Sacred Land, Poisoned Peoples: Shared Stories of Nuclear Cycle: Uranium Mining

Comment:  Thanks Dr. Edwards for the update!

From: Gordon Edwards

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

Statement of the Pre-Congress: ´Sacred Land, Poisoned Peoples´ to the 19th IPPNW World Congress

Read by Rebecca Wingfield-Bear (Australia) and Charmaine White Face (USA) to the Closing Plenary, August 29, 2010, at the University of Basel, in Basel, Switzerland.

Indigenous Peoples and their representatives attending the Pre-Congress ´Sacred Land, Poisoned Peoples´, at this critical time of intensifying destruction to Mother Earth and human health by nuclear resource development, have gathered and shared stories of resistance to uranium mining across the globe.

From Canada and the USA to Niger, Mali, Namibia, Tanzania and Malawi, from Russia, Germany, Australia, Brazil and India, communities facing dramatic impacts from this toxic industry have come together in unity.

Past, present and future generations of Indigenous Peoples are disproportionately impacted by uranium mining, nuclear weapons and the nuclear power industry. The nuclear fuel chain radio-actively contaminates our peoples´health, land, air and waters, and threatens our very existence and our future generations.

Uranium mining, nuclear energy development and international agreements that foster the nuclear fuel chain violate our basic human rights and fundamental natural laws of Mother Earth, endangering our survival and spiritual well-being.

The dangerous health impacts of radioactive exposure begin with uranium mining.

We reaffirm the Declaration of the World Uranium Hearing in Salzburg, Austria, in 1992, that uranium and its radio-active decay products must remain in the ground.

We stand in solidarity with those working for an end to uranium mining and processing, irresponsible radioactive waste management, nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

We dedicate ourselves to a nuclear free future for all people.

NAVAL NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS: The Secret Story

Greenpeace
VOLUME 14 - NUMBER 4
JULY/AUGUST 1989 -


NAVAL NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS:

The Secret Story

By William M. Arkin and Joshua Handler

Until recently, the safety record of the world's nuclear navies has been by all accounts exemplary. Dozens of nuclear-propelled ships and submarines, many carrying nuclear warheads, routinely travel the oceans and visit ports, apparently without incident. The tragic explosion abord the USS Iowa, and the explosion, fire and eventual sinking of the Soviet Mike class submarine near Norway last April perhaps have raised concerns about the perilous nature of maritime military activities. But they have not shaken the general sense of nuclear safety at sea.

In 1988, Greenpeace and the Institute for Policy Studies bagan to look into the Navy's record. Using public documents and Freedom of Information Act requests, we have discovered that in addition to the hundreds of minor collisions, fires and other mishaps that have become part of the public record, there is another log of incidents, a secret history, that has remained hidden.

The recent spate of accidents, it appears, is not unusual. Rather, they are the latest in a long line of nuclear-related mishaps that goes back to the 1950s, when naval nuclear propulsion and weaponry first became widely used.

Overall, the study shows, the world's navies have experienced at least 1,200 major accidents, which have resulted in dozens of ship sinkings, hundreds of explosions and fires, costly repairs and loss of life.

The accidents have occurred in shipyards and ports, in harbors and coastal waters and on the high seas throughout the world. And they have left an astounding by-product: 50 nuclear war heads and nine nuclear reactors lying on the ocean floor. It could be said that the world's sixth largest nuclear "power," after the United States, the Soviet Union, France, the United Kingdom and China, is the deep blue sea.

Gathering this material has been difficult. The world's nuclear navies are not eager for their mishaps to become public knowledge. This reticence is part political calculation and part hubris.

At stake for the rest of us is something far more important. With major naval accidents occurring at the rate of roughly one each week since the dawn of the nuclear age, it is remarkable that a major disaster involving large populations has not occurred. Nuclear-armed and propelled ships of all flags are in dozens of ports around the world simultaneously.

Rather than repudiate the critics, the fourdecade record of nuclear near-disasters at sea underscores the lengths that nuclear navies will go to deceive both allied and domestic polities and raises significant questions about the public trust. A case in point:

The Belknap Disaster

On November 22, 1975, during night exercises, the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy collided with the cruiser USS Belknap in rough seas 70 miles east of Sicily. The collision caused major damage to both ships, with the Belknap's superstructure wedged underneath the overhanging flight deck of the carrier. The carrier's fuel lines were ruptured, raining gasoline over the deck of the Belknap. A raging fire punctuated with explosions lasted for more than two hours.

The collision is one of the best-known naval accidents ever, but in all the documentation, no mention has ever been made of the nuclear weapons present aboard both ships, or the grave danger the Navy believed the nuclear warheads aboard the Belknap faced as a result of the fires.

Minutes after the incident occurred, the commander of Carrier Striking Forces for the Sixth Fleet sent a secret nuclear weapons accident message, a "broken arrow," to the Pentagon, warning of the "high probability that nuclear weapons aboard the Belknap were involved in fire and explosions." He had good reason for concern. Much of the firefighting equipment aboard the Belknap was destroyed by the collision, and the aluminum superstructure of the ship actually caught fire, melting and running "like hot butter" in the words of one U.S. Navy journalist. Fortunately for a large area of Italy and the Mediterranean, the fire was brought under control a scant 30 feet from the missile magazine.

The reason for the secrecy was highly political. It relates to the U.S. Navy's policy of "neither confirming nor denying" the presence of nuclear weapons aboard its ships. If they had admitted that the Belknap and the Kennedy were carrying nuclear warheads, the Navy would be forced to deal with the controversy, if not the restrictions, that could accompany port calls at nations that are not eager to have nuclear weapons introduced into their territory. For these reasons, the U.S. Navy has never before confirmed the presence of nuclear weapons aboard the ships.

According to the record, the nuclear weep ons were aboard both ships as they patrolled the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Soon after the collision, the nuclear weapons aboard the Belknap were transferred to the USS Mount Baker, a munitions ship that promptly departed for courtesy calls to Italy and then Toulon, France, before returning to the United States.

Was the Belknap a unique and isolated incident? Hardly. The record shows that it was perhaps the most dramatic of an otherwise commonplace event. In fact, one of the ships that steamed to the aid of the Belknap, the nuclear-capable frigate USS Bordelon, also collided with the USS John I: Kennedy a year later, 75 miles north of Scotland. The ASROC container, where nuclear weapons would normally be held, was nearly crushed. And that same morning, incidentally- a U.S. Navy Tomcat fighter rolled off the Kennedy's flight deck and sank in the North Sea.

The USS Ticonderoga

In 1981, the Department of Defense admitted there had been a nuclear weapons accident 15 years earlier. The entire confession read as follows: "At Sea, Pacific: An A-4 aircraft loaded with one nuclear weapon rolled off the elevator of a U.S. aircraft carrier and fell into the sea. The pilot, aircraft and equipment were lost. The incident occurred more than 500 miles from land."

What actually happened is far more politically explosive. In December 1965, the aircraft carrier USS Ticonderoga left bombing operations off the coast of North Vietnam and headed for Yokosuka, Japan, where crew and officers would get a rest. On December 5, an A4-E Skyhawk attack jet rolled off an elevator and sank, with the pilot and one B43 thermonuclear bomb, into 16,000 feet of water. The ship was indeed 500 miles from land—mainland China. In between the accident site and the Chinese mainland, however, lay miles of open ocean and one of the Pacific's most adamantly antinuclear nations, Japan. The nearest point of land, part of the Ryukyu island chain, was a scant 80 miles away.

The Navy kept the true details of the accident a secret not only because it would demonstrate its disregard for the policies of foreign governments (Japan prohibits the "introduction" of nuclear weapons into its territory), but because of the questions the incident would raise about the presence of nuclear weapons in the Vietnam War. Even as the revelations convulsed Japan and prompted it to demand an official explanation from the United States, the Pentagon was downplaying the story, declaring it "old news." They even argued initially that the ship was in fact steaming toward Vietnam, and therefore Japan's anti-nuclear stance had not been violated.

