Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Nuke firms seek support (taxpayer bailout) for Utah site

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 03:05 PM
Original message
Nuke firms seek support (taxpayer bailout) for Utah site
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-other/2006/mar/19/566647534.html

WASHINGTON - The nuclear industry consortium that is trying to establish a private temporary radioactive waste dump on Goshute Indian land in Utah quietly appealed to Congress for support after its top investors pulled out of the project.

The group of nuclear utilities known as Private Fuel Storage LLC, sent a letter to lawmakers in December, suggesting that the site would be a great temporary dump site for waste ultimately bound for the long-delayed permanent repository planned for Yucca Mountain, the Deseret News reported last week.

The letter was sent about a week after Private Fuel Storage's top two private nuclear utility investors withdrew their support for the interim dump project. The utilities backed out, saying they were encouraged by the government's apparent commitment to constructing Yucca.

The withdrawals left the corporation scrambling for business, so it sought out Congress, hoping that lawmakers might consider the Utah site as a temporary government waste dump.

<more>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. VERY IMPORTANT POST. I VOTED FOR IT. EVERYBODY SHOULD
READ THIS! When Nuke interests say how cheap and practical Nukes are, they always leave out the little problems of cleaning up messes and decommissioning Nuclear plants (which costs more than it does to build them!).

They keep saying that they can store nuclear waste - "No problem!" but the verdict is not in on that yet. And it's very hard to find good, reliable information on this there are so many people who want to cash in on this doubt-filled technology.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Really?
Maybe you would like to tell us about all the cases of people who have died from the storage of so called "nuclear waste." Can you give us one example? Some of this material is 50 years old. Surely if it is dangerous, if there is some doubt about it, you will be in a position to produce such a case, no?

Just one would be perfectly fine.

I can give you an example of 21 people killed by ethanol technology in the last few years in the United States: http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128769057625&path=%21news%21special%21generic4&s=1058750351796

I note that the United States produces only 0.22 exajoules of ethanol per year, a tiny fraction of the amount of energy produced via nuclear means, and still it seems to be far less safe than nuclear energy even in absolute numbers of deaths, never mind deaths per exajoule.

Since you are claiming to be an expert on the matter of nuclear decommissioning, maybe you can tell us what the add on cost is per kilowatt-hour. Next you will offer us a comparison of the add on cost of carbon dioxide for coal, and while you're at it, the add on cost nitrogen fertilizers and eutrophication of water supplies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Nucular Costs
Decommissioning of US nucular plants = $23+ billion

Yucca Mountain = $65+ billion and the DOE has no fucking clue how much it will *really* cost or begin operation.

Nuclear plant operator lawsuits against the DOE (taxpayers) for not taking care of *their* spent fuel that *they* used to make money = $56+ billion.

Disposing of depleted UF6 at US uranium enrichment plants = $4+ billion

Decommissioning NFS defunct commercial spent fuel reprocessing plant at West Valley NY = $8+ billion

Three Mile Island accident (only) $1+ billion

total = $157+ billion and counting...

add in the $112 billion in stranded costs from canceled US nucular power plants and it adds up to....

>$269 billion.

reeee-volting...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Even if your numbers were realistic, I note that the total cost of 50
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 04:44 PM by NNadir
years of nuclear power would amount to a fraction of the cost of fossil fuels.

300 billion dollars over 50 years amortizes to about 6 billion dollars per year, the cost of a few weeks of oil imports. I further note that 300 billion dollars could not solve the global climate change crisis, or even scratch the surface of what it will cost.

In fact, for 300 billion dollars, the United States has not been able to conclude an oil war, and that's the money spent in just three years.

Even more stark is this reality: As of November 2005, the most recent month for which oil import data in the United States was available, the United States was importing 13 million barrels of oil per day. Annualized this represents importation of about 4.8 billion barrels of oil. At around $60 per barrel, this represents about $300 billion dollars per year, every close to the (dubious) figure you give for the entire history of nuclear power.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t34.xls

Numbers only have meaning in context. Otherwise they are useless, misleading, or, even worse, deliberately fraudulent. If the cost of nuclear management over 50 years has been 300 billion dollars over 50 years, it is a demonstration that nuclear technology is relatively cheap. It is about 6 billion dollars per year, next to nothing on the scale of the return.

In fact though, the numbers come off the top of your head and I don't buy them at all. They are of the same quality and quantity of all anti-nuclear claims - all of which have been more or less rejected by international consensus.

I very much doubt, by the way, that 300 billion dollars invested in renewable energy would produce anything like the 50 exajoules of electrical energy that nuclear power plants have produced since 1980 in the United States. Renewable energy is mostly notable for giving a very small return on investment - which is why we are in such dire straights right now.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Give us your numbers
and reveal this "fraud"...

:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I think that with some people the presentation of numbers is useless.
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 05:22 PM by NNadir
I give out numbers all the time here - and I frequently comment of units and the meaning of numbers, but they still don't prevent the repetition of absurd and, frankly, meaningless responses.

I, for instance, have introduced the wide use of the unit exajoule to this thread, and in so doing have repeatedly used it to demonstrate the difference between energy and power. Still, daily we see posts here that herald peak power units for renewable energy that deliberately obscure the reality. So what would be the point of producing yet more numbers?

The fact is that if I buy your numbers - and I don't because mostly my opinion is that you make stuff up - it is easy, as I have shown, that they are not an indication that nuclear energy is expensive but rather are an indication that nuclear power is inexpensive - since they represent 50 years of total cost.

In the days of the global climate change catastrophe, such thinking has been exposed for what it is: Fraudulent. Moreover the anti-nuclear argument has been demonstrated to be fraudulent internationally and has been internationally rejected. Many countries from Mexico to Brazil to Argentina to Great Britain to South Africa to Finland to China to to India to Indonesia to Vietnam to Japan to Saudi Arabia to even the paragon of energy denial - the United States - is seriously evaluating the nuclear energy option. I have been reporting this reality diligently in an attempt to wake everybody up from the fantasy slumbering and daydreaming that have characterized energy thinking, particularly in the United States..

It may be too little too late, but by demonstration, nuclear energy is all we have. There is no serious third option, although there is much silly giggling attempting to prove that there is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. As I expected - no numbers...
I win

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Whatever.
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 09:44 PM by NNadir
I have no doubt that you think you have won. Such a belief system is entirely consistent with your view of reality.

As I have noted, numbers are completely useless for some people. In fact the onus is upon you to back your numbers up, which you can't do without appealing to fifty self-referential websites of the poor quality represented by the www.greenpeace.org site.

Further, I have demonstrated that even if you could back up your numbers - which I think are made up - their time weighted average is trivial.

For instance here is a link showing the world output of non-hydro renewable energy, which I post just about every day: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

Day after day after day after day I produce this number: Non-hydro renewable energy is incapable of producing two exajoules of energy. Day after day after day, I point out that in 2003 the entire industry on the entire planet managed in 2003: 1.12 exajoules.

You can't deal with that number, since you still represent in the face of it's reality that renewable energy is a serious option in the global climate change crisis. Since you also are incapable of comprehending the number representing the world demand for energy, 440 exajoules, your use of numbers cannot be expected to hold much serious weight.

In response we get 50 threads a week talking about peak watts from this renewable scheme and that renewable scheme. Each day, as we further demolish the capability of renewables to produce energy in a meaningful timeframe to address the current crisis, we get ever more shrill and ever more pixilated responses.

I conclude that you neither understand or care about numbers, or for that matter, basic physics, such as the distinction between energy and power. This is why you tend to make them up or confuse what numbers and units mean.

The fact is that anyone who agrees with you is a promoting loss, a loss that is becoming apparent on a planetary scale. It isn't a game for the high school field trip to Antarctica to play after microscope class at the rim of a melted glacier. On the contrary, the game, such as it is, represents one in which all humanity has lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. The true economies of the nuclear industry are never fully accounted for
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050520-023103-2877r.htm


The true economies of the nuclear industry are never fully accounted for. The cost of uranium enrichment is subsidized by the U.S. government. The true cost of the industry's liability in the case of an accident in the United States is estimated to be $560 billion, but the industry pays $9.1 billion -- 98 percent of the insurance liability is covered by the federal government. The cost of decommissioning all the existing U.S. nuclear reactors is estimated to be $33 billion. These costs -- plus the enormous expense involved in the storage of radioactive waste for a quarter of a million years -- are not included in the economic assessments of nuclear electricity.

It is said that nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very different.

In the United States, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including

Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Ky., requires the electrical output of two 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50 percent of global warming.

Also, this enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, release from leaky pipes 93 percent of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the United States. The production and release of CFC gas is banned internationally by the Montreal Protocol because it is the main culprit responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilizes large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages -- the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20- to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste.

Contrary to the nuclear industry's propaganda, nuclear power is therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These releases are unregulated because the nuclear industry considers these particular radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so.

These unregulated isotopes include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm and cause genetic disease.

Tritium, another biologically significant gas, which is also routinely emitted from nuclear reactors is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen composed of two neutrons and one proton with an atomic weight of 3. The chemical symbol for tritium is H3. When one or both of the hydrogen atoms in water is displaced by tritium the water molecule is then called tritiated water. Tritium is a soft energy beta emitter, more mutagenic than gamma radiation, which incorporates directly into the DNA molecule of the gene. Its half-life is 12.3 years, giving it a biologically active life of 246 years. It passes readily through the skin, lungs and digestive system and is distributed throughout the body.

The dire subject of massive quantities of radioactive waste accruing at the 442 nuclear reactors across the world is also rarely, if ever, addressed by the nuclear industry. Each typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 33 metric ton of thermally hot, intensely radioactive waste per year.

Already more than 80,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste sits in cooling pools next to the 103 U.S. nuclear power plants, awaiting transportation to a storage facility yet to be found. This dangerous material will be an attractive target for terrorist sabotage as it travels through 39 states on roads and railway lines for the next 25 years.

But the long-term storage of radioactive waste continues to pose a problem. Congress in 1987 chose Yucca Mountain in Nevada, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as a repository for the United States' high-level waste. But Yucca Mountain has subsequently been found to be unsuitable for the long-term storage of high-level waste because it is a volcanic mountain made of permeable pumice stone and it is transected by 32 earthquake faults.

Last week a congressional committee discovered fabricated data about water infiltration and cask corrosion in Yucca Mountain that had been produced by personnel in the U.S. Geological Survey. These startling revelations, according to most experts, have almost disqualified Yucca Mountain as a waste repository, meaning that the United States has nowhere to deposit its expanding nuclear waste inventory.

To make matters worse, a study released last week by the National Academy of Sciences shows that the cooling pools at nuclear reactors, which store 10 to 30 times more radioactive material than that contained in the reactor core, are subject to catastrophic attacks by terrorists, which could unleash an inferno and release massive quantities of deadly radiation -- significantly worse than the radiation released by Chernobyl, according to some scientists.

This vulnerable high-level nuclear waste contained in the cooling pools at 103 nuclear power plants in the United States includes hundreds of radioactive elements that have different biological impacts in the human body, the most important being cancer and genetic diseases.

The incubation time for cancer is five to 50 years following exposure to radiation. It is important to note that children, old people and immuno-compromised individuals are many times more sensitive to the malignant effects of radiation than other people.

I will describe four of the most dangerous elements made in nuclear power plants.

Iodine 131, which was released at the nuclear accidents at Sellafield in Britain, Chernobyl in Ukraine and Three Mile Island in the United States, is radioactive for only six weeks and it bio-concentrates in leafy vegetables and milk. When it enters the human body via the gut and the lung, it migrates to the thyroid gland in the neck, where it can later induce thyroid cancer. In Belarus more than 2,000 children have had their thyroids removed for thyroid cancer, a situation never before recorded in pediatric literature.

Strontium 90 lasts for 600 years. As a calcium analogue, it concentrates in cow and goat milk. It accumulates in the human breast during lactation and in bone, where it can later induce breast cancer, bone cancer and leukemia.

Cesium 137, which also lasts for 600 years, concentrates in the food chain, particularly meat. On entering the human body, it locates in muscle, where it can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma.

Plutonium 239, one of the most dangerous elements known to humans, is so toxic that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic. More than 440 pounds is made annually in each 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant.

Plutonium is handled like iron in the body, and is therefore stored in the liver, where it causes liver cancer, and in the bone, where it can induce bone cancer and blood malignancies. On inhalation it causes lung cancer. It also crosses the placenta, where, like the drug thalidomide, it can cause severe congenital deformities.

Plutonium has a predisposition for the testicle, where it can cause testicular cancer and induce genetic diseases in future generations. Plutonium lasts for 500,000 years, living on to induce cancer and genetic diseases in future generations of plants, animals and humans.

Plutonium is also the fuel for nuclear weapons -- only 11 pounds is necessary to make a bomb and each reactor makes more than 440 pounds per year. Therefore any country with a nuclear power plant can theoretically manufacture 40 bombs a year.

Nuclear power therefore leaves a toxic legacy to all future generations, because it produces global warming gases, because it is far more expensive than any other form of electricity generation, and because it can trigger proliferation of nuclear weapons.

--

(Helen Caldicott is an anti-nuclear campaigner and founder and president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, which argues that nuclear energy is dangerous.)

--

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. The cost of Nuclear for 50 yrs? Is that ALL the costs?

Oh my, did you forget to mention the cost to store all the nuclear waste those plants generated and the many tons nuclear waste future plants will generate???

HOW LONG DO YOU THINK THE NUCLEAR WASTE WILL HAVE TO BE SEQUESTERED (ASSUMING IT CAN BE SEQUESTERED FROM THE REST OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE NECESSARY AMOUNT OF TIME) UNTIL IT REACHES THE LEVEL OF NATURALLY OCCURRING BACKGROUND RADIATION?

