Prophesies

[Isotopia]

you know... the First Amendment states that people have the right to peacibly assemble. Why should the BMORG have to sign permits that let the BLM on the playa to say who goes where and what can and can't happen? As far as i understand, the land that BM is held on is public land. Since we are Americans, we are entitled to peacibly assemble on that land without some government officals pulling the strings.

Not research.

It was a 'safety scenario.' Research had nothing to do with it. The moderated graphite design had everything to do with it.

[geekster]

Okay, yes, it was an experiment to see if in case of emergency shutdown, there would be enough power to operate the cooling system and other equipment until the diesel generators came on line. In my mind, I lump this into research. This should have been done in a lab and not in a production reactor because this particular reactor design is known to be unstable at low power. Should coolant flash to steam, as in fact happened, there could be sudden surges of power (temperature) locally within the reactor core. This happened, ignited the graphite moderator, and the rest is under a pile of boron and concrete.

Causes Of The Chernobyl Accident

Lack Of A 'Safety Culture' - The organisations responsible for the Chernobyl Nuclear Power plant lacked a 'safety culture' resulting in an inability to remedy design weaknesses despite being known about before the accident. A secret USSR memorandum in the Russian archives "Chernobyl Construction Weaknesses" clearly illustrates this fact.


Design Fault In The RBMK Reactor - The RBMK reactor type used at Chernobyl suffers from instability at low power and thus may experience a rapid , uncontrollable power increase. Although other reactor types have this problem they incorporate design features to stop instability from occurring. The cause of this instability is:

Water is a better coolant than steam

The water acts as a moderator and neutron absorber (slowing down the reaction) whilst steam does not.

Excess steam pockets in the RBMK design lead to increased power generation this is known as a positive void coefficient. This excess power causes additional heating thus producing more steam and means less neutron absorption causing the problem to escalate. This all happens very rapidly and if it is not stopped quickly it is very hard to stop as it supplies itself.

Violation Of Procedures - While running a test of the reactor numerous safety procedure were violated by the station technicians.

Only 6 - 8 control rods were used during the test despite there been a standard operating order stating that a minimum of 30 rods were required to retain control.

The reactor's emergency cooling system was disabled.

Communications Breakdown - The test was carried out without a proper exchange of information between the team in charge of the test and personnel responsible for the operation of the nuclear reactor.

Sequence Of Events Leading To The Accident
As Reactor Four was to be shutdown for routine maintenance on the 25 April 1986 it was decided to take advantage of this to run a test. The test was to check whether, in the event of a shutdown enough electrical power to operate the emergency equipment and core cooling pumps until the diesel power supply came online.

As the reactor shutdown proceeded, the reactor operated at approximately half power when the electric load dispatcher refused to allow further shutdown. As part of the test the emergency core cooling system was switched off and the reactor carried on at half power. At about 23:00hrs on 25th April the grid controller agreed to a further reduction in power.

For the test the reactor was to be stabilised at 1,000MW prior to shutdown, however, due to operational error the power fell to about 30MW where the positive void coefficient became a problem. The operators tried to raise the power by freeing all the control rods manually and at 01:00hr on 26 April the reactor stabilised at 200MW.

Shortly afterwards an increase in coolant flow and a drop in steam pressure occurred requiring the operators to withdraw nearly all the rods. The reactor then became very unstable and the operators had to make adjustments every few seconds to maintain a constant power.

At this time the operators reduced the flow of feedwater to maintain the steam pressure. Also pumps that were powered by the slowing turbine provided less and less cooling to the reactor. This created additional steam in the cooling channels (positive void coefficient) and the operators could not control a power surge estimated to 100 time the nominal power.

The sudden increase in temperature caused part of the fuel to rupture, fuel particles then reacted with the water creating a steam explosion which destroyed the reactor core. A second explosion added to the destruction two minutes later.

[cowboyangel]

you would make a fine disciple to dick cheney

[geekster]

I doubt it, I am not very friendly to the fossil fuel industry.

[Simply Joel]

you would make a fine disciple to dick cheney

Using a resource made available by stuart on upon a time long ago
(ie. Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies).

May i direct your attention to...Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)


or maybe it is another one... but i think you get my drift.

[Ranger Genius]

ad hominem would be an accurate characterization, Joel. There's a hint there of a "Straw Man" non sequitur (IE supporting nuclear power = supporting all evil corporate agendas), but the comment was primarily a personal attack.

[cowboyangel]

RMI's Approach to Energy

The inefficient use of energy causes many economic and security problems, and most environmental ones. Simply using energy in a way that saves money would avoid most of these problems. RMI therefore works to speed the free-market adoption of a "Soft Energy Path"—a profitable blending of efficient energy use with safe, sustainable sources to provide the same or better services while saving money, abating pollution and climate change, reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation, and increasing global security.

Over the years, we've assembled the following intellectual tools to achieve this:

* End-Use/Least-Cost Thinking. In a 1976 Foreign Affairs article, Amory Lovins, now the Institute's CEO, asked: "What are the jobs for which we need energy, how much and what kinds of energy do we need for each task, and what is the cheapest way to supply that energy?" People don't actually want kilowatt-hours of electricity or barrels of oil, but rather the "end-use services" they provide—lighting, heating, refrigeration, mobility, and so on. Thus it's the price of obtaining those services, not of the energy that drives them, that should matter. This "end-use/least-cost" approach is basic to RMI's thinking about using all kinds of resources more productively.

* A Watt Saved is a Watt Earned/Demand-Side Management. Thinking little about their customers' end-use demands, electric utilities historically believed their business was simply to sell electrons. They created giant, centralized systems that relied on multi-billion-dollar power plants that took years to build, thinking they had no choice but to keep up with demand for electrons. Some still think this, but most now realize that it's usually cheaper to help their customers save electricity than try to sell them more of it—because selling more means having to build more expensive, economically risky power plants. "Demand-side management," a practice that Amory Lovins helped pioneer and RMI has consistently promoted, recognizes the fundamental equivalence of savings and supply. The cost of saving electricity—or saving any sort of energy, or any sort of resource—should be weighed alongside the cost of producing more of it. Saving energy is usually cheaper, and not only that, it also reduces pollution and many other problems. As Gary Zarker of Seattle City Light says: "There's no cheaper, cleaner power than power you don't have to produce."

* What Exists is Possible. There's an old joke about an economist who was walking down the street and saw a $20 bill on the pavement. He didn't pick it up because he assumed it didn't exist; if it did, he reasoned, someone would have already picked it up. Many good ideas are slow to catch on because people assume that if it worked somebody would have done it already. That's why RMI devotes much of its efforts to documenting the best and most profitable energy-efficient technologies, industrial and architectural designs, and business practices: if they exist, they must be possible.

* Systems Thinking. In today's complex world, designers and decision-makers too often define problems singly, without due attention to their causes or connections, and devise narrow "solutions" that merely shift the problem or create new ones in its place. For example, the usual response to an oil shortage is to encourage more domestic production (a "drain America first" strategy that will soon backfire) or to increase the flow of imports (which entails massive defense expenditures, and risk, to keep Gulf supply lines open). "Systems thinking" means considering the bigger picture to find solutions that avoid such unintended consequences and instead produce cascading benefits—as, for example, when more efficient vehicle designs not only make more oil unnecessary but also reduce pollution, protect the climate, save money, and strengthen the economy.

* Tunnel Through the Cost Barrier. Efficiency is usually viewed as a process of diminishing returns: the more you do, the less attractive the payback. But RMI has demonstrated in a number of fields—buildings, vehicles, industrial systems—that it's possible, using highly integrative design, to achieve very large efficiency gains even more cheaply than small ones. This results from the conscientious application of various non-standard techniques—for more on tunneling through the cost barrier, see the newsletter story mentioned below.

* Market-Oriented Solutions. For least-cost solutions to win out, the market must offer a level playing field. Most of RMI's activities are aimed at accomplishing this: urging policy-makers to desubsidize energy prices and remove barriers to energy efficiency; devising mechanisms for market trading in saved energy and for rewarding engineers and designers for saving energy; and improving market function by educating utilities and businesses about profitable energy-saving opportunities.

* Regulatory Change. RMI has been a driving force in showing how regulations can provide energy utilities with profit incentives to invest in efficiency. This has included extensive writing and testimony on decoupling profits from electricity sales so that utilities aren't punished for helping their customers save energy; and ensuring that electric-industry restructuring encourages competition and maintains public goods such as efficiency, renewables, and research and development.

