Re: No nuclear Energy Program in US

[Carolworth@aol.com]

I received several requests  regarding how to and who to write to on the
Senators' letter to DOE regarding "no viable Nuclear Energy program in the
U.S...." Listed below are the 6 senators' addresses and a sample letter sent
each -- including a pitch for reg reform.

Sen. Larry Craig						
U.S. Senate
313 Hart Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Sen. Frank Murkowski						
U.S. Senate
322 Hart Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Sen. Dirk Kempthorne						
U.S. Senate
367 Dirksen Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Sen. Jon Kyl								
U.S. Senate
702 Russell Bldg.
Washington, DC   20510

Sen. Pete Domenici								
U.S. Senate
328 Hart Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Sen. Richard Durbin						
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC   20510

I applaud your recent stance on nuclear power and congratulate you on your
leadership position for a viable Nuclear Energy program in the U.S.  With the
high level of public opposition, nuclear tends to be a dirty secret.  But
nuclear technology is uniquely qualified to address global warming, food
pathogens, deep space flight, clean air, medical research and treatment,
sterilization and anti-terrorism.  It's gotten a bum rap and it's been junk
science fueling the flames of opposition.  Many elected officials win votes
on "green, anti-nuclear issues".  They have abdicated public leadership where
they should be talking about benefits and risks, especially the non-risks of
low-level waste.  Nuclear technologies generated 4.4 million jobs, $421
billion in sales and $79 billion in tax revenues in 1995. Ninety percent of
nuclear technologies are not involved with power production.

In Racine, Wisconsin, an August conference at Wingspread with 50 of the
nation's top science and policy experts concluded that no additional cancers
were found in people exposed to 10,000 millirems of radiation to the whole
body in one dose.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission currently sets
radioactive standards for cleanup and release at 25 millirem per year.  In
natural background radiation alone, we receive hundreds of millirem per year.


For a long time it's been very chic to be green or anti nuclear.  Recently,
the more courageous position is to look at relative risks and cost benefits
of stringent regulations that contribute nothing to public safety. Again I
applaud your courageous stand and hope for similar leadership in regulatory
reform that could save taxpayers billions of dollars.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission admits to setting regulations not based on
scientific risks, but perceived risks by the public.  Nobel Prize winner
Rosalyn Yalow wrote in 1981 (!); "The regulators (on not revising regs to
reflect the non-risk of burning extremely low-level waste) were responding
not to the real risk but rather to the public's fears of radiation at any
level.  These fears are generated by constant bombardment about the dangers
of radiation by the news media, which make little distinction between atom
bombs and their waste, nuclear-power reactors and their waste, and waste
generated by the medical use of radioisotopes."

I am a former journalist working as a communications consultant to several
groups (much of it pro-bono) whose cause I heartily endorse.  The untold
story we are working to get out is about the benefits of nuclear technology
and power.  It would solve global warming.  It would solve food poisoning.
 It could cure cancer, Alzheimer's and AIDS.  Thank you for your fearless
words.



Sincerely, 								Carol Worth