Saturday, November 3, 2007

Under We Told You So...Nuclear Industry Starts Letting 80 Year Life Span Out of Bag

Green Nuclear Butterfly many months ago warned the public that the Nuclear Industry planned on keeping their 104 aging reactors up and operational for 40, not 20 years. The reason we knew this to be true, is because of a DOE report we had read wherein it was stated the industry needed to keep as many of its aging fleet up and running through 2050 as possible, as it would take that long to get enough new reactors up and running to offset the power losses represented by reactor retirement and decommissioning. The Propaganda War to prepare host communities to accept this reality began with an article in the Sun earlier this week.

Has Anti Nuclear Rocker John Hall Sold His Soul To Nuclear Devil?

Making news all over America in the past couple of weeks was the reemergence of MUSE as stalwarts in the music industry Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne and others launched a new movement to stop the $50 Billion Loan guarantees slated for the Commercial Nuclear Industry as they push for a Nuclear Renaissance here in America. With great fanfare a petition drive was launched, complete with a new web site and organization as Congressman John Hall's friends in the music industry rode into town on their white steeds. ( It was a start, and many of us in the anti nuclear movement were anxiously awaiting ACT II...would MUSE finally do something to oppose the wrongful license renewal of 104 again reactors such as Entergy's aging Indian Point? Would the music industry step up to bat, and beat back a wrongful Nuclear Renaissance, oppose the license renewal of trouble plagued plants, and oppose all new build applications being filed with the many questions as we enjoyed the new video, as 120,000 anti nuclear folk poured out of the wood work to rush off and sign the petition!

The movement seemed to stumble at a Press Conference when everyone but Jackson Browne seemed to stumble...the most noticeable stumble came from Congressman John Hall, perhaps the most NOTABLE Anti Nuclear musician of his time, who ran on the promise of CLOSING DOWN INDIAN POINT. When asked if he would SUPPORT Pro-Nuclear Presidential Candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama if they win the nod to carry the Democratic banner, he said he would support them! WHAT! wait a minute, say it ain't so John!

Whispers rushed through the grassroots here in New York, telephones rang as conversations on this revelation began...with a certain sadness the consensus seemed to be that John Hall had to play politics, and was just doing what he had to do to keep his ducks in a row inside the beltway. With tears in our eyes, and a bit of doubt in our hearts, it was decided to give John Hall the benefit of the doubt. After all, he is only a Freshman, and besides, LOOK at what he is making happen with MUSE...120,000 signatures is NOTHING TO SNEEZE AT. Further, he, Nita Lowey and Maurice Hinchey are all in favor of shutting down Indian Point, they have told us so, have stated they are against NUCLEAR ENERGY.

Shaken, but reassured, we moved forward, taking solace in Jackson Browne's comments, and the incredible list of Music Titans who had signed onto the petition such as Herbie Hancock, Musician/Activist, David Crosby, Musician/Activist, Pearl Jam, Musicians/Activists and even Melissa Etheridge. Even more assuring at the time was the fact that long time environmentalist and anti nuclear legend Paul Harvey was in charge of the new web site.

Imagine the resurgence in our ranks as we began believing we had friends in high places who were TRUE TO OUR CAUSE, would carry our anti nuclear message into the Halls of Congress, work with us to stop the wrongful license renewal of trouble plagued nuclear reactors like Indian Point, Vermont Yankee, Pilgrim, Diablo Canyon and others.

Then, the other shoe dropped when I was reading and article today about the Defense Appropriations bill passed by Congress for 2008. The House-passed measure that would require the Navy to make its future fleet of surface combatants nuclear powered. WHAT? OH MY FREAKING GOD, a major expansion of nuclear propulsion cruising around the worlds oceans! Thinking it was a mistake, I ran off to do some research into the bill. H.R. 1585--110th Congress (2007): National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, (database of federal legislation)

Sure as God makes little green apples it was true! From hence forth if the Congress has its way, all Naval ships will be floating Nuclear Reactors! My first thought was, "Does John Hall know about this?" My second thought was, "How did our anti nuclear members of Congress (Lowey, Hinchey and John Hall) vote on this? OH MY FREAKING GOD! All three members supported this bill, voted in favor of AN ALL NUCLEAR NAVY!

Such a vote, showing support for a bill that calls for a all Nuclear Navy is nothing short of treason to the Nuclear Movement. The very people we are counting on to help close down Indian Point, to stop the plants leaking of tritium and strontium 90 into the Hudson River voted to have all future war ships powered by nuclear reactors!

Are Jackson Browne, Bonnie Raitt, Bruce Hornsby and Harvey Wasserman aware of this betrayal? Stay tuned as the Green Nuclear Butterfly investigates this story further.


IPSEC is a non-partisan coalition comprised of citizen, health, environmental, and public interest groups. While IPSEC works closely with elected officials - at the local, state, and federal level - elected officials are not part of IPSEC.