* Small is Profitable. Centralized electricity systems with giant power plants are becoming obsolete. In their place are emerging "distributed resources"—smaller, decentralized electricity supply sources (including efficiency) that are cheaper, cleaner, less risky, more flexible, and quicker to deploy. RMI is at the forefront of quantifying the benefits of this approach to enable utilities and other energy providers to justify changing their strategies (see newsletter story link below).


For further discussion, see General Energy Policy.

[cowboyangel]

Cost of dealing with nuclear waste ever figure into the calculation??????

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/

[cowboyangel]

Presented to the Western Governors' Association North American Energy Summit, April 15, 2004, by Thomas B. Cochran, director of NRDC's nuclear program.
The Near-Term Economic Picture for Commercial Nuclear Generation
The Industry Response to Its Lack of Ability to Compete in the Power Generation Marketplace
NRDC's Response



The Near-Term Economic Picture for Commercial Nuclear Generation

There are 103 operational commercial nuclear power plants in the United States today, and a 104th is expected to resume operations in a few years.1 With only a few notable exceptions they are typically operating very efficiently, that is, at high capacity factors, in an increasingly competitive environment.2 These plants, by in large, compete favorably with fossil-fueled (coal and natural gas) plants in terms of their respective forward costs (operating and maintenance and fuel costs). For 2002, the average nuclear production costs of 1.71 cents per kilowatt-hour (c/kWh) were just slightly less than those of coal plants which were 1.85 cents/kWh.3

On the other hand, the last unit to enter commercial operation was TVA's Watts Bar Unit 1 in June 1996, and the last successful order for a U.S. commercial nuclear power plant was in 1973. No energy generation company in the Unites States has been willing to order and construct a new nuclear plant in more than thirty years, and none have taken anything more than preliminary steps towards purchasing and constructing a new nuclear plant today in the absence of a promise of huge Federal subsidies. This is not because of public opposition; not for want of a licensed geologic repository for the disposal of spent fuel; and not because of the proliferation risks associated with commercial nuclear power. Rather, it is because new commercial nuclear power plants are uneconomical in the United States.

Arguably the best and most current economic comparison of nuclear and fossil-fueled plants is by Professor Paul L. Joskow in a recent interdisciplinary MIT study, "The Future of Nuclear Power."4 As seen from the following table from the MIT Study, in the United States today new nuclear plants are far from being competitive with new natural gas or coal-fueled power plants. The levelized cost of electricity5 generated by a new nuclear plant is estimated to be about 60 percent greater than the cost of electricity from a coal plant or a gas-fueled plant assuming moderate gas prices.


Source: Table 1.3, The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, MIT (2003).


As seen from the Table 5.1 from the MIT Study, reproduced on the next page, this scenario would change if there were a significant tax on carbon emissions, or if an equivalent economic penalty were imposed on fossil-fueled plants through a cap on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions or a requirement that CO2 be sequestered. Nuclear would be competitive with coal if there were a carbon tax of about $100 per ton of carbon ($100/tC), and with moderately priced natural gas if the tax were about $200/tC.


Source: Table 5.1, The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, MIT (2003).


Alternatively, without the introduction of a significant carbon tax (or capping carbon emissions), in order for new commercial nuclear power generation to become competitive with power generation from fossil plants, some unlikely combination of factors would have to occur -- for example, a 25 percent reduction in nuclear plant construction costs and sustained high gas prices could conceivably lead to a competitive comparison. The nuclear industry has reached a similar conclusion.6 According to Exelon, the largest U.S. nuclear operator with 17 nuclear plants, "Exelon preliminary analyses estimate that gas prices consistently above $5 to $6/mmBTU [approx. $5 to $6/MCF] are needed for new nuclear plants to be competitive."7 Exelon has also stated, "[t]he industry has informally conveyed an acceptance window of $1000-$1200/kwe for capital cost, excluding financing, for any new nuclear facility."8 This is well below the MIT Study's estimated current overnight construction cost of $2000/kWe.9

Combinations of high gas prices and significantly lower capital costs could make nuclear plants competitive with fossil fuel plants, but the bottom line is that in the current economic climate, commercial nuclear generation is not even close to being competitive with fossil-fueled plants and there is no easy path to a competitive market for new nuclear plants. This conclusion is underscored further by the availability of abundant energy efficiency and renewable energy resources, which are emerging as nuclear power's most formidable rivals.


The Industry Response to Its Lack of Ability to Compete in the Power Generation Marketplace

Faced with these marketplace realities, the commercial nuclear industry is pursuing another alternative. The industry is pursuing, and is now beginning to receive, taxpayer dollars to subsidize the difference in the cost of nuclear and fossil-fueled generated electricity. Some of the largest and most successful energy companies are lined up at the public trough for what the industry calls an "investment stimulus."

First, in 2001, the nuclear industry succeeded in getting the Bush Administration "to support the expansion of nuclear power in the United States."10 Next, in early 2002, the Secretary of Energy unveiled the Department's "Nuclear Power 2010 Program," "a joint government/industry cost-shared effort to identify sites for new nuclear power plants, develop advanced nuclear plant technologies, and demonstrate new regulatory processes leading to a private sector decision by 2005 to order new nuclear power plants for deployment in the United States in the 2010 timeframe."11

As part of the Nuclear Power 2010 program, three nuclear generation companies have applied to the NRC for Early Site Permits for new nuclear plants -- Exelon Generation, Dominion Energy and Entergy Nuclear. The early sites permits would be for sites at the Exelon site near Clinton, Illinois; the Dominion Mineral plant at North Anna, Virginia; and the Entergy Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Port Gibson, Mississippi. The federal government is paying one-half the cost of developing each of these companies' early site permit application. The permits, once obtained from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), will be good for 20 years and can be renewed for an additional 20 years.

Notably, these three corporations are among the largest and most successful electricity generation companies, with combined revenues of $37.1 billion in 2003.12 While quick to grab the taxpayer-supported nuclear pork, none have committed to construct new nuclear plants at any of the sites. And why should they. As I explain below, much more taxpayer support is potentially on the table. The companies recognize that if they make no commitment to build a new plant, the Administration would continue to feed them with an ever-increasing sum of taxpayer-supported largesse.

Two weeks ago, two consortia of nuclear companies, including Exelon, Entergy and Dominion, announced they are seeking DOE funds "to demonstrate the licensing process," a euphemism for having the taxpayers pay half the cost of getting a combined construction and operation license from the NRC.13 Again, there will be no commitment to build a plant because the companies know that DOE and the nuclear boosters in the Congress are preparing an even larger nuclear golden egg.

In April 2003, Senator Pete Domenici introduced his Energy bill, S.14, which contained a $6.8 billion tax subsidy to the energy companies for 6,000 megawatts of new nuclear generating capacity (approximately six plants).14 In other words, proponents of the Energy bill are prepared to provide multi-billion dollar energy companies about $1 billion in subsidies for each new nuclear plant they build. This bill was filibustered in November 2003, and failed to pass. This year Senator Domenici has reintroduced the bill without the subsidy, but if the new bill, S.2095 passes the Senate, the House may reintroduce the nuclear plant tax subsidy.15 In any case, the handwriting is on the wall. The nuclear industry is looking for huge taxpayer subsidies to jump-start nuclear power plant construction and create the artificial impression that the industry is competitive -- and its allies in the Congress are prepared to provide the necessary support.

While having done a fine job of comparing the economics of nuclear v fossil-fueled plants, the MIT Study calls for of a similar array of taxpayer subsidies, but with a somewhat smaller production tax credit to offset the higher risk premium associated with borrowing money for construction costs of a few plants. In addition to endorsing the cost sharing arrangements under DOE's Nuclear Power 2010 program, the MIT Study calls for "a production tax credit for up to $200/kWe [i.e., $200 per kilowatt of electric power] of the plants construction tax credit" for ten so-called "first mover" plants.16 This last proposed subsidy is pegged to the 1.7 cent per kilowatt-hour production tax credit for wind energy, and alone represents an additional $2 billion worth of subsidies for nuclear power plants to be constructed in the United States.17

These proposed subsidies are unjustified in my view, promoting both negative economic and environmental consequences relative to substantially more benign renewable energy generating technologies. It makes no sense to take huge sums of taxpayer dollars from small businesses and working stiffs in the west and give those sums to large, highly profitable energy companies in the east to subsidize uneconomical power plants. Moreover, by any standard nuclear power is a mature industry that has already benefited from tens of billions of dollars in government subsidies over many decades. The commercial nuclear power industry should sink or swim of its own accord in the free market without additional taxpayer assistance. In the end, if the government subsidized six more nuclear plants, we will have 110 nuclear plants instead of 104 nuclear plants. This will not make nuclear power competitive or solve any of the nation's pressing long-term energy needs or the global warming problem.


