Pro-nuke advocacy

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>]

Maury, et al:



The problem is not just apathy.  Nuclear people actually fight attempts to

speak out.  I've been told over and over again that we shouldn't be

downplaying the dangers, because that looks like we're unwilling to provide

the needed protection.  In addition, I'm told, the public won't buy it.  "We

mustn't tell the truth or we'll lose credibility."  How's that for 1984

newspeak!



This is our most serious problem.  The article below shows how people

profit, or wish to profit, from it.  They claim the danger is more serious

than most people think, that's why we need Price-Anderson insurance, more

money for security, outlandish specs for Yucca Mtn, etc.  In trying to get a

positive statement from the National Academy of Engineering (that I had

hoped was above such petty concerns), I was told "we should not put out a

reassuring msg just before the National Research Council is about to issue

its statement (presumably saying that this is such a serious problem that it

requires years of expensive secret research).  In that case I found 15

Academy members who are willing to buck the trend, and we've signed a pretty

good statement and are now trying to peddle it.



I write an occasional letter or talk, but one low-level character doesn't

have much clout.  And senior nuclear people are aggressively opposed to such

statements, as I've noted.



I really don't know how to fight this.  Any suggestions?



Ted Rockwell

_____________________________________________

Energy Dept.'s Nuclear Security Fears Told

Terrorism: Amid public assurances, an official warned that facilities need

more funding to thwart possible attacks.

By MEGAN GARVEY

TIMES STAFF WRITER



April 22 2002



WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy in late March warned the White House

in writing that its facilities, which include sites containing nuclear

materials, remain vulnerable to terrorist attack because of the

administration's refusal to fund critical security needs.



The letter, dated March 28, was released Sunday by Rep. Edward J. Markey

(D-Mass.), who has been a frequent and vocal critic of the current levels

of security at the nation's nuclear sites.



Concerns about safeguarding nuclear facilities have been high since

intelligence reports indicated that Al Qaeda operatives, interested in

exploiting U.S. security weaknesses, consider such sites desirable targets

for attack or infiltration. The private correspondence, from the Energy

Department's chief financial officer to a top official at the White House

Office of Management and Budget, marks the first indication of alarm about

security at such facilities by Bush administration officials, who have

repeatedly offered public assurances that security is sufficient to meet

heightened demands.



"The Department's remaining safeguards and security budgets are not

sufficient to implement security posture requirements that appropriately

respond to the September 11th attacks," said the Energy Department's Bruce

M. Carnes, who cautioned that his agency was at a "crucial juncture."



In the letter addressed to Marcus Peacock, a senior OMB official, Carnes

said he was "disconcerted" by the OMB's decision not to provide additional

funds. He was told, he added, that the OMB decided not to support the

request because a revised threat analysis required of the Energy Department

had not been completed.



"This isn't a tenable position for you to take, in my view," Carnes said.

"We are not operating, and cannot operate under the pre-September 11 Design

Basis Threat . . . and you have not provided us the resources to do so."



Carnes, who did not specify how much additional money was being sought,

also expressed dismay that he was not given the chance to argue the

department's position personally.



Congress approved $111 million in supplemental funding for security at

nuclear weapon laboratories after the terrorist attacks, and the White

House is seeking nearly $700 million more for lab security in the 2003

budget.



Markey on Sunday requested President Bush's "immediate assistance" in

ensuring the protection of the nation's nuclear facilities.



The congressman told Bush in a letter dated today that his concerns lie not

only in the potential of nuclear materials to be stolen, but also in the

likelihood that nuclear sites could be targeted for attack.



"I am stunned by the apparent failure of the White House to provide

sufficient resources to adequately protect this country's nuclear weapons

facilities from terrorist attack," Markey said. Markey emphasized that 10

Energy Department sites--including facilities near urban locations such as

California's Bay Area and Denver--reportedly contain sufficient amounts of

weapon-grade plutonium and uranium to make a crude atomic bomb.



"The administration has requested almost $8 billion for missile defense,

which won't do anything to prevent suicidal terrorists from attacking

nuclear facilities and blowing up dirty bombs or homemade nuclear weapons,"

Markey said Sunday. "But when DOE finally admits security is not what it

should be, OMB refuses to help."

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at

latimes.com/archives. For information about reprinting this article, go to

www.lats.com/rights.







************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/