The "neither confirm nor deny" (NCND) policy hangs like a cloud over naval history. The tragic sinking of the U.S. Navy attack submarine USS Scorpion, for example, in which 99 crewmen died, is described in full by the Department of Defense this way: "Spring 1968/At Sea, Atlantic: Details remain classified." However, it is well known that the Scorpion sank 400 miles southeast of the Azores in more than 10,000 feet of water. What the Navy is trying to hide is that the ship carried two nuclear torpedoes.

Nuclear accidents of this kind are common enough, according to our research, to be of real concern. On August 18,1959, for example, the aircraft carrier USS Wasp had a major fire that required flooding the forward ammunition stores. Foam was pumped through the flight deck, and the crew prepared to flood the nuclear weapons storage spaces. But the commanding officer never gave the command, as the fire was finally brought under control.

On January 19, 1966, a W45 nuclear warhead separated from a Terrier surface-to-air missile during loading aboard the cruiser USS Luce and fell eight feet, dented but unbreached. This incident made it onto the "Chronology of Nuclear Accident Statements" released by the Department of Defense in 1968, but it sank from view soon thereafter and was conspicuously absent from a register of nuclear weapons accidents released in April 1981. The list goes on.

The Uncontrollable Fire

By 1983, when the Fund for Constitutional Government published a report by David Kaplan entitled "The Nuclear Navy," the U.S. Navy prepared a response that stated,

"there has never been an accident in the history of the U.S. Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program....The safety of the Navy's nuclearpowered warships is on the record .... The Navy stands unequivocally behind that record."

This statement is repeated annually in the Navy's testimony before the U.S. Congress. "As of spring of 1989," the service declared recently, "the Navy has had over 3,500 reactor years of operation without a reactor accident."

Not so. On April 21, 1973, the nuclearpowered attack submarine USS Guardfish leaked its primary coolant while running submerged about 370 miles south southwest of Puget Sound, Washington. The submarine, according to records recently uncovered, "surfaced, ventilated, decontaminated and repaired the casualty [accident] unassisted." Four crew members were taken to the Puget Sound Naval Hospital for radioactive monitoring. The event was never reported in the media, and other official documents about the Guardfish do not acknowledge that an accident occurred. Even the deck log reports nothing unusual, indicating that it was falsified at the time of the accident.

How many other reactor leaks have occurred and remained unreported? The U.S. Navy admits to only one: a primary coolant leak aboard the USS Nimitz on May 11, 1979. According to our research, however, the attack submarine USS Swordfish suffered a propulsion "casualty" of unknown cause on November 24, 1985. There are enough rumors of other mishaps to seriously question the Navy's claim of a nearly unblemished record.

Close Calls

In 1965, a pilot, a plane and a nuclear warhead pitched off the deck of the USS Ticonderoga only 80 miles from antinuclear Japan. Water pressure broke apart the plutonium warhead a few minutes later, but it took 24 years for the news to reach Tokyo.

The 1975 collision between the USS Belknap and the USS John F. Kennedy threatened to scatter plutonium across southern Italy, Sicily and beyond.

The USS Guardfish suffered a reactor accident in 1973. Four sailors were contaminated.

NUCLEAR BOMBS AND REACTORS ON THE OCEAN FLOOR

March 10, 1956: A U.S. Air Force B-47 bomber carrying two capsules of nuclear materials for nuclear bombs en route from Florida to Europe, fails to meet its aerial refueling plane over the Mediterranean Sea. Presumed lost.

April 18, 1959: The U.S. Navy dumps reactor vessel and reactor plant components of the USS Seawolf into 9,000 feet of water, about 120 miles off the Maryland coast.

June 4, 1962: A nuclear test device atop a Thor rocket booster falls into the Pacific Ocean near Johnston Atoll after malfunctioning. Part of the United States' first high-altitude atmospheric nuclear test attempt.

June 20, 1962: A second attempt to detonate a nuclear device in the atmosphere fails when a Thor booster is destroyed over Johnston Atoll, and the nuclear device falls into the Pacific Ocean.

April 10, 1963:The nuclear-powered USS Thresherimplodes and sinks 100 miles east of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, in approximately 8,500 feet of water, killing all 129 aboard, including 17 civilian observers.

JUST THE FACTS, PLEASE

In 1981, when U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) officials first reported the loss of a nuclear bomb off the deck of the USS Ticonderoga, they said it was lost 500 miles from land.

 After Greenpeace and the Institute for Policy Studies revealed in May that the accident occurred only 80 miles from Japanese held islands in the Ryukyu chain, DOD insisted that the initial report was not in error: it was 500 miles from land—the Asian mainland—and in any case, the nearest Japanese landfall was only "a very small island in that chain,' according to DOD spokesman Dan Howard. Does that mean, one reporter attending the May 9 press conference remarked, "if we lose [a bomb] in Manila Harbor, you are going to say it's 3,000 miles from San Francisco?"

Inquisitive reporters also asked whether the Ticonderoga, the ship that lost the bomb, was bound for Japan: "Wasn't the carrier en route to Japan? And wouldn't that have violated Japanese law [against nuclear weapons in its territory]?" Howard replied that "the carrier was en route to Vietnam . . . at the time"

But Howard evidently cannot tell bow from stern. According to the ship's logs, which were obtained by Greenpeace, the ship was sailing from Vietnam to Japan. And the ship, minus one of its nuclear weapons, subsequently docked in Tokyo Bay.

Besides misrepresenting the ship's location and direction, the Pentagon also proved reluctant to part with information about the bomb. Howard told reporters that the loss of a one-megaton bomb containing five pounds of plutonium posed "no danger to anyone" But the Japanese were not reassured and asked U.S. officials to prepare a report, which was delivered four days later.

This time, DOD admitted that the intense water pressure would have imploded the bomb before it reached bottom (some 16,000 feet at the site of the accident), "exposing nuclear material to the hydrosphere" The question arises, at what depth did the deadly plutonium begin dispersing? 500 feet? Without elaborating, DOD maintains. there would be "no environmental

Read more:
http://www.prop1.org/2000/accident/1989/8907a1.htm

Poison (radioactive) gas leak cover up

Comment:  Aussie Gov't, take care of your people and this is dangerous!

By LINDA SILMALIS
The Sunday Telegraph
August 29, 2010 12:12AM

POTENTIALLY dangerous radioactive gases have been secretly pumped into the atmosphere from Lucas Heights and have spread hundreds of kilometres from the nuclear reactor - but the public have never been told.

The release of the highly volatile radioxenon over several months last year was so concentrated that the plumes were detected in Melbourne up to two days later.

Other plumes were dragged out to sea by winds before drifting back over Sydney.

The Sunday Telegraph understands the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) decided against releasing a public statement at the time to avoid causing alarm.

Scientists at a nuclear testing station in Melbourne traced the source of the radioactive gases to Sydney after they picked up 10 specific events between November, 2008 and February last year.

Read more:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/poison-gas-leak-cover-up/story-e6freuy9-1225911290955

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant v/s Wind Power, Solar Power

Comment:  Help CA with their nuke fight!

Oil spilling in the Gulf of Mexico;

Earthquake uncertainty on our coast;

Regulators asleep at the switch. . .

More than ever, the call to change our energy supply from one that endangers to one that is truly renewable, clean and safe must be answered.

Now, IMAGINE this new vision for energy production in California. . .

The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility invites you take the “quiz” below and then visit our web site to for an action letter you can send!

CAN YOU SPOT ALL OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THESE TWO PICTURES?

Here are two photos of the California coast at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.

The top picture shows the facility today, with its aging nuclear reactors that use nearly one billion gallons of seawater for cooling every day. The picture below it helps us imagine a bold vision of future energy generation in California. We can make it a reality.

HINT: Here are a few of the differences….

WIND TURBINES A recent map prepared by the California Energy Commission shows that this area has the highest coastal wind potential in San Luis Obispo County.