NRDC's Response

What should be done under the circumstances?

Let the marketplace work to address the problems we face and price energy at its full societal cost by internalizing the cost of environmental pollution.

Assuming you believe in economic efficiency and a free market, you should be advocating a reduction in subsidies to energy companies for production of electricity by nuclear and fossil-fueled plants. Moreover, to level the playing field and allow all new innovations to compete, you should be advocating internalizing the environmental costs of these technologies. Therefore, you should support a cap on CO2 emissions to limit global warming or accomplish the same by placing a tax on carbon emissions. Global warming is real. It will affect western states in negative ways that we do not fully comprehend, and severe damage may occur sooner than you think. You should work to remove the anticompetitive advantages that poorly-controlled, inefficient, incumbent coal-fired power plants presently enjoy over newer, cleaner, and more efficient coal-fired plants. The country's oldest and dirtiest coal-fired plants continue to get away with pollution-boosting refurbishments that extend their dirty lives and impede the market entry of more efficient, cleaner coal power technologies such as integrated gasification combined cycle. You should devote resources to enforcing the Clean Air Act's new source review requirements, and resist the federal EPA's efforts to weaken those requirements. Finally, you should work to halt the significant damage to western aquifers from coal and uranium mining companies. I don't need to tell this group that water is the West's most scarce and most precious resource. Not one aquifer that has suffered the introduction of uranium solution mining has had its water quality restored to pre-mining status. Severe damage to pristine aquifers and drinking water sources from mining endangers the public health of communities and harms the long economic prospects of the American West.

The innate problems facing the nuclear industry have not been solved.

When a commercial nuclear generating station irradiates a nuclear fuel rod, nuclear power production does not result in significant greenhouse gas emissions and during normal operations the radioactivity emissions produce far fewer health effects than emissions from coal-fueled plants. Despite this one favorable comparison, nuclear power generation has its own set of unique problems -- proliferation, reactor safety, and disposal of the nuclear waste. These problems need to be solved before expanding our commitment to nuclear power.

1. The "once-through" fuel cycle is the only viable security and economic option. There are serious proliferation risks associated with uranium enrichment and the use of plutonium as a fuel. Currently these are not significant problems in domestic fuel cycle activities, but they are serious problem at the global level, particularly in developing nations with nuclear programs (e.g., our serious security concerns with the domestic nuclear programs of Iran and Pakistan).

Indeed, terrorism is generally regarded as highest security concern of the United States. If we are going to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism at home and abroad, we must halt the commercial use of nuclear weapon-usable materials such as highly enriched uranium and plutonium. The MIT Study found that reprocessing and recycling plutonium -- which creates weapon-usable material and some of the most radioactive waste in the world -- is also is uneconomic and likely to remain so for decades to come. Separating more weapon-usable material at a tremendous economic loss simply makes no sense. We are not running out of low-cost uranium and reprocessing offers no nuclear waste management benefits. For existing commercial nuclear generators (and for any new facilities built in other countries), we should stick to the so-called "once through" fuel cycle, with direct disposal of spent fuel, and strongly encourage other countries to do likewise.

The use of highly enriched uranium fuel is largely confined to about 100 research and test reactors around the world and a few hundred naval reactors in the United States, Russia the United Kingdom and France. There is simply no reason to continue to fuel research and test reactors with weapon-usable highly enriched uranium. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, on March 18th said that the U.S. government is working on an "action plan" to get countries worldwide to stop using highly enriched uranium, which can be the raw material for nuclear weapons. The effort to shift research reactors to low enriched uranium fuel, begun during the Carter Administration, is moving too slowly; and with regard to naval reactors, there has been no progress whatsoever due to opposition by the U.S. Navy.

2. Safety of commercial nuclear generation, despite what you may hear, is still a concern. Fortunately, there has not been a catastrophic nuclear accident in the United States, and no partial core meltdown accident since Three Mile Island in March 1979. The risk of a catastrophic accident is widely viewed to be lower today than it was two decades ago. However, in March of 2002, a 6-inch deep boric acid-created hole was discovered in the reactor vessel head at the FirstEnergy's Davis-Besse nuclear generating station in Oak Harbor, Ohio. Only the outer layer of stainless steel, roughly one-half inch thick, remained as part of the reactor's pressure boundary, when the softball-size hole was discovered -- thus avoiding a loss-of-coolant accident that potentially could have turned catastrophic. The complacency of the company, which ignored earlier warning signs, and the NRC regulators in allowing such a situation is inexcusable and raises legitimate questions about the continued safe operation of these aging plants.

In the future, for existing plants, the aging of equipment lessens safety, while our increased knowledge base should continue to improve safety. Ultimately, the safety of a nuclear power plants rests on the ability to sustain a robust safety culture among the plant work force. Whether this can be sustained at 100 or more nuclear plans for decades to come remains to be seen.

3. Nuclear waste disposal must be based on a geologically adequate site, not on standards designed to ensure any site selected is licensed. Finally, there is the problem of nuclear waste disposal. The United States government has put all its eggs in the proposed Yucca Mountain basket. When this site was first selected, it looked far more promising in terms of its ability to geologically isolate the nuclear waste than it does now.

To address the growing observation that the proposed site cannot geologically isolate the waste, as seen in the attached figure, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gerrymandered the zone of compliance for environmental laws -- what is called the "controlled area" -- around the Yucca Mountain site to allow for the site to be licensed, rather than protect the public health and environment for generations to come. In simple terms, the controlled area is the boundary beyond which the radiation dose to individuals living nearby must not exceed acceptable levels as the spent fuel canisters corrode away and radioactivity leaks from the site tens of thousand of years into the future. In the direction that radioactivity is projected to leak from the site, the EPA extended the controlled area from five kilometers (km) to 18 km (from 3 mi to 11 mi). Placement of the controlled area boundary any closer than 11 miles from the site would, in short, mean that future radiation doses might be too high for the site to be licensed. EPA now admits that the site will leak. And placement of an environmental compliance boundary far enough away to allow for licensing essentially creates a radioactive septic field rather than the "geologic isolation" contemplated by the Congress in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

Also betraying the geological inadequacies of the site, EPA applies its site-boundary dose-limit criteria at 10,000 years from now, even though the projected peak doses occur many tens of thousands of years later. This regulatory strategy of gerrymandering the site boundary and ignoring doses after 10,000 years is unjust, morally bankrupt and should be opposed and rejected. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act calls for the siting of more than one geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. If the first repository sited is done so on grossly inadequate standards, a terrible precedent will have been set for all future repository sites (which may very well be in the West despite the region's comparative lack of nuclear generating capacity).

In sum, my advice to strengthen the state economies and the wonderful natural environment of the West, you should:

* oppose continued and massive taxpayer subsidies to mature energy technologies, including nuclear power;

* internalize the environmental cost of nuclear, and fossil-fueled plants by supporting a cap on CO2 emissions, and tightening regulatory controls on aquifer polluting coal and uranium mines and uranium mills; and

* call for a repeal of the inadequate EPA regulatory standards for the Yucca Mountain site.






Notes

1. There are 104 licensed plants. The 104th plant, TVA's Browns Ferry Unit 1, is undergoing refurbishment and is expected to restart in 2007. It is not a new construction reactor.

2. One notable exception is the Davis-Bessie plant, that was shutdown for two years following discovery of a softball-size cavity in the reactor head produced by corrosion. See further discussion below.

3. Marilyn C. Kray, Vice President, Project Development, Exelon Corporation, "Long-Term Strategy for Nuclear Power," Pew Center/National omission on Energy Policy "The 10-50 Solution: Technologies and Policies for a Low-Carbon Future" Workshop, March 26, 2004.

