Congress John Hall just wrapped up a live chat over on the Fire Dog Lake blog, and not surprisingly, side stepped giving real answer to questions about his officially DEAD ISA bill for Indian Point, as well as a pointed question regarding the lack of any real security at nuclear power plants. He also did not want to discuss 15-20 million illegal aliens who are depressing our wages. I'd challenge Congressman John Hall to post and article here, so that our 20,000 plus unique visitors/readers could know just where he stands on these two very important issues.Transcript of one of questions:
royce penstinger says:
April 28th, 2007 at 11:46 am
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/04/28/blue-america-rep-john-hall-returns-to-fdl/#comment-656608
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/04/28/blue-america-rep-john-hall-returns-to-fdl/#comment-656600
The joys of one finger typing…lets try this again corrected:
Why have you not admitted that your legislation to get and ISA for Indian Point is all but DEAD ON ARRIVAL, so that concerned citizens can move on and look for strategies that might work? Your bill is floundering in committee, but even if you pulled out a miracle (highly doubtful), and got a bill passed through both the House and Senate, George Bush (father of the Nuclear 2010 plan) would veto it, and you do not have the votes to over ride it. Isn’t honesty with the voters better than giving them false hope?? Further, why did you support an Energy budget that gave over $800 million to the NRC…are you now in favor of their plans to site 200 new nuclear reactors in America?
Sherwood, I’m sorry you’re so pessimistic about even the PR advantages of passing the ISA legislation through at least one house of Congress. The governor endorsed it yesterday, and both our Senators have co-sponsored it. At least it is raising consciousness, and it may actually become law if the President considers it on national security grounds. Meanwhile, I’m working on other approaches.
Not a question of being pessimistic, but realistic. Most people are BANKING on an ISA that will not work.
Meanwhile, have you looked at the GAO study on power plant security, wherein it is stated that plants instead of being able to repel a terrorist attack are only prepared to pass the force on force tests? Where to you stand on the severely weaken DBT (Defense Basis Threat Document) wherein the NRC removed EVERY WEAPON that the NEI claimed was to expensive to defend against, including shoulder launched grenades, and armor piercing bullets…both of which make almost all nuclear reactor site security measure worthless, as bullet resistant glass will not stand up against either. Are you going to hold Congressional Hearings on this?
April 28th, 2007 at 11:46 am
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/04/28/blue-america-rep-john-hall-returns-to-fdl/#comment-656608
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/04/28/blue-america-rep-john-hall-returns-to-fdl/#comment-656600
The joys of one finger typing…lets try this again corrected:
Why have you not admitted that your legislation to get and ISA for Indian Point is all but DEAD ON ARRIVAL, so that concerned citizens can move on and look for strategies that might work? Your bill is floundering in committee, but even if you pulled out a miracle (highly doubtful), and got a bill passed through both the House and Senate, George Bush (father of the Nuclear 2010 plan) would veto it, and you do not have the votes to over ride it. Isn’t honesty with the voters better than giving them false hope?? Further, why did you support an Energy budget that gave over $800 million to the NRC…are you now in favor of their plans to site 200 new nuclear reactors in America?
Sherwood, I’m sorry you’re so pessimistic about even the PR advantages of passing the ISA legislation through at least one house of Congress. The governor endorsed it yesterday, and both our Senators have co-sponsored it. At least it is raising consciousness, and it may actually become law if the President considers it on national security grounds. Meanwhile, I’m working on other approaches.
Not a question of being pessimistic, but realistic. Most people are BANKING on an ISA that will not work.
Meanwhile, have you looked at the GAO study on power plant security, wherein it is stated that plants instead of being able to repel a terrorist attack are only prepared to pass the force on force tests? Where to you stand on the severely weaken DBT (Defense Basis Threat Document) wherein the NRC removed EVERY WEAPON that the NEI claimed was to expensive to defend against, including shoulder launched grenades, and armor piercing bullets…both of which make almost all nuclear reactor site security measure worthless, as bullet resistant glass will not stand up against either. Are you going to hold Congressional Hearings on this?
Huge anti-nuke demo was 30 years ago this week
By David Tirrell-Wysocki, Associated Press Writer April 28, 2007
CONCORD, N.H. --Thirty years ago this week, hundreds of anti-nuclear demonstrators trekked down a dusty road and set up camp next to piles of construction material destined to become the Seabrook nuclear power plant.
Police dragged or carried away 1,414 protesters on May 1, 1977, ending the skirmish, but galvanizing a national anti-nuclear movement that moved from Seabrook's marshes to national money markets to effectively halt orders for new plants in the United States.
Fast forward to today.
With energy prices skyrocketing, global warming, and calls for cleaner energy abounding, the nuclear industry is optimistic about a resurgence. And the anti-nuclear movement, including organizers of the Seabrook protests, is gearing up to respond.
Paul Gunter, who has made opposing nuclear power his career, is one.
"To ante up for another generation of nuclear power would be a collossal mistake that would really trivialize the Seabrook debacle," he said. "Because right now we have maybe 10 to 20 years to make some very critical energy policy decisions that affect global climate."
Seabrook was proposed as a twin-reactor plant in 1972, at an estimated cost of $973 million. When it finally won a commercial license in March 1990, it was a single reactor and cost $6.5 billion.
Protests started early. The first person arrested at the future construction site was Ron Rieck, who spent 36 cold hours atop a weather observation tower in January 1976. Later that year, 18 people were arrested, then 180. Then came April 1977.
Arnie Alpert was an environmental science major at Wesleyan University in Connecticut when he learned of planned protests at Seabrook. After training in nonviolent resistance, he organized two busloads of students to travel to Seabrook.
They became part of the Clamshell Alliance, an umbrella group that organized into small "affinity groups" for training, decision-making and support. On April 30, they approached the plant property from all directions, even through the ocean swamps.
Gov. Meldrim Thomson said the demonstrations were "a front for terrorist activity" and organized a small army of National Guardsmen and police from around New England to respond.
"If I thought about it at all, it was a joke," Alpert said in a recent interview. "We knew we were not a group of terrorists. We knew we were a group of people passionately committed to nonviolence."
The group walked onto the site, unopposed, and immediately began setting up camp, digging latrines, having meetings and celebrating.
"I was surprised we got onto the site at all," Alpert said.
The next day, a Sunday, Thomson ordered the protesters to leave to avoid confrontations with construction workers due back Monday.
Those who didn't leave -- 1,414 strong -- were arrested on trespassing charges and held for more than two weeks in National Guard armories around the state. The protest attracted worldwide attention and sent ripples far beyond Seabrook.
"The Seabrook demonstration touched off a grassroots, nonviolent insurgency against nuclear power that led to the creation of similar alliances around the country," said Alpert. And he said the tactics and training spread to other causes, including peace and gay rights.
Now, some former Clamshell members find themselves focusing anew on nuclear power.
Spurred by skyrocketing energy prices, global warming, and calls for cleaner energy, the industry is making a comeback. New federal laws have streamlined permitting and construction and removed much of the financial risk, and the Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute says construction could start on multiple plants by around 2010.
At Seabrook, spokesman Alan Griffith recalls being in high school during the first anti-Seabrook demonstrations, then covering protests as a reporter and editor.
He said streamlining licensing would have helped Seabrook, which was ready to run in 1986, but not fully licensed for four more years.
"I get paid to say this stuff, but I truly believe as a person that this country must have more nuclear power plants for reasons that have become crystal clear over time," Griffith said.
"It is the only major source of electricity that is able to generate electricity cleanly, with no greenhouse gas emissions," he said. "The anti's have a different perspective on that, but that is one of the main reasons of the resurgence."
But Gunter, director of the Reactor Watchdog Project at the anti-nuclear Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said there is no room for nuclear, period.
"Our position is that they should have never built any of these in the first place," he said. "We went to jail to stop that. People should realize that we were right -- and here we are 30 years after that demonstration and 50 years after the initiation of nuclear power and they still don't know what to do with the first cupful of nuclear waste."
With no national repository, nuclear waste is being stored at nuclear plants, as "pre-deployed weapons of mass destruction," Gunter said.
Griffith responds that whether a repository is built or not, nuclear plants "have the ability to safely and securely store their waste."
And so the debate goes. Each argument has 180-degree opposite answers, including on questions of safety.
Gunter and Alpert, state program director for the American Friends Service Committee, maintain that much more energy could be saved and created if nuclear subsidies went instead to more efficient appliances, increased conservation and renewable sources.
John H. Sununu, former governor, engineer and sometime nuclear industry consultant, couldn't disagree more. He said the long nuclear hiatus squandered an opportunity to provide clean energy much earlier, and it's time to acknowledge it was a mistake.
"I hope it lays the foundation for a much better response by the nation as the second round of opportunity of getting away from coal and oil and natural gas occurs," he said.
By David Tirrell-Wysocki, Associated Press Writer April 28, 2007
CONCORD, N.H. --Thirty years ago this week, hundreds of anti-nuclear demonstrators trekked down a dusty road and set up camp next to piles of construction material destined to become the Seabrook nuclear power plant.