SOLAR PANELS Covering the buildings, parking lots, and flat land areas. These are steps that PG&E could be taking today…Transmission lines are already in place!

WAVE ENERGY Generated by the orange buoys in the foreground.

SOLAR THERMAL Parabolic solar mirrors where the reactors domes used to be…and by using closed-loop cooling, the sea cove remains calm and free of thermally heated waters discharged from the reactors…it’s ocean-friendly!

Why take the risks? PG&E spent $46 million on their failed ballot initiative, Prop 16. For that same money, they could have purchased 30 megawatts of wind turbines. Why throw our ratepayer dollars into last century’s technology? We can all encourage our legislators and utilities to bring us the clean, safe and truly renewable energy economy of the future.

Take action now! Click www.a4nr.org/ActionLetter  to download your action letter and find out more how you can help.

Read more:
http://a4nr.org/

Virginia to Receive Nearly $7.5 Million to Expand the State’s Successful Weatherization Program

August 26th, 2010
For Immediate Release:
Thursday, August 26, 2010
News Media Contact:
(202) 586-4940

State has already weatherized more than 3,200 homes under the Recovery Act

Washington, DC – U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced today that Virginia has been selected to receive nearly $7.5 million in additional funding to continue the state’s success and innovation under the Weatherization Assistance Program. Virginia is increasing its efforts under the Recovery Act’s weatherization program and is continuing to accelerate the pace of weatherization in the state. As of June 30, Virginia has already weatherized more than 3,200 homes under the Recovery Act.

Virginia’s efforts are contributing to the success of the program nationwide. Vice President Biden announced at a weatherization event today that more than 200,000 low-income homes have been weatherized across the country. After ramping up last year, the Weatherization Assistance Program is now weatherizing homes at its optimal rate – approximately 25,000 homes per month. In June, states reported that nearly 31,800 homes were weatherized with Recovery Act funding – the most ever in a month. This summer alone, more than 80,000 homes will be weatherized across the country.
“Thanks to the Recovery Act, thousands of construction workers across the country are now on the job making energy-saving home improvements that will save working families hundreds of dollars a year on their utility bills,” said Vice President Biden. “From replacing windows and doors to adding insulation, these are small changes that are making a big difference for American workers, manufacturer and consumers. We’ve hit the accelerator on the weatherization program, making over 200,000 homes more energy-efficient already, and are now full-speed ahead to meet our original target of weatherizing 600,000 homes nationwide.

“The weatherization program is successfully delivering energy and cost savings for American families while helping to rebuild our economy,” said Secretary Chu. “These investments in energy efficiency under the Recovery Act are putting thousands of people to work in Virginia and across the country as part of our clean energy future.”

Three high-performing local weatherization agencies in Richmond, Abingdon, and Roanoke have been selected to receive $4.5 million in Recovery Act funding to install various energy efficiency technologies, such as high-performance hot water systems, geothermal heating and cooling systems and cool roofs, in low-income homes. The award selections were part of nearly $90 million in awards announced nationally to complement and expand existing weatherization programs and deliver even greater energy bill savings for local families. More information about the awards is available:

In addition to the $4.5 million Recovery Act award, the City of Danville’s Weatherization Pilot Program has been selected to receive more than $1 million to partner with Vermont Energy Investment Corporation to combine public education, community outreach, and mobilization with financing through a municipal loan program for rental property owners, and training for contractors.

The Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP), based in Charlottesville, has also been selected to receive nearly $1.9 million to demonstrate energy efficiency and water conservation improvements in low-income multifamily housing, and how additional efficiency gains can be achieved through a comprehensive tenant engagement program. These two awards are part of nearly $30 million in awards to forge a new range of weatherization partnerships and implement groundbreaking, innovative delivery and financing models, technologies, and services, further accelerating DOE’s effort to build a sustainable, residential energy efficiency industry.

The weatherization program is also creating thousands of jobs locally – putting carpenters, electricians, and factory workers back to work installing insulation, upgrading appliances, and improving heating and cooling systems. According to state reports, the Recovery Act Weatherization Assistance Program supported more than 13,000 jobs in the second quarter of 2010, including approximately 150 jobs in Virginia. These workers are receiving training in energy upgrades that will help form the foundation for a sustainable energy efficiency industry in America that can extend to the more than 100 million middle-class homes that stand to benefit from weatherization.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program helps low-income families save energy and money by improving the energy efficiency of their homes. According to a recent study by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, weatherization services save families an average of more than $400 in energy costs during the first year after home retrofits are installed.

Read more:
http://wiseenergyforvirginia.org/2010/08/virginia-to-receive-nearly-75-million-to-expand-the-state%E2%80%99s-successful-weatherization-program/

http://www.energy.gov/news/9363.htm

ActNow! Don't React Later: No to Nuke and Uranium Mining

ActNow! is a new campaign of Beyond Nuclear designed to avert an atomic catastrophe similar - or possibly even worse - than the oil disaster unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. Just like the U.S. Minerals Management Service that failed to oversee Big Oil, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows the nuclear industry to cut safety margins. Lax oil industry oversight is destroying the Gulf. Lax nuclear industry oversight could cost countless lives today, threaten human health for generations, and leave vast areas of our country uninhabitable indefinitely. That’s exactly the outcome we work every day at Beyond Nuclear to prevent. And that's why we've created our new ActNow! campaign.


Please join ActNow! today. Call the White House (202-456-1111) and Congress (202-224-3121) and ask them to:

Block all funding for new nuclear facilities and uranium mines!


Phase out existing reactors!


Conduct a full investigation of the NRC!

Then write to your Congresspeople enclosing our Common Dreams oped on this issue. The article cites specific examples where the NRC has overtly supported industry safety shortcuts, failed to enforce its own safety regulations or allowed industry self-reporting.

Finally, please sign the petition below which will be delivered to the White House and every House and Senate office on September 7. And please forward this link and ask your friends and colleagues to sign, too.

Thank you.

The Beyond Nuclear team

Yes, I want to see an investigation of NRC! No loan guarantees or taxpayer subsidies for more nuclear facilities! Phase out the existing U.S. nuclear reactors! Our country needs clean, safe renewable energy and energy efficiency, not dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear power.

Please click the link below to send your reply and stop any monies to the Nuke Cylce and the NRC:

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/actnow/

Regional groups voice concerns over uranium study committee

Comments: Most of the NAS picks are nukes and uranium mining corporations; really use someone from Areva, NUKES, looks like VUI who paid for the study is getting his way with the pro nuke groups! No to nuke power and no to uranium mining!

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 8:55 AM EDT

The Roanoke and Dan River basin associations want the National Academy of Sciences to investigate the backgrounds and professional relationships of several appointees to a provisional committee that will study uranium mining in Virginia.

In addition, the associations asked the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, which is overseeing the study, to recruit additional members with expertise in hydrology, geo-hydrology, human health, and post-mining tailings management to serve on the committee.

Two national environmental groups, Clean Water Action and Natural Resources Defense Council, have raised similar concerns about the study committee as well.

Study contract

The National Research Council signed a contract for the long-awaited study with Virginia Tech in February.

The university will serve as a conduit for funding from Virginia Uranium Inc., which has agreed to pay for the $1.4 million study.

Virginia Uranium announced plans three years ago to explore mining uranium at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham.

Discovered in the early 1980s, the uranium deposit is one of the largest in the United States and is worth an estimated $7 billion.

The study will take about 18 months. A final report is due Dec. 1, 2011.

The National Research Council named a 13-member provisional committee for the study in July.

Proposed members include Dr. Joaquin Ruiz, University of Arizona; Dr. Corby G. Anderson, Colorado School of Mines; Dr. Lawrence W. Barnthouse, LWB Environmental Services Inc.; Dr. Scott C. Brooks, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Dr. Patricia A. Buffler, University of California, Berkeley; Dr. Michel Cuney, National Center for Scientific Research; and Dr. Peter L. deFur, Environmental Stewardship Concept.

Other members are Dr. Mary R. English, University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Dr. R. William Field, University of Iowa College of Public Health; Dr. Jill Lipoti, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Dr. Paul A. Locke, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Henry Schnell, Areva Inc.; and Dr. Jeffrey J. Wong, California Environmental Protection Agency.

"Unfortunately, it appears that several members of the provisional committee may have conflicts of interest that could significantly impair their objectivity and further damage the credibility of this study in the eyes of the public," the associations said in comments to the National Academy of Sciences.

Conflicts of interest

Four members - Dr. Corby G. Anderson, Dr. Lawrence W. Barnthouse, Dr. Michel Cuney and Henry Schnell - were singled out for scrutiny.

Anderson, according to the regional groups, serves as a trustee for the Northwest Mining Association, a trade association whose stated purpose is to represent and inform members on legislative, regulatory and technical issues, support and advance the mineral resource and related industries, and foster and promote economic opportunity.

"In addition, to the best of our knowledge, Anderson routinely undertakes contracted projects for global industrial client projects, including serving as an expert witness in mining litigation," the associations said.

Anderson also serves on the board of directors of Phoenix Minerals Inc. and is president and chief operating officer of Getty Copper Inc.

Barnthouse is an owner of LWB Environmental Services Inc., a consulting company that provides ecological risk assessments and risk-based environmental restoration planning.

Among his clients, the associations pointed out, are large law firms that represent clients from all over the country in environmental litigation and environmental regulatory proceedings.

"This appears to indicate that Dr. Barnthouse serves as an expert witness for those law firms and their companies on the issues that are the subject matter of the uranium mining study," they said.

Cuney's industry consultation includes work for major uranium mining companies, such as Areva and Uranor Inc., and Schnell is employed by Areva NC Inc., a multinational company that owns and operates uranium mines in many parts of the world, including North America.

Study's impact

The study was commissioned by the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy's Uranium Mining Subcommittee, and will examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health, safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing.

The General Assembly is expected to use the findings to determine whether to lift a moratorium on uranium mining that has been in place since 1982, the river associations said.

In addition to Pittsylvania County, companies have shown interest in uranium in Culpeper, Fauquier, Franklin, Floyd, Henry, Madison, Nelson, Orange, and Patrick counties, and leased mineral rights on approximately 50,000 acres in the 1980s.

Downstream, counties and municipalities whose drinking water could be affected by uranium mill tailings include Brunswick, Fairfax, Halifax, Mecklenburg, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and communities in North Carolina, the associations said.

"Given the controversial nature of the issue and the potential impact on the entire state of Virginia and the communities in neighboring North Carolina, it is especially important that this uranium mining study is performed by a well-balanced and objective panel of scientists and experts who are free of any obligations to entities that may either benefit from or be disadvantaged by the findings of this study," said Katherine Mull, executive director of the Dan River Basin Association.

Gene Addesso, vice president of the Roanoke River Basin Association, agreed.

"Uranium mining has a potential of affecting many communities and their water supply in Virginia and North Carolina, and it is the National Academies' responsibility to ensure that the study process is conducted in a most transparent manner with an ample opportunity for public comment," he said.

Read more:
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2010/08/25/chatham/news/news50.txt#blogcomments

Nuclear power plant to be dismantled

24 August 2010 - Exelon has reached an agreement with EnergySolutions, a Salt Lake City nuclear services company, to dismantle the Zion Nuclear Power Station, which was permanently shut down in 1998.

The $1 billon project is said to be the largest dismantling project ever undertaken in the U.S and is expected to take 10 years to complete.

The Zion Nuclear Plant is home to an estimated 1,000 tons of radioactive materials, including spent fuel rods. EnergySolutions will dispose of all low-level radioactive waste as its Clive, Utah waste facility.

Throughout the process, Exelon will retain ownership of the plant's used nuclear fuel, which must remain on the property in NRC-approved dry cask storage containers.

Read more:
http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/1342072522/articles/powergenworldwide/nuclear/waste-and-decommissioning/2010/08/Exelon-to-dismantle-Zion-plant.html

Hot Tennessee River costs TVA millions of dollars

Associated Press

08/23/10 3:15 PM EDTCHATTANOOGA, TENN. — The Tennessee Valley Authority has cut power generation in half at its largest nuclear plant to avoid overheating the Tennessee River in Alabama, costing the utility millions of dollars.

The Chattanooga Times Free Press reports the nation's largest public utility has already lost nearly $50 million in power generation at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant near Athens, Ala. Unless the summer cools down, TVA could lose more, pushing up fuel costs and consumer electric bills even after seven straight monthly increases.

TVA executives said the Browns Ferry Plant has operated at about half power for most of the past month and could remain slowed down through September.

TVA President Tom Kilgore said "all the radiant heat gets in the river when you have a summer as hot as this has been."

TVA has reduced power production at Browns Ferry at least 39 days since July 8 because of the high river temperature.

Last week, TVA violated its permit with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management when the river temperature topped 90 degrees.

The cutback means TVA is losing 1,500 megawatts of power generation just when it's needed most. For each day of 50 percent power at Browns Ferry, the utility spends more than $1 million extra to pay for replacement power, utility executives said. The extra cost is added to ratepayer bills in the monthly fuel cost adjustment, which is up by more than 25 percent since March.

Two coal-fired TVA plants Cumberland, west of Nashville, and Colbert, near Muscle Shoals, Ala. have also had production slowdowns this summer but not as much as Browns Ferry.

During a public hearing before the TVA board last week, anti-nuclear activist Margaret Klein, of Knoxville, said nuclear plants are bound to encounter more thermal problems on the Tennessee River as global warming raises river temperatures.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/breaking/hot-tennessee-river-costs-tva-millions-of-dollars-101297184.html#ixzz0xZeTG9UI

Nuclear Plant’s Use of River Water Prompts $1.1 Billion Debate

August 23, 2010
By MATTHEW L. WALD

BUCHANAN, N.Y. — Just beneath the wind-stippled surface of the Hudson River here, huge pipes suck enough water into the Indian Point nuclear plant every second to fill three Olympic swimming pools. And each second they take in dozens of organisms — fish and crabs, but mostly larvae — that are at the center of a $1.1 billion debate: should the plant have to put in cooling towers that would vastly reduce the intake of water?

Yes, says New York State, which puts the annual death toll at nearly a billion organisms and is withholding a water permit that the plant would need to extend its initial 40-year operating license.

No, says Entergy, the plant owner, which argues that more fish could be saved by installing a different water-intake system. It warns that, if built, the cooling towers would pump tons of pollution into the air of New York’s northern suburbs — and that Westchester County already fails to meet national air quality standards for particulates.

But as with all things nuclear, the dispute transcends the issue immediately at hand, and some question whether the debate is really about water. New York State argued recently before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that Indian Point poses such a safety risk that its two reactors should be shut down when their licenses expire in 2013 and 2015.

Read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/science/earth/23cooling.html?_r=2#

Fukushima reactor receives MOX

Comment:  Japan:  Use more Wind mills and stop shoving nukes down the Japanese families!
Monday, Aug. 23, 2010

FUKUSHIMA (Kyodo) Tokyo Electric Power Co. on Saturday loaded a nuclear reactor in Fukushima Prefecture with MOX, a controversial fuel made with reprocessed plutonium and uranium oxides, as it prepares to become the leading power utility's first facility to go pluthermal.

The No. 3 reactor at Tepco's Fukushima No. 1 plant will be the nation's third pluthermal facility, but only the first to be refurbished since the plant was built 34 years ago.

Tokyo Electric plans to activate the reactor on Sept. 18 and let it start generating electricity on Sept. 23.

Read more:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100823a7.html

A Quarter Century after Chernobyl Radioactive Boar on the Rise in Germany

As Germany's wild boar population has skyrocketed in recent years, so too has the number of animals contaminated by radioactivity left over from the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown.