Beacon Sloop Club
Bergen County Greens
Bronx River Research Group
Cancer Awareness Coalition
CAN DO (Citizens Against Nuclear Energy – Dobbs Ferry)
Chappaqua Against Nuclear Generated Energy (CHANGE)
Children's Health Fund
Citizens Awareness Network
Citizens for Safe Energy
Communities United For Responsible Energy
Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy
Croton Close Indian Point Group
Earth Save Long Island
Environmental Advocates of New York
Federated Conservationists of Westchester Co, Inc.
Fishkill Ridge Community Heritage
Friends of the Earth
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
Healthy Schools Network
Ironbound Community Corporation
Connie Hogarth Center for Social Action
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
Irvington Neighbors Against Indian Point
Long Island Peacesmiths
Mid Island Radiation Alert
New York City Campaign to Close Indian Point
New York City Environmental Justice Alliance
New York City SAFE (Seeking Alternatives for the Environment)
New York City Women's Action for New Directions
New York City Physicians for Social Responsibility
New York Climate Rescue
New York Public Health Association
New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG)
Nuclear Control Institute
Nuclear Free Hudson
Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS)
Orange Environment, Inc.
Pace Energy Project
Philipstown League for the Environment and Safe Energy (PLEASE)
Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program
Putnam Citizens Awareness Network
Rock The Reactors
Rockland Citizens Awareness Network
Rockland Coalition to Close Indian Point
Rockland County Civic Association
Rockland County League of Women Voters
Rockland County Conservation Association
Saw Mill River Audubon
Sierra Club – Atlantic Chapter
Sierra Club – Hudson-Meadowlands Group
Sierra Club – Lower Hudson Group
Scenic Hudson
Sprayno Coalition
Sound Shore Safe Energy Advocates (SSSEA)
STAR Foundation (Standing for Truth About Radiation)
Stony Point Action Committee for the Environment (SPACE)
Sustainable South Bronx
Walkabout Clearwater Chorus
Waterkeeper Alliance
Westchester Citizens Awareness Network
Westchester Green Party, Northwest
WESPAC Foundation
Westchester SAFE (Seeking Alternatives for the Environment)
Westchester Residents Advocating for Improved Neighborhoods (WRAIN)
Yorktown Close Indian Point Group


Friday, November 2, 2007

Fight To Close Indian Point...Is IPSEC Still Relevant?

There was an article that appeared in the North Country News that posed the question, "Can Indian Point be Attacked?" The question was surprisingly asked by the EPA, and the article written by Abby Luby quoted Phillip Musgrave of Riverkeeper, Congressman John Hall, and Marilyn Elie of IPSEC, which might explain why the article appeared so quickly on the IPSEC list serve this morning. Marilyn Elie's quotes raised some questions in my mind, so I responded to the IPSEC list with some questions. Unfortunately, Mark Jacobs as the moderator of said list censored them, so I am posting those questions here on Green Nuclear Butterfly.

Marilyn Elie representing IPSEC was quoted as saying:

Marilyn Elie of the Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition (IPSEC) an organization of over 70 grassroots groups wanting to shutter the plant, sees the EPA’s comments as a departure from the NRC’s agenda.

“This is a surprising development on the part of the EPA,” she said. “These real world issues like terrorism and a regional energy needs were not going to be considered by the NRC. Now, hopefully they will be.”

First, since when would a group like IPSEC allow the NRC to set the agenda? We all know that the fix is in, and that the NRC has tried to set the table in favor of Entergy successfully relicensing Indian Point. It is the job of our community, and the grassroots environmental community to widen and grow the agenda, so that important issues are actually evaluated in the process. EPA, DEC, and the New York State Attorney General's office should be applauded for their efforts in this regard, as should any grassroots organizations (FUSE USA, Riverkeeper) who are actively involved in the License Renewal Process.

Since IPSEC is wanting to shutter (close) Indian Point, one has to ask what steps IPSEC is taking as an organization representing 70 grassroots groups to be a part of the License Renewal Battle? Are they preparing a Formal Request to Intervene? Perhaps they are writing a Formal Request For a Hearing on behalf of their member organizations, and the public? Is IPSEC working closely with those groups filing contentions, and acting as interveners in the process? Is IPSEC encouraging their member organizations to plug into the fight, and to support those organizations mounting the legal challenge?

Marilyn goes on further to state that "These real world issues like terrorism and regional energy needs were not going to be considered by the NRC." Has she just accepted that as a fact? Curious where she came up with this conclusion, and what if anything IPSEC was/is planning on doing to bring these issues to the forefront on behalf of their 70 plus member organizations and our at risk community? The Environmental Effects of a Terrorist Attack on the spent fuel at Diablo Canyon was forced onto the discussion table because of the fine work of Mothers For Peace. It would seem to make logical sense that IPSEC is planning on filing contentions to bring these issues to the forefront, to force a conversation on these important issues. Or if IPSEC is not pro-actively plugging into the NRC public participation process on behalf of their 70 plus members, then what is IPSEC doing to support those groups that are filing contentions, are watching out for our community, are taking steps to protect human health and the environment?

In short, has IPSEC been able to reach a CONSENSUS as and organization on where they intend to fit into the fight to Close Down Indian Point? If they have, when can the community expect to know what those plans are? After all, isn't the core purpose of IPSEC to Close Down Indian Point?

In Attempt to Hide Truth, NRC SCRUBBING ADAMS!

OK, so I am a conspiracy nut, or perhaps I just have a NOSE for truth, but when ADAMS does finally come back has been inaccessible now for over a are going to find a whole bunch of documents have DISAPPEARED in preparation for the NRC taking serious steps, through proposed rule changes, to lower SAFETY MARGINS at America's 104 aging reactor sites.

It is no accident, no glitch in the system that has ADAMS out out of commission right now. Instead, what we are witnessing (or not witnessing)is a deliberate scrubbing of ALL DOCUMENTS that the NRC and NEI have decided they do not want the America public to have continued access to.

