[ RadSafe ] "Do Not Read This If You Are Anti-Nuclear Energy"

BLHamrick at aol.com BLHamrick at aol.com
Sat Dec 1 20:29:18 CST 2007

Yes, I see proof that there is an effort to eliminate nuclear  power.  It is 
a coordinated, reasonably well-executed effort, which  has had the following 
1.  In 1976 resulted in a law in California prohibiting the new  construction 
of a Nuclear Power Plant until there was a permanent disposition  option for 
spent fuel (i.e., Yucca Mountain).
2.  In 1992 resulted in Congress effectively "rescinding" the NRC's  1990 
"Below Regulatory Concern" (BRC) Policy.
3.  In 1999 resulted in Governor Davis refusing to appeal an  adverse 
decision (against the State) in Court to compel the federal  government to transfer 
land for the development of an LLRW facility at Ward  Valley.
5. In 2002 resulted in a law that would prohibit any future development of  
an LLRW facility at Ward Valley, and essentially any shallow-land burial in  
the State.
6.  In 2004 resulted in EPA abandoning efforts to  examine alternative 
disposal options (including free release) of very  low activity wastes (i.e., such 
as those routinely released by licensed  RM facilities using the old Regulatory 
Guide 1.86, or the newer  NUREG 1556 series), and in 2005 resulted in NRC 
abandoning a renewed effort  to codify the existing release criteria (i.e., BRC 
Redux).  Both agencies  cited "higher priorities" as a reason for abandoning 
the efforts, but I watched  the efforts fail close-up, and, in my opinion, 
"higher priorities" was  essentially a euphemism for there's too much heat from the 
anti-nuclear  contingency (if you have a chance, review the public comments 
on these  rulemaking efforts - thousands of form letters, all saying something 
like "don't  de-regulate radioactive waste," for both rulemakings.
And, these are just a few of the things I'm familiar with off the top of my  
All of these efforts are developed and supported by groups that are  
virulently anti-nuclear.  They do not make a secret of that.  Indeed,  they advertise 
it.  See, e.g., _www.committeetobridgethegap.org_ 
(http://www.committeetobridgethegap.org) ,  or _www.nirs.org_ (http://www.nirs.org) , or _www.ieer.org_ 
(http://www.ieer.org) .  
In 2006, a "report," financed by the California legislature to the tune of  
$150,000 was published at _www.ssflpanel.org_ (http://www.ssflpanel.org) .  I 
mentioned this  last week, but seriously, check it out.  If you think they have 
no  influence, you try asking a State Legislature for $150,000 to produce 
what is,  in my opinion, a grossly unprofessional and non-scientific report, and 
then have  the nerve to pass it off in the press as a serious report by a 
panel of  experts.  
These people are not amateurs.  At least a few appear to make their  entire 
living at this.  And, they are very effective influencing  technologically 
unsophisticated legislators.
Barbara L. Hamrick
In a message dated 12/1/2007 11:35:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
crispy_bird at yahoo.com writes:

Do you  have proof that there is an effort to eliminate
nuclear energy?  I see  a constant nit-picking effort
that is perceived to have influence beyond  its real
influence. (Most of the crying about anti-nuclear
influence is  on list like this.) I also see power
companies recognizing the economic  advantages of
supplying energy using nuclear power.


**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 

More information about the RadSafe mailing list