Government payments compensating hunters for lost income due to radioactive boar have quadrupled since 2007.

Read more:
http://nuclearfreeplanet.org/categories/environment.html

Uranium study committee comments continue by the NAS (beginning of

By Tara Bozick
Published: August 20, 2010

The public can still comment on the provisional committee chosen to uranium study

The National Research Council chose 13 people after a nomination process. The NRC and National Academy of Sciences opened a 20-day period that closed this past week for the public to comment on the selections.

Yet, the public can still comment on the provisional committee up until its first meeting, which hasn’t been scheduled, said Jennifer Walsh, NRC/NAS spokeswoman.

The public is free to share information about the study throughout the process by e-mailing study director David Feary.

More than 120 people from Virginia and across the country collectively wanted the public comment period extended to allow all Virginia residents time to provide input on the provisional committee. They also requested public hearings also be conducted in all locations that could be affected by uranium mining.

“This is a whole state issue. This is not just Coles Hill,” said Jack Dunavant, chairman of Southside Concerned Citizens, who signed the comment. “As open as you can make this, the better.”

To comment, e-mail David Feary at dfeary@nas.edu

To view the committee info, www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/, search Project Title “Uranium Mining in Virginia” and click “Committee Membership.”

Comment:
Posted by kmaute on Aug. 20, 2010 - 8:11 p.m.

As I understand it, the committee will not make any determination as to whether or not uranium can be safely mined (or milled and wastes stored) in Virginia.

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2010/aug/20/uranium-study-committee-comments-continue-ar-464547/#comments

Nuclear Fuel Not as Safe and Green (uranium mining) as We are Led to Believe: An Algonquin View of the Nuclear Industry

Comments:  A great article about the nuclear cycle of death, thanks. Dr. Gehl for permitting me to use your article!

By: Lynn Gehl Ph.D., August 2010

As an Algonquin person existing within the contexts of the protests in Algonquin territory regarding issues of uranium mining, I have been motivated to return to my earlier vocation of chemical technology and learn about the nuclear fuel cycle.

Contrary to what TV commercials and the nuclear industry would have us believe, the nuclear fuel cycle is far from safe and green. The process of mining, milling, and building nuclear power plants requires huge amounts of energy obtained from fossil fuels. Thus, the process indeed produces carbon dioxide emissions. More disturbingly, the nuclear fuel cycle is harmful in other ways.

Nuclear energy depends upon elemental Uranium 235, which is naturally radioactive and undergoes decay, meaning it spontaneously radiates or ejects radioactive energy. Once Uranium 235 is removed from the earth and extracted from the ore that once cradled it, much soil and dirt is left behind. These so-called tailings are loaded with other radioactive elements such as Radon 222 and Radium 226, which contaminate the air, land, and water tables in the surrounding areas for many years.

There are three forms of radioactive decay: alpha and beta particles, and gamma photons. In this way, radiation consists of both particles and waves. Radioactive decay is undetectable through the human senses and can harm us through ionizing the atoms and molecules that comprise our body cells, hence the term “ionizing radiation.” It only takes one radioactive particle, for example, to damage a human cell. Children are particularly vulnerable because their bodies are containers of much cellular growth. Depending on the form, radiation is carcinogenic, meaning it causes cancer; mutagenic, meaning it mutates our egg and sperm cells and causes birth abnormalities; and teratogenic, meaning it has the ability to infiltrate the mother-child placenta barrier.

Uranium 235 is a gamma ray emitter, is carcinogenic, and causes bone cancer. Radon 222 is an alpha emitter, is carcinogenic, and causes lung cancer. Radium 226 is both an alpha and gamma ray emitter, is also carcinogenic, and causes bone cancer. These are the radioactive elements we are exposed to simply through the act of mining uranium.

In addition to this, creating nuclear energy through uranium fission produces more radioactive elements such as Strontium 90, Iodine 131, Cesium 137, and Plutonium 239. Strontium 90 is both a beta and gamma ray emitter and causes bone cancer and leukemia. Iodine 131 is both a beta and gamma ray emitter and causes thyroid cancer. Cesium 137 is both a beta and gamma ray emitter and causes muscle and brain cancer. Plutonium 239 is an alpha emitter that is both mutagenic and teratogenic and causes genetic mutations and gross deformities in our newborns.

Disturbingly, through “venting,” nuclear reactors routinely release these radioactive by-products into the atmosphere. In this way too our air, land, and water becomes contaminated for many years.

In sum uranium mining and processing produces carbon dioxide. It also contaminates the air, land, and water with radon, radium and other radioactive elements. Furthermore, uranium fission produces additional radioactive elements that harm living organisms in a variety of ways. We simply cannot afford to limit discussions about safe and green energy to carbon dioxide emissions, we must also consider radioactive emissions.

Published with permission from the Anishinabek News.

Dr. Lynn Gehl, Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe and Member of Safe and Green Energy, Peterborough (SAGE).

Nuclear picnic outside the National Assembly - Uranium Power

Comments:  Thanks for the article, Dr. Edwards, it was great!  No to nukes!

From G. Edwards:

Demonstration in Quebec City: Day 3

Greetings to everyone:

Here is a copy of the message sent out yesterday at the conclusion of
the demonstration of Wednesday August 18 at the National Assembly.

Beautiful day, great energy, wonderful demonstration.

Thanks to all the men and women who attended, as well as those who
were there in spirit. Let's continue to step up the pressure.

Scrap Gentilly-2 !

Hydro-Quebec recently announced its decision to postpone the
refurbishment of the Gentilly-2 reactor. Hydro-Quebec has also
delayed its report to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
that was supposed to take place on August 18 -- a report that is
needed in order to get regulatory approval for the refurbishment.

But Hydro-Quebec is still putting off the fundamental decision --
to end nuclear energy in Quebec and to implement safer policies
based on the decommissioning of our nuclear facilities and the
investment in renewable energy sources instead.

So what are the reasons behind Hydro-Quebec's delaying tactics?

Even as we celebrate the recent spate of good news, we men and
women from the Centre of Quebec and the Mauricie region are left
wondering why Hydro-Quebec and the Liberal Party of Quebec
are still messing around with the nuclear dossier.

As nuclear power fades into the shadows, the Quebec population
is waiting for someone to turn on the light.


Our group CMDN -- les CentricoisES et MauricienNEs pour le
déclassement nucléaire -- is here at the Quebec National Assembly
also to support the demands of the group SISUR -- Sept-Iles sans
uranium -- [for a moratorium on uranium mining in Quebec] joining
forces with them in today's "nuclear picnic".


Nuclear energy has to be seen as a totality: from the mining of the
uranium ore (causing pollution and carbon emissions) to the production
of electricity (routine radioactive emissions and dangers) to the long-term
management of nuclear wastes (no permanent solution) and finally to
the unsavory reputation of CANDU technology due to its links to nuclear
weapons.


This week, citizens from many regions of Quebec are standing side by
side and saying loudly and clearly: "No! to nuclear power in Quebec."


Representatives of the Parti Québécois, Québec Solidaire and the New
Democratic Party, as well as prominent personalities from the cultural,
professional and environmental sectors of our society have also come
to give their support: Nature Québec, doctors, engineers, artists, the
Coalition Pour que Québec ait meilleur mine, Greenpeace, Maîtres
chez nous (MCN21), and others.


We all want Hydro-Québec and the Liberal government to stop playing
games, swallow whatever pride they may have in the planned
refurbishment of Gentilly-2, and put an end to this crazy project.


Sébastien Bois, spokesperson for the group
Centricois et Mauriciens pour le déclassement nucléaire

DRBA and RRBA Submit Comments to NAS on Provisional Appointees on Uranium Mining Study

Dan River in Danville, VA

Comment:  The NAS appointed people for the study of uranium mining from mining and nuclear related sectors, huge conflict of interest!