4. John Deutch -- Co Chair, Ernest J. Moniz -- Co-Chair, et al, "The Future of Nuclear Power," An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, 2003 (hereafter, "MIT Study"); available on line at http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/. The economic analysis is consistent with an analysis by A. Siemenski, Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown presented at an IAEA Conference in 2002.

5. "The levelized cost is the constant real wholesale price of electricity that meets a private investor's financing cost, debt repayment, income tax, and associated cash flow constraints." (MIT Study, p. 38.)

6. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the lobbying arm of the nuclear industry, claims, "Our cost targets -- $1,000 to $1,200 per kilowatt in capital cost -- are clearly competitive with other baseload electricity generating options." (Marvin S. Fertel, Senior Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer, NEI, Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, March 4, 2004.)

7. Marilyn C. Kray, op cit.

8. Ibid.

9. Overnight cost, which excludes debt and equity obligations, is specified in constant dollars of the year production begins, and the capital expenditure in each year is deflated to current-year (nominal) dollars.

10. National Energy Policy Group (Vice President Dick Cheney, Chairman), "National Energy Policy," May 2001, p. 5-17.

11. http://www.ne.doe.gov/planning/NucPwr2010.html. The program was unveiled by Secretary Abraham on February 14, 2010.

[cowboyangel]

more compelling than a personal attack here, is the affront to humanity that continued investment in nuclear energy and nuclear weapons represent

[geekster]

Weapons yes, energy no. You could make the same argument against fire.

Nuclear energy is much safer so far than fossil fuel energy. How many people are killed directly and indirectly every year in the development, production and use of fossil fuel energy? I think I am safe in saying the the radioactivity emitted from a coal fired power plant is greater than american nuclear power plants. How many miners, drillers, refiners and transporters are killed every year? How many people are affected by the fallout from fossil power plants?

When I see knee-jerk opposition to nuclear power, I generally see either fear through ignorance or a need to be on a bandwagon. I rarely hear what I consider to be a convincing argument against it.

[geekster]

The following is from an article in sci.energy so it may be taken with a grain of salt if you wish but the numbers seem to jibe well with numbers I have seen in other more authoritative sources that I don't have time to research right now.

Typical concentration of radioactive material in coal is about 4
ppm. A 1000 MW coal plant burns approximately 11,000 tons of coal every day. The total emissions of radioactive material are therefore about 88 pounds per day. (40 Kilos to those who use a sensible measuring system.) Of that, about 1 % is assumed to be released as fly ash in a modern plant with 10% in one with no scrubbers or bag house. The rest goes into the unmonitored ash pile which is often right next to a body of water.

Of course, even this amount of radioactive material has no discernable health effect on the local population. It is just interesting to compare
it against the releases from a nuclear plant, which are measured in milligrams or micro curies.

Of course this is only a SMALL part of the story. More significant is that the Uranium has decay products that are in the coal. There is also, typically, almost as much Thorium as Uranium. Both the U and Th have a series of decay products, 13 to 17 decay products each, that are at equilibrium with the U and Th in the coal. There is also Potassium-40, often at much higher concentrations than U and Th; plus Rubidium-87 (usually about 10% of K-40).

The radioactivity in many of these products are much more environmentally and health significant than the U and Th radioactivity (though data on the U and Th radioactivity may be reported including the decay energies from the initial products in the measure of the U/Th radioactivity). Radium is the first decay product that has both significant radioactivity and is chemically active (acting like calcium) for human exposure (since the heavy U and Th atoms/alpha emitters, like Pu which is another of the same, are relatively immobile and chemically inactive).

When the coal is mined, crushed, and burned, these products are released also. Obviously the decay product of Radium, Radon, as a noble gas, is then free in the mine and in the mined coal mass to be substantially, partially, released at the mine and in transport, along with additional releases of trapped Radon in the crushing and burning of coal, and then from fly ash caught in bag houses and in the wastes until they are sufficiently layered and compacted to limit releases from below about 2 feet of the surface, though discharge from runoff can be higher than "normal" from earth and rocks because the material is not as chemically bound in the original matrix. The Radon and its decay
products released to the environment (none of which would have been released if the coal had not been mined) are massively more significant than releases from nuclear facilities, and from radioactive wastes including the chemical and material conditions for release.

But these data have been consciously ignored because coal and other fossil fuel interests have kept them from being considered, and the utilities have very much been directly involved in failing to use this data in environmental assessments, health assessments, rulemakings, and other evaluations of the use of nuclear energy vs fossil fuels.

[samtzu]

Well, I oppose Nuclear Energy, but not as a knee jerk reaction... I just want to know what the hell they plan on doing with the waste... and I haven't received a satisfactory answer, yet.... Unless they can make it innert, or make it back into uranium, I'm just a little sceptical...

[cowboyangel]

Then you obviously didn't read my above posts from the Rocky Mountain Institute and the NRDC and check out The Union Of Concerned Scientists as well. Where does your analysis cover the costs of dealing with the waste issue? Use the trem "knee jerk" carefully....

[cowboyangel]

Then you obviously didn't read my above posts from the Rocky Mountain Institute and the NRDC and check out The Union Of Concerned Scientists as well. Where does your analysis cover the costs of dealing with the waste issue? Use the trem "knee jerk" carefully....

meant for a "glowing" geekster....

[geekster]

The "cost" of dealing with the "waste" issue is artificially greated by congress. In Japan and France they reprocess their waste and use breeder reactors to turn non-fissionables into fissionable fuel. Our government decided not to fund reprocessing (after it had already told the plant owners that it would) and instead opted to throw the spent fuel away.

Other countries reprocess their fuel and the unusable portion is much less and much less dangerous. Our spent fuel contains plutonium, they remove the plutonium from theirs and "burn" it in liquid metal breeder reactors (LMBRs) and create more fuel in the process.

The fact that we have to deal with so much waste is a political decision. We could be recycling a good bit of it.

[cowboyangel]

that's why france and japan ship their n-waste to other countries, right?

[samtzu]

The fact that we have to deal with so much waste is a political decision. We could be recycling a good bit of it.

Yup... and until the politics are straightened out, I don't trust that they have my, or my descendents, best interests in mind....

[geekster]

I agree with you Sam. A major part of the problem has been past opposition by various special interest groups. My gut feeling is that global warming is going to change the position of quite a few individuals and groups. Initially the problem was seen as "we have X decades of fossil fuel reserves left, we can produce alternative non-nuclear technologies before the fossil fuel runs out". Now the thinking is becoming "fossil fuel is poisoning the planet, we are going to need nuclear power as a bridge while we continue to work on alternatives because we will dump too much CO2 into the air before fossil fuel runs out". Environmental groups in places like the UK and slowly coming to realize that the best chance for their children currently available is nuclear energy.

Once they start going for methane hydrates on the ocean floor as a fuel source, we are doomed. We are then going to repeat the same atmospheric cycle that led to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum some 55 million years ago when 30% to 40% of some ocean species went extinct. The good news (biologically) is that this also spurred a huge burst of evolution of other species and the arctic sea temperature rose to an average annual temperature of around 60F (based on the fossil record of species alive at the time).

We don't really have a choice.

[cowboyangel]

oh Christ, do I have to drag out an old GreenPeace war story again? I've seen the effects of radioactive waste on Marshall Islanders that lived downwind of Bikini A-bomb tests...tell them about US guarantees of safe radioactive disposal.

STATEMENT FROM DEPLETED URANIUM RESEARCH CENTER ON USE DU WEAPONS BY
US AND BRITISH FORCES AGAINST IRAQ

It is estimated that 350 tons or more of depleted uranium were used in
combat by the allies in the 1991 Gulf War, with the heaviest use of
shells and rounds containing this material occurring in the southern
portion of Iraq. This was the first time depleted uranium weapons were
ever used in actual combat.

Upon impact, up to 70% of the depleted uranium contained in a given
round or shell aerosolized into tiny particles (uranium oxide) that
can be breathed in or ingested. When lodged in the body, these
particles (U238 and its decay products) emit damaging radiation
indefinitely, and can poison chemically through their effect as a
heavy metal. Though the Pentagon wishes to obscure the radiological
and chemical danger of these weapons, we think there is every reason
to believe they represent a very real and serious threat to anyone
exposed to explosion of the DU weapons. We think this is indicated
quite clearly by the U.S. army’s own recommendation to troops at the
end of the Gulf War:

"If a burned out vehicle must be entered, precautions must be taken to
avoid inhaling or ingesting depleted uranium particles. Respirator or
protective mask should be worn at minimum along with gloves. Ideally
protective clothing should be worn as well. After exiting the vehicle,
hands should be washed thoroughly. All dust should be discarded."

