Monday, June 30, 2008

Pentagon Fights EPA on Pollution Cleanup

Shireen with CELDF says: "With the consent of the governed? And it isn't as if EPA would force the Pentagon to REALLY clean up the toxic sites -- that would be impossible, because the toxins have spread far and wide over the years. Our "regulatory" system in inaction."

The Washington Post
June 30, 2008
Pentagon Fights EPA on Pollution Cleanup
By Lyndsey Layton

The Defense Department, the nation's biggest polluter, is resisting orders from the Environmental Protection Agency to clean up Fort Meade and two other military bases where the EPA says dumped chemicals pose "imminent and substantial" dangers to public health and the environment.

The Pentagon has also declined to sign agreements required by law that cover 12 other military sites on the Superfund list of the most polluted places in the country. The contracts would spell out a remediation plan, set schedules, and allow the EPA to oversee the work and assess penalties if milestones are missed.

The actions are part of a standoff between the Pentagon and environmental regulators that has been building during the Bush administration, leaving the EPA in a legal limbo as it addresses growing concerns about contaminants on military bases that are seeping into drinking water aquifers and soil.

Under executive branch policy, the EPA will not sue the Pentagon, as it would a private polluter. Although the law gives final say to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson in cleanup disputes with other federal agencies, the Pentagon refuses to recognize that provision. Military officials wrote to the Justice Department last month to challenge EPA's authority to issue the orders and asked the Office of Management and Budget to intervene.

Experts in environmental law said the Pentagon's stand is unprecedented.

"This is stunning," said Rena Steinzor, who helped write the Superfund laws as a congressional staffer and now teaches at the University of Maryland Law School and is president of the nonprofit Center for Progressive Reform. "The idea that they would refuse to sign a final order - that is the height of amazing nerve."

Pentagon officials say they are voluntarily cleaning up the three sites named in the EPA's "final orders" - Fort Meade in Maryland, Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida and McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey.

Fort Meade borders residential areas in fast-growing Anne Arundel County; Tyndall and McGuire are in less-populated regions. At all three sites, the military has released toxic chemicals - some known to cause cancer and other serious health problems - into the soil and groundwater.

But the EPA has been dissatisfied with the extent and progress of the Pentagon's voluntary efforts.

"Final orders" are the EPA's most potent enforcement tool. If a polluter does not comply, the agency usually can go to court to force compliance and impose fines up to $28,000 a day for each violation.

Cleanup agreements drafted by the EPA for the 12 other sites contain "extensive provisions" that the Pentagon finds unacceptable, officials said.

Congress established the Superfund program in 1980 to clean up the country's most contaminated places, and of the 1,255 sites on the list the Pentagon owns 129 - the most of any entity. Other federal agencies with properties on the list include NASA and the Energy Department, but they have signed EPA cleanup agreements without protest.

The law was amended in 1986 to stipulate that polluting government agencies should be treated the same as any private entity. During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush pledged to direct all federal facilities to comply with environmental laws and "make them accountable. "

In dealing with cleanup efforts, some military branches have been more cooperative than others. The Navy has signed cleanup agreements for all of its Superfund sites, whereas the Air Force has not signed one in 14 years.

But Superfund sites are only one aspect of the Pentagon's environmental problems. It has about 25,000 contaminated properties in all 50 states, and it will cost billions and take decades to clean them up. The Pentagon has a tremendous financial stake in not only how the sites are cleaned but also in which chemicals the government characterizes as toxic.

Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is investigating the Pentagon's compliance with environmental regulation. He said it is evading the law through political maneuvers.

"I find it troubling, not only that the Department of Defense is in flagrant violation of final orders issued by the EPA, but that DOD is now attempting to circumvent the law and Congress' intent by calling on the Department of Justice and the Office of Management and the Budget to intervene," he said in a statement. "The EPA is the expert agency charged by Congress with enforcing our environmental laws, and the Administration needs to allow them to do their job to protect the public health and safety."

EPA spokeswoman Roxanne Smith said final orders were issued because the agency is worried about drinking water and soil contamination at Fort Meade, Tyndall and McGuire. "Under DOD's management, some of these sites have languished for years, with limited or no cleanup underway," she said.

