There are also conservative voices who see the folly of spending billions of dollars on nuclear weapons in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Nuclear Money Pit

Nuclear Money Pit

America’s atomic arsenal is stuck in the Cold War era.
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos | November 29, 2011

These days superpower nuclear-weapons controversies hardly elicit the excitement that once inspired such bumper-sticker slogans as, “you can’t hug children with nuclear arms.” The “no nukes!” movement has gone the way of the Cold War and MTV playing music videos, right?

In the 21st century, the 2002 Treaty of Moscow and 2010’s New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) were supposed set the clock on bilateral warhead reduction, and there are no plans for the production of more nuclear weapons. Pretty cut and dried, one would think. But like everything radiating out of Washington, the atomic drawdown is not what it seems.

Despite a deficit reduction plan to cut $1.2 trillion in federal spending over 10 years and ongoing negotiations by the so-called supercommittee to identify cuts of $1.5 trillion more, members of Congress are pushing an expanded plutonium storage and production assistance facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Critics say the facility is unnecessary, poorly designed, and dangerous—there are fault lines throughout the Los Alamos property—and its cost has ballooned from $375 million in 2001 to an estimated $5.5 billion today.

It hasn’t been built yet—in fact, the designs aren’t even finished after 10 years. But the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) has been soaking up taxpayer money all the same as the scope of the project has metastasized.

“The country doesn’t have money to pour into an unnecessary, giant boondoggle that has grown beyond all original expectations,” charges Greg Mello, executive director of the Los Alamos Study Group, probably the toughest grassroots opposition the CMRR-NF project faces right now. “When the cost of a facility increases by more than a factor of ten, even as the fundamental purposes are evaporating, it’s important to stop, to pause and to question whether this is the right thing to do.”

There is no doubt that the budget-cutting imperative is clashing with the old way of doing business on Capitol Hill, as pet projects and earmarks come under more scrutiny than ever. Bureaucratic institutions used to getting their way by easing expensive, potentially controversial programs under the radar are finding themselves squarely in critics’ sights.

That includes CMRR-NF, which has never been the subject of a public congressional hearing or passionate floor speech—much less a heated debate on cable TV or talk radio—but has been controversial nonetheless.
“I think the key is, it appears to be a huge waste of money and particularly in our current fiscal situation there is no need to hurry this thing at all,” says Peter Stockton, senior investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, which is currently working on its own CMRR-NF report.

• • •

The mission of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which is a semi-autonomous agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, is to “improve national security through the military application of nuclear energy.” It oversees Los Alamos and is in charge of the CMRR project.

Initially, the NNSA was merely focused on renovating the parts of Los Alamos’s old Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) building that were outmoded and deteriorating by the late 1990s. Tests had found faults running under the property that could cause dangerous earthquakes.

After President George W. Bush was elected, plans to improve and upgrade salvageable portions of the nearly 60-year-old CMR were scrapped, and NNSA set about designing a “simple” replacement facility with two buildings about a mile away. One, the Radiological Laboratory Utility Office Building, is not controversial and almost complete. The other—the NF in CMRR-NF—is a new nuclear facility that would support Los Alamos’s nuclear-weapons mission, including plutonium storage, and assist in the production of plutonium-based “pits,” the fissile cores of nuclear weapons. This currently takes place at the existing TA-55/PF-4 nuclear facility next to the proposed site.

The nuclear facility, according to its critics, has become a monster. Aside from the runaway cost estimates, according to Mello the envisioned facility would give TA-55/PF-4 the capacity to double the number of pits Los Alamos produces each year and could store up to six metric tons of plutonium, “enough to rebuild the entire U.S. strategic arsenal.” This when there are thousands of pits already in storage and a treaty with the Russians sharply limits the nuclear arsenal.

Even if the increase in pit production were necessary—and as Mello and others point out, with much of the information classified or otherwise unavailable to the public, it is hard to know—the existing lab could be upgraded to carry out Los Alamos’s publicly stated mission to refurbish the current stockpile. NNSA, critics complain, has so far refused to seriously consider any alternative.

“We think there are simpler, cheaper, faster alternatives to accomplishing their stated mission, though their stated missions are aggrandized to begin with,” says Los Alamos Study Group President Peter Neils, who was on Capitol Hill in late October to get the word out about CMRR-NF. He blames the out-of-control designs and spiraling cost on a mix of Cold War ideology, over-reliance on contractors, and the self-sustaining mentality of all bureaucracies.

Simply put, says Mello, “the warhead establishment and the Cold War hawks cannot let go of designing and building new kinds of warheads, to create what they call ‘end-to-end’ work for the weapons complex.”

• • •

As of June, the Federation of American Scientists reports, the U.S. had 1,950 operational strategic nuclear warheads, plus approximately 200 deployed on behalf of allied countries—Belgium, Turkey, Netherlands, Italy and Germany—and 2,850 in reserve. In addition, some 3,500 retired warheads are awaiting dismantlement. This all jibes with numbers issued by the State Department in 2010. START demands that the U.S. bring those deployed numbers down closer to 1,550 by 2018.

At its peak in 1967 during the Cold War, the nuclear stockpile was at 31,225 warheads. America had 22,217 when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. If the Cold War were still on, say critics, we might need additional capacity to build pits. But as it is there are thousands of usable pits already in reserve, and the scientific consensus says the plutonium parts of the pits have a lifespan of at least 100 years. The U.S. arsenal is well stocked in this regard.

The new CMRR-NF would help Los Alamos’s TA-55/PF4 site boost production to a conservative estimate of 125 pits a year on a double shift, according to observers.
This is as outrageous as it is unnecessary, claims Frank von Hippel, a professor and principal investigator at Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security, in an affidavit for the Los Alamos Study Group, which is trying to force NNSA’s hand in court.

“There is no anticipated need to produce new pits for U.S. nuclear weapons for several decades,” he writes. The oldest pit produced in the U.S. is 32 years old, he added, noting the current TA-55/PF-4’s production rate of 10 pits per year would be adequate for any replacements necessary during the modernization and maintenance that is already going on under the auspices of NNSA.

Critics say the entire landscape of nuclear-weapons production has changed since CMRR-NF was conceived—all in the direction of reducing the nuclear stockpile—yet every adjustment in the facility’s blueprints has resulted in more capacity to store plutonium and build additional pits.

Most notably, the Reliable Replacement Warhead, a new family of warheads conceived in 2004 and used as a chief justification for modernizing Los Alamos’s nuclear-weapons complex, was defunded by Congress and cancelled by the Obama Administration in 2009.

CMRR-NF “is being built to increase capacity for pit production, even though pit production is not what we need,” the Project on Government Oversight’s Stockton charges. NNSA did not respond to several phone calls for comment on these and other charges lobbed by the opposition.

A three-page “Questions and Answers Regarding the CMRR Project” issued by NNSA before the Reliable Replacement Warhead was canceled maintains that the “primary mission of CMRR will be to support the current nuclear weapons stockpile through surveillance and life-extension programs necessary for the nuclear weapons complex” and “the size of CMRR remains the same.” It blames the soaring expense on poor initial estimates, cost increases in “the construction industry worldwide,” and requirements relating to the seismic risks, nuclear quality assurance, and security. The words “fissile core” or “pit” are never mentioned.

NNSA also contends it has put alternatives up for public comment, most recently when it amended the plans under its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, which the agency says has incorporated “updated seismic safety design information.” (The Los Alamos Study Group disagrees and has filed a second lawsuit against NNSA, contending that it’s relying on outdated feasibility and impact studies, among other charges.)

Critics say that if the new facility’s mission is merely to help maintain the stockpile, the job could be handled at an improved and upgraded TF-22/P4 facility or elsewhere at a fraction of the cost. As for size, Mello says NNSA can longer say the facility is “the same”—the square footage might be, but the installation’s scope has certainly grown since 2001.

• • •

CMRR-NF is not without detractors on Capitol Hill. Over the years, its budget and plans have been questioned for all of the reasons already cited and more. Indeed, today’s fiscal environment has bolstered the criticism, with results that can be seen in competing House and Senate appropriations bills. (Some $450 million has been appropriated to CMRR since 2002.)

Calling it a “cost reduction strategy,” the House in July cut $100 million from NNSA’s $300 million request for CMRR-NF as part of the overall $30.6 billion Fiscal Year 2012 Water and Energy Appropriations package. “The [House and Water and Energy Subcommittee] fully supports the Administration’s plans to modernize the infrastructure, but intends to closely review the funding request for new investment to ensure those plans adhere to good project management practices,” the final bill reads.

