The International Clearinghouse for Hydrogen Commerce  www.hydrogencommerce.com

   Hydrogen or Nuclear Power?
WHY IS THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY WAGING WAR ON RENEWABLE
ENERGY AS IT PREPARES FOR NEW REACTORS WORLDWIDE?

House Select Committee
on Energy Independence and Global Warming

May 19, 2008

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20502

Dear Mr. President:

    It is with great alarm that I write you concerning your recent agreement with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia regarding nuclear energy cooperation. Your decision to assist Saudi Arabia with the development of nuclear technology is inexplicable given that country’s bountiful energy reserves, but more disturbingly, it is deeply flawed given the extraordinary tension in the Middle East today over Iran’s nuclear program. I urge you to reconsider this decision and to not begin or continue any discussion or negotiations with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on a formal Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation.
     As you know, Saudi Arabia possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves. It remains a mystery to me why a country with such vast and inexpensive energy resources would be interested in nuclear energy, which is a far more technically challenging, expensive, and dangerous energy source. I do not believe that Saudi Arabia has made or could make a cogent case for why nuclear energy is in its economic interests, given its other energy resources.
     Another country in the region with enormous oil and gas resources, Iran, has argued that nuclear energy is a cost-effective and necessary investment for domestic energy production. But that argument has proven unpersuasive both to our allies and here in the United States. On October 25, 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney said, “[Iran is] already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear, as well, too, to generate energy.” Vice President Cheney was right in saying that Iran has no need for nuclear power, and the same can be said regarding Saudi Arabia today.
     If Saudi Arabia is truly interested in diversifying its energy portfolio, I am puzzled that your administration would not have offered technologies and expertise in the renewable energy area, especially solar energy. A square kilometer of desert typically receives solar energy equivalent to 1.5 million barrels of oil. Under the previous administration, the U.S. Department of Energy joined with the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology in Riyadh on a comprehensive joint solar radiation resource project to assess the solar energy capability of the Saudi Kingdom. Further engagement on both solar energy research and deployment would help both the United States and Saudi Arabia move towards a more sustainable energy and economic future.
     I am concerned that Saudi Arabia’s interest in acquiring U.S. nuclear assistance has nothing to do with energy and everything to do with Middle East politics. By receiving a pledge of support from the United States on nuclear technology, Saudi Arabia is sending a signal to the leaders of Iran that if Tehran continues down the nuclear path Riyadh will do so as well. It would be folly for the United States to enable and encourage such a dangerous cycle. I urge you to reconsider this decision, and to immediately halt any further discussions or negotiations with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on the development of nuclear technology.

Sincerely,
Edward J. Markey Chairman

cc: Mr. James Sensenbrenner
Ranking Member

RELEASED!
"Incredibly well thought out.
A tremendous guide to hydrogen's potential role in a green future of plentiful renewable energy without fossil pollution, oil wars
or nuclear waste."
Richard D. Masters
International Clearinghouse
for Hydrogen Commerce
FREE DOWNLOAD

Carbon-freeWithout Nuclear Power?
Bob Audette     Reformer.com     January 21, 2008

The
Economics of Nuclear Power
Greenpeace International
November 2007

    The economics of nuclear power have always been questionable. The fact that consumers or governments have traditionally borne the risk of investment in nuclear power plants meant that utilities were insulated from these risks and were able to borrow money at

NEW REACTORS IN SOUTH TEXAS WOULD SET
U.S. ENERGY POLICY ON MISGUIDED COURSE
Michael Mariotte, Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Research Service     September 25, 2007

    Today, NRG Energy said it is submitting an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two new reactors at its South Texas nuclear site. This is the first full application for a new reactor in the U.S. in more than 30 years.
    This project is emblematic of the failures of U.S. energy policy to effectively meet the needs of our nation. Nuclear power is a 20^th century technology in a new world of climate crisis and a future that demands a distributed, sustainable approach to energy. Nuclear power requires massive taxpayer subsidies and yet still cannot compete environmentally with the sustainable energy technologies that will power our future.
    NRG Energy already has been quoted in the media (Washington Post, September 25, 2007) as saying that “the whole reason” the company is considering new nuclear reactors is taxpayer subsidies provided by Congress and the Bush Administration in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. These multi-billion dollar subsidies include taxpayer loan guarantees for new reactors, tax credits for the first six reactors built, the Price-Anderson Act limitation of utility liability for nuclear accidents, and “risk insurance” to cover possible delays in the licensing process.
    Without taxpayer support, no utility would build a new atomic reactor, and no financial institution would invest in a new reactor.
    Moreover, the NRG Energy application would repeat one of the fundamental mistakes of the first generation of nuclear power: the construction of nuclear reactors without a feasible facility or plan for storage of the lethal radioactive waste the reactor would produce. The Yucca Mountain, Nevada, radioactive waste dump is on its last legs, and appears increasingly unlikely to ever open. Even if it did, a new round of nuclear construction would necessitate construction of another radioactive waste dump as well—something no state in the country likely would accept. After 50 years, one would think the lesson would have been learned: building atomic reactors without a scientifically-sound waste plan is folly.
    Texas is blessed with enormous potential for wind and solar power, while aggressive energy efficiency programs remain the cheapest, fastest and cleanest method of addressing both electricity demand and the need to quickly reduce carbon emissions. Construction of new reactors in Texas would divert the resources needed to implement those efficiency programs and help solar and wind reach their full potential—to the detriment of Texans and all Americans. A recent study from American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy shows that Texas can meet all forecasted energy demand through energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies.
(see http://www.nirs.org/alternatives/sestudy10.pdf )
    Both Texas and the United States deserve better than a greedy utility feasting at the taxpayer trough to build another large polluting power plant. We expect Texans to oppose the NRG Energy project, and we expect to help Texans with their opposition.

   THE NEW NUKE FRAUD
BY LABELING NUCLEAR POWER AS "CLEAN," A CROOKED U.S. CONGRESS ALLOWS THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY TO RAID TAX FUNDS WITHOUT LIMIT, MAKING THIS BILL A SMOKESCREEN FOR YET ANOTHER EXPENSIVE AND DANGEROUS ENERGY FRAUD FOISTED ON AMERICANS BY THE SWINDLERS THEY ELECTED. - RDM

House Energy Bill: A Portfolio
of Benefits for Clean Energy
Scott Sklar     RenewableEnergyAccess.com     August 5, 2007

Fluor Awarded Contract to Support Planned New Nuclear Plants at South Texas Project
Flour Corporation     August 16, 2007

    Fluor Corporation announced today that its Power Group was awarded a contract by Toshiba International Corporation, a U.S. business unit of the Toshiba Corporation, for engineering, procurement and construction-related services for two new nuclear reactors planned for the South Texas Project Nuclear Generating Station in Bay City, Texas. Later this year, STP's 44-percent owner, NRG Energy, Inc. plans to apply to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a combined construction and operating license to build two Advanced Boiling Water Reactors, known as STP Units 3 & 4, which will be adjacent to the two existing reactors (STP Units 1 & 2). NRG announced on Aug. 9, 2007, that it had contracted with Toshiba to provide key reactor components as well as early engineering, procurement and construction-related services for these planned reactors. "These two new reactor units for the South Texas Project could very well be the first new nuclear power plants built in the United States in more than two decades," said Alan Boeckmann, Fluor Corporation's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

The Price-Anderson Act      November 2005

Price-Anderson Act: Unnecessary & Irresponsible    Nuclear Information and Resource Service

"Disasters on the scale of the Chernobyl accident lead to harmful effects on the population, territorial losses without any military action, and to thousands of billions of roubles' worth of damage, and are, therefore, hard to justify by the need for electric power."
Chernobyl, Insight from the Inside
Vladimir M. Chernousenko, Scientific Director of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences Institute of Physics in Kiev's Task Force for the Rectification of the Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident

-- DEFUNDING NUCLEAR AND FOSSIL ENERGY --
A VERY IMPORTANT LETTER FROM
THE NUCLEAR INFORMATION & RESOURCE SERVICE

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND FUNDING LEVELS IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET

December 27, 2006

Dear Representative/Senator:
    We, the undersigned business, environmental, consumer, and energy policy organizations, are writing to offer our recommendations for funding levels in key federal energy programs as you develop the final Fiscal Year 2007 (FY'07) appropriations legislation.
    In general, we support what we understand to be Congress' intent to fund programs in FY'07 at the FY'06 level as being a good starting point for the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) sustainable energy programs.
    We believe that it is essential to sustain funding at or above historic levels (i.e., FY'06 and earlier) for the core renewable energy and energy efficiency programs in DOE as well as in other federal agencies.
    We also note that as work progressed during this past year on the FY'07 appropriations bills, consensus was reached between the Congress and the White House to expand a number of sustainable energy programs as well as launch several new energy efficiency and/or renewable energy initiatives. We believe these programs and funding levels should be a part of the final FY'07 appropriations bill.
    However, we recognize - and fully support - Congress' desire to not increase overall spending limits and, in fact, to move towards significantly reducing the size of the federal budget deficit.   
    Therefore, we recommend that any increases in the funding levels for the federal energy efficiency and renewable energy programs be offset by commensurate, or greater, reductions in selected fossil fuel and commercial nuclear power program accounts.
    We believe that a shift in federal funding from mature and/or polluting technologies to cleaner, safer, and sustainable energy sources offers the best option for curbing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing oil imports, and addressing the nation's other pressing energy and deficit-reduction needs within the constraints of a very tight federal budget.
    Our specific recommendations include the following:

• Fund all core DOE renewable energy and energy efficiency programs at no less than the FY'06 appropriated levels unless otherwise indicated below;
•  Restore the DOE geothermal research program to at least its historic level of $27.5 million;
• Restore the DOE advanced and incremental hydropower research program to at least its historic level of $5.0 million;
• Restore and maintain policy, research, development and demonstration funding for the DOE Distributed Energy program at the FY'06 level of $60 million;
• Fund the DOE State Energy Program at the at the U.S. Senate FY'07 level of $49.5 million;
• Fund the DOE Buildings Technologies program at the U.S. Senate FY'07 level of $95.3 million; and
• Fund the DOE Solar Energy Technologies Program at the House and Senate FY'07 level of $148 million.

    We further recommend that these proposed budget figures be viewed as the starting point for higher funding levels in the FY'08 budget for DOE's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
    Some DOE programs have been identified by non-partisan groups as wasteful and unjustified federal expenditures. We believe these can be cut to more than offset the very modest increases in the sustainable energy accounts we are proposing as well as to reduce the size of the federal budget deficit. These programs include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

    Nuclear Power R&D:

• Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (FY'06 budget was $60 million)
• Nuclear Power 2010 (FY'06 budget was $66 million)
• Generation IV (FY'06 budget was $55 million)
• Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative (FY'06 budget was $25 million)

    Fossil Fuel R&D:

• Clean Coal Initiative (FY'06 budget was $50 million)
• FutureGen program (FY'06 budget was $18 million)
• Oil Technology Research and Development Program (FY'06 budget was $65 million)
• Ultra-deepwater Drilling Research and Development Fund (FY'06 budget was $50 million)

    Finally, it is important that Congress include clear language restricting the DOE's ability to reprogram funds in a manner that would thwart Congress' intent.
    Enclosed with this letter is some supplementary information providing a bit more detail on each of these recommendations.
    We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these recommendations with you in greater detail and we appreciate your consideration of these views.

    Sincerely,

Jennifer Schafer, President
Cascade Associates, Washington, DC
Carol Werner, Executive Director
Environmental & Energy Study Institute, Washington, DC
Karl Gawell, Executive Director
Geothermal Energy Association, Washington, DC
Michael Mariotte, Executive Director
Nuclear Information & Resource Service, Takoma Park, MD
Michele Boyd, Legislative Director
Public Citizen - Energy Program, Washington, DC
Ken Bossong, Executive Director
SUN DAY Campaign, Takoma Park, MD
Paul Bautista, Interim Executive Director (tentative)
U.S. Combined Heat & Power Association Bethesda, MD

US$15bn Plan for Natural Gas, Coal
and Nuclear Hydrogen Power Generation Projects
Engineer Live     November 17, 2006
In an effort to further develop this technology, BP and GE have announced that they are to collaborate on power, carbon capture and sequestration technologies.

Who needs terrorists? We've got Republicans!
DOMENICI'S
DIRTY BOMB
REPUBLICANS SNEAK DISPERSION OF
 NUCLEAR MATERIAL ACROSS AMERICA

Stop a Blank Check for High-Level Radioactive Waste Transport and Storage in Your State! 
Nuclear Information & Resource Service  Oct 21, 2006

Urge your elected officials to stop H.R. 5427 – the U.S. Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2007 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill – dead in its tracks!

    U.S. Senator Pete Domenici wants to give the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) the authority to open one or more “interim” storage sites for high-level radioactive waste in the 31 states with operating reactors and the 3 states with shut down reactors. DOE’s authority could arbitrarily override the wishes of state officials. The opening of such dumps would not improve the safety or security of the waste, and would initiate unprecedented numbers of waste shipments on the roads, rails, and waterways that would be vulnerable to accidents or attacks. This dangerous scheme must be stopped.
    Domenici’s bill could be taken up during the Congressional lame-duck session scheduled for after this Fall’s elections. Thus, newly-elected Congressmembers won’t have the opportunity to vote on it. While you should also contact candidates and try to inject this issue into the campaigns, it’s important to contact your current elected officials as well.

Contact information for elected officials:
Find your State Governor’s contact information
Find your State Attorney General’s contact information

    Contact your U.S. Senators and Representative via the U.S. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121, or find additional contact information at http://www.house.gov/ and
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.
    Urge them to contact Sen. Domenici, the sponsor of this bill. The Governors of CT, ME, NH, and VT, as well as the Northeast Coalition of Governors, already have. So have: 10 State Attorneys General (CA, CT, IL, ME, MN, NH, NJ, NY, VT, WI), IL’s U.S. Senators; the National Conference of State Legislatures; the National Association of Counties; the National League of Cities; and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
    If your elected official has already expressed their opposition to Sen. Domenici, thank them! If not, urge them to do all they can to oppose H.R. 5427 and its undermining of states’ authority to protect the health, safety, and environment of their citizens against the risks of high-level radioactive waste. Urge them to act quickly, as final decisions on this bill will likely be made, behind closed doors, as early as mid November.
    To send a message via the internet to your elected officials on this issue, also see Public Citizen’s web-form
    As an alternative to this dangerous proposal, consider adding your group to the national coalition calling for safety and security upgrades for radioactive waste stored on-site at nuclear power plants.
    See the “Principles for Safeguarding Nuclear Waste at Reactors”
and send your name, title, group name, and full contact information to mboyd@citizen.org in order to sign onto the letter. Note that over 100 diverse national (including NIRS), regional, and local grassroots groups have already signed onto these Principles.

Background:   U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (Republican, New Mexico), powerful chairman of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Energy and Water Development, has proposed creating “consolidation and preparation” (CAP) facilities – centralized “interim” storage sites – for commercial high-level radioactive waste in every state with nuclear reactors.
    Despite the agency’s abysmal radioactive waste management record, Sen. Domenici would grant the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) final say over the location of such “interim” storage sites – thus the ability to override Governors, State Legislatures, State Attorneys General, as well as county and local governments. And if a state refuses to name one or more CAP facilities, Sen. Domenici’s bill would allow DOE to build a regional “parking lot” dump for high-level radioactive wastes from multiple states in that “un-cooperative” state.
    The opening of CAP facilities would happen in a frighteningly short three and a half year long “streamlined” period. The license would be for 25 years of “interim” storage (if 25 years can be called “temporary”!), although waste could – and almost certainly would -- remain at CAP facilities for significantly longer than that. DOE has admitted its proposed national repository for high-level waste – targeted at Yucca Mountain, Nevada -- won’t open for another 11 years, till 2017, at the earliest. Sen. Domenici himself has admitted it would take an additional 30 years, or more, to transport wastes to Yucca.
    Even after those 41+ years, Yucca would not be able to accommodate all the waste generated by that point in the U.S., meaning that the excess waste would remain stuck back at the reactor sites. In fact, any waste generated after 2010 – just three years from now – will be excess to Yucca’s legal capacity limit.
    This half-baked scheme could very well result in helter-skelter “Mobile Chernobyl” waste shipments through numerous states, for no good reason whatsoever. High-level radioactive waste could be rushed onto the roads, rails, and waterways across America, bound for hastily built “overflow parking lot dumps” from which it would have to be moved again someday, doubling transport risks. Transporting radioactive waste is the stage in the nuclear fuel chain that is most vulnerable to accidents and attacks. Each shipping container would hold 40 to 240 times the long-lasting radioactivity released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. This is nothing to rush into!
    To see how close such road and rail shipment routes could come to you, go to http://www.ewg.org/reports/nuclearwaste/find_address.php  and type in your address to find out. Proposed barge shipment routes on the bays, rivers, lakes, and coastlines of America  (look for the links under the year 2004 listing).
    Sen. Domenici’s dangerous scheme, just like the scientifically indefensible Yucca Mountain dump proposal, is merely an attempt to create the “illusion of a solution” (as Michael Keegan of Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes has put it) to the radioactive waste problem, in order to justify license extensions at old reactors and to build new reactors for the first time in over 30 years.
    For a detailed analysis of H.R. 5427 prepared by Michele Boyd at Public Citizen, go to Summary of Nuclear Waste Storage Provision in the FY2007 Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill (Sec. 313 of H.R. 5427)  Public Citizen also has an easy way to write your elected officials on these issues.
    For copies of the letters from elected officials that have already been sent to Sen. Domenici in opposition to this proposal, contact me and I’d be happy to email it to you.
    We’ve stopped similar dangerous proposals time and time again for many years, and we can do it again now! For example, the “Private Fuel Storage” dump targeted at the Skull Valley Goshutes Indian Reservation in Utah – another supposedly “interim” storage site proposal – was likely killed after a bitter ten year struggle in early September. This was a tremendous environmental justice victory. Read more about it at http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/scullvalley/svnews090706.htm. Of course, we’ve also successfully stopped “interim” storage near Yucca Mountain at the Nevada Test Site for over a decade – another battle that is heating back up again… Thanks!

Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Waste Specialist
     Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS)
     6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340
     Takoma Park, Maryland 20912
     301.270.6477x14      kevin@nirs.org      www.nirs.org

According to Open Secrets, George W. Bush got more money from the nuclear energy industry in 2000 than any other federal candidate. In the 2002 election cycle, "the nuclear power industry [gave] $8.7 million to federal candidates and committees."
Seventy percent went to the GOP.
Bush's Nuclear Madness
Joshua Holland   Peninsula Peace and Justice Center  April 2, 2006

• Nuclear Waste Debate
  Ben Lando     UPI     September 15, 2006
• Domenici Honored by French for Nuclear Work
  Andy Lenderman     The New Mexican    December 13, 2005
• From Senate Job to Nuclear Lobbyist — Twice
  Mike Stuckey     MSNBC     March 22, 2006
• Buying Support for Yucca Mountain
  Las Vegas Review-Journal (NV)    September 25, 2006
• List of U.S. Nuclear Plants and Operators
  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
• Senator Domenici's Funding Sources
  Center for Responsive Politics     2002 Race: New Mexico Senate
• 365 Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Power     Greenpeace
• About Face: The Role of the Arms Lobby In the Bush Administration's Radical Reversal of Two Decades of U.S. Nuclear Policy - A World Policy Institute Special Report
  William D. Hartung and Jonathan Reingold   May 2002

NUCLEAR OR RENEWABLES?  YOU DECIDE.
AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION PREPARES TO LAUNCH
1000 NEW NUCLEAR POWERPLANTS ACROSS AMERICA,
THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF CHERNOBYL DROPS A  BOMB

"You need to understand the real causes of the disaster in order to know in what direction you should develop alternative sources of energy. In this sense, Chernobyl has not taught anything to anyone... (It's) not just us: the Americans, the French, the English, the Japanese, are all hiding the real causes of accidents at their own nuclear power stations." -- Viktor Bryukhanov

Chernobyl Boss: "True Cause of Disaster Was Hidden"
Christian Lowe     Reuters     April 25, 2006

• Ukraine Remembers Chernobyl
  Tom Warner    Financial Times (UK)    April 25, 2006
  ...an anti-nuclear forum put on by environmentalist groups, speakers claimed the risk of future disasters was growing as memories of Chernobyl faded and governments returned to nuclear power. “There is everything to fight for and everything to lose,” Antony Froggat, an anti-nuclear campaigner, declared at the environmentalist conference. With most of the world’s power-generation infrastructure ageing and governments under pressure from the Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse gases, he said “the next 10 years will be a unique period of investment that will set in place trends in the power industry for generations”.

• Hospital Number Six: A First-Hand Report
  "This could happen to us."   
  Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists   Aug/Sept 1986

• How Radiation Victims Suffer 
  Herbert L. Abrams   Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists   Aug/Sept 1986

• Estimating Long-Term Health Effects
  F. von Hippel & T. Cochran    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists  Aug/Sept 1986

• What Happened at Reactor Four
  Gordon Thompson    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists   Aug/Sept 1986

• Nuclear Deception: Soviet Information
  Erik P. Hoffmann    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists    Aug/Sept 1986

• A Chronology of Soviet Media Coverage
  Alexander Amerisov    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists    Aug/Sept 1986

• Nuclear Deception: the U.S. Record
  Barton J. Bernstein  Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists    Aug/Sept 1986

• Chernobvl: Worst but Not First
  Walter C. Patterson    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists    Aug/Sept 1986

• The International Response
  David A.V. Fischer    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists    Aug/Sept 1986

• Armand Hammer’s Unique Diplomacy
  Steve Weinberg    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists    Aug/Sept 1986

• The U.S. Media’s Slant
  W. Dorman and D. Hirsch    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists   Aug/Sept 1986

• A Nuclear Power Advocate Reflects on Chernobyl
  Alvin M. Weinberg    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists   Aug/Sept 1986

  RELEASED
THE DIFFICULT TRUTH ABOUT THE CHERNOBYL CATASTROPHE:
THE WORST EFFECTS
ARE STILL TO COME
Greenpeace 2006

    For millions of inhabitants of the planet the explosion of the fourth block of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant on the 26th of April 1986 divided their life into two parts: pre and post Chernobyl. All mixed into the word “Chernobyl” are technocratic adventurism and the heroism of liquidators, human solidarity and the cowardice of

Whether we like it or not there is a nuclear revival going on. We prefer to call it a relapse. From Poland to Italy, from Vietnam to Chili, more and more countries are talking nuke-speak again. We are about to be thrown back 30 years in development and experience. Not only is this bad because it will increase the danger of proliferation, the amount of radioactive waste, the number of accidents et cetera, it will also take so many resources, energy, attention and disrupt social stability in many places. This all will in itself block further development of a true clean and safe energy future.
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Washington, D.C.

Radioactive Waste Project Fact Sheets

• New! Reprocessing is NOT the Solution to the Nuclear Waste Problem. January, 2006.
• A Mountain of Waste 60 Years High; NIRS brochure on the burgeoning radioactive waste problem. (1.30 Mb, )
• Radioactive Waste Reprocessing. NIRS factsheet. May 2005.
• Asheville: Crossroads of the Nuclear Heartland
• NIRS factsheets on barge shipments of deadly high-level radioactive waste on waterways by state (September 28, 2004):
  • MD - Chesapeake Bay
  • VA - James River
  • DE - Delaware Bay
  • NJ, NY, CT - Waters Surrounding New York City
  • MA - Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts Bay, and Boston Harbor
  • IL, MI, WI - Lake Michigan
  • LA, MS - Mississippi River
  • TN, AL - Tennessee River
  • NE, KS, MO - Missouri River
  • CA - California Coast
  • FL - Florida’s Atlantic Coastline
• The Top Ten Points on Yucca Mountain, presented by Linda Gunter to nuclear dump opponents at the protests against the dump targeted at Scanzano Jonico, Italy in December, 2003
• The Science and Politics of the Proposed High-Level Radioactive Waste Dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA, translated into Italian and presented to Italian radioactive waste dump opponents by Linda Gunter during the Scanzano Jonico protests in December, 2003. November 28, 2003
• Fact Sheets (prepared by NIRS and Public Citizen):
  • Get the Facts on Nuclear Waste Transportation
  • Get the Facts on Property Values and Nuclear Waste Transportation
  • Get the Facts about Yucca Mountain, Nevada and Nuclear Waste
  • Get the Facts on High-Level Radioactive Waste
  • Are Your Emergency Responders Prepared for a Nuclear Waste Accident?
• Fact sheet handed to U.S. Senators as they walked through the U.S. Capitol lobby on their way to vote urging them to sustain the State of Nevada’s veto of the high-level radioactive waste dump targeted at Yucca Mountain, July 9, 2002
• Hot Cargo: Radioactive Waste Transportation. June 2002
• When It Comes To Atomic Waste Transportation, We All Live In Nevada. March 4, 2002
• Radioactive Waste "Recycling". March 2001
• Environmental Racism, Tribal Sovereignty and Nuclear Waste. February 2001
• Why We Call It "Mobile Chernobyl". January 2000
• Why Yucca Mountain Will Leak. January 2000
• Radioactive Waste Transport: The German Experience. May 1999
• Atomic Train: The Truth is Out There... May 1999
• Oppose S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999, September 1999
• Radioactive Contamination of the Drinking water supply beneath Yucca Mountain that Would Happen if High-Level Radioactive Waste is Buried There, November, 1998
• An Independent Commission To Re-evaluate Radioactive Waste Policy. June 1997
• High Level Radioactive Waste. June 1997
• An Independent Commission to Re-evaluate Radioactive Waste Policy, April 1995
• "Low-Level" Radioactive Waste. March 1992

Reactor Watchdog Project Fact Sheets

• Best of Nuclear Boondoggles. May 20, 2005.
• Chernobyl Can Happen Here. NIRS factsheet prepared for 19th anniversary of Chernobyl nuclear accident. April 26, 2005
• Nuclear waste storage casks at reactor sites demonstrated to be vulnerable to terrorist attack. February 2005
• NIRS Fact Sheet focused on how natural phenomenon (tornadoes, floods, etc.) can play a role in the risks from nuclear power. November 2004
• All nuclear reactors emit radiation on a routine basis, endangering the health of people and the environment. The pamphlets below, in printable pdf format, describe these releases and include maps of specific regions of the country:
  • National (, 2,64 Mb)
  • Chesapeake Bay (, 162 Kb)
  • Northeast (,163 Kb)
  • Great Lakes (, 173 Kb)
  • Mississippi River (, 194 Kb)
  • Southeast (, 174 Kb)
  • Western (, 161 Kb)
• Know Your Risks, Know Your Rights. A brochure for nuclear industry workers.May, 2006 (, 306 Kb)
• Cracking at South Texas Nuclear Station Jolts Entire Industry, July 2003
• Price-Anderson Act: Unnecessary & Irresponsible, October 2001
• Price-Anderson and the Commercial Nuclear Industry, April, 2001
• Pebble Bed Modular Reactors, March 2001
• British Energy, Amergen, and U.S. Nuclear Safety, September 25, 1999
• Calvert Cliffs and Atomic Reactor License Renewal
• What does the IRS have to do with decommissioning? A new tax bailout for nukes, July 1999
• Basic Info on MOX Fuel
• MOX and Nuclear Reactors
• MOX and Plutonium Fuel Fabrication
• Nuclear Power Plant Fuel--Source of Plutonium for Weapons?
• MOX and Plutonium Proliferation
• Nuclear Power Plant Fuel--a source of Plutonium for Weapons?, July 1996
• Pressurized Water Reactors, March 1996
• Boiling Water Reactors, March 1996

Nukes and Climate Change Fact Sheets

• Nuclear Power and Climate: Why Nukes Can't Save the Planet. NIRS factsheet. June 2006.
• Ten Reasons Why We Don’t Need To Build More Nuclear Power Plants. May 2005.
• Nuclear Power Can't Stop Climate Change (, 47Kb)- August 06, 2004
• Hydrogen Production and Nuclear Power - April, 2003
• Nuclear Power and Global Warming (from Friends of the Earth Scotland), January 1998
• Nuclear Power and "Clean Development Mechanisms"

Nuclear Power Relapse Fact Sheets

• Why New Nukes are Risky. Coalition briefing paper on the economic risks of nuclear power, presented to Wall Street analysts. July 8, 2006
• Nuclear Power: The Next De-Generation. Nuclear provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. September 2005
• Dr. Strangelove Rides Again: Nuclear Power Permeates Bush’s 2006 DOE Budget, February 2005
• Nuclear Production Tax Credits and the Energy Bill, February 2004
• S. 2095 (energy bill) fact sheet, 2003
• Fact Sheet on Domenici nuclear resurgence bill (S 472), 2001

Lousiana Energy Services

• Louisiana Energy Services and Uranium Enrichment, September, 2002

Radiation Fact Sheets

• Are Federal Permissible Standards for Tritium Too Permissive? New NIRS fact sheet. July, 2006
• No such thing as a safe dose of radiation, June 2006
• Radiation: the Myth of the Millirem, November 2003. (.pdf version here )
• Radiation Basics, August 1999
• What You Should Know About Potassium Iodide (KI) and Atomic Fallout, March, 2002
• It Doesn't Take An Accident: Routine Radiation Releases.

Environmental Justice Fact Sheets

• Environmental Racism, Tribal Sovereignty and Nuclear Waste, February 2001