[ RadSafe ] Two nuclear bills killed in CA - AGAIN

[Maury Siskel]

I thought we were long past the anachronism of nuclear "waste". I 
thought it was well known that expended nuclear fuel could be 
constructively reprocessed and reused. Has my handbasket again gone 
astray? Must CA cope in the dark with its earthquakes?
Maury&Dog  (Maury Siskel  maurysis at peoplepc.com)

=============================
Brennan, Mike (DOH) wrote:

> <>Someone should point out to them that California, indeed the United 
> States, choosing not to build new nuclear reactors will have almost no 
> effect on the number of reactors that get built, as a number of
> countries over which we have no influence are going to build their 
> own. What it will do is insure that California, and any other states 
> that follow there example, will pay the higher economic and 
> environmental costs of buying energy produced elsewhere, or produced 
> by "environmentally friendly" methods that often turn out to not be so.
>
> The line, "Simply put, a permanent means for safe disposal of 
> high-level radioactive waste does not exist." is, to put it simply, 
> false.
>
> ---------------------Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On 
> Behalf Of Roger Helbig
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 12:24 AM
> To: Radsafe
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Two nuclear bills killed in CA - AGAIN
>
> They are proud of their "accomplishment".
>
> On Behalf Of MoJo
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 7:41 AM
> To: HopeDance; HD-Global
> Subject: [NukeNet] Two nuclear bills killed in CA - AGAIN
>
> For Immediate Release
>
> Contact: Rochelle Becker (858) 337-2703
> David Weisman (805) 704-1810
>
> The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility leads successful effort to
> retain California's nuclear safeguard laws.
>
> On April 7, 2008, Rochelle Becker, the executive director of the
> Alliance testified before California's Assembly Natural Resource
> Committee in opposition to two bills that would have allowed new
> reactors to be sited in our state without the certification of the
> existence of an approved and demonstrated technology or means of
> disposal of high-level radioactive waste
>
> "AB 1776 was a smokescreen that would have substituted California's
> protective legislation passed over three decades ago for a law that
> assumed the state might allow construction of nuclear reactors in

----------------------snipped------------------