(These instructions were not given to troops before the war.) Allied
and other troops clearly were exposed to "burned out vehicles" without
benefit of the protective gear described above.

Here is a further indication the Pentagon thinks that depleted uranium
poses a threat to human well-being. This quote is from the Army
Environmental Policy Institute report of June 1995 "Health and
environmental consequences of depleted uranium use in the US Army.":

"If depleted uranium enters the body, it has the potential to generate
significant medical consequences. The risks associated with depleted
uranium are both chemical and radiological."

Iraq, in 1991, was the laboratory for the testing of a novel nuclear
weapon. Allied combatants and Iraqis, whether combatants or civilians,
were guinea pigs to be sacrificed if necessary.

What are we seeing in Iraq today, eight years after the Gulf War, in
terms of health conditions that might be connected with the use of
depleted uranium weaponry?

According to the report from the DU Conference in Baghdad in December,
1998, from one case study of 1425 persons, over 5% of their babies are
born with congenital anomalies, and over 2% born dead. Iraqi doctors
report seeing birth defects never seen before except in medical
textbooks. Doctors are also seeing major increases in every form of
cancer, including, childhood leukemia, which is 70% curable in the
U.S.

The wards are full of children with childhood leukemia, which before
1991, was extremely rare. Without access to medications that can treat
this deadly disease, the doctors try to make the children and the
mothers who attend them in the wards as comfortable as possible...”The
knowledge that the leftover depleted uranium might poison the
environment for decades or even centuries is frightening."

Epidemiologist Hillel Cohen reports that "Preliminary statistics about
cancers spontaneous abortions and congenital abnormalities have been
reported with odds ratios of 4.6, 3.2, and 2.8, respectively. This
means that, assuming all other things to be equal, the cases of
cancer, spontaneous abortions, and congenital anomalies were that many
times more likely to have occurred to the areas most exposed to
depleted uranium [the south of Iraq]."

Again, pursuing the link between depleted uranium and severe adverse
health effects, Dr. Michio Kaku, professor of physics at the Graduate
Center at the City University of New York, writes:

"Ultimately, the Gulf War Syndrome will probably be traced to a
variety of factors. When the final chapter is written, depleted
uranium will have a large portion of the blame." Further, "It is
deplorable that the US, faced with cleaning up millions of tons of
radioactive uranium waste, is getting rid of that waste by firing it
into other people’s back yards. It sends a horrible signal to the
world, that we are using their precious land and their people as
garbage dumps for our own radioactive waste uranium, which will
pollute their country for billions of years."

In conclusion, we assert that depleted uranium weapons are weapons of
mass destruction and already illegal under international law. The
Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1925 and
1949, the Nuremberg Charter of 1945 all prohibit weapons which: •
cause unnecessary or aggravated devastation or suffering • cause
indiscriminate harm—i.e. to non-combatants and combatants alike •
cause widespread long-term and severe damage to the environment.

We therefore demand that those responsible for the use of these
depleted uranium weapons be indicted for war crimes in the appropriate
judicial venue. We further demand that the UN and all responsible
parties fund state-of-the-art independent, peer reviewed research to
investigate further the causal link between depleted uranium and
negative health effects and to explore methods of cleanup and medical
treatment. We demand that the responsible parties be required to offer
free of charge medical testing, medical treatment, and reparations to
all victims of depleted uranium warfare. And in addition, cleanup of
all affected areas.

[Isotopia]

I hope you're not pulling that document out and posting it as fact.

Every point made in the piece is anectdotal except 1) DU is radioactive and 2) DU constitutes a heavy metal. The piece is an exceptional example of submitting a theory as truth in order to sway opinion towards a particular side of a particular agenda. In short, bullshit is running half way around the world before truth can even get its socks on.

As an example I submit the following:

Though the Pentagon wishes to obscure the radiological
and chemical danger of these weapons

What the writer considers 'obscure' is actually obfuscation on his/her part. The fact is that there simply hasn't been enough study on the issue of DU to conclusively say what if any effects to exposure are.

As a reference the piece makes for interesting reading and draws attention albeit in a very biased way to a lot of questions that probably *do* need to be studied. As a statement of fact it's lame. Its bullshit and not worthy of wiping one's ass with. CA I hope your rational for posting is the former and not the latter.

[Isotopia]

I hope you're not pulling that document out and posting it as fact.

Every point made in the piece is anectdotal except 1) DU is radioactive and 2) DU constitutes a heavy metal. The piece is an exceptional example of submitting a theory as truth in order to sway opinion towards a particular side of a particular agenda. In short, bullshit is running half way around the world before truth can even get its socks on.

As an example I submit the following:

Though the Pentagon wishes to obscure the radiological
and chemical danger of these weapons

What the writer considers 'obscure' is actually obfuscation on his/her part. The fact is that there simply hasn't been enough study on the issue of DU to conclusively say what if any effects to exposure are.

As a reference the piece makes for interesting reading and draws attention albeit in a very biased way to a lot of questions that probably *do* need to be studied. As a statement of fact it's lame. Its bullshit and not worthy of wiping one's ass with. CA I hope your rational for posting is the former and not the latter.

[Isotopia]

Sometimes I hate the e-playa. Double posts? What the fuck?

[cowboyangel]

I had expected better from you Iso

http://vzajic.tripod.com/contents.html#top


take the time....take the time......

[cowboyangel]

eat your own garbage words Badger/Iso whatever......


Dr. Doug Rokke's address on Depleted Uranium

Vieques Libre - http://www.viequeslibre.org

The following is a copy of the Address given by Dr. Doug Rokke, former head of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project, at the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition 17th Annual Leadership Breakfast, at the U.S. Senate Caucus Room on November 10, 2000. Adrian Cronauer was Master of Ceremonies.

Distinguished Members of Congress, Coalition Leaders, Fellow Warriors, and Guests-- It is a distinct honor to address you today. During the Gulf War I was the U.S. Army health physicist assigned to 12th Preventive Medicine AM theater command staff and the 3rd U.S. Army Medical Command headquarters. I was recalled to active duty 20 years after serving in Vietnam, from my research job with the University of Illinois Physics Department and sent to the Gulf to ensure that all military and civilian personnel were prepared for the anticipated nuclear, biological, chemical, and environmental exposures. I also was assigned to two equally vital special operations teams: Bauers Raiders and the Depleted Uranium Assessment team.

The preparations for war take many forms. Infantry soldiers learn and practice their combat skills, truck drivers practice maneuvering their rigs to make sure they can deliver supplies, and medical personnel prepare to treat the expected combat casualties. Ideally, preparations are driven by intelligence reports. However as the recent bombing of the U.S.S. Cole shows commanders may ignore intelligence information and not protect either their personnel or equipment. Prior to the start of Operation Desert Storm military intelligence reports and threats issued by President Saddam Hussein suggested that nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare and environmental hazards (NBC-E) would be employed to win battles.

As we prepared for the battle in the Deserts of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq, medical and combat unit commanders realized that medical personnel must be able to provide emergency medical care to conserve the fighting strength in an NBC-E environment. This required an assessment of medical capabilities. Four deficiencies were identified. First, an assessment of existing emergency medical response capabilities in the staging areas located within Saudi Arabia revealed the need to respond to medical emergencies resulting from combat to disease and non-battle injuries (DNBI). Second, an assessment of medical personnel arriving in Southwest Asia verified that most of them did not have the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to provide medical care for the expected nuclear, biological, chemical, and environmental (NBC-E) casualties much less the conventional weapons casualties. Third, the we verified that that most operations personnel needed a NBC-E defense refresher course that was specifically designed for verified threats. Fourth, we needed to design and construct decontamination facilities, prepare standard decontamination procedures, and train personnel to provide immediate personnel and equipment decontamination. Consequently, Bauer's Raiders, the 3d U.S. Army Medical Command theater NBC-E special operations planning and teaching team was formed. Each team member had prior combat experience and was a qualified medical and NBC-E instructor. This team also designed and supervised the construction of the NBC decontamination facilities and provided operations assistance throughout the echelons above corps, corps, and coalition forces. Since 1991 numerous Department of Defense reports have stated that medical and tactical commanders were unaware of the probable NBC-E exposures and never told about the medical and environmental consequences of these exposures. THAT IS A LIE! They were told! They were warned! Immediate and long-term medical care was recommended. The threats, health and environmental consequences, and medical care recommendations were provided in written messages and during courses such as the 3rd U.S. Army Medical Command & ARCENT Medical Management of Chemical and Biological Casualties, the NBC-E defense refresher course, the Combat lifesaver course, and the Decontamination procedures course which we taught to over 1200 military personnel in the theater between December 1990 and February 1991. I gave the classified threat briefing specifically identifying the anticipated NBC-E exposures, taught the NBC-E defense refresher course, the combat lifesaver course, and decontamination procedures course. Thus I can confirm that commanders knew what to expect and how to be prepared!!! Another important fact is that although Department of Defense officials have stated over and over that the vital chemical and biological logs were misplaced or lost, U.S. Government Accounting Office representatives and the Pulitzer prize winning author Seymour Hersch have verified that these logs were ordered destroyed in Florida during December 1996 while Congressional committees were conducting hearings on potential exposures.

As the DU assessment team health physicist and medic I was responsible for planning and implementing DU (uranium 238) contaminated equipment and terrain clean up and for providing medical care recommendations for exposed personnel. As we surveyed the battlefield it became obvious that we had serious equipment, terrain, and medical problems requiring immediate action. Although, effects of uranium exposure have been identified the effects from combat exposure during ODS were unknown. We had over 100 friendly fire U.S. casualties and several hundred others with verified exposures because of their U.S. Department of Defense assigned duties. We also observed what is known as "Tours Are Us". This event was numerous individuals visiting and climbing all over contaminated and destroyed equipment and terrain without wearing any protection. I immediately contacted unit and the theater medical command staff to recommend medical care for all exposed individuals. Consequently, the theater occupational health physician wrote and then distributed immediate medical screening and care guidelines on June 13, 1991. As verified by GAO officials, it was ignored then and still is today. Upon our return to the United States our team continued to recommend immediate medical care for DU exposures. I described DU hazards and exposures and once more recommended immediate medical care during an Occupational Medicine conference held during February 1992 at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. The Government Accounting Office based on reports issued recommendations for medical care, environmental remediation, and training during January 1993. On June 8, 1993, the Deputy Secretary of Defense ordered then Secretary of the Army Togo West to quote "complete medical testing of personnel exposed to DU contamination during the Persian Gulf War". During August 1993, then Brigadier General Eric Shinseki signed the order on behalf of the Army. This order, in most cases, is still disobeyed without any accountability. A Headquarters, Department of the Army memorandum dated October 14, 1993 specified DU exposures that required medical screening and care. Although these directives and Army regulations require medical screening care for those exposed to uranium contamination, representatives of the Department of Defense and Veterans affairs continue to deny or delay medical screening and care. Today, affected individuals include military personnel from all nations that were involved, civilian non-combatants; and even residents of Vieques, Puerto Rico; Okinawa; Tennessee, Kentucky, Kosovo, Serbia, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. The wartime and now peacetime decision that you could just shoot solid rods of uranium 238 (DU) anywhere without providing medical care for all exposed persons and without cleaning it up is a crime against God and the citizens of the world. Recently, the U.S. Navy willfully used DU munitions during peacetime exercises on the Puerto Rican Island of Vieques in violation of laws and regulations. Still there is no accountability for these actions that spread radioactive waste that causes indiscriminate harm to all that are exposed for 4.5 billion years unless contamination is cleaned up. I ASK: WOULD ANY OF YOU WANT HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF RODS OF SOLID URANIUM WEIGHING UP TO 10 POUNDS EACH LYING IN YOUR BACKYARD? Of course not, so why should it be anywhere? Depleted uranium was only one of the verified exposures which also included chemical warfare agents, biological warfare agents, pesticides, industrial chemicals, endemic diseases, sand (El Eskan disease), food borne illnesses, water borne illness, organic and inorganic byproduct compounds from oil well fires, airborne particulates, asbestos, cleaning compounds, low level radioactive materials, and then the deliberate immunizations and drugs designed to protect individuals from verified threats. Many exposures were caused by our deliberate actions. We knew where Iraqi chemical and biological chemicals were stored so as General Schwarzkopf wrote in his autobiography It Doesnt Take a Hero, we decided to blow them up with artillery rounds and aerial bombardment. Consequently chemical, biological, and radiological warfare materials were released. We had specifically discussed this anticipated consequence and that medical care would be required for any exposures. Consequently, with these releases, thousands of chemical agent alarms were going off all the time all over the battlefield documenting exposures. A couple of weeks ago, DOD officials announced that they were modifying the exposure list again. It seems peculiar that 10 years after the fact and ten years after alarms went off that the exposure list is modified once more based on DOD analysis. Why cant the assumption be made if an individual was near an alarm that went off that they were exposed? Yet, today, DOD officials still claim the alarms were all false alarms. If the alarms are ineffective who is responsible and why are they still in use? Because the logbooks were lost according to DOD officials, so there is no record of who was exposed based on alarm activation reports. Thus official denials continue to conflict with reality. And yet we wonder why confidence in DOD leadership has eroded! During the battle as enemy industrial and agricultural facilities, schools, businesses, and hospitals were destroyed individuals were exposed to released hazardous materials. Then as we prepared for battle, conducted battle, and cleaned up after the battle we exposed our soldiers to more hazardous materials. For example, after the completion of the ground war, a senior logistics officer and I were sent into Iraq by LTG Franks to clean up the 7th Corps hazardous waste dump. It was total mess with observable releases and spills resulting in additional adverse health and environmental effects. We also decided based on the verified threats to immunize our troops against a whole host of diseases and biological warfare toxins such as anthrax and botulism. If immunizations been maintained rather than giving individuals 4 or 5 or even more simultaneous immunizations we could have reduced adverse effects on the immune system. But we did not; we gave individuals numerous shots at the same time and then did not keep track of what was given or what adverse reactions occurred. We messed up immune systems before deployment. Basically, after we declared war we had to immunize everyone. As I administered hundreds of anthrax and botulinum shots in Saudi Arabia, I could only wonder why we were ordered not to record any information. Once more, our actions to protect individuals against a verified threat ignored common sense. Today we know that the anthrax manufacturing process was never inspected and approved by the FDA before 1993 and today the FDA still has not approved the facility.

We also know that there are adverse short term and probably long-term effects. The anthrax vaccine that we administered was licensed for prevention of cutaneous and not respiratory anthrax. Then just within the last month, Department of Defense officials finally admitted after continued denials that an illegal adjuvant, squalene was used instead of alum in some vaccine batches. Consequently, we probably reduced the ability of the immune system to fight off the multitude of exposures that occurred.

Pesticides proved to be yet one more problem. Although, pesticides were ordered from official Department of Defense sources, they did not arrive in sufficient quantities so we were required to buy them on the open market to control a verified threat. Consequently, who knows what we actually used and what adverse effects could be related to their use?

The confirmed nerve agent threat resulted in the use of PB, which is actually a reversible bond nerve agent, in an attempt to reduce the effects of chemical warfare nerve agents such as Sarin, VX, Soman, Novachuks, and Multiple 7. PB can be compared to spraying gumdrops with Raid or Black Flag and then eating them. We expected adverse reactions from consumption of PB because it is a carbamate pesticide compound. Therefore, we made sure that NBC operations and medical personnel knew of potential adverse effects. Again, we knew there would be health effects and yet commanders decided to ignore our warnings and force individuals to eat PB tablets. As part of our discussions we also identified and warned about the anticipated interactions between pesticides, nerve agents, and drugs such as PB (pyridiostigmine bromide / mestinon). Official Department of Army medical records confirm that over 50 % of the individuals who took the PB got sick with nerve agent effects. OH WELL, ANOTHER ANTICIPATED ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECT TO IGNORE.

Food and water problems were all over. We could not ensure that Saudi government supplied food preparation and serving personnel met even basic U.S. public health requirements. We saw too many food borne health problems which once more caused adverse health problems. Severe diarrhea was observed in troops eating at the mess hall located in the tent camp just off of King Abdul Azziz Airfield in Riyadh during December of 1990.