By trimming the agency’s request by a third, the House is refusing to provide “the additional funding to support early construction” and would not do so until NNSA resolves “major seismic issues with design” and tames CMRR’s cost.

The Senate subcommittee, too, has expressed concerns. Pointing to the growing expense, its FY 2012 appropriations bill demands NNSA submit a contingency plan that would identify the cost and consequences of delaying the implementation of CMRR, as well as a planned Uranium Processing Facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee—another project that has gone from an estimated $1.5 billion to upwards of $6.5 billion in the last five years. The committee also proposes to cut $60 million from the NNSA’s $300 million request for CMRR, but allows for preliminary “site preparation”—in other words, construction may begin on a project whose designs are not yet finished.

Mello and Neils have tried to convince lawmakers to put a permanent stop to CMRR-NF. It’s a difficult task, they say. Many legislators are hearing about the issue for the first time and might not be willing to plough through intimidating scientific and technical jargon to get at why this project is bad news.
And CMRR-NF already has momentum. Mike Lofgren, who spent 28 years on Capitol Hill as an aide on defense issues for the House and Senate Budget Committees, says this is bureaucracy in action, and anything relating to weapons systems is going to be expensive.

“It doesn’t surprise me that after a requirement has gone away, or the need has been severely curtailed, they would just continue on with this thing,” Lofgren tells TAC. “These projects get front-loaded by optimistic projections of their cost and overstatements of, ‘hey, we really need this thing,’ so you front-load them and politically engineer them by getting the local congressmen all hyped up by saying it’s going to create new jobs.”

When lawmakers start asking whether a particular project is really worth it, the response, Lofgren says, is always, “it’s too early to tell or too late to stop” and the effort will go on until the money is gone, mission accomplished or not. One need look no further than the $65 billion fleet of F-22 Raptors, which was grounded from May to August because of operational problems and has never seen a day of combat.
It’s hard to get a firm handle on how CMRR-NF has come to be apparently unstoppable because no wants to talk—neither the detractors on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittees, nor the project’s proponents, who have long been led by figures like Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.). In fact, reports at the time of Senate negotiations over New START indicate that as Republican Senate whip, Kyl was successful in obtaining additional funds for CMRR-NF in exchange for Senate GOP support for Obama’s treaty with the Russians. Kyl’s office did not return calls for comment.

A spokeswoman for Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), known as a longtime supporter of the CMRR project, responded with a statement from the senator that hardly sounded like a ringing endorsement.

“The CMRR is an important project for [Los Alamos National Laboratory] and for New Mexico, but it is also important to be sure environmental and cost issues are fully addressed,” Bingaman said. “My top concern as the project has been developed continues to be safety and security of the proposed facility.”
Contractors, post-Cold War ideologues, and bureaucracy may keep the CMRR-NF project going, but those interests appear to be clashing directly with the forces of fiscal restraint and new environmental concerns. After the earthquake-spawned Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in Japan last spring, fears over seismic hazards at Los Alamos have only grown.

Meanwhile, the Los Alamos Study Group insists its goal is not to stop the U.S. nuclear program, but to make it safer, more efficient and less expensive.

The nuclear-weapons establishment “could do their job more efficiently and more cheaply if they didn’t infuse their work with so much ideology and were just more practical and straightforward,” says Mello. And CMRR-NF is not the only program that might demand additional scrutiny. According to the New York Times, the facility is just one of a host of modernization projects that could cost taxpayers over $600 billion in the next decade.

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance reporter and a columnist for Antiwar.com.

OBITUARY

Lance R. Hughes, b. April 3, 1955; d. October 3, 2011

Lance passed from this world surrounded by close friends who were his family. A native Oklahoman of Muscogee Creek ancestry, Lance was born in Oklahoma City, but lived all over the state as his father worked in the oils fields and the family moved often. He is preceded in death by his beloved mother, Ro Ann Hughes. Lance’s family consists of many friends, colleagues and favorite musicians scattered across the nation. He was the consummate host and chef, known most notably for his deserts. Lance loved his home on Lane Hill and the Barron Fork creek almost as much as he enjoyed his last years in the cabin on Spring and Snake creeks. These hills were his home and the waters his joy.

In the early 1980’s, Lance worked with Wilma Mankiller and Ross Swimmer at the Cherokee Nation, and was responsible for writing the 1985 Cherokee Code of Law and updating it in 2001. For the past five years, Lance worked as a consultant to the Cherokee Nation Health Department. Lance became the executive director of Native Americans for a Clean Environment in 1986. Despite a lack of formal education, Lance was a brilliant strategist, with a gentle voice and easygoing (generally barefooted) manner that masked a steely resolve to get things done. He brought an encyclopedic knowledge to focus on the problems of nuclear pollution and the art of community organizing in an international arena. In 1993, the efforts of the NACE organization shut down 23% of the world’s uranium supply at the notoriously contaminated Kerr McGee facility in Gore, Ok, accomplished much to the tenacious, laser focus of Lance Hughes. He was the recipient of the Joe A. Callaway award for Civic Courage in 1995 for leading the fight, as well as an award from Nuclear Free America in 1997.

In lieu of flowers, memorial donations (tax deductable) may be sent to: IEER – Institute for Energy and Environmental Researchat 6935 Laurel Ave., Suite 201, Takoma Park, Maryland, 20912. Condolence cards may be sent to the family at P.O. Box 1735, Locust Grove OK 74352.

A Celebration of Life will be held in a month or so- to be announced far and wide. There is a memorial page on Face Book: Lance Hughes Memorial Page for your notes and celebration announcement.

Dr. Hida is a hibakusha: a survivor of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. He was also a medical doctor and treated those injured in the bombing.

Four videos embedded below. Three are of a meeting of Dr. Hida with a group from DePaul University. Since he speaks through a translator, it takes a little work and patience to follow along. But, the words are worth the patience and effort.

The fourth embedded video is a film called Atomic Wounds. Its described as “At 89, Doctor Hida, a survivor of the 1945 atomic bomb atHiroshima, continues to care for some of the other quarter of a millionsurvivors. Atomic Wounds retraces his dedicated journey and highlights how theterrible danger of radiation was concealed by successive American administrations in the 50′s – 70′s so that nuclear power could be freelydeveloped, with no concern for public health.” (warning, comes with an advertisement as a prelude).

A site named Nagasaki Archive has set up a map in Google Earth.  Overlaid over a modern map of Nagasaki are maps, photos and video interviews with survivors of the Atomic attack of August 9, 1945.

Click Here to enter the Google Earth map

Click Here to enter the Nagasaki Archive website

A website named Hiroshima Archive has set up a map  in google earth. Pictures from the aftermath of Hiroshima, including photos of some of the human beings who died that day, are laid over a Google Earth map of modern Hiroshima.  This is a project of a group comprised mainly of Japanese secondary school and college students and teachers.

 Click here to go directly to the Google earth site.

Click here for the general entry to the site, including a demo movie.

The Nagasaki Archive can be accessed via the checkbox at the top of the screen in the Hiroshima Archive.  Or, via the links in this post.

THIS WEEK!
There are TWO KEY meetings on the Jefferson toll road, however, BOTH MEETINGS ARE ON THE SAME DAY, WEDNESDAY, JULY 20. Because of this date conflict, it will be important to turn out more people and have more voices heard. You may also submit comments in writing, but the comment period is very limited, please ACT NOW! Instructions are below. Please forward this email to your friends and neighbors. Thanks, Rob

July 20
Meeting #1 – Golden’s Proposal for a Bike Path, US Fish & Wildlife
Meeting #2 – Soil Disturbance at Rocky Flats, Dept. of Energy (see below)

Meeting #1 – Golden’s Proposal for a Bike Path, US Fish & Wildlife
If you support Golden’s proposal to build a bike path, come to this meeting – US Fish & Wildlife Meeting, July 20, 2011, 5PM-8PM, Westminster City Park Recreation Center, 10455 Sheridan Blvd. Westminster, CO 80031

Golden’s Proposal: The City of Golden has submitted a bid to purchase a corridor of land, presently owned by the U.S. Department of the Interior as part of the Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge, along Indiana Avenue. http://cityofgolden.net/News.asp?NewsID=867

CINQ’s position to USFW – (Please feel free to use these points in your comments)
We urge government officials to accept Golden’s proposal to build a bike path. This plan will have less impact on the Refuge, protecting important habitat and wildlife. Golden’s plan also offers the federal government more revenue than the competing proposal. A bike path also supports a more sustainable community by lessening carbon emissions, limiting noise, slowing sprawl and limiting water use. A bike path also serves as alternative transportation, which is needed in our community. Biking promotes recreation and health. Please support Golden’s Bike Path.

Cyclist- Special Message
From Margot Zallon, Plan Jeffco – Perhaps, you are unaware of the opportunity presented to our community by the proposed environmental assessment process for the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge in northern Jefferson County. This process is to review competing proposals for the use of a transportation corridor on the east side of the Refuge. The City of Golden has proposed acquiring the right-of-way for use as a regional bicycle corridor just west of Indiana Street to provide better north-south bike connectivity instead of a toll highway corridor (see the attached maps). In short, such a corridor could ultimately provide access for a bike way between Boulder County and Jefferson County. If you would think this a good notion, and would use such a corridor, please attend the US Fish and Wildlife Open House on July 20, 2011. In addition, please use the email contacts for US Fish and Wildlife, provided immediately below, to make your opinion known. They will not be taking public comment at the meeting so sending an email is the only way FWS will know your views. Most importantly, please spread the word on this important issue to your fellow cyclists.
Greetings Golden Biking Community,
From Rob Medina, CINQ – I am writing regarding a very important issue surrounding the proposal TOLL ROAD north of Golden. The City of Golden has submitted a competing bid to buy the land on the Rocky Flats Refuge, and build a BIKE PATH rather than a toll road. The primary location of Golden’s proposed bike path would be on the east edge of Rocky Flats. More info: http://cityofgolden.net/News.asp?NewsID=867 If Golden is successful, this could mean miles of added bike lanes and bike access. IT IS CRITICAL THAT THE CYCLING COMMUNITY GET INVOLVED TO SUPPORT THIS IDEA AND DEMONSTRATE A NEED FOR THIS BIKE PATH to officials with U.S. Fish & Wildlife, who control Rocky Flats. Please come to this meeting. People may also respond via email to the USFW contacts below. I have been asked by city officials to reach out to people in the community like you – your help is appreciated. Please forward this email to your customers, business associates, friends and neighbors. Thanks, Rob

NEWS RELEASE
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region, 134 Union Boulevard, Lakewood, Colorado 80228
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Host Public Meeting Regarding the Potential Expansion of Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. Public Scoping Comments will be accepted until July 29, 2011 Pursuant to the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to make available a parcel of land up to 300′ wide from the existing Indiana Street right-of-way on the eastern border of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge for the sole purpose of transportation improvements. The Service has received proposals that include proposed exchanges of the transportation corridor for property known as Section 16 on the southwest corner of the existing Refuge. The Service has also received a request to transfer the 300′ wide parcel in fee for transportation purposes. The Service also proposes to expand the western edge of the approved acquisition boundary of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. Expanding the refuge boundary would allow the future acquisition of environmentally important land, including critical habitat for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. The land within the proposed boundary also includes xeric tall grass prairie, a globally rare vegetation type, and would provide an important corridor between the Refuge and existing regional open space to the west.
The Service wants to hear from the community and will hold a meeting about the proposed boundary expansion and a potential land exchange at the Westminster City Park Recreation Center on Wednesday July 20, 2011. The meeting will be in an open house format, so you will be able to meet with Service personnel, learn about the proposal, and provide input. The meeting will be a forum for sharing ideas and concerns regarding the potential expansion of the Refuge. The Service also encourages the public to comment through letters, emails, or phone calls to the contacts listed below. Comments and information received will help determine the appropriate level of environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to expand the refuge boundary. NEPA requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision making processes by considering the effects of their proposed actions on the quality of the human environment. Whether you are an individual or a group representative, please do not hesitate to call, write, or request information on upcoming meetings with Service staff to discuss the proposal and your perspective. The service will accept public scoping comments until July 29, 2011. There will be an opportunity to comment on the resulting NEPA document in late summer/early fall of 2011.
Open House, July 20, 2011, 5PM-8PM, Westminster City Park Recreation Center, 10455 Sheridan Blvd. Westminster, CO 80031
Mike Dixon, Division of Refuge Planning, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, DFC, Denver, CO 80225
RockFlatsEA@fws.gov 303-236-8132
Bruce Hastings, Deputy Refuge Manager, Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, 6550 Gateway Road, Building 129, Commerce City, CO 80022
RockyFlatsEA@fws.gov 303-289-0533

Meeting #2 – Soil Disturbance at Rocky Flats, Dept.of Energy
If you are concerned with Plutonium at Rocky Flats, come to this meeting. The DOE is considering allowing soil disturbance BELOW 3 FEET WITHOUT FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. This change would be dangerous and irresponsible. The Jefferson Parkway would need to dig down deeper than 3 feet, which is the motivation to make this change. Digging anywhere at Rocky Flats could release contaminated dust into the air, endangering public health.

Public comment sought on Rocky Flats proposal — Public comment is being sought on proposed changes to the soil disturbance requirements at the former Rocky Flats site. The changes proposed by the U.S. Department of Energy would allow soil disturbance below 3 feet without further public comment. The City of Westminster believes that this soil should not be disturbed without significant public input and comment. A public meeting on the proposed changes will be held on Wednesday, July 20, at 6 p.m. at the DOE Legacy Management Westminster office, 11025 Dover St., Suite 1000. Comments on this proposed action are being received until Tuesday, Aug. 2, and can be emailed to: rfinfo@lm.doe.gov with ‘Rocky Flats Site Proposed Plan Comments” in the subject line

From LeRoy Moore, Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center – Your help is needed to STOP construction of the Jefferson Parkway and City of Golden Bikeway, both proposed for a strip of land at Rocky Flats that is contaminated with plutonium. Urge DOE to make no land available for either project until it does an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS must determine the quantity of plutonium in soil in the area of any intended construction and the extent to which construction of either project could stir up clouds of plutonium-laden dust potentially harmful to construction workers, nearby residents and others. For more details, go to: Rocky Flats Nuclear Guardianship, http://www.rockyflatsnuclearguardianship.org/facebook/your-help-needed/

CINQ’s position to USFW – (Please feel free to use these points in your comments)
We have serious concerns about possible Plutonium contamination at Rocky Flats based on several credible studies (see www.GoTheBetterWay.org) While government contends that Rocky Flats is “clean”, it may not be. It is more than possible that the government’s past standards were/are inappropriate, and conclusions regarding risk are backed by poor science. The DOE needs to re-examine the risk by adopt more modern scientific methods to determine risk. DOE should reject a proposal to allow soil disturbance below 3 feet without further public comment. We also demand that the DOE conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to protect public health. Rocky Flats is a time bomb waiting to explode if soil is disturbed. Why risk public health?

A short while ago, the House voted to restore $35 million to the nuclear non-proliferation account in the Department of Energy.
The amendment was offered by Rep. Fortenberry (R-NE) and co-sponsored by Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA).
On the House floor, the chairman and ranking members of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) and Visclosky (D-IN), spoke on behalf of the amendment.
With everything greased, the amendment passed by voice vote.
The $35 million figure was chosen by our legislative leaders as the maximum politically feasible to get passed.
Modest victories in a terrible political environment in a tea part-dominated House are to be celebrated.

Peace Train for July 8, 2011
By JUDITH MOHLING

A week ago, 700 miles apart, evacuations of heavily populated areas took place as people moved to safety from possible nuclear disasters—two flooded nuclear power plants in Nebraska, Fort Calhoun and Cooper, and a raging wildfire near the nuclear lab at Los Alamos, New Mexico.

Poet Robert Frost asked long ago whether the world would end by fire or ice. Maybe we need a new poem about whether the world will end by fire or flood. Both wreak havoc with nuclear processes and threaten the world. In the case of nuclear power plants, with uncontrolled nuclear reactions like the ongoing Fukushima disaster which began three months ago, or clouds of radioactive smoke in the case of wildfires burning nuclear waste; then, of course, there are the possibilities of intentional or accidental nuclear explosions which could bring an end to the world pretty quickly.

Today, the dangers to the Los Alamos labs and the flooded nuclear power plants have subsided and many people have been able to sleep in their own beds again. Although, the people of the Santa Clara Pueblo, near Los Alamos, have lost crucial and sacred land and waterways to the fire.

As climate change worsens, extreme, yet unpredictable weather may befall the earth. Tinder-dry conditions currently exist in Arizona and New Mexico, both battling the largest wildfires in their histories. Many forests and grasslands are parched. In some areas there has been complete destruction of ecosystems and deaths of countless wildlife. Yet, extreme snowfall, melting and runoff in Montana, for example, create flood conditions along the mighty Missouri and Mississippi rivers and their tributaries.

The mix of extreme climate changes around the planet plus nuclear weapons, nuclear waste and nuclear power could very easily be a lethal mix. Add to that a subtle yet extremely powerful factor—government secrecy and hesitance to reveal the full truth about anything nuclear, not only in the US, but in all the nuclear countries or the nuclear- wannabe countries– and you’ve got disasters waiting to happen.

What to do? Demand open, transparent sharing of information from government entities. My bet is that as the situations worsen, true democratic processes and full education of the populations of the world about the problems that humans in their blind arrogance have created, will be the only thing that will save us. We all need to be part of the solutions.

‘DUTCH TREAT’ B R U N C H
WITH
DAVID BARSAMIAN
HIROSHIMA TO FUKUSHIMA
and the nukes go on & on & on & on & on & on

Saturday, June 25, 11:00 AM to 1:00
Mercury Cafe
2199 California Street, Denver

THE COLORADO COALITION FOR THE PREVENTION OF NUCLEAR WAR
THE COLORADOCOALITION.ORG
ROCKY MOUNTAIN PEACE & JUSTICE CENTER RMPJC.ORG
303/447-9635

Read Guardian Article on Common Dreams http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/06/07-1
or http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/08/fukushima-nuclear-plant-melt-through

Molten nuclear fuel in three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant is likely to have burned through pressure vessels, not just the cores, Japan has said in a report in which it also acknowledges it was unprepared for an accident of the severity of Fukushima.

It is the first time Japanese authorities have admitted the possibility that the fuel suffered “melt-through” – a more serious scenario than a core meltdown.

The report, which is to be submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said fuel rods in reactors No 1, 2 and 3 had probably not only melted, but also breached their inner containment vessels and accumulated in the outer steel containment vessels.

The plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), says it believes the molten fuel is being cooled by water that has built up in the bottom of the three reactor buildings.

The report includes an apology to the international community for the nuclear crisis – the world’s worst since Chernobyl in 1986 – and expresses “remorse that this accident has raised concerns around the world about the safety of nuclear power generation”.

The prime minister, Naoto Kan, said: “Above all, it is most important to inform the international community with thorough transparency in order for us to regain its confidence in Japan.”

The report comes a day after Japan’s nuclear safety agency said the amount of radiation that leaked from Fukushima Daiichi in the first week of the accident may have been more than double that initially estimated by Tepco.

The 750-page report, compiled by Japan’s emergency nuclear task force, concedes that the country was wrongfooted by the severity of the accident, which occurred after the plant was struck by waves more than 14 metres high following the earthquake on 11 March.

“We are taking very seriously the fact that consistent preparation for severe accidents was insufficient,” the report said. “In light of the lessons learned from the accident, Japan has recognised that a fundamental revision of its nuclear safety preparedness and response is inevitable.”

The nuclear task force’s head, Goshi Hosono, said Tepco had failed to adequately protect plant workers early on in the crisis, and had provided inadequate information about radiation leaks.

About 7,800 workers had been involved in the battle to stabilise the plant as of late May, the report said. While their average exposure dose was well within safe limits, “a certain number” may have been exposed to more than 250 millisieverts per year, the maximum allowable dose under revised government guidelines for Fukushima workers.

The report acknowledged that bureaucratic red tape, and the division of responsibilities across several government agencies, had hampered the response to the accident.

It said the government would separate the country’s nuclear safety watchdog from the trade and industry ministry, a recommendation made earlier this month by a team of experts from the IAEA.

The trade and industry minister, Banri Kaieda, said Japan would share all available data and co-operate with the IAEA. “Our country bears a serious responsibility to provide data to the international community with maximum transparency, and to actively contribute to nuclear safety,” he said.

The most urgent problem facing workers at Fukushima Daiichi is how to deal with vast quantities of highly radioactive water that has accumulated in reactor buildings and basements and in ditches.

The estimated 100,000 tonnes of contaminated liquid – runoff from water used to douse overheating reactors – is hampering efforts to repair the plant’s cooling systems.

Tepco has said it hopes to have a system in place by the middle of the month to remove radioactive substances from the water, enabling it to be reused to cool reactors.