Within hours of NRC's press release announcing their intention to IMPROVE the reactor thermal shock rule by lowering the SAFETY MARGINS, nuclear watch dog groups were quick to point out the truth. The rule is going to be rewritten, the safety margins greatly reduced because none of America's currently operating PWR's can meet the existing rule during the 20 year period of license renewal. The NRC tried to pass off a lie by claiming the new rule would improve a current regulation that was written far to conservatively.

It was shortly after this that ADAMS suddenly was totally and completely NOT AVAILABLE to anyone. Why? It is the belief of GNB that the NRC is trying to make the evidence of this, and other issues VANISH. For instance, will the Environmental Reports from eight different License Renewals that all had the same language in them still be found on ADAMS? Wait and see, but you can bet the new ADAMS when it comes back online is NOT the old ADAMS when you do a document by document comparison of the site. So, the question is, "What is the NRC trying hide?"

What if Today's Nuclear Reactor Bomb Scare Was A Industry Publicity Stunt?

OK, call me jaded here, but as I look more closely at today's pipe bomb scare at the Palo Verde nuclear reactor site the question arises, "was it a con job by nuclear industry insiders?" If it looks like a skunk, smells like a skunk, and walks like a skunk, maybe someone should start asking some probing questions to get to the truth.

I became aware of the incident on CNN. However, my first suspicions arose when I watched a FOX News report on the incident. Someone acting as a spokesperson stated the usual NRC, nuclear industry canned "the public was never in any danger" remark. However,they then went further to state that the facility, which could withstand the attack of a 737 airliner was never in any danger. They finished off talking about how the Security (Wackenhut)performed flawlessly at this trouble plagued facility.

The story for me became even more unbelievable as they went further into describing the event. First, there was not even enough explosives to blow up the truck, let alone anything at the plant. Additionally, authorities would not identify the plant worker who conveniently is a temporary staff member FROM OUT OF STATE who usually rides his motorcycle to work, but today brought his truck onto the nuclear, bomb sniffing dogs that DO NOT sniff every vehicle just happened to sniff his truck on the one day he decided to bring it to work. Wonder what the odds in Vegas would be on that stroke of PERFECT LUCK.

The report went on to state, that this UNIDENTIFIED WORKER claimed to have no knowledge of how the pipe bomb ended up in his truck, and some speculation was made that someone might have PUT IT THERE. Sure, someone just walked through the apartment complex this man is staying in, and tossed a small pipe bomb into the back of his pick up truck, and I have a bridge I would like to sell Neil Sheehan and Sam Collins.

So, with the black eye that Wackenhut and the industry have taken recently about SLEEPING GUARDS, from out of nowhere a perfect event presents itself where Wackenhut and the nuclear industry can THUMP THEIR CHESTS and claim the security at the nuclear facility performed FLAWLESSLY, the guards reacted perfectly, and the plant was never in any trouble because it could withstand a direct attack from a 737 airliner.

SORRY, but I smell a SKUNK in this story. perhaps the news media needs to find out if they have been duped. Perhaps, NRC, NEI and the nuclear industry decided to borrow a page out of the Pentagon play book (Lincoln Group), or thought they could do a better job than FEMA at creating fake news...whatever the truth is, do not think todays event is exactly what is being presented to us.

Nuclear plant worker stopped with explosive

A contract employee of an Arizona nuclear plant was stopped at a plant entrance Friday with an explosive device in his truck, officials told CNN. The capped pipe was found in the truck bed during a regular security search outside the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station -- the country's largest nuclear plant. developing story

Breaking News... Nuke worker caught with bomb!!!


Nuclear plant employee stopped with explosive device


(CNN) -- A contract employee at the largest nuclear plant in the nation was stopped at a plant entrance Friday with a "relatively small" explosive device in his truck, officials said.

The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is the largest nuclear plant in the nation.

The employee was on his way to work at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Wintersburg, Arizona, at about 6 a.m. when a routine security sweep at a checkpoint found the item, according to Jim McDonald, spokesman for Arizona Public Service Company, which owns the plant.

He described the device as a "pipe bomb."

A capped pipe was found in the truck bed, said Victor Dricks, regional spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The pipe had suspicious residue, but APS said initial checks failed to show any explosive material on the pipe.

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office took the pipe and tested it.

"MCSO bomb squad tests later determined that the capped pipe was a credible explosive device," APS said in a written statement.

The man was detained and is in the custody of the sheriff's office.

The device is not something the employee would have used in his work, which deals with computers and software, sheriff's spokesman Paul Chagolla said.

He is a middle-aged out-of-state subcontractor working at the plant who resides at a Phoenix apartment complex, Chagolla said, describing the employee as cooperative.

The plant is on lockdown until a security sweep is completed, McDonald said.

"We have a large and well-trained security force that followed the procedures exactly the way they're supposed to," he said.

Dricks said officials declared an "unusual event" at the plant -- the lowest of four emergency classifications.

The device was "relatively small" and its volatility had not been determined, APS spokesman Mark Fallon said.

The pipe was "in plain view of the security officers" and the employee apparently was not attempting to hide it, he said.

Even if someone were to smuggle a pipe bomb into a nuclear plant, the damage would not be catastrophic, said David Heyman, director of the Homeland Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"The Department of Homeland Security has put in place buffer programs," Heyman said.

"They've spent tens of millions [of dollars] across the country in critical infrastructure, making sure if you get through one layer, you have to get through another and another. Before you get to that reactor, you have to get through a whole lot of security," he said.

Palo Verde is the largest electrical producer of any power plant in the country -- the equivalent of nine Hoover Dams.

It kills you... It heals you... It kills you... It heals you...

(Somebody please explain to me why the FDA symbol for irradiated food is a dead ringer for the EPA logo? Are they trying to subliminally imply that irradiated food is environmentally safe? RemyC)

From EPA

Man-Made Radiation: Medicine & Nuclear Power

Since the discovery of radiation, people have benefitted from the use of radiation in medicine and industry. Man-made sources of radiation account for about 20 percent of our total exposure to radiation

Radiation in Medicine

Radiation used in medicine is the largest source of man-made radiation to which people in the United States are exposed. Most of our exposure is from diagnostic x-rays. Physicians use x-rays in more than half of all medical diagnoses to determine the extent of disease or physical injury.

Radiation is also used in cancer treatments, where precisely targeted radiation destroys diseased cells without killing nearby healthy cells. Radiopharmaceuticals, another medical treatment, are used to locate tumors in a patient's body and to treat cancer. One-third of all successful cancer treatments involve radiation.

Controlling the Risks of Medical Radiation

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal and state agencies regulate medical procedures that use radiation. EPA and these agencies also issue guidance designed to reduce unnecessary use of radiation in diagnosis and treatment and to ensure that technicians, equipment, and techniques meet standards that minimize radiation exposure.

Patients and health care providers must make the decision to use radiation on a case-by-case basis. Since any radiation exposure carries some risk, it is necessary to decide whether the benefits of radiation justify its use. Before receiving x-rays or any other type of medical treatment involving radiation exposure or dose, it is sensible to discuss the need for and benefits of the procedure and its alternatives with your physician.

Nuclear Power

Nuclear power reactors, which use uranium, supply the United States with about 20 percent of its electricity. Our ability to produce power using radioactive materials reduces our reliance on fossil fuels. Nuclear power plant operations account for less than a hundredth of a percent of the average American's total radiation exposure. Workers at nuclear power plants receive higher doses of radiation, but the overall dose to the population is extremely low.

Controlling the Risks of Nuclear Power

In 1979, EPA issued environmental standards that protect the public from radiation from the many kinds of facilities that contribute to the production of electricity through the use of nuclear energy. Additionally, in 1987, EPA issued guidance for Federal agencies to use in the development of radiation exposure standards for workers.

These standards limit the amount of radiation that workers in medicine, nuclear power, industry, mining, and waste management may receive. Finally, in 1989, under the Clean Air Act, EPA published standards limiting radionuclide emissions from all Federal and industrial facilities.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the federal agency responsible for implementing EPA's radiation exposure standards through regulation of nuclear power reactors and many other uses of radiation. The Department of Energy (DOE) also implements these standards at facilities under their supervision.

FUSE USA Meets Housewives on Prozac!!!

Susan Shapiro
FUSE USA ~ President

FUSE USA will be at the CUTTING ROOM on November 15th for the HOUSEWIVES ON PROZAC concert.

To benefit Motherhood Foundation & FUSE USA Petition Signing

Thurs. Nov. 15th
The Cutting Room
7:45 PM
19 West 24th St.

Fine food, music and drinks.

Housewives On Prozac' have been called the Mother of All Rock Bands! As seen on Good Morning America, USA Today, LA Times, London Times, People Magazine & NPR.

Housewives On Prozac
P.O. Box 0210
Hastings-On-Hudson, New York 10706

State wants Indian Point reviewed as if it were new

(Original publication: November 2, 2007)

Before Indian Point can extend its license to operate through 2035, federal regulators must evaluate the Buchanan nuclear plant as if it were applying for the first time, state environmental officials said yesterday.

Lawyers for the state Department of Environmental Conservation demanded that the current review be rejected as too generic and that factors such as emergency planning, the potential for terrorism attacks and earthquakes be looked at in depth.

"The environmental review requirements of federal law did not fully analyze or review the adverse environmental impacts of operation of these nuclear generating facilities when they were issued the original licenses," the DEC wrote in 19 pages of comments filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

"The State of New York requests that the NRC conduct a full and thorough environmental review and will participate in every facet of that process," the DEC said.

Indian Point 2 was approved for its license in 1973 and Indian Point 3 in 1975; those run out in 2013 and 2015, respectively. Under current law, the NRC considers two major factors when evaluating whether a reactor that has reached the end of its 40-year operating license should be granted a 20-year extension:

- The environmental impacts of keeping the plant open.
- The operator's plans for managing aging infrastructure at the site.

The Environmental Protection Agency made similar demands this week when it weighed in on Indian Point's license renewal, but didn't ask for an evaluation that started from scratch.

NRC officials have basically said thanks, but no thanks, on the requests for tighter restrictions, noting that many of the issues raised are either reviewed continually or were evaluated before the plants opened.

"We've received the comments from New York state," said agency spokesman Neil Sheehan. "The NRC will respond to the comments as part of the scoping process."

Sheehan said the agency has already approved 48 of the country's 104 reactors using the relicensing guidelines.

Setting the bar higher for Indian Point to continue generating about 2,000 megawatts of electricity has been discussed since before Entergy Nuclear announced plans to seek 20-year extensions for Indian Point 2 and 3, nearly a year ago.

In February, Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano went to federal court after the NRC denied his request for tougher criteria, including population growth in the region.

Others joined the call for tighter restrictions, including Rockland County and the state.

The case is pending, though Westchester County lawmakers are balking at the cost of pursing the legal challenge and want to leave it to the state's bigger posse of lawyers and deeper pockets.
Indian Point officials said they're willing to go into detail on any of the environmental issues facing the plant, to make the case to residents of the Hudson Valley for turning nuclear fuel into the region's electricity.

