Reply #6: Further [View All]

[bigtree]

The Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR) system would utilize depleted uranium. I believe this is just a shifty way to justify it's production and use elsewhere.

The Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR) would "adopt" uranium/plutonium fuel, another fuel that is contemplated for use in new nuclear weaponry. I believe that this is just another slippery justification for the production of such blended fuels as their main purpose would be for weapons production.

The Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) also utilizes mixed uranium-plutonium oxide fuel which is contemplated for use in new nuclear weaponry.

New plants are contemplated in the Energy and Defense legislation which would utilize the new generation of recycled nuclear fuels (MOX mixed-oxide, hydrogen based, depleted uranium, etc.). These centers will almost certainly be formatted to accommodate the next generation of nuclear weapons, such as, mini tactical nukes and bunker- busters. 169

INEEL will undoubtably be at the center of this effort.

There are more than 100 operating nuclear power plants in America and 16 non-operational power plants. The electricity produced by these plants provide the U.S. with only 20% of our electricity needs. That 20% could easily be made up by any combination of alternative sources.

Most of the supporters of nuclear energy would be loath to place their own homes and their families directly in the way of the negative effects of production.

By the time the fuel is converted into some neat package, millions in the community, in the nation and even the world could suffer the negative effects of its production.

We go to a gas station for our fuel. On the land where it is produced, the effects are devastating. One accident can mean death and destruction to the people or to the environment.

This is no idle musing. Nuclear power is not inherently safe, as the industry supporters claim. The waste is not manageable in a way which will protect future generations from the effects of exploitation, misuse, or mishaps. As I stated above, we are still cleaning up the waste from the '50's, at the same area that they are contemplating building new ones. Why should we trust the same industry that has so far been so irresponsible with the waste produced in the past. Trust us, seems to be the mantra here. I don't trust the industry whose bottom line has never been safety. Their bottom line has always been their profit margin. And this administration has a myopic ambition for destruction and mayhem.

It's hard to be intellectual about nuclear energy when so many innocent people suffer the effects of its production. These plants are placed in areas where the people are poor and unable to defend against the intellectuals and space buffs.

These plants are presented as job creators for these community's weak economies. They become dependent on the revenue, and can't count on the proponents who sold them these nuclear plants to regulate them in a way that would put the public's welfare ahead of profit.

Try to shut down a plant once it is in operation. Try to stop the exploitation of the material after it is produced. Try to clean up the inevitable mess to the environment. How about we don't do this dance again? How about putting the nuclear monster back into Pandora's Box? This raw ambition for nuclear power meshes perfectly with conservative tripe about the primacy of industry: "Damn the public. To hell with land, I don't live there. To hell with the people, they aren't me."

In the communities where the land has been poisoned, the people who have to live there and work in these plants know full well that the risks of nuclear production outweigh any benefit from electrical power.

The Government Accountability Project contends that 67 workers were exposed between January 2002 and August 2003 to toxic vapors escaping from tanks that hold radioactive wastes from the production of nuclear weapons.

The watchdog group reports that scores of Hanford nuclear reservation workers have been exposed to toxic vapors as the government pushes for faster and cheaper cleanups of wastes.

Until there is a change in the White House or in the control of Congress, it is folly to expect that the worst won't happen, or that we will be able to stuff all of the planned nuclear expansion back into some benign box.

It is immoral and wrong for this administration to hide their nuclear ambitions and proceed as if they had won the debate over the acceptability of nuclear power, when in fact no such public debate has occurred.

I would oppose any money for new construction which would serve to refurbish or expand our existing supply of nuclear weaponry. Similarly, I would support provisions which intend to dismantle such weaponry if the intention and result is for the disposal of these harmful weapons and their radioactive waste in a safe and effective manner.

Also I would oppose any money for new construction of any nuclear plants which are designed for energy production, or any money for construction intended to preserve any existing power plants which utilize nuclear material.

I strongly favor the existing practice of immobilizing the nuclear waste in glass and storing it, as the previous administration advocated.

I would similarly oppose any money for research or development of any new nuclear fuels, or nuclear fuel blends, or the recycling and utilization of any 'degraded' nuclear material for use in new or existing weapons or for use in any new or existing power plant, as is outlined in the document "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010" and in the Generation IV Roadmap. I would oppose any monies which intend to preserve the Uranium Transfer Program.

As laudable as the realized goal of the reduction of the Russian nuclear arsenal may be, in reality, the transfers depend on a faltering contract and support an electric supply that provides only 20% of our nation's electricity needs. This 20% could be made up by any combination of renewables.

The uranium program should be allowed to sunset. The focus should be on the replacement of the uranium industry with a more sustainable supply of energy. There is also the concern that U.S. Energy Corp. redistributes much of the blended uranium outside of the country (up to 40%), inviting more opportunities for exploitation and abuse.

I would oppose any money expended to support, enhance or expand the construction of any nuclear centrifuge facility for demonstration, research, or production of thermonuclear weaponry. I would similarly oppose any money which would support or encourage any such thermonuclear program abroad.

Finally, I would oppose any expansion, enhancement, or renewal of the Price-Anderson Act which would further encourage public or governmental involvement in nuclear production. And I would encourage the expansion of any law or regulation which would hold those in the nuclear industry accountable for the safety of their workers and the environment.

In respect to all of these issues, I feel that the nuclear ambitions of the Bush administration are a foot in the door for those who would expand our existing nuclear program and would draw our nation into a new nuclear arm's race; exacerbating the problems of proliferation; threatening the safety and the health of workers, the community and the environment.