blog #27 (zcomm dot net)
‘synapse' of GNEp: Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
A pro-Reduction nuclear-Weapons disposition paper
by "R" Addison 2-18-09 © apeco ®
The Greenpeace fact-Sheet reports that "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is the Bush Administration's plan for expanding the nuclear power industry in the U.S. and around the globe…and that the January 2006 plan was not as organized to much of any one factor of relegation, but economic-Disparity of the continuation of cold-War rhetoric w a gloss-Over of basics that included: "Expanding the use of nuclear power will have little or no impact on the U.S. addiction to foreign oil. Nuclear power plants generate two things: electricity and the radioactive materials to produce nuclear weapons. Since less than 3 percent of U.S. electricity is generated by oil, nuclear power's role in addressing U.S. oil addiction is extremely limited. The U.S. Department of Energy expects that percentage to drop to 1.68 percent by 2025."…" Also the plan does not relinquish movement from clean-Ups but leaving more waste-Storage for problematic(s) of increasing the needs for making nuclear-Weapons, such as NSDU-238 and warheads of various verity-Regard, while the stratosphere still emits "fallout" from above ground testing, today–as well as disregard for today's storage-Accumulations waste of otherwise!
The gREENpEACE (Greenpeace fact sheet http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/lobal-nuclear-energy-partnersh) report also admonishes: "Despite government approved reactor designs, the absence of new nuclear construction in the U.S. is understandable. The nuclear industry has been unable to reverse its track record of enormous cost over-runs and with the deregulation of the electricity market in much of the U.S., nuclear corporations can no longer pass these exorbitant costs onto consumers." There was one stat that got me to read this statement last, because the summarily aspect was replete, as to why and what has come before w total-Impunity, "In hearings held before the U.S. Congress, even proponents of nuclear power concluded that reprocessing radioactive waste was unsafe and uneconomical and that President Bush's Partnership was an unnecessary waste of resources. Matthew Bunn of Harvard University testified that, "a near-term decision to reprocess U.S. commercial spent nuclear fuel would be a serious mistake, with costs and risks far outweighing its potential benefits." Mr. Bunn, also stated that, "reprocessing is far outpacing the use of the resulting plutonium as fuel, with the result that over 240 tons of separated, weapons-usable civilian plutonium now exists in the world, a figure that will soon surpass the amount of plutonium in all the world's nuclear weapons arsenals combined."!" So, the featureless dynamics of a world in Ecology chaos due the pollutions being processed to maintain "nuclear-Weapons 24/7 alert" status is only culpable to slow-Transgressions, as per unit of entropy found in the US Congress who allots over 10,660 thermonuclear-Weapons and over 10,000 tons of NSDU-238 bullets and tank-Shells and the amount of space-Time to clean-Up five nations w.i. which usages have left clean-Ups and implacability until those un-Declared wars are ended, if ever, and if those nations will also allow United Nations to enter for doing such, etc.
"Mary O'Driscoll, this time writing in Greenwire (Jan 9, 2007), quoted John Deutsch of MIT, who is generally pro-nuclear, as saying GNEP "is hugely expensive, hugely misdirected and hugely out of sync with the needs of the industry and the nation." Yet the DOE seems intent on making decisions now that will commit the nation to particular technologies for many decades into the future. Most importantly, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is not a research and development plan. The current plan is to build what will be the world's largest reprocessing facility capable of reprocessing (assuming all goes as advertised) 2000-3000 tons of reactor fuel a year, significantly larger than the French reprocessing facility which has processed 1650 tons a year (but now handles about half that because its foreign business has disappeared). DOE is proposing that the first GNEP burner reactor will be a full-scale, commercial power plant. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership plans do not include technology demonstrations, pilot plants, or scalable production. This is a recipe for disaster. Experience in the United States and other countries is not encouraging. The British recently awarded the first contracts of 17-18 billion pounds to cover the costs of cleaning up the reprocessing facility at Sellafield. GNEP has the potential to become the greatest technological debacle in US history." ( Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)—federation of American Scientists http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclear_power_and_fuel_cycle/gnep.html?formAction=297&contentId=525)
The ‘cold-War' agenda of george-Enron admin was not shining enough, because NSDU-238 had been used in both Afghanistan and Iraq: phase-3 wars. The admin was wanting to maintain legitimacy of "u-S nuclear-Monopoly over "foreign-Policy, Constitutionality and United Nations (or other international laws). Social consequence did not matter to his admin, neither did having a consciousness, while not wanting to pivot from law-Making to law-Breaking. This must have been a manipulation for continuing the control of plutocracy, so lapse as not become worthy of mention for the favorite, which was yet to become "complex-Transformation: bombplex". The trouble is that he's succeeded, if this gets into the Congress now stonewalling Pres. Obama, and his ilk of Paulson-like-decadents). He was into manipulation of maintaining "hegemony" as the therm-O-nuclears, and reprocessing dangers, wastelands-Dangers, NSDU-238 dangers, healthcare in community-Dangers, and Iraq-Lands contaminations by his father "be-Damned"!
The report from January 2, 2009 Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety (GNEP Public Comment Period Extended into March 2009 @ http://www.nuclearactive.org/news/010209.html âÂ€¨âÂ€¨) reassures the tenets that nGO's and government elected officials—altho not many-Enough—ought to and must account for the endless-Processing of making enrichment isotopes before clean-Ups from Hanford, nev-Testsite, Oak Ridge & Y-12, Paducah, and especially had comments regarding Savannah River Site where John La Forge and I pieced together an approach to protesting against "NSDU-238" w.o. foresaking, further the issues that were bound to be becoming of "moneyed-Interest/special-Interests such as "Reprocessing, which is referred to in the GNEP proposal as "recycling," is the extraction of weapons-usable plutonium from high-level nuclear waste. Not only does the process involve enormous expense, but it also has disastrous environmental impacts and the technology encourages nuclear proliferation. U.S. Representative John Spratt, of South Carolina, said, "In truth, (reprocessing) develops more plutonium-239, which is weapons-ready and doesn't have the disadvantage of being so radioactive that it can't be handled." The risk of proliferation was the reason that the U.S. halted reprocessing during the Carter administration.
A major reprocessing site during the Cold War, the Savannah River Site outside of Aiken, South Carolina, is still facing the environmental repercussions of reprocessing. The process of separating plutonium and uranium out of used nuclear fuel and reusing it generates new waste of its own. Over 30 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste are now stored at the Savannah River Site. Plutonium has been found in the groundwater and 9 of the 49 storage tanks have leaked." The extent of the enrichment facilities, usages and transportation is seen by Public Citizen and again by CCNS in this superb cognizant anti-Ideopathic statement. The problems of increased storage space for waste, the risk of proliferation and enormous costs all point to the fact that GNEP is not a valid solution to energy problems. Tom Clements, of Friends of the Earth, noted, "The whole thing is just one big scam. It's not recycling at all. It just makes the waste problem a lot worse because it creates liquid waste streams. The end result of reprocessing is a waste of a lot of money and the creation of an environmental nightmare at every facility where it's proceeded."…"
Another news-Release was that of Jan. 21st from the extrapolation of EPA abuses and "Radiation Exposure Limits Weakened in Departing Bush Move: Huge Hikes in Allowable Radioactivity in Drinking Water, Air and Soil…Washington, DC — Late last week the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency moved to dramatically relax public protections against radioactive releases, according to the Committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG) and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The new standards permit public exposure to radiation levels vastly higher than EPA had previously deemed unacceptably dangerous. Outgoing Acting EPA Administrator Marcus Peacock signed off on the new Protective Action Guide on Thursday (January 15th) but the late signing prevented the document from being printed in the Federal Register before Inauguration Day. CBG and PEER are calling on the incoming Obama administration to withdraw it from the Federal Register before it is published within the next few days. The radiation "PAGs" are supposed to be protocols for protecting the public from radiological incidents ranging from nuclear power-plant accidents to transportation spills to "dirty" bombs to contamination events at metal recycling facilities. In October, the Bush administration shrugged off objections filed by more than 60 public health and environmental groups to the emerging draft rewrite of the 1992 PAGs. The groups objected to numerous aspects of the plan, such as ‘drinking water, lax-Clean-Ups, higher-Exposures to more sources'…"(GNEP Public Comment Period Extended into March 2009 @ http://www.nuclearactive.org/news/010209.html âÂ€¨âÂ€¨) is most pronounced in experienced gov't werkors who have spoken toward measures of disregard for clean-Ups being insecure methods to communities, first and foremost, as well as national-Security and public-Sobriety!