August 18, 2010

The Roanoke River Basin Association and the Dan River Basin Association appreciate this opportunity to comment on the composition of the provisional study committee on uranium mining in Virginia. As described below, we recommend that the backgrounds and professional relationships of several provisional appointees be further investigated to ensure no conflict of interest.

Roanoke River Basin

Most importantly, we request that the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources (BESR) recruit individuals with expertise in hydrology, geohydrology, human health, and post-mining tailings management to serve on the committee.

The committee was established to examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health, safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing as they relate to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The committee’s work is extraordinarily important, as the findings of the study will assist the Commonwealth in determining whether uranium mining, milling, and processing can be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens.

Proposed uranium mining has been a controversial issue in the Commonwealth of Virginia since late 1970s when the uranium mining deposits were first discovered. For years, this matter has been an issue of outmost concern for the communities that may potentially be affected by uranium mining. For these reasons, it is very important that this uranium mining study be performed by a well-balanced and objective panel of scientists and experts who are free of any obligations to entities that may either benefit or be disadvantaged by the findings of this study.

It has been widely reported in the Virginia local press that the funding for this study is coming from Virginia Uranium, Inc., the company seeking to lift Virginia’s 1982 moratorium on uranium mining, and that the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University is serving as a conduit for funneling the study funds to the National Research Council. The Governing Board Executive Council of National Academies was apprised of this situation in an October 2, 2010 letter signed by over 30 concerned citizens. Because of the nature of the end source of funding, the study’s credibility is already being questioned by the public.

Unfortunately, it appears that several members of the provisional committee may have conflicts of interest that could significantly impair their objectivity and further damage the credibility of this study in the eyes of the public. As more fully discussed below, we respectfully request that the BESR conduct a review of Dr. Corby G. Anderson, Dr. Lawrence W. Barnthouse, and Dr. Michel Cuney for a potential conflict of interest, and remove Mr. Henry Schnell from the study committee due to an apparent conflict of interest.

Under these circumstances, it is especially important that the study process be conducted in a manner ensuring transparency and an ample opportunity for public comment. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the BESR publicize that the comment period is not firm and that comments will be accepted beyond the publicized date of August 17, 2020. Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (thereafter, FACO), the National Academy of Sciences “shall … provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment on … appointments before they are made or… in the period immediately following the appointments.” While a 20-day comment period has been the National Academies’ long-standing practice, limiting it to 20 days is not required by law. In this particular case, given the controversial nature of the issue to be examined in the uranium mining study, and the fact that most of Virginia residents received either no notice or insufficient notice of the commencement of the comment period, the BESR should publicly announce an extension of the public comment period to allow all interested parties to comment on the composition of the provisional committee.

Going forward, we urge the BESR to conduct public hearings to provide an open public forum for interested parties to participate in the study committee discussions in accordance with Section 15(b)(3) of FACO and to promptly make available to the public a summary of any committee meetings and any materials provided to the study committee in compliance with Sections 15(b)(3)-(4). The general public should also be provided with a sufficient notice of at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the public meeting and an opportunity to submit written comments on the public committee discussions.

As the state-wide study progresses, public meetings should be held in locations in the Commonwealth of Virginia that may potentially be affected by uranium mining. Historically, uranium companies have shown interest in uranium in Culpeper, Fauquier, Franklin, Floyd, Henry, Madison, Nelson, Orange, Patrick, and Pittsylvania Counties and leased mineral rights on approximately 50,000 acres in the 1980s. Downstream from these areas, counties and municipalities whose drinking water could be affected by uranium mill tailings include Brunswick, Fairfax, Halifax, Mecklenburg, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and others. If the uranium mining ban is lifted, we would likely see exploration for uranium in the black shale of Southwest Virginia, in crystalline granite throughout the Blue Ridge, and in sedimentary rock in the Coastal Plains, as well as further exploration in the Northern and Southern Piedmont. The public meetings at multiple locations are necessary to ensure the utmost degree of transparency of the study process for such a controversial issue as uranium mining.

Potential Conflict of Interest

The National Academies have established policies and procedures for addressing potential conflicts of interest to be used by committees in the development of its reports. This policy states that “It is essential that the work of committees of the institution used in the development of reports not be compromised by any significant conflict of interest. For this purpose, the term "conflict of interest" means any financial or other interest which conflicts with the service of the individual because it (1) could significantly impair the individual's objectivity or (2) could create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization. Except for those situations in which the institution determines that a conflict of interest is unavoidable and promptly and publicly discloses the conflict of interest, no individual can be appointed to serve (or continue to serve) on a committee of the institution used in the development of reports if the individual has a conflict of interest that is relevant to the functions to be performed.”

We wish to bring the following matters of concern to the attention of the National Academies and the Board regarding employment, existing fiduciary duties, consulting services, and promotional activities of Dr. Corby G. Anderson, Dr. Lawrence W. Barnthouse, Dr. Michel Cuney, and Mr. Henry Schnell that to the best of our knowledge have not been publicly disclosed as potential conflicts of interest in regard to the uranium mining study.

Dr. Corby G. Anderson currently serves as s trustee for the Northwest Mining Association, a trade association, whose stated purpose is to represent and inform members on legislative, regulatory and technical issues, to support and advance the mineral resource and related industries, and to foster and promote economic opportunity. Among the members of the Northwest Mining Association are Denison Mines Corp., a publicly traded company operating three uranium mines and two uranium mills in North America, and Uranium One Inc., one of the world’s largest publicly traded uranium producers. As a trustee of this trade association, Dr. Anderson has a fiduciary duty to the association and its members to act in their best interests. Although the study is designed to examine the feasibility of uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the outcome of this study, similar to all studies completed by the National Academies, may set a precedent for the entire uranium mining industry here in the United States and possibly around the world. The study findings are intended to serve as the basis for the Virginia General Assembly’s determination of whether to lift the 28-year ban on uranium mining. The Virginia General Assembly’s action on the uranium mining ban has a potential of impacting economic opportunities for many uranium mining companies, including the companies that are corporate members of the Northwest Mining Association.

In addition, to the best of our knowledge, Dr. Anderson routinely undertakes contracted projects for global industrial client projects, including serving as an expert witness in mining litigation. Under the National Academies’ Policy on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of Interest, a consulting relationship, such as serving as an expert witness in litigation, constitutes a potential financial conflict of interest.

Furthermore, Anderson also serves on the Board of Directors of Phoenix Minerals, Inc. and is President and COO of Getty Copper Inc. Both are publicly traded mining companies. We respectfully request that BESR investigate whether any of the two companies currently operate a uranium mine or mill and whether they presently have plans to mine or mill uranium.

Dr. Lawrence W. Barnthouse is an owner of LWB Environmental Services, Inc., a consulting company that provides ecological risk assessments and risk-based environmental restoration planning. Among Dr. Barnthouse’s clients are large law firms that represent clients from all over the country in environmental litigation and environmental regulatory proceedings. This appears to indicate that Dr. Barthhouse serves as an expert witness for those law firms and their companies on the issues that are the subject matter of the uranium mining study. The National Academies’ policy on conflicts of interest provides that serving as an expert witness is a type of consulting relationship that may constitute a financial interest. Accordingly, we request that BESR further investigate Dr. Barnthouse for a conflict of interest based the nature of the consulting services he provides to his clients. BESR’s review should address whether Dr. Barnthouse serves as an expert witness on issues that will be examined in the uranium mining study and whether he provides expert testimony on behalf of uranium mining companies, regardless of whether they are his direct clients or clients of his clients.

Dr. Michael Cuney’s industry consultation includes work for major uranium mining companies, such as Areva and Uranor Inc. The findings of the uranium mining study will determine future economic opportunities for Dr. Cuney’s corporate clients in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Thus, Dr. Cuney’s consulting relationship with uranium mining companies constitutes a potential conflict of interest and warrants review by BESR.

