Senator positive on nuclear power

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Thanks, Mike

I'd like to note that Domenici's speech was, in several ways, even stronger
than this. Further, I'm disappointed that the Energy Daily did not report on 
the following part of the speech: 

"I'll cite another example [of bad decisions]. We regulate exposure to low
levels of radiation using a so-called 'linear no-threshold' model, the
premise of which there is no 'safe' level of exposure. 

"Our model forces us to regulate radiation to levels approaching 1 percent
of natural background despite the fact that natural background cn vary by 50 
(sic) percent within the United States. 

"On the other hand, many scientists think that living cells, after millions
of years of exposure to naturally occurring radiation, have adapted such
that low levels of radiation cause very little if any harm. In fact, there
are some studies that suggest exactly the opposite is true -- that low doses 
of radiation may even improve health. 

"The truth is important. We spend over $5 billion each year to clean
contaminated DOE sites to levels below 5 percent of background. 

"In this year's Energy and Water Appropriations Act, we initiated a ten year 
program to understand how radiation affects genomes and cells so that we can 
really understand how radiation affects living organisms. For the first
time, we will develop radiation protection standards that are based on
actual risk." 

He then goes on to cite another bad decision - the failure to implement food 
irradiation... 

There is growing anticipation also that the interest in the falacious
"science" and data manipulation supporting the LNT and regulatory excess
and, self-serving profits, especially by "private" interests, will lead to
Congressional investigations and hearings. The Congress that didn't want to
hear about BRC, can reasonably be expected to suddenly turn on those who it
will perceive to have grotesquely "misled them" about radiation health
effects, and to have profited massively from the disinformation provided to
Congress to garner $100s billions at public expense. A constructive response 
to change will defuse this situation, although I suspect that resistence by
the LNT forces will actually bring about more rapid change since that will
lead to a more sudden break rather than a resiliant and slower change
process. 

Finally, note that Domenici presented this speech (threw down the gauntlet?) 
to the Belfer Center at Harvard, who's "Science, Technology, and Society"
Program, and "Managing the Atom Project" is the home of Holdren and a number 
of anti-nuclear activists, with its Exec Director a recent (1997) grad of
the Union of Concerned "Scientists". :-) 

Regards, Jim 
Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc.

>
============================================================================
> SUBJECT:  TIME TO TAKE A FRESH LOOK AT NUCLEAR/DOMENICI > SOURCE:   THE
ENERGY DAILY via Fulfillment by INDIVIDUAL, Inc. > DATE:     November 5,
1997 > INDEX:    [2]

> ORDER NO: 835706#
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   THE ENERGY DAILY via Individual Inc. : The U.S. needs to take a fresh
look > at nuclear power, paying particular attention to its potential for
helping > to meet the nation's energy and environmental challenges.

>   Sound like a recipe for political suicide? That may be, but Sen. Pete
> Domenici (R-N.M.) is not worried about winning any popularity contests.
What > does worry Domenici, who chairs the Senate Appropriations energy &
water > development subcommittee, is the very real possibility that the
current > anti-nuclear hysteria in the United States will prove damaging to
the > country in the long run if it persists.

>   In a speech delivered Oct. 31 at Harvard University inaugurating the
> Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Domenici said that
> citizens and government leaders alike need to recognize the economic and
> strategic consequences of the nuclear policy path the nation is now on.
>   In the coming months, Domenici said he plans to ``lead a new dialogue
with > serious discussion about the full range of nuclear technologies.'' He 
also > pledged to ``provide national leadership to overcome barriers'' to
the use > of nuclear technologies to improve the quality of life for the
nation and > the world.

>   A major challenge, he indicated, will be to build a base of support that
> can help bring about a ``careful reevaluation of many ill-conceived fears,
> policies, and decisions that have seriously constrained our use of nuclear
> technologies.''
>   In Domenici's view, nuclear technology cannot be separated from the
issues > of energy supply and the nation's future economic prosperity. And
when it > comes to energy, Domenici stressed, ``we have a serious problem.''

>   The United States consumes some 25 percent of the world's energy
> production. But competition for the world's energy resources is sure to
> intensify, he said, pointing out that ``developing countries are on track
to > increase their energy consumption by 48 percent between 1992 and
2010.'' >   This explosion in demand could have major implications for the
oil and gas > markets--and adversely affect the U.S. economy. The United
States, he said, > now imports about $50 billion in oil and natural gas
feedstocks that, once > processed domestically in to a variety of products-- 
including gasoline, are > worth $505 billion a year.

>   But as global demand grows, these feedstocks may not be as readily
> available or as affordable.
>   At the same time, Domenici continued, the United States is being
> challenged to stabilize its emissions of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse > gases at 1990 levels. And here again, nuclear power could play
a prominent > role in helping reduce U.S. emissions.

>   Indeed, Domenici urged the White House to carefully consider the nuclear
> option in drafting its greenhouse gas mitigation policies. ``We have
> developed the next generation of nuclear power plants--which have been
> certified by the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] and are now being sold
> overseas. They are even safer than our current models. Better yet, we have
> technologies under development like passively safe reactors, lead-bismuth
> reactors and advanced liquid metal reactors that generate less waste and
are > proliferation resistant.''

>   For nuclear to have any future, the U.S. has got to come to grips with
its > current nuclear waste storage and disposal dilemma, Domenici
continued. But > this problem can be solved, he stressed.

>   On a related issue, Domenici strongly urged the administration to
> reconsider the current ban on using mixed- oxide (MOX) fuel in commercial
> reactors. The 1977 decision by President Carter to prohibit reprocessing
of > spent nuclear fuel and prevent the use of MOX fuel in U.S. reactors was 
an > error, he asserted.

>   The policy was meant to prevent plutonium from being diverted and
> transformed into nuclear weapons, but it simply has not worked. ``Other
> countries do not follow the example of the United States,'' he said,
> pointing out that France, Great Britain, Japan, and Russia all now have
MOX > fuel programs.

>   The prohibition on using MOX fuel in the United States, he added, ``has
> harmed our efforts to deal with spent nuclear fuel and the disposition of
> excess weapons material, as well as our ability to influence international
> reactor issues.''
>   Instead of being seen as a problem MOX should be viewed as a technical
> solution for dealing with growing quantities of nuclear materials that are
> being stockpiled as nuclear warheads are dismantled. ``MOX is the best
> technical solution,'' said Domenici.
>   ``The dismantlement of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in Russia
and > the United States has left both countries with large inventories of

> perfectly machined classified components that could allow each country to
> rapidly rebuild its nuclear arsenals,'' he observed. ``Both countries
should > set a goal of converting those excess inventories into non- weapons 
shapes > as quickly as possible. The more permanent those transformations
and the > more verification that can accompany the conversion of the
material, the > better.''

>   <<THE ENERGY DAILY -- 11-6-97>>
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Michael C. Baker, Ph.D.
> Safeguards Science and Technology
> Mail Stop E540
> Los Alamos National Laboratory
> Los Alamos, NM 87545
> Phone: (505) 667-7334
> Fax:   (505) 665-4433
> ---------------------------------