"If we didn't address the environmental concerns to the satisfaction of the regulators on an ongoing basis, we wouldn't be allowed to operate now, let alone for another 20 years," Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said.

Riverkeeper officials say, however, that the state is on the right road with its detailed concerns.
"Riverkeeper shares New York's serious concerns regarding terrorism, emergency evacuation failures, nuclear waste and the damage to Hudson River fish populations caused by Indian Point's outdated cooling system," said Phillip Musegaas, a policy analyst with the environmental group. "The NRC can no longer rely in good faith on an outdated, generic environmental study that ignores these critical issues in order to streamline the relicensing process for Entergy's benefit. The citizens of New York deserve better."

Reach Greg Clary at or 914-696-8566.

Thursday, November 1, 2007

Light Art Project at Gosgen Nuke in Switzerland

Take a giant projector, a helicopter and the Centrale nucléaire de Gösgen-Däniken (Switzerland) and you get amazing projections, part of the light art project "Monuments of Switzerland" by Gerry Hofstetter.
Hofstetter, one of the world's best-known light artists, transforms buildings, monuments and natural beauty spots into contemporary works of art. His masterpieces include projections of polar bears on icebergs, the pyramids in Egypt and Swiss crosses on the Matterhorn and government buildings.

Hofstetter loves the idea of being able to reinvent well-known monuments, buildings and landscapes in people's minds, using his huge 6,000-watt projectors and slides to transform them into temporary art sculptures.

Gerry Hofstetter, Lichtkünstler
c/o Hofstetter Marketing, Schwäntenmos 9
8126 Zumikon-Switzerland
Tel +41 (0)44 918 72 27
Fax +41 (0)44 918 72 28

Duck & Cover... with Style

Typography assignment using audio from an old public service announcement called "Duck and Cover" from the 50s. Created in After Effects by CallMe4B.

Lots more Duck & Cover parodies on YouTube.

Another Nuke Whistleblower Fired

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, York County, Pennsylvania

Whistleblower Fired
Reported by: Ewa Roman
A local man's family is threatened after he took video tape of his coworkers, security guards at a nuclear plant, sleeping. Now he and his coworkers have been layed off.

He says he has no idea why he was layed off. The only things Kerry Beal can think to blame are his actions that blew the whistle on sleeping security guards at Peach Bottom Nuclear Plant.

“For one, I knew those people weren't going to be able to protect my back, if everyone is sleeping around you,” says Beal.

And that's why Kerry Beal says he took the video. He also blew the whistle after he told some supervisors and alerted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but got nowhere.

“I really just did it to prove the fact to where it wasn't my word against their word, type of thing. There was an absolute proof.”

First, he started receiving some threats.

“It's been stressful considering we've already had one phone conversation with one officer there that was threatening in nature. We've had a vehicle drive-by and stop in wee hours of the morning.”

Then, he was fired, but so were the rest of the security guards he worked with.

“Frustrated is one way of putting it. Obviously, I’d like to have my job back.”

Kerry worked security with a company called Wackenhut, which provided security for Exelon in Peach Bottom. Now Exelon says they're done with that company and are hiring new people to patrol.
When Kerry tried to reapply for one of the positions he says they told him he didn't fit their strict criteria.

“If I was on the outside looking in, I would look at someone like myself and say, ‘Well-this is definitely a person that should be there, because they're willing to go the distance in bringing the truth out.’”

And that's all Kerry was trying to do before someone got hurt.

Kerry Beal's lawyer says Exelon’s decision appears to be retaliation and there may be a lawsuit coming.
(Thanks to Phillip Musegaas of Riverkeeper for this article)

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Get Answers On Indian Point-Join State Attorney General On Nov 15th in White Plains

As the old expression goes, be there, or be square. Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo
will be in White Plains to meet with members of the public, and answer questions about the aging, dangerous and unsafe Indian Point Nuclear Reactors. Come prepared to demand answer, it is time we know just what the state's plans are for closing down Indian Point.

Please join
Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo for a Community Forum

Learn how the Attorney General’s Office can help the Westchester

Come hear a discussion of issues that affect you every day: Environmental Protection and how the office is protecting natural resources, Health Care, Consumer Protection, Civil Rights, Workers Rights and information for students and parents about student loans.

Westchester County Center
198 Central Avenue
White Plains, NY

Thursday, November 15th, 2007

7:00 PM



Attorney General Cuomo and senior representatives from the New York State Attorney
General’s Office will discuss their work in your community and answer your questions.

Please RSVP:

Call: 914-422-8755 or email:

Office of the Attorney General Information and Complaint Help line:

1-800-771-7755 For the hearing impaired: 1-800-788-9898

Food & refreshments will be served.

Nuke Free Founders discuss Pro-Nuke Presidential Candidates

Jackson Browne Backs Off Support for Pro-Nuke Obama

October 23, 2007

On Capitol Hill today, there was a press conference.

Three members of Congress – Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts), John Hall (D-New York), and Shelley Berkley (D-Nevada) – were there.

Activists like Harvey Wasserman and David Fenton – were there.

And musicians including Hall, Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne and Graham Nash – who were among the organizers, with Wasserman, of the 1979 No Nukes Concerts in Madison Square Garden, which played a prominent role in galvanizing citizen energy against nuclear power – were there.

Environmental leaders from NRDC, Greenpeace, U.S. PIRG, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, the Environmental Working Group, the League of Conservation Voters, among others – were there.
They made arguments against pending legislation that will grant massive loan guarantees to nuclear power companies to build new reactors.

They made statements about how nuclear power is uneconomical, poses big fat targets for terrorists, and produces thousands of tons of high-level radioactive waste.

Wasserman and the musicians have put up a sleek web site –

But when push comes to shove, we are talking Democrats here.

And so when the group of them were asked – well, what if the Democrats nominate a pro-nuclear Presidential candidate like Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) or Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) – will you bolt the party, withhold support, endorse an anti-nuke third party candidate? – no one said yes.

Wasserman didn’t say anything.

Fenton didn’t say anything.

The environmental leaders didn’t say anything.

Markey was quiet.

Berkley was gone.

Hall gave a disingenuous answer.

“I don’t believe that Senator Clinton or Senator Obama are hard and fast pro-nuke candidates,” Hall said. “I think they are both are considering the options and need to have all of the information. They certainly have plenty of information. But they are persuadable. This is an educational experiment.”

Jackson Browne was more forthcoming.

Browne said that he initially came out in support of Obama, but then learned of Obama’s support for nuclear power.

At a recent presidential debate, Edwards came out strongly opposed to nuclear power.
At the same debate, Obama said “we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix.”
“It gave me pause to reconsider my support for him,” Browne said. “I’m hoping to talk to him about it. I know that (John) Edwards came out against it. And that interested me a great deal.”
Browne said he does believe that the nuclear power issue will have an impact on how people vote next year.

At a campaign event in South Carolina earlier this year, Clinton also endorsed nuclear power.
“I think nuclear power has to be part of our energy solution,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any preconceived opposition. I just want to be sure we do it right. . . Obviously, it is a tremendous source of energy. We get about 20 percent of our energy from nuclear power in our country. A lot of people don’t realize that. Other countries like France get much, much more. We do have to look at it, because it doesn’t put greenhouse gas emissions into the air. But we have to make sure it is done as safely as possible.”

The organizers of are seeking to defeat legislation that would, as Markey put it, hijack clean energy legislation “and turn it into an Automatic Teller Machine for an industry that is supposed to be standing on its own.”“The nuclear industry thinks the problem of global warming is an opportunity to skip the normal process of seeking investors and instead seek out the Federal Treasury,” Markey said.

Corporate Crime Reporter
1209 National Press Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20045

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Quakers Take A Stand Against Nuclear Energy

Please give the folks at Quaker Earthcare Witness a look. They have given a tremendous amount of thought, and prayer to the issue of Nuclear Energy, and have come out with a position paper against it. We here at Green Nuclear Butterfly feel their Minute on the issue is important enough to reproduce in its entirety here.

October 28, 2007

Dear Friends:

In response to the question of nuclear power, the Steering Committee of Quaker Earthcare Witness adopted a Minute at its October 2007 annual meetings in Burlington, Vermont, affirming that it cannot support nuclear power as a part of the solution to the problem of harmful climate change. The full Minute is attached, below.

A statement by Bob McGahey and Roy C. Treadway giving the context of the complexity of issues to be considered in addressing harmful climate change precedes the Minute. Their statement underscores the need by Friends and others to adopt radical simplicity in our personal lives, build local community, and exhort political leaders to safeguard the health of the biosphere and humans while addressing globally-binding economic restraints on increased carbon emissions.

We hope Friends will seriously consider this call from the QEW Steering Committee to find solutions to harmful climate change and to the world’s energy needs that take away the occasion for nuclear power.

May peace on and with earth be with you,

Hollister Knowlton

Clerk, Quaker Earthcare Witness

Note: More information about the perspective of Quaker Earthcare Witness on nuclear power can be obtained from the following articles:

Roy C. Treadway and Carolyn W. Treadway, Nuclear Energy and the Care of the Earth, Quaker Eco-Bulletin, Volume 5, Number 4, July-August 2005.

Angela Manno, In Friendship with the Earth: Friends Testimonies and Nuclear Energy, Quaker Eco-Bulletin, Volume 6, Number 5, September-October 2006.


Michael Rice, Why Nuclear Power is Not the Solution to Global Warming, BeFriending Creation, Volume 6, Number 5, September-October 2007, 4-5.


Accompanying Statement to QEW Nuclear Power Minute

The context for our actions as Friends and members of Quaker Earthcare Witness at this critical juncture of planetary history is multifold – spiritual, economic, political, and biospheric. John Woolman was alert to the seeds of slavery and war in everyday economic actions. Today, slavery comes from that state of misguided human greed in which all of nature is enslaved to our industrial society and global capitalism. In an era when the bottom line is profit and the side effect is destruction of the planet in the form of greenhouse gases and other toxic wastes, the overall moral issue is how we care for the web of Creation. It is stewardship in an era when our numbers are overwhelming Gaia, multiplied by an extravagant lifestyle.

We live in a world deeply compromised by our industrial choices, and they limit the range of meaningful response to the overarching issue of climate change. Woolman lived at the beginning of the industrial age; we live at its end. By ignoring habitat restraints, we are so overextended in population and resource use that both clamping down on further increases in CO2 and righting the scales of justice for the billions of poor may not be possible. For those who believe that we can provide enough energy by increasing renewable sources and using efficiency and conservation, profound caution is needed. Even with all these strategies, we may not be able to provide needed energy by 2050 (assuming we progressively shut down fossil fuel plants and decommission aging nuclear power plants). This is a particular challenge for developing countries.

QEW’s Steering Committee has approved the following Minute on Nuclear Power, based on our values and our testimonies. Even though we feel the imperative of immediacy, we have only begun to study the issue of energy use and policy, about which a future white paper from the Quaker Institute for the Future (QIF) by Keith Helmuth is being prepared. A QEW Climate Change and Energy Working Group to further investigate these complex and timely issues has also been proposed.