I was one of the casualties. We traced the problems to contaminated food. Similar problems occurred all over the theater of operations through at least May 1991. At one time during April we had so many at KKMC that were sick and because we did not have the medical supplies required to treat them, we just let them ride it out without medical care. THAT WAS WRONG!!!!!!! We do not even know if some type of biological agent was introduced via sabotage into our food supply or if troops crossed contaminated areas. WE DO KNOW THAT FOOD WAS PURCHASED AND SERVED THAT HAD BEEN GROWN IN NIGHT SOIL WHICH IS UNTREATED SEWAGE. We established strict rinsing and cleaning requirements during food preparation.

However, without complete control of food preparation personnel, we do not know if these guidelines were followed. Water borne problems occurred during bathing, drinking, food preparation, and decontamination. Rashes were observed in troops taking baths at Eskan Village and so we had to order no baths or use of chlorine to sanitize the bath water. This created a problem for female hygiene efforts. Even with use of chlorine to sanitize the water before use, rashes abound! The Star Lighter showers which used water from a box which was open to the air also caused problems, especially when water mixed with oil well combustion byproducts or other contaminants was used for bathing and washing clothes. We reported skin irritation upon taking a shower at King Kahlid Military City (KKMC) and other areas. Uniforms and clothes must be kept clean, yet my own DU team had to use the Star Lighters to clean our clothes while we took showers. So more contamination was spread on the ground. We did not have alternative choices to wash our contaminated clothes. The Service and Supply (S & S) Bath unit would not let us near their equipment and rightfully so for safety. I wonder how we will keep uniforms and equipment clean in the future?

The burning of the oil wells as Iraqi forces retreated was an excellent tactical operation. Health and environmental problems started immediately. Members of our unit were dispatched to conduct an initial assessment of potential risks. It was obvious that incomplete combustion of inorganic and organic compounds was occurring and that these were being released into the air and onto terrain causing immediate respiratory and skin problems. The released mixture was so thick that we used sticks to scrap the junk out of our nose, ears, and mouth. We reported immediate splitting headaches, breathing problems and burning skin. Official on-site medical command reports said that exposures were causing immediate adverse health problems. Consequently, we, by unanimous agreement, prepared, issued, and distributed the medical command directive that no one should be exposed to any oil well fire byproducts without respiratory and skin protection. We tried, yet, history proves that this directive was disregarded and now we suspect that the observed illnesses are caused in part by oil well fire byproduct exposures. Today, the full list of byproducts has been published and any first year environmental chemistry or other student studying hazardous materials would agree that you should NEVER expose anyone to even one of these pollutants much less the entire combination. Once again, hazards were recognized, warnings were issued, and recommendations ignored.

As we provided emergency medical care we wrote reports identifying respiratory problems, rashes, diarrhea, neurological, bone muscle injury, immediate problems from PB use, and immediate problems from oil well byproduct exposures. These medical problems were annotated into individual medical records as they occurred. Although, medical records did exist before individuals and units were redeployed the records disappeared. OH WELL.. IF THERE IS NOT ANY DIAGNOSED EVIDENCE OF ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS..... THERE IS NOT ANY PROBLEM. Medical personnel who performed the redeployment physicals deliberately ignored reported problems and denied that any exposures occurred. I tried to get my verified exposures listed but they said none occurred and refused to list the exposures or treat my respiratory and rash problems. Once we returned to the U.S. the observed health concerns forced the U.S. Department of Defense to initiate the Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Program (CSEPP). I went through the program during which serious medical problems were found that my VA physicians now know were caused by wartime exposures. YET, DESPITE MY BEST EFFORTS THE CSEPP PROGRAM PHYSICIANS REFUSED TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL TESTS REQUIRED TO VERIFY KNOWN EXPOSURES. HOWEVER, EVEN THE DIAGNOSED PROBLEMS THAT THEY DID VERIFY WERE NEVER PLACED IN MY OFFICIAL MILITARY MEDICAL FILE. My medical reports. along with hundreds of others, were separated, locked up in a special room at Noble Army Hospital, Fort McClellan, Alabama, until I was told they were there and I was finally able with intervention to obtain these secret files during the fall of 1997. They were sent to me in the mail. I then had my Army Reserve Command Chief Nurse review the medical evidence and insert them into my official military medical file. Yet, it is worse. As we completed the Depleted Uranium Burn Test at the Department of Energy Nevada Test Site in November 1994, DOE medics performed a radio-bioassay on me that found 5000 times the permissible level of uranium in my body. THEN THEY NEVER TOLD ME FOR 2.5 YEARS. AGAIN A DELIBERATE ACTION TO DENY MEDICAL CARE BY PREVENTING CORRELATION OF EXPOSURES TO ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS!!!

I am painting a picture that shows we knew about the threats, warned commanders about the threats, recommended medical care that was and is still ignored, and that our leadership has abandoned the troops for political purposes. Yet, it gets worse. While preparing to conduct our command level briefings and courses two senior Army medical officers came from Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland to make sure we limited our information to commanders and medical personnel. IN OTHER WORDS: DO NOT TELL THEM-----THEY WILL NOT KNOW--- AND WE WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE.

These two senior officers went to my unit commander and told him to force me to stop making sure the commanders and troops knew about the hazards and were ready to respond to the anticipated exposures and consequence health and environmental problems. AFTER THAT FAILED THEY WENT TO THE 3RD U.S. ARMY MEDICAL COMMAND STAFF TO FORCE US TO STOP AND THAT FAILED! There were and still are dedicated professionals who care! Yet despite our best efforts- the exposures occurred and today individuals are sick and medical care was and still is denied!! Exposures will continue because despite our efforts environmental remediation has been delayed or not completed.

To paraphrase 1950s television program title; "I WAS THERE!" We knew, We warned. We were ignored. Today we are still ignored. TODAY, TOO MANY INDIVIDUALS AROUND THE WORLD ARE SUFFERING AND DYING BECAUSE OF OUR DELIBERATE ACTIONS. IN SIMPLE WORDS: THE BATTLEFIELD WAS A TOXIC SOUP TO WHICH ALL CIVILIANS AND MILITARY WERE EXPOSED. Reported, observed, and verified medical problems include: Respiratory problems, rashes, cancer, dental problems, eye problems, muscle weakness, neurological problems, birth defects, sexual dysfunction, kidney problems, memory problems, pain, cardiac problems, blood problems, thyroid problems, liver problems, and immune system failures.

Although, OFFICIAL denials continue when you see the same health problems over and over again in individuals from around the world then we must acknowledge a cause and effect relationship and accept responsibility to provide medical care.

Today, many of us; including scientists, physicians, pastors, and others; who decided to speak up about what occurred, why it occurred, what should have been done years ago, and what should be done now have lost jobs, experienced retaliation, and been threatened by Department of Defense, Department of the Army, and Department of Veterans Affairs officials. The direct and indirect threats, warnings, and attacks also have been directed to our family members to bring pressure on us to stop demanding accountability. This is all about liability! Therefore the truth must be suppressed! If what happened is acknowledged, then specific individuals within our government and other governments will be required to accept responsibility for the consequences of deliberate actions. The health and environmental problems are not limited to Iraq or surrounding areas. Similar adverse health and environmental effects have been identified within and around U.S. military installations or Department of Energy facilities in Alabama, Washington, California, Alaska, Tennessee, Korea, Panama, Germany, Philippines, Maryland, Nevada, Florida, California, and especially surrounding the U.S. Navy range on the Vieques, Puerto Rico. I recently had the father of a warrior stationed in California come up to me while I was eating supper in a restaurant outside Chicago to ask for help in obtaining medical care for his family who was sick from exposures.

Another dangerous location is Calhoun County (Fort McClellan) Alabama. Extensive PCB contamination mixed with contamination from DOD activities and the potential release of nerve and mustard agents during weapons incineration without any effective emergency response threatens the residents and the environment. DOD and Army representatives have told the residents of Calhoun County to just close their doors and windows and hold their breath in the event of releases. OH MY GOD!!!!! Recently, Denver Colorado residents were faced with the discovery of a bomb containing the nerve agent Sarin in a garbage dump. Somehow, Army officials had lost it!!! Then in a new press report dated November 1, 200 the Army admitted that their may be more lost Sarin bombs lying around the Rocky Mountain facility. NO WONDER VERY FEW INDIVIDUALS TRUST DOD LEADERS.

