your environment is polluted, YOU will be polluted. Do you feel clean? You aren't.

Your body is already poisoned with billions of radioactive atoms, courtesy of a corrupt and arrogant government and industry. Each individual atomic decay event is always much, much stronger than your own body's chemical and molecular bonds. Each radioactive decay can lead to cancer, leukemia, heart disease, deformities in your children, and a thousand other ailments. Do you feel victimized, or has the odorless, colorless, tasteless, microscopic (and, often, delayed) nature of the assault fooled you? If so, you are not alone.

Are all your trillions of DNA molecules ready to face another day of random assault by nuclear poisons? Are your eggs or sperm defect-free, or are you already "damaged goods," another victim of the nuclear age, incapable of producing healthy offspring? Do you feel abused? You should -- because you ARE being abused by the Nuclear Mafia.

The next accident to befall the nuclear industry -- the next Chernobyl --could happen near YOU. In the past few years, it almost happened in Ohio, California, New York and elsewhere. It could have happened in Minnesota, where for 30 years the "Emergency Core Cooling System" (ECCS) at the Monticello nuclear power plant was unavailable due to improper installation. (Obviously, it was never tested.) Do you feel lucky? You
have been -- so far.

We need to switch completely away from nuclear power and start utilizing renewable energy solutions, which means a COMBINATION of wind, wave, tide, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro, space-based mirrors, etc..

There are many clean options -- and we need to choose ALL of them. Do you think we can wait forever? Guess again.

Russell D. Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA

The author has studied nuclear power for more than 30 years. His essays have been published around the world.
---------

POISON FIRE USA: An animated history of major nuclear activities in the continental United States:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/poifu/poifu.swf

How does a nuclear power plant work? Animations of PWRs and
BWRs:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/n...actor_parts.swf

Internet Glossary of Nuclear Terminology / "The Demon Hot Atom":
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/hotwords/index.htm

List of every nuclear power plant in America, with history, activist orgs, specs, etc.:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/n...es/nukelist.htm

SHUT SAN ONOFRE!:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/index.htm

STOP CASSINI web site:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/index.htm

NO NUKES IN SPACE: (FLASH animation):
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/mx/nasa/columbia/index.swf
or try:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/mx/nasa/columbia/index.html

List of 300 books and videos about nuclear issues in my collection (donations welcome!):
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/n...kes/mybooks.htm

Learn about The Effects of Nuclear War here (written with Pamela
Blockey-O'Brien):
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/n...nw/nuke_war.htm
-------------

Nuclear Power Used Up More Energy
Than It Delivered To Society !

Energy audit of nuclear fuel cycles

"At the end
of forty years of the US nuclear power program
by 1991, this energy- 381302 MW-yrs -delivered to
society is still less than the gross cumulative
energy invested in nuclear plant construction and
maintenance of 489174 MW-yrs! "

By R. Ashok Kumar,
B.E,M.E(Power),Negentropist,Flat 1/13, Telec
Officers' CHS.,Ltd.,Plot 30, Sector 17, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai-400705. Tel:7896209.

* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

Uncle Dennis!

How's it going trying to sell your little process for $100 Million? Let me know if you're selling snake oil, too.

The bottom line is that while nuclear power plants make a tiny bit of fissionable plutonium, they mostly make a whole bunch of useless stuff. In fact, that useless stuff, which decays in 500 years, makes up around 99.5% of the radioactivity of nuclear waste, and is the only reason the waste is more radioactive than the ore it was mined from.

Using western-style reactors to make nuclear weapons is like using a fluorescent light to boil water. Sure, it might be theoretically possible, but it's just so incredibly difficult, and there are much better ways to do it that look benign. (IE: use the Soviet RMBK design- the same one that Chernobyl used.)

GoiIllini,
Still full of 'stuff' I see!
-------

Patent Examiner Speaks - Hydrogen Alternative.

Patent Examiner Comments on the Roy Process Invention
Re: Yucca Mt. Is Not The Answer for Nuclear Waste

As a patent examiner, the explanation as to why the Roy process was not patented makes perfect sense and is not paranoid at all. There is no reason to get a patent unless you have the money to defend it in court. Large corporations are notorious for stealing them. Also, patent applications in 1979 were held confidential until they were issued as patents. The inventor requiring a non-disclosure agreement of a corporation to view the application is also perfectly reasonable. It is niave to believe that Reagan was not encouraged by large corporations to change the law regarding acceptable nuclear waste disposal methods to benefit them in order to squash any new method like the Roy process. These kinds of things happen all the time.

As to the merits of the Roy process, it seems to me on it's face to have potential to change nuclear waste into something less dangerous. I don't know enough about nuclear physics to really give an detailed response, but I do know that nuclear accelerators do change atomic structure and that bombarding nuclear waste would certainly change it into something else.
----------
One non-toxic, renewable, cost effective alternative to
nuclear power. Wavemill technology can be configured
to produce hydrogen fuel cells for worldwide distribution
for automobiles, remote generators etc.
----------
Wavemill Technology
http://www.wavemill.com/technology.htm

The Wavemill® is a new, highly efficient technology that harnesses the immense, renewable energy contained in ocean waves. Its unique ability to extract and convert energy from both the rising and falling waves, as well as from surge forces - all without trade-offs - represents a technological breakthrough.

The Wavemill® is the first practical, high-efficiency wave energy converter capable of being factory produced as a cost-effective, off-the-shelf unit, rather than having to be built on site.
View Image

Significantly Higher Output Than Wind and Solar Technologies

Ocean wave energy is highly concentrated compared to other renewable sources, often offering 15-20 times more available energy per square meter than wind or solar. Because wave energy is highly concentrated wind energy, and because water density is much higher than that of air, the available energy from ocean waves is known to be many times greater than that of wind. For example, along the California coast, yearly averages show wave power as having a 17 times advantage in available energy per square metre. This advantage, at similar ratios, also holds true in the case of photovoltaic energy converters, more commonly known as solar panels.

See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net *
(Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

Uncle Roy! What kind of an attitude is that?

Never mind the environment?

That’s not right. We must be good stewards of the Earth and leave the world in a pristine condition for children. Please reconsider.

The good thing about nuclear power is that we get paychecks for American workers and a clean environment. There are no tons and tons of poison gas belching into the air.

Oh! It must also be pointed out that the waste from commercial nuclear power plants is not used to make weapons. In case you are confused as to which ones are commercial, these are the ones that make electricity. The military has its own reactors for bomb material.

Looks like you’ve found another person who has been making a good living spreading anti-nuclear propaganda. I guess it beats an honest living if your conscience doesn’t bother you. Looks like this Russell Hoffman has a lot of time on his hands.

I was curious about this one that he stated because I had never heard of it.



The only information I could find was the following which told of a possible plugged drain sump. Looks like another potential problem which they found and improved. The industry is constantly looking for ways to make things better and safer. This is another example.



As far as not testing safety systems that's pure balderdash. It's required by law.


This is a good time for the nuclear industry. It looks like the industry will take off again. The recently signed energy bill will help overcome some of the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) which has plagued the industry. As I’m sure you are aware, the cost of some other fuels including natural gas has been rising. This makes nuclear even more cost competitive. Clean, cost competitive energy. Such a deal.

Here’s some more information.


NEI - Good Stuff

Department of Energy - Our Government reporting to Us

Basic Info - Some Good Some Bad

Upbeat News from Progress Energy

Still More News

One Community's reaction



Well, I don't know what to say about the unknown ignorant patent examiner, but his heart seemed to be in the right place. He wants to help people.

I'm still not sure if "The Roy Process" isn't some sort of a fairy tale. A lot of good and a lot of money could be made if it was real. Even if it had an inkling of being real, the big companies and Uncle Sam would pay for research.

Wavemill on the other hand seems to be have some merit in specialized locations.

'Clean' nuclear power?
From Mr John Busby
February 22, 2005 UK Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1494615,00.html

Sir, Papers delivered to the World Nuclear Association’s
annual symposiums show an industry in crisis in that primary
supplies of uranium provide only 55 per cent of the current
demand, the balance coming from the so-called secondary
sources of ex-weapons material, inventories and reworked
mine tailings. The papers indicate that the secondary
sources are running down.

The 36 reactors under construction (letter, February 17) can
only be supplied by the scheduled closing of many of the 430
existing reactors, whose life is in some cases being
extended by ignoring the safety implications associated with
the deterioration in the materials of their construction as
a result of irradiation.

Even if nuclear power is “carbon dioxide clean”, which it is
not, the contribution it makes to global energy supplies is
a mere 2½ per cent. Using the lower grades of uranium ore as
the higher grades are depleted leads to even more carbon
dioxide being released from the less efficient mining,
milling and enrichment involved.

Nuclear power offers neither sustainability nor a “clean”
overall fuel cycle and cannot contribute to an alleviation
of global warming. There is no “nuclear option”.

Yours faithfully,
JOHN BUSBY,
Oakwood,
Melford Road, Lawshall,
Bury St Edmunds IP29 4PY.
February 17.

Posted for educational and research purposes only,
~ in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 ~

I thought that article was almost entirely bull and the supply of nuclear fuel has been addressed on this forum many times so I see no need to revisit it.

Reading it reminded me of an article I saw the other day which is an example of "beating swords into plowshares. It's not long so I'll clip it in here. Note that the fuel used in the article is Thorium and Plutonium.



Link to the Article

This article was another example that we are on the tip of the iceberg of the rennaissance for this young industry.

From Nucnews list.
----------

Depleted Uranium is WMD
by Leuren Moret

My grandfather, U.S. Army Col. Edwin Joseph McAllister, was born in Battle Creek in 1895. He does not know that his first grandchild is an international expert on depleted uranium. I have worked in two U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories, and in 1991 I became a whistleblower at the Livermore lab. Depleted uranium is very, very, very nasty stuff:

Depleted uranium (DU) weaponry meets the definition of weapon of mass destruction in two out of three categories under U.S. Federal Code Title 50 Chapter 40 Section 2302.

DU weaponry violates all international treaties and agreements, Hague and Geneva war conventions, the 1925 Geneva gas protocol, U.S. laws and U.S. military law.

Since 1991, the U.S. has released the radioactive atomicity equivalent of at least 400,000 Nagasaki bombs into the global atmosphere. That is 10 times the amount released during atmospheric testing which was the equivalent of 40,000 Hiroshima bombs. The U.S. has permanently contaminated the global atmosphere with radioactive pollution having a half-life of 2.5 billion years.

The U.S. has illegally conducted four nuclear wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and twice in Iraq since 1991, calling DU "conventional" weapons when in fact they are nuclear weapons.

DU on the battlefield has three effects on living systems: it is a heavy metal "chemical" poison, a "radioactive" poison and has a "particulate" effect due to the very tiny size of the particles that are 0.1 microns and smaller.

The blueprint for DU weaponry is a 1943 Manhattan Project memo to Gen. L. Groves that recommended development of radioactive materials as poison gas weapons - dirty bombs, dirty missiles and dirty bullets.

DU weapons are very effective kinetic energy penetrators, but even more effective bioweapons since uranium has a strong chemical affinity for phosphate structures concentrated in DNA.

DU is the Trojan Horse of nuclear war - it keeps giving and keeps killing. There is no way to clean it up, and no way to turn it off because it continues to decay into other radioactive isotopes in over 20 steps.

Terry Jemison at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs stated in August 2004 that over 518,000 Gulf-era veterans (14-year period) are now on medical disability, and that 7,039 were wounded on the battlefield in that same period. Over 500,000 U.S. veterans are homeless.

In some studies of soldiers who had normal babies before the war, 67 percent of the post-war babies are born with severe birth defects - missing brains, eyes, organs, legs and arms, and blood diseases.

In southern Iraq, scientists are reporting five times higher levels of gamma radiation in the air, which increases the radioactive body burden daily of inhabitants. In fact, Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan are uninhabitable.

Cancer starts with one alpha particle under the right conditions. One gram of DU is the size of a period in this sentence and releases 12,000 alpha particles per second.

Before my grandfather died, he told me that his generation had made a mess of this planet. I wonder what he would say to me now I would tell him to see "Beyond Treason" (www.beyondtreason.com), a new documentary about the history of treason by the U.S. government against our own troops: Atomic veterans, MK-Ultra, Agent Orange and DU. After Vietnam, Henry Kissinger said, "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy. . ." (from Chapter 5 in the "Final Days" by Woodward and Bernstein).

Leuren Moret is an international radiation specialist, with a B.S. degree in geology from University of California at Davis, a M.A. degree in Near Eastern studies from University of California at Berkeley and has done post-graduate work in the geosciences at UC-Davis. She is environmental commissioner for the City of Berkeley, Calif.

© 2005 Battle Creek Enquirer

See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net *

(Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

Date: June 29, 2005
Contacts: Vanee Vines, Senior Media Relations Officer
Megan Petty, Media Relations Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail <news@nas.edu>

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation May Cause Harm

WASHINGTON -- A preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even low doses of ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays and X-rays, are likely to pose some risk of adverse health effects, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council.

The report's focus is low-dose, low-LET -- "linear energy transfer" -- ionizing radiation that is energetic enough to break biomolecular bonds. In living organisms, such radiation can cause DNA damage that eventually leads to cancers. However, more research is needed to determine whether low doses of radiation may also cause other health problems, such as heart disease and stroke, which are now seen with high doses of low-LET radiation.

The study committee defined low doses as those ranging from nearly zero to about 100 millisievert (mSv) -- units that measure radiation energy deposited in living tissue. The radiation dose from a chest X-ray is about 0.1 mSv. In the United States, people are exposed on average to about 3 mSv of natural "background" radiation annually.

The committee's report develops the most up-to-date and comprehensive risk estimates for cancer and other health effects from exposure to low-level ionizing radiation. In general, the report supports previously reported risk estimates for solid cancer and leukemia, but the availability of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these estimates.

Specifically, the committee's thorough review of available biological and biophysical data supports a "linear, no-threshold" (LNT) risk model, which says that the smallest dose of low-level ionizing radiation has the potential to cause an increase in health risks to humans. In the past, some researchers have argued that the LNT model exaggerates adverse health effects, while others have said that it underestimates the harm. The preponderance of evidence supports the LNT model, this new report says.

"The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said committee chair Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. "The health risks – particularly the development of solid cancers in organs – rise proportionally with exposure. At low doses of radiation, the risk of inducing solid cancers is very small. As the overall lifetime exposure increases, so does the risk." The report is the seventh in a series on the biological effects of ionizing radiation.

Assessing Health Risks

The committee's risk models for exposure to low-level ionizing radiation were based on a sex and age distribution similar to that of the entire U.S. population, and refer to the risk that an individual would face over his or her life span. These models predict that about one out of 100 people would likely develop solid cancer or leukemia from an exposure of 0.1 Sv (100 mSv). About 42 additional people in the same group would be expected to develop solid cancer or leukemia from other causes. Roughly half of these cancers would result in death. These particular estimates are uncertain, however, because of limitations in the data used to develop risk models.

Survivors of atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, were the primary sources of data for estimating risks of most solid cancers and leukemia from exposure to ionizing radiation. The committee's review included an examination of updated cancer-incidence data from tumor registries of the survivors, and of research data on solid cancer deaths -- which is now more abundant because the number of deaths available for analysis has nearly doubled since the Research Council published its previous report on this topic in 1990. The committee combined this information with data on people who had been medically exposed to radiation to estimate risks of breast cancer in women and thyroid cancer. Data from additional medical studies and from studies of people exposed to radiation through their occupations also were evaluated and found to be compatible with the committee's statistical models. Follow-up studies should continue for the indefinite future, the report says.

Adverse hereditary health effects that could be attributed to radiation have not been found in studies of children whose parents were exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs. However, studies of mice and other organisms have produced extensive data showing that radiation-induced cell mutations in sperm and eggs can be passed on to offspring, the report says. There is no reason to believe that such mutations could not also be passed on to human offspring. The failure to observe such effects in Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably reflects an insufficiently large survivor population.

Follow-up studies of people who receive computed tomography (CT) scans, especially children, should be conducted, the report adds. Also needed are studies of infants who are exposed to diagnostic radiation because catheters have been placed in their hearts, as well as infants who receive multiple X-rays to monitor pulmonary development. CT scans, often referred to as whole body scans, result in higher doses of radiation than typically experienced with conventional X-rays.

Sources of Ionizing Radiation

People are exposed to natural background ionizing radiation from the universe, the ground, and basic activities such as eating, drinking, and breathing. These sources account for about 82 percent of human exposure.

Nationwide, man-made radiation comprises 18 percent of human exposure. In this overall category, medical X-rays and nuclear medicine account for about 79 percent, the report says. Elements in consumer products -- such as tobacco, tap water, and building materials -- account for another 16 percent. Occupational exposure, fallout, and the use of nuclear fuel constitute roughly 5 percent of the man-made component nationwide.

Factors that could increase exposure include greater use of radiation for medical purposes, working around radioactive materials, and smoking tobacco. Living at low altitudes, where there is less cosmic radiation, and living and working on the upper floors of buildings, where there is less radon gas -- a primary source of natural ionizing radiation -- are factors that could decrease exposure.

