US Sen Boxer:Climate Bill To Include Nuclear-Pwr Measure

Source: Dow Jones Newswire

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- In a sign that compromise on energy and climate legislation is already underway, a top Senate negotiator said that she will include a measure on nuclear power in a developing bill, something that Republicans have demanded.

U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer, D- Calif., who will be writing key parts of the climate bill, told reporters on Wednesday that "there will be a nuclear title in the bill." She had previously resisted any efforts to encourage nuclear power, saying before an August recess that nuclear power would already gain an advantage if the U.S. mandated reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions.

---snip---
Compromise will be essential if Democrats are to overcome divisions within their own party. The Senate Agriculture Committee's new chairwoman, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., who will play a role in advancing climate legislation, said on Wednesday that she doesn't think the measure will pass this year. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-ND, is taking his own swipes, saying that "it's hard to see how there's sufficient time on the floor to deal with that."

Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200909091640dowjonesdjonline000643&title=updateus-sen-boxerclimate-bill-to-include-nuclear-pwr-measure

Or is there, and I just didn't read that part?

going to be found?

....mostly on tribal lands or near tribal reservations. Near Laguan Pueblo (which was home to the largest uranium open pit mine) and Acoma Pueblo proposed mines are being discussed (both in NM). Near Grants, NM (the uranium capital of the world) the boom of mining is the big talk. In Northern AZ and S. UT, then Secretary of Interior Babbit, paved the way for uranium mining on public lands that are under the control of BLM. These lands have pockets of private land with mining claims. Some of those claims in N. AZ and S. UT are owned by the Babbit family (gee think that was on purpose?). I suspect similar stories are going to pop up in the Dakotas where uranium deposits also exist.

I have feared this for some time....

It has been some time since we devoted much money to recycling. Other countries have been more active, and I think that we should look into it again.

are around.

Nuclear power should be reduced not expanded... Why we keep creating this earth destroying energy is beyond me.

Rp

giving us all kinds of "idears."

Our risk is acceptable collateral damage to them.

Yes/No?



Tikki

Since the republicans didn't care at all what Democrats thought from 2002 to 2006, I'm not seeing how the republicans can "demand" a thing.

America: one party only...

As a downwinder whose physician has stated that I have health problems caused by emissions from nuclear plant operations, emissions and effluents and that my spouse and two children also have been impaired with exposure that may utlimately kill us with compromised immune systems and cancer, i can say unequivocally that to include support for nuclear is to include murder.


anyone who wants fact should go to:

www.radiation.org

or www.nirs.org (Nuclear Information)

I know I will hear the usual crap of rah rah's about how "safe" nuclear is or how it is better than coal blah blah blah (I hate coal too) but this shit fucked my family up seriously. caused a miscarriage of one of my children (after a major leak in my community) and continues to spew deadly radionucleides wherever they are built and long long afterwards.

In the 1950's Andrei Sakharov, fathr of the Soviet H Bomb, wrote in the Journal for Soviet Atomic Scientists that the acceleration of dna mutations of viruses and bacteria caused by the release of nuclear materials into the global environment would cause global pandemics because our immune systems will be compromised by exposure and we will not be able to adapt to viruses and bacteria's rapid changes (their generational turnover rate is too high). For millions of years we have lived or adapted to viruses and bacteria (or died) around us but when they are mutating faster and fater due tomutagenc new radionucleides created by men and released into the environment, we will begin to get sick and die in huge numbers.

But what is worst is that man made radionucleides in the nuclear cycle are routinely released into the enviromment: into our collective air water and erth - our food and drink, our milk and meat and firewood (which releases it when we burn the wood) all add to the exposure --- these cause mutations in the dna of children and developing foetuses and cause spontaneous abprtions or severe birth defects from cleft palates to spina bifida to down's syndrome to heart and other organ defects which kill babies either in utero or withion days or weeks or sometimes years of birth.

So go ahead and support nuclear if you support the murder of children (and other living things).

My children were all victims of this. My surviving ones still are. They will require treatment for their exposure throughout their lifetime as will I and my spouse. But nothing will; bring back my dead child. Or the ones who will die as long as these things continue to exist.

since 90% of their power comes from nuclear reactors. It will probably only be 20 or 30 years and they will all be gone and France will be uninhabitable for centuries.

And the French reactors are neither safe nor economically viable.

And in fact the earth is already pretty much not inhabitable (at least not safely) because of this murderous technology

www.nirs.org has the real lowdown on the French Reactors.

They are killing off the French (and other Europeans) due to Halliburton like corruption in their government (Halliburton is a nuclear contractor among other things and one of the biggest through its subsidiaries).

The French have been suckered in just as you have been.

20 or 30 years, there will be no French.

-----

without an emoticon snark or sarcasm beats me why you say this.

it is killing us here
in china it is viral death by nukes (Bushes started it all with nixon and Mao in 1972-3)

And just look at the navy personnel who live on those subs. I think the mortality rate after 5 years is 100%. :eyes:

Published on Wednesday, September 9, 2009 by The Telegraph/UK
The Mystery of Chernobyl
by Sanjida O'Connell
snip--
According to a UN report in 2005, long-term cancers caused by Chernobyl will eventually kill about 4,000 people: an alarming total, but less than predicted. In fact, in an age of "dirty bombs" and nuclear proliferation, Chernobyl functions as a grim experiment into the consequences of extensive nuclear fallout. Although radiation levels have dropped significantly over the 23 years, there are still "hot" regions. Prof Mousseau says that the most contaminated areas measure 300 microSieverts per hour on the Geiger counter, the equivalent of 1,200 times normal radiation levels, or 15 times as much as a chest X-ray. "Long-term exposure would be deleterious," he adds drily.

The real problem, however, is environmental contamination of radionucleotides, caesium, strontium, and plutonium, which have half-lives of 30,000, 29,000 and 24,000 years respectively. Since this means that over that time period, these chemicals will decay to half their previous concentrations, they will contaminate the land for years.

"What you need to worry about is eating the food, because ingestion is the main way that one becomes exposed to radiation poisoning here," says Prof Mousseau.
snip---
Prof Mousseau says that the incidence among locals of cancer, birth defects and reduced lifespan is alarmingly high.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/09/09-5

Wonder what happens when all this radioactive gook goes into the aquifer?

dead person from a us commercial reactor accident. Unless you moved here from ukraine you have no scientific evidence to back what you claim.

"If You Poison Us: Uranium and Native Americans" by Peter H. Eichstaedt, found on amazon and other websites, you will find at the end of the book the names of the members of several Pueblos including Laguana Pueblo, home to the largest open pit uranium mine in the world, and also members of the Navajo Nation who died from cancer as a result of mining uranium that was used for U.S. nuclear power.

Navajo and Pueblo memebers mined the uranium and were told by the government and companies that there was no health risk. Despite them knowing full well the risks involved.

In fact the books main point is looking at the legislaiton passed under the Clinton Administration that gave (unjust) compensation for family members who lost loved ones in the mining of uranium.

thanks.

there was a nuclear accident in my town

I got sick

the baby died

authorities said it was the "Asian Flu". Everyone I knew got sick the week it happened.

As for evidence of other deaths there is plenty of it.

Epidemiological studies prove the death rates near plants are caused by effluents and emissions and leaks.

EVERY exposure to man made radiation, especially internally, increases the potential for death caused by the radiation.


Epidemiological studies are linked at www.radiation.org

I worked in the nuclear industry in a department dealing with environmental medicine. I have read the studies and many many reports and attended many hearings on the subject.

I also worked with the whistleblowers and the sick and dying.

It is one of the biggest cover ups of mass murder in history by the industry.

But no one who worships at the idol of nuclear mammon will ever admit these deaths because their liability will be immense and the damages will bankrupt the billionaires who profit from it.

Like with the cigaret industry PROVING which poison killed you or caused a specific cancer or death is very hard to prove except by epidemiological data and even then the evidence is usually trumped by the fact that the industry has all the resoruces in the world to fight such litigation and individual claimants and their attorneys do not have the resources to fight them.

The industry LIES and plants operatives to destroy every credible person who tries to expose this evidence whether in court or a discussion board like this one.

But I lost a child to it.

If you defend these murderers and promote their death agenda you are as guilty as they are when the next person dies of their cancers and disease spread by the industry and its hacks and promoters.

See my post #35 for links to one article with studies on nuclear industry deaths.

Smells like tinfoil to me.

now that is what the medical mags sitting on my toilet say. JAMA and Journal Oncology tend to be a bit more credible than the for pay study I cant read sponsored by the UK green party.

If you dont mind me asking what country are you posting from? Your post reads like english as a second language so some of what I may be posting could be misunderstood.

Radiation is everywhere, and there are multiple studies linking smoking with disease. There are none that show commercial power causes cancers in geographic areas near by.

Do you remember the story where the theory that powerlines caused cancer was debunked? I remember the researcher who pioneered that theory was lambasted for falsifying data, but I cannot remember his name.

but not its origin. seems like rational discourse is not going to happen with some here.

in the cost benefit analysis sold to the world by the industry shills and hyenas deaths from effluents and increased radiation in the environment are factored in and deemed acceptable.

A regular operating plant emits and releases deadly radioactive particulates wherever they are found. It is all regulated and permitted and the deaths associated with it are deemed "acceptable".

I'll have to ask him how many dead they usually planned on :eyes:.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

"The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less economically competitive."

never took off.

The fact is that there re different types of radiation released.

Strontium 90, radioactive iodine and other components of the toxic radionuceide cocktail released by nuclear fuel cycles mimic natural elements (calcium and iodine) and get absorbed by the thyroid, teeth, bones, and then as they decay they get into the other soft tissues and the blood then migrate to reproductive and other organs causing death of foeuses in utero and trsticular cancers, prostate cancers, breast cancers, leukemia, ovarian cancer and many disorders caused by the mutagenic properties of these heinous man made radioactive by products of the fuel cycle. YES there are radioactive emissions in coal plants which is one reason i oppose them as well. It is not either or and that is a straw person argument and a red herring by the nuke industry to obfuscate and try to obscure the issue of the killer nuke effluents.

Once again, there are plenty of studies at www.nirs.org that deal with these issues and demonstrate that renewables and NOT coal or nuclear are the most cost effective and safe remedies to global warming and reduced energy costs.

That way, we get the benefit and they get the lighting.

really well pulling head count from states that burn stuff to generate power, overcharge it, and have trouble keeping the lights on.

a nuke anywhere is a loaded toxi pistol at you babies head (and genetics) everywhere.

I think that is WHY they are putting them everywhere, frankly. Fewer people, fewer people to feed (or provide heath care too --- or anything else) and no more resistance if everyone is sick and tired.

The Nazis perfected it

with Bush financing

just as the nuclear industry is doing now

Boxer becomes a member of the new "Christian" Judenrat.

She will help built the new Auschwitzes (without walls). Turn a dial and gas 'em up.

Frying our dna with nuke emissions is the new Zyklon B (and crematoria in utero for those downwind or downstream))

I just put my flashlight in front of the fan and the light beam blew clear across the room!

You may want to stay away from computer monitors.

*edited for grammar

jeebus

please cite actual evidence and not anecdotal.

Workers in plants and others in special categories can get many times background.

Background already causes mutations. Adding a factor of nearly 30% more of man made effluents/emissions which get into the food chin and water and air we breathe is deadly.

Since each plant keeps its own records and is supposed to report it, we have to rely on the nuclear industry and fucks like Cheney (Halliburton is a nuke company) for reports on how much actua;;y gets leaked. Getting accurate records of releases is impossible from these lying murderers.

But we find it in EVERY sample taken of baby teeth near nuke plants. EVERY child has strontium 90 exposure which can cause cancer, EVER SINGLE CHILD TESTED has such exposure and their are NO SAFE LEVELS OF EXPOSURE!

The code of federal regulations has the permissible levels we are exposed to but "incidents" mean that we get more than that.

Ratcheting up radiation by 25-30% of background is what is killing us and causing the cancer and other mass deaths from disease like autoimmune disorder, thyroid disorder, suppressed immune systems and cancers of the ovaries and testicles, just to name one element of the fucked up ness of this industry.

It kills babies in utero at these levels of exposure.

The regulations are here, so read them and tell me they are not exposing us to deadly levels of radionuclides. (This is the NRC's own website)

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1301.html

(a) Each licensee shall conduct operations so that —

(1) The total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from the licensed operation does not exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year, exclusive of the dose contributions from background radiation, from any administration the individual has received, from exposure to individuals administered radioactive material and released under § 35.75, from voluntary participation in medical research programs, and from the licensee’s disposal of radioactive material into sanitary sewerage in accordance with § 20.2003, and

(2) The dose in any unrestricted area from external sources, exclusive of the dose contributions from patients administered radioactive material and released in accordance with § 35.75, does not exceed 0.002 rem (0.02 millisievert) in any one hour.

(b) If the licensee permits members of the public to have access to controlled areas, the limits for members of the public continue to apply to those individuals.

(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a licensee may permit visitors to an individual who cannot be released, under § 35.75, to receive a radiation dose greater than 0.1 rem (1 mSv) if—

(1) The radiation dose received does not exceed 0.5 rem (5 mSv); and

(2) The authorized user, as defined in 10 CFR Part 35, has determined before the visit that it is appropriate.

(d) A licensee or license applicant may apply for prior NRC authorization to operate up to an annual dose limit for an individual member of the public of 0.5 rem (5 mSv). The licensee or license applicant shall include the following information in this application:

(1) Demonstration of the need for and the expected duration of operations in excess of the limit in paragraph (a) of this section;

(2) The licensee's program to assess and control dose within the 0.5 rem (5 mSv) annual limit; and

(3) The procedures to be followed to maintain the dose as low as is reasonably achievable.

(e) In addition to the requirements of this part, a licensee subject to the provisions of EPA's generally applicable environmental radiation standards in 40 CFR part 190 shall comply with those standards.

(f) The Commission may impose additional restrictions on radiation levels in unrestricted areas and on the total quantity of radionuclides that a licensee may release in effluents in order to restrict the collective dose.

<56 FR 23398, May 21, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 48625, Sept. 20, 1995; 62 FR 4133, Jan. 29, 1997; 67 FR 20370, Apr. 24, 2002; 67 FR 62872, Oct. 9, 2002>

"Background" radiation is currently approximately 350 millirems a year.

So we can get an additional 100 mrems increasing our total exposure to 450 mrems a year

That means we can legally be exposed to MORE than 25% MORE radiation per year by nuclear power plant operations.

That is because in order to operate they must spew effluents and emissions of radiation into our lives and gardens and water and air and communities.

Natural background radiation causes genetic mutations as it is.

Do you even understand that INCREASING a mutagenic substance in the environment by 25% will INCREASE mutations.

Also, these are doses which we ingest when we breathe, eat and drink and bathe. The half life is often decades if not hundreds or thousands of years. So it is CUMULATIVE in your organs and bones and then in your bone marrow and blood. It stays in the body and continues mutating the cells of your internal organs and dna and reproductive genes. And it is passed on to future generations (if they survive the onslaught of radiation exposure to procreate).

It affects ALL future generations with mutated genes and perished genetic lines.

You support THAT?

Background radiation from natural i.e. cosmic/terrestrial sources (excluding radon, which is variable depending on where you live) is about 100 mrems (millirems) SO the nuclear industry is actually DOUBLING out exposure from natural background radiation. if you live in a high radon area you will increase this by another 100% or more).


http://www.rerf.or.jp/glossary_e/backgrou.htm



BTW one Sievert equals 100 rems so one mSievert (one thousandth of a Sievert) equals 100 mrems).

The reason it is so easy to obfuscate and confuse and mislead people is that the terminology and the technology is difficult to grasp without studying it carefully and really focussing on it.

Once you become aware that the nuke indstry can LEGALLY DOUBLE the dose of radiation you would otherwise get from natural background radiation (which we know already causes cancer and mutations) then folks begin to grasp WHY ingesting effluents and emissite particles from radiation spewing into our homes nd lives and water and air and soil and food is SO deadly and why we have so many cancers and brth defects and spontaneous abortions and thyroid diseases.

I have been studying this problem for more than thirty years in college, in graduate school, in the industry and with whistleblowers (as well as a staffer on the Hill which working for a Congressman whose committee had jurisdiction over nuclear safety issues) I also worked in litigation on these issues (on both sides of the industry).

cell phone, and.......SUN. I believe you mentioned Strontium 90 previously. How is this getting out of nuclear power plants. As an aside, PU breeder reactors do not produce much Strontium 90.

None of this nimby attitude. If your state wants nuke power, you get to deal with the full cycle, including waste.

None of this we will ship it across thousands of miles and store in the "desert waste lands of the Southwest" (as Congress stated).

cheap power draws good jobs to RTP. From socal where it is overpriced and unreliable. Please exempt california, the head count and salary can come here...

China buys ap1000's the navy has operated god knows how many hours of safe operation.

MONTHLY RATE

I. Basic Customer Charge:

$500.00

III. kWh Energy Charge:

5.482¢ per kWh

public company traded since the late 70's. Had you bought stock then you would be happy with the returns..

Republicans don't believe in global warming, they don't care.
None of the major environmental organizations have endorsed nuclear energy as a solution to global warming.
NASA climate scientist James Hansen wrote to the CEO of Duke Energy:

(Hansen has come out in favor of research on "4th generation" reactors, but we won't know how well they work or how much they cost until they actually get them to work, which could be decades from now).

Solar, wind and tide power simply isn't effective enough just yet, not are facilities to cope with troughs in power generation (no solar at night, too little or too much wind will stop wind turbines, tidal power won't help a community 1000 miles inland).

Coal-fired power stations are dirty, add more CO2 to the atmosphere and despite what a couple of people on this thread have asserted, coal-fired stations are more radioactive than modern nuclear plants.

True, no major environmental organizations are calling for nuclear power stations, but other prominent environmentalists have

We cannot bridge the divide between affordable power generated by renewable sources and the dirty, polluting plants we currently have without investing in nuclear energy.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2465/is_3_31/ai_73040730/?tag=content;col1


You can support this industry all you want, but it is basically the death/profit machinery of the Fourth Reich.

So be a good German then and get behind the machine....

If I were you, I would never ride an elevator again. They use depleted uranium as counterweights in elevators afterall.

Thanks for the DU heads up about elevators. i don't like them anyway.

But unless I am sucking on the counteerwieght or playing with it in my hands I don't expect to ingest any radiation as we all do from nuke power plant emissions

Where exactly are those in your link again? Also stories from 1958, and from the old USSR need not apply. Technology is literally light years beyond that time period.

given existing technology or even technology 5 years out how do you propose we power that corridor?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I am replying to get enough to post my own.
What a stupid rule

That's one of the reasons Harry Reid keeps getting reelected -- he's almost single-handedly kept nuclear waste out of Southern Nevada.

To be fair, I think nuclear power is one of many viable alternative fuels, I just think Yucca Mountain is a remarkably stupid place to keep the wbyproducts.

Really good article here:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/NRBE/NRadBioEffects.html


This study states that:


"In the United States, regulatory standards allow workers to be exposed to ionizing radiation that can cause 1 additional cancer fatality per 400 workers per year."

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/10/1782

The full article is here: http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/ajph-9-20-07-Shrader-Frechette-final-pdf-AJPH-October-2007-issue.085027.2nd.WM.pdf

According to this peer reviewed study, there are 1.5 million radiation workers in the US. So if my math is any good up to 37,500 nuclear workers per year may die under the current "permissible" standards. "Proving" that one individual's cancer is "caused" by their exposure is as hard as proving that it WASN'T caused by that radiation exposure - hence the industry, like the tobacco industry, avoids liability even though the epidemiological studies and the exposure show a correlation. Corporations fight these cases to death as ONE loss might bring the whole industry to its knees. That is why they fight so hard on boards like these too misinform and deny the dangers. Billions, indeed trillions, are at stake. And remember, nuclear power plants produce fuel for weapons too which keeps these bastards in power. They spend billions on PR to promote these lies. They are the most powerful industry on the planet - most powerful in history too (he who has nukes has dreadful power to work with)

Workers are permitted to die under regulatory standards.

The same applies to citizens.

The regulations are more stringent for nonworkers in plants, but the effects are cumulative. And we die from the accumulated exposure

I believe these numbers are too low based on other studies but these are the deaths PERMITTED by our government to subsidize the nuke industry.

Reprehensible and criminal.

So this energy bill is a crucial element in either dismantling this killer technology and its masters (like Bush and Cheney) or giving them the continued power of global death of civilians and workers.

Subpart D--Radiation Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public

Source: 56 FR 23398, May 21, 1991, unless otherwise noted.

§ 20.1301 Dose limits for individual members of the public.

(a) Each licensee shall conduct operations so that —

(1) The total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from the licensed operation does not exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year, exclusive of the dose contributions from background radiation... http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1301.html

(.01 rem = 100 millirems or 100 thousandths of a rem. 1 mSv (one thousandth of a Sievert) = 100 millirems (mrems). a Sievert equals 100 rems.

Rem means Roentgen equivalent man. Roentgen and Sievert are the scientists who figured out how to measure the dose we receive when exposed to radiation and are just fancy naes given to the units of measurement for how mauch radiation we absorb when exposed. One critical distinction is that internal and external exposures have different impacts even with these measurements and units so that if you breathe in or eat or drink radiation from these plants it wil be absorbed into your blood and bones and organs and begin to mutate these as they decay and irradiate the cells in your bodies.


"Background" radiation from ALL sources is currently approximately 350 millirems a year (this includes all sources from radon, cosmic, sun, soil, xrays, medical procedures, tv, etc.

Cosmic and terrestrial (excluding radon and other sources) is approximately, on average, 100mrems per year. (See link below)

The current nuclear regulations permit the public to be exposed to up to 100 mrems PER YEAR PER PLANT. Workers in plants can get exposed many times that amount legally.
.
So we can get an additional 100 mrems increasing our total exposure to 450 mrems a year (unless one is downwind of more than one plant, as where i grew up) where this number may be multiplied by several factors of multiples of 100mrems).

That means we can legally be exposed to MORE than 100% MORE radiation per year by nuclear power plant operations than from cosmic/terrestrial sources (excluding radon which accounts for on average another 100 or more mrems per year).

That is because in order to operate nuclear plants create and must vent and spew effluents and emissions of radiationuclides into our lives and gardens and water and air and communities.

Natural background radiation causes genetic mutations as it is.

Do you even understand that INCREASING a mutagenic substance in the environment by these amounts will INCREASE mutations?

Also, these are doses which we ingest when we breathe, eat and drink and bathe. The half life is often decades if not hundreds or thousands of years. So it is CUMULATIVE in your organs and bones and then in your bone marrow and blood. It stays in the body and continues mutating the cells of your internal organs and dna and reproductive genes. And it is passed on to future generations (if they survive the onslaught of radiation exposure to procreate).

It affects ALL future generations with mutated genes and perished genetic lines.

You support THAT?

Background radiation from natural i.e. cosmic/terrestrial sources (excluding radon, which is variable depending on where you live) is about 100 mrems (millirems) SO the nuclear industry is actually DOUBLING out exposure from natural background radiation. if you live in a high radon area you will increase this by another 100% or more).


http://www.rerf.or.jp/glossary_e/backgrou.htm



BTW one Sievert equals 100 rems so one mSievert (one thousandth of a Sievert) equals 100 mrems.

The reason it is so easy to obfuscate and confuse and mislead people is that the terminology and the technology is difficult to grasp without studying it carefully and really focussing on it.

Once you become aware that the nuke indstry can LEGALLY DOUBLE the dose of radiation you would otherwise get from natural background radiation (which we know already causes cancer and mutations) then folks begin to grasp WHY ingesting effluents and emissite particles from radiation spewing into our homes nd lives and water and air and soil and food is SO deadly and why we have so many cancers and brth defects and spontaneous abortions and thyroid diseases.

I have been studying this problem for more than thirty years in college, in graduate school, in the industry and with whistleblowers (as well as a staffer on the Hill which working for a Congressman whose committee had jurisdiction over nuclear safety issues) I also worked in litigation on these issues (on both sides of the industry).