No matter where I go, I encounter individuals or families members seeking help. I receive telephones call day and night. Individuals approach members of my family asking for help. Physicians and scientists attending an international conference this past weekend at Manchester, England described, discussed, and carefully verified the serious adverse health problems from chemical, biological, and radiological materials releases.

The cancer rates, birth defects, neurological problems, respiratory problems, rashes, kidney problems, and many other medical problems seem to be increasing throughout Iraq, Kuwait, Serbia, Korea, England, France, Australia, Canada, Japan, the U.S. and the Vieques, Puerto Rico. Basically the OFFICIAL denial of exposures and consequent adverse health and environmental effects has been ongoing for years. The dilemma is that we made decisions based on verified threats and the tactical situation which were correct at that time but then since 1991 DOD and VA officials have ignored the consequences of these decisions and refuse to accept responsibility for current adverse health and environmental effects. The evidence exists and is increasing so we must acknowledge the adverse health and environmental effects of our actions. So what are our national obligations?

Two hundred and 24 years ago, the Minutemen of Massachusetts responded to a call to arms and our Nation was born. Now, ten years after the Gulf War and the abandonment of our nations military personnel and their families; recruiting and retention to fill our military forces with dedicated men and women is failing because Warriors have been denied earned medical care and too many are living on food stamps!!! Our nation is at risk!

I and others have sent numerous messages to the Honorable Dr. Bernard Rostker, Deputy Secretary of Defense, who was not there, whose staff was not there, and whose staff still ignores the warnings and recommendations those of us who were there for political and economic reasons. It is painfully obvious that DOD and VA officials have no intention of accepting responsibility for what has happened! The reason is very simple! If they acknowledge what happened to our nations heroes and accept responsibility for medical care and environmental remediation then these same officials must acknowledge the consequences of our actions on non-combatants and enemy forces around the world. We suggested that Dr. Rostker, Secretary of Defense Cohen, or the President Clinton state that: During the Gulf War essential decisions to protect our warriors and win the war were made based on the tactical situation and verified threats.

Today, we know that those decisions and our deliberate actions have resulted in serious adverse health and environmental consequences. We can no longer ignore the consequences of our deliberate actions. We apologize to our warriors, our warrior's families, and the citizens of the world. We resolve to provide medical care or medical care recommendations and complete environmental remediation.

ALTHOUGH, WE HAVE OFFERED THIS SOLUTION MANY TIMES IT IS IGNORED! We owe the combat veterans of our nation the medical care they earned! We must provide all WARRIORS with education and training to ensure combat readiness and prevent a repeat of what has occurred. We must provide military personnel with all of the operational equipment they need to complete their assigned missions.

We must hold those officials who have willfully harmed our nations heroes accountable for their deliberate actions. We must force a stop to the retaliation against those warriors who try to tell the truth and who epitomize our nations ideals expressed so eloquently by General Douglas MacArthur's three immortal words: DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY

We have the ultimate obligation as leaders of the world to provide medical care or medical care recommendations to all that are sick. Finally we have an obligation to complete environmental remediation of contamination caused by our deliberate actions throughout the United States and the rest or the world! I want to recite a poem that I wrote in memory of SFC John Sitton, a Vietnam and Gulf War Veteran, who answered his nations call during two wars. He was my friend! He is a true American hero because he set up and ran the 3rd U.S. Army's medical evacuation radio communications system during the Gulf War. It is ironic that the warrior who saved so many lives died abandoned on the battlefield of political denials.

...

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR GOD, OUR WARRIORS, AND THE CITIZENS OF THE WORLD! I will never quit until all individuals are cared for and environmental remediation is completed. I was ordered to complete that mission as a soldier and I will succeed even in the face of adversity! Today, I ask you to help. UNLIKE ANOTHER WARRIOR, I AM ONE SOLDIER WHO WILL NOT JUST FADE AWAY.

[Isotopia]

eat your own garbage words Iso...

Quite a reasoned rebuttal there CA.

I guess we do share some common ground in that I expected more from you in terms of you buttressing your argument (and your original point) with something more than a single source. A source I might add who seems to have an agenda that extends beyond the area of his expertise. Googling for 'Dr. Doug Rokke' returns the following web page headers which suggests to this reader that there's more hyperbole and less science going on than you'd have us believe.



-and



-and still



-and more...Oh, but wait



-Shall I continue?.





You make the mistake of putting your faith in the words of a single researcher. A researcher who, I might add, I've not been able to gather ANY information (papers, references, bibliographies, peer review summaries, etc.) on any of the work he lays claim to. That and the web landscape looks really fucking bare as far as his publishing in any journal of note. Science they call it. I've just scoured the entire database of seven different libraries at Stanford and the only hit is in the Hoover collection and appears to be the post you linked above. NOTHING by this guy in the scientific literature.

Nothing.

Mind you I'm not out to hatchet your guy as I'm sure he's pretty well versed in the area of health physics. In fact I'm sure he'd bring a lot to the table in looking at the issue. What I am suggesting is that one person's clarion call is often less likely to be mistaken as a boy calling wolf when his claim is backed by data and less by speculation or vague claims to research that doesn't seem to exist either in his dosier or on the subject in general.

That you should reply to my objections as though it were a personal attack is silly and juvenile. That you suggest Rokke *is* the science because of his lecture tours is sophomoric to the nth.

[geekster]

Cowboy, you are confusing nuclear weapons with nuclear energy. They are different. What does the radioactivity of ANY atoll after a weapons test have to do with a fucking power plant? The difference is like comparing the difference between a fireplace and a fuel-air bomb. Get a grip, dude.

You know what the COOL thing is? Using a breeder reactor, all that depleted uranium could be colllected up and turned into fuel for a power plant! U-238 could be turned into U-235. It is called recycling. It is like turning ashes into wood.

[Isotopia]

It is like turning ashes into wood.

Except that Wood235 has an exceptionally nasty half-life and represents one of the biggest disposal problems that we face.

[geekster]

But actually there IS something we all can do and it is fairly simple and we are talking on a scale of hundreds or thousands of dollars and not millions ...

If everyone installed an elastomeric reflective roof coating, you could effectively mitigate tons of greenhouse gas. If all buildings were covered with "cool roofs" and pavements could be "cool pavements", the reduction in temperatures could be dramatic.

The way greenhouse gasses cause heat to build up is that they pass visibile light. This light strikes a surface and causes it to heat. When an object heats, it radiates at infrared wavelengths. Greenhouse gasses are more opaque to infrared than visible light and act as a blanket and trap the heat.

The white elastomeric coatings reflect visible light back out into space before it can be converted to infrared. Some of these coatings are very efficient. They not only reflect the light back into space but also reduce fossil fuel energy cooling costs. Some of these coatings can even act to insulate in cold weather by including ceramic spheres in the paint that acts as insulation.

It has been shown by some studies that if all roofs and pavements were in cities were treated this way, it could not only reduce but reverse the "heat island" affect by increasing the albedo (reflectivity) of urban areas so that they are more reflective than rural areas. White reflective roofs are more effective than aluminum or other silver colored reflective coatings too. Many of them are more reflective than snow, reflecting over 95% of the light reaching them.

Of course some would argue against even that because it does not further their political agenda. But my agenda is not political, it is practical. If the goal is to reduce global warming, two ways we have at our disposal right this second is to install reflective coatings on roofs and pavements and to use nuclear energy. All of our nuke plants are of relatively ancient 1950's and 1960's design. There is not a single Westinghouse AP series plant in operation in the US though it is greatly simplified and much safer in design. I have no idea what the real agenda of the extreme left is. It certainly isn't really reduction of global warming because that is available to us right now with technology at hand.

It's okay. I have been beering. I am spouting off at the mouth. But what I say is true ... look it up.

http://hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/94/940509.html
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bldg/pubs/cr904/
http://hes.lbl.gov/hes/makingithappen/n ... roofs.html
http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/strategie ... ement.html
http://enduse.lbl.gov/Projects/pavements.html

and boatloads more ..

[geekster]

It is like turning ashes into wood.

Except that Wood235 has an exceptionally nasty half-life and represents one of the biggest disposal problems that we face.

But we should not have to dispose of U235 at all. We should be reclaiming it but have decided not to for political and not technical, engineering, scientific, or economic reasons. It was decided that to avoid protests we would avoid common sense.