Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Wave, wind, sun and tide is a powerful mix
Research at Oxford shows how renewables can plug Britain's energy gap, says Oliver Tickell

Thursday May 12, 2005


For years, nuclear power has looked expensive, dangerous and dirty. That opinion may be about to change. Britain is facing a power gap of up to 2,000 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity — almost 40% of peak national demand — by 2020 as ageing, unreliable and inefficient nuclear and coal-fired power stations are shut. There is a growing consensus that only new nuclear power can plug that gap without contributing to global warming.
Renewable electricity technologies that harness wind, wave, tide and sun are all very well, the thinking goes, but their output is too variable and unpredictable to provide more than a small part of our electricity needs. Meeting the government's target of 20% renewables by 2020 could mean getting as much as 15% from wind and other intermittent sources, with the balance coming from "firm" renewables such as biomass and landfill gas. And that, say critics of renewables, is as much intermittency as the system can take. Any more and we will need huge reserves of expensive, polluting backup capacity, ready to cut in whenever the wind stops blowing.

Convinced? Think again. Research at Oxford University shows that intermittent renewables, combined with domestic combined heat and power (dCHP) could dependably provide the bulk of Britain's electricity. "By mixing between sites and mixing technologies, you can markedly reduce the variability of electricity supplied by renewables," says Graham Sinden, of Oxford's Environmental Change Institute. "And if you plan the right mix, renewable and intermittent technologies can even be made to match real-time electricity demand patterns. This reduces the need for backup, and makes renewables a serious alternative to conventional power sources." In particular, it puts renewables ahead of nuclear power, which runs at the same rate all the time regardless of fluctuations in demand.

Sinden initially looked at just three generation technologies: wind, solar and dCHP — in effect, hi-tech domestic boilers, which produce electricity as they heat water. He ran computer models of power output based on weather records going back up to 35 years, and found that electricity production could be optimised by creating a mixture of 65% wind, 25% dCHP, and 10% solar cells. The high proportion of wind is because the wind blows hardest in the winter, and in the evening — when demand is highest. The dCHP also produces more at peak times, when demand for hot water and heating is also strongest. Solar makes a smaller contribution, and produces nothing at night. But it is still important to have it in the mix as it kicks in when wind and dCHP production is lowest.

It is also essential to disperse the generators, whether wind turbines or rooftop solar cells, as widely as possible. By increasing the separation between sites, you can be sure that power is always being generated somewhere and so smooth out the supply curve. This goes against current practice, which is to put wind turbines where the wind is strongest.

Sinden's approach is remarkably effective in reducing the need for standby capacity. If offshore wind power alone were to provide an average 3,500MW of electricity — 10% of electricity demand in England and Wales — it would need to be backed up by an extra standby generating capacity of 3,135MW — 90% of average production. But using Sinden's proposed mix of technologies, only 400MW of new standby capacity would be needed — just 11%.

In his latest work, commissioned by the Carbon Trust, Sinden has been researching the roles for wave and tidal power. Wave power output is concentrated into autumn and winter, when demand is greatest: 75% of wave power is produced between October and March. Tidal power output is predictable, but variable: at any site it drops to zero four times a day on the turn of the tide; and output is three or four times greater on the spring tide than on the neap tide. "A marine-based renewable system works best when it includes both tide and wave," says Sinden. "The combination has lower variability, is better at meeting demand patterns, and makes better use of expensive transmission infrastructure."

Putting these figures together with estimates of Britain's available renewable resources, wind (onshore and offshore) could realistically provide some 35% of the UK's electricity, marine and dCHP each 10-15%, and solar cells 5-10%. In other words, more than half the UK's electricity could ultimately derive from intermittent renewables.

"In the next year or so, the UK is going to have to decide how to meet its electricity needs for the next half-century," says Sinden. "It's an incredible opportunity for renewables but my fear is that it may be missed."


* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at :
http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research
purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107).

Monday, December 26, 2005

Nuclear Adventures

By: Gideon Spiro
Hagada Hasmalit
14 December 2005

Translated from Hebrew by Mark Marshall

"Then, I fear, he will enter a state of atomic stress, and be
unable to resist the temptation, and will take a gamble on
the fate of all of us and initiate a grandiose military action
against Iran the consequences of which could be fraught
with disaster."

The London Newspaper Sunday Times published a story according to which Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has already issued the order to the air force to prepare for the bombing of the Iranian nuclear reactor, to be carried out in the second half of the month of March, a few days before the election. The story fits in well with the ongoing media spin that has been taking place in the Israeli press regarding the "Iranian bomb" and which is preparing Israeli public opinion for the possibility that Israel will initiate a military attack, even though there have not been any dramatic developments in Iran recently.

I have no doubt that Sharon wants to imitate the late Prime Minister Menahem Begin who initiated the bombing of the Iraqi reactor in 1981 a short time before elections. That action played a decisive role in guaranteeing a second term for Begin. A similar action in Iran, if it goes well, will send Prime Minister Sharon's shares flying upwards and ensure his ultimate victory in the elections.

Except that Iran is not Iraq, and the gamble here could also end in a failure that is likely to lead to a military and political catastrophe.

Iran has spread its nuclear industry over various sites, and even if we assume that Israel has the capacity to bomb one or two sites (and there are those who have doubts about that), it will not lead to the elimination of the nuclear industry; on the contrary, the assessment is that such an action will spur Iran to double and triple its efforts at nuclear armament, not to speak of retaliatory actions that are likely to send the region on a course to conflict with weapons of mass destruction.

Not only are we threatened by the Iranian missiles that can reach anywhere in Israel, but also by hundreds and maybe thousands of Hizbullah Katyushas that can reach Haifa Bay and can hit the oil refineries and chemical industries and cause huge fires and environmental contamination that will necessitate the evacuation of Haifa and its periphery.

We must also take into consideration the fact that the Iranian missiles can reach the nuclear reactor in Dimona and cause devastation to the extent of covering the southern region with a radioactive cloud that would make it uninhabitable.

Sharon has already proved with the Lebanon war that he is a dangerous adventurer, and this quality is likely to manifest itself again, especially if his good showing in the opinion polls diminishes as the elections approach. Then, I fear, he will enter a state of atomic stress, and be unable to resist the temptation, and will take a gamble on the fate of all of us and initiate a grandiose military action against Iran the consequences of which could be fraught with disaster.

In that regard my advice to Sharon's opponents in the various parties, especially Amir Peretz, is to condition their refusal to support an alternative government composed of 61 Knesset members on a public promise by Sharon that he will not initiate any military action against Iran.
* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

Saturday, December 24, 2005

Iraq: Depleted Uranium aka Baghdad Boils?

jouna, iraq-war.ru
December 23, 2005


There’s a possibility that the US Department of Defense (DoD) is hiding the US casualties under a disguise of 'Baghdad Boils’, a disease plaguing the US troops in Iraq, claimed to be caused by the sand fly bites, but possibly by depleted uranium (DU) radiation. To explore this issue I’ve forwarded the following article to DU experts in the world to have it checked and I’m now publishing it as a preliminary announcement here in iraq-war.ru. I’ll keep you updated on this as soon as I hear of them (if confirmed you can’t miss the fat mainstream headlining).


Recent evidence proves that depleted uranium (DU) is the definite cause of Gulf War Syndrome. Fourteen years after its introduction, DU has revealed as a death sentence, lately brought forth by Leuren Moret (cf. e.g. http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml and the sources to this article).

The biological particulate effect targets the Master Code in the DNA and causes numerous diseases difficult to define, but in effect devastating the human body for example with multiple malignancies and developing cancers. Out of 580,400 soldiers in first Gulf War, 11 thousand have died and already by 2000 there were 325,000 permanently disabled, the number increasing by 43,000 every year.

Besides, DU has internally contaminated their sexual partners, who have developed endometriosis and have been forced to have hysteroctomies due to health problems. 67 percent of a test group of 251 soldiers have had babies with severe birth defects (missing members, organs, immune system diseases).

The United States has deliberately developed the DU in order to utilize the deadly properties of the DU and contaminated not only 42 states in United States, Sinai in Yom Kippur war (1973), Yugoslavia, southern Iraq (and areas nearby) in the first Gulf War and from 2003 on again in Iraq.

One of the reasons that the US deploys it allies in the southern parts of the Iraq, because it does not want to expose its own troops to the deadly radiation there from the first Gulf War. Thus the British, and the other coalition troops have been generously given the responsibility of the southern Iraq.


In a story 'Skin ulcers plague men from N.C. unit’ (cf. http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/13454217.htm ) we are told:

"In addition to the combat casualties suffered during a tour of duty in Iraq last year, an N.C. National Guard brigade also had to medevac 13 men back to a U.S. hospital after volleyball games left them vulnerable to one of the Iraq war's most exotic hazards – an outbreak of skin ulcers that can grow for years. The victims, all men from the same small unit, contracted cutaneous leishmaniasis, characterized by weeping sores that refuse to heal, said Lt. Col Tim Mauldin, the brigade's top medical officer. The illness is nicknamed "Baghdad Boil." At the time the guardsmen contracted it last year, the only way to treat it was to fly them back to Walter Reed Army Medical Center for up to three weeks of intravenous treatments with a drug called Pentostam"

Using Pentostam in the treatment of sand fly bite is most curious for two main reasons:

(1) One is tempted to suspect the US diagnosis, because for leishmaniasis, phlebotomus argentipes (also known as Kala-azar), a disease indeed caused by the bite of sand fly, there is a new, oral drug (Miltefosine( is now available. The medicine is effective (cf. http://www.who.int/tdr/diseases/leish/press_release.htm ), which makes the US use of sodium stibogluconate (commercial names: Pentostam or Stibanate) instead very curious, until we read the comment of Lt. Col Tim Mauldin concerning the sores (rather: 'malignancies’) known as Baghdad Boils: "No matter what you do, it just keeps getting bigger and bigger.")

(2) Pentostam is administered into veins and "results in a greater than 50% decrease in parasite DNA, RNA protein and purine nucleoside triphosphate levels" (cf. http://emc.medicines.org.uk/emc/assets/c/html/displaydoc.asp?documentid=2182, section 5, Pharmacological properties ). It is not immediately obvious how the bites of tiny sandflies could cause changes in the Master Code in the DNA?

(3) Although the sand flies are unlikely cause for the Baghdad Boils, we can seek a different, more natural explanation for the disease is from the the unit itself, to which all thirteen man belong. The 30th Enhanced Heavy Separate Brigade (Mech), "Old Hickory", has one battalion of M-1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks and two battalions of M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles (cf. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/30in-bde.htm ).

The main weapon of the M1A1 is the M256 120mm smoothbore cannon, designed by the Rheinmetall Corporation of Germany. Engagement ranges approaching 4000 meters were successfully demonstrated during Operation Desert Storm. The primary armor-defeating ammunition of this weapon is the armor-piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding sabot (APDS-FS) round, which features a depleted uranium penetrators (cf. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm ). On the other hand, we know already from the first Gulf War that: "Soldiers who served in Bradley fighting vehicles, where it was common to sit on ammunition boxes where depleted uranium ammunition was stored, are now reporting that many have rectal cancer."


Having recognized the previous facts we are left with the following consequences:

(1) Depleted uranium explains the changes in the Master Code in the DNA caused by Baghdad Boils much better than the 'sand flies’ (if the sand flies are not simply considered as an army code word for 'uranium particles’ or alike). In fact, the diagnosis of Baghdad Boils as 'leishmaniasis’ put forth in several connections by Dr. Roger Bate is itself highly suspicious as Dr. Bate is a visiting fellow at American Enterprise Institute, a front for international armed looting around the world.

(2) As the United States treats the cancer developing multiple malignancies of its tank crews with Pentostam (and not Miltefosine), this shows that the US Armed Forces and the Pentagon are indeed aware of the effects of the depleted uranium, which again shows that they are lying in their denials of its cancer-producing effect, thus giving a direct answer to "QUESTION 11. WHAT DOES THE U.S. GOVT. KNOW ABOUT DU?" in http://traprockpeaceorg/moret_25nov03.pdf. They know everything, even how to slow down the mutations caused by DU.

(3) More than 2000 U.S. service members have officially contracted the disease since the Iraq War began in early 2003, most of them in Iraq (though some also in Afghanistan). When these 'walking dead’ are added to the current DoD casualty figure (2160) as soon to be dead, the US death toll tops 4,000 with a single jump. The entire US colonial expeditionary force, the 300,000 having served in Iraq are soon to be counted as US Casualties, either dead or disabled by DU.

(4) As the depleted uranium penetrators are the main rounds of the US M1A1 tanks, and the extra rounds for the tanks are carried in the M2 Bradleys, there is no doubt, that after 1000 days of war, the entire US armored equipment in Iraq is totally contaminated making these vehicles literarily dead man’s chests. Actually the US tank crews are more safe outside than inside of them, despite the current conditions in Iraq.

(5) As the US Armed Forces in Iraq are actually living dead, a zombie army soon to follow the destiny of the previous army in the First Gulf War and their Armored Vehiles hopelessly contaminated by DU, the US army actually has no troops nor tanks. This means that its fate is sealed. The United States has lost the war in Iraq as soon as the troops get the information of how they are and have been deceived by an enemy worse than that they face in Iraq, the US government.

(6) Despite of this we may have even more to worry: in her recent articles Leuren Moret tell that the US has used more DU since 1991 than the atomicity equivalent of 40,000 Nagasagi Bombs, making four nuclear wars together. This, according to her may be enough for a death sentence for all of us, who will die in silent ways. To prevent this from happening we must not listen to Mr. Bush, who claims that the future generations will be grateful for sacrifices in Iraq (cf. http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3331907 ). The current deception of the US solders themselves by the US Government could not make the issue more clear: no matter whether you are friend or foe, there is nobody the Government of the United States wouldn’t betray. To stop them all you have to do is pass this story to the US combat troops in Iraq. Explaining them what exactly stepping into US tanks means, will leave them unmanned. This in turn will stop the armoured brigades, which in turn stops the US divisions and armies – and in the end the US government war. As soon as the war is stopped, the entire human kind must step in and help the Iraqi people to clean the country from the depleted uranium.

I’m most thankful for your assistance in this already.

jouna, iraq-war.ru

Section I: Depleted Uranium
(more sources from articles themselves)

1. Depleted uranium: "Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets: A death sentence here and abroad"
LINK: http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml

2. Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War
LINK: http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm

LINK: http://traprockpeace.org/moret_25nov03.pdf

4. A Monumental War Crime ... DU

5. Leuren Moret Speaking on Depleted Uranium
LINK: http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/DU-Leuren-Moret21apr03.htm

6. Cancer Epidemic Caused by U.S. WMD
LINK: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/cancer_epidemic_.html

7. Marin Depleted Uranium Resolution Heats Up GI's Will Come Home To A Slow Death
LINK: http://www.coastalpost.com/04/08/01.htm

8. The United States is Actively Engaged in War Crimes and Polluting with Deadly Nuclear Materials
LINK: http://www.albasrah.net/en_articles_2005/1205/HRA_141205.htm

9. New Information on Iraq
LINK: http://www.albasrah.net/en_articles_2005/1205/du_141205.htm

LINK: http://uruknet.info/?p=18218&hd=0&size=1&l=x

11. Iranian president calls for war crimes charges on US
LINK: http://www.iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/71438

12. Squeezed To Death
LINK: http://uruknet.info/?p=18640&hd=0&size=1&l=x

13. World Uranium Weapons Conference 2003
LINK: http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/speakers.htm

14. International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan at Tokyo
LINK: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Afghanistan-Criminal-Tribunal10mar04.htm

15. Leuren Moret: Depleted Uranium Is WMD
LINK: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0510/S00138.htm

16. Discounted casualties – the human cost of depleted uranium
LINK: http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/index_e.html

17. Heads roll at Veterans Administration
Mushrooming depleted uranium (DU) scandal blamed
LINK: http://wwwsfbayview.com/012605/headsroll012605.shtml

18. Casualties in Iraq
LINK: http://democracyrising.us/content/view/46/74/

19. Pentagon Brass Suppresses Truth About Toxic Weapons
LINK: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/pentagon_brass.html

Section II: Baghdad Boil
(some samples, google yourself for more hits):

Baghdad Boil to Return? (by Dr. Roger Bate, 05/13/2004)
LINK: http://www.techcentralstation.com/051304C.html

Topic: BAGHDAD BOIL: parasites infect many U.S. troops
LINK: http://knoxville.wate.com/sound_off/index.php/topic,132.0.html

Baghdad Boil' Afflicting U.S. Troops
LINK: http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Baghdad_boil_041804.htm

Soldiers, Civilians Returning from Middle East: Be Aware of "Baghdad Boil"
LINK: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=27577

LINK. http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/1346/44/
* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

John Busby - Australian News Opinion Reply

Nuclear power: no solution to climate change
By Jim Green - posted Tuesday, 6 December 2005
There is no "nuclear option", because the world is running out of economically-mined uranium and the secondary supplies of ex-weapons highly enriched uranium (HEU), re-worked mine tailings, inventories and a modicum of MOX are expected to be exhausted in ten years or so.

This is so much a crisis for the nuclear industry that it has anguished over it in the last three annual symposiums of the World Nuclear Association in London. Many nuclear stations will run out of fuel once the 40% of the world's supply from secondary sources declines.

Primary mining supplies provide only 60% of the demand and even this level of supply requires a constant location and opening of new mines as the production in the existing mines reaches its "Hubbert" peak and then declines.

There could be no better illustration of this dilemma than the proposals to expand Olympic Dam mine in South Australia by digging a hole 3km x 3km x 1km to extract copper, gold and uranium. BHP Billiton has initiated a feasibility study, but have already stated that without the copper, the grade of uranium ore at only 0.04% is insufficiently high to warrant a go-ahead without the revenue from the copper.

Uranium is mined for the energy it produces in a subsequent nuclear fuel cycle, but if the diesel and electricity used to excavate such an enormous hole and mill the lean ore exceeds that produced in the fuel cycle what is the point? The Olympic Dam expansion requires desalinated water supply and pipeline, a rail connection and there is a suggestion of an airport. The initial energy input is unlikely to provide a decent energy return, certainly not if world recession lowers the price of copper.

The proponents of the "nuclear option" should state where they imagine the world's uranium supply would come from, especially if Australia retained its uranium for its own fleet.

Posted by John Busby, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 3:32:56 AM

anti-green quotes UIC paper 75, but nothing could undermine the case for nuclear power more!

It gives the concentration of uranium in seawater as 0.003 parts per million, so with an optimistic yield of say 50% it would require the processing of 1,000,000 x 2/0.003 = 667 million cubic metres of seawater to obtain 1 tonne of uranium with huge pumping energy.

UIC75 gives the average of uranium concentration in the earth's crust as 2.8 ppm (0.00028 %), so with a ratio to overburden to ore of 3:1 and a yield of 10% it would take the mining and milling of 1,000,000 x 10 x 3/2.8 = 10.7 million tonnes of rock to get 1 tonne of uranium. At the mine and mill the principle fuel is diesel, so as fossil fuels get scarcer the level of extraction energy rules.

UIC75 argues that a rise in the price of uranium could be readily carried in the price of electricity, but the killer factor is the enormous increase in the energy needed to extract the uranium from low concentration resources. If the input energy in the overall nuclear fuel cycle exceeds the electrical energy obtained therefrom, the entire operation is pointless. Only the limited high grade reserves in Canada give an adequate energy gain, but to maintain its current production requires continuous prospecting and opening of new mines, the finding of which cannot be guaranteed.

UIC75 mentions military warheads, but the supply of ex-weapons HEU is running out. It admits that thorium is not in commercial use, nor is there a commercially available fast breeder reactor.

anti-green mentions the recent WNA paper on "The new economics of nuclear power". It needs new economics because the old ones have failed. There is no margin to pay for waste treatment. In the USA spent fuel remains on site at 72 of the 100+ power stations which has to be kept stirred and cooled in ponds to avoid a melt down.

anti-green will need better than UIC75 to convince me that nuclear power is viable.

Posted by John Busby, Tuesday, 20 December 2005 4:00:19 AM
* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at :
http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research
purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107).

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Pope says war no excuse for human rights abuses
13 Dec 2005 11:52:52 GMT

Source: Reuters
By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY, Dec 13 (Reuters) - Pope Benedict said in an annual peace message on Tuesday that countries have a duty to respect international humanitarian law even if they are at war.

In the first peace message of his pontificate, he also appealed for worldwide nuclear disarmament and said countries considering acquiring such weapons should "change their course".

In the message for the Church's World Day of Peace, celebrated on Jan. 1, he also strongly condemned terrorism but said the world community should look deeper into its political, social, cultural, religious and ideological motivations.

In one part of the message, which is sent to heads of state and international organisations, the Pope said war could not be an excuse for disregarding international humanitarian law.

"The truth of peace must also let its beneficial light shine even amid the tragedy of war," he said, re-enforcing his stand by quoting from another Vatican document that said "not everything automatically becomes permissible between hostile parties once war has regrettably commenced".

The 12-page message, called "In Truth, Peace", he said the Holy See was convinced that international humanitarian law had to be respected "even in the midst of war".

The Pope did not name any countries or wars but his words followed widespread controversy over reports of abuse of prisoners by the United States in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay.

The reports have incensed U.S. adversaries and alienated some allies. Earlier this month, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came under pressure in Europe over reports of secret CIA prisons on the continent.

Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's Justice and Peace department, told reporters at the presentation of the message that the Pope's words applied to all wars. Asked if Iraq was included, he said: "That's correct."


In his message, the Pope called international humanitarian law one of the finest expressions of truth.

"Precisely for this reason, respect for that law must be considered binding on all peoples," he said.

International humanitarian law "must be brought up to date by precise norms applicable to the changing scenarios of today's armed conflicts and the use of ever newer and more sophisticated weapons", he added.

Washington says the Geneva Convention does not apply to foreign captives in its war on terrorism, but human rights activists say it is still bound by the 1984 U.N. Convention against Torture to which it is a signatory.

President George W. Bush has said the United States does not practise torture, or send suspects to countries that do.

Last week a group of American Roman Catholic peace activists held a march to the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo, Cuba, protesting conditions for terrorism suspects.

In another part of the message, the Pope said the possession of nuclear weapons by any country for security was "not only baneful but also completely fallacious" because there would be no winners in a nuclear war.

"The truth of peace requires that all -- whether those governments which openly or secretly possess nuclear arms, or those planning to acquire them -- agree to change their course by clear and firm decisions, and strive for a progressive and concerted nuclear disarmament," he said.
* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at :
http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research
purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107).

Waves 'brought waste to Somalia'

Tsunami waves could have spread illegally dumped nuclear waste and other toxic waste on Somalia's coast, a United Nations spokesman has said.

Nick Nuttall of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) told the BBC that December's tsunami appeared to have broken barrels and scattered waste.

Mr Nuttall said a preliminary UN report had found that Somalis in the northern areas were falling sick as a result.

Some firms have been dumping waste off Somalia's coast for years, the UN says.

It says international companies have been taken advantage of the fact that Somalia had no functioning government from the early 1990s until recently.

Cancer link

"It appears that the tsunami broke open the containers and scattered a lot of these toxic substances around," Mr Nuttall told the BBC's Focus on Africa programme.

We need to see if there needs to be a clean-up, whether top soils have to be removed and disposed of safely
Nick Nuttall

"We are talking about radioactive chemicals, heavy metals, medical waste.. you name it," he said.

Mr Nuttall said that reports from the tsunami-hit areas in northern Somalia had found that some local villagers there had mouth bleeds and haemorrhages.

He said that some of the hazardous wastes had been linked with cancer.

"We know this hazardous waste is on the land and is being blown around in the air and being carried to villages.

"There is also a possibility - which needs to be urgently investigated - about whether some of these chemicals have got into the coastal waters.

However, the spokesman said the UNEP needed to assess the full impact for the country.

He said that the waste posed significant danger to Somalia's fishing industry and also local marine life.

Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 2005/03/02 17:20:03 GMT
* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at :
http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research
purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107).

Posted on Sun, Nov. 20, 2005
Veteran recounts dumping of radioactive waste off U.S. shore

Newport News (Va.) Daily Press

NEWPORT NEWS, Va. - The Army might not know what kind of radioactive waste it dumped with chemical weapons off Virginia in 1960, but Ellis R. Cole is sure it wasn't harmless.

The Geiger counter readings were proof of that.

Cole said he helped winch hundreds of 55-gallon barrels labeled "radioactive" out of a ship and into the ocean.

He was, he said, aboard a small Fort Eustis, Va.-based ship sent that summer to pick up a load of radioactive waste from an Army chemical-weapon development and test base in Maryland and dump it into the Atlantic Ocean.

"It was common knowledge on the ship that we were dealing with something that was very dangerous," said Cole, now 64 and living in Lakeport, Fla. "I've been uneasy about it for a number of years. No one seemed to care at the time, but I felt in my heart we did something absolutely wrong."

Army records show that a shipment of 317 tons of radioactive waste and 3 tons of Lewisite - a blister agent related to mustard gas - was dumped June 14 and 15, 1960, about 90 miles off the Virginia-Maryland line. Cole said it might have been dumped much closer to shore than Army records showed.

Cole came forward after reading a Daily Press investigation revealing that the Army secretly dumped at least 64 million pounds of chemical weapons and 500 tons of unidentified radioactive waste off 11 states from 1945 to 1970, when the practice was halted.

He provided a detailed, credible description of one of many Army dumping operations and offered the Daily Press access to his military record for verification. He also agreed to speak to Army chemical-weapons experts.

Cole said two holds of the ship were filled with barrels of radioactive waste. He said the ends of the barrels were encased in concrete, which had gaps to hook chains connected to a winch that hoisted the barrels out of the hold and over the side.

He said he was 18 at the time and was chosen to be one of the men who went into the holds to hook the barrels onto the winch. The captain issued a "very unusual" order that prohibited anyone from being in the holds for more than two hours at a time, thus limiting radiation exposure, Cole said.

On leaving the holds, the workers were examined with a Geiger counter to determine the degree of radiation on them. "It would beep incessantly," Cole said.

He was then ordered to shower, a common practice for decades to reduce the effects of radiation exposure. The Geiger counter still went wild.

He took eight to 10 showers each time that he left the ship's holds before the Geiger counter didn't detect a dangerous level of radiation, he said. "The more showers I took, the less it beeped until it eventually stopped beeping," Cole said.

He said he didn't remember whether he was required to wear a protective suit when in the holds. And he wonders whether the colon cancer diagnosed last year was caused by radiation exposure decades ago.

Cole described a method of dumping not previously disclosed. Army records don't indicate that the ends of dumped barrels filled with chemical-warfare agents or radioactive waste were encased in concrete. But it's a plausible method to remove barrels from a ship's hold.

Army photographs from the 1940s to the 1960s show forklifts pushing the steel containers and chemical-filled ordnance over the sides of ships. In later years, the Army's preferred disposal method was to scuttle ships packed with chemical weapons.

Records also show that radioactive material in those years frequently was mixed with concrete before being dumped into the ocean.

Army dumping records don't reveal the origin of the radioactive waste jettisoned. But National Archives records show that large quantities of unidentified radioactive material were transported in the 1950s by the Army's chemical-weapons escort service from a nuclear lab at Oak Ridge, Tenn., to Army bases with chemical weapons slated for ocean disposal.

At the time, the thermonuclear, or hydrogen, bomb was being developed at that lab. Army transportation of potentially highly radioactive waste from the lab is known to have continued until 1960.

The Army wasn't the only entity to dump radioactive waste off the Virginia-Maryland line in 1960.

A 1961 report in the defunct Armed Forces Chemical Journal shows that private industry also dumped at least 8 tons of radioactive waste - some of it highly dangerous nuclear material - in the same location as the Army operation that Cole said he was on. The journal said what was then the Atomic Energy Commission approved the location. (The AEC was superseded in 1975 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.)

Cole told the Daily Press that he was aboard a ship named the Pvt. Carl V. Sheridan, which he described as a 176-foot-long freighter. The Fort Eustis-based ship was ordered to the Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland to pick up its load of radioactive material.

The name of the ship couldn't be verified. But an archivist at the Army Transportation Museum said ships of that description, designated freight supply vessels, were based at Eustis in the 1960s.

Cole said his ship headed into the Atlantic and north to the Virginia-Maryland line. But the seas were too rough to set up the booms used to lift the heavy barrels from the ship's holds, so the vessel spent the night at Wilmington, Del.

The ship headed south the next day, found the seas still too choppy to dump its cargo, and tied up at a dock at Fort Monroe in Hampton, Va. The captain hung a placard - "radioactive" - on the side of the ship, which Cole said he understood to be standard operating procedure at the time.

The post commander apparently considered the ship too dangerous to have around and ordered it away from the dock.

"They threw us out of port," Cole said. "They made us go out into the (Chesapeake) bay for the night. It was too dangerous for the Army brass at Fort Monroe."

The next morning, the ship headed into the Atlantic and steamed north for what the crew estimated to be 60 to 70 miles before dumping its load, Cole said.

Army records show that the radioactive waste was dumped about 110 miles north of the fort and 90 miles from shore. If so, either Cole's memory is inaccurate or the Army's records are mistaken and the dumping was much closer to shore than recorded.

One thing Cole is clear on: The material that his ship was carrying was dangerously radioactive.

"That's something that's bothered me for the last 45 years," he said. "They told me to do it, and I did it. I always felt we were doing something wrong."
* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

Tuesday, December 13, 2005


August 6, 2005
Lessons from Hiroshima, 60 Years Later
by Walter Cronkite

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 60 years ago were stunning and sobering events. They brought World War II to an end, and everyone was thankful for that. Not too many of us stopped to think about the full implications of those bombs for our future. We were too busy celebrating the end of that terrible war.

One of the people who had it absolutely right at the very beginning about the meaning of Hiroshima was the great French writer Albert Camus. He wrote in a French resistance newspaper: "Our technological civilization has just reached its greatest level of savagery. We will have to choose, in the more or less near future, between collective suicide and the intelligent use of our scientific conquests." We are still facing that choice.

Both the US and the USSR tested nuclear weapons in the atmosphere until the early 1960s, while they continued to create more efficient weapons. It didn't take either country long to get those weapons on intercontinental ballistic missiles and then submarine-launched ballistic missiles. They created a situation in which the world could be destroyed in a matter of minutes. This threat of a massive nuclear exchange was thought to provide an ad hoc policy to prevent nuclear war. It was called the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction, for which the acronym was MAD. Never was an acronym more accurately descriptive.

We came very close to a nuclear exchange between Washington and Moscow in 1962 with the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was a very frightening time, and we can all be thankful that sanity managed to prevail. There were high-ranking US officials at the time who were pressing for bombing Cuba, which would have meant a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. That was one of many close calls during the Cold War.

With the end of the Cold War, there seemed to be a real chance again to put nuclear dangers behind us, and once again the opportunity was largely missed. Today, in the 60th year of the Nuclear Age, we still have some 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world, and some 4,000 of these are on hair-trigger alert. You have to wonder about a species that seems so incapable of eliminating the greatest danger to its own survival. Not so incidentally, the United States has more nuclear weapons in its arsenal than any other nation.

There has been much emphasis in the news about the dangers of nuclear proliferation in such countries as North Korea. All countries should abide by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Few Americans are aware, however, that the treaty also provides that the US and other nuclear-weapons states must reduce their numbers of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, disarmament by nuclear-weapons states receives limited attention in news reporting, at least within the United States. I think this might be because the continuing existence of our own vast arsenal doesn't seem to Americans, even if they are aware of it, to be nearly as dangerous as the threat of new nations acquiring the ghastly weapons.

The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – the hibakusha – have continually warned, "Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot coexist." In the end, I believe this is the most important lesson of Hiroshima. We must eliminate nuclear weapons before they eliminate us.

The best security, perhaps the only security, against nuclear weapons being used again, or getting into the hands of terrorists, is to eliminate them. Most of the people of the world already know this. Now it is up to the world's people to impress the urgency of this situation upon their governments. We must act now. The future depends upon us.

Anything less would be to abandon our responsibility to future generations.

©2005 Walter Cronkite
Distributed by King Features Syndicate

(Posted for educational and research purposes only,
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107).


Why Nuclear Power is Not the
Solution to Global Warming

The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER),
Worldwatch Institute, and Sen. George Mitchell in his book,
World on Fire have all spoken to the potential scale and cost
of Carbon Dioxide offset through the use of nuclear.

“Slowing Global Warming: A Worldwide Strategy”
by Christopher Flavin,
World Watch Paper # 91
published by the Worldwatch Institute, October 1989

“. …for nuclear power to offset even 5 percent of global carbon emissions would require that worldwide nuclear capacity be nearly doubled from today’s level. That means that nuclear is simply not a medium term option for slowing global warming.”

World on Fire
by Senator George Mitchell 1991

“…If nuclear plants replaced all coal-fired plants in the world, global warming could be cut by 20 to 30 percent by the middle of the next century (2050). But it would require bringing a nuclear power plant on line somewhere in the world every one to three days for the next forty years. The cost would be $9 trillion; the pace of construction would be ten times larger (greater?) than any the world has ever seen. Both figures are unthinkable. A totally safe reactor, a totally safe place to dispose of its deadly
wastes, and a totally safe way to keep the wrong kind of nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands none of these things have been resolved. By the time they are resolved, if they ever can be, it will be too late. The projected global warming will be full upon us.”

Greenhouse Warming: Comparative Analysis of
Nuclear and Efficiency Abatement Strategies
by Bill Keepin and Gregory Katz, Energy Policy,
December 1988

The authors posit a conservative scenario in which one-half of non-fossil energy is supplied by nuclear power with a construction program beginning in 1988.

“…This results in a total nuclear installed capacity of 8,180 GW by the year 2025, equivalent to some 8000 large nuclear power plants. This represents a 20-fold increase in world nuclear capacity, requiring that nuclear plants be built at an average rate of one new 1000 MW plant every 1.61 days for the next 37 years. At an assumed cost of $1.0 billion/1000MW installed, this results in a total capitol cost of 8.39 trillion (1987) dollars, an average of $227 billion each year for 37 years to build the required nuclear plants. Total electricity generation cost is $31.48 trillion, or an average of $787 billion/year. The required capitol investment is economically infeasible for the developing world…”

The authors point out that even with a massive nuclear construction program, the use of fossil fuels will continue to grow.

“ Thus, in this scenario, even bringing a new nuclear plant on line every day and a half for nearly four decades does not prevent annual CO2 emissions from steadily increasing to a value 60% greater than they are today.”


'Clean' nuclear power?

From Mr John Busby
February 22, 2005 UK Times


Sir, Papers delivered to the World Nuclear Association’s
annual symposiums show an industry in crisis in that primary
supplies of uranium provide only 55 per cent of the current
demand, the balance coming from the so-called secondary
sources of ex-weapons material, inventories and reworked
mine tailings. The papers indicate that the secondary
sources are running down.

The 36 reactors under construction (letter, February 17) can
only be supplied by the scheduled closing of many of the 430
existing reactors, whose life is in some cases being
extended by ignoring the safety implications associated with
the deterioration in the materials of their construction as
a result of irradiation.

Even if nuclear power is “carbon dioxide clean”, which it is
not, the contribution it makes to global energy supplies is
a mere 2½ per cent. Using the lower grades of uranium ore as
the higher grades are depleted leads to even more carbon
dioxide being released from the less efficient mining,
milling and enrichment involved.

Nuclear power offers neither sustainability nor a “clean”
overall fuel cycle and cannot contribute to an alleviation
of global warming. There is no “nuclear option”.

Yours faithfully,
Melford Road, Lawshall,
Bury St Edmunds IP29 4PY.
February 17.
Posted for educational and research purposes only,
~ in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 ~
NucNews Links and Expanded Archives - http://nucnews.net

Eminent nuclear chemist and cardiologist Dr. John Gofman
wrote the following letter, May 11, 1999:



To Whom It May Concern,

During 1942, I led "The Plutonium Group" at the University of California, Berkeley, which managed to isolate the first milligram of plutonium from irradiated uranium. [Plutonium-239 had previously been discovered by Glenn Seaborg and Edwin McMillan]. During subsequent decades, I have studied the biological effects of ionizing radiation---- including the alpha particles emitted by the decay of plutonium.

By any reasonable standard of biomedical proof, there is no safe dose, which means that just one decaying radioactive atom can produce permanent mutation in a cell's genetic molecules [Gofman 1990: "Radiation Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure"]. For alpha particles, the logic of no safe dose was confirmed experimentally in 1997 by Tom K. Hei and co-workers at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [USA] Vol. 94, pp. 3765-3770, April 1997, "Mutagenic Effects of A Single and an Exact Number of Alpha Particles in Mammilian Cells."]

It follows from such evidence that citizens worldwide have a strong biological basis for opposing activities which produce an appreciable risk of exposing humans and others to plutonium and other radioactive pollution at any level. The fact that humans cannot escape exposure to ionizing radiation from various natural sources ---which may well account for a large share of humanity's inherited afflictions- is no reason to let human activities INCREASE exposure to ionizing radiation. The fact that ionizing radiation is a mutagen was first demonstrated in 1927 by Herman Joseph Muller, and subsequent evidence has shown it to be a mutagen of unique potency. Mutation is the basis not only for inherited afflictions, but also for cancer.

Very truly yours,

John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph D
Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology


United States: 215 atmospheric tests + 815 underground tests = 1,030
USSR: 219 atmospheric tests + 496 underground tests = 715
UK: 21 atmospheric tests + 24 underground tests = 45
France: 50 atmospheric tests + 160 underground tests = 210
China: 23 atmospheric tests + 22 underground tests = 45

The grand total of global atmospheric tests = 528

Source: Page 52, "Atomic Audit, the Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear
Weapons Since 1940," Stephen Schwartz, Editor, Brookings Institution Press,
Washington D.C., 1998.
* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at :
http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research
purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107).

Medical & Ecological Consequences of Nuclear Power

Below is Helen Caldicott's talk at the NPT on Nuclear Power with a
recommendation for creating a Sustainable Energy Agency from
Herman Scheer of Eurosolar.

NGO Presentations to the 2005 NPT Review

The Medical and Ecological Consequences of Nuclear Power
Speaker: Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Policy Research Institute

The official task of the IAEA since 1957, enshrined in article IV of the
NPT promotes the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and the "transfer" of
nuclear technology. Superimposed upon this official policy is a huge
propaganda push by the nuclear industry promoting nuclear power as a
panacea for the reduction of global-warming gases.

There are presently 442 nuclear reactors in operation globally. If, as the
nuclear industry suggests, nuclear power were to replace fossil fuels on a
large scale, it would be necessary to build 2000 large 1000-megawatt
reactors. Furthermore, to replace all fossilfuel-generated electricity
today with nuclear power, there is only enough economically
viable uranium to fuel the reactors for three to four years.
Belgium, Germany, Spain and Sweden have decided to phase out their
operating nuclear reactors, while Britain plans 10 new reactors and China
plans 27 by 2020. The US administration has called for construction of
more than 50 new reactors.

The true economies of the nuclear industry are never fully analysed -
including costs of uranium enrichment, the massive liability involved in a
nuclear accident, decommissioning all existing and new nuclear reactors
and the enormous expense in the transportation and storage of radioactive
waste for a quarter of a million years. The prevailing ethic says that
nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very different. In the US for
instance, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, the enrichment
facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two
1000-megawatt coalfired plants, which release large quantities of carbon
dioxide, the gas responsible for 50% of global warming. Also, this
enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, leak from rusty pipes
93% of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the US. The production
and release of CFC gas is now banned internationally by the Montreal
Protocol because it is mainly responsible for stratospheric ozone
depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more
potent than carbon dioxide.

The nuclear fuel cycle in all countries uses large quantities of fossil
fuel at all stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction
of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the
intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating
lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive
quantities of radioactive waste. Contrary to the current propaganda line,
nuclear power is not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors
consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes
into the air and water each year. These unregulated sanctioned releases
occur because the industry considers certain radioactive elements to be
biologically inconsequential. This is not so. These unregulated releases
include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are
fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are
absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body,
including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive
organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma
radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm inducing
genetic disease. Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, is another
biologically significant gas, routinely emitted from nuclear reactors.
Tritium combines with oxygen creating "tritiated" water. Tritium which is
a soft energy beta emitter, more mutagenic than gamma radiation
incorporates directly into the DNA molecule of the gene and it passes
readily through the skin, lungs and digestive system where it is
distributed throughout the body. The half life of tritium is 12.3 years,
giving it a biologically active life of 246 years.

The dire subject of massive quantities of radioactive waste accruing at
the 442 nuclear reactors across the world is also rarely, if ever,
addressed by the nuclear industry. Each typical 1000-megawatt nuclear
reactor manufactures 33 tonnes of thermally hot, intensely radioactive
waste per year. More than 80,000 tonnes of highly radioactive waste sits
in cooling pools next to the 103 US nuclear power plants, awaiting
transportation to a storage facility yet to be found. Much more accrues at
reactor sites in France, Japan Russia and elsewhere. This dangerous
material is an attractive target for terrorist sabotage as it traverses
roads, railway and shipping lines of many nations.

The long-term storage of radioactive waste is an immense insoluble
problem. No country, including the US has a plan for preventing this toxic
carcinogenic material escaping into the biosphere and contaminating the
food chain for the rest of time. Furthermore, a study released recently by
the US National Academy of Sciences shows that the
cooling pools at nuclear reactors, which store 10 to 30 times more
radioactive material than that contained in the reactor core,
are subject to catastrophic attacks by international terrorists,
which could unleash an inferno and release massive quantities of deadly
radiation -- significantly worse than the radiation released by
Chernobyl. This vulnerable high-level nuclear waste stored in
the cooling pools at the 442 global nuclear power plants includes
hundreds of radioactive elements that have different biological impacts in
the human body, the most important being cancer and genetic diseases.

The incubation time for cancer is five to 50 years following exposure to
radiation. Children, old people and immuno-compromised individuals are
many times more sensitive to the malignant effects of radiation than other
people. Following are four of the most dangerous elements made in nuclear
power plants. Iodine 131, which was released at nuclear accidents at
Sellafield in Britain, Chernobyl in Ukraine and Three Mile Island in the
US, is radioactive for twenty three weeks and it bio-concentrates in leafy
vegetables and milk. When it enters the human body via the gut and the
lung, it migrates to the thyroid gland in the neck, where it can later
induce thyroid cancer. In Belarus more than 2000 children have had their
thyroids removed for thyroid cancer, a situation never before recorded in
pediatric literature. Strontium 90 lasts for 600 years. As a calcium
analogue, it concentrates in cow and goat milk. It accumulates in the
human breast during lactation, and in bone, where it can later
induce breast cancer, bone cancer and leukemia. Cesium 137, which also
lasts for 600 years, concentrates in the food chain, particularly
meat. On entering the human body, it locates in muscle, where it can
induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma. Plutonium 239, one of
the most dangerous elements known to humans, is so toxic that
one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic. More than 200kg is made annually
in each 1000- megawatt nuclear power plant. Plutonium is handled like iron
in the body, and is therefore stored in the liver, where it causes liver
cancer, and in the bone, where it can induce bone cancer and blood
malignancies. On inhalation it causes lung cancer. It also
crosses the placenta, where, like the drug thalidomide, it can cause
severe congenital deformities. Plutonium has a predisposition for the
testicle, where it can cause testicular cancer and induce genetic diseases
in future generations. Plutonium lasts for 500,000
years, living on to induce cancer and genetic diseases in future
generations of plants, animals and humans.

Plutonium is also the fuel for nuclear weapons -- only 5kg is necessary to
make a bomb and each reactor makes more than 200kg per year. Therefore any
country with a nuclear power plant can theoretically manufacture 40 bombs
a year.Nuclear power produces a carcinogenic legacy for all future
generations, it produces global warming gases, and
it is far more expensive than any other form of electricity
generation, while it triggers the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

A supplementary protocol to the NPT is needed, which would permit the
signatory States to fulfil their obligations stated in Article IV of the
NPT by supplying technical aid in form of Renewable Energy Technologies.
The supplementary protocol should be the basis for an International
Renewable Energy Agency that can act as a counterbalance to the
institutionalized advocates for nuclear energy. The main provision of the
supplementary protocol to Art IV should be: "The present Treaty permits
the parties to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty to replace the
assistance in the peaceful use of nuclear energy provided for in article
IV with assistance in promoting the use of clean, sustainable, renewable energy."

Convenors: Helen Caldicott, Herman Scheer, Xanthe Hall, John Loretz, Alice


"I am become Death,
the shatterer of worlds."
The line of Hindu scripture that flashed through Oppenheimer's mind at the moment "gadget," the first test bomb exploded above the New Mexico desert on July 16, 1945.

Bhagavad-Gita Chapter 11
The Vision of the Universal Form
Lord Krishna is beseeched by Arjuna to reveal His universal form showing all of existence.

Lord Krishna said: I am terrible time the destroyer of all beings in all worlds, engaged to destroy all beings in this world; of those heroic soldiers presently situated in the opposing army, even without you none will be spared. Bhagavad-Gita 11:32
Radioactive Contamination in America
Mina Hamolton

Iraq's alleged nuclear threat sinks into the dustbin of history. Americans can stop worrying about atomic perils? Wrong.
Americans are at risk from American-as-apple-pie, Stars-and-Stripes, and made-in-USA, WMDs.

A just-released study, Danger Lurks Beneath: The Threat to Major Water Supplies from US Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Plants, details the danger. Written by Dr. Marvin Resnikoff, a high energy, nuclear physicist, who has been studying nuclear hazards for 28 years and published by the public interest group, the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, this book will curl your hair.

Danger Lurks Beneath shows EVEN IF THE US NUCLEAR ARSENAL IS NEVER USED a deadly plague has been released upon the land and water. Though most of the 13 nuclear weapons factories are currently shutdown (a situation President Bush would love to change), the contamination is spreading.

The process of manufacturing nuclear bombs is not dramatic. Unlike an actual nuclear exchange no humans are burned to a crisp, no cities are pulverized. But the ingredients for a nuclear bomb must be mined, sheared, heated, melted, liquefied, transformed into gas, spun, fashioned into metal, nuked, chopped up, put through chemical baths, extracted - all the while unleashing a host of poisons.

The hazard isn't just to the citizens living nearby to the factories. The poisons threaten us all.

Imagine the distance between Boston and New York. It's a five-hour, pedal-to-the-metal highway jaunt. It's also the alarming distance toxins have migrated away from the Hanford nuclear weapons factory in Washington.

Mussels and oysters found on the Washington coast are contaminated with radioactive poisons that flowed down to the coast from Hanford, 200 miles upstream. This is one of many devastating findings in Danger Lurks Beneath.

How can we take in the enormity of what's happened and is still happening?

We learn that four major rivers and many minor rivers are already contaminated or at risk. The Columbia River in Washington, the Snake River in Idaho, the Tuscaloosa River in Georgia, the Rio Grande in New Mexico, the Great Miami River and Ohio Rivers in Ohio.

How do we wrap our minds around four major rivers at risk? What does it mean for people who swim, fish or drink from those rivers? What about people picnicking alongside those rivers? Are the grasses along the banks safe? Is the sediment toxic?

The risk is not a hypothetical, let's-worry-in-ten-years matter. At the Fernald nuclear weapons factory in Ohio the plant managers deliberately poured - via a buried pipeline -tons of uranium into the Great Miami River. Yes, TONS. And this is a river that flows into the Ohio River from which many municipalities draw drinking water.

Ohio communities are not the only ones whose water supplies are threatened. One water reservoir has already had to be shutdown, the Great Western reservoir in the suburbs of Denver. It's contaminated by runoff from the Rocky Flats factory. Now a second nearby water reservoir, Standley Lake, is also polluted by radioactivity.

The information in Danger Lurks Beneath is so shocking we want to comfort ourselves, assure ourselves, Hey we don't live there or near there. Problem: The toxins are seeping into the food chain in sinister ways. For example, ever eat farm-fed trout? That delicious, fresh trout staring up from your plate was probably grown in water drawn from the Snake River aquifer in Idaho. The nearby Idaho nuclear weapons factory is polluting the aquifer.

For the first time in 2000, plutonium was detected in two locations in this aquifer. A host of other nasty chemicals and radionuclides had already been found in this vital water source.

Not that the trout are contaminated, at least, as far as we know. But here's an indicator of how real the threat is: several years ago a trout farmer tried to sell his Idaho hatchery business to the company, W.R. Grace. He was turned down. What were W.R. Grace's reasons? They didn't want a fish farm that gets its water from a source above which nuclear waste is buried. (1)

W.R. Grace was not whistling in the dark. It's a company that knows about nuclear hazards. Back in the 1960's, Grace ran a now-defunct nuclear reprocessing factory in West Valley, NY.

Danger Lurks Beneath shows that the contamination from nuke weapons factories is widespread and it's traveling along unknown and unmapped pathways. We're fooling ourselves if we think we're safe -- anywhere.

The information is this book would be easier to swallow if there were a villain, an archenemy like Saddam to blame. But these villains are US government employees making extraordinarily dumb decisions, decisions driven by a blind dedication to so-called national security.

During four decades worth of bomb making the Atomic Energy Commission and its successor the Department of Energy adopted an out-of-sight, out-of-mind policy. Dump the waste where nobody can see it. Pump poison into aquifers, pipe it to rivers, dump it into streams, ponds and trenches, site burial grounds in swamps. And, all the while, lie about what you're doing.

This WMD threat makes Saddam's "nuclear" menace look like a cupcake. Ditto North Korea's or Iran's.

Don't expect President Bush to make jokes about this threat. No way is he going to engage in a comic routine looking under the desk in the Oval Office for by-products of the US's bomb building spree.

Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, John Kerry, the US Congress, the media and any sane member of the human species should be trumpeting the findings of this report across the land. Will they? Are they?

Are we?

(1) Perspectives of a Former Idaho Trout Farmer, www.ieer.org/sdafiles.

To obtain a copy of Danger Lurks Beneath go to www.ananuclear.org. If you don't feel up to the 270-page study, an Executive Summary is available. Also you can download individual chapters on nuclear factories nearest you or your family and friends.

Mina Hamilton is a writer based in New York City. She is a Contributing Editor to Danger Lurks Beneath: The Threat to Major Water Supplies from US Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Plants.
Atomic Age Timeline Animation:
* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

DOE Squandered Billions on Useless
Nuke Waste Technologies
By Brian Hansen

WASHINGTON, DC, November 13, 2000 (ENS) - The U.S.
Department of Energy has "squandered hundreds of
millions of dollars" since the end of the Cold War
trying to develop innovative technologies for
cleaning up the nation's contaminated nuclear weapons
sites, concludes a Congressional report unveiled last

The report, "Incinerating Cash," was authored by
staff members of the House Commerce Committee's
Republican majority. The committee's Democratic
did not participate in drafting the report.

The report charges that the Department of Energy
(DOE) has wasted much of the $3.4 billion that it has
spent over the last decade on efforts to develop new
technologies for cleaning up nuclear weapons wastes.
Congress ordered the DOE in 1989 to initiate the
program to address the environmental issues resulting
from decades of nuclear weapons production.

The committee's report concludes that the DOE has
spent hundreds of millions of dollars on technologies
that "have not proved useful" in the clean up mission.
Moreover, the "useful" clean up technologies that the
DOE has produced have not been used effectively by the
agency or its private contractors, the report found.

Of the 918 technologies that the DOE has funded,
just 31 - less than 4 percent - have been deployed
more than three times at contaminated nuclear weapons
sites, the report notes. Of the technologies that have
been deployed, more than half have been used only
the report adds.

The report attributes the failure of the program to
an "ongoing pattern of mismanagement and lack of
focus" within the DOE's Office of Science and
Technology, which is implementing the initiative.

Carolyn Huntoon, the DOE's assistant secretary for
environmental management, was quick to dispute the
findings of the Commerce Committee's report. In a
written statement, Huntoon rejected claims that the
technology program has not produced results.

"One out of every five research and development
projects have resulted in a viable technology being
used by the department," Huntoon said.

The DOE's nuclear waste complex consists of 113
geographic waste sites located throughout the country.
The DOE recently estimated that it will cost between
$151 and $195 billion over the next 70 years to clean
up the complex, not including the $51 billion already
spent between 1990 and 1999.

The Commerce Committee's report cited a number of
case studies in concluding that those costs will not
be appreciably reduced by the application of
technologies developed by the DOE's Office of Science
and Technology (OST).

Those case studies were based in large part on a
survey conducted earlier this year, in which several
large DOE site contractors were asked to describe
their use of commercially available OST funded

One DOE site analyzed in the committee's survey was
the Rocky Flats facility near Denver, Colorado, where
large quantities of wastes containing plutonium and
other radioactive constituents must be characterized,
stabilized, packaged and moved off site. The DOE's
environmental management program has to date spent
some $4.9 billion at Rocky Flats, and the agency plans
to spend another $4.5 billion over the next five years
to complete environmental cleanup activities by the
year 2006.

However, the Kaiser-Hill Company, the DOE's
contractor at the site, has so far found use for just
seven commercially available clean up technologies,
the Commerce Committee's report found. The company
will likely deploy no more than three of the DOE's
technologies in the year 2000, the committee's
survey found.

"Thus, after 10 years and $3.4 billion spent to
develop technologies to reduce costs and speed
cleanup, few [DOE] funded technologies have been used
for cleanup at Rocky Flats, and few will likely be
used in the future," the report declares.

The report also notes how DOE funded technologies
have been ineffective in advancing remediation
activities at the Hanford nuclear reservation in
Washington state, where the cleanup of 177
underground tanks containing radioactive wastes is one
of the most expensive and significant long term waste
management projects within the DOE complex.

The report notes that Hanford's radioactive tank
wastes represent a huge potential impact to human
health and the environment. Hanford's Office of
River Protection (ORP) spends more than $300 million
each year for characterization, interim stabilization,
and resolution of tank safety issues to control the
approximately 200 million curies of cesium, strontium
and other radioactive constituents stored in rapidly
degrading underground tanks.

Some 30 tanks are known to have leaked in the past.

Since 1990, the DOE has spent $4 billion on this
project, and the agency plans to spend $13 billion
over the next 70 years on tank farm operations. To
date, the DOE has funded 80 technologies and has
spent hundreds of millions of dollars at Hanford.

But the committee's report finds that the
commercially available technologies funded by the DOE
have provided "no significant use" for characterizing
or stabilizing the Hanford tank wastes, nor will they
do so in the future. According to the CH2M Hill
Group, the DOE's contractor at the site, none of the
commercially available technologies have been deployed
at the Hanford tank farms.

The report is also critical of the DOE's use of
taxpayer funded technologies to improve operations at
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, where
radioactive waste is interned in casks hundreds of
feet below the surface of the desert.
Posted for educational and research purposes only,
- in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 -
NucNews Links and Expanded Archives - http://nucnews.net

Date: June 29, 2005


Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation May Cause Harm

WASHINGTON -- A preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even low doses of ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays and X-rays, are likely to pose some risk of adverse health effects, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council.

The report's focus is low-dose, low-LET -- "linear energy transfer" -- ionizing radiation that is energetic enough to break biomolecular bonds. In living organisms, such radiation can cause DNA damage that eventually leads to cancers. However, more research is needed to determine whether low doses of radiation may also cause other health problems, such as heart disease and stroke, which are now seen with high doses of low-LET radiation.

The study committee defined low doses as those ranging from nearly zero to about 100 millisievert (mSv) -- units that measure radiation energy deposited in living tissue. The radiation dose from a chest X-ray is about 0.1 mSv. In the United States, people are exposed on average to about 3 mSv of natural "background" radiation annually. (Clip)

Specifically, the committee's thorough review of available biological and biophysical data supports a "linear, no-threshold" (LNT) risk model, which says that the smallest dose of low-level ionizing radiation has the potential to cause an increase in health risks to humans. In the past, some researchers have argued that the LNT model exaggerates adverse health effects, while others have said that it underestimates the harm. The preponderance of evidence supports the LNT model, this new report says.

"The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said committee chair Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. "The health risks – particularly the development of solid cancers in organs – rise proportionally with exposure. At low doses of radiation, the risk of inducing solid cancers is very small. As the overall lifetime exposure increases, so does the risk." The report is the seventh in a series on the biological effects of ionizing radiation.(Clip)

The report was sponsored by the U.S. departments of Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows.

Copies of Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII - Phase 2) will be available this summer from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at
http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

[ This news release and report are available at http://national-academies.org ]

Division on Earth and Life Studies
Board on Radiation Effects Research

(Posted for educational and research purposes only,
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107).

Monday, December 12, 2005

To all,
There are alternatives to nuclear power such as wind, solar, biomass,
geothermal, ocean wave, hot air etc.

Here is one "clean, green, cost effective" alternative to nuclear power.
Wavemill ocean wave power technology can be configured to make
hydrogen fuel cells for worldwide distribution.

Wavemill Technology

The Wavemill® is a new, highly efficient technology that harnesses the immense, renewable energy contained in ocean waves. Its unique ability to extract and convert energy from both the rising and falling waves, as well as from surge forces - all without trade-offs - represents a technological breakthrough.

The Wavemill® is the first practical, high-efficiency wave energy converter capable of being factory produced as a cost-effective, off-the-shelf unit, rather than having to be built on site.

Significantly Higher Output Than Wind and Solar Technologies

Ocean wave energy is highly concentrated compared to other renewable sources, often offering 15-20 times more available energy per square meter than wind or solar. Because wave energy is highly concentrated wind energy, and because water density is much higher than that of air, the available energy from ocean waves is known to be many times greater than that of wind. For example, along the California coast, yearly averages show wave power as having a 17 times advantage in available energy per square metre. This advantage, at similar ratios, also holds true in the case of photovoltaic energy converters, more commonly known as solar panels.

No Direct or Upstream GHG's

Wave energy is both free and abundant. By taking advantage of this sustainable energy source, Wavemill® powered systems produce no greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, thereby contributing to the reduction of global warming. This feature will also make larger Wavemill® installations very attractive to those brokering or trading in the emerging market for "carbon credits." Although this could mean lower acquisition costs for the buyer, thus leading to increased demand; it is not factored into WEC's current financial projections. Coupled with the opportunity to lower production and output costs, this key environmental benefit will make Wavemill® based systems highly attractive to a growing number of utilities, water resellers, developers, governments, NGO's, and entrepreneurs worldwide.

Free Energy Reduces Costs for a Variety of Processes

Because wave energy is free, the Wavemill® can reduce the production and output costs of various energy intensive processes. For example, Wavemill® systems can be used for seawater desalination, power generation, water purification or hybrid water/power applications. The production of clean hydrogen fuel by the electrolysis of seawater is also on the horizon.

The Wavemill® is designed to power a variety of energy intensive processes, and because wave energy is free, their associated production and output costs can be greatly reduced. These include the desalination of seawater to provide safe, potable freshwater; the production of electricity and hydraulic power; the purification of unsafe water; and in the future, the production of clean hydrogen fuel and oxygen from seawater by electrolysis. Hybrid systems combining these processes are also practical. These capabilities can be built into Wavemill® devices to provide integrated, turnkey systems or can be connected remotely.

In the case of seawater desalination, the cost of energy - which represents the largest single cost in this process - can now be eliminated or greatly reduced, thereby making safe, freshwater less expensive to produce at a time when global shortages continue to increase. In the growing, global market for innovative, practical and cost-effective solutions, the modular and scalable Wavemill® will address a broad range of market needs and applications.

More Flexible than Tidal Energy

The Wavemill® is NOT a tidal energy device. Unlike those site-specific installations, which require highly unique conditions, the Wavemill® is designed for broad based site suitability and simple installation. Respected studies and reports have stated that because of its global distribution and highly concentrated nature, wave energy represents a logical choice as the most suitable alternative to traditional energy sources - once practical conversion technology becomes available. The Wavemill® provides that practical solution.

Simplicity, Extreme Durability, and Cost Effectiveness

James Watt, whose inventions revolutionized the modern world, stated "Of all things, but proverbially so in mechanics, the supreme excellence is simplicity." The Wavemill's elegantly simple design, full scalability, and innovative approach to production, installation, servicing and security all embody this philosophy.

For example, the Enclosed Surge Wall (ESW) caisson incorporates numerous parts and features into a single, highly durable moulded component. A strategy of incorporating maximum simplicity, durability, flexibility and serviceability is applied in the design of all of the Wavemill's major components, sub-systems and options.


* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at :
http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research
purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107).

Friday, December 09, 2005

To All,

The late Dr. Roy foresaw the MOX or 'reprocessing' problem
when the Three Mile Island partial meltdown occured. He then
developed photon transmutation, The Roy Process. But since
there is far more money in not solving problems, it was killed
by the government. It is still available to a company capable of realization who contracts with us.


Dennis F. Nester


Sunday, November 4, 1979
Process may kill radiation threat

Copyright, 1979. The Arizona Republic

TEMPE -- An internationally recognized Arizona State University physicist disclosed Saturday that he has discovered a method for treating nuclear reac­tor and other highly dangerous radioactive wastes so they will be harmless.

The procedure was conceived by Dr. Radha R. Roy professor of nuclear physics who is the designer and former director of nuclear-physics research fa­cilities at the University of Brussels In Belgium. and at Pennsylvania State Uni­versity.

Roy said the process “very roughly can be described in part as a reversal of phenomena that occur during a nuclear fission chain reactions.

The scientist said the process is the culmination of many years research

“Theoretical analysis and mathematical calculations confirm the process is highly effective and that any level of radio activity, from weak to strong. Can be reduced to harmless state in a short period of time,” Roy said.

The thing that is so encouraging is that the method can cancel radioactivity rapidly enough for it to be of r real practical value in disposing of dangerous wastes in storage and as they are being produced, Roy said.

One treatment-plant design which Roy has devised could reduce the radioac­tivity of even the most dangerous wastes with half-lives or 15,000 to 40,000 years to a level where they would be essentially harmless in about 20 days.

A half-life is the time required for a quantity of radioactive material to lose one half of its radioactive strength.

Roy, who left his native Calcutta, India. to do advanced nuclear- physics re­search at the University of London during World War II, said all the necessary theoretical and quantum electrodynamical work on the process has been completed.

“There remains perhaps as much as a years work in calculating parameters and preparing data that will he needed for the engineering design of a pilot radio­active waste-treatment plant’ he said.

Roy is known internationally among scientists for his many advanced research contributions in the field of nuclear fission fragments and as the author of de­finitive graduate and post-doctoral textbooks used in universities all over the world. “During the 37 years since the first fission chain reaction there has been no progress whatever toward the development of a method of deactivating radioactive waste or even for storing it safely,” he said.

“The collections of dangerous nuclear wastes in this country alone have now reached a total of at least 75 million gallons, and it is growing daily.”

He estimated an operational nuclear waste-treatment plant could cost $40 mil­lion or more. By contrast, he noted, Congress last summer appropriated $80 million just to build more concrete storage bunkers to hold only a part of the growing accumulation of nuclear wastes.

“Since it is so very dangerous to ship strongly radioactive materials it would certainly be sensible to build a treatment plant for each reactor so radioactivity could be killed out before the waste is transported anywhere" the scientist said.

Roy said that the national danger from nuclear waste is "extremely serious" and urged the federal government to build treatment plants near established nuclear waste storage areas. Other treatment plants should be constructed to kill out the radioactivity in the wastes from the nation's weapons programs and from its educational, industrial, medical and experimental research facilities he said.

Roy warned that waste containing plutonium 239 is "critically dangerous" because of its extremely high radioactivity and also because it is the essential ingredient in an atomic bomb.

The treatment process not only will render plutonium 239 harmless in a remarkably short time, he said, but also will keep deactivated plutonium from ever being reprocessed to make an illegal atomic weapon.

Roy further warned that the United States not only is exporting nuclear energy when it sells reactor technology to foreign nations, but also is sending overseas the potential for making illegal bombs out of plutonium from reprocessed nuclear wastes.

The treatment method will guarantee to foreign countries that use nuclear fission energy that they can maintain an environment free from radioactivity, and it also could guarantee to the world that there will be no reuse of plutonium in an unauthorized weapon, he said. Careful theoretical and mathematical analysis have assured him that the nuclear waste- treatment process will function reliably and with rapidity and high efficiency, he said.

"But the existence of this promising nuclear waste-treatment procedure should not be construed in any sense to mean that nuclear fission power reactors are safe" Roy said. The contractor who built Three Mile Island's reactor-like those who built the other 71 reactors now operational in the United States -- expected that plant to function normally for 30 years in total safety without event .But the fact is that it went out of control and nearly created a meltdown which could have destroyed a large part of the human habitat of east-central Pennsylvania,'' Roy said.

Neutralize & Eliminate Nuclear Waste For Good

The Roy Process Brief Description
from the web site: http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess

Is there a safe process to get rid of nuclear waste? One possible solution is a process invented by Dr. Radha R. Roy, former professor of Physics at Arizona State University, and designer and former director of the nuclear physics research facilities at the University of Brussels in Belgium and at Pennsylvania State University.

Dr. Roy is an internationally known nuclear physicist, consultant, and the author of over 60 articles and several books. He is also a contributing author of many invited articles in a prestigious encyclopedia. He is cited in American Men and Women of Science, Who`s Who in America, Who`s Who in the World and the International Biographical Centre, England. He has spent 52 years in European and American universities researching and writing recognized books on nuclear physics. He has supervised many doctoral students.

Roy invented a process for transmuting radioactive nuclear isotopes to harmless, stable isotopes. This process is viable not only for nuclear waste from reactors but also for low-level radioactive waste products.

In 1979, Roy announced his transmutation process and received international attention. The Roy process does not require storage of radioactive materials. No new equipment is required. In fact, all of the equipment and the chemical separation processes needed are well known.

What`s the basis for the Roy Process? If you examine radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and plutonium 239, you will see that they all have too many neutrons. To put it very simply, the Roy process transmutes these unstable isotopes to stable ones by knocking out the extra neutrons. When a neutron is removed, the resulting isotope has a considerably shorter half-life which then decays to a stable form in a reasonable amount of time.

How do we knock out neutrons? By bombarding them with photons (produced as x-rays) in a high- powered electron linear accelerator. Before this process, the isotopes must be separated by a well-known chemical process.

It is feasible that portable units could be built and transported to hazardous sites for on-site transmutation of nuclear wastes and radioactive wastes.

To give an example, cesium 137 with a half-life of 30.17 years is transformed into cesium 136 with a half-life of 13 days. Plutonium 239 with a half-life of 24,300 years is transformed into plutonium 237 with a half-life of 45.6 days. Subsequent radioactive elements which will be produced from the decay of plutonium 237 can be treated in the same way as above until the stable element is formed.

From the Patent application claim: http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess/additional-uses-royprocess.html

Dr. Roy released his Roy Process to the press in 1979.
Scientists of a large company saw the Patent application under non-disclosure agreements and said the Roy Process was "entirely feasible".

Dr. Roy was offered millions of dollars for the patent rights.
NOT to develop it...but to shelve it. Dr. Roy refused. Then Ronald Reagan signed the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act which made "geologic isolation" (burial) of nuclear waste, federal policy, putting viable alternatives in scientific limbo.
Now after wasting hundreds of billions of tax payers money on junk science, nuclear waste has leaked into our precious ground water.

Dr. Roy was right. There IS only one way to totally eliminate high level nuclear waste and that is to transmute and denature it for good.

Dennis F. Nester

Patent Examiner Comments on the Roy Process Invention
Re: Yucca Mt. Is Not The Answer for Nuclear Waste

As a patent examiner, the explanation as to why the Roy process was not patented makes perfect sense and is not paranoid at all. There is no reason to get a patent unless you have the money to defend it in court. Large corporations are notorious for stealing them. Also, patent applications in 1979 were held confidential until they were issued as patents. The inventor requiring a non-disclosure agreement of a corporation to view the application is also perfectly reasonable. It is niave to believe that Reagan was not encouraged by large corporations to change the law regarding acceptable nuclear waste disposal methods to benefit them in order to squash any new method like the Roy process. These kinds of things happen all the time.

As to the merits of the Roy process, it seems to me on it's face to have potential to change nuclear waste into something less dangerous. I don't know enough about nuclear physics to really give an detailed response, but I do know that nuclear accelerators do change atomic structure and that bombarding nuclear waste would certainly change it into something else.

(excerpt by Russell Hoffman)

At each step, an "inconsequential" (so they say) loss occurs, which ends up in our air and water, and then in our lungs and in our guts and brains. You are a filter for your environment. If your environment is polluted, YOU will be polluted. Do you feel clean? You aren't.

Your body is already poisoned with billions of radioactive atoms, courtesy of a corrupt and arrogant government and industry. Each individual atomic decay event is always much, much stronger than your own body's chemical and molecular bonds. Each radioactive decay can lead to cancer, leukemia, heart disease, deformities in your children, and a thousand other ailments. Do you feel victimized, or has the odorless, colorless, tasteless, microscopic (and, often, delayed) nature of the assault fooled you? If so, you are not alone.

POISON FIRE USA: An animated history of major nuclear activities in the continental United States:


Learn about The Effects of Nuclear War here (written with Pamela






(Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107).