"While the Bush administration has focused much attention on forging an international coalition to support the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), there are also considerable domestic stakeholders involved. In particular, to promote and build support for the program, the Energy Department has cultivated relationships with the national laboratories, universities, industry, and local businesses and governments throughout the country. To do so, it has mainly used money, allocating $328 million in grants to interested domestic parties since the program was officially formed in February 2006.
Energy has made a concerted effort to build industry support for GNEP's goal of closing the fuel cycle, soliciting input from utilities and power generators on technology and promoting reprocessing by arguing that it would allow nuclear waste currently stored at power plants to be moved off-site to future reprocessing sites. To begin large-scale deployment of the program, it has shifted from just long-term research goals–which are at least several decades away from successful development–focusing also on near-term, commercial-scale facilities and the use of existing technology. It is doing so even though this technology doesn't meet GNEP's original objectives, which include decreasing the radioactivity of nuclear waste and increasing proliferation-resistance." (The Future of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP): Domestic Stakeholders by Leonor Tomero http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/nonproliferation/articles/081408_gnep_domestic_stakeholders/ )
That george-Enron was quite a dreamer, there is yet a problematic exchange forthcoming on the devaluation of "reprocessing" rather than the "evaluation of nuclear not being as clean as coal" in the long-RUN. Making a larger "industry" of importing "reprocessing high-Level waste, and trying to make reprocessing into "nuclear-Power isotopes" is not an exchange that makes money. Rather the exchange is more waste, and that means then, the Pentagons will have more than the 900,000 tons of available "munitions-Wastes" to chose from, or an endless supply of illegal NSDU-238! Period. What has happened in Paducah since 1980 has become the bellwhether for maintaining "obliqueness" as we well know that g-Enron was more than into those kinds of slough-Off? Paducah's "hoof-Print" was an excise on a hard-sought and found complement that uranium-236 was found in traces brought back from Iraq, as well as Kosovo, too! That means that high-Level waste was imbuing the lack of resolve to halt the clean-Process of NSDU-238. The "halt" to NSDU-238 should long ago have never been used after the imprisonment of gHW Bush for war-Crimes. However, we have Billy Clinton to fund for what he did not doodle into arrest syndrome, rather than "overflight-Bombings". So, NSDU-238 is nuclear and fissile and illegal and a waste of billions, then g-Enron invites corporate-Cronyism to join in the fracas of making more inhospitable the reprocessing which makes more plutonium-239 and other high-Level, man-Made: isotopes, excusable. I think not!
"While implementing the 2006 congressional siting directive, Energy solicited expressions of interest from communities interested in hosting a reprocessing or fast reactor facility, offering up to $5 million per site. It subsequently selected 11 sites to apply for $16 million in grants and to provide site-characterization reports. In 2007, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy and GNEP's Program Manager Dennis Spurgeon noted that "many communities across the country" were interested in hosting the facilities." (Ibid. the story of selling research grants to Universities but not allowing EPA studies and PEIS to go hand-in-Hand as communities must relate post-Facto, pertains as much to u-S citizens not having referendum, now, as we did not have that in 1960, when the voices against "establishmentarianism" resounded and ban-the-Bomb-Movement went into overtime…)
"The waste is known as depleted uranium (DU), depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) or depleted hex. Enrichment for commercial reactors generates about seven times more DU than enriched uranium. Enrichment for nuclear weapons or nuclear research reactors produces even more waste. Next to waste rock and tailings it is the largest category of waste in the nuclear industry.
Storage often occurs outside the enrichment plant, in cylinders of carbon steel. Many cylinders are in badly corroded state. Cylinders in the US even date back as far as the 1950?s. They pose significant leaking and breaching dangers. At least ten cylinders have breached during the last 40 years.
Within the occurring range of temperature and pressure in the cylinders, DUF6 can be a solid, liquid, or gas. Solid DUF6 is a white, dense, crystalline material that resembles rock salt. Under low temperature and high pressure in cylinders, DUF6 appears to be solid on the bottom and gas in the top." (Factsheet: Long-term DUF6 storage by Lizzy Bloem –Depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) is the toxic and radioactive by-product of the enrichment process. More than a million of tonnes of waste from the enrichment industry is stored at dumps all around the world. 29 September 2006)
The above is a good example of the so-called normal conditionalized "sensate" or disapora of prescience by the military-Encapsulations in dire regards for oNLY Pentagons /Dept-of-War oblique hegemony that can define what or how and which tons count i.e. not counted are ensuing the practice of "factual-Disseminations". Weld. The word sensate does not embalm as the military-Hegemony to shorten their-Own hapless paradigm, most of which is propaganda, none of which is peace-Prescience, and morosely all overture to the continuation of using "nuclearism" in killing populations-Overseas, or higher-Pollution: factors, or maintaining "war-Theory" as the chaos that the id-Al demands should only be stupefaction. That our socio-Polity should ensconce the condition that one crisis after the other is equitable for the peace-Populous who pays tax-Monies that provide for weapons, bases, munitions, hiring of private KBR to provide support, that one should get sickened, and then what to do, does not happen. That both are high-School formulatives of knowing basics w.o. getting' formidably "sick" is the amenity. If, you do not know, the extents, then how do you know you are sickened in mind-Scape rather than "purveyance of not-Knowing"? The nGO's do help us ascertain what we are, knowing and not, as well as books to be brought forth e.g. Depleted Uranium Metal of Dishonor ( Depleted Uranium Metal of Dishonor: how the pentagon radiates soldiers & civilians w DU weapons selections compiled & edited by John Catalinotto and Sara Flounders, pub. by Int'l Action Ctr. NY City © 1997, revised ed. 1999…238 pgs.)
"Currently, U.S. nuclear utilities are paying into the DOE's Nuclear Waste Fund 0.1 cents per kilowatt-hour in exchange for the DOE taking responsibility for disposing of their spent fuel. Assuming that the average amount of fission energy released in the first 62,000 tons of U.S. spent fuel was 40,000 megawatt-days per ton, and taking the heat-to-electric energy conversion efficiency of an average nuclear power plant to be one third, this would translate into about $20 billion. Even including interest, this fund would not be able to cover both the estimated $50 billion cost of the Yucca Mt. repository and a $100 billion separations and transmutation program.43 Spokesmen for the nuclear utilities have made clear that they will not pay for the extra costs of a reprocessing plant or fast-neutron reactors.44 It is conceivable that the U.S. Congress might fund the launch (although perhaps not the completion) of a federally funded reprocessing plant costing tens of billions of dollars, but it seems unlikely that it would provide a subsidy of on the order of a billion dollars each for the construction of 40-75 fast-neutron reactors to fission the transuranics being produced by 100 GWe of low-enriched-uranium-fueled light water reactors.45…" (Since 1982, it has been U.S. policy, for nonproliferation and cost reasons, not to reprocess spent power-reactor fuel. Instead, the Department of Energy (DOE) is to take spent power reactor fuel from U.S. nuclear utilities and place it in an underground federal geological repository. The first U.S. repository is being developed under Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Originally, it was expected to begin taking fuel in 1998. However, project management problems and deter-mined opposition by the State of Nevada are expected to delay its opening for at least two decades… U.S. nuclear utilities, therefore, have been pressing the DOE to establish one or more centralized interim storage facilities for their accumulating spent fuel. They insist that a "nuclear renaissance," i.e., investments in new nuclear power plants, will not take place in the U.S. until the federal government demonstrates that it is able to remove the spent fuel from the reactor sites. U.S. state governments resist hosting interim spent fuel storage, however, out of concern that the Yucca Mountain repository may never be licensed, and that interim storage could become permanent." Managing Spent Fuel in the United States: The Illogic of Reprocessing by Frank von Hippel A research report of the International Panel on Fissile Materials January 2007 pg. 2 Public Citizen pdf)
#45 footnote in pdf: "The number of fast-neutron reactors that would be required depends upon their net destruction rate of transuranics. Assuming a 40% thermal-to-electric conversion efficiency, a 1000 MWe fast-neutron reactor operating at a 90-percent capacity factor would fission approximately 0.8 tons of transuranics per year. If the reactor did not create new transuranics at the same time, fissioning the 24 tons of transuranics in the spent fuel discharged annually by 100 GWe of U.S. LWRs, would require 30 such reactors. Even with their uranium blankets removed, however, fast-neutron reactors, as currently conceived, would produce transuranics. The National Academy of Sciences' report discussed the tradeoffs in reducing this conversion ratio below unity as follows: "With reduced fissile breeding and reduced heavy metal inventory, the burner designs also result in increased reactivity swing over a fuel cycle. This then requires larger control rod worths and hence entails potentially larger positive reactivity insertions [if those rods are withdrawn] and degraded performance in transient overpower events. As the breeding ratio decreases, there is less reactivity insertion resulting from sodium voiding in a power excursion. However, with decreasing breeding ratio, less negative reactivity is available from Doppler broadening of the neutron absorption resonances that occurs when the fuel is heated in a power excursion. Based on these considerations, GE concludes that a TRU burner with a breeding ratio of 0.6 and a core height of 0.76 m is the lowest possible breeding ratio configuration that would have acceptable safety features," Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation, op. cit. pp. 205-6. For a conversion ratio of 0.6, 75 GWe of burner-reactor capacity would be required. Fast-neutron reactor advocates at Argonne National Lab argue, however, that a conversion ratio as low as 0.25 can be achieved safely with added control rods and twice-annual refueling, J. E. Cahalan, M. A. Smith, R. N. Hill, and F. E. Dunn, "Physics and Safety Studies of a Low Conversion Ratio Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor," Proceedings of the PHYSOR 2004 Conf., American Nuclear Society, Chicago, April 2004. For a 0.25 conversion ratio, 40 GWe of burner-reactor capacity would be required."
This is a good example of what the lay person must enterprise has credence! However, the simplicity is not to be misconstrued as "a complexity" that only a rocket-Scientist, etc. That reprocessing into a new generation of "breeders" is called for under GNEP, means these "fast-Neutron: breeders" that would cost $10-20 billion apiece, but are not necessary if all they do is make transuranics-Radionuclides into transuranics, anyhow. That there is a need for reducing what's already had is 1,00,000 tons and the u-S has 90% of that already, which is to assume that the fluff AND stuff is well-Handled, but, un-Fortunately, is not done yet, nor expedited yet, nor made "citizen-Friendly" yet! GnEP is a fallacious remedy to a remedy that does not need to become anythingy but less, which means "remedify" of reduce the toxicities and deal not w having to make armaments by having IAEA and other nation-State's "on-Site: inspectors" and lots of reports to the Pentagons be damned or security is statute as per usual. In the meantime, back at the nuclides "dispensary-Lab" the stuff has fluff is not being utilized for research into how to pick those "microns" from bodies, from sands, from NSDU-238 metal's surfaces, and other ordinary "fluff". So, when the research goes the correct direction, which will be when the Pentagons "stand-Down" from making immense capital-Gains profits for war-Profiteers, and no wars in 26 years have transpired, may be that the scientists can go into formulating how to such specific intensities of one-of-three: radio-Isotopic particle-Rays or some-Such method that may werk w humans on-Site management of "cleaning-Up: NSDU-238" because the whole argument of GNeP looks as though ole george-Enron—3-weeks older than I—was into making inequity into acuity w.o. knowing what reprocessing and enrichment have already "do-Doo'd"?
Why do I say this is that the truth is known, and that making MOX is as hazard-a-Guess that more uranium-238 will be induced to armaments tonnages that has pu-240 and ur-236 and am-242 w.i. the confines of "nothing is pure (bet your ass) on the id-Ski"? Nuclear-Energy makes more than an amassed amount of matter into radiation-Isotopes of various predicaments. The syndrome concurrently is that anti-Matter is protected by dirty: anti-Matter, and dept-of-War is oblique to law, to nations, to the people, we, who have no "referendum". But we do have tax-Monies that must be placed into useful enterprise and that is pro-Reduction of therm-O-nuclears to get monies to reduce the millions of tons that can become misshapened by further "enrichment's" and further reprocessing, making further enrichments.
"A stated goal of reprocessing is to use plutonium for reactor fuel. The most common form is MOX (short for ‘mixed oxide'), made from plutonium and uranium 238 (depleted uranium). While today's reactors can use MOX fuel, it is both riskier and more hazardous: MOX is harder to control, and twice as deadly as uranium fuel if control is lost. MOX does not "solve" the waste problem since reprocessing MOX fuel is even harder than repro-cessing uranium fuel, and not widely done. Princeton's Dr. Frank Von Hippel likens MOX use to "kicking the can down the road"-not dealing with the waste problem at all." (Bush Nuclear Reprocessing Plan No Waste Solution Statement by NIRS director, Linda Gunter 1-31-06—southeast office http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/newsprint.cgi?file=/news2006/0131-15.htm)
Then, there's the "dream-Theory" that also is both different and a relegation that there is an answer to being rid of what's already man-Made. That cannot be done because the process does not dwell upon safety-Measures, and reprocessing again, is more than sanguine, too!
"The difficulties and questions associated with repository siting, notably the extremely long periods of isolation required, have caused some to view the transmutation of long-lived radionuclides into short-lived ones as a potential solution to the problem of radioactive waste management. Transmutation is done by inducing nuclear reactions of various types in the nuclei of long-lived radionuclides. The theory is that a transmutation program would transform the vexing problem of long-term isolation into a far less difficult one of storage for several decades or a few hundred years…
This theoretical promise has led proponents of transmutation to claim that it would greatly decrease the problems associated with long-term management of nuclear waste. Occasionally, they have even claimed that it might eliminate the need for a repository, though such claims have tended to recede as investigations into the practicalities of transmutation have progressed. At the same time, environmental, waste management, cost, and proliferation concerns have risen. In addition to its promise of a solution to the nuclear waste problem, some transmutation proponents have touted it as the only complete solution to the proliferation problems posed by plutonium. They argue that as long as plutonium remains, either in stockpiles of separated plutonium or in spent fuel that can be reprocessed to obtain separated plutonium, the proliferation risks will remain. Their solution is to use the plutonium as fuel in reactors even if this requires the separation of the plutonium and therefore an increase in proliferation risks over the short term…
Transmutation is the transformation of a radionuclide into another radionuclide, or into two or more radionuclides. Nuclear waste transmutation involves nuclear reactions that would occur in some form of nuclear reactor (thus producing electricity at the same time as transmuting the radionuclides).3 A variety of reactor schemes have been proposed, but they all possess a common characteristic: a substantial amount of energy must be delivered to the nucleus of a long-lived radionuclide in order to induce a nuclear reaction that would convert it into a short-lived radionuclide or a stable element." (Transmutation basics pgs. i & ii "The Nuclear Alchemy Gamble: An Assessment of Transmutation as a Nuclear Waste Management Strategy " written by Hisham Zerriffi & Annie Makhijani August 25, 2000)
Now, to continue the synapse, there be more than "citizen-Discomfort, when those nuclides impermeate water as nuclear-Reprocessing and nuclear-Power plants use immense tons of water per minute. Does GNEP allow that these be overlooked? Yes. Two more nGO's offer some formulative discretions of import. Both, Committee to Bridge the Gap & PEER explain:
"Washington, DC — Late last week the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency moved to dramatically relax public protections against radioactive releases, according to the Committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG) and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The new standards permit public exposure to radiation levels vastly higher than EPA had previously deemed unacceptably dangerous. Outgoing Acting EPA Administrator Marcus Peacock signed off on the new Protective Action Guide on Thursday (January 15th) but the late signing prevented the document from being printed in the Federal Register before Inauguration Day. CBG and PEER are calling on the incoming Obama administration to withdraw it from the Federal Register before it is published within the next few days…
The radiation "PAGs" are supposed to be protocols for protecting the public from radiological incidents ranging from nuclear power-plant accidents to transportation spills to "dirty" bombs to contamination events at metal recycling facilities. In October, the Bush administration shrugged off objections filed by more than 60 public health and environmental groups to the emerging draft rewrite of the 1992 PAGs. The groups objected to numerous aspects of the plan, such as -
• Drinking Water. EPA has radically increased permissible public exposure to radiation in drinking water, including a nearly 1000-fold increase in permissible concentrations of strontium-90, 3000 to 100,000-fold for iodine-131, and a nearly 25,000 increase for nickel-63. In the most extreme case, the new standard would permit radionuclide concentrations seven million times more lax than permitted under the Safe Drinking Water Act"(RADIATION EXPOSURE LIMITS WEAKENED IN DEPARTING BUSH MOVE Huge Hikes in Allowable Radioactivity in Drinking Water, Air and Soil January 21, 2009 by Daniel Hirsch of Committee to Bridge the Gap & Luke Eshleman of PEER)
As well as the fidelity of logic is plausible until circumnavigated or circumvented as the former, they state, "The relaxation of radiation protection being embraced by EPA has been sought by the nuclear industry and its allies in the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The genesis of this action arose in Department of Homeland Security "dirty bomb" policies designed to provide broad flexibility in the aftermath of an attack. EPA has now expanded the relaxed dirty bomb standards to include virtually every type of radioactive release."
"This is yet another lovely parting gift from the Bush administration," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "The Obama administration can pull this back in the next few days before it gets published and we strongly urge them to do so." (Ibid. page 2…)
The "superphenix" is about the last of the impartials those that I've found that redeem the stupefactions, and simultaneously parallel the health consequences, which fund a cannot augre change overture to the "dream-Scape" of quality "nuclear-Molecularism", that just cannot be availed, probably indeterminably, too! In other words, to overtake pollution" is the formula of where the world was w.o. nuclear-Weapons reprocessing amalgamated toward electric-Generating, in 1943, before "NSDU-238" was discovered for war-Materiel's dispensing.
"According the President Bush's GNEP scheme, after the radioactive wastes are reprocessed they would be converted in reactor fuel for use in Advancer Burner Reactors (ABR). While these reactors do not even exist they are conceptually similar to fast breeder reactors without the uranium blanket for "breeding" plutonium. However, the experience with "fast breeder" reactors in the U.S. and elsewhere has shown that they are expensive and dangerous. In November 1955, the first U.S. "power reactor" ever to produce electricity, the EBR-1, (experimental breeder reactor) melted down during testing. The public was not made aware of this meltdown until Lewis Strauss, head of the Atomic Energy Commission and the man who claimed nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter" was confronted by the Wall Street Journal and had to admit his ignorance of the accident.
Not to be dissuaded by the meltdown of the EBR-1, The Power Reactor Development Corporation, a consortium of 35 utilities headed by Detroit Edison forged ahead with the first commercial fast breeder reactor. The Fermi reactor was to be a scaled up version of the EBR-1. On October 6, 1966 the Fermi reactor also melted down. The U.S. is not the only country to experience accidents with fast breeder reactors. Even the highly touted French nuclear program proved incapable of making the technology work safely and economically. France's "Superphenix" was permanently shut down in 1987 after leaking 20 tons of sodium coolant. The $10 billion dollar reactor only operated for 278 days in its 11-year history. Japan has had no better luck with its fast breeder program." (Greenpeace fact-Sheet: the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/lobal-nuclear-energy-partnersh )
This disposition paper is summarily a synapse of formulations that have wreaked a dishevelment to our culture in as much as we may not have one due these extremes above, that I've tried to expose` as fruition inward "thought" and as a necessity on what is Global Nuclear Energy Partnership when viewed from the continent of discountenance…
yours from the peace-Warrior,