As we search for ways to address energy issues, including the use of efficiency and renewable energy as urged by this Minute, we must be aware of the challenge that the world's growth-oriented economic system poses. Because of U. S. fiscal policies, including almost uncontrolled public and private debt and the Federal Reserve's inflationary response to that debt, we may face an overdue global recession, making efforts to address energy difficult.

Thus, we need to adopt radical simplicity in our personal lives, build local community, and exhort our political leaders to adopt powerful, globally-binding economic restraints on carbon emissions, while safeguarding the health of the biosphere and humans.

Bob McGahey and Roy C. Treadway, for the QEW Steering Committee

Quaker Earthcare Witness Minute on Nuclear Power
Approved by the Steering Committee of Quaker Earthcare Witness in session, October 14, 2007, Burlington, Vermont.

Quaker Earthcare Witness cannot support nuclear power as part of the solution to harmful climate change.

As Friends, our peace testimony has long led us to witness against nuclear power because of its connection to nuclear war. Our deep caring for all creation leads us to affirm that witness, even in the face of growing calls for an expansion of nuclear power.

Based on everything we know about the current state of nuclear technology and our understanding of its impact and risks for people and the earth, we are strongly opposed - for moral, spiritual, and practical reasons - to current efforts to increase nuclear power. Additionally, we are strongly opposed to subsidies for funding new nuclear power plants, including proposed loan guarantees such as those in energy bills currently being considered by the U.S. Congress.

While nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases during electricity generation, in fact significant amounts of greenhouse gases are emitted when the complete cycle of nuclear power – from mining, milling, enrichment of uranium, transportation of nuclear fuel, and removal and guarding of nuclear wastes, as well as construction of nuclear power plants – is considered.

Nuclear power is extremely expensive when all costs, including subsidies, are included. We believe that funds proposed for more nuclear power plants would be far more effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions if used for energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable power.

Nuclear power is closely linked to the war machine in many countries. The cumulative effects of radioactive waste from nuclear power will be lethal, carcinogenic, and mutagenic to humans and all species for hundreds of thousands of years. Finally, given nuclear power’s unique destructiveness, the risk of just one catastrophic accident anywhere in the world renders nuclear power unacceptable.

QEW also affirms that providing more energy to support unconstrained economic growth is neither inevitable nor desirable.

We accept the responsibility of working for all socially responsible and environmentally sound solutions to global climate change, including phasing-out the use of oil, coal, and gas; and increasing energy efficiency, energy conservation; and renewable sources of energy. We accept the responsibility for using less energy in all that we do and for working to make reduction of energy use a goal for society at large.

UCS: Nuclear Safety Project

Via: Treehugger
10. 2.06
There are different ways to measuring the safety of a nuclear power plant. Counting only the number of accidents or meltdowns at nuclear plants would give you an incomplete picture of their overall safety. The Union of Concerned Scientists' Nuclear Safety Project took another route and analyzed the number of times nuclear reactors experienced extended shutdowns in the new report Walking a Nuclear Tightrope: Unlearned Lessons of Year-plus Reactor Outages. Their results were eye-opening.
Since the first commercial nuclear power plant opened 40 years ago, there have been 51 reactor shutdowns at nuclear power plants. Most of these shutdowns, 36 of them, were due to widespread safety problems in the plants that could no longer be ignored.
The root cause of these continued safety shutdowns is a combination of inadequate attention to safety by plant owners and lax oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
In the weeks and months leading up to the start of a year-plus outage, the people living nearby face an unnecessarily high risk of an accident that could release radiation. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must undergo fundamental change or it will only be a matter of time before additional reactors will suffer through year-plus outages – or worse, a nuclear accident.
UCS is calling on the NRC to follow federal regulations to identify and fix problems in a timely manner. The NRC must also alert plant owners about non-hardware problems and expand its oversight efforts when programmatic breakdowns are identified.
You can visit our Web site to see a list of U.S. plants experiencing outages and the reasons behind their shutdowns. UCS is also asking people to write their members of Congress to demand these reforms.

EPA Chimes in about Indian Point

EPA: terrorism should be considered in relicensing Indian Point
Associated Press Writer
October 29, 2007

The Environmental Protection Agency, in a break from the federal nuclear authority, says the potential impact of terrorism should be considered in deciding whether to relicense the Indian Point nuclear power plants.

In a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued Oct. 10 and made public Monday, the EPA requested that eight issues, including terrorism, "be discussed in the environmental impact statement for these license renewals."

The plants' owner, Entergy Nuclear, has applied for new licenses that would keep the two plants running until 2033 and 2035. Opponents of the plants, which have become especially controversial since the terrorist attacks of 2001, have focused on the relicensing as a chance to shut the plants down in the next decade.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has just begun the lengthy relicensing process, has turned away demands from the public and politicians that terrorism be considered, saying that is beyond the scope of relicensing.

"The security of the plant needs to be dealt with on an ongoing basis" rather than as part of the relicensing process, NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said Monday.

Under current regulations, the relicensing process would focus mostly on how Entergy plans to deal with the aging of the plant structure and on how the environment would be affected by 20 more years of Indian Point operation.

The EPA's requests include "an analysis of the impacts of intentional destructive acts (e.g. terrorism)." It also asks that the relicensing debate include an evaluation of radioactive leaks from the spent-fuel pools at the plants, which the NRC says is also outside the relicensing parameters.