Police dragged or carried away 1,414 protesters on May 1, 1977, ending the skirmish, but galvanizing a national anti-nuclear movement that moved from Seabrook's marshes to national money markets to effectively halt orders for new plants in the United States.
Fast forward to today.
With energy prices skyrocketing, global warming, and calls for cleaner energy abounding, the nuclear industry is optimistic about a resurgence. And the anti-nuclear movement, including organizers of the Seabrook protests, is gearing up to respond.
Paul Gunter, who has made opposing nuclear power his career, is one.
"To ante up for another generation of nuclear power would be a collossal mistake that would really trivialize the Seabrook debacle," he said. "Because right now we have maybe 10 to 20 years to make some very critical energy policy decisions that affect global climate."
Seabrook was proposed as a twin-reactor plant in 1972, at an estimated cost of $973 million. When it finally won a commercial license in March 1990, it was a single reactor and cost $6.5 billion.
Protests started early. The first person arrested at the future construction site was Ron Rieck, who spent 36 cold hours atop a weather observation tower in January 1976. Later that year, 18 people were arrested, then 180. Then came April 1977.
Arnie Alpert was an environmental science major at Wesleyan University in Connecticut when he learned of planned protests at Seabrook. After training in nonviolent resistance, he organized two busloads of students to travel to Seabrook.
They became part of the Clamshell Alliance, an umbrella group that organized into small "affinity groups" for training, decision-making and support. On April 30, they approached the plant property from all directions, even through the ocean swamps.
Gov. Meldrim Thomson said the demonstrations were "a front for terrorist activity" and organized a small army of National Guardsmen and police from around New England to respond.
"If I thought about it at all, it was a joke," Alpert said in a recent interview. "We knew we were not a group of terrorists. We knew we were a group of people passionately committed to nonviolence."
The group walked onto the site, unopposed, and immediately began setting up camp, digging latrines, having meetings and celebrating.
"I was surprised we got onto the site at all," Alpert said.
The next day, a Sunday, Thomson ordered the protesters to leave to avoid confrontations with construction workers due back Monday.
Those who didn't leave -- 1,414 strong -- were arrested on trespassing charges and held for more than two weeks in National Guard armories around the state. The protest attracted worldwide attention and sent ripples far beyond Seabrook.
"The Seabrook demonstration touched off a grassroots, nonviolent insurgency against nuclear power that led to the creation of similar alliances around the country," said Alpert. And he said the tactics and training spread to other causes, including peace and gay rights.
Now, some former Clamshell members find themselves focusing anew on nuclear power.
Spurred by skyrocketing energy prices, global warming, and calls for cleaner energy, the industry is making a comeback. New federal laws have streamlined permitting and construction and removed much of the financial risk, and the Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute says construction could start on multiple plants by around 2010.
At Seabrook, spokesman Alan Griffith recalls being in high school during the first anti-Seabrook demonstrations, then covering protests as a reporter and editor.
He said streamlining licensing would have helped Seabrook, which was ready to run in 1986, but not fully licensed for four more years.
"I get paid to say this stuff, but I truly believe as a person that this country must have more nuclear power plants for reasons that have become crystal clear over time," Griffith said.
"It is the only major source of electricity that is able to generate electricity cleanly, with no greenhouse gas emissions," he said. "The anti's have a different perspective on that, but that is one of the main reasons of the resurgence."
But Gunter, director of the Reactor Watchdog Project at the anti-nuclear Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said there is no room for nuclear, period.
"Our position is that they should have never built any of these in the first place," he said. "We went to jail to stop that. People should realize that we were right -- and here we are 30 years after that demonstration and 50 years after the initiation of nuclear power and they still don't know what to do with the first cupful of nuclear waste."
With no national repository, nuclear waste is being stored at nuclear plants, as "pre-deployed weapons of mass destruction," Gunter said.
Griffith responds that whether a repository is built or not, nuclear plants "have the ability to safely and securely store their waste."
And so the debate goes. Each argument has 180-degree opposite answers, including on questions of safety.
Gunter and Alpert, state program director for the American Friends Service Committee, maintain that much more energy could be saved and created if nuclear subsidies went instead to more efficient appliances, increased conservation and renewable sources.
John H. Sununu, former governor, engineer and sometime nuclear industry consultant, couldn't disagree more. He said the long nuclear hiatus squandered an opportunity to provide clean energy much earlier, and it's time to acknowledge it was a mistake.
"I hope it lays the foundation for a much better response by the nation as the second round of opportunity of getting away from coal and oil and natural gas occurs," he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment