Saturday, May 19, 2007

Indian Point Leaks Too Small For Harm...So, A Gun Is Just A Hunk of Metal Till You Pull Trigger.

In a news article, we are being told/chastised by Indian Point and their parents, Entergy and the NRC that the tritium leaks at the plant are too small to cause harm. Small leaks have this habit of becoming LARGE LEAKS, especially when the neanderthals from Entergy are incapable and/or unwilling to FIND AND REPAIR them. Their assurances ring false, and the analogy in the title of this article rings true...Why not get Steets too point a gun at your face, and state, "don't worry, it's just a hunk of metal unless I pull the trigger."

If, as Entergy, NRC and the NEI would have us believe, nuclear reactors are ever so safe, then why is every other agency of our Federal Government spending billions of dollars preparing for the aftermath of a significant nuclear incident, and/or a terrorist attack on a nuclear reactor site. The two realities do not mesh, and we are being lied can decide which version of the truth is real.

Indian Point report: Radioactive leaks too small for harm


(Original publication: May 19, 2007)
BUCHANAN - Radioactive contamination leaking from the Indian Point nuclear power plants into the Hudson River has not significantly increased radiation exposure to the public, according to a new report from the plants' owner.

The federally mandated annual report found small amounts of dangerous radioactive materials in the groundwater path leading to the river.

Radioactive contamination was discovered leaking underground from Indian Point in 2005 and last month was found in the plants' sewage. Federal officials have said the leaks were being addressed and posed no threat to the public.

The April 25 report from Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the company that owns and operates the plants, estimates that the maximum potential radiation dose from the leaks is a tiny fraction of the federal 3-millirem limit for annual total-body exposure to an adult through liquids.

Federal authorities estimate that a typical American is exposed to 360 millirem of radiation yearly.

Read rest of article here.

Entergy's Unmitigated Gall! They Claim Partial Credit in GEIS For Indian Point License Renewal For Saving America Bald Eagle

Can see the headline in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal now. Entergy and the nuclear industry have saved the American Bald Eagle from extinction. I spent yesterday going through the laborious task of reading the Indian Point Environmental Study attached to their Application for License Renewal. It was/is no surprise they claim no significant impacts would occur as a result of relicensing. Easy to do when you don't have to address leaks, spent fuel, a terrorist attack, or a non working Evacuation Plan.

However, even I was surprised at the unmitigated GALL of Entergy when I came across a passage in their report on endangered species. They posture for the readers, that one possible reason for the Bald Eagles come back, is the OPEN SPACE provide in this area because of Indian Points nuclear reactors. If we did not know it before, it is official now...Entergy has no shame.

Meanwhile, some of us need to file formal complaints with certain agencies regarding Indian Points killing of Short Sturgeons that are brutally sucked into the killing machines that are their water intake system. While we are at it, it is pointed out that Entergy claims not to have seen any other endangered species on their land, but nor do they admit to ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR THEM.

Friday, May 18, 2007

A**Holes Penn & Teller Even Bigger A**Holes Than Previously Thought!


Season 5, Episode 9: Nukes, Hybrids and Lesbians

Penn and Teller take on nuclear power, hybrid cars, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and lesbians on a blind date, all within the same episode. We discover the bullshit behind keeping nuclear power down, the waste left behind by hybrid cars and the garbage clouding decisions to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Plus, two lesbians on a blind date road trip put their newfound relationship and a hybrid car to the test.

Watch preview trailer:

SCHEDULE: Click on the "remind me" link below if you would like an email reminder to watch. All times ET/PT.

Nukes, Hybrids and Lesbians 05/18/07 10:30 PM Showtime
Nukes, Hybrids and Lesbians 05/19/07 12:35 AM Showtime
Nukes, Hybrids and Lesbians 05/21/07 12:00 AM Showtime

Clips from show... see how Penn & Teller use two lesbians to dump on the Prius and hype nukes!

Let Penn & Teller know what you think!
Read More about Penn and Teller's ridiculous reporting!

After watching this show, every lesbian in America is going to want to own their own Prius... I suspect Penn & Teller did this to bring attention to the issues, make tongues wag... they'll come out in a few days and say: "Got you, fooled you good!" And if they don't? Same result... They're so over the top with it... it's giving sane opposition to the relicensing of old decrepit nuclear power plants a shot in the arm.

On YouTube someone calling themselves Fluos wrote: "By early 2002, 7 billion US dollars had been spent on the project which has made Yucca Mountain the most studied piece of geology in the world. Total cost is expected to be between 50 and 100 billion dollars. The cost to continue storing nuclear waste at their respective plants though is significantly greater, estimated to be 200 to 400 billion dollars."

What a waste of billions... and think of all the wind "turbines" we could have erected for that kind of cash...

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Nuclear Attack Chaos-This Article Needs Printed in New York Times

I've recieved some rude and threatening emails since starting GNB, most of them following my articles about what a significant nuclear event or terrorist attack at Indian Point would be like in the aftermath. The central theme of those attacks centered around the allegation that I was fear mongering...well, perhaps you should read this very frightening article from the San Francisco Chronicle...anyone living within 50 miles of Indian Points antiquated reactors should make this a must read article.

Contingencies for nuclear terrorist attack
Government working up plan to prevent chaos in wake of bombing of major city
James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, May 11, 2007

As concerns grow that terrorists might attack a major American city with a nuclear bomb, a high-level group of government and military officials has been quietly preparing an emergency survival program that would include the building of bomb shelters, steps to prevent panicked evacuations and the possible suspension of some civil liberties.

Many experts say the likelihood of al Qaeda or some other terrorist group producing a working nuclear weapon with illicitly obtained weapons-grade fuel is not large, but such a strike would be far more lethal, frightening and disruptive than the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Not only could the numbers killed and wounded be far higher, but the explosion could, experts say, ignite widespread fires, shut down most transportation, halt much economic activity and cause a possible disintegration of government order.

The efforts to prepare a detailed blueprint for survival took a step forward last month when senior government and military officials and other experts, organized by a joint Stanford-Harvard program called the Preventive Defense Project, met behind closed doors in Washington for a day-long workshop.

The session, called "The Day After," was premised on the idea that efforts focusing on preventing such a strike were no longer enough, and that the prospect of a collapse of government order was so great if there were an attack that the country needed to begin preparing an emergency program.

One of the participants, retired Vice Adm. Roger Rufe, is a senior official at the Department of Homeland Security who is currently designing the government's nuclear attack response plan.

The organizers of the nonpartisan project, Stanford's William Perry, a secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, and Harvard's Ashton Carter, a senior Defense Department official during the Clinton years, assumed the detonation of a bomb similar in size to the weapon that destroyed Hiroshima in World War II.

Such a weapon, with a force of around 10 to 15 kilotons, is small compared with most Cold War-era warheads, but is roughly the yield of a relatively simple bomb. That would be considerably more powerful and lethal than a so-called dirty bomb, which is a conventional explosive packed with some dangerous radioactive material that would be dispersed by the explosion.

The 41 participants -- including the directors of the country's two nuclear weapons laboratories, Homeland Security officials, a number of top military commanders and former government officials -- discussed how all levels of government ought to respond to protect the country from a second nuclear attack, to limit health problems from the radioactive fallout and to restore civil order. Comments inside the session were confidential, but a number of the participants described their views and the ideas exchanged.

A paper the organizers are writing, summarizing their recommendations, urges local governments and individuals to build underground bomb shelters, much as people did in the early days of the Cold War; encourages authorities who survive to prevent evacuation of at least some of the areas attacked for three days to avoid roadway paralysis and damage from exposure to radioactive fallout; and proposes suspending regulations on radiation exposure so that first responders would be able to act, even if that caused higher cancer rates.

"The public at large will expect that their government had thought through this possibility and to have planned for it," Carter said in an interview. "This kind of an event would be unprecedented. We have had glimpses of something like this with Hiroshima, and glimpses with 9/11 and with Katrina. But those are only glimpses."

Perhaps the most sobering issue discussed was the possibility of a chaotic, long-term crisis triggered by fears that the attackers might have more bombs. Such uncertainty could sow panic nationwide.

"If one bomb goes off, there are likely to be more to follow," Carter said. "This fact, that nuclear terrorism will appear as a syndrome rather than a single episode, has major consequences." It would, he added, require powerful government intervention to force people to do something many may resist -- staying put.

Fred Ikle, a former Defense Department official in the Reagan administration who authored a book last year urging attack preparation, "Annihilation from Within," said that the government should plan how it could restrict civil liberties and enforce a sort of martial law in the aftermath of a nuclear attack, but also have guidelines for how those liberties could be restored later.

That prospect underscored a central divide among participants at the recent meeting, several said.

Some participants argued that the federal government needs to educate first responders and other officials as quickly as possible on how to act even if transportation and communication systems break down, as seems likely, and if the government is unable to issue orders.

"There was a clear consensus that a nuclear bomb detonated in the United States or a friendly country would be an earth-shaking event, and we need to know how we will respond beforehand," said Ikle. "I wish we had started earlier, because this kind of planning can make an important difference."

But others said the meeting made it clear that the results of any attack would be so devastating and the turmoil so difficult to control, if not impossible, that the lesson should have been that the U.S. government needs to place a far greater emphasis on prevention.

"Your cities would empty and people would completely lose confidence in the ability of the government to protect them," said Steve Fetter, dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. "You'd have nothing that resembles our current social order. I'm not sure any preparation can be sufficient to deal with that."

Fetter added, "We have to hold current policymakers more responsible" for taking all out measures to prevent a nuclear attack.

Raymond Jeanloz, a nuclear weapons expert at UC Berkeley and a government adviser on nuclear issues, said that California might be better prepared than most states because of long-standing plans for dealing with earthquakes and other natural disasters. Those plans, he said, could be a useful model for first responders.

He added, as others did, that the dislocation and panic caused by a nuclear strike could make any responses unpredictable.

"The most difficult thing is the fear that this kind of planning, even talking about it, can cause," Jeanloz said.

Michael May, a former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, defended the survival planning, saying that people should get used to the idea that such a crisis, while dire, could be managed -- a key step in restoring calm.

"You have to demystify the nuclear issue," said May, who now teaches at Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation. "By talking about this, you take away the feeling of helplessness."

E-mail James Sterngold at

The Project's Co-Directors are former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy Ashton B. Carter. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John M. Shalikashvili and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall serve as Senior Advisors. Additional contributors to the Project include member of President Clinton's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board Robert J. Hermann and former Deputy Secretary of Defense John P. White. Active on the Project’s track-two initiative with China are Dr. Michael H. Armacost, former Undersecretary of State and U.S. Ambassador to Japan and to the Philippines and Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, former Commander-in-Chief, United States Pacific Command. The Project is pleased that the following experts have agreed to lend their expertise to our North Korea initiative: General John H. Tilelli, Jr., former Commander-in-Chief of the United Nations Command, Republic of Korea/United States Combined Forces Command, and United States Forces Korea; Ambassador Stephen W. Bosworth, Dean of The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and former U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea; and Dr. Kurt Campbell, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

The Preventive Defense Project is a multi-year effort supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Herbert S. Winokur, Jr. Public Policy Fund, the Richard Lounsbery Foundation and private sources. The Preventive Defense Project would also like to acknowledge the generous contributions of the Packard Foundation, the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, and the Compton Foundation, Inc.

Recycling Nuclear Waste Too Dangerous

INSIGHTS: Recycling Nuclear Waste Too Dangerous

(Thanks to Celeste M Johnson for head's up)

By Robert Alvarez
WASHINGTON, DC, May 16, 2007 (ENS) - As a senior energy adviser in the Clinton administration, I recall attending a briefing by the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 on the feasibility of recycling nuclear fuel. I'd been intrigued by the idea because of its promise to reduce the amount of waste that had to be buried, where it could conceivably seep into drinking water at some point in its multimillion-year-long half-lives.

But then came the Academy's unequivocal conclusion - the idea was supremely impractical. It would cost up to $500 billion in 1996 dollars and take 150 years to accomplish the transmutation of dangerous long-lived radioactive toxins.

President George W. Bush and his energy secretary, Samuel Bodman, have recently intensified their lobbying to revive nuclear recycling through a program they call the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP.

As I listened to Bodman describe GNEP as a sweeping panacea ­ to supply virtually limitless energy to emerging economies, to "reduce the number of required ... waste depositories to one for the remainder of this century" and to "enhance energy security, while promoting non-proliferation" ­ I kept waiting, as I did just over a decade ago, for the caveats. But they never came, even though the idea remains as costly and technologically unfeasible as it was in the 1990s.

Between 1993 and 1999, Robert Alvarez served in the Department of Energy as a senior policy advisor to the secretary of energy and deputy assistant secretary for national security and the environment. (Photo courtesy Robert Alvarez)Members of Congress, who will soon vote on the President's request for $405 million for GNEP in fiscal year 2008, should recognize that GNEP has no chance in our lifetimes of brightening the prospects of finding safe ways of nuclear fuel disposal.

In 1982, Congress enacted legislation requiring that nuclear power spent fuel be disposed of in ways that shield humans for at least hundreds of millennia.

But today, a quarter-century later, prospects for long-term disposal are dimmer than ever. The government's nuclear waste disposal program is plagued by scandal, legal setbacks and congressional funding cuts. As a result, the schedule for the proposed Yucca Mountain disposal site in Nevada has slipped by two decades.

Under the President's plan, the United States and its nuclear partners would sell power reactors to developing nations who agree not to pursue technologies that would aid nuclear weapons production, notably reprocessing and uranium enrichment. To sweeten the deal, the United States would take highly radioactive spent fuel rods to a recycling center in this country.

The foreign reactor wastes, along with spent fuel from the U.S. reactor fleet, would be reprocessed to reduce the amount that would go deep underground. Nuclear explosive materials, such as plutonium, would also be separated and converted to less troublesome isotopes in a new generation of reactors.

In short, using the Bush administration's fuzzy nuclear math, more would become less.In fact, however, to reduce the amount of radioactive wastes slated for a deep geological repository, the majority of radioactive byproducts are planned to be stored in shallow burial. The site selected for the GNEP recycling center is likely to become a dump for the largest, lethal source of high-heat radioactivity in the United States and possibly the world.

If placed in a crowded area, a few grams of these wastes would deliver lethal doses in a matter of seconds. Concentrations could be so large that if they were disposed of under current standards in shallow land burial as low-level wastes, shortly after separation they would have to be diluted to a volume as large as 500 million cubic meters, enough to fill 500 Empire State Buildings.

The plan would also threaten water supplies. For instance, it could result in levels of radioactive disposal thousands of times greater than now allowed at DOE's Savannah River site in South Carolina.

The Bush administration lacks (or at least, has yet to disclose) credible plans for addressing any of the unprecedented health, safety and financial risks that GNEP would create. Unless the administration can furnish these details, the public should urge their legislators to zero out GNEP's budget.

We are better off by investing in renewable energy and conservation, rather than pouring billions of dollars into the same old limitless energy schemes of our nuclear laboratories.

{Robert Alvarez is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC. Between 1993 and 1999, he served as a senior policy advisor to the secretary of energy and deputy assistant secretary for national security and the environment.}

Bumper Sticker Idea For Entergy-The Wheels Protest

Anyone know someone willing to print us up some Bumper Stickers? If you are an anti nuclear printer, and would like to contribute some Bumper Stickers, please contact our publisher at

Ossining Chamber of Commerce Siding With Entergy and Their Tritium Leaking Indian Point Reactors?

This just in from a little bird....

Seems that the Ossining Chamber of Commerce is having a one sided presentation on "Where Electricity Comes From" with the primary guest speaker Entergy's own societal misfit, Jim Steets (new nick name is poop drinker). For those not familair with this Indian Point mouth piece and his work, when the news about tritium leaking into Buchanans sewer system went public, he quipped to a reporter, well, if it were not for the other stuff in the sewage, its clean enough to drink. What a guy.

We need some of the folks from our side of the equation to show up at this meeting to present the other side, "Where Energy SHOULD NOT COME FROM", which is failing antiquated reactors that are leaking strontium 90 and tritium into the Hudson River on a daily basis.

Here Are The Meeting Details:

The Ossining Chamber of Commerce is having STEETS at their meeting on Monday. (GNB thinks it would be nice if some of us showed up to PRESENT THE TRUTH.)

It would be good to get some of our folks there.


Chamber Meetings
Who Generates it, who transmits it, who gets paid for it.
Monday, May 21st
representatives from:
Con Edison
Entergy Nuclear
NY Power Authority
All meetings start at 7 p.m. for a 1/2 hour of networking, with the program beginning at 7:30. Meetings are held at the Ossining Community Center at 95 Broadway.

Don DeBar
RG Agency
PO Box 431
1000 N Division St.
Peekskill, NY 10566
tel (914) 739-2700
fax (914) 739-2808

Yet Another Indian Point Alarm FAILURE

As we all know, yesterday saw a typical May thunderstorm whisk through the area with high gusting winds, and sheets of rain. Like the spring rains, another typical Entergy event unfolded yesterday as well. In their usual inept fashion, 26 of the 156 sirens FAILED to go off, requiring Indian Point to notify the NRC...think about it folks, if this had been a real emergency, 1 in 6 of us would not have heard these non-working failed sirens. In a fast moving event at the failing Indian Point Nuclear Reactors, time is everything, and every second, every non working siren is LIFE could be yours, or it could be your child, but someone will die. We need to pull the plug on Indian Point.

"Due to severe weather storms in the area surrounding Indian Point Energy Center, 26 of the 156 emergency sirens have been out of service as of 1655 hours on 5/16/07 due to either loss of local AC power (24 sirens) or communications problem (2 sirens). 15 of the 26 sirens are in Rockland County; the remaining 11 sirens are in Westchester County. Sirens in Orange and Putnam counties were unaffected. Rockland and Westchester Counties have been notified and route alerting is available as an alternate means of public notification. Additionally, a high speed telephone notification system is available for public notification by the counties. Contact of the local utilities has been initiated to request power restoration to the areas associated with the 24 effected sirens; the communication problems with the remaining 2 sirens are under investigation."

The licensee notified the NRC Resident Inspector, New York State Public Service Commission, and Rockland, Westchester, Putnam and Orange counties.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Congressman Hall's strange bed fellow

Now, why is our fiercely anti-nuclear leader, Congressman Jon Hall, on the stage at NoNukes in 1980... on the campaign trail with Bonnie Raitt, a founder of Musicians United for Safe Energy, tirelessly working to shut down Indian Point, suddenly on the fence and in league with Congressman Chris Shays over the reasons for an Independent Safety Assessment, when Congressman Shays is openly pro-nuclear? Isn't that letting the fox in the hen house?

Congressman Christopher Shays

Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007

Congressman Christopher Shays
May 11, 2007

Thank you for contacting me expressing support for closing the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in Buchanan, New York. I appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me, as well as your patience in awaiting my reply.

Although I do not support closing Indian Point, I believe it is imperative we make security for the plant as safe and comprehensive as possible. For this reason, I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 994, which would require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to conduct an Independent Safety Assessment of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant.

You may be interested to know, in the 108th Congress, I joined members of the New York congressional delegation calling on the NRC to temporarily suspend Indian Point operations pending an independent review of the New York and Indian Point emergency preparedness plans.

Although Indian Point operations were not temporarily suspended, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and NRC approved the emergency preparedness plans, I determined a congressional review of nuclear power plant facility security was still needed.

As Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, National Security Subcommittee, I have held several hearings to measure the scope and pace of post-9/11 safeguard improvements in and around reactor sites such as Indian Point.

I held an oversight hearing on April 4, 2006, entitled "Nuclear Security: Has the NRC Strengthened Facility Standards Since 9/11?" in which we asked specifically how the NRC and the nuclear power industry are maintaining readiness against a changing threat.Public safety, public health and the protection of critical infrastructure are all factors that need to be part of the discussion.

At the request of the committee the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted an in-depth examination of the process used by the NRC to update the Design Basus Threat (DBT) standard, the industry response to new security mandates and the rigor of inspections and drills used to test security force readiness.The GAO findings painted a decidedly mixed picture of nuclear power security.

Substantial improvements have been made since September 11, 2001, and since adoption of the new DBT in 2003. Buffer zones have been augmented where possible, barriers have been thickened, detection equipment installed or upgraded. Protective forces have been enlarged and armed with new weapons and smarter strategies.

But, according to the GAO, it may be too early to claim success since fewer than half the 65 NRC-regulated sites have been tested against a live adversary in what are called force-on-force exercises. And those tested did not always perform as well as expected, even in necessarily artificial, fully noticed drills conducted in broad daylight. GAO also found that stronger security standards did not necessarily mean the NRC had sufficiently fortified itself against the dangers of an overly cozy relationship with the industry.

While still drafting the new Design Basis Threat, the Commission solicited outside comments, creating the appearance industry was influencing the threat assessment process with extraneous cost concerns. the regulated should never even appear to be able to dictate security standards to the regulator. But this is more than a question of appearance. Only the rigor and independence of the NRC process guarantee the integrity of the product.

Nevertheless, the Commission continues to resist the GAO recommendation to develop explicit criteria for decisions altering DBT standards.I believe the NRC can do more to prevent potential terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants and will continue to actively monitor them to ensure they do not lower their threat standards. Please do not hesitate to contact my office again. Because mail is delayed by Anthrax screening, e-mails, phone calls, faxes, and in-person visits are the most effective ways to communicate with my office.

I also have a periodic e-newsletter and would be happy to send it to you. To request this e-newsletter, and for other information, please visit my website at

Christopher Shays
Member of Congress

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Demand That Government Gives Us Truth on Human Health and Safety Risks Regarding Indian Point

Picture of DTRA Mobile Sheltering Device For Medical Staff...where is OURS?
The government has its own agenda where nuclear energy is concerned, and from what we can tell, they stand fully ready to DUPE the public in their quest for their own selfish goals...problem is,they are playing Russian Roulette with our safety. Below is a letter we have just sent out too various agencies of our Federal Government, and we recommend those concerned with Indian Points continued operation use it as a model to create inquiry letters of your own.

Dear Dr. James Tegnelia
Major General Ramdal R Castro
DTRA Office of Inspector General
Chairman of NRC
Secretary-Department of Homeland Security (or lack thereof.)
Secretary-Department of Energy
Hugo Teufel III

My name is Sherwood Martinelli, a citizen stakeholder living within three miles of a nuclear facility owned by the commercial enterprise Entergy, and commonly known as Indian Point. It is common knowledge in our area, that in the case of a nuclear incident and/or terrorist attack, that the NRC (as is outlined in various official documents including their fatally flawed DBT) have the following expectations, or lack thereof:

1. In the case of a fast moving event at the nuclear facility, NRC's Sam Collins has admitted that evacuation of citizens would not be workable/possible, and citizens would be sheltered in place. Further, the various governmental agencies charged with Emergency Response have admitted this as well in establishing a new wedge policy wherein only a 2.5 mile pie shaped wedge determined to be MOST AT RISK would be evacuated in a fast moving nuclear event with all others ordered sheltering in place.
2. NRC, and it's licensee would rely heavily on first responders, law enforcement and military aid in dealing with the situation. In the case of Indian Point, the inadequate military base just up route nine, and perhaps West Point would be called into action to provide aid, or in the case of a terrorist attack military support and fire power.

Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, NRC and various agencies at local, state and federal levels have attempted to fabricate a public belief that we are safe from the effects of a radioactive event being sheltered in place, and in fact and deed the NRC has used that very criteria to justify in part their decision not to include evacuation plans, and terrorist attacks on the facility in their decision making process during the license renewal application process for their licensees for the aforementioned Indian Point reactors. They have coupled this reasoning with flawed and biased modeling written by the nuclear licensees lobbyist (NEI)that shows the likelihood of an attack on a nuclear reactor is so small as to be almost mathematically impossible. Assorted information on other government sites categorically refute these false assumptions by the NRC and NEI.

Living in New York, having been down in New York (not at Ground Zero) on Sept 11, 2001 I was/am more than skeptical, and so have done my due diligence in conducting my own investigation/research into matters directly and/or indirectly associated with nuclear incidents, terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities, and evacuation plans, specifically giving careful attention to the now preferred method of protecting human health and safety through sheltering in place during a catastrophic event. No more damning condemnation of the shortcomings of shielding in place could be found than the CDC report that discusses the level of protection for the average citizen who has been ordered to shelter in place. For a citizen sheltered in their stick frame and/or brick home in a concrete basement, the protection level is only 40 percent shielding from Radioactive fallout. For those living in residential structures with no basement, said level of protection drops to a devastatingly alarming ten percent.

Armed with this disturbing news, I began visiting a host of government sites, and found some more forthcoming than others. For instance, if you visit Condi Rice's Department of State site dealing with these issues, they state sheltering in place in the event of a Terrorist Dirty Bomb explosion and/or attack on a nuclear facility could, in a worst case scenario, last for a period of weeks, not days as is claimed and all but codified by the NRC.

Further, each for their own reasons, it became apparent in my research, that the DOD, DOE, NRC,NEI, the Nuclear Industry and various other corporate and governmental agencies under the guise of National Interest, and National Security have been intimately, if not incestuously involved in pushing/moving forward the agenda of a Nuclear Renaissance both here in America and abroad with GNEP being used as placebo to assure us as citizens that our Federal Government is finally coming up with a plan to deal with the waste streams from the nuclear industry (both military and civilian). It (GNEP) at best is good intentions gone astray, and at worse, a governmental boondoggle that leaves WMD's (leaking spent fuel pools, and aging failing reactors) inadequately guarded and protected in and around MAJOR (emphasis added) population centers, while the NRC, blindly ignoring basic truths continues the wrongful rubber stamping of reactor license renewal applications, while turning a blind eye to known public health and safety concerns. For instance, the population living within a 50 mile radius of Indian Point exceeds 21 million citizens, and in the case of a significantly nuclear event at Indian Point, some estimates say we could see a immediate death toll running into the tens of thousands...that risk in the name of a Nuclear Renaissance is unacceptable, as is the inadequate protections of shielding citizens in place.

It also became apparent as I looked into these related issues, that First Responders, including members of our military tagged to be a part of the response team dealing with a National Emergency such as a significant nuclear incident/accident (as almost happened when the truck carrying nuclear materials from Japan tipped over on I-95 in North Carolina-yes, the story got partially out before and exclusion zone was thrown up) and/or a terrorist attack at a nuclear facility are being told a different truth than members of the general public, being given a different set of instructions regarding what they need in the way of equipment to be adequately protected than what is being distributed out to members of the general public. The polar opposite realities are not both possible, one or the other is a lie.

Today I called up the DTRA after doing some extensive reading on their web site, and examining their various and assorted course offerings and asked your spokesperson, a reticent and stubborn Mr. Gaines a very straightforward question, which he (like all other agencies I have spoken to) stealthily avoided giving a direct answer to. If first responders need to wear super protective clothing , self containing breathing apparatus, and a dosimeter device in responding to a nuclear event, would civilians ordered to be sheltered in the affected area require that same level of equipment/protection to adequately protect their own health and safety? If medical staff and personal working in a nuclear fallout area need to be protected by being placed in one of the self contained sheltering vehicles such as the one pictured on your web site, wouldn't citizens in the exclusion zone need a similarly personal shelter to have adequate protection of their health and safety?

Mr. Gaines tried to avoid answering the question with a dodge when he stated, "Our agency is concerned with, charged with aiding members of the DOD in performing their task as relates to terrorist threat reduction, or aiding them (DOD) in responding to a nuclear event if our help is requested from the DHS, so I cannot speak to issues of civilian protection. Undeterred, I took a different tack by rephrasing the question. Would you send your agency's personnel into an nuclear incident area without the equipment mandated and/or recommended by your agency's guidelines, to which he replied, "We don't deploy personnel without adequate protective gear. (Iraq aside?) I pointed out, that was not the question asked, at which point he got belligerent, and said he was not willing, could not go in truthfully and honestly answering an American citizen stakeholder's straight forward question?

As a result of this government run around, and deliberate avoidance in honestly answering a stakeholder citizen's questions, I am taking the step of formalizing my inquiries in this email. As citizen stakeholders living near a nuclear facility, we should know the full extent of the risks we are facing when government asks/demands that we play host to a nuclear facility. As allowed in the broadest interpretation of your agency's rules and regulations (individually and/or collectively) this letter is to be interpreted as A) inquiry, B) FOIA request, and C) and allegation. I would like the following questions asked, and as a part of the answer, please include any and all underlying lying documents used in formulating the answer/response, including citations of law, inter/intra office memos, emails, studies and or reports.

1. If first responders need to wear super protective clothing , self containing breathing apparatus, and a dosimeter device in responding to a nuclear event, would civilians ordered to be sheltered in the affected area require that same level of equipment/protection to adequately protect their own health and safety? If not, please explain with specifics why not, and why your agency finds these differing levels of personal protection acceptable.

2. If medical staff and personal working in a nuclear fallout area need to be protected by being placed in one of the self contained sheltering vehicles, such as the one pictured on DTRA web site, wouldn't citizens in the exclusion zone need a similar personal shelter to have adequate protection of their health and safety? If not, please explain with specifics why not, and why your agency finds these differing levels of personal protection acceptable.

3. Would you send your agency's personnel into a nuclear incident area without the equipment mandated and/or recommended by your agencies guidelines? If not, please in detail explain your decision, specifically identifying the risk that said personal would/could face in said potentially contaminated area if they did not have these adequate health and safety protections and equipment.

4. Please identify any and all known safety, security and structural concerns/problems you are aware of, and/or are researching/examining as relates to the continued safe operation and protection of America's nuclear facilities, including Commercial Nuclear Reactors and their leaking spent fuel pools. Please specifically identify known and/or suspected risks to public health and safety in the event of a nuclear accident and/or successful terrorist attack at a nuclear facility, with special attention given to the public risk regarding commercial nuclear reactors.

5. What inadequacies and/or potential problems is the government aware of as relates to A) community evacuation plans, and B) sheltering in place in the case of a nuclear incident and/or terrorist attack on a nuclear facility, and what levels of potential loss and/or harm have been identified (human life, long term health effects, infrastructure loss and/or contamination, financial losses, specifically as affects private citizens since the Price Anderson act leaves us with no form of protecting our assets in the case of a nuclear event and/or a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility.

As a citizen stakeholder living within 3 miles of a governmentally licensed and policed nuclear facility that has applied for a 20 year license renewal, and should be entitled by law to honest and forthright answers to these questions, so that I can fully and completely evaluate the true risk I and my community are being asked to take in continuing to play host to two aging, failing nuclear reactors that are already threatening human health and/or the environment as they leak strontium 90 and tritium into both the area ground water, and the Hudson river.

Respectfully Submitted

Sherwood Martinelli
351 Dyckman
Peekskill, New York 10566

For those activists receiving a copy of this letter...please feel free to forward this to your elected officials, and/or other activists involved in this issue.

This letter also being posted to the Green Nuclear Butterfly blog...please feel free to distribute it to your list serves.

Official Request for Fee Waivers:

For the following reasons, Sherwood Martinelli requests a full and complete waiver of any and all fees associated with the FOIA components of this document.

1. Purpose-To ascertain full risks I, as a stakeholder face in living near a nuclear facility, and distribute said information to the public so they as well can understand their risks as we face the potential re-licensing of the failing Indian Point Nuclear Reactors. Said distribution will occur has occurred through my NRC recognized advocacy group, GNB (Green Nuclear Butterfly) at public events, such as last month's NRC open house in our community where the NRC gave us a presentation table, as well as our blog.

2. The information and answer requested in this document will be used first to educate the public TRUTHFULLY about the risks associated with specifically, Indian Point, and additionally said information will be used as is practical in our plans to act as and intervener in Entergy's license renewal application process.

3. If the information gained reinforces our/my initial findings regarding public safety as relates to a fast nuclear event (terrorist attack of nuclear facility), there is a probabilistic chance that the members of the General Public in and around the host community of Indian Point will become far more active and plugged into the regulatory process, and in demanding the closure of said facility.

4. We currently interact with, communicate (through our blog, public outreach, and phone) daily with over 150 people...on average, 80 percent of these contacts are disseminating our material for the first time. As the license renewal process moves forward, we have the very real capability (thanks to the Internet) of having direct involvement with potentially millions of stakeholders within 50 miles of Indian Point who oppose its license renewal application.

5. As answered before, we distribute this information at public events, formal NRC events/meetings, and via the Internet, and do not charge a fee for our distributed information.

6. My private interests in this information are only as a stakeholder living within 3 miles of a nuclear event.

For these reasons, it is requested that any and all fees associated with the FOIA components of this document be waved in their entirety.

Sherwood Martinelli

Monday, May 14, 2007

Indian Point Contaminating Buchanan Sewers-What's Next?

As is par for the course, both Steets of Entergy (Indian Point) and Neil Sheehan of the NRC were quick to rush out to the press assuring the public that the tritium leaking into the town of Buchanan's sewer system was NOTHING TO BE ALARMED ABOUT. Even Patrick Moore tried to defend Indian Point (which he is being paid handsomely to do we might add), pawning off the leak as minor, and of no significance, while trying to implement the nuclear industry's buzz word of sustainability, meant to replace renewable. You are a sly one Mr. Grinch. The reality though, is this is a serious one, and radioactive materials contaminating sewage treatment facilities is one that the NRC is all too familiar with, and one where NRC's past actions have seen them ALWAYS siding with their licensee.

For those not up on the issue, the real issue is simple...though the NRC and it's licensees do not understand how it happens, radioactive materials that find their way into sewage treatment plants end up concentrating together, thus CONTAMINATING a facility to a point where it (not the licensee) is in violation of both the NRC and US EPA's release criteria. Once this occurs, the NRC and other regulatory bodies (EPA, Health Department) go after the sewage treatment facility demanding REMEDIATION. As much as Buchanan loves to defend Indian Point at all costs, have they asked themselves where the remediation dollars are going to come from when this happens to their facility? You can bet money it will not be Entergy, or their separately owned LLC's picking up the tab.
If NRC or the state of Ohio does not approve on-site disposal of the contaminated soil the cost of off-site disposal could exceed $3 billion.
To address the problem of radiative materials’ concentrating in sludge and ash, NRC has revised its regulation to reduce the concentration of radioactivity that licensees can discharge to treatment plants. However, because of uncertainty about how the radioactive materials concentrate during the sewage treatment process, NRC does not know how effective this solution will be.

The health implications of the exposure of treatment plant workers and the public to contaminated sludge, ash, and related by-products are unknown because neither NRC nor EPA knows (1) how much radioactive material may be in these products and (2) how these products might affect people.

According to the district, NRC has consistently taken the position that unless it can prove the manufacturer exceeded the discharge limits set forth in 10 C.F.R. part 20.303, there is no action NRC can take against the manufacturer. NRC maintains that the district is responsible for any and all costs associated with the remediation of the site since the district is in possession of the contamination.

District officials believe that passing on the costs of the cleanup to its ratepayers is unfair, and they are taking action to keep this from happening. The district filed a petition (pursuant to 10 C.F.R. part 2.206) on March 3,1993, requesting that NRC modify the manufacturer’s NRC license to require it to (1) assume all costs resulting from the release of cobalt-60 that has been deposited at the Southerly plant and (2) decontaminate the sewer.

The above passage is not Green Nuclear Butterfly's opinion, but words taken right out of the government PDF referenced at the beginning of this article. At every turn we are hearing about another NEW LEAK at Indian Point, and Neil Sheehan,in the LOHUD article written by Noreen O'Donnell, states, "the contamination is believed to be concentrated in and around the reactor structures on the site." In other words that Neil Sheehan and the NRC are well versed in not using, the pipes, steam pipes,valves and the reactor core itself are LEAKING, beginning to break apart due to aging, embrittlement and degradation issues associated with and ancient reactor. In short, Indian Point is literally breaking apart at its seams (failing weld joints) and the longer the plant operates, the greater risk to the public health and safety.

The old Kenny Rogers song warns, "that you have to know when to hold em, and know when to fold em, and the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep." There is a certain almost prophetic message there for Buchanan. They as a community have benefited and grown as a result of their long term tax arrangement with Indian Point and its various tenants/owners. The question is, "Has the time come for Buchanan too get up from the table and walk away?"

Last Day To Sign On To Petition To Dismiss Indian Point License Applications

Indian Point Death and Cancer Zones
Just a heads up to our readers. Today is the last day to sign onto our Petition for Rule Making that seeks to dismiss the co-filed license renewal application for Indian Point Reactors 2 and 3. You can read the petition here. Dead for being added on too this petition is midnight, as it will be delivered to the NRC tomorrow morning. If you live within 50 miles of ANY NUCLEAR REACTOR in American, you can sign this important petition.

To sign on, please send your name and address to

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Mother's Day Sunday Morning Document Sharing

The Choice Is Ours Only If We As A Community Unite For The Cause To Close Down Indian Point.
First, to all the Mothers out there, a Warm and Happy Mother's Day Wish to you. For those fortunate enough to have Mothers, enjoy the day with the most important woman in your life, your Mom. (Don't forget Grandma!) For those like my wife and I, who's Mom have your best to enjoy today, as our Mom's would have wanted it that way.

On to matters of Indian Point. If you want to defeat the enemy (license renewal application) you have to know the enemy, have to dig to find the dirt on them, and on their licensed reactors. As much as the NRC and the industry would like to pretend otherwise, problems, design flaws and aging issues in the history do not change,and the issues that existed then, still exist today. What changed today, is the regulatory environment...the NRC is no longer conservative where our health and safety is concerned, but instead has dampened down and weakened our rights to protect ourselves by diminishing our rights in the process, and making many of the documents THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO READ disappear.

However, if you dig, like an archaeologist uncovering and ancient tomb, everything is there. Indian Point, and all 104 of the aged and brittling reactors in America are not safe, and try as they might to state otherwise, the NRC,DOE,NEI and the entire nuclear industry know that and accident at one if not more than one of these ancient relics is not a question of if, but when. My gift to your Mothers, my gift to all the Mother's children of this area today is to bring some of those documents out from the catacombs so that you have the ability to gain the knowledge contained therein...if you are too busy to begin educating yourselves, to apathetic to join the fight to close down the Indian Point reactors, then it could be your Mom's and your own children's blood that is on your hands.

Evacuation Study (EPA-1987)

Effects on Ground Water From Nuclear Incident (study)


DOE Fusion Safety Handbook

Cost Benefit of AP1000

These Next two are really good;

Clad Failure

Legal opinion on use of risk assessment

Explains Evacuation Plan Requirements

In phase 2, mid-loop operation was selected as the plant configuration to be analyzed based on the results of the phase 1 study. The objective of the phase 2 study is to perform a detailed analysis of the potential accident scenarios that may occur during mid-loop operation, and compare the results with those of NUREG-1150.

Health Effects Analysis From Nuclear Incident

Selling the PUBLIC

Reactor Computer Software

Severe Accident Management

Understanding Industry High Risk Evaluation Software

Fuel Melt

A Medical Teams Story

Aging Issues Volume3

Aging Lessons Learned

Aging Volume 2

This paper discusses a series of tests performed at the Institute of Fluid Flow Machines in Kaiserslautern, Germany. The tests were designed to investigate the effect of replacing one of the steam turbines in a power plant. The new turbine required more cooling water flow through the condenser, which called for new cooling water pumps. The model tests showed that reliable, long-term service would be impossible without modifying the equipment. The test model was built to use Froude's law to investigate the effects of the changes.

Aging-Heat Reactors

Some Good Stuff On Pipes

Leak Before Break

Managing Age

Oldie But Goodie-Failure Data Handbook

Pump Degradation

Precursors To Severe Core Damage