Various groups (including FUSE USA) have filed lawsuits demanding hearings on the scope of the relicensing. New York City, just 30 miles south of the reactors in Buchanan, has formally requested - without taking a position - that it be allowed a voice in the decision.

The nuclear plants have been plagued in recent years with problems including the radioactive leaks, a failing emergency siren system and a guard caught sleeping.
Copyright © 2007, The Associated Press

The Question Nuclear Does Not Want You Asking!

Nuclear Reactors, or Drinking Water? The Choice is OURS, Not the NRC's.
What about Nuclear's HUGE use of our water resources? As Example, Entergy's Indian Point nuclear reactors that are polluting the Hudson River withdraw 2.4 Billion gallons a day from the river, and return it into the Hudson River full of contaminants at 104 degrees. As the reality of Global Warming descends upon us, numerous states including New York are suffering what could be called EPIC DROUGHTS.

Georgia has less than 90 days left in their lakes, and yet the Farley Nuclear Reactor site is demanding they keep receiving the water they need to continue operations. The Great Lakes are shrinking, and here in New York a crucial city water supply in the reservoir in Neversink, N.Y verges on empty as our states reservoirs sit at RECORD LOWS.

Before people leap on the Indian Point bandwagon, they need to ask themselves a very serious question. Are you willing to risk our state's valuable water resources to keep an aging, inefficient nuclear plant open for 20 more years?

Monday, October 29, 2007

Con-Cor Toy Nuke

This model of a Nuclear Power Plant is based on Three Mile Island, and as the description on the box states, it will "add realism and excitement to your train layout!" It was made in Denmark for Con-Cor of Bensenville, Illinois. The retail price is only $13.99! Of course the potential clean up costs have to be factored in.

Health Physics Instrumentation Museum Directory

Sunday, October 28, 2007

From Nuclear Jesus-The Nuclear Propaganda Machine

Understanding the Nuclear Propaganda Machine's Tactics

As NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute), the NRC and the nuclear Industry try to bring us the sequal to the Friendly Atom, they are using many of the same tactics to corrupt the minds of our children in the name of a Nuclear Renaissance that were used some 50 years ago. Infiltrate classrooms, and put toys into the market place that present the atom in a friendly light. Problem is, if you go back and look at some of those old toys and presentations, you suddenly realize just how perverse the nuclear industry was then, and how perverse they are today. This is the first of numerous posts that will be launched to share these old propaganda relics used to pervert our children's minds...the NRC, and the nuclear industry must not be allowed to perpetuate the same crimes a second time. Did your parents buy you this Atomic Energy Lab? Were you a part of some perverted National Propaganda Campaign visited upon the innocent children of the 50's and 60's? Talk about MIND CONTROL.

1951 Complete A.C. Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab (Complete)

1951 Complete A.C. Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab (Complete)

A.C. Gilbert was a man of true inspiration, often compared to Walt Disney for his creative genius. Gilbert had high expectations of America's youngsters, and with such he tried to help the future engineers, doctors and leaders by providing toys worthy of their imaginations. As the inventor of the Erector Set, and seeing its commercial appeal, the he and his company set a higher goal. They became the leading manufacturer of scientific toys (chemistry sets) and construction sets (Erector), all of which gained wide acclaim at the retail level.

Interested in the joy of science more than remuneration, however, Gilbert created the Atomic Energy Lab U-238 -- with the help of MIT's able faculty. The toy was made to de-mystify the perils of nuclear energy and to encourage the understanding of chemistry, physics and nuclear science -- ultimately helping kids (and adults) become more open to the possibilities these disciplines offer.

This educational composite, which was marketed during 1950-51, sold for $49.50 -- a very high price for a toy set, even by today's standard. One such, Gilbert's "Atomic Energy Lab," is here available and it includes all the original componentry which detail:

1. U-239 Geiger radiation counter.
2. Electroscope to measure radioactivity of different substances.
3. Spinthariscope to watch "live" radioactive disintegration.
4. Wilson Cloud Chamber to see paths of electrons & alpha particles at 10k mps
5. Three very low-level radioactive sources (Alpha, Beta, Gamma).
6. Four samples of Uranium-bearing ores
7. Nuclear Spheres (used to visual build models of molecules)
8. The book "Prospecting for Uranium"
9. The "Gilbert Atomic Energy Manual"
10. The comic book "Learn How Dagwood Splits the Atom"
11. Three "Winchester" Batteries (size "C")

All of these components were retail-presented in a sturdy, hinged case that measures 25" x 16 1/2" x 5", all with an easy-to-carry handle. The case came in beautiful faux snake skin cover with "Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab" wonderfully stenciled on the cover, and atomic particles displayed below.

The set we offer here is truly amazing in that it has all the original pieces in remarkable and apparent unused condition. The case remains in its wonderful red color with minimal wear to the surface, and survives in very strong EX/MT condition. Inside the cover, there appears a full dimension, illustrated paper appliqué which is in Excellent condition, qualified only by a couple small stains and handwritten pricing. The remainder of the contents are still intact, and though appearing unused, they have lain dormant for over half a century and appear in EX/MT condition. The two books are still in EX/MT-NM condition, with the comic book in Excellent (taped spine). Last, but not least, included is an original Gilbert Toys catalog from 1951 which provides an ad for the Atomic Energy Lab. The book is in VG/EX condition.

Overall, the entire set (remarkably still complete) is a true find and though we can't physically go back to the time when atomic energy and toys were as fascinating as this, we may reminisce in how much fun it was to be a kid.