The report was sponsored by the U.S. departments of Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows.

Copies of Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII - Phase 2) will be available this summer from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

[ This news release and report are available at http://national-academies.org ]

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Board on Radiation Effects Research

WHAT TO DO IN CASE OF NUCLEAR ATTACK!

PDF VERSION FOR BEST PRINTED COPY -
http://www.ki4u.com/guide.pdf

E-MAIL THIS LINK TO YOUR LISTS -
http://ki4u.com/guide.htm

See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at -
http://nucnews.net (Posted for educational and research
Purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section
107).

Let's see Uncle Roy started this post giving the following:



Does any sane man. woman or child out there reading this actually believe this balloon gas? I mean give it just 5 seconds of thought. What interest does your local utility that probably owns the local Nuke plant have in making dirty bombs? It's kind of an odd concept, don't you think?

I work as a paid peon at one of these power producing facilities which
Uncle Roy constantly gives his propoganda and I'm telling you that never have I heard of anyone even suggesting using the spent fuel for dirty bombs. Why would they? Gee whiz, the places are surrounded by armed guards, electronic surveillance and big fences. Seems to me that there are a lot easier ways to cause trouble.

The guys who run Nuke plants want to make money. They are greedy men like most guys that run big businesses. OK, now the best way for these SOBs to make money is to keep the facilities running. The best way to keep the facilities running is to keep the places gol durn safe. Just think about that when you read Uncle Roy's malarkey.

How many people have died at accidents from commercial Nuke plants including Three Mile Island? Just about zero.

I think I'll sleep well tonight unless I start to worry about natural gas prices.

Here's a good article about Nukes and a possible future. I think the numbers given in this article are slightly optimistic regarding production costs though. I think it is just a tad higher.

Wired on Nuclear

Here's two on the Nuke plant near New Orleans. Unlike oil refineries, platforms in the gulf and other energy producers, Nuke plants in hurricane areas must be built to truly withstand a hurricane. After a hurricane, people need their electricity restored.

Waterford

Entergy

I like windmills and some of the innovative ideas that are coming out for supplying people's needs for energy, but this is one case where many of these facilities would have been lierally blown away. Diverse sources of power are what is needed.

I think it's important to note that not only are nuclear plants all over the country required to be built to withstand Category 5 Hurricanes, they can do it easily. The containments on nuclear reactors are designed to survive a 400 mph impact from a Boeing 747. My biggest concern would be a reactor near a navigable body of water have a heavy barge run into it at a relatively high speed. I'm not sure if there are any down south, but we've got reactors on the Great Lakes and the Mississippi in the Midwest.

Sorry posted this in the wrong spot !

The RMBK reactor was INTENTIONALLY designed to make weapons-grade fuel, and could do so without shutting down the reactor. Unfortunately, there was this little stability problem with modulating the reaction...

Both GE and Westinghouse have 4th Generation Fast Breeder Reactors ready-to-go. If we had a leader in posession of anIQ as great as his age, we could have been installing these FOR FREE (with the excess 200 Billion a year we now spend on oil).

If presidents are not required to be stupid, how come they so often are?

"I am become Death,
the shatterer of worlds."
The line of Hindu scripture that flashed through Oppenheimer's mind at the moment "gadget," the first test bomb exploded above the New Mexico desert on July 16, 1945.

Bhagavad-Gita Chapter 11
The Vision of the Universal Form Lord Krishna is beseeched by Arjuna to reveal His universal form showing all of existence.

Lord Krishna said: I am terrible time the destroyer of al beings in all worlds, engaged to destroy all beings in this world; of those heroic soldiers presently situated in the opposing army, even without you none will be spared. Bhagavad-Gita 11:32

Radioactive Contamination in America

Mina Hamolton

Iraq's alleged nuclear threat sinks into the dustbin of history. Americans can stop worrying about atomic perils? Wrong.
Americans are at risk from American-as-apple-pie, Stars-and-Stripes, and made-in-USA, WMDs.

A just-released study, Danger Lurks Beneath: The Threat to Major Water Supplies from US Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Plants, details the danger. Written by Dr. Marvin Resnikoff, a high energy, nuclear physicist, who has been studying nuclear hazards for 28 years and published by the public interest group, the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, this book will curl your hair.

Danger Lurks Beneath shows EVEN IF THE US NUCLEAR ARSENAL IS NEVER USED a deadly plague has been released upon the land and water. Though most of the 13 nuclear weapons factories are currently shutdown (a situation President Bush would love to change), the contamination is spreading.

The process of manufacturing nuclear bombs is not dramatic. Unlike an actual nuclear exchange no humans are burned to a crisp, no cities are pulverized. But the ingredients for a nuclear bomb must be mined, sheared, heated, melted, liquefied, transformed into gas, spun, fashioned into metal, nuked, chopped up, put through chemical baths, extracted - all the while unleashing a host of poisons.

The hazard isn't just to the citizens living nearby to the factories. The poisons threaten us all.

Imagine the distance between Boston and New York. It's a five-hour, pedal-to-the-metal highway jaunt. It's also the alarming distance toxins have migrated away from the Hanford nuclear weapons factory in Washington.

Mussels and oysters found on the Washington coast are contaminated with radioactive poisons that flowed down to the coast from Hanford, 200 miles upstream. This is one of many devastating findings in Danger Lurks Beneath.

How can we take in the enormity of what's happened and is still happening?

We learn that four major rivers and many minor rivers are already contaminated or at risk. The Columbia River in Washington, the Snake River in Idaho, the Tuscaloosa River in Georgia, the Rio Grande in New Mexico, the Great Miami River and Ohio Rivers in Ohio.

How do we wrap our minds around four major rivers at risk? What does it mean for people who swim, fish or drink from those rivers? What about people picnicking alongside those rivers? Are the grasses along the banks safe? Is the sediment toxic?

The risk is not a hypothetical, let's-worry-in-ten-years matter. At the Fernald nuclear weapons factory in Ohio the plant managers deliberately poured - via a buried pipeline -tons of uranium into the Great Miami River. Yes, TONS. And this is a river that flows into the Ohio River from which many municipalities draw drinking water.

Ohio communities are not the only ones whose water supplies are threatened. One water reservoir has already had to be shutdown, the Great Western reservoir in the suburbs of Denver. It's contaminated by runoff from the Rocky Flats factory. Now a second nearby water reservoir, Standley Lake, is also polluted by radioactivity.

The information in Danger Lurks Beneath is so shocking we want to comfort ourselves, assure ourselves, Hey we don't live there or near there. Problem: The toxins are seeping into the food chain in sinister ways. For example, ever eat farm-fed trout? That delicious, fresh trout staring up from your plate was probably grown in water drawn from the Snake River aquifer in Idaho. The nearby Idaho nuclear weapons factory is polluting the aquifer.

For the first time in 2000, plutonium was detected in two locations in this aquifer. A host of other nasty chemicals and radionuclides had already been found in this vital water source.

Not that the trout are contaminated, at least, as far as we know. But here's an indicator of how real the threat is: several years ago a trout farmer tried to sell his Idaho hatchery business to the company, W.R. Grace. He was turned down. What were W.R. Grace's reasons? They didn't want a fish farm that gets its water from a source above which nuclear waste is buried. (1)

W.R. Grace was not whistling in the dark. It's a company that knows about nuclear hazards. Back in the 1960's, Grace ran a now-defunct nuclear reprocessing factory in West Valley, NY.

Danger Lurks Beneath shows that the contamination from nuke weapons factories is widespread and it's traveling along unknown and unmapped pathways. We're fooling ourselves if we think we're safe -- anywhere.

The information is this book would be easier to swallow if there were a villain, an archenemy like Saddam to blame. But these villains are US government employees making extraordinarily dumb decisions, decisions driven by a blind dedication to so-called national security.

During four decades worth of bomb making the Atomic Energy Commission and its successor the Department of Energy adopted an out-of-sight, out-of-mind policy. Dump the waste where nobody can see it. Pump poison into aquifers, pipe it to rivers, dump it into streams, ponds and trenches, site burial grounds in swamps. And, all the while, lie about what you're doing.

This WMD threat makes Saddam's "nuclear" menace look like a cupcake. Ditto North Korea's or Iran's.

Don't expect President Bush to make jokes about this threat. No way is he going to engage in a comic routine looking under the desk in the Oval Office for by-products of the US's bomb building spree.

Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, John Kerry, the US Congress, the media and any sane member of the human species should be trumpeting the findings of this report across the land. Will they? Are they?

Are we?

(1) Perspectives of a Former Idaho Trout Farmer, www.ieer.org/sdafiles.

To obtain a copy of Danger Lurks Beneath go to www.ananuclear.org. If you don't feel up to the 270-page study, an Executive Summary is available. Also you can download individual chapters on nuclear factories nearest you or your family and friends.

Mina Hamilton is a writer based in New York City. She is a Contributing Editor to Danger Lurks Beneath: The Threat to Major Water Supplies from US Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Plants. She can be reached at minaham@aol.com.

Atomic Age Timeline Animation:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/poifu/poifu.swf

* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

I saw this article and thought it was definitely an idea whose time has come.

Nukes for Oil

Here's the article. This is a cool idea if they can keep the luddites at bay. Nukes can be a source of reliable, cheap long lasting heat that produces no emissions. It's about time the world woke up and began realizing the potential of this energy source. The luddites need to be pushed aside. Their day is coming to an end, whether they like it or not.:



The aim of nuclear power is to help supply people's needs. It's that simple.

Not to mention that if we put nukes to run our electrical power plants, like France did 30 years ago, we would not be in the present fix.

Nukes are safe, cost effective, and long lasting. We could power the USA for 1000 years with just the material we have on-hand.

Time to put the TMI hysteria back in its cage.

Argument Against Nuclear Power
May 1, 2005
WESTCHESTER New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/opinion/...print&position=

To the Editor:

In "The Argument for Nuclear Energy" (letter, April 24), the
licensing administrator of Entergy Nuclear Northeast asserts
that "nuclear energy doesn't spew its waste product into the
environment."

Alas, the opposite is true: nuclear plants release
radioactive particles into the environment on a routine basis.

These "permitted" releases contain a smorgasbord of
radioactive toxins including strontium-90, cesium-137 and
iodine-131. Just like fallout, such "allowed" radioactive
particulates fall, for example, onto grass and are eaten by
cows, which concentrate them in the milk we and our children
drink.

We take up the strontium-90 (with a 28-year half-life),
build it into our bones: then it's ours "for good." Tested
American children with cancer have high levels of
strontium-90 in their baby teeth.

Nuclear energy is not just a disaster waiting to happen;
it's killing us here and now.

Jeff Wanshel
Larchmont
The writer, a playwright, is the author of "Fun in Nuclear
Park."
-------------
RADIATION .ORG
http://www.radiation.org/reading/index.html

Posted for educational and research purposes only,
= in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 =

Medical & Ecological Consequences of Nuclear Power

Below is Helen Caldicott's talk at the NPT on Nuclear Power with a
recommendation for creating a Sustainable Energy Agency from
Herman Scheer of Eurosolar.

NGO Presentations to the 2005 NPT Review
Conference

The Medical and Ecological Consequences of Nuclear Power
Speaker: Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Policy Research Institute

The official task of the IAEA since 1957, enshrined in article IV of the
NPT promotes the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and the "transfer" of
nuclear technology. Superimposed upon this official policy is a huge
propaganda push by the nuclear industry promoting nuclear power as a
panacea for the reduction of global-warming gases.

There are presently 442 nuclear reactors in operation globally. If, as the
nuclear industry suggests, nuclear power were to replace fossil fuels on a
large scale, it would be necessary to build 2000 large 1000-megawatt
reactors. Furthermore, to replace all fossilfuel-generated electricity
today with nuclear power, there is only enough economically
viable uranium to fuel the reactors for three to four years.
Belgium, Germany, Spain and Sweden have decided to phase out their
operating nuclear reactors, while Britain plans 10 new reactors and China
plans 27 by 2020. The US administration has called for construction of
more than 50 new reactors.

The true economies of the nuclear industry are never fully analysed -
including costs of uranium enrichment, the massive liability involved in a
nuclear accident, decommissioning all existing and new nuclear reactors
and the enormous expense in the transportation and storage of radioactive
waste for a quarter of a million years. The prevailing ethic says that
nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very different. In the US for
instance, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, the enrichment
facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two
1000-megawatt coalfired plants, which release large quantities of carbon
dioxide, the gas responsible for 50% of global warming. Also, this
enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, leak from rusty pipes
93% of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the US. The production
and release of CFC gas is now banned internationally by the Montreal
Protocol because it is mainly responsible for stratospheric ozone
depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more
potent than carbon dioxide.

The nuclear fuel cycle in all countries uses large quantities of fossil
fuel at all stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction
of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the
intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating
lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive
quantities of radioactive waste. Contrary to the current propaganda line,
nuclear power is not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors
consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes
into the air and water each year. These unregulated sanctioned releases
occur because the industry considers certain radioactive elements to be
biologically inconsequential. This is not so. These unregulated releases
include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are
fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are
absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body,
including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive
organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma
radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm inducing
genetic disease. Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, is another
biologically significant gas, routinely emitted from nuclear reactors.
Tritium combines with oxygen creating "tritiated" water. Tritium which is
a soft energy beta emitter, more mutagenic than gamma radiation
incorporates directly into the DNA molecule of the gene and it passes
readily through the skin, lungs and digestive system where it is
distributed throughout the body. The half life of tritium is 12.3 years,
giving it a biologically active life of 246 years.

The dire subject of massive quantities of radioactive waste accruing at
the 442 nuclear reactors across the world is also rarely, if ever,
addressed by the nuclear industry. Each typical 1000-megawatt nuclear
reactor manufactures 33 tonnes of thermally hot, intensely radioactive
waste per year. More than 80,000 tonnes of highly radioactive waste sits
in cooling pools next to the 103 US nuclear power plants, awaiting
transportation to a storage facility yet to be found. Much more accrues at
reactor sites in France, Japan Russia and elsewhere. This dangerous
material is an attractive target for terrorist sabotage as it traverses
roads, railway and shipping lines of many nations.

The long-term storage of radioactive waste is an immense insoluble
problem. No country, including the US has a plan for preventing this toxic
carcinogenic material escaping into the biosphere and contaminating the
food chain for the rest of time. Furthermore, a study released recently by
the US National Academy of Sciences shows that the
cooling pools at nuclear reactors, which store 10 to 30 times more
radioactive material than that contained in the reactor core,
are subject to catastrophic attacks by international terrorists,
which could unleash an inferno and release massive quantities of deadly
radiation -- significantly worse than the radiation released by
Chernobyl. This vulnerable high-level nuclear waste stored in
the cooling pools at the 442 global nuclear power plants includes
hundreds of radioactive elements that have different biological impacts in
the human body, the most important being cancer and genetic diseases.

The incubation time for cancer is five to 50 years following exposure to
radiation. Children, old people and immuno-compromised individuals are
many times more sensitive to the malignant effects of radiation than other
people. Following are four of the most dangerous elements made in nuclear
power plants. Iodine 131, which was released at nuclear accidents at
Sellafield in Britain, Chernobyl in Ukraine and Three Mile Island in the
US, is radioactive for twenty three weeks and it bio-concentrates in leafy
vegetables and milk. When it enters the human body via the gut and the
lung, it migrates to the thyroid gland in the neck, where it can later
induce thyroid cancer. In Belarus more than 2000 children have had their
thyroids removed for thyroid cancer, a situation never before recorded in
pediatric literature. Strontium 90 lasts for 600 years. As a calcium
analogue, it concentrates in cow and goat milk. It accumulates in the
human breast during lactation, and in bone, where it can later
induce breast cancer, bone cancer and leukemia. Cesium 137, which also
lasts for 600 years, concentrates in the food chain, particularly
meat. On entering the human body, it locates in muscle, where it can
induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma. Plutonium 239, one of
the most dangerous elements known to humans, is so toxic that
one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic. More than 200kg is made annually
in each 1000- megawatt nuclear power plant. Plutonium is handled like iron
in the body, and is therefore stored in the liver, where it causes liver
cancer, and in the bone, where it can induce bone cancer and blood
malignancies. On inhalation it causes lung cancer. It also
crosses the placenta, where, like the drug thalidomide, it can cause
severe congenital deformities. Plutonium has a predisposition for the
testicle, where it can cause testicular cancer and induce genetic diseases
in future generations. Plutonium lasts for 500,000
years, living on to induce cancer and genetic diseases in future
generations of plants, animals and humans.

Plutonium is also the fuel for nuclear weapons -- only 5kg is necessary to
make a bomb and each reactor makes more than 200kg per year. Therefore any
country with a nuclear power plant can theoretically manufacture 40 bombs
a year.Nuclear power produces a carcinogenic legacy for all future
generations, it produces global warming gases, and
it is far more expensive than any other form of electricity
generation, while it triggers the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

A supplementary protocol to the NPT is needed, which would permit the
signatory States to fulfil their obligations stated in Article IV of the
NPT by supplying technical aid in form of Renewable Energy Technologies.
The supplementary protocol should be the basis for an International
Renewable Energy Agency that can act as a counterbalance to the
institutionalized advocates for nuclear energy. The main provision of the
supplementary protocol to Art IV should be: "The present Treaty permits
the parties to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty to replace the
assistance in the peaceful use of nuclear energy provided for in article
IV with assistance in promoting the use of clean, sustainable, renewable energy."

Convenors: Helen Caldicott, Herman Scheer, Xanthe Hall, John Loretz, Alice
Slater

http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/

Interesting how the author ignores the fact that burning 1000 MW/day of coal for a year releases more radioactive radium than what a 1000 MW BWR releases. Note that a PWR releases much, much, less.


Yeah. That's the feminist lady who seemed to get a real kick out of sticking it to those nasty men from the power company at the ASRB hearings for a proposed power plant in upstate New York 30 years ago. She still tells the story as though she's happy to be getting revenge.

In any case, Caldicott's a bit... out there... She thinks that five X-rays in the course of a lifetime double ones' risk of cancer. (Meanwhile, we get the equivalent of five X-rays from our natural environment in the course of two to six months, depending on where we live.)

Wind turbines kill birds. Coal plants cause lung cancer and emit more radioactive materials than most nuclear plants. Dam failures have killed more people in the past 100 years than any kind of death toll one would get from a nuclear meltdown- not to mention that dams ruin river ecosystems. Solar works if you're willing to pay $0.20/kwh and can figure out how to store the energy overnight- that's 20 years off, and we need new sources electricity to come online in 10-15.

Nuclear is one relatively sustainable option for keeping the world running. And the best part is that the industry generates electricity so cheaply that our economy can set up a second industry that doesn't have to do anything; the Anti-nuke industry. We've got enough money left over, because of nuclear power, to pay people like Helen Caldicott $100,000 to speak at an anti-nuke convention and spew out bad science.

Frankly, we could be doing better things with the money- like figuring out how to make solar or fusion work.

Is calling someone a feminist lady, supposed to make us think less of her. Feminists would think more of her. Men would, depending on their chauvinism, tolerate her or otherwise. I find it a chauvinistic thing to say.

Are women like Condi Rice, Karen Hughes, Miers and Bush's cleaning lady, not feminists because they give up their lives to enable chauvinists like Bush?

If a woman has something important to say is calling her a feminist supposed to make it less important?

Where does that put men who are in agreement with this lady? Are they traitors to their sex because they think she might have something to tell the world.

Is any female who is against nuclear power a feminist?

Looks like GoIllini hit one of your hot buttons. If you turn it around, is it an insult to be called a masculine gentleman? It doesn't sound so bad to me. But then I am an acknowledged uncultured redneck from the North Woods. So what kind of person (I didn't use feminist lady) is Helen? Here's the very first hit I got on the internet when I did a search.



Jeepers, I thought. She seems kinda nasty. Don't point a finger out to her or she might bite it. Here's the link for that one. I won't cut and paste the whole thing.

Bad Feminist?

Here's a biography of the lady. She doesn't like nuclear war. You know what? I don't either.

Helen of Australia

Anyway, then I poked around the internet a couple more minutes. It didn't take me long and found this:



Here's a link to a whole bunch of rebuttals to Helen's writings. It's actually a link to a link, but you'll figure it out if you're interested.

Helen and Prunes

I'm going to point something else out. Uncle Roy puts out a lot of cut and paste things that are anti nuke. However, do you ever see him concoct even a semi intelligent train of thought that he creates himself? Do you notice that Uncle Roy started this post discussing nuclear power and then pasted in a lot of articles having to do with nuclear weapons? This is not the same subject and is akin to blowing smoke over the subject (nuclear power) and neither focusing nor addressing the subject at hand. Just think about that for a minute.

I've seen him post a lot of articles that have received total rebuttals. He doesn't respond and posts the same stuff again. Just think about that one for a minute.

A lot of bad stuff has been done in the realm of nuclear weapons. This not the same as nuclear power. Even Chernobyl could be construed as a nuclear weapons problem since the Soviets chose the types of reactors used for double duty, i.e. defense and power production. Our reactors do not perform double duty. The nuclear industry in the US has a good safety record. Get the facts. See for yourself.

By the way, how can you assume that Bush has a cleaning lady? It could be a guy. Making that assumption can be construed as sexist.

I like the term "humanist" better than feminist. I think it is more inclusive. FWIW.

MY

I have no problem with women who call themselves feminists and just push for equal pay and equal treatment. That's fine with me. And I'm sorry for implying that there's something wrong with feminists. However, I do think that there is something wrong with a small minority of feminists, and Helen Caldicott is a member of that minority. This minority makes broad generalizations and stereotypes about men, and loves insulting us. Then, they get angry when they run into people who have misconceptions about women; I find that kinda interesting.

According to her own account, she was at an ASRB hearing, noticed all of the people from the power company were men, and when her time to speak came, she started off with "As always, women are the only ones who give a darn about the health and safety of the public" to the supposedly resounding applause of everyone in the room.

So no; most women who call themselves feminists aren't bad. Women who stereotype men and then complain about always being looked at as homemakers and secretaries, however, seem kinda inconsistent- and that's bad. That's kinda what Dr. Caldicott did. How can we trust an inconsistent lady like that to give us reliable and unbiased information about the nuclear industry? How can we trust someone who thinks most of us are going to die of cancer from x-rays, anyways, to have any sort of sane opinion about the nuclear industry.

Just based on some of Dr. Caldicott's previous research and political views before she got into the anti-nuke industry, one could surmise that her reaction to a nuclear power plant might be akin to Jimmy Swaggert's response to another man who had a crush on him.