Other examples of Pentagon resistance to the EPA include its successful effort this year to get greater influence in the process the agency uses to analyze the risks of industrial chemicals. Congressional Democrats, environmental groups and the Government Accountability Office have criticized the change.

The Pentagon has also fought EPA efforts to set new pollution standards on two toxic chemicals widely found on military sites: perchlorate, found in propellant for rockets and missiles, and trichloroethylene (TCE), a degreaser for metal parts.

TCE is the most widespread water contaminant in the country, seeping into aquifers across California, New York, Texas, Florida and elsewhere.

More than 1,000 military sites are contaminated with TCE.

In the late 1990s, EPA scientists found TCE to be much more toxic than earlier believed. In 2001, the EPA prepared tougher new drinking-water standards for TCE to limit human exposure, but the Pentagon challenged those standards and took its case to the White House. The process ground to a halt; seven years later, the EPA still has not issued new TCE limits.

Since Bush took office, one military site has been added to the Superfund list - the Navy bombing range at Vieques Island, off Puerto Rico.

The site was added after the Puerto Rican governor exercised a federal statute to force its placement on the list.

Maryland has been pushing the EPA to add Fort Detrick in Frederick County to the Superfund list. This month, the state sent a forceful letter to the EPA, suggesting it would follow Puerto Rico's strategy. On Thursday, the EPA informed Maryland that in September it will recommend Fort Detrick be added.

Shari T. Wilson, Maryland's secretary of the environment, said the state needs the Superfund designation because of the Army's erratic efforts to clean up Fort Detrick, which for decades served as the service's center for development of chemical and biological weapons. She said the state wants an independent agency that is focused on public health to oversee the effort and hold the Pentagon accountable.

In 1992, the state found chemical contamination in private wells just outside Fort Detrick. Under a voluntary agreement with the state, the Army removed chemical-soaked earth and rusting drums filled with toxins, set up monitoring wells and connected nearby residents to the city water supply.

Two years later, TCE was detected in a spring outside the base - the first time it was noticed beyond the facility's boundaries. State officials say that the presence of TCE in the aquifer is a serious concern but that they do not think the contamination poses an immediate health threat.

For nearly 10 years, Maryland has asked the Pentagon to analyze the extent and spread of groundwater contamination, a study that will happen as a matter of course if it is added to the Superfund list.

"It's frustrating, " Wilson said. "We need to move ahead and take the steps necessary to ensure for the public the groundwater is protected."

As Energy Fuels, Inc. Prepares to Build a Uranium Mill , People with Cameras are "Saving Paradox"

Paradox Valley is one of the last unspoiled valleys that retains the character of old Colorado.


Join the Saving Paradox Photo Contest with cash prizes to help bring awareness!

Over 800 acres of Paradox Valley are about to be turned into a Uranium Mill by Energy Fuels Inc.

Large radioactive tailings piles and evaporation ponds will be left behind forever.

The results will be Real-Estate Devaluation, Family Farms going under from water depletion, Big Government spending on containment forever, Childhood and Elderly Cancers, and potential contamination of the Dolores, San Miguel, and Colorado Rivers.

Trucks will bring Uranium ore, at all hours, from the surrounding region.

The valley experiences earthquakes and has a local desalinization and earth injection project.

Uranium Yellowcake will be shipped out of the country and could end up in unfriendly countries or even terrorist hands.

The operation of commercial nuclear reactors constantly creates Plutonium.

A World Lethal Dose of Plutonium exists.

An individual lethal dose of Plutonium is about 50 millionths of a gram.

Nuclear reactors have produced over 1,200 tons of Plutonium since 1940.

That is enough lethal doses to kill every person on the planet many times over.

A terrorist dirty bomb with only one pound of Plutonium could potentially kill over nine million people.



