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

John Jacobus crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Sun Dec 2 08:37:07 CST 2007

So, why are there many license application for nuclear
power plants?

Laws can and changed.  Consider all the opposition to
the WIPP in New Mexico.  

If Californians are not willing to build nuclear power
plants (and I assume coal due to pollution concerns),
then they should be willing to pay for electrical
power from other states.   Economics and technology
are the driving forces.

--- BLHamrick at aol.com wrote:

> John,
> 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 
> ramifications:
> 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  
> head. 
> 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.
> Sincerely,
> Barbara L. Hamrick

"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak, Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." -- Sir Winston Churchill

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

Be a better pen pal. 
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.  http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

More information about the RadSafe mailing list