In addition, as stated in Dr. Cuney’s biography, he has visited and/or worked on most major uranium deposits of the world. BESR should investigate in what capacity Dr. Cuney traveled to all those mining sites, who funded his trips and whose interests he represented during those trips and to which companies he provided the services in connection with the trips, and whether these companies continue to use his services.

Furthermore, Dr. Cuney participated in numerous international conferences. In fact, he was a speaker at the Global Uranium International Conference held in Colorado in May 2009, where the Coles Hill, VA deposit was discussed at length. We, therefore, request that BESR require Dr. Cuney to disclose whether he received any honorarium or travel expense reimbursements for his participation in these activities and any other uranium mining conferences and who sponsored his trips to conferences.

Mr. Henry Schnell has an apparent conflict of interest based on his employment. Mr. Schnell holds a senior position in the Mining Business Unit with Areva NC Inc., a multinational company that owns and operates either directly or through its subsidiaries uranium mines in many parts of the world, including North America. Specifically, Areva’s subsidiary Pathfinder Mines Corporation operates large uranium mines in Wyoming that are currently undergoing reclamation. As stated above, the study’s finding will set precedent for the entire uranium mining industry and will have a potential to affect economic opportunities for many uranium mining companies, including Mr. Schnell’s employer, Areva.

In addition, we would like to bring to BESR’s attention the fact that Areva is actively involved in promoting uranium mining in Virginia. Virginia Energy Independence Alliance, whose two out of three corporate members are Areva Inc. and Virginia Uranium, Inc., has been very outspoken and pro-active in its campaign to support uranium mining in the Commonwealth. The VEIA Chairman Ray Ganthner has just retired from his position of Senior Vice President with Areva. Most recently Mr. Ganthner appeared on behalf of VEIA at the June 22, 2010 public hearing conducted by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission on uranium mining and spoke publicly on behalf of VEIA in favor of uranium mining. Because VEIA at this time has only three corporate members, one of which is Areva, it is reasonable to conclude that when the VEIA Chairman speaks on the subject of uranium mining, it represents Areva’s views and promotes Areva’s best interests.

This demonstrates that Mr. Schnell’s employer Areva may directly benefit or may be disadvantaged by the findings of the uranium mining study. Because of his employment and his employer’s particular interest in uranium mining in Virginia, Mr. Schnell’s objectivity may be significantly comprised. Mr. Schnell’s participation in this study may create an unfair competitive advantage for Areva. Accordingly, we request that Mr. Schnell be removed from the study committee due to his apparent conflict of interest.

Balance of the Study Committee

Under the Statement of Task for the uranium mining study, the study committee is called upon to examine 12 questions covering a wide range of areas from legal framework to public health and safety to mining methods to reclamation and waste management to cultural issues to geology, climate and water management, etc. Despite the fact that the scope of the uranium mining study is vast and complex, the study committee is comprised of only 13 experts. It appears that some of the issues included in the study will be examined by only one expert. A committee that has only one expert per issue cannot be characterized as balanced because the study process will fail to ensure peer review on one or more issues. For this reason, we believe that the committee membership must be expanded to include more experts, especially in the areas highlighted below.

The first item of the Statement of Task directs the study committee to “assess the potential short- and long-term occupational and public health … considerations … including the potential human health risks.” Item 4 directs to “analyze the impact of uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation operations on public health.” Comprehensive examination of items 1 and 4 of the Statement of Task requires an expert in occupational and public health, as well as a medical doctor. The provisional committee currently includes public and occupational health experts and epidemiologists but no medical doctor. We, therefore, request that the BESR appoint an expert with the medical doctor degree to the study committee.

Pursuant to item 4 of the Statement of Task, the study committee is to “analyze the impact of uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation operations … at sites with comparable .. hydrologic … characteristics to those found in the Commonwealth.” In addition, item 9 directs the study committee to “identify the issues that may need to be considered regarding the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water… As relevant, water and waste management … may also be considered.” The potential impact of uranium mining on water supply has of utmost concern for the communities where uranium mines may be developed and to the communities, like Fairfax and Halifax Counties and the City of Virginia Beach, and all the communities in the Roanoke River Basin including those in North Carolina whose sources of drinking water are located in areas where uranium mining is likely to occur should the uranium mining ban is lifted. For this reason, we respectfully request BESR to ensure that the study committee includes a sufficient number of experts with the expertise in hydrology and water-related issues.

Item 5 of the Statement of Task directs the study committee to “review the … cultural settings … in the Commonwealth of Virginia.” A comprehensive analysis of the cultural settings requires an expertise in environmental justice. Unfortunately, it is not apparent from the information posted on the credentials of the provisional committee members whether the committee includes experts in environmental justice. Because uranium mining is likely to affect many communities with relatively low socioeconomic status and very little influence over legislative decisions and limited access to the legal system, it is very important that the issue of environmental justice be examined thoroughly in the study. To this end, the study committee should be expanded to include at least two experts in environmental justice with experience of addressing these issues in the communities affected by uranium mining. We would welcome an opportunity to provide nominations for all above-mentioned areas of expertise.

In addition, it appears that the majority of questions under the Statement of Task require global expertise in uranium mining and broad knowledge of world-wide trends and experiences of other U.S. states and foreign nations with uranium mining. Unfortunately, the provisional committee does not include experts with such level of expertise. We, therefore, respectfully request that BESR expand the committee to include at least four experts who have studied the effects of uranium mining world-wide.

It is also unclear from the published bios of the provisional committee members whether anyone of them has an expertise required for evaluating post-mining impacts of tailings impoundments, including long-term monitoring and maintenance and potential impact of catastrophic failure of tailings containment cells on downstream waterways. We, therefore, respectfully request that BESR ensure that an expert in this very specific area is included in the committee.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We expect that this very important study will proceed in a most transparent manner.

Gene Addesso, Roanoke River Basin Association
Katherine Mull, Dan River Basin Association

http://www.danriver.org/News/NewsDetail.asp?ID=121
http://www.rrba.org/

Nevada Test Site : Sedan Nuclear Test- Original Military Film

Comment: Part II of the beginning of the Nuclear Power, the cycle of death!

THE PAVED ROAD that leads to the mammoth Sedan nuclear crater at the Nevada Test Site, about 90 miles north of Las Vegas, is rippled and bouncy.

The shock waves from 828 underground nuclear explosions have made the road undulate like a ribbon that has been twitched.

It was one of 27 nuclear bombs detonated as part of Operation Plowshare to see if such explosions would be useful for excavation, and consisted of a 104-kiloton bomb (equivalent to 104,000 tons of TNT, or nearly five times the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945) buried 635 feet below the Earth's surface.

The resulting explosion excavated 6.6 million cubic yards of earth, leaving a radioactive crater nearly a quarter-mile in diameter and 320 feet deep. To stand on the jumbled bank of earth on its rim, the radiation from the 1962 explosion having faded to near-background levels, is to get a disquieting reminder of the puniness of the individual in the face of modern power.

Sedan was part of a long series. The first bomb set off at the Test Site was on Jan. 27, 1951. The last was on Sept. 23, 1991, after which President Bush imposed a test moratorium that has been extended by President Clinton.

In those 40 years, weapons scientists set off 100 atmospheric explosions and 828 underground. Those underground created a mesquite moonscape of small craters formed when the bombs created an underground chamber and the land slumped.

Over the years the atmospheric tests exposed a quarter-million assembled troops, plus communities downwind in Nevada and Utah, to an estimated 12 billion curies of radiation, or 148 times the release from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear-plant meltdown near Kiev, Ukraine.

The bursts were given colorful names such as Priscilla, Zucchini, Diablo, Buster and Mazama. Above-ground testing ended in 1962 and physicists moved underground, setting off bombs at the bottom of drilled shafts up to a mile deep.

Movies of these tests show the ground jerking with a convulsion and then slumping into a crater, with clouds of dust rolling away in the wind.

Read more:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/trinity/articles/part2.html

THE TRINITY TEST: "Hanford nuclear reservation - the largest contaminated area in the world!"

FOR THOSE who grew up after World War II, the prospect of nuclear annihilation was an indelible part of the era. I and my classmates practiced kneeling by school lockers with our coats over our heads to protect us from flying glass, laughing at the absurdity. We watched first-aid films in health class showing bodies strewn in radioactive rubble. There was a fallout shelter in my junior-high basement, and another in the basement of The Seattle Times.

THE FIRST PLUTONIUM to leave the Hanford nuclear reservation was a nitrate syrup sealed in a heavy stainless-steel container and carried in the back seat of a sedan along the Columbia River to a train in Portland. As shipments increased, the Manhattan Project switched to more formal military escort.

The bomb's development was incredibly rapid, and no state was more intimately involved than Washington.

Shortly before World War II began, German physicists discovered that atoms could be split, or fissioned, resulting in the release of huge amounts of energy. The news electrified physicists around the world. By 1940, researchers in the United States, Britain, France, Germany, the Soviet Union and Japan were working on the problem of sustaining a chain reaction for a possible weapon.

Japan did not have the uranium to make a bomb, but its investigation of the possibility of building one did not end until physicist Yoshio Nishina's laboratory was firebombed by U.S. planes on April 12, 1945.

Not only did physicists almost immediately recognize the military potential of nuclear fission, but they also began in 1942 the theoretical work on a hydrogen bomb based on the fusion of hydrogen into helium, which powers the sun and stars. The H-bomb would have the power of a thousand Hiroshima bombs. Because of its technical difficulty, it was 10 more years before that new escalation in destructive power was tested.

Since the United States had the world's biggest economy and was remote from the actual battlefields, only America had the ability to sustain an atom-bomb project during World War II. Germany never vigorously pursued the project, and top Nazis remained relatively ignorant of the bomb's potential. When physicist Werner Heisenberg held a briefing for Hitler's leadership in 1942, a secretary sent the wrong agenda and as a result key leaders didn't bother to show up.

American scientists, in contrast, convinced political leaders of the incredible latent nuclear power in matter. But even with Einstein lending his prestige by signing a letter to Roosevelt warning of the military implications of nuclear energy, the project languished until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.

That it subsequently succeeded is one of the most amazing science and technology stories in history. Making the necessary bomb fuel was enormously difficult.

The most common radioactive element in nature is uranium-238, making up about 99 percent of the earth's supply of uranium. Because U-238 has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years - about as old as Earth - only half of what was present when Earth was formed has decayed away. That is why the planet still has so many uranium deposits and the United States could open 400 mines during the Cold War and extract 60 million tons of ore for weapons alone.

Uranium-238 does not sustain a fission chain reaction, however, and must be modified into an isotope that can. U-238 fuel can be bombarded in a nuclear reactor to make U-235, the fuel for the Hiroshima bomb.

That isotope was made and separated at labs in Oak Ridge, Tenn., during World War II.

There was an alternative. In 1941, a University of California chemist named Glenn Seaborg created an element with an even bigger potential for explosive power. Since the previously discovered uranium had taken its name from Uranus and neptunium from Neptune, Seaborg named his discovery plutonium: after the planet Pluto and, coincidentally, the Greek god of the dead.

Not knowing which fuel could be successfully manufactured or fabricated into a bomb, the United States decided to pursue both. While Oak Ridge would make U-235, a secret complex near the remote Eastern Washington hamlet of Hanford would make plutonium.

Fuel rods of uranium were irradiated in Hanford reactors to make about a dime-sized button of plutonium for every two tons of fuel. The elusive substance then had to be recovered by dissolving the fuel rods in acid and isolating the plutonium in a complex, messy series of steps.

Read more:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/trinity/articles/part1.html

THE TRINITY TEST: The Logic: "I am become death, the shatterer of worlds,"

Visitors to ground zero of the first atomic explosion face the small obelisk marking the exact spot of the July 16, 1945, detonation in the southern New Mexico desert.

Comment:  Look at the comment and it explains what nukes means "Officials told New Mexicans that an ammunition dump had exploded".  This is the mindset of nuke power, keep the public in the dark and make nuke power look green, well we do not trust the NRC or any nukes!

GROUND ZERO of the atomic age is marked by a modest lava stone obelisk. "Where the World's First Nuclear Device Was Exploded on July 16, 1945," its plaque reads.

The absence of the word "bomb" is appropriate. The scientists who built Fat Man, as the bulbous object was known, referred to it as "the gadget." Or, "the thing."

Ground zero usually is open to the public just two days a year, once in spring and once in fall. This year on July 16, a caravan of the curious queued up for an extra look inside White Sands Missile Range on the 50th anniversary of that explosive moment that forever changed war, politics, science and our culture's psychology.

The artificial sun that rose before dawn that morning gave birth to apocalyptic nightmares of "duck and cover" and the Cuban missile crisis. It also promised "peace through strength" and energy "too cheap to meter."

The atomic bomb imposed a stern restraint on military escalation and yet spawned artistic outrage that gave us Dr. Strangelove, "The China Syndrome" and cartoon character Homer Simpson as a hopelessly inept nuclear-power-plant operator.

Scientists overnight became both Prometheus and Dr. Frankenstein, lavishly funded and warily mistrusted, unlocking secrets we still aren't sure we want to know.

"A person on an airplane told me I had sold my soul to the devil," remarked Mike Sohn, the current project manager for computational physics at the Los Alamos weapons laboratory in New Mexico. "I don't believe that. We have maintained the peace."

The United States ultimately spent $350 billion building nuclear weapons, or almost twice as much as it has spent on space exploration in the same period. The additional money spent on machines to deliver the warheads and on other arms of the Cold War -- basically, the U.S. military budget -- was enough to pay the cost of reconstructing every building and road in the country: $13.5 trillion.

The nuclear standoff arguably bought time that led to the Soviet Union's collapse without a World War III. But our grandchildren will still be paying for cleaning up the resulting nuclear-waste mess.

Thus Trinity, as that first test explosion was code-named.

The plutonium fuel of the bomb, probably a sphere about the size of an orange, was made at Eastern Washington's secret city of Hanford, the product of 51,000 workers laboring for 27 months.

The flash at 5:29:45 a.m. released four times the heat of the interior of the sun, created a pressure of 100 billion atmospheres and was seen 250 miles away.

Officials told New Mexicans that an ammunition dump had exploded, a story accepted in that era's patriotic secrecy.

The matter-of-fact willingness of our brightest minds to build such a bomb remains haunting. In the pre-dawn darkness, the assembled physicists slathered on sunscreen in anticipation of what they were about to unleash, then took shelter in bunkers and trenches nearly six miles away.

The flash lit the surrounding mountains brighter than the noon sun. The roar broke windows at a distance of 120 miles.
"I am become death, the shatterer of worlds," murmured physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, quoting a Hindu text.

The heat was so intense that it vaporized the tower holding the bomb and melted the sand underneath into a green glass dubbed Trinitite. A mile away, exposed surfaces were heated to 750 degrees. At 10 miles, the heat still felt like the open mouth of a fireplace, witnesses reported.

Despite bulldozing away the fused sand, the radiation levels today, half a century later, are still 10 times that of the background radiation levels found in nature from radioactive rocks and cosmic rays

Read more:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/trinity/articles/part1.html

Exelon nuke plant southwest of Chicago shut down

August 16, 2010, 3:49PM ET

BRAIDWOOD, Ill.

Both reactors at Exelon Corp.'s nuclear power plant in Braidwood have shut down, and the company is looking for the source of the problem.

Exelon spokesman Marshall Murphy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Scott Burnell both say the situation isn't a safety concern. The Braidwood Generating Station is about 50 miles southwest of Chicago.

Murphy says the power-generating units shut down early Monday. Steam is being vented from the plant to reduce pressure in its steam generators.

The NRC spokesman says that noise is loud and can be heard by people in the area.

Read more:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HKPCJ80.htm