Explore "Saving Paradox" further...by clicking here





Nevada NuclearTest Site from "Saving Paradox" Photos


Energy Fuels to Construct the "Pinon Ridge" Uranium Mill-First Uranium Mill to be Built in the US in 25 Years

TORONTO, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - July 18, 2007) - Energy Fuels Inc. (TSX:EFR) ("Energy Fuels" or "the Company") is pleased to announce that, consistent with our previously announced strategy to become a fully integrated uranium producer, the Company has acquired approximately 1,000 acres of property located west of Naturita, Colorado, in the Paradox Valley of western Montrose County, where it intends to construct its Pinon Ridge Uranium Mill. (emphasis mine...SB)

This mill will be designed as a state-of-the-art conventional uranium/vanadium mill. The site is large enough to accommodate a mill to meet the needs of the Company for at least 30 years of mill operation. The Energy Fuels team responsible for the Pinon Ridge Mill development includes many of the key members of the team that financed and built, for Energy Fuels Nuclear, the last fully operational uranium mill commissioned in the US, the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah.

In light of the status of the various alternatives, it has become apparent that to efficiently execute our long-term growth plans and to provide the maximum possible benefit to Energy Fuels' shareholders, the Company needs to take this step to control the production process from start to finish. In the interim, during licensing and construction, Energy Fuels will continue to pursue other milling opportunities.

Read more about the destruction of Paradox in the pursuit of uranium here

(Reading this and posting it has brought me to tears. Will this happen to Southside?)

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

A SOUL-SEARCHING SUMMER

Our friend

Will this be the last summer Virginia residents and their natural resources are protected by the existing moratorium on uranium mining?

Will you voice your concerns?

Or will your voice be silenced by old friendships, family loyalties or fear that you will be accused of trying to stop "economic progress" in your hometowns?

Ask yourselves what matters most to you, your children, grandchildren and future generations? That's a question you should think long and hard about..... (read the rest of the article here)

545 People

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ .

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Friday, June 20, 2008

Nuclear parts missing, says US report


Financial Times
By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
20 June 2008
The US military cannot locate hundreds of sensitive nuclear missile components, according to government officials familiar with a Pentagon report on nuclear safeguards.
Robert Gates, US defence secretary, recently fired both the airforce's chief of staff and secretary after an investigation blamed the airforce for the inadvertent shipment of nuclear missile nose cones to Taiwan.
According to previously undisclosed details obtained by the FT, the investigation also concluded that the airforce could not account for many sensitive components previously included in its nuclear inventory.
One official said the number of missing components was more than 1,000.
The disclosure is the latest embarrassing episode for the airforce, which last year had to explain how a bomber mistakenly carried six nuclear missiles across the US. The incidents have raised concerns about US nuclear safeguards as Washington presses other countries to bolster counter-proliferati on measures.
In announcing the departure of the top airforce officials earlier this month, Mr Gates said Admiral Kirkland Donald, the officer who led the investigation, concluded that both incidents had a "common origin" that was "the gradual erosion of nuclear standards and a lack of effective oversight by airforce leadership".
Mr Gates added that the Pentagon was evaluating the results of an inventory of all nuclear-related materials that had been conducted to re-establish "positive control" of such components.
Adm Donald briefed Congress on the results of his investigation on Wednesday. A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment on the classified report.
A senior defence official said the report "identified issues about record keeping" for sensitive nuclear missile components. But he stressed that there was no suggestion that components had ended up in the hands of countries that should not have received them.
However, Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, said the revelation was "very significant and extremely troubling" because it meant the US could not establish the positive control referred to by Mr Gates.
"It raises a serious question about where else these unaccounted- for warhead-related parts may have gone," said Mr Kimball. "I would not be surprised if the recent Taiwan incident is not the only one."
A senior military officer said the military leadership, including Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was "deeply troubled" by the report.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Thanks Karen!

An email shared by a member of SCC:

As the experts at Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) have pointed out*, nuclear power provides far less climate protection per dollar than any of its competitors. Indeed, RMI notes that “spending a dollar on new nuclear energy instead of energy efficiency has a worse net effect on the climate than spending a dollar on coal-fired electricity instead of on nuclear electricity!”

Moreover, because nuclear power is so expensive, only massive taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies would enable the construction of new atomic reactors. Such investment would divert the resources from those solutions that really work: renewable energy, energy efficiency, cogeneration, smart grids and distributed generation are the clean, affordable means to reduce carbon emissions and meet our energy needs, not nuclear power.

Clean energy sources don’t produce lethal radioactive waste, don’t require massive security, don’t make residents live in fear of a meltdown, and don’t enable the spread of nuclear weapons. The choice is easy.

*”The Nuclear Illusion,” by Amory B. Lovins and Imran Sheikh, Ambio, November 2008; read it at: http://www.rmi. org/images/ PDFs/Energy/ E08-01_AmbioNucl Ilusion.pdf

Michael Mariotte

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

nirsnet@nirs. org

Uranium Spot Prices Track Lower

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Uranium Spot Prices Track Lower

According to the Ux Consulting Company, spot prices for uranium this week hit $57/lb. US. This is considerably lower than their 52 week high of about $136/lb. US (off by about 58% in a few short months).

The recent lower price has not gone unnoticed. In an article yesterday in the Financial Post, David Pett discusses how lower uranium prices could cause investors to turn away from uranium companies. This in turn could jeopardize exploration and development. As a result, future availability of supply could become an issue and ultimately slow down the so-called "nuclear renaissance."

I for one won't be disappointed if investment in dirty, open pit uranium mines in major watersheds and near population centres dries up. That would be the cleanest and greenest contribution from this industry of all.

For more from the Financial Post: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/tradingdesk/archive/2008/06/17/low-uranium-prices-could-turn-equity-markets.aspx

PS. I just read a report on Technically Uranium with Merv's site that indicates ongoing short and medium term bearishness for uranium stock values. Merv conducts technical analysis as a Chartered Market Technician and reports regularly on the market.

In his June 18 report, he says:

The trend to lower uranium prices just does not seem to end.

For more information:
http://techuranium.blogspot.com/2008/06/mervs-daily-comme

McCain Wants 45 New Nuclear Reactors and Clean Coal

Written by Max Lindberg
Published on June 18th, 2008
Posted in Politics, energy

Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.

For a lot of years, I’ve respected and admired Arizona Senator John McCain, and even though he is a Republican, he seemed to be more moderate than his right-wing compatriots.

That changed today when I read that he has proposed construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. Adding insult to injury, he told a Missouri State University audience that he’d pledge $2 billion a year in federal funds to make clean coal a reality. All in the name of reducing dependence on foreign oil and fostering a cleaner environment.

Here we go again with the nuclear crap

He tells the worn out tale of reactors being clean and non-polluting.

Interestingly, and certainly not surprisingly, he didn’t mention anything about cleaning up the messes left by earlier uranium mining. Nor did he propose on how to get rid of, store, neutralize or make safe, the huge stockpile of nuclear waste piling up every day. And let’s not forget the environmental damage to be done by mining more uranium to feed those reactors. He gave that subject the same brush-off every nuclear energy proponent does, with the statement that more needs to be done to safely transport and store spent materials.

Don’t let anyone try to tell you the in-situ leaching process is environmentally clean. Being an underground process, it has, under certain conditions, the ability to contaminate ground water.

45 more reactors and “clean coal”, what a wonderful promise for our future.

Read More Here

Is Nuclear The Answer?

From:

The Weekly Carboholic

... Nuclear advocates (disclosure: I am one) often claim that nuclear power generates no greenhouse gases (GHGs). This is true, but only on a very limited basis - the nuclear reaction that leads to the generation of electricity releases no GHGs. Unfortunately, mining uranium ore, refining it and separating usable U283 from it’s largely useless U235 isotopic cousin, and then reprocessing or storing the waste are all energy-intensive, and so hardly GHG-free. Even so, though, IPS News reported last week that the IEA has called for the construction of 1,400 new nuclear power plants between now and 2050. This would be more than three times as many plants than are operating today and would require massive new uranium mining operations.

According to the article, though, the IEA proposal has been met with downright hostility from some of the environmental community (such as Greenpeace and, as quoted in the article, the German Green Party) for one main reason - 1,400 new reactors would require spent nuclear fuel to be reprocessed into new fuel, and that’s both an environmental nightmare and a potential proliferation problem.

