| |
 |
Friday, November 21, 2003 |
FEATURED ARTICLES
- STOP the Energy bill! NUCLEAR ENERGY WOULD GET $7.5 BILLION IN TAX SUBSIDIES
- Bush's Own Brand of State-Sponsored Terrorism against the U.S.
QUOTE OF THE DAY
"I am personally fed up with the lies coming from the DOE/NRC. I think the people have a right to know that a terrorist could turn a nuclear power plant into a bomb that would render living conditions in certain parts of the country unlivable."
- - John "Jack" P. Shannon
(Retired U. S. Marine Corps Major, Former Nuclear Physicist/Nuclear Engineer, Former Supervising Nuclear Physicist/Engineer, Former Manager of Nuclear Safety, Industrial Safety/Industrial Hygiene at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, designer of the DxG U.S. Navy nuclear reactor)
KNOW YOUR HISTORY - NOVEMBER
1974 -- U.S. Freedom of Information Act passed over President Jerry Ford's veto.
1984 -- TransAfrica's Randall Robinson, Congressional Delegate Walter Fauntroy, & U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Mary Frances Berry arrested at a sit-in at the South African Embassy in Washington, D.C. Their demonstration against apartheid spreads to NY, LA, Chicago, & elsewhere, involving such notables as Jesse Jackson, Arthur Ashe, Harry Belafonte, & Stevie Wonder. Their efforts play a large part in the passage of the Antiapartheid Act of 1986, imposing economic sanctions against South Africa.
1993 -- U.S. Congress passes North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Bill Clinton signs it immediately so the treaty can take effect by the new year.
RHINO HERE:
Rhino sure got an email whoopin' on Thursday for what many of his blog readers considered an endorsement of Governor Howard Dean & a shunning of Dennis Kucinich. So I begin today by stating clearly what I have said several times in the past few months, which is I will support & vote for whichever Democratic candidate gets the nomination. I have supported Dennis Kucinich's campaign with my mouth, my blog & my wallet, having done so because I believe in most of the positions he has taken. I want him in the race no matter whether I or anyone else thinks he has a chance of winning because I know he ups the number of issues that get put on the table as well as the level of discourse. Nothing I said in yesterday's blog was a put down to Dennis. In fact I never mentioned his name.
That said, I think it's important we progressives look at each of the candidates, acknowledge when they're doing the right thing, & hold their feet to the fire when we believe they're not. In yesterday's case, I thought Howard Dean's postures on the issues were right on. I was extremely impressed by the people he chose as his Native American advisors and so I thought it correct to say so. One of the slams I received regarding Dean's Native American policies concerned his negotiations while he was Governor, with the Abenaki Tribe, on whether they should receive recognition. I don't know enough right now about that history to take a stance, but I promise to do my research and take that up sometime soon. I can tell you that in his first talk at NCAI, which was the smaller, more intimate gathering of the two that took place, the Governor spoke to the issue saying that tribal recognition can be a very complicated matter since there have been people who have claimed to be Indian when they are not, this in order to receive the financial gains available to recognized tribes. He is right about that & many Indian people have grave concerns about people, & groups of people, falsely claiming Indian blood. In the case of the Abenaki, allow me to do some homework & I'll be back on that soon.
I should also say that I I think we as progressives have to be careful to not tear all the Democratic candidates apart so much that we damage the likelihood that any of them can get elected. Personally, I have serious differences with each one of them, but I'm ready to pull the Demo switch come this time next year no matter who it's for, even if he was a member of Skull & Bones (Ug! dread the thought!) or even if his record of compromising on the issues is as fake-a-fied as his blonde plastic hair (Hold the nose - pull the switch).
Why would The Rhino compromise so? Here's just one of the many reasons. The shrub gang wants more nuke plants & ain't even taking safe care of the ones they have.
STOP the Energy bill!
NUCLEAR ENERGY WOULD GET $7.5 BILLION IN TAX SUBSIDIES;
US TAXPAYERS WOULD FUND NUCLEAR RELAPSE IF ENERGY BILL PASSES
Press Release of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, 11/17/03
Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) and the Bush Administration would give the nuclear power industry yet another bail-out as part of the much-maligned energy bill. Domenici has included, among other largesse, a 1.8 cent per kilowatt-hour production tax credit for electricity produced by new atomic reactors. This provision, crafted in secret and not released until late Saturday night, could cost taxpayers as much as $7.5 Billion and is intended to result in the construction of six new privately-owned, for-profit reactors across the county. This provision alone would cost each American family about $600. This incentive is in addition to almost four Billion dollars included for other nuclear energy programs...