POWER FOR SOCIETY WEB SITE

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DTNPM.php
ISIS Press Release 11/07/05

Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths

Peter Bunyard disposes of the argument for nuclear power: it is highly uneconomical, and the saving on greenhouse gas emissions negligible, if any, compared to a gas-fired electricity generating plant

Peter Bunyard will be speaking at Sustainable World Conference, 14-15 July 2005.

(excerpt)

To date, nuclear power has been built and subsidised through the use of fossil fuels, which have provided the energy for mining, extraction, enrichment and construction. Hence, nuclear power cannot be considered to be free of greenhouse gas emissions. Use of the next grade down could lead to a greenhouse gas inventory every bit as bad as for a gas-fired electricity generation plant, and considerably worse than for a gas-fired co-generation plant, in which both electricity and end-use heating are produced.

As Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith point out in their document [6], the cumulative energy produced by a nuclear plant compared with the energy expenditure shows a relatively small net gain over the course of 100 years, which incorporates the time needed to get a handle on the costs of final disposal of the radioactive waste, including the radioactively contaminated structural materials of the reactor. Poor grade uranium will result in a net deficit of energy. Hence a massive worldwide nuclear programme, based on the use of poor grade uranium ores, will add cumulatively to energy demands, rather than resolving them.

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

Uranium is one of the least versatile forms of energy known to man. That is to say it's not like we can do something with it that we can't do with other fuels. We can't use it in our cars like we can with oil, and we can't burn it safely and cleanly like we can with coal. In other words, since 1 MWH worth of nuclear energy is dominated in all respects by 1 MHW of oil or Nat. gas, no free market economy would let nuclear work.

The only time the government gets involved in the process of dealing with Uranium is in its enrichment, nuclear insurance, and burial of spent fuel. And the government takes in some pretty huge revenues. I believe, for example, that over the past 30 years, it's taken in enough insurance money to cover the economic cost of a major disaster at most nuclear power plants in the country. That is to say, if we had a meltdown at a random power plant today, and the nuclear industry immediately shut down afterwards, the U.S. government would probably come out ahead.

I believe the government also comes out ahead on burial costs and enrichment. Various estimates pin the cost of enrichment at around 3-5% of the energy gained from nuclear. If that's the case, since we can turn a profit on the nuclear industry, it obviously helps the economy.

Of course, something tells me that Uncle Dennis, who's still trying to sell the nuclear industry his secret $100 Million process, is convinced that burying the waste or reprocessing it is going to use up 500 quads of energy and cost trillions of dollars.

Odd magazine to be discussing nuclear energy.

Can't judge a book (or magazine) by its cover.

Look at all the interesting articles that have appeared over the last 50 years in Playboy. I only read it for those articles.

To be fair, we might want to note that those cities that were willing to let the nuclear plants come in 20-35 years ago probably supported nuclear energy back then. It's kind of like asking a 40 year old who majored in history in college if he likes history. Perhaps he might like history less because he studied it for four boring years at a college he hated, but the fact that he's a history major is hardly independent of the fact that he likes history, with respect to students considering history as a major.

I'm wondering if all this study says is that nuclear energy met *enough* expectations for the cities that were willing to put up with a nuclear power plant. The only purpose of the study might be to tell cities that overwhelmingly want to build a nuclear plant today that they probably won't regret building one in twenty or thirty years. I don't think it's going to say much about the ambivalent or anti-nuke communities that, thirty years ago, were choosing against nuclear plants.

A lot has happened in 30 years. And I don't mean TMI or Chernobyl.

The new "Gen 4" Modular Reactors from GE and Westinghouse are as far removed from the unprofitable and troublesome (but never dangerous) earlier models as is the Prius from the Model "T" Ford.

The USA needs to get with the program, and fast.


http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/...nucenviss2.html

There's a lot of details to building one of these facilities. Haste makes waste. The US should build at a speed that gives quality safe construction with very few unanswered questions when the unit is complete. This will give the best long term service to the public.

That's the beauty of Gen 4. All the prior reactors were "custom designed" and required individual approvals. Some designs were better than others - - no two were the same.

FINALLY, the designs are standardized so that whatever bugs do turn up will apply to all of them and can be more easily dealt with. They are modular, so just buy as many as you need for each megawatt. They are all approved and licensed for operation.

I think we are THERE finally.

We can proceed ahead FULL SPEED.

No nukes....it does pollute the world, is too expensive and weapons are made what ever they tell you!
-------------------------------------
ajc.com > Opinion
Nuclear Plants Safe? Claim is Unsound

By CYNTHIA McKINNEY
Published on: 11/24/05
Just as U.S. Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was telling Georgians in a Nov. 14 Atlanta Journal-Constitution opinion column that "nuclear power plants have a sound safety record," Southern Co.'s Edwin I. Hatch nuclear plant along the Altamaha River near Baxley was reporting the loss of 68 inches of highly irradiated nuclear fuel.

As highly radioactive waste, this irradiated or "spent" nuclear fuel is millions of times more radioactive than new fuel. Hatch says the missing fuel is either at the bottom of the fuel pool or it was mistakenly shipped out with radioactive scrap regularly collected by the filters. The problem? There is no facility in the United States licensed to accept commercial irradiated reactor fuel. The containers that it was shipped out in are said to be safe for hundreds of years. The half life of irradiated nuclear fuel exceeds a million years. You do the math.

Hatch's safety record is hardly "sound." In 1984, cracks in the containment system were discovered. Hatch is also on record for one of the largest releases of radioactive water into our environment. In 1986, human error and equipment failure led to the release of 84,000 gallons of radioactive water from Hatch into a wetlands area on plant property, only a few hundred yards from the Altamaha. Both the Hatch and Vogtle plants have had ongoing worker safety violations.

But never mind that, says Frist. Nuclear power is safe. Is it safe from terrorist attack? Not according to the FBI director who testified to Congress in February.

In 1986, a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission testified to Congress that he expected a core meltdown to happen within 20 years. It sounds as if we could be overdue. Accidents? He