It’s also vital if nuclear power is going to be a bridge technology. The question is whether alternative technologies can be commercialized fast enough to make wide-scale nuclear generation unnecessary. And that’s a question that the utilities, governments, utilities, and citizens will determine over the coming years.

Read More Here

Virginia Adds 1,100 Miles of Rivers to Polluted List

If the DEQ is as far behind as it claims, with written reports and clean-up plans, is it logical to assume that it will in any way protect the waterways should uranium mining be allowed in VA?

Sue Lindsey
Tuesday, June 17, 2008


ROANOKE (AP) | About 1,100 miles of Virginia's rivers and streams have been added to a list of polluted waters in the past two years, bringing the total to 10,600 miles, state environmental regulators said Monday.

The state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) released its water quality report for this, which listed about 40 percent of the state's waters as polluted. All the major rivers, as well as the Chesapeake Bay, had "some impairment," DEQ spokesman Bill Hayden said.


"That number keeps getting larger, mainly because as we look around the state more thoroughly we find more," he said.


About one-third of the state's watersheds are assessed every two years. The agency has analyzed 95 percent of them.


(....)


The state's polluted waters - which include rivers, lakes and estuaries - require a total of 1,677 cleanup plans, the agency said. Only a couple of hundred have been developed, Mr. Hayden said. "We're very, very far behind in writing these reports," Mr. Gerel said. (emphasis mine..SB)


The DEQ also added 3,300 acres of lakes to the impaired list, bringing the total in that category to 94,000 acres. In addition, 2,200 square miles of estuaries are listed as impaired.


(....)


The Chesapeake Bay Foundation called for measures to reduce farm runoff, curb pollution from storm-water runoff and continue reductions in pollution from wastewater treatment plants. The cost of preventing the pollution is much lower than the cleanup cost, Mr. Gerel said.

Read the full article here:


My apologies for the uneven formatting at the top of this post. After an hour of trying to make adjustments, I've run out of options and thus must leave it as it is. Sorry!

Smidgen


Wednesday, June 18, 2008

“US Must Buy Uranium From Black Market to Pre-empt Terrorists’ Designs”

Posted June 18th, 2008

by
Sahil Nagpal

Washington A top intelligence official of the IAEA has reportedly said that that the US administration must buy uranium and plutonium from the black market to keep nuclear weapons away from terrorists, criminals and rogue states.


Speaking at the Washington Institute, IAEA Intelligence Director Rolf Mowatt-Larssen said that the US government was not doing enough to buy uranium and plutonium on the black market to keep weapons away from terrorists’ reach.


He said the US government assumes that terrorists or developing countries can obtain or develop a warhead on their own. “We must take urgent action to scoop up any nuclear material outside state control before terrorists do,” the Daily Times quoted him as saying.


Read the full article here



Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Just When You Thought You'd Seen It All, Along Comes Amazon.com Selling Uranium Ore!


Uranium Ore

Other products by Images SI Inc.




3.8 out of 5 stars 119 customer reviews (119 customer reviews)







1 used & new available from $29.95

Technical Details

  • We are always in compliance with Section 13 from part 40 of the NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules and regulations and Postal Service regulations specified in 49 CFR 173.421 for activity limits of low level radioactive materials. Item will be shipped in accordance with Postal Service activity limits specified in Publication 52.

Product Description

Product Description: Useful for testing Geiger Counters. License exempt. Uranium ore sample size. Radioactive sample of uranium ores vary. Shipped in labeled metal container as shown. Shipping Information: We are always in compliance with Section 13 from part 40 of the NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules and regulations and Postal Service regulations specified in 49 CFR 173.421 for activity limits of low level radioactive materials. Item will be shipped in accordance with Postal Service activity limits specified in Publication 52. Radioactive minerals are for educational and scientific use only.

See the full ad here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/product/B000796XXM/?tag=gadgandmore-20&linkCode=asn&creativeASIN=B000796XXM

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Five Myths About Nuclear Energy

By Kristin Shrader-Frechette | JUNE 23, 2008


A
tomic energy is among the most impractical and risky of available fuel sources. Private financiers are reluctant to invest in it, and both experts and the public have questions about the likelihood of safely storing lethal radioactive wastes for the required million years. Reactors also provide irresistible targets for terrorists seeking to inflict deep and lasting damage on the United States. The government’s own data show that U.S. nuclear reactors have more than a one-in-five lifetime probability of core melt, and a nuclear accident could kill 140,000 people, contaminate an area the size of Pennsylvania, and destroy our homes and health.

In addition to being risky, nuclear power is unable to meet our current or future energy needs. Because of safety requirements and the length of time it takes to construct a nuclear-power facility, the government says that by the year 2050 atomic energy could supply, at best, 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs; yet by 2020, wind and solar panels could supply at least 32 percent of U.S. electricity, at about half the cost of nuclear power. Nevertheless, in the last two years, the current U.S. administration has given the bulk of taxpayer energy subsidies—a total of $20 billion—to atomic power. Why? Some officials say nuclear energy is clean, inexpensive, needed to address global climate change, unlikely to increase the risk of nuclear proliferation and safe.

On all five counts they are wrong. Renewable energy sources are cleaner, cheaper, better able to address climate change and proliferation risks, and safer. The government’s own data show that wind energy now costs less than half of nuclear power; that wind can supply far more energy, more quickly, than nuclear power; and that by 2015, solar panels will be economically competitive with all other conventional energy technologies. The administration’s case for nuclear power rests on at least five myths. Debunking these myths is necessary if the United States is to abandon its current dangerous energy course.

Myth 1. Nuclear Energy Is Clean

The myth of clean atomic power arises partly because some sources, like a pro-nuclear energy analysis published in 2003 by several professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, call atomic power a “carbon-free source” of energy. On its Web site, the U.S. Department of Energy, which is also a proponent of nuclear energy, calls atomic power “emissions free.” At best, these claims are half-truths because they “trim the data” on emissions.

(....)


Myth 2. Nuclear Energy Is Inexpensive

Achieving greater energy efficiency, however, also requires ending the lopsided system of taxpayer nuclear subsidies that encourage the myth of inexpensive electricity from atomic power. Since 1949, the U.S. government has provided about $165 billion in subsidies to nuclear energy, about $5 billion to solar and wind together, and even less to energy-efficiency programs. All government efficiency programs—to encourage use of fuel-efficient cars, for example, or to provide financial assistance so that low-income citizens can insulate their homes—currently receive only a small percentage of federal energy monies.

(....)


Myth 3. Nuclear Energy Is Necessary to Address Climate Change


Government, industry and university studies, like those recently from Princeton, agree that wind turbines and solar panels already exist at an industrial scale and could supply one-third of U.S. electricity needs by 2020, and the vast majority of U.S. electricity by 2050—not just the 20 percent of electricity possible from nuclear energy by 2050. The D.O.E. says wind from only three states (Kansas, North Dakota and Texas) could supply all U.S. electricity needs, and 20 states could supply nearly triple those needs. By 2015, according to the D.O.E., solar panels will be competitive with all conventional energy technologies and will cost 5 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour. Shell Oil and other fossil-fuel companies agree. They are investing heavily in wind and solar.

(....)


Myth 4. Nuclear Energy Will Not Increase Weapons Proliferation

Pursuing nuclear power also perpetuates the myth that increasing atomic energy, and thus increasing uranium enrichment and spent-fuel reprocessing, will increase neither terrorism nor proliferation of nuclear weapons. This myth has been rejected by both the
International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. More nuclear plants means more weapons materials, which means more targets, which means a higher risk of terrorism and proliferation. The government admits that Al Qaeda already has targeted U.S. reactors, none of which can withstand attack by a large airplane. Such an attack, warns the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, could cause fatalities as far away as 500 miles and destruction 10 times worse than that caused by the nuclear accident at Chernobyl in 1986.

(....)

Myth 5. Nuclear Energy Is Safe

Proponents of nuclear energy, like Patrick Moore, cofounder of Greenpeace, and the former Argonne National Laboratory adviser Steve Berry, say that new reactors will be safer than current ones—“meltdown proof.” Such safety claims also are myths. Even the 2003 M.I.T. energy study predicted that tripling civilian nuclear reactors would lead to about four core-melt accidents. The government’s Sandia National Laboratory calculates that a nuclear accident could cause casualties similar to those at Hiroshima or Nagasaki: 140,000 deaths. If nuclear plants are as safe as their proponents claim, why do utilities need the U.S. Price-Anderson Act, which guarantees utilities protection against 98 percent of nuclear-accident liability and transfers these risks to the public? All U.S. utilities refused to generate atomic power until the government established this liability limit. Why do utilities, but not taxpayers, need this nuclear-liability protection?

(....)

Where Do We Go From Here?

...Many renewable energy sources are safe and inexpensive, and they inflict almost no damage on people or the environment. Why is the current U.S. administration instead giving virtually all of its support to a riskier, more costly nuclear alternative?


This is a very abbreviated form of this interesting article. Please read the full article here

(Our thanks to our friend Phil for sending).

You Can't Hide From Radiation

The following editorial is being submitted to the local media. We hope people will take heed!

If anyone doubts that low-level radioactive dust, from uranium mining and milling, would not drift to Chatham and Danville, they should consider the heavy, acrid smoke that blew in over our area this past Thursday. The source? Smoke-filled winds from wildfires in the N.C. Outer Banks and Suffolk, VA.
With visible, smoked-filled skies, folks were wise to stay inside their homes to avoid breathing in the particulate-laden smoke while it remained heavy in the area-- making the state's Air Quality Index's level of yellow, second of a six-level color chart.
Question: Where do folks go to escape low-level radioactive dust that will be in the atmosphere for the next 30 years? Virginia Uranium, Inc. has given this estimate of time it will mine and mill uranium on the Coles Hill Farm near Chatham, VA. Sadly, the low-level radioactive dust created by open-pit uranium mining (through successive TNT blasts) and milling (the grinding of mined rock into a powdery state for ore extraction) will create a continuous dust fallout--a low-level radioactive fallout, carried by the winds, onto food and water sources and into the airways of man and all other animal life. It is known that sufficient exposure (I consider 30 years to be a long exposure period) to low-level radioactive waste materials has been shown to increase the risk of cancer and other illnesses. To quote one source: "While uranium mining is most commonly associated with cancer, low level radiation is also implicated in birth defects, high infant mortality and chronic lung, eye, skin and reproductive illnesses." ( http://www.anawa.org.au/mining/problems.html)
At least with the smoke from the wildfires, folks could recognize the potential health hazard and stay indoors until the smoke had dissipated. The potential health hazards attributable to low-level radioactive-laden dust, from a uranium mining and milling facility, operating over a 30-year span, would be much harder to detect because its radioactivity is odorless, colorless and tasteless. The true health effects will come years later when it is too late to undo the damage.
Question: Do we really want to expose our beautiful state and our loved ones to the potential health hazards caused by a uranium mining and milling facility? VUI would have us believe there is no danger--don't believe it!
Anne Cockrell
Southside Concerned Citizens Member
Danville, Virginia

Friday, June 13, 2008

Packer Township, Carbon County, PA Becomes Third Community in Nation to Ban Chemical Bodily Trespass

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund
675 Mower Road
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania 17202

Packer Township, Carbon County, PA.
Bans Corporate Sewage Sludge Dumping;
Becomes Third Community in Nation to Ban Chemical Bodily Trespass;

Strips Corporations of Claim to Constitutional “Rights”

Ordinance Recognizes the Rights of Nature; Asserts Civil Rights of Residents to Sue Corporations as State Actors

CONTACT: Ben Price, Projects Director
(717) 243-6725

bengprice@aol. com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


Chambersburg, Pennsylvania (June 12, 2008) – On June 11, 2008, the Board of Supervisors for Packer Township in Carbon County, Pennsylvania, voted unanimously to enact a law that bans corporations from dumping sewage sludge as “fertilizer” and for “mine reclamation.” The Ordinance also states as a matter of law that, within the community, corporations possess no constitutional “rights,” privileges or immunities intended for people. The community included this provision as a challenge to corporate representatives who use court-bestowed constitutional “rights” and legal privileges to nullify local laws and override the legitimate rights of citizens.


Board Chairman Thomas Gerhard stated, "We felt that it was in the best interests of the residents to adopt the ordinance."


In adopting the law, Packer Township became the third local government in the country to define liability and impose penalties for chemical bodily trespass, following the lead of the Town of Halifax, Virginia, and Mahanoy Township in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania


The people of Packer Township also included a provision that recognizes the right of natural communities and ecosystems to exist and flourish within the Township, joining nine other communities that have asserted environmental protection as an enforceable right rather than a matter of discretionary convenience.


The Packer Township law (1) Bans corporations from engaging in the land application of sewage sludge; 2) Bans persons from using corporations to engage in the land application of sewage sludge; 3) Provides for the testing of sewage sludge prior to land application by individuals, with testing costs to be borne by the applicant; 4) Prohibits chemical bodily trespass upon residents of the Township; 5) Establishes strict liability and burden of proof standards for chemical trespass; 6) Removes claims to legal rights and protections from corporations within the Township; 7) Recognizes and provides for enforcement of rights of residents, natural communities and ecosystems; 8) Subordinates sludge hauling and disposing corporations to the People of Packer Township; 9) Adopts Pennsylvania regulations as locally enforceable concerning the land application of sewage sludge by individuals.


In the Ordinance, the Township Board of Supervisors declared that if state and federal agencies – or corporate managers – attempt to invalidate the Ordinance, a Township-wide public meeting would be hosted to determine additional steps to expand local control and self-governance within the Township.


The Ordinance was adopted following an attempt by nearby Tamaqua Borough’s Council Member Cathy Miorelli to investigate the dumping of over thirty loads of sludge uphill from the Still Creek Reservoir in Packer Township. The reservoir is the source of drinking water for surrounding communities, including Tamaqua.


Ms. Miorelli said that when she contacted the state’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) she hit a roadblock. "I asked [Tim Craven, the DEP representative] if the substance was permitted. He said he didn't know and it would be pretty difficult for him to find out." Craven then suggested the Council Member contact the land owner, but Ms. Miorelli advised the DEP rep that suchan investigation seemed to be his responsibility. Pressing the issue, she was able to convince Mr. Craven to contact the land-owner, and in a follow-up call was told the land owner reported the substance to be “lime.”


According to a Times-News report “Everything changed on April 2, when Miorelli got a phone call from Craven, apologizing to her and saying that she in fact was correct and it was biosolid material [a PR term for sewage sludge developed by industry and adopted by state and federal agencies] from Philipsburg, N.J. that was dumped in the fields.

Mayor Christian Morrison took issue with the fact that the DEP officials apparently lied and did not perform the appropriate inspections. This community has lost faith in DEP and this just doesn't help,’ he said.”


Ben Price, Projects Director for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, the organization that helped draft the Packer Township Ordinance said, “Once again, the people living within Pennsylvania municipalities have concluded that they must rely on themselves, and assert their right to govern locally on issues that directly impact the local community and environment. In the face of an apparent State policy of covering up and enabling waste hauling corporations to wield unjust law against Pennsylvanians and profit at the expense of our communities, Pennsylvanians are standing up.”


Passage of this Ordinance is especially significant at this time, since the Pennsylvania Attorney General is suing neighboring East Brunswick Township for adopting a similar Ordinance. Acting as private litigator for agribusiness and sludge corporations, under authority of a State statute lobbied for heavily by these industries, the PA Attorney General recently filed a legal brief requesting the court overturn East Brunswick’s Ordinance without giving the community its day in court. In that brief, the top law enforcement officer in Pennsylvania made this unequivocal statement his core argument for nullifying the local law: “There is no inalienable right to local self-government.”


It’s a point of view we see played out every day in communities across Pennsylvania and the United States. By enacting their new Ordinance, the community government of Packer Township has outshone its State counterpart by recognizing that the consent of the governed is a prerequisite for just governments and law.


The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, located in Chambersburg, has been working with people in Pennsylvania since 1995 to assert their fundamental rights to democratic self-governance, and to enact laws which end destructive and rights-denying corporate action aided and abetted by state and federal governments.