NucNews - December 8, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- australia Land councils at odds over nuclear dump Thursday, 8 December 2005 Australian Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/message/news/stories/ms_news_1527126.htm The Federal Government's Radioactive Waste Management Bill has polarised the Northern Territory's two major Aboriginal Land Councils. The bill, which allows a national nuclear waste dump to be built in the Northern Territory, has passed the Senate. The legislation includes an amendment allowing Aboriginal Land Councils to nominate a dump site, providing traditional owners agree and the site meets certain conditions. The Northern Land Council proposed the amendment, and its chief executive Norman Fry says it is a responsible position if none of the earmarked Commonwealth sites proves suitable. "Our position has always been 'Well, if they're going to come somewhere else they're going to go onto Aboriginal land'," he said. The Central Land Council strongly opposes the dump, and its director David Ross suggests his northern counterpart identify a site. "They shouldn't go putting amendments forward if they don't have alternative sites within their region," he said. The Northern Land Council says it does not have a site in mind. ---- Senate approves NT nuclear waste dump December 8, 2005 - 2:44PM The Age (Australia) http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Government-to-force-nuclear-dump-on-NT/2005/12/08/1133829706789.html Environmentalists have warned of escalating protests after the federal parliament voted to allow a national nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. Laws enabling the contentious dump to go ahead cleared their last political hurdle when government NT senator Nigel Scullion, along with other coalition colleagues, secured late amendments and voted for the dump. The dump will go ahead after a detailed study of three potential Defence sites - Fishers Ridge, 43km south-east of Katherine, Harts Range, 100km north-east of Alice Springs, and Mount Everard, 27km north-west of Alice Springs - is done next year. The federal government chose the NT, where it can override territory laws, after it abandoned an outback South Australian site last year in the face of state government opposition. Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney said NT residents were angry at the choice after the federal government last year gave them an assurance there would be no dump in the territory. "Today they have broken this promise and bulldozed through bad law in an attempt to gag community concern," he said. Mr Sweeney said the law would not silence opposition to the dump. "People in the NT, along the waste transport route from Sydney and right around Australia, are angry and determined to stop this unwanted and unnecessary radioactive rubbish tip," he said. "Communities in Sydney, regional NSW and the territory should be alert and alarmed." Mr Sweeney said that, under the government's proposal, 130 truckloads of radioactive waste would be driven from Sydney's Lucas Heights reactor through NSW to the as-yet unnamed NT site in the first year alone, with dumping to continue for decades. Labor's research spokeswoman Jenny Macklin accused the coalition's federal NT members Senator Scullion and David Tollner of failing to speak up for NT residents. "This government is so out of touch with the views of territory residents that it is prepared to trash community consultation and override legal protections for the community and the environment, including the Native Title Act 1993 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999," she said. Senator Scullion later told ABC Radio he did not wish to gain cheap popularity as an "overnight hero" on such a serious issue as the waste dump. "A number of Australians can remember very well when the commonwealth overrode the (Tasmanian) Franklin Dam issue," he said. "There didn't seem to be quite the same focus on states' rights at that time, because it was all a pretty sexy issue to support. "A radioactive waste facility mightn't be so sexy to support but it's fundamentally still important to this nation." The Senate endorsement exposed different views, even within parties. Australian Democrats senator Natasha Stott Despoja said the legislation removed Northern Territorians' rights, not only in relation the dump but potentially other future federal decisions. "This is bad law," she said, and voted against. Democrats senator Andrew Murray said the government had no option to override the NT government's wishes, but had mismanaged the way it had done so. As a result, he ultimately abstained from voting, believing further amendments should have been made. Greens senator Rachel Siewert targeted Senator Scullion for allowing the dump to go ahead. "Not only has he voted for a bill that proposes a commonwealth waste dump in the NT, he didn't take the opportunity to ensure that we don't become an international trash heap for radioactive waste," she said. Meanwhile, AFP reported that France's top appeals court ruled that storage of spent nuclear fuel from Australia at the French Channel town of La Hague by the Cogema company is illegal. The Cour de Cassation upheld a ruling last April by the Caen court of appeal that Cogema's treatment plant was illegally storing Australian nuclear waste that had not been given the necessary authorisation for treatment. ---- France rules against Aussie nuke waste December 8, 2005 - 7:54PM, Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/France-rules-against-Aussie-nuke-waste/2005/12/08/1133829717106.html Australia will no longer be able to send its high level nuclear waste to France after a French court declared it illegal. The Cour de Cassation has upheld a ruling last April by the Caen court of appeal that a treatment plant owned by Cogema was illegally storing Australian nuclear waste. The Caen court declared the spent fuel being held by the company in the French Channel town of La Hague was radioactive nuclear waste, which Cogema denied. It said they had been stored for four years "in conditions unjustified in regard to the applicable legislation". The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) said the waste would not be shipped back to Australia. It said Cogema was given permission to process the waste earlier this year and it would be completed within the next few weeks. ANSTO said there would be no further shipments of waste to France until the replacement reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney's south begins operation in about 2024. "Before future shipments are sent to France, Cogema will obtain authorisations to receive, store and reprocess the fuel," ANSTO said in a statement. "Possessions of these authorisations will mean that the court's decision today will have no practical effect." Greenpeace campaigner James Courtney said the ruling demonstrated the government's "reckless plans for nuclear expansion include no credible solution to deal with the insolvable problem of nuclear waste". He also said it bolstered the argument against building a second reactor at Lucas Heights. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency today began hearing submissions on the granting of an operational licence for the second reactor. Mr Courtney told the forum that a new reactor, which will replace the current reactor, posed a security risk and concerns about the storage of its waste. The federal government, International Atomic Energy Agency and Friends of the Earth also will make submissions during the two-day forum. Activists opposed to the replacement reactor and dressed as barrels of nuclear waste protested outside the centre before the forum began. Meanwhile, the Senate today passed two bills to establish a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. -------- britain Nuclear reactor towers downsized The process to downsize the two reactors will take two years Thursday, 8 December 2005, BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4507788.stm The reactor towers at a former nuclear power station in Snowdonia are set to be partly demolished using ground-breaking technology. The two 170ft towers at Trawsfynydd will be downsized following calls from a public inquiry in 2002. The aim is to lessen the visual impact of the power station while the decommissioning process continues. The location is set to return to being a green-field site by 2098. The nuclear reactors at Trawsfynydd were shut down in 1991 and the power station closed two years later. Since then, the decommissioning process has seen all the highly radioactive nuclear fuel removed and sent to Sellafield for reprocessing. The most dangerous material now left on site - so-called intermediate waste - includes radioactive metal that surrounded the fuel rods in the reactors. This is due to be moved into "safe stores" which are being built on the site, until it too can be taken away. Following a public inquiry into the future of the site in 2002, the two 170ft reactor buildings are being reduced in height by about a third to lessen to visual impact of the site. The two reactors each house six boilers, each weighing 1,000 tons. They are made of solid steel and are 130ft high, 18ft in diameter, and up to 7ins thick in places. Before the reactors can be cut the boilers need to be broken down and moved to a lower level of the building. A massive lifting rig has been designed specifically for the process of cutting the boilers into smaller 100 ton pieces. The waste will be stored on site until it is safe to be moved Simon Parsons, the site manager at Trawsfynydd, said the project was "a monumental challenge". "It's an historic day for us. It's the culmination of four years of effort and preparation," he said. Many of the 500 workers at the site, almost half of whom are from the local area, have been trained specifically for this project. Mr Parsons said he hoped the technology, and the skills of the workforce would be used at other sites around the world. Gwynedd councillor Tom Ellis also welcomed the move. "I wholeheartedly welcome it because when you have a lump sum in the region of £1m its bound to some good in the area." The remaining radioactive material on the site is set to be stored on site until 2088 when it will finally be removed. The station is set to return to a green-field site and re-open for public use in 2098 at a total cost of around £1bn. ---- Nuclear reactor towers downsized The process to downsize the two reactors will take two years Thursday, 8 December 2005 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4507788.stm The reactor towers at a former nuclear power station in Snowdonia are set to be partly demolished using ground-breaking technology. The two 170ft towers at Trawsfynydd will be downsized following calls from a public inquiry in 2002. The aim is to lessen the visual impact of the power station while the decommissioning process continues. The location is set to return to being a green-field site by 2098. The nuclear reactors at Trawsfynydd were shut down in 1991 and the power station closed two years later. Since then, the decommissioning process has seen all the highly radioactive nuclear fuel removed and sent to Sellafield for reprocessing. The most dangerous material now left on site - so-called intermediate waste - includes radioactive metal that surrounded the fuel rods in the reactors. This is due to be moved into "safe stores" which are being built on the site, until it too can be taken away. Following a public inquiry into the future of the site in 2002, the two 170ft reactor buildings are being reduced in height by about a third to lessen to visual impact of the site. The two reactors each house six boilers, each weighing 1,000 tons. They are made of solid steel and are 130ft high, 18ft in diameter, and up to 7ins thick in places. Before the reactors can be cut the boilers need to be broken down and moved to a lower level of the building. A massive lifting rig has been designed specifically for the process of cutting the boilers into smaller 100 ton pieces. The waste will be stored on site until it is safe to be moved Simon Parsons, the site manager at Trawsfynydd, said the project was "a monumental challenge". "It's an historic day for us. It's the culmination of four years of effort and preparation," he said. Many of the 500 workers at the site, almost half of whom are from the local area, have been trained specifically for this project. Mr Parsons said he hoped the technology, and the skills of the workforce would be used at other sites around the world. Gwynedd councillor Tom Ellis also welcomed the move. "I wholeheartedly welcome it because when you have a lump sum in the region of £1m its bound to some good in the area." The remaining radioactive material on the site is set to be stored on site until 2088 when it will finally be removed. The station is set to return to a green-field site and re-open for public use in 2098 at a total cost of around £1bn. -------- depleted uranium Kyne explains dangerous effects of uranium weapon By Stephanie Bushman Published: Thursday, December 8, 2005 Marist kCollege Circle http://www.maristcircle.com/media/paper659/news/2005/12/08/News/Kyne-Explains.Dangerous.Effects.Of.Uranium.Weapon-1123379.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.maristcircle.com A small yet impassioned group of students gathered in the Henry Hudson Room on November 15 to hear Dennis Kyne, an active member in the US Army from 1987-2003, speak on his experiences and current illness. Before the speech, Kyne pushed the podium aside; he wanted the audience to truly understand his plea, that his presentation was personal. As part of the many Operations in the Middle East, Kyne was exposed to Depleted Uranium, commonly called DU. The effects of this weapon have been researched since WWII, and yet the Army still puts this harmful substance into use. Thousands of soldiers, like Kyne, and civilians have become sick from the airborne metals DU releases, and the numbers are growing. According to the United States government, 340 tons of DU was dropped in Southern Iraq and Kwait in 1991. Unfortunately, the 100,000 confirmed dead civilians will not be the only casualties of this attack. DU has a 45 Billion-year half-life, meaning its harmful radiation will continue to be released for a longer amount of time than humanity has walked the earth. The particles released are smaller than viruses, thus allowing them to slip through the filters given to our soldiers. The effects of this radiation lead to "abnormally high levels of cancer and birth defects" in soldiers' families. There are currently "more than 518,000 Gulf War veterans on medical disability", while only "7,039 were injured in battle." In arid regions such as the Middle East, where sand storms are common, the particles are carried over thousands of miles, affecting people near and far. The World Health Organization announced that "global cancer will increase 50 percent by 2020". In the Cradle of Civilization, where cancer was almost unheard of until recently, that number is staggering. As the use of this dangerous weapon continues, more civilians and soldiers are being exposed to harmful radiation. Soldiers returning home are plagued by cancer, and their children are born with defects caused by exposure to DU. Innocent families living in Iraq are becoming sick, while their children suffer without proper hospitals to help them. What are we, as citizens and students, to do? In the words of Kyne, "it's time to raise some hell." Kyne has written a book "Support the Truth" detailing his experiences, and there is a CD available as well. -------- europe EDF slashes workforce three weeks after flotation 12-08-2005, 15h04 PARIS (AFP) http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=85041 The French electricity giant EDF announced overnight that it would cut about 6,000 jobs, resurrecting controversy over the group's part privatisation three weeks ago. The company, Electricite de France, said that it would shed 6,000-6,500 jobs by replacing only "one in three or four" of 9,000 employees who would retire in the next two years, stressing that no-one would be dismissed. EDF, which is the biggest generator of nuclear power in the world, employs about 160,000 people worldwide. The reduction represents about 3.75 percent of its workforce. The group has a high profile in the hearts of the French people as an example of state-controlled public services and the announcement provoked immediate opposition from trades unions. The sale three weeks ago of 15.0 percent of the company to employees and private and institutional investors was strongly opposed by unions and by politicians in opposition to the centre-right government. The part privatisation flotation is seen by some analysts as somewhat disappointing because the shares are still slightly below the issue price of 32.0 euros. Trades unions questioned the logic for the job losses. A spokesman for the CGT trade union, Maurice Marion, asked: "Is it something to boost shares on the stock exchange?". He added: "There is going to have to be a confrontation." French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, underlining political sensitivity in France to job losses and particularly in the public sector, said that the decision to reduce the workforce had been made before the part privatisation. The French state still owns 85.0 percent of EDF. The initial public offer last month was the biggest share issue ever seen on the Paris stock market, raising 7.0 billion euros (8.24 billion euros) for the company and about 1.0 billion euros for strained public finances. "To not replace some people who are retiring, that is among the demands of the world today, to adapt and to organise," Villepin said on the French radio station France Inter. EDF also unveiled plans to invest 40 billion euros over the next five years, more than half of which is to be invested in France to "install more than 5,000 megawatts on French territory, the equivalent of five existing nuclear reactors." It was not known how much, if any, of the investment would be in nuclear energy, though EDF did say that investments would be made in the sectors of energy production, transportation and distribution. In mid-day trading, the price of EDF shares showed a gain of 0.35 percent to 31.77 euros. The part privatisation was hailed as a popular success by the French government because five million private investors subscribed. However, some financial analysts and institutional investors said that the issue price of 32.0 euros was too high given that the state retained power over pricing policy, doubts over the cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations and the power of trades unions. EDF, which produces 74.0 percent of its electricity from nuclear power stations, generates about a quarter of all Europe's electricity. It is the biggest generator in Europe and the biggest nuclear-power generator in the world. -------- india India becomes partner in nuclear reactor project Thursday, December 08, 2005 Pakistan Daily Times http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005\12\08\story_8-12-2005_pg4_17 NEW DELHI: India said on Wednesday its inclusion as a full partner in the ambitious multinational International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) energy project was an acknowledgement of Indai being a responsible nuclear state with advanced nuclear technology. The decision was taken by the six partner countries - US, European Union, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea - in Jeju, South Korea on Tuesday. “The decision recognises that India can significantly contribute to such endeavours and also is recognition that India is a country with advanced nuclear technology, including in the field of fusion research,” said a spokesman for the External Affairs Ministry. ITER is the experimental step between the latest studies of plasma physics and future electricity-producing fusion power plants. The main ITER facility will be built in Cadarache in France by 2016 and all partners will participate in its construction, development and research. -------- japan Higashidori nuclear plant opens in Aomori Thursday, December 8, 2005 Japan Today http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=4&id=357714 AOMORI — A nuclear plant, which was tested by Tohoku Electric Power Co in the village of Higashidori, Aomori Prefecture, started commercial operation on Thursday after a final inspection by the state. The Higashidori plant brings the number of commercially operating nuclear plants in Japan to 54. The 1,100-megawatt boiling-water reactor is also the first commercial reactor to open in Aomori Prefecture, which has a number of nuclear facilities, including a spent fuel reprocessing plant and a high-level radioactive waste storage facility. -------- korea Activists to kick off U.S.-backed conference on North Korean human rights 06:44 2005-12-08 Pravda http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/12/08/69450.html South Korean, U.S. and other activists prepared Thursday to kick off a high-profile international conference on human rights abuses in North Korea, an event likely to anger the communist country amid the escalating standoff over its nuclear programs. This week's meeting brings together some 700 officials, including Jay Lefkowitz, the U.S. special envoy for North Korean human rights, U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Alexander Vershbow and Hwang Jang Yop, the highest-ranking North Korean to defect to the South. The gathering is organized by South Korean human rights groups and Freedom House, a pro-democracy organization partly funded by the U.S. government that held a similar meeting in Washington in July. Another session on the North's human rights is scheduled for March in Belgium. On Thursday, defectors were expected to give testimony on abuses in the North. NK Gulag, a Seoul-based anti-North Korean group, also plans to unveil a list of 121 political prisoners held at Yodok, about 70 miles (110 kilometers) northwest of Pyongyang, including five North Korean defectors whom the U.N. refugee agency recognized as refugees in Russia in 2000. Last month, the group released a list of 34 North Korean inmates at Yodok who attempted to defect to South Korea. The group is led by prominent defector Kang Chol Hwan, author of "Aquariums of Pyongyang" about his decade of detention at the Yodok camp, who met this year with U.S. President George W. Bush. North Korea has yet to make any direct reaction to this week's meeting but it blasted South Korea's main opposition Grand National Party on Wednesday for its recent demand that some local civic organizations stop making disparaging remarks about the meeting. "The GNP and its principal criminals will have to pay a very high price for their frantic anti-North confrontational racket," the secretariat of the committee for the North's Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland said in a statement carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency. North Korea has bristled at outside criticism of its political system and human rights conditions, calling it part of a U.S. plot to overthrow its communist regime. The South Korean government has largely remained silent on the three-day meeting, fearing its voice could hurt North-South reconciliation efforts ahead of high-level talks next week between the Koreas _ and complicate international efforts to resolve a standoff over the North's nuclear programs, the AP reports. The North said this week it wouldn't return to six-nation talks on its nuclear program until Washington lifts financial sanctions imposed its alleged illegal activities, such as counterfeiting. U.S. officials have said the sanction issue is a matter of law that is separate from the nuclear dispute. -------- treaties Norway talks tough on NPT By Indo Asian News Service Thursday December 8, 2005 http://in.news.yahoo.com/051208/43/61g4c.html New Delhi, Dec 8 (IANS) India Thursday sought Norway's cooperation for its civilian nuclear energy programme even as Oslo insisted on New Delhi signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stressed India's impeccable record in non-proliferation during his meeting with his Norwegian counterpart Jens Stoltenberg here, and discussed the country's need for nuclear energy to meet its growing requirements and referred to efforts by the US to help India access civil nuclear energy technology. Manmohan Singh sought Norway's help to persuade the influential Nuclear Supplier's Group (NSG) to make an exception for India to enable it to get required technology for generating nuclear energy. Stoltenberg appreciated India's need for civil nuclear energy, but insisted that India sign the NPT if it wanted the NSG to modify its rules in favour of New Delhi. 'We are very much in favour of the NPT and, according to the treaty, you can be a member of the NSG only if you have signed the treaty,' Stoltenberg told reporters. A Norwegian diplomat, however, later clarified: 'We did not make India joining the NPT a pre-condition for it to join the NSG. The Norwegian prime minister's remarks were misinterpreted.' Oslo's response came as a bit of a dampener for New Delhi, which has been lobbying the influential NSG to amend its rules to allow civil nuclear energy trade with India. Meanwhile, India and Norway reviewed the faltering Sri Lankan peace process and explored ways to expand bilateral ties straddling diverse sectors, including business, energy and technology. Manmohan Singh expressed support for Norway's role as a mediator in Sri Lanka's peace process between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), diplomatic sources said. Both leaders reviewed the situation in Sri Lanka after the new government headed by President Mahinda Rajapakse, a Sinhala hardliner, took charge last month. Rajapakse has not been very enthusiastic about letting Norway continue as a mediator but in a surprise turnaround Wednesday, he met Norway's ambassador to Colombo Hans Brattskar, and told him to continue Norway's peace efforts in the island nation. Earlier Thursday, Stoltenberg met President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and Sonia Gandhi, chairperson of India's ruling coalition, and discussed an entire spectrum of bilateral, regional and international issues. The two countries are also exploring the possibility of a free trade agreement between India and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) that includes Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Lichtenstein. Stoltenberg, who arrived here Wednesday on a three-day visit, attended the third meeting of the Partners of the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunisation (GAVI). He announced Wednesday a 66 percent increase in its donation to $75 million to the fund and said the contribution would be kept at this level till 2015, bringing Norway's total support for global immunisation to about $1 billion. India's bilateral ties with Norway - home to a 7,000-strong Indian diaspora - have been steadily growing with two-way trade estimated to be close to $305 million in 2004. This represents a trebling of trade in the last decade. Stoltenberg leaves here for Kabul Friday morning. -------- ukraine Ukraine considers storing foreign nuclear waste at Chernobyl KIEV (AFP) Dec 08, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051208180508.bce1a4t4.html Ukraine will consider storing nuclear waste from abroad at the Chernobyl nuclear plant, the site of the world's worst civilian nuclear disaster, President Viktor Yushchenko said Thursday. "Politically, we have to study this question," Yushchenko was quoted as saying after visiting the plant in the north of the country. "Undoubtedly, there can be economic feasibility... so we have to think hard before making a political decision," Interfax quoted him as saying. Chernobyl's number-four reactor, in what was then the Soviet Union and is now Ukraine, exploded on April 26, 1986, sending a radioactive cloud across Europe. Following the disaster, a concrete sarcophagus was built over the stricken reactor and a new 20,000-tonne steel case to cover the whole plant is planned on being constructed between 2008 and 2009. The power station was eventually shut down on December 15, 2000. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- arkansas In Arkansas: An Old Piece of Atomic Pork By Susan Porter and Frieda Thomas December 08, 2005 Fayetteville, Arkansas, Free Weekly http://www.freeweekly.com/freeweekly120805/feature.php An old piece of atomic pork continues to rust away in the hills between West Fork and Devil's Den State Park. In the latter days of nuclear naiveté, Fayetteville was neighbor to an active experimental research reactor. The reactor, known as SEFOR, is an acronym for Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor. It began operations in 1969 and shut down in 1972. The site is about 25 miles southwest of Fayetteville , near Strickler, a dot on the Washington County map. To their current embarrassment, the University of Arkansas became the owner of SEFOR after the project was shut down. Although UA spokemen say they would like to see the site cleaned up and returned to “ greenfield ” conditon they say they don't have the estimated $16 million to do it. The site is contaminated with residual radiation, liquid sodium, lead, asbestos, mercury, PCBs and other environmental contaminants and explosive chemicals. Six years ago Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., began a push to secure federal funds to clean up the site. Earlier this year Lincoln introduced legislation to decommission and decontaminate SEFOR. Her initiative was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and although the bill was approved by Congress and signed into law by the President, it stopped short of funding the project, which means the fight to clean up SEFOR has not yet been won. “No money was appropriated,” said Drew Goesl, a spokesman for Lincoln . “We now have to seek the funds.” Goesl said that Lincoln is seeking funding through future appropriations bills. Unknown in the Ozarks Not many people remember SEFOR. It didn't contribute much to research. It was commercially owned and operated, which kept the public from noticing the millions the experimental reactor was costing taxpayers through federal funding and subsidies. There was little publicity about the reactor during its active years and when there was any, the public relations machine assured us that what was going on there was none of our business. Nothing dangerous or expensive or ludicrous, we were assured. It was billed as “The Western World's Most Significant Nuclear Power Research Project” with a mission of proving that the fast breeder would produce “more usable nuclear fuel than it consumed” with “at least 80 times as much nuclear energy expected to be obtained from natural uranium as now available.” The brochure promoting SEFOR read like a script for a circus sideshow barker: “See: nuclear fuel rods, splitting the atom....” The technology that the Strickler reactor was testing has seemingly been rejected. It was fueled by plutonium and uranium and was cooled by liquid sodium, different from most reactors which are water cooled. SEFOR was expensive, radioactive, and cosmopolitan enough, to have merited more attention than it did in its day, when virtually nothing was written about it in the local press after the grand opening ceremonies in the late 1960s. Early in 1993, with a short-lived puff of PR, the UA administration and its nuclear spokesmen disinterred a history of this derelict pile of radioactive concrete and metal. The reason? Time to restore the site to a "natural state" and truck the debris away to someone else's landfill. The cost according to the UA spokesmen was an estimated $5-$10 million. Either that or cordon off the site for the foreseeable future and abandon the dream of selling it to another public agency as park land. According to Goesl, cleanup costs are now closer to $16 million. On the site now is the shell of the deactivated reactor, about half of it located underground, built and operated by General Electric in the 1960s and 1970s. The project was financed by the United States government, through a nonprofit "consortium" formed by 17 for-profit U.S. power companies and European nuclear agencies that were developing fast breeder technology. Among them Southwestern Electric Power and Arkansas Power and Light. Fuel rod manufacture, mockups, and other technical work for SEFOR were done from Vallecitos, Calif. to West Valley, N.Y. Conferences dealing with SEFOR and its role in breeder reactor development were held regularly in Germany, where researchers from General Electric reported to German researchers involved in the European fast breeder program. Scientific and technical workers traveled back and forth from California and Germany to rural Strickler. SEFOR's failure to stir curiosity 35 years ago may be due to the fact that it never generated power, never looked menacing. It was housed in a squat domed silo tucked against a low-slung square building with an incongruously tall thin smokestack. A 1968 Southwest Atomic Energy Associates brochure got away comfortably with the phrase "nestled in a quiet valley." Unacknowledged danger Why Strickler in the first place? And what, exactly, was General Electric doing? Apparently the project was an experiment to find out if the reactor would shut itself down before it reached meltdown. The key to the answer to both questions was tucked into a statement made in a presentation by GE personnel at a Beverly Hills conference on breeder reactors in 1974: "...the aim of the game is to almost (but not quite) have the fission products come in contact with the general public during the design basis accident...." Strickler is isolated and sparsely populated. The SEFOR project was extremely risky. In a 1965 Technical Statement on GE's application for its provisional operating license (the license remained "provisional" for the duration of the project), the Atomic Energy Commission noted two "accident-initiating mechanisms": SEFOR "is a fast reactor and gains reactivity on compaction of the core" and "it will be subjected to planned transient nuclear excursions" [sudden steep rises in core temperature]. The AEC also named two "sources of radioactivity": “an appreciable inventory of plutonium" and, secondly, the sodium (potentially flammable and explosive) coolant system. The same document refers to "...the sensitivity of a fast reactor to core meltdown and compaction, and the possibility of explosive energy release as a consequence of the meltdown...", as well as to the possible "blast effects of Maximum Hypothetical Accident," defined as "400 MW-sec released over a period of one millisecond." On a less spectacular note, a GE official, at a 1965 hearing on GE's construction permit application, while also referring to the potential for "an explosive accident in the reactor cavity," testified optimistically that terrain and ground cover "should contribute to good diffusion of airborne materials released near ground level," and that "....the valley width at the elevation of the plant structures is about 2,000 feet wide, compared to the cloud which is less than 600 feet at this distance during inversion conditions." But the story the public got was different. When SEFOR construction was announced in 1965, a reporter for the Arkansas Gazette asked GE's Karl Cohen what dangers the reactor might pose for residents of Strickler. Cohen reportedly shot back: "Well, they might get hit by one of the construction trucks." A GE statement included a litany of natural sources of radiation ranging from "the ocean" to "whiskey” and "people" and "salad oil" -- all insinuated to be more radioactive than a reactor. In SEFOR's heyday its sponsors published leaflets and booklets proclaiming: "You would get more radiation from the operation of your television set than if you lived next door to the SEFOR site," and "Nuclear plants do not pollute the air or water...". Citizens were assured that "the nuclear power plant is designed to be thoroughly safe" and "it will not blow up." One flyer answers its own question: "Are projects like SEFOR dangerous?" with a categoric "Absolutely not." Another tempts tourists and school groups with a visit to SEFOR "in the heart of the beautiful Ozark Mountains ", where "group tours are cordially invited" and "admission is free." This even though the plant Safety Manual stated: "In the event of a significant release of airborne radioactivity from SEFOR the visitors will be instructed to leave the Center and proceed East to Arkansas State Highway 170....If contamination is measured, each person will be monitored before release....All cars will be decontaminated." Apparently, though, there was potential for even more serious situations, as under the heading "Criticality Occurrence": "No persons from the Information Center are to be cleared from the center until approved by the Manager [of the] SEFOR Facility or a designated alternate." Testing for a meltdown SEFOR's projects were seemingly multiple. An AEC report to Congress for 1969 described the reactor's purpose discretely as the demonstration of "the safety of mixed (plutonium and uranium) oxide-fueled Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors." According to a 1967 GE publication, SEFOR was "particularly designed for the systematic determination of the Doppler coefficient of reactivity at temperatures up to the vicinity of fuel melting" or "during normal and abnormal reactor transient conditions, and in particular, to determine its relation to inherent reactor shutdown capability." Former University of Arkansas Vice Chancellor Gerry Bomotti in a November, 1993, interview with the Springdale Morning News is more blunt: "They wanted to test the sodium-cooled unit to determine if they were correct in their theories that the units would shut themselves down before a meltdown could occur." Differing opinions and out of spec plutonium No meltdown is recorded. But is it true that SEFOR's success justified its risks by expanding scientific horizons? When the UA acquired the decommissioned reactor, UA spokesmen championed SEFOR's reputation as a milestone in the progress of nuclear power technology even though the university had, at least nominally, no part in the reactor's operation. Few if any people at the university today have firsthand knowledge of GE's activities there. A paper published in Germany in 1973 by one of the sponsors of the SEFOR program, the Karlsruhe Nuclear Research Center , states that no one was able to make a completely satisfactory interpretation of the SEFOR data and that it "entailed particular difficulties." Another paper from Karlsruhe refers to discrepancies between experiment results and estimates made prior to testing. Comments in the proceedings of a 1971 meeting on SEFOR reveals difficulties with the "measurement of temperatures...in the peripheral rods" and "specific reactor problems" with what had once been billed as a SEFOR star attraction--an apparatus endearingly nicknamed "FRED" (for "fast reactivity excursion device"), and "the thermocouples in the reflector region which caused loss of operating time for most of May." A report by the AEC to Congress for 1969 reveals another delay of several weeks because of "problems with out-of-specification plutonium content in a portion of the fuel rods and poor radiographs of some of the coolant system welds." Another suggestion that SEFOR may have misfired as a nuclear energy trendsetter is the fact that general literature on reactors mentions neither SEFOR or its supposed confirmation of the theory that a fast breeder reactor was inherently safe because it would shut itself down if it overheated. Problems and malfunctions Original plans had called for the first set of experiments to run into March 1972. SEFOR's owners had planned to continue running the $32 million reactor in a "follow-up program" through 1977--contingent on approval of a hefty subsidy from AEC--after the scheduled end of the original experiments in March 1972. A GE representative reported to a United Nations conference in Geneva in 1971 that continued operation of SEFOR would provide useful data. However, all SEFOR work stopped on January 7, 1972. Why was the reactor project stopped ahead of schedule? Although university legend and official pronouncements have it that SEFOR experiments went so smoothly they were completed a couple of months early, documentation from the ‘70s is less than transparent. The final Quarterly Operation Report, for November 1971 to January 1972, concludes its description of the last week of operations in one concise paragraph: Reactor operation was resumed on January 1, 1972, with an extended high power run to irradiate the fission to capture ratio measurement foil holder rod for Core II...On January 7 and 8, while leak checks were being conducted on the foil holder rod and a guinea pig rod...the reactor was operated for several hours for neutron source and rod drop measurements in preparation for the Sub-criticality Monitor Tests, which were subsequently canceled. The foil holder rod and guinea pig rod were loaded into the fuel shipping cask on January 9, 1972. This completed the SEFOR Experimental Program. Preparations for plant decommissioning commenced immediately. If SEFOR's last quarterly reports reflect a pattern, there were well over a thousand recorded malfunctions during SEFOR's brief lifetime. The malfunctions included everything from lights falling from the ceiling to what the reports call significant malfunctions such as malfunctions of the safety system relay, the reflector control circuit relay, a reflector drive thermocouple, the reactor vessel overflow line, main primary pump power supply, an increase in reactor vessel cover gas leakage, reactor vessel outer head backup seal leaking again, all elastomer components found to exhibit permanent deformation. One site report includes a two-page account of what should have happened but didn't before a storm cut power to the plant and shut the reactor down. The mass spectrometer was recorded as out of service on several occasions and one memo reads: a mass spectrometer leak check was not performed because of a leak in the system or outgassing of the chamber. According to another memo: fuel rod temperature measurements were not recorded because of an inoperative thermocouple. Quarterly reports mention a 1971 shipment from Nuclear Fuel Services in West Valley , NY , that included 19 repaired fuel rods and two unrepairable fuel rods. A 1972 report notes: levels of xenon and krypton commensurate with tramp uranium in the system. A note on three guinea pig rods observes: fuel structure in each rod is similar and characteristic of fuel operation above melt temperatures. When the plant was partially dismantled in 1972, it held 850 fuel rods containing 935 pounds of radio active materials. All were removed and shipped from the site. Only various activated radioactive components were left behind at SEFOR. Those items were placed in the reactor vessel, the irradiated fuel storage tank and floor wells in the refueling cell and welded shut. Worker exposure Were workers exposed to excessive radiation? If they were, did they or anyone else know it? A memo dated May 28, 1970 documents: additional radiation exposure to personnel as a result of an unshielded reflector in the shaft. A memo from the previous day notes a 103 millirem exposure for that week for one of the workers. A few days later, the radiation specialist wrote that the liquid radwaste drain tank before release showed a concentration level of approximately four times higher than permissible release levels. A couple of months later he commented that removal and cleaning of irradiated fuel have brought the dose of several individuals into the 200 millirem range. He also noted that several areas of the reactor building had radiation levels which are significantly higher than the background in the area.The previous year, he had written that, in jobs dealing with irradiated fuel, the largest exposure was 440 mrems mostly within a one-week period. Safety measures were taken. The over-concentrated radwaste was diluted before it was poured outside into a "tile field". Workers with heavy exposures were given less risky tasks for a while. But faith is shaken by lines like these from a 1970 memo: "The appearance of a 1/2" castellated stainless steel nut in the laundry indicates that more care must be used....It has been noticed that some personnel do not routinely use the beta/gamma hand and foot counter on leaving the reactor building. This must be done for all personnel...expecially for those who have been in the reflector drive cell." One radioactivity monitor was out of service at least 12 weeks and along with other monitors, as when "meter 183 need[ed] batteries-none available." At a September 1971 meeting the owners of SEFOR discussed applying to the AEC for about $25 million in additional funding. Among the comments: "SEFOR is a real bargain for the AEC but it can be expected that they will want to call the shots on the operation of the facility once they put program money in....Some of the high productivity associated with the easy informality of the SEFOR program up to now will be lost in this AEC program...." The Bill of Goods After SEFOR shut down, the county billed Southwest Atomic Energy Associates and General Electric more than $66,000 in taxes. To avoid the taxes, SAEA and GE fought the county all the way to the Arkansas Supreme Court. The court ruled that the property and plant, which was built at a cost of around $32 million, was of no value, thus protecting the pockets of the SAEA and GE and diverting money from the county coffer. SEFOR became the property of the UA through a tax-deductible gift from SAEA. Now, the UA says it can't afford to get the 620-acre white elephant off its back and it's costing them money. The SEFOR owners saved their bottom line by relieving themselves of all responsibilities and future expense. The public/private partnership successfully shifted the burden of the clean up costs to the UA and the taxpayers. Dr. Collis Geren, dean of the UA graduate school, has been involved with the oversight of SEFOR since 1991 and is aware that the UA was hoodwinked into becoming a financial scapegoat. “We were silly enough to accept it,” Geren said. Geren said that when the plant was accepted by the UA, there was faculty involved in nuclear energy who thought that the disenchantment with nuclear power would pass and that SEFOR could be used to help educate students. This did not prove to be the case. Geren said the university spends around $50,000 annually to maintain and monitor the site. The UA is also responsible for the security of the remote site which is surrounded by chain link and barbed wire fence. Garen said the building is stable. The Arkansas Department of Health has the responsibility--in place of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--for monitoring radioactivity at SEFOR. Although the ADH inspects the plant annually, it does not always collect environmental samples during the annual inspections. The UA collects water and soil samples, but does not monitor the room housing the accelerator due to the level of tritium contamination. According to Bernard Bevill, of the Arkansas Department of Health Division of Radiation Control, the tritium contamination is not associated with the SEFOR operation. The UA's final objective is to transfer the acreage to some other party as farm or park land, as "natural” or " greenfield " terms that are not legally defined. However, what qualifies a site for unrestricted use will have to be determined on a national level, as there are tens of thousands of potentially contaminated sites in the U.S. including 75 nuclear power reactor sites with 112 reactors and 74 experimental reactor sites like SEFOR. What's really out there? What is inside the structure that will be exposed during " greenfield " restoration? Hopefully activities connected with the clean up of SEFOR will merit closer scrutiny than the SEFOR project got in its heyday. Because the reactor was sodium cooled, it has to be assumed that there may be some residual sodium in the coils, which could be explosive under the right conditions. Two “monitoring studies” done in the 1980s as UA master's theses concluded there was no environmental radiation that could be attributed to SEFOR operations with the possible exception of elevated cobalt-60 readings. A 1984 soil check showed the presence of 9 isotopes: uranium-235, cesium-137, beryllium-7, niobium-95, actinium-228, manganese-54, potassium-40, lead-214, and cadmium-109. A note on the report reads: "This sample had 34 isotope energy peaks which consisted of natural isotopes, fission products and nuclear fuel. The ones listed are the only ones found that the computer is set up to analyze." Testing was repeated two months later; these results do not mention uranium, cadmium, beryllium, or niobium and no mention is made of the limitations of measuring instruments. Neither set of results indicated any cobalt-60 and yet this was the only isotope found to be above background levels by the UA master's theses monitoring studies performed in the mid ‘80s. No mention is made, either, of isotopes noted in 1971 as present in the liquid radioactive waste discharge to the "tile field": tritium (3H), sodium (22Na), Cobalt (Co-58), though tritium was tested in 1989 along with cesium-134. Except for a general "alpha" category tested in 1989, available records show no indication of monitoring for plutonium, despite its persistence and the large quantity present at SEFOR. Plutonium/uranium fuel and the sodium coolant was removed in 1972. Afterwards, radioactivity was still estimated (not measured) to be inside the refueling cell. A master's thesis written in 1978, when the UA was planning to set up research laboratories in the SEFOR building, surveyed all components of the facility and noted "miscellaneous radioactive materials were stored in the Irradiated Fuel Tank," where radioactivity measured 50 millirems per hour. Insult to injury Overall, SEFOR's private-sector owners shifted a large and undefined financial burden from the private sector to the public sphere, by deeding the plant and property to the UA. Adding insult to injury, were SEFOR's public relations statements, which often contradicted SEFOR's own data and showed little regard for the people who would bear not just the financial burden of the experiment, but potential damage to health and habitat. -------- illinois Nuclear waste a nearly limitless source of electricity December 8, 2005 Chicago Sun-Times BY TOM RANDALL http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-nuke08.html The Chicago area economy runs on an aging nuclear-power infrastructure that must be updated if it is to provide economic growth and jobs. Illinois produces more electricity with nuclear energy than any other state, just over 50 percent of its needs. In the 1970s and '80s, 14 nuclear plants were built, eight of them primarily to service Chicago and northern Illinois. But today three of those plants -- two in Zion and one in Grundy County -- have been retired. The two remaining Dresden plants are up for relicensing in 2009 and 2011 -- a likely renewal, but not a sure thing. Complicating matters is the 13 million pounds of "waste" nuclear fuel that these plants are sitting on. Replacing aging nuclear facilities with gas-fired plants is an unsatisfactory option considering that high demand and limited supply of natural gas are already pushing the price of natural gas through the roof. Although coal is plentiful, constructing coal-fire plants would involve too much environmental resistance because of its noxious emissions. So-called renewables and alternatives such as wind and solar are little more than pipe dreams. Using either of them would require covering most of the Illinois landscape with production facilities just to supply Chicago. It would be wrong to blame the folks at Exelon for this quandary. They inherited an aging power infrastructure that was born out of a morass of environmental and regulatory rules that make building any kind of electricity-generation plant nearly impossible. But there is a solution. It involves that so-called "waste" or spent nuclear fuel, and a new generation of nuclear plants known as Integral Fast Reactors (IFR). Using existing technology, reactors can extract less than 1 percent of the energy from nuclear fuel. But the new IFRs can extract 99 percent of the energy from that same fuel by integrating a new fuel recycling process with "fast" reactors that are capable of using it. This relatively straightforward process is described in detail by physicists William Hannum, Gerald Marsh and George Stanford in the December issue of Scientific American. Therefore, simply building IFRs next to existing nuclear plants in Illinois would enable us to use waste fuel over and over again, providing virtually limitless electricity for Chicago and northern Illinois. At the same time, we would dramatically reduce the problems of storing and transporting waste fuel, a concern for some in this age of terrorism. But three hurdles stand in the way of developing this solution. *First, President Jimmy Carter banned all recycling of nuclear fuel in 1977 based on the fear that it would produce bomb-quality plutonium. *That led Hazel O'Leary, energy secretary under Bill Clinton, to kill research on IFRs in 1994, just as the work was nearing completion at Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago, because it involved reprocessing. *The third hurdle that stands in the way of building any kind of nuclear generating facility is the long and uncertain permitting process that drives away potential investors. These hurdles could be overcome. A simple executive order to lift the ban on the specific type of recycling used by the IFRs, pyroprocessing, would take care of the first hurdle. This would not represent a threat of nuclear proliferation since this type of recycling does not produce plutonium that can be used for making weapons. The second hurdle, restarting the IFR project would require an appropriation of $300 million and an order by Congress for Argonne to finish its work. While that work is in progress, Congress and the administration must tackle the much higher hurdle of streamlining the arduous and uncertain permitting process at the federal level. With the obvious energy shortages and price spikes caused by limited production in this country, such reform should be a top priority. It is time for Illinois' congressional delegation, Republicans and Democrats alike, to lead a push in Washington to secure the state's economic future with the only practical source of electricity produced by a new generation of safe, pollution-free nuclear power plants. Tom Randall is a senior partner of the public policy consulting firm Winningreen LLC, Chicago. He can be reached at trandall@winningreen.com -------- nevada Yucca managers relay 'path forward' plan to regulatory staff By KEITH ROGERS Dec. 08, 2005 LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Dec-08-Thu-2005/news/4683597.html Managers of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project outlined their new "path forward" plan for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff Wednesday. But one critic at the meeting, Steve Frishman, a full-time consultant for Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency, said the plan amounts to a path backward that puts the beleaguered project "back to square one after 20 years." "They made it very clear they have no schedule at all for certification or a license application," Frishman said during a break in the meeting. The new plan announced in October by the Department of Energy differs from the course that DOE had been pursuing because it relies on spent fuel assemblies to be sealed in standardized waste canisters and shipped in transportation casks to a surface facility near Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Instead of taking the spent fuel assemblies out and repackaging them for disposal in a maze of tunnels in the mountain, the sealed canisters will be sorted for "aging," or a cooling down of their thermal heat, before they are put in a steel and nickel-alloy package for disposal. Each transportation cask will be checked for leaks by sampling gases inside the casks when they arrive, said Paul Harrington, acting director of DOE's Office of Project Management and Engineering. The new strategy requires dramatic changes in the design of above-ground facilities, he said. Frishman said the "path forward" plan will take years before it passes reviews and a new design is in place. And, with news this week that a special rail line to haul waste casks to the mountain would cost $2 billion, or more than twice DOE's first estimate, Frishman said he doubts that the line ever will be built. "And it's going to be really hard to get those big containers here without the railroad," he said. "It's really amazing they're having this conversation now." -------- new mexico What's up with WIPP? Pilot plant failing to meet shipment and disposal goals Special to The Rio Rancho Observer Friday, December 8, 2005 http://www.observer-online.com/articles/2005/12/08/news/story7.txt The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico is not achieving the goals set three years ago to accelerate disposal of nuclear weapons waste at the world's first underground geologic repository. A new 93-page report, The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: How Well is "Accelerated Cleanup" Working? issued by SRIC, shows that WIPP has disposed of about 75 percent of the waste planned, or about the same amounts as before the "accelerated cleanup" program was announced. The report is the first study of how well WIPP and the sites with large amounts of nuclear weapons waste are meeting the performance goals established in 2002 when the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued "Performance Management Plans" (PMP). The plans were designed to speed up shipments of waste to WIPP so that millions of cubic feet of dangerous radioactive waste would be disposed by 2012, or about 20 years earlier than previously scheduled. The "Accelerated Cleanup" Program also was supposed to save billions of dollars. Low-level of radioactive nuclear waste has been shipped through New Mexico and Sandoval County since WIPP shipments began coming into the state from the north in the mid 1990s. The report analyzes the plans and the actual performance at the major sites that are to send transuranic (TRU or plutonium-contaminated) waste to WIPP - Hanford, Wash.; Idaho National Laboratory (INL); Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico; Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), Tennessee; and Savannah River Site (SRS), South Carolina, as well as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California. Local citizen watchdog organizations monitoring those sites also participated in preparing the report. For FY 2003, the WIPP PMP projected disposal of 8,939 cubic meters of contact-handled (CH) TRU waste; 7,542 cubic meters was actually disposed. In Fiscal Year 2004, the WIPP PMP projected disposal of 12,366 cubic meters; 8,810 cubic meters was actually disposed. Therefore, for the two-year period, 77 percent of the total amount projected was actually disposed. The amount of waste sent in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 by individual sites varies from the amounts projected in their plans. SRS exceeded the disposal amounts included in the WIPP PMP - shipping 5,525 cubic meters, as compared with the 2,132 cubic meters planned. Hanford shipped 698 cubic meters, as compared with the 666 cubic meters planned. However, INL, the site which has about half of all the CH waste in the WIPP inventory, shipped 909 cubic meters as compared with the 8,650 cubic meters in the WIPP PMP, or about 11 percent of what was planned. Los Alamos shipped 327 cubic meters, as compared with the 1,835 cubic meters planned. Updating the report for fiscal year 2005, which ends on Sept. 30, will again show that WIPP will not achieve the planned goal of 12,247 cubic meters being disposed. The volume of waste disposed this year will be less than in FY 2004. WHAT IS THE "ACCELERATED CLEANUP" PROGRAM? In February 2002, DOE announced its "Accelerated Cleanup" program, which is supposed to reduce costs and risks for the millions of cubic meters of radioactive waste (high-level, TRU, and low-level) at dozens of sites around the country. The program includes additional funds "when a site and DOE reach agreement on an expedited schedule that shows measurable gains and can be held accountable." State governments where DOE sites were located were to agree to Letters of Intent to demonstrate their commitment to the program. Congress supported the DOE program and in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 required that DOE "shall allocate, to each site for which the Secretary has submitted to the congressional defense committees a site performance management plan, the amount of those funds that such plan requires." A major element of the program is to dispose of TRU waste more quickly, which is said to save money by reducing the operating costs of WIPP over its lifetime and by reducing waste storage costs at many of the sites. In the summer of 2002, 18 DOE sites developed PMPs which provided some details about how wastes at those sites would be managed and about measures that could be taken to speed up clean up of the sites. At sites with TRU waste and at WIPP, the PMPs proposed various measures to change existing schedules and practices, including characterizing the waste inventory, developing new shipping containers and procedures, changing operations at WIPP, and modifying regulatory requirements. The site that has shipped the largest amount of waste to WIPP, the Rocky Flats Plant near Denver, did not prepare a PMP because no acceleration was planned beyond the schedule of completing waste shipments to WIPP by 2005. The SRIC report analyzes how well each site and WIPP are meeting the goals and milestones of the plans, discusses how well projected cost savings are justified, and reviews regulatory and other relevant issues. The analysis primarily covers the first two-plus years of the plans, updating the information through at least 2004, and in some cases, up to July 2005. NEXT THURSDAY: Basic findings on TRU waste inventory, shipments, cost savings and what should be done. Article courtesy of Voices from the Earth, published quarterly by Southwest Research and Information Center. Reach them at 262-1862. -------- tennessee TVA officials evaluate reactor pipe corrosion Browns Ferry findings being awaited by NRC Thursday, December 08, 2005 By BRIAN LAWSON Times Business Writer brianl@htimes.com http://www.al.com/business/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/business/1134037090160551.xml&coll=1 During an update from Tennessee Valley Authority officials Wednesday on the restart effort on Unit 1 at Browns Ferry nuclear plant, federal regulators asked for more information about recently discovered corrosion on pipes in the reactor vessel. TVA estimates work is more than 70 percent complete on the $1.8 billion restart effort which it hopes to complete by May 2007. The project at the Athens plant involves returning Unit 1 to service after the reactor was mothballed in 1985 due to safety concerns. Units 2 and 3 at Browns Ferry were also taken off-line in the mid-1980s, but successfully returned to service in the 1990s. TVA hopes to extend the operating licenses of all three units at Browns Ferry for 20 additional years past 2030. In a meeting with Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff members Wednesday, TVA outlined its discovery of some corrosion on pipes in the lower portion of the reactor vessel, which surrounds the core of the nuclear reactor. Both NRC and TVA officials said the corrosion, or hard-scale deposits, seems to be from bits of older pipes. TVA used a sophisticated camera to probe to the lower portions of the vessel and later removed some of the deposits for analysis. TVA spokesman Craig Beasley said the deposits are still under evaluation, but the vessel wall, which protects the reactor, does not appear to have been affected. The pipes that are thought to be the source of the corrosion have largely been replaced, Beasley said. Mark Lesser, an engineering branch chief for the NRC regional office in Atlanta, said the agency is awaiting a report from TVA concerning its corrosion findings. He said the NRC wants to make sure there is no chemical interaction that could potentially affect the reactor vessel. TVA officials reported they are currently working on a host of restart-related projects at the plant. The work involves some 2,000 contractors who are working on cable, conduit and support installation, modifying control room design, large and small pipe replacement and electricity-related tasks. Regulators said they need to further clarify for TVA what it expects the utility to do regarding fire protection standards for Unit 1. The unit is essentially a twin with Unit 2, and has some shared systems. NRC officials said some modifications to the current fire protection requirements need to be made since the last updating occurred before Unit 1 was scheduled to return to service. Lesser said NRC also needs more information from TVA about the pace of its cable work in the plant. While many of the utility's major projects are close to completion, based on the TVA estimates, its required cable work is behind schedule. The utility said it needs to have more than 870,000 feet of cable in the unit by project end, but to date it has only installed some 260,000 feet. Lesser said the inspection schedule needs to be adjusted to reflect the changed rate of work on the cable. Margaret Chernoff, a Maryland-based NRC project manager for nuclear reactor regulation for Unit 1, said the project, involving updating more than 20 years of regulations and required upgrades to match Browns Ferry's recent history, is very complex. She said that TVA's current efforts reflect its pledge to do extensive replacement and refurbishment of the unit. -------- MILITARY -------- europe EU Sees Environment-Friendly Russia-German Pipeline REUTERS BELGIUM: December 8, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33911/story.htm BRUSSELS - Companies building a gas pipeline from Russia to Germany have promised to ensure that it does not damage the environment, as critics fear, the European Union's energy chief said on Wednesday. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have called on the EU to have a broader involvement in the pipeline, which they said posed a potentially catastrophic environmental threat to their region. "I really have no doubts ... that the companies involved will do everything necessary for protection of the environment," Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs told reporters on Wednesday. He said companies involved had promised during meetings with him there would be "no question about environmental impact". Germany's E.ON and BASF unit Wintershall will build and run the pipeline along with Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom. The pipeline has generated fierce controversy because it will bypass Poland and Baltic states. Baltic news service BNS reported in November that the presidents of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia said the pipeline would be built upon a seabed which had been littered with tonnes of dumped chemicals weapons. Any mistakes made during construction could release the chemicals with drastic consequences, they said. -------- prisoners of war Captors Extend Deadline on Western Aid Workers Jailed Cleric Calls for Hostages’ Release Thursday, December 8th, 2005 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/08/1421208 In Iraq, the captors of four kidnapped Western aid workers have extended their threat to execute them by another 48 hours until Saturday. The Swords of Righteousness Brigade has threatened to the kill four members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams unless all prisoners are freed from US and Iraqi-run detention centers. On Wednesday, the captors released a new video of the hostages. The video appears to show hostages Norman Kember, of London, and Tom Fox, of Virginia. Canadian hostages James Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden were not shown. Jailed Cleric Calls for Hostages’ Release The aid workers’ capture has sparked an international outpour of calls for their release. On Wednesday, a Jordanian cleric jailed in Britain for alleged links to al Qaeda called on the kidnappers to release the four men. In a taped video, Abu Qatada said the aid workers should not be punished for the actions of their governments. -------- war crimes Croatian war crimes suspect seized Gotovina was indicted in 2001 for alleged atrocities against Serbs Thursday 08 December 2005, 23:23 Makka Time, 20:23 GMT Aljazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BA9308CF-BD3B-4899-90C0-E27A1A602813.htm Fugitive Croatian General Ante Gotovina, who is wanted by the UN war crimes tribunal, has been arrested in Spain, the UN's chief war crimes prosecutor has announced. Gotovina, one of the UN war crimes tribunal's top three fugitives, is wanted for crimes committed against ethnic Serbs at the end of the 1991-1995 Serbo-Croatian war. He was indicted in July 2001 for alleged atrocities against rebel Serbs in a government offensive in August 1995 to retake rebel areas of Croatia, and has been on the run since. His evasion from arrest had been a key obstacle in Croatia's attempts to join the European Union, whose leaders were for a long time sceptical over how hard the government in Zagreb was trying to track down a man many Croats see as a national hero. Speaking in Belgrade on Thursday, UN chief war crimes prosecutor Carla del Ponte said Gotovina was arrested overnight in Spain's Canary Islands and he was now in detention, pending transfer to the Hague. Western reactions Nato Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said the arrest of Gotovina was "good news for the world, for bringing people to justice who are not yet convicted but who are accused of very serious crimes". A spokesman for the British EU presidency said the arrest would remove "an important obstacle" for Croatia's bid to join the 25-nation bloc. EU enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn welcomed the arrest of Gotovina as "very good news". "The arrest of Ante Gotovina is very good news. For reconciliation in the region of the Western Balkans and for ICTY to successfully accomplish its work, it is fundamentally important that all indictees are brought to justice," he said in a statement on Thursday. Zagreb started EU entry talks in October after a seven-month delay because it was not providing enough help to the ICTY in finding Gotovina. "I urge the authorities in other countries, notably in Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina to step up their efforts and continue to work until full cooperation is reached and the remaining indictees, including Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic are brought to The Hague," Rehn said. Arrest deadline Del Ponte has set 14 December - the 10th anniversary of the Dayton peace accords that ended war in Bosnia - as the deadline for the arrest of the former Bosnian Serb military chief Mladic and his wartime political chief, Karadzic. Karadzic and Mladic have been indicted by the ICTY for genocide and crimes against humanity notably for their role in the 43-month siege of Sarajevo and massacre of more than 8000 Muslim men and boys in the eastern Bosnian enclave of Srebrenica in July 1995. Croatia had claimed all along that Gotovina, a former French Foreign Legion veteran, fled the country just before his indictment was made public in July 2001. However, it stepped up the hunt for him after the EU delayed the start of Zagreb's membership talks in March, and ordered all police and intelligence agents to do their utmost, including liaising with foreign services. Serbia has faced similar international criticism over the continued freedom of Karadzic and Mladic. Gotovina's arrest will only intensify the pressure on Belgrade to help catch them. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- homeland security / national intelligence House, Senate strike deal on renewing anti-terrorism law 12/8/2005 By Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-08-patriot-act_x.htm WASHINGTON — Republican House and Senate negotiators reached a tentative deal Thursday to extend the USA Patriot Act, the sweeping anti-terrorism law passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The White House endorsed the compromise, but a bipartisan group of senators attacked it as an assault on civil liberties. A heated debate appears likely when the measure reaches the full Senate and House as early as next week. Without congressional action, the Patriot Act expires Dec. 31. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said the proposed legislation, hammered out in "very, very difficult" talks between House and Senate Judiciary Committee members, is "not perfect but acceptable. " Specter cited his success in placing a four-year cap and other limits on some controversial provisions, including those that permit secret warrants for library, medical and business records and the use of "national security letters" to demand information and records without a search warrant. So far, the deal has not attracted Democratic support. Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and a friend whom Specter had hoped to win over, is opposed. Leahy called for a 90-day extension of the existing law to allow more time for negotiations. "This is a bill that goes into your right of privacy over and over," he said. Two other committee Democrats, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Dick Durbin of Illinois, joined Larry Craig, a conservative Idaho Republican, and three other senators in opposition to the deal. In a statement, they accused negotiators of jeopardizing the law's renewal "by insisting the modest protections for civil liberties be excluded." Feingold is threatening to block the measure on the Senate floor. Other senators in the group are Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Ken Salazar, D-Colo., and John Sununu, R-N.H. House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said the deal will "ensure that our intelligence and law-enforcement officers will have the tools necessary to protect" Americans. Specter said the deal includes changes that should win over civil libertarians. Among the new requirements: • Federal agents must obtain a court review before obtaining library records. • Individuals who receive "national security letters" will be allowed to consult with a lawyer. • Law enforcement officials will be required to show to a court that they are targeting a specific person before obtaining permission for a "roving wiretap," which allows them to monitor a target's conversations as he moves from place to place. • Individuals who have been subject to a "sneak and peek" search warrant, which allows law enforcement to enter someone's house without their knowledge, must be told within 30 days. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the administration is pleased with the deal, noting it makes 14 of the law's 16 provisions permanent. He called the act "critical" to winning the war on terror because "it helps investigators and authorities ... capture terrorists before they strike." But Leahy said the compromise would allow the government to obtain individuals' library, business and medical records by claiming they are "relevant" to a terrorism investigation, even if the individuals have no known links to a terrorist organization or a foreign government. Leahy also wants to impose an expiration date on the government's power to use "national security letters" to obtain information without court approval. He also said the compromise makes it too hard for people who receive demands for information from government investigators to challenge the requests in court. Contributing: David Jackson and Kevin Johnson -------- immigration / refugees House panel OKs stricter immigration rules 12/8/2005 WASHINGTON (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-08-immigration_x.htm Legislation to choke off illegal immigration, at the border and in the workplace, cleared a key House committee Thursday despite strong objections from Democrats, who said any immigration bill must also deal with the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country. The Judiciary Committee approved the measure on a party-line 23-15 vote, setting up a vote in the full House next week before Congress adjourns for the year. The 169-page bill goes beyond increasing border patrol agents and equipment to enlist military support in border surveillance and reimburse local law enforcement in border areas for assistance in combating alien smuggling and illegal entry. It requires the Homeland Security Department to detain until removal all who try to enter the country illegally and sets mandatory minimum sentences on smugglers and people convicted of re-entry after removal. Illegal presence in the country, now a civil offense, would become a federal crime, and three drunken driving convictions would become a deportable offense for legal immigrants. All employers in the country would be required to participate in a verification system under which the government would confirm that a worker or a job applicant has legal status. The bill, said its sponsor, committee chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., "will help restore the integrity of our nation's borders and re-establish respect for our laws by holding violators accountable." President Bush, citing national security concerns as well as the social and economic costs, has demanded that Congress address the illegal immigrant issue. He has also proposed a guest-worker program that could allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country temporarily. Democrats on the panel faulted the Sensenbrenner bill for not addressing the guest-worker issue, saying border security measures will fail if nothing is done about those already in the country. Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., said the tourism industry as well as the fruit and vegetable industries would be devastated if no guest-worker program is available and employers have to verify the legality of workers. Berman tried to attach provisions of legislation proposed by an Arizona Republican, Rep. Jeff Flake, that includes a guest-worker program, but Republicans voted them down. Flake, who voted "present," said he would continue to push his bill because "we have to have a legal channel for workers to come and go home." Sensenbrenner said he was not against a guest-worker program, but decided to move on enforcement issues first because there was still no consensus on how a guest-worker program would take shape. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has said he would open debate in February on a border security bill that could become the basis for more comprehensive immigration legislation. There are several guest-worker proposals in the Senate, with the main issue being whether those here illegally would have to leave the country before applying for a temporary worker visa. -------- prisons / prisoners Mumia Abu-Jamal Wins Right to Appeal Thursday, December 8th, 2005 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/08/1421208 In a ruling his defense team is calling a major victory, Mumia Abu-Jamal has won the right to appeal his murder conviction on three separate grounds. Convicted in 1982 for the murder of a police officer, Mumia will be able to appeal on grounds of both judge and jury bias. He’ll also appeal on the basis the trial prosecutor misled jurors. In a news release, Mumia’s attorney Robert Bryan wrote the court’s rulings are: “of enormous constitutional significance and go to the very essence of Mumia's right to a fair trial… Today we achieved a great victory in the campaign to win a new trial and the eventual freedom of Mumia.” Opening briefs in the appeal will be heard on January 17th. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy EU Launches Plan to Boost Biomass, Biofuel Use December 8, 2005 Story by Jeff Mason REUTERS NEWS SERVICE http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33913/story.htm BRUSSELS - The European Union must increase its use of biomass and biofuels to offset the bloc's dependence on oil and gas imports, the EU executive said on Wednesday, launching a plan to boost the renewable fuels. "This plan will reduce Europe's dependence on imported energy, cut greenhouse gas emissions, protect jobs in rural areas and extend the EU's technological leadership in these areas," Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs said. He said the plan outlined measures for using fuel from agriculture and waste materials in the heating, electricity and transport sectors. The EU aims to have renewable sources make up 12 percent of its energy mix by 2010 but the Commission said that goal is unlikely to be reached. It said renewables will likely make up nine to 10 percent by then, spurring the need for a plan now. Biomass can be made of wood, sugar cane, or animal waste. Examples of biofuels include ethanol, biodiesel and methanol. The biomass action plan sets out more than 20 steps to be taken, most of which will be implemented from 2006. High oil prices were a particular incentive for raising biofuel usage in the transport field, the Commission said. In that sector the executive is seeking to promote "biofuels obligations" in which suppliers include a minimum proportion of biofuels on the conventional product they put on the market. The EU wants biofuels to have a 5.75 percent share of the 25-nation bloc's petrol and diesel market by 2010, but that target, too, is far from being reached. Market share now is at 0.8 percent, the Commission said. MIXED REACTION The plan drew a mixed reaction from industry and environmental groups. Peter Tjan, Secretary General of the European Petroleum Industry Association, stressed that using biomass to generate power was much more effective at reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than using it as a transport fuel. Environmental groups warned of negative side effects. "Certain biomass production systems result in levels of greenhouse gas emissions which are not much lower than those of fossil fuels," environmental groups WWF, Greenpeace, BirdLife International and the European Environmental Bureau said in a statement. "Furthermore, the impact of biomass production on biodiversity, water and soil needs to be taken into account." Renewable fuel sources are getting more attention from EU policy makers as the 25-nation bloc mulls a common energy policy and worries about the security of its energy supply. Five percent of all motor fuel sold in Britain will have to come from renewable sources by 2010, under new rules announced by the government last month. The measure should save around one million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in 2010, the equivalent of taking a million cars off the road, the UK government said. The EU plan includes a campaign to inform farmers and forest owners about energy crops. The EU executive also approved a report on support of electricity from renewable energy, which concluded that more than half of the 25 member states are not doing enough to support "green electricity". Piebalgs said the EU's ultimate goal was to have a renewable energy sector that could stand on its own without public support, though that was likely to take more than 10 years. (additional reporting by Stuart Penson in London) ---- European Commission Offers Renewable Energy Action Plan December 8, 2005 BRUSSELS, Belgium, (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2005/2005-12-08-02.asp A detailed action plan designed to increase the use of energy from forestry, agriculture and waste materials has been adopted by the European Commission. The plan outlines measures in three sectors - heating, electricity and transport. Andris Piebalgs, Commissioner for Energy, announced the new plan on Wednesday, saying, “This plan will reduce Europe’s dependence on imported energy, cut greenhouse gas emissions, protect jobs in rural areas and extend the EU’s technological leadership in these sectors." "The measures in favor of transport biofuels, in particular, are a practical response to the problem of high oil prices," Piebalgs said. In parallel, the Commission adopted a report on the different support schemes of electricity from renewable energy sources which concludes that governments need to step up efforts to cooperate among themselves, optimize their supports and remove administrative and grid barriers for green electricity. In the context of security of supply, the EU’s increasing dependency on oil and gas imports, constantly rising oil prices and EU commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the development of renewable energy remains high on the agenda of European energy policy. However the take-off of renewable energy is still on hold with prospects of only nine to 10 percent for the share of renewables in the EU energy mix by 2010 instead of the 12 percent target. The Commission has decided to propose an ambitious action plan to promote the use of biomass energy, a renewable source of energy with a huge potential. Biomass energy includes transport biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel made mostly from cereal, sugar and oil seed crops and waste oils. It includes domestic biomass heating using wood and wood residues, and the burning of wood wastes and straw in power plants to produce electricity and heat. The plan announces more than 20 actions; most of them will be implemented from 2006 onwards. For transport biofuels, they include promotion of “biofuels obligations,” through which suppliers include a minimum proportion of biofuels in the conventional fuel they place on the market. In 2006, the Commission will bring forward a report in view of a possible revision of the biofuels Directive of 2003. This report will examine the implementation of the Directive in Member States. The EU market share is currently 0.8 percent which leaves little chance to achieve by 2010 the target of 5.75 percent that was set in 2003 for the European Union as a whole. The plan includes reviews of how fuel standards could be improved to encourage the use of biomass for transport, heating and electricity generation; investment in research, in particular in making liquid fuels out of wood and waste materials; and a campaign to inform farmers and forest owners about energy crops. The Commission will also work on future EU legislation to encourage the use of renewable energy in heating. The Commission estimates that the measures in the plan will double the use of biomass without increasing the intensity of agriculture or affecting domestic food production. It forecasts that this will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 209 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year; provide direct employment for at least 250,000 people; and reduce reliance on imported energy from 48 percentto 42 percent. As the European Commission releases its Biomass Action Plan, BirdLife International warns that the EU must put in place strong environmental safeguards. Without these, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will be negligible and impacts on the broader environment will be severe, the conservation organization said. BirdLife, along with WWF, Greenpeace, and the European Environmental Bureau representing 143 member organizations in 31 countries, believes that bioenergy can become a key source of energy in the future, and welcomes the EU's efforts to increase its use. However there are serious concerns that the EU Biomass Action Plan does not guarantee environmental and social safeguards. These measures should apply to both European and imported bioenergy, and include checks on the greenhouse gas balance of the crop, the conservationists said. Due to their high level of inputs during the cultivation and transformation phases, they said, certain biomass production systems result in levels of greenhouse gas emissions which are not much lower than those of fossil fuels. The impact of biomass production on biodiversity, water and soil needs to be taken into account. This is already a major problem in the tropics, where millions of hectares of forest have already been converted into soya, sugarcane and palm oil plantations. "Travelling in a car fuelled by biodiesel seems like a great, environmentally-friendly thing to do," said BirdLife's Ariel Brunner. "However, if the biodiesel has come from soya planted in the Brazilian Amazon or palm oil from Indonesia, the green consumer is likely to be unwittingly driving another nail into the coffin of the world's great ecosystems." "Large scale biomass plantation projects like the massive planned oil palm plantation in Kalimantan, Indonesia, entail the destruction of vast swathes of rainforest," said Jean-Philippe Denruyter, Climate Change and Energy Policy Officer at WWF. "This not only affects valuable ecosystems, but contributes to climate change as the rainforests are an important carbon sink." The conservation groups are calling on the EU to ensure such projects will not be supported through biofuel imports into EU member states. The report on support of electricity from renewable energy, also adopted by the European Commission Wednesday, concludes that more than half of the 25 EU member states are not giving enough support to green electricity. The Commission considers that direct support measures will remain essential in the future to ensure sufficient market penetration of green electricity and calls on member states to optimize their support plans and remove barriers. The report finds that feed-in tariffs, which are fixed prices for green electricity and used in the majority of member states, are currently cheaper and more effective than so called quota systems, especially in the case of wind energy. One reason for quota systems being more expensive is probably the higher risk for investors due to immature green electricity markets, the report finds. The Commission concludes that it is premature to propose a harmonized European support scheme. Competing national schemes can be healthy at least in a transitional period, as more experience needs to be gained, and industry needs regulatory stability to make investments and develop renewables, the Commission said. In the short and medium term, member states are asked to coordinate the existing schemes at the European level. To remove barriers to the development of green electricity, administrative requirements should be reduced, the Commission said, emphasizing that clear guidelines, one-stop authorization agencies, pre-planning mechanisms and simpler procedures are needed. Transparent and non-discriminatory grid access must be ensured and necessary grid infrastructure development should be undertaken, with the associated costs covered by grid operators. ---- Pursuit of alternative energy sources isn’t a pipe dream by H. “Ske” Boniske published December 8, 2005 6:00 am Asheville NC Citizen-Times http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051208/OPINION03/51207033/1006 In his column, “If environmentalists really want to free us from Big Oil and corporations, let’s see their solution,” (AC-T, Sept. 3), local columnist Jeff Dreibus wrote that environmentalists want to destroy the oil companies and live without oil. This is completely false. We in America should see what other countries worldwide are doing to minimize their dependence on oil. He also asks where are the affordable non-polluting alternative sources of energy. The facts are that today we have available many sources of renewable affordable non-polluting energy. Photovoltaic (PV) and fuel cells have been used in the space program for about 40 years. The use of renewable energy worldwide is creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. My wife and I have lived in a non-polluting solar, off-grid (not connected to the power company) home since 1993. The sun furnishes our electricity through photovoltaic cells and heat from solar hot water panels. Without listing the dozens of green, clean, renewable energy saving features in our home, we extend an invitation to Dreibus and to others to tour our home and get some answers to his questions. One day of sunshine could supply the entire state of North Carolina’s energy needs for one year. There are many active and passive systems to capture this energy. The 35 percent N.C. State Income Tax Credits, in addition to the 30 percent Federal Income Tax Credits, make many non-polluting, solar systems considerably more economical than other sources of energy. The energy policy recently passed by Congress that was designed in secret by Vice President Cheney and the executives of the oil, coal, nuclear and gas corporations, gave billions of taxpayer dollars to these very corporations in subsidies, tax credits and incentives. Over 100 billion of taxpayer dollars in the past 50 years has been given to these corporations. By comparison, such incentives for clean renewable sources of energy have been the equivalent to pennies in comparison. It is bad enough to have a local uninformed columnist write a misleading article but it is far worse when our congressman misinforms the public by espousing the idea that we should drill for more oil and build more nuclear power plants, (both of which will take many years to produce any energy) also stating that “We’re doing research in other technologies, but they won’t be available for 30 to 50 years,” in the article, “Taylor: U.S. should drill more oil,” (AC-T, Aug. 25). It is here now. Congress has enacted laws protecting the nuclear industry from most of the liability that they would incur in the event of a nuclear accident or from any delays in construction. No nuclear plant in America has been ordered since 1978 and more than 100 reactors have been canceled, including all ordered after 1973. The nuclear industry cannot get public financing due to the financial risks involved, especially since the world’s nuclear plants have not made any money when government subsidies (taxpayer dollars) are added to the financial report. True, a sustainable energy policy that would make America energy independent would serve our national security, however not one based on nuclear plants or on imported oil, especially middle-east oil with the volatility in that part of the world. The danger of a nuclear plant accident may be minimal but the hundreds of nuclear plants with spent radioactive fuel rods stored on site in pools of water are more likely to be accessible to a terrorist attack and possibly producing a dirty radioactive bomb. Wind farms are being installed all over Europe. In Spain, all new buildings are mandated to have solar hot water panels. Japan is putting PVs on the sides of tall buildings as well as on the roofs. Island countries are using biomass, solar, tidal and wind instead of fossil fuels. Renewable non-polluting solar technologies have improved tremendously and with increased production, costs have decreased drastically. Our country had the ability and determination to put a man on the moon and to develop the Manhattan project in a very short time. It would seem that we could put that same effort toward developing a sensible, sustainable energy policy within a few years. For instance, Iceland is totally energy independent. Denmark, Austria, and Sweden are generating more than 20 percent of their energy from renewables and other countries are making great progress to achieve energy independence. Germany has plans to phase out their nuclear plants. In countries throughout the world, governments are leading the way by encouraging the use of economical renewable energy sources. In America, the effort to achieve sustainable energy independence is coming from the citizens, environmental organizations, companies, cities, counties and states rather than from the federal government. Depending on whether we need to have a sustainable energy policy for: national security, health, economic or global warming concerns or just to take care of our earth, we owe it to future. H. “Ske” Boniske is a United States Navy Air veteran and professional sales consultant, with more than 40 years experience observing/designing/studying renewable energy in WNC. He lives in Arden. -------- OTHER -------- imf / world bank / wto (economics) IMF undertaking a major debt-cancellation program 12/8/2005 WASHINGTON (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-08-imf-debt-relief_x.htm The International Monetary Fund aims to let poor countries wipe out their debts starting next year, according to details of the program announced Thursday. The IMF's program, which has been approved by its board, is part of a larger debt-cancellation initiative that was endorsed by the leaders of the world's richest countries in the summer. Under that broad initiative, billions of dollars worth of debt owed to the IMF, the World Bank and the African Development Bank by certain poor countries would be erased. Each institution is responsible for taking steps to implement its piece of the debt-cancellation initiative. The IMF identified 20 countries — many in Africa — that initially will be eligible to have their debts forgiven under its program. Those countries are: Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Cambodia and Tajikistan. Under the World Bank's framework, all of those countries — except for Cambodia and Tajikistan — would be initially eligible for debt cancellation, World Bank officials said. The World Bank expects to begin erasing poor countries' debts by the middle of next year, World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz said Wednesday. The World Bank's board plans to consider its debt-cancellation program next week, Wolfowitz said. Approval — which is largely a formality — is expected. In terms of the IMF, the 20 countries initially eligible should be able to start having their debts erased next year as long as a group of 43 countries, including the United States, give their consent and the poor countries pass qualification spot checks, officials said. Another 23 or 24 poor countries also could be eligible to have their debts erased by the IMF if they meet certain conditions, officials said. By canceling their debts, poor countries could use the money for education or drugs to fight HIV/AIDS or malaria, supporters of debt forgiveness say. A major breakthrough on the debt cancellation deal came in late September when finance officials from the world's richest countries agreed to put up all the money to cover the loan repayments lost when the debts are written off. Those commitments allayed concerns that the lending institutions would be financially impaired. That allowed financial leaders to nail down the landmark debt-forgiveness plan at meetings of the 184-nation IMF and World Bank that also took place in late September. -------- ACTIVISTS John Lennon 1940-1980: History Professor Jon Wiener Discusses Lennon's Politics, FBI Files and Why Richard Nixon Sought to Deport Him Thursday, December 8th, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/08/1421215 25 years ago today John Lennon died after being shot dead by a gunman named Mark Chapman. Millions mourned the death of perhaps the most famous Beatle. Today memorials are being held across the world. On this anniversary, we pay tribute to Lennon’s life with historian Jon Wiener, author of "Gimme Some Truth: The John Lennon FBI Files" and "Come Together: John Lennon in His Time." We also hear Lennon and his wife Yoko Ono describe their Bed-In For Peace. We play excerpts of Lennon singing “Imagine” at the Apollo Theater in Harlem at a rally for the Attica prisoners and Lennon singing at the 1971 Free John Sinclair concert in Ann Arbor. In addition we air historic interviews with Pete Seeger discussing the significance of Lennon’s song “Give Peace A Chance” and Abbie Hoffman on Lennon, the political radical. [includes rush transcript] Twenty-five years ago today, Howard Cosell broke into Monday Night Football with an announcement that shocked the country. * Howard Cosell, announcing John Lennon's death, December 8, 1980. John Lennon had died at the age of 40. As soon as word of his murder was announced, hundreds of fans began gathering in Central Park near the Dakota apartment building where Lennon lived and was shot. A day after he died, his wife, Yoko Ono, said, "John loved and prayed for the human race. Please do the same for him." Millions mourned his death across world. As a leader of the Beatles, John Lennon helped to transform popular music. But to his fans he was far more than just a musician. While the highlights of Lennon's career with the Beatles is well known, Lennon is less remembered for his political activism and dedication to peace. Lennon wrote some of the most famous songs of the anti-war movement: "Give Peace A Chance", "Imagine" and "Happy Christmas (War Is Over)". He sang at political protests against the Vietnam War, in support of the radical John Sinclair and even for the prisoners of Attica. He and Yoko made international headlines simply by lying in bed as part of their Bed-In For Peace. The U.S. government saw Lennon as such a serious threat that President Nixon attempted to have him deported in 1972. In addition the FBI closely monitored his actions and amassed a file on Lennon of over 400 pages. Today -- on the 25th anniversary of John Lennon's death -- we speak with historian Jon Wiener about Lennon's politics and his FBI files. * Jon Wiener, history professor at the University of California Irvine and the author of two books on Lennon: "Gimme Some Truth: The John Lennon FBI Files" and "Come Together: John Lennon In His Times." More information: John Lennon - FBI Files RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: 25 years ago today, Howard Cosell broke into Monday Night Football with an announcement that shocked the country. HOWARD COSELL: Yes, we have to say, remember this is just a football game, no matter who wins or loses. An unspeakable tragedy, confirmed to us by ABC News in New York City, John Lennon, outside of his apartment building on the West Side of New York City, the most famous, perhaps, of all of the Beatles, shot twice in the back, rushed to Roosevelt Hospital, dead on arrival. AMY GOODMAN: John Lennon, dead at the age of 40. As soon as word of his murder was announced, hundreds of fans began gathering in Central Park near the Dakota apartment building where Lennon lived and was shot. A day after he died, his wife, Yoko Ono, said, “John loved and prayed for the human race. Please do the same for him.” Millions mourned his death around the world. As a leader of the Beatles, John Lennon helped to transform popular music, but to his fans, he was far more than just a musician. While the highlights of Lennon's career with the Beatles are well known, Lennon is less remembered for his political activism and dedication to peace. Lennon wrote some of the most famous songs of the anti-war movement: "Give Peace a Chance,” "Imagine" and "Happy Christmas, War is Over." He sang at political protests against the Vietnam War, in support of the radical John Sinclair and even for the prisoners of Attica. He and Yoko made international headlines simply by lying in bed as part of their Bed-In for Peace. The U.S. government saw Lennon as such a serious threat that President Nixon attempted to have him deported in 1972. In addition, the F.B.I. closely monitored his actions and amassed a file on Lennon of over 300 pages. Today, on the 25th anniversary of John Lennon's death, we speak with historian Jon Wiener about Lennon's politics and his F.B.I. files. Jon Wiener is a history professor at the University of California, Irvine, and the author of two books on Lennon: Gimme Some Truth: The John Lennon F.B.I. Files and Come Together: John Lennon and His Times. I talked to Jon Wiener and asked him for his thoughts on this 25th anniversary of Lennon's death. JON WIENER: Well, you know, there's going to be a lot of media coverage about the lovable lad from Liverpool and about Beatle-mania, but I think it's important to remember that Lennon put a lot of work into fighting the war in Vietnam. He was an activist in the peace movement, and he paid a very heavy price for that. In 1972, Richard Nixon tried to deport him because of his peace movement activity. I think that is a legacy that's worth remembering today, more than Beatle-mania and more than “I Want to Hold Your Hand.” AMY GOODMAN: You wrote a book about the F.B.I. files and John Lennon called Gimme Some Truth. Can you talk about why you started on this quest to get the full F.B.I. files of John Lennon and how much you have learned. What was happening to him when he left Britain and came to this country under the presidency of Richard Nixon? JON WIENER: Well, Lennon arrived in the United States in 1970, 1971, moved to New York. He wanted to be part of what was going on. What was going on in New York was the anti-war movement, and he became friends with Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman and Bobby Seale and other activists, and he wanted to join in, basically, with the movement, which is pretty unusual for a superstar. Lots of superstars have causes, but he wanted to help end the war in Vietnam, and he tried various different strategies of doing that in different ways, at different times. That's what got him in trouble with the Nixon administration. I filed a Freedom of Information request a really long time ago, in 1981, just after he was killed, just to see if the F.B.I. had any documents on him. I thought they must, since they tried to deport him in ‘72. At that time, they told us they had around 300 pages, but they weren't going to release most of them, because of their national security status. I was lucky enough to get the help of the ACLU of Southern California in taking this case to court. We filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act in 1983. In 1997 -- that's what? -- 15 years later, virtually all of the issues were resolved by the Clinton administration. They released almost all of the pages we were seeking. They paid $204,000 of our legal expenses. But they still withheld ten pages, which they said were national security documents provided by a foreign government under a promise of confidentiality. We're still trying to get those ten pages. And just recently, a court ordered the F.B.I. to release them, and the F.B.I. has now told us they are going to appeal that decision. So, ten pages to go, national security documents. AMY GOODMAN: So, you're saying, Professor Wiener, that John Lennon is still a threat to the national security of this country? JON WIENER: Well, I'm not saying that, but the F.B.I. is telling us that they can’t release these ten pages, because they contain information provided by a foreign government under a promise of confidentiality. Now, we're not even allowed to know the name of the foreign government. My guess is that it's not Afghanistan. And, in fact, there's a guy in England named David Shayler, a former employee of MI5, the British organization that corresponds with our F.B.I. He says he saw a Lennon file at MI5. He described its contents. It had information about Lennon's ties with the British New Left and the anti-war movement in London and the Irish movement. Shayler was prosecuted by the Brits under their Official Secrets Act and sentenced to six months in prison for revealing this information. Our assumption is that's the information that the government of the United States is withholding today. It's provided by the foreign government of Britain. It concerns Lennon's political activities in London in 1969 and 1970. We don't see any reason why information about the political activities 35 years ago of a dead rock star need to remain classified today, but the F.B.I. is willing to go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and try to convince a three-judge panel that this material can't be released. AMY GOODMAN: Jon Wiener, can you talk about what John Lennon hoped to do in this country, joining up with the anti-war movement, registering voters, and how he was thwarted, specifically how he was dealing with the Nixon administration? JON WIENER: Yeah. Lennon tried to figure out ways that he could use his power as a celebrity to help end the war. And the idea that he developed, along with Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin and other people, was that he should headline a national concert tour in 1972 that would coincide with the presidential election campaign. ’72, Nixon was still President and preparing to run for re-election. The war in Vietnam had reached a peak. It was clear that this was going to be a big issue in ’72. The concert tour that Lennon was planning would have been quite a big deal, just because no Beatle had toured the United States since the lads waved farewell at Candlestick Park in 1966, but what Lennon had in mind was something different. He wanted to combine rock music with radical politics and use the tour to urge young people to register to vote -- 1972 was the first year that 18-year-olds were given the right to vote, so that was going to be an important project -- and vote against the war, and that meant voting against Nixon. Nixon got wind of this plan and promptly began deportation proceedings against Lennon to try to get him out of the country to prevent this tour from ever happening. They were able to do one concert. It was in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in December ’71, where they tried out this idea. It was the “Free John Sinclair” concert. John Sinclair was a local movement activist and leader who had been sentenced to ten years in the Michigan state prison for possession of two joints of marijuana. It was a big national issue in 1971, and Lennon headlined a fantastic show that involved political activists. Jerry Rubin spoke, Bobby Seale spoke, Stevie Wonder showed up to play. And we have tape of Lennon's appearance that night. It's in Ann Arbor at Chrysler Arena, December 1971, 15,000 people in the audience. AMY GOODMAN: Let's go to John Lennon that night. JOHN LENNON: Now, we came here not only to help John and to spotlight what's going on, but also to show and to say to all of you that apathy isn’t it and that we can do something. Okay, so flower power didn’t work; so what? We start again. This song, I wrote for John Sinclair. Okay, John Sinclair, nice and easy now. Sneaky. [singing “John Sinclair”] “One, two, one, two, three, four -- It ain't fair, John Sinclair, in the stir for breathing air -- Won't you care for John Sinclair, in the stir for breathing air -- Let him be, set him free. Let him be like you and me -- They gave him ten for two, what else can Judge Columba do? -- We gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta set him free -- if he was a soldier man, shooting gooks in Vietnam, if he was the C.I.A., selling dope and making hay, he’d be free, they'd let him be -- free the man like you and me -- They gave him ten for two, what else can Judge Columba do? -- We gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta set him free – They gave him ten for two, and they got [inaudible], too -- We gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta set him free -- Was he jailed for what he’d done or representing everyone? -- Free John now, if we can, from the clutches of the man -- Let him be. Lift the lid. Bring him to his wife and kid --” AMY GOODMAN: That was John Lennon singing at a “Free John Sinclair” rally in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in 1971. This is Democracy Now!, DemocracyNow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman. Our guest is historian Jon Wiener, the author of two books on John Lennon, including Gimme Some Truth: The John Lennon F.B.I. Files. I asked Jon Wiener what happened to John Lennon after he performed at the “Free John Sinclair” rally. JON WIENER: The first thing that happened was that John Sinclair got out of prison two days later on appeal. It was quite an amazing victory that nobody had really expected. When I got the John Lennon F.B.I. file, the first stuff in there is a report from an undercover agent who was one of the 15,000 people at Chrysler Arena that night. He wrote down every word John Lennon said, including all the words to the song, including “gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta set him free.” He sent those to J. Edgar Hoover. They were promptly classified as confidential and kept secret for the next twelve years. But this formed the -- this got the Nixon administration concerned that there really might be some potential here to affect the election. Now, in retrospect, it seems very unlikely, since Nixon won by an overwhelming landslide in 1972. Only Massachusetts voted for George McGovern. Remember the slogan, “Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts.” But, you know, back in December 1971, no one was sure what was going to happen in the election. No one was sure who the Democratic candidate was going to be. No one was sure how significant the youth vote was going to be. And it was – you know, Nixon did a lot of things that I didn't like, but he was also an astute judge of American politics, and I think if Nixon was concerned that Lennon's political plan to register young voters might play role in the ’72 election, I'm willing to accept Nixon's judgment that there might have been something to that. AMY GOODMAN: The issue that Nixon held over John Lennon of deporting him over drug charges, even those drug charges questionable, is that right? They were brought when he was in Britain? JON WIENER: Well, the Nixon administration's claim for deporting Lennon was that it was just a routine administration of the then-existing immigration law, which held that you could not be admitted to the country if you had any conviction for drugs, no matter how insignificant, no matter what the circumstances. And Lennon had pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of cannabis possession in London a couple of years earlier. So, the Nixon administration said he had just been admitted improperly, and therefore, he had to leave. Lennon claimed this was motivated by a desire to silence him as a spokesman for the peace movement, and I think the F.B.I. files show Lennon was right about that. Everything in the file is about Lennon's political activism, the people he was hanging around with, the plans he was making. Virtually none of it is about his status of his immigration visa. AMY GOODMAN: Another major political event he was involved with was in 1971: the Attica uprising, upstate New York, the prisoners who were protesting prison conditions. Can you talk about what John Lennon had to do with that? JON WIENER: Yeah. In September, 1971, there was an uprising at Attica Prison in upstate New York. Something like a couple of thousand, mostly black, inmates seized the prison, had a whole list of demands, most of which were completely reasonable: decent health care, religious freedom for Muslims, alternatives to pork in the diet, uncensored reading materials. The prison administration agreed to virtually all of the demands, but then one horrible morning, 1,400 New York state troopers stormed the prison. They killed 32 prisoners and ten guards and injured something like 80 more. This was, you know, a complete outrage, and the next month, December 1971, there was a protest meeting and a benefit concert for the families of the prisoners who had been killed in the uprising. That was held at the Apollo Theater in Harlem. And John Lennon went, because this, you know, disturbed him. He hated what had happened at Attica. We have tape, very unusual rare tape, of Lennon speaking on stage live at the Apollo, 1,500 people who had gathered to protest the murders at Attica Prison. AMY GOODMAN: John Lennon in Harlem. JOHN LENNON: I would just like to say it's an honor and a pleasure to be here at the Apollo and for the reasons we're all here. Some of you might wonder what I'm doing here with no drummers and no nothing like that. Well, you might know, I lost my old band, or I left it. I’m putting an electric band together. It's not ready yet, and these -- things like this keep coming up, so I have to just busk it. So I'm going to sing a song now you might know. It's called "Imagine." [singing “Imagine”] Two, three, four -- “Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try. No hell below us; above us, only sky -- Imagine all the people, living for today --” AMY GOODMAN: John Lennon, at the Apollo in Harlem, after the Attica uprising. Of course, then-New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, right after the prisoners rose up – it was another September 11 -- September 11, 1971 (September 9, it began). On the 13th, he called out the New York state troopers, and they opened fire, killing 39 men, including guards, critically wounding more than 80 others and injuring hundreds. Jon Wiener. JON WIENER: Yeah, it was a terrible day, and it’s interesting that Lennon wanted to be part of that protest, too. So, you know, New York was very important to him, and he wanted to be part of the political life of New York and part of the movement in New York, and that's one of the reasons why it was particularly horrible that he got killed in New York, which was the city that he thought of as the center of the world, the home the free. AMY GOODMAN: Speaking of freedom, there is a very famous image that will be no doubt played throughout today, and that was the Bed-In. John Lennon and Yoko Ono in Canada. Can you talk about this? JON WIENER: 1968. Well, the first Bed-In was in Amsterdam. John and Yoko got married in 1968. A lot of things happened in 1968, and one of them was John and Yoko got married at Gibraltar, near Spain, as they said in the song, "The Ballad of John and Yoko." But even as early as 1968, they were thinking about the war and what they could do to join the anti-war movement. And they decided to declare that their honeymoon would be a weeklong protest against the war in Vietnam. But instead of marching outside the American embassy at Trafalgar Square in London, they decided that they would stay in bed to protest the war. This outraged the mainstream media and a lot on the left, too. We have tape of Lennon explaining the logic behind the Bed-In. JOHN LENNON: What we're really doing is sending out a message to the world, mainly to the youth, especially the youth or anybody, really, that's interested in protesting for peace or protesting against any forms of violence. And the things are, the Grosvenor Square marches in London, the end product of it was newspaper stories about riots and fighting. And we did the bed event in Amsterdam and the bag piece in Vienna just to give people an idea that there's many ways of protest, and this is one of them. And anybody could grow their hair for peace or give up a week of their holiday for peace or sit in a bag for peace. Protest against peace, anyway, but peacefully, because we think that peace is only got by peaceful methods, and to fight the establishment with their own weapons is no good, because they always win, and they have been winning for thousands of years. They know how to play the game violence, and it's easier for them when they can recognize you and shoot you. AMY GOODMAN: So this was in Amsterdam, is that right, Jon? JON WIENER: That's -- no, he was referring to -- Amsterdam is in the past there. He's saying ‘We did this in Amsterdam.’ He is explaining why they did the Bed-In in Amsterdam. Here, they're, you know, adopting a pacifist position, and they’re criticizing what they regarded as kind of the stereotyped forms of protest -- the protest march, the protest speech -- and they wanted a movement that was more innovative and more imaginative in its tactics. As I said, this outraged a lot of people on the left, as well as a lot of people in the mainstream. But I think it did accomplish their main goal. They got worldwide publicity as opponents of the war in Vietnam. AMY GOODMAN: "Imagine" is a song that has tremendous power through the decades, through the ages. After 9/11, it was reported that Clear Channel had it on a list of songs that would not be allowed to be played on their stations, and that was significant, because Clear Channel owns more than 1,200 radio stations in this country. JON WIENER: Yeah. Well, he does say, “Imagine no more countries. It isn't hard to do.” And he also says, "Imagine no religion. It's easy if you try." Of course, the Christian right in the United States finds that a completely outrageous statement, and they have been campaigning against that song ever since he recorded it in 1970. AMY GOODMAN: And then, Jon Wiener, there's "Give Peace a Chance." Talk about the story behind that. JON WIENER: Well, you know, Lennon wanted to -- basically, Lennon is a musician, a songwriter, a performer. He wanted to write a song for the movement, and he did. It was "Give Peace a Chance." It did become the anthem of the anti-war movement. Half a million people sang "Give Peace a Chance" in a demonstration at the Washington Monument in the fall of 1969. Do we have time to listen to my interview with Pete Seeger, talking about what it was like that day? PETE SEEGER: Well, in November 1969, I guess I faced the biggest audience I had ever faced in my entire life. Hundreds of thousands, how many, I don't know, but it stretches as far as the eye can see, up the hillside and over the hill, past the Washington Monument. And Brother Kirkpatrick and I were singing together and tried to get them singing with us, but the crowd was too big to get the rhythm. After two songs, I looked over to the chairperson of the day, said, “Okay if we try one more?” and she nodded her head. And I said to Kirk, “Follow me on this.” He had only heard it once before, but I had, in the back of my mind, I might have to try it. I had only heard the song myself a few days before. And I confess, when I first heard it, I didn't think much of it. I thought, ‘Well, that's kind of a nothing of a song. It doesn't go anyplace, does it?’ I heard a young woman sing it at the peace rally. “All we are saying is give peace a chance.” She gave it a kind of an oom-pa-pa oom-pa-pa waltz, like a German band. I don't know if John Lennon's record had that or not. I never heard his record. As a matter of fact, I’ve hardly ever heard any of his records. I admired the guy, the little I heard. I had never heard this song, except as the young woman sang it to me a few days earlier. JON WIENER: And did you have the impression that everybody who was there already knew it? PETE SEEGER: I didn't know if they had ever heard it before, but I decided to try singing it over and over again until they did know it. Well, Kirk and I started singing this, and after about a minute or so, I realized that it was still growing. Sure enough, Peter, Paul and Mary jumped up to our left and started joining in on another microphone and giving us a little more instrumental and harmony background. Couple of more minutes, Mitch Miller hops up on the stage to our right and starts waving his arms. And I realized it was getting better and better, as more and more people were able to latch onto it, because it was so slow. And then, they started swaying their bodies in time, and banners and flags would sway to the left and right in a big slow ballet. If you can imagine several hundred thousands of people moving their bodies. Parents had their small children on their shoulders. And it was a tremendously moving thing to realize his song was finally getting through, where not a single other song of the day had really gotten people to join in on it. JON WIENER: Pete, what do you think about the politics of "Give Peace a Chance"? PETE SEEGER: Well, undoubtedly, some people wanted to say a lot more than that. On the other hand, history gets made when people come to the same conclusion from many different directions. And this song did hit a common denominator. There's no doubt about it. [“Give Peace a Chance”] AMY GOODMAN: That was John Lennon, singing "Give Peace a Chance." Jon Wiener, can you talk about John Lennon in the Beatles, and their political views and how the U.S., how the Nixon administration dealt with them, overall? JON WIENER: Well, you know, the Beatles -- there was a tension within the Beatles that we only found out about later, where Paul McCartney basically was an entertainer who wanted to sing songs that would delight and thrill people. John Lennon, and also George Harrison, were much more interested in the world and what was going on and how they could be part of what was going on. I mean, it was an exciting time to be young. So, the Beatles struggled with this internal debate they were having. In 1966, when they came to the United States, at their first press conference, they said, “We hate war. War is wrong. We think about it every day.” They had been advised not to do this by their management. This was something -- taking a political stand like that in the United States at the time was something only for folkies like Joan Baez or Bob Dylan or something like that. Rock groups never said they were against the war in Vietnam, especially in 1964. I think probably most Americans hadn’t even heard of the war in Vietnam. And for the Beatles to say, “We think about it every day,” was a truly remarkable thing. I don't think most people noticed it at the time. But, obviously, they were already wrestling with the issue of what they could do, and especially Lennon, and to a lesser extent Harrison, also. If you look at Lennon's songs, a lot of them are about what's going on around them. And, you know, they were spokesmen for the counterculture. They were spokesmen for psychedelic drugs. And they were spokesmen for youth rebellion against authority, in general. You know, the most important thing was that their songs were so great. I think that's -- if the songs weren’t so great, we wouldn't be talking about them today. But there was more to the songs. There was an interest in engaging with the political spirit of the times that we don't see very often in the history of pop music. AMY GOODMAN: Jon Wiener, can you talk about Abbie Hoffman? JON WIENER: Well, Abbie Hoffman was one of the people that John and Yoko sought out when they arrived in New York in 1971. He was one of people who developed this plan for a national concert tour, where they would try to register young people to vote against the war and vote against Nixon. After Lennon was shot and killed, I interviewed Abbie Hoffman, and I asked him what it was like working with John and Yoko at that time. ABBIE HOFFMAN: John and Yoko did come and look up myself and Jerry Rubin, and they wanted it known around the New York scene that they had political side to them. They -- before they even got here, they had a lot more political consciousness than just say the bed-ins or other things that they were kind of involved in that might appear a little flaky. We must have met at least a dozen times, and we started to organize demonstrations at the Republican Convention, which at that time was still in San Diego. And it was -- of course, all of these conversations were monitored by the F.B.I. and God knows who else, you know. And it was these conversations that, number one, forced the convention to move to Miami, and number two, got the immigration service on John Lennon's back. And you know, it's -- I think it's wise to remember that for six years, he was hounded, not just because of some pot possession charge. I mean, there's probably 100-200 people a week that want to come into this country with much more, you know, many more charges, but because that he was both political and was forming alliances with radicals. He had -- he talked sheer poetry. I mean, you totally hung on every word, and he was extremely dramatic and ran the gambit from, you know, manic excitation to sad depressive, moody states. And he just pulled off one night and just went over to the corner and in three minutes wrote a song, came back and sang it. It was quite a thing to witness. AMY GOODMAN: That was Abbie Hoffman. Of course, Abbie Hoffman later, himself, committed suicide. Jon Wiener, this is the 25th anniversary of the death of the murder of John Lennon. Any thoughts on that, on his murder? JON WIENER: Well, you know, the first thing we think of is who gets assassinated in America? It's Martin Luther King, and it's John Lennon. It’s a scary thing about America. And for people who grew up in the ’60s, you know, that day, December 8, 1980, was one of the very worst days, because, you know, the dream really was over at that point. Lennon was a guy who you never knew what he was going to do. He was willing to embarrass himself. He tried out things that often didn't work, but he was always interesting, and you know, we had the feeling that sort of he was part of us, and so, today, we miss his spirit. We miss his adventurousness. We miss his music. And, you know, it's a sad day. AMY GOODMAN: Jon Wiener, author of Gimme Some Truth: The John Lennon F.