MORE AT: http://www.nirs.org/energybillpressrelease111703.htm
7:26:12 AM 
|
|
CLEAR LIES Part 5: NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE:
Bush's Own Brand of State-Sponsored Terrorism against the U.S.
by Cheryl Seals, Baltamore IMC, 11/20/03
POSTED AT: http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/5511/index.php
Introduction
The entire Bush speech that introduced Clear Skies is so full of lies, manipulations, disinformation, and blatantly false promises that it would require a book to address each statement. In this series, I have selected 16 statements from the text of the speech and divided them into what I consider the Initiative's five main issues: conservation (lack of), environmental health (devastation of), free market solutions (failure of), science (absence of), coal (dominance of), and nuclear energy (state sponsored terrorism).
Bush Clear Skies Speech quotes in bold italics.
"We will promote…nuclear power, which produces no greenhouse gas emissions."
Lack of greenhouse emissions is the ONLY thing nuclear power has going for it. But this is like saying "nuclear warheads do not contain anthrax." They are still lethal! Here are some facts:
Most nuclear plants in the US were built at least three decades ago and are now deteriorating. But the nuke barons see a potentially huge profit in keeping them going because the loans taken out to build the plants are almost paid off. Enter Bush, who has made relicensing these disasters-waiting-to-happen a snap. Relicensing is supposed to be a rigorous process that should require a major, even total plant overhaul. But, thanks to Bush, relicensing is merely an empty formality. Aging plants are now being relicensed at an astoundingly rapid pace. Proof is not even required that the repairs prescribed by inspectors have been made and area residents near the plant are often not even informed that its happening. And they most certainly should be: According to the Federal Register notice, each relicensing is expected to be responsible for the release of 14,800 person-rem of radiation and the deaths of 12 people during its 20-year life extension. Nice little fact to know if you happen to be living and raising kids in the area!
And then, of course, there is the danger of terrorism. Since 9/11, most nuclear plants remain inadequately guarded - if at all. It was not until the second week of February, 2002, that the Bush administration issued a press release stating it would "soon" order the nation's 103 nuclear power plants to improve security. The Nuclear Energy Information Service revealed in October, 2001 that, under Bush, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) "has been "experimenting" with a plan to allow the nuclear industry to police itself on reactor security from terrorist assaults. This outrageous scheme comes after a decade-long series of tests of such security at U.S. reactors demonstrated conclusively that over 50% of those reactors tested could not resist a determined land-based intruder." Under Clinton, the DOE had asked to move TA-18, a facility at Los Alamos containing several burst reactors and tons of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium to a safer location. In Sept. 2001, Bush denied the request.
Then there is the problem of nuclear wastes-especially level-4 spent fuel rods, which are a national security risk in and of themselves. The only safe way to store these extraordinarily dangerous materials (which could, in a single "accident" render several hundred square miles uninhabitable for a 50-200 years, is in special "dry casks" of steel, lead and cement, which must then be buried in a geologically stable area. This of course, is very costly. So what is the Bush solution? In September, 2003, the DOE proposed reclassifying high-level wastes as "incidental to processing," so they could be handled more cheaply, and even reprocessed. Japan and France stopped reprocessing any nuclear wastes because of the extreme hazard it posed. Former British nuclear weapons specialist Dr Frank Barnaby of the Oxford Research Group stated in May, 2000, that nuclear reprocessing operations would 'make it virtually inevitable that terrorists will acquire the plutonium they want from the fuel, and make nuclear weapons with it." In fact, says Barnaby, once the material was obtained, it would not be difficult for a clever terrorist to make a dirty bomb: "A second-year graduate" could do it.
Last but not least: nuclear power will be one of the most costly forms of energy to the taxpayer. Not only that, but taxpayers will be paying for it for nearly 20 years before it's even available! The Bush energy plan calls for the industry to generate 50,000 more megawatts of power by 2020. To achieve this will require $1.3 billion for research, development and deployment. The Bush scheme also calls for the use of federal lands for new plants and for taxpayers to pay for 50% of the cost of establishing new reactors during all the initial stages of development. It will also require the taxpayer to eat $590 billion of the predicted cost of a nuclear accident, while the industry's own liability is capped at $10 billion. And of course, none of this figures in the cost of storing nuclear wastes-a cost, both economically and in risk, that will be born largely by "recipient states" such as Nevada-whether they want the risk and cost or not.
"RHINO'S BLOG" is the responsibility of Gary Rhine. (rhino@kifaru.com)
Feedback, and requests to be added or deleted from the list are encouraged.
SEARCH BLOG ARCHIVES / SURF RHINO'S LINKS, AT:
http://www.rhinosblog.info
RHINO'S OTHER WEB SITES:
http://www.dreamcatchers.org (INDIGENOUS ASSISTANCE & INTERCULTURAL DIALOG)
http://www.kifaru.com (NATIVE AMERICAN RELATIONS VIDEO DOCUMENTARIES)
Articles are reprinted under Fair Use Doctrine of international copyright law.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
All copyrights belong to original publisher.
6:11:11 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2005 Gary Rhine.
|
|