I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO HEAR YOUR ANSWER. NUCLEAR WASTE OF COURSE VARIES IN ITS HALF-LIFE BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK ON THE AVERAGE THE NECESSARY TIME WUOLD BE - 500 YRS, 2,500 YRS, 5,000 YRS? AND WHAT WOULD THE COST FOR THAT EFFORT BE?


THIS IS SUPPOSING IT REALLY IS FEASIBLE TO ISOLATE NUCLEAR WASTE FROM THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT, SOMETHING WHICH I BELIEVE IS STILL SUBJECT TO 'HEATED' (PUN INTENDED) DEBATE.
(NOTE THAT INFORMATION HAS 'LEAKED' OUT THAT GROUND WATER IS GETTING INTO THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE.http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whyyuccawillleak.htm)


COST TO PRODUCE THE NUCLEAR FUEL

And of course, Jpak was just referring to the cost of decommissioning and cleaning up 'glitches'. (There are the costs to build the plants and the costs to protect them from terrorist attacks. yes, these must be included too, sorry 'bout that.) There are also the costs to mine, and then produce the nuclear fuel for the fission plants. I guess you forgot those costs too? My, my, ...my confidence in your expertise in this area (self implied, assumed?) is slipping?

Now is your chance to tell us what were the costs during those fifty years to PRODUCE the nuclear fuel used in those plants? I don't know what the figure is, I was just commenting on the decommisssioning costs as an example of some of the costs that nuclear advocates seem to forget. But you sound like an advocate of nuclear energy, so you must have looked into it and know what the cost to produce all that fuel was,right? Then maybe you can share those figures with us.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Nuclear energy comes in at less than 0.03 cents per kilowatt-hour busbar.
You can't beat it.

As for the contention that nuclear materials always leak, maybe you should come back after reading about the 1.8 billion old reactors at Oklo Gabon.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml

The price of uranium fuel expressed in energy terms is the equivalent of gasoline at less than 0.1 cents per gallon.

The following link represents the cost to the environment of nuclear operations, which is extraordinarily.

http://www.itas.fzk.de/deu/tadn/tadn013/frbi01a.htm

I don't know why I waste my time with you though. You're obviously not going to get it. I've suffered through your ethanol threads already, and they were too much.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Good information. I was off-line for a bit so did not see Nuclear Nadir's
question to me. In any case you provided a much more thorough answer than I was prepared to give (I had your first figure but that was all). I finally did offer my input here.

My main questions about nuclear remain:

1) can the waste be safely stored until it reaches a safe level (and how long will that be - 500 yrs, 5,000 yrs, more?). I've read the average half-life for nuclear waste is 15,000 yrs!

2) If it can be safely stored, what is a realistic estimate of the costs to accomplish this storage.

3) Depending on how long the waste must be stored (500, 1,000, 5,000 yrs) do we have enough space to store all that radioactive sludge??


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Yes, really. Everybody in France is dead.
What you see on TV labled as "people" are, in fact, radioactive zombies.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. very good post, like many on this subject that have appeared on this site
Suggest you post this on Congress.org. You get a wider audience (not in terms of numbers, but interms of political persuasion). You can urge readers to send emails to Congressmen and Senators. Congress.org is set up to make that process easy.. People can use your message as the basis of their email.

IT's good to offer some concrete actions be taken. There is a lot of talk about research into technologies to help IN THE FUTURE. While this is laudable, there are things that can be done RIGHT NOW, IMMEDIATELY that will start us on the right path. THis is not only a Global Warming issue (which really takes precedent over all others) but also a national security and economic security issue. Reducing use of fossil fuel (mostly imported) will strengthen our economy and we will need that to cope with the coming enormous impacts of climate change.

Improved efficiency of automobiles and all electrical appliances, improved insulation standards in all new housing are a couple. Also, we currently have a renewable fuel that can replace up to 30% of the oil we are now consuming. Ethanol is a practical fuel that produces less green house gases than gasoline and will strengthen our economy as it enables us to reduce our imports of oil. We should have a national effort to double ethanol production in four years, and then double it again.. Until we get ethanol production up to a level that will provide some protection against the coming oil supply disruption we should start importing ethanol from Brazil.

In the short run we must find some insurance against an oil supply disruption of 5% to 10%. At the same time of course we need to fund aggressive efforts to develop any technology that will improve our energy situation (cellulosic ethanol, fuel cell powered cars).


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
12. More crap from the nucleophobes?
*yawn*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Anyone that wants to bail these guys out can send them a check
They ain't gittin' any of my tax money...

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Your tax money's been pissed away on an oil war...
...and tax rebates for SUVs, so you're probably safe.

Oh, those whacky republicans. Dontcha just love 'em?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC