Paul

Interesting.  Thanks for sending it.  Two quesitons.

1.  Has controlled isomic decay ever been demonstrated?

2.  What is the energy of the APS?  I know you can get photo-neutron activation with medical accelerations.  Was that a problem with hafnium?

 Paul Studier <studier@...> wrote:

At 12:20 PM 2/20/2003, Karl Johanson wrote:

------------snip

The AFRL now has other ideas, though. Instead of a conventional fission reactor, it is focusing on a type of power generator called a quantum nucleonic reactor. This obtains energy by using X-rays to encourage particles in the nuclei of radioactive hafnium-178 to jump down several energy levels, liberating energy in the form of gamma rays. A nuclear UAV would generate thrust by using the energy of these gamma rays to produce a jet of heated air.

The military interest was triggered by research published in 1999 by Carl Collins and colleagues at the University of Texas at Dallas. They found that by shining X-rays onto certain types of hafnium they could get it to release 60 times as much energy as they put in (New Scientist print edition, 3 July 1999).


Tightly controlled reaction

The reaction works because a proportion of the hafnium nuclei are "isomers" in which some neutrons and protons sit in higher energy levels than normal. X-ray bombardment makes them release this energy and drop down to a more stable energy level.
------------snip

In advertising, that is called an attention getter.  It certainly got yours.

 Michael McNaughton <mcnaught@...> wrote:

At 09:35 AM 02/26/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>If you are that concerned about setting the record straight, do it. Don't
>shoot the messenger.

Who typed the words "Government security at its best"?

>>At 07:09 AM 02/26/2003 -0800, John Jacobus wrote:
>> >I received this from a friend. Government security at its best.

Mike,

Apologize for what?  Forwarding an article that is being circulated? Since you have first hand information about this situation, I suggest you contact the author at http://www.wired.com/news/feedback/mail/1,2330,91,00.html and the Wired News at http://www.wired.com/news/feedback/  to voice your concerns.  If you do, please send me a copy.

If you are that concerned about setting the record straight, do it.  Don't shoot the messenger.

 Michael McNaughton <mcnaught@...> wrote:

At 07:09 AM 02/26/2003 -0800, John Jacobus wrote:
>I received this from a friend. Government security at its best.

Ok, given the time delay in radsafe and the importance of this topic, I am
going to take a deep breath and try to reply.

At no time in the past 60 years could anybody ever get into a top-secret
area at Los Alamos by stepping over a fence. At present, the nation is at
orange alert, and Los Alamos security is extra-ordinarily tight. Nobody can
get into even a minimal security area without passing several roadblocks
guarded by heavily-armed guards backed by armored vehicles, or climbing
several successive 10-foot-high fences topped by razor wire, watched by
guard towers, and illuminated with search lights.

I ask you to post an apology and a retraction to radsafe and to know-nukes
immediately.

mike
Mike McNaughton
Los Alamos National Lab.
email: mcnaught@... or mcnaughton@...
phone: 505-667-6130

The media reports and the political sniping are of course fun. But you will only
get a serious impression of what the policy document said and why it said it by
reading it and the supporting analyses. All else is just hot air.

Prune

>
> From: "Jim Hoerner" <jim_hoerner@...>
> Date: 2003/02/25 Tue PM 11:48:14 GMT
> To: Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com
> CC: global-energyoptions@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Know_Nukes] UK Lacking Energy
>
> Lacking energy
>
>
> FEW of this Government's policy documents have been as long in the gestation
> as yesterday's much-leaked White Paper on energy. But, as the Tories' Tim
> Yeo put it in a rare piece of Opposition sharp-shooting, what emerged was
> less a political elephant than a timid mouse.

I received this from a friend.  Government security at its best. 

-----Original Message-----


http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,57792,00.html

for a hole in the ground

CONGRESS SHOULD REFORM HOW MONIES FROM THE NUCLEAR WASTE FUND ARE
appropriated, a coalition of state officials and industry
representatives said today. The Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition said
that the only way adequate funding for the repository program at
Yucca Mountain, Nev. can be assured is if Congress passes legislation
saying that the more than $750- million collected each year in
utility fees and the $400-million in annual accrued interest could
only be spent on the repository program and not on any other federal
program.


John Hughes

Richard,

I guess if you had seen the NOVA story you would know they are not talking about nuclear power plants and fuel storarge facilities. 

The way I see it, a number of anti-nuclear people are engaging in the same terror tactics as the terrorist.  Using fear against the public.  Hopefully, this well-done show will help in providing information that people can use to discuss the issue rationally so decision about what society should do incase of a radiological attack.  I also hope that the issue of nuclear power plants and spent fuel is put in proper prospective, i.e., at the bottom of the list. 

I think that NAG is a good name for your group. 

 Know_Nukes Relay <kn_relay@...> wrote:

[ 8 p.m. EST (?)  Check your listings. - JH ]

From : "Raymond Shadis" <shadis@...>
To : "Radio Active News" <radioactivenews@...>, "NECNP"
<necnp@...>
CC : "NRC CONCERNS" <nrc_concerns@yahoogroups.com>, "Jersey Shore Nuclear
Watch" <jerseyshorenuclearwatch@yahoogroups.com>, "CAN" <can@...>
Subject : [NRC_CONCERNS] Fw DIRTY BOMB- NOVA- TONITE
Date : Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:11:46 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard J. Redfield" <dojobber@...>
To: <dojobber@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:58 AM


> Hello,
>
> There will be an important broadcast on Tuesday, Feb. 25th. PBS is
> presenting a NOVA program on "dirty" radiological bombs and their
> consequences. Included at the end of this email are the details about the
> program.
>
> Of course those who are informed know that the greatest material for a
dirty
> radiological bomb is already in place at the San Onofre Unit 1 Spent Fuel
> Pool. Tonight, Feb 24th, at a Coastal Commission meeting, attended by
> Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
> (SONGS) Representatives, I asked Ray Golden (SONGS spokesperson) how thick
> the roof structure over the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool was. His answer was
> illuminating and frightening.
>
> "Not thick enough, not as thick that is as at Units 2/3. That's why we are
> moving it into dry cask storage."
>
> If the security and vulnerability of the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool were the
> primary reason for moving the fuel, it should have been done long, long
ago.
> Any mention by Nuclear Activist Groups (NAGs) or filing of 2.206 petitions
> by them to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)  concerning terrorist
> vulnerability  prior to 9-11 were either ignored by the NRC, the Nuclear
> Industry and SONGS or dismissed with an inadequate answer. The story of
Paul
> Leventhal and Dan Hirsch in getting truck bomb barriers installed at the
> nation's nuclear facilities is a perfect example of this. After 9-11 it is
> another story, or so they say.
>
>. . .

Lacking energy


FEW of this Government's policy documents have been as long in the gestation
as yesterday's much-leaked White Paper on energy. But, as the Tories' Tim
Yeo put it in a rare piece of Opposition sharp-shooting, what emerged was
less a political elephant than a timid mouse. The vexed question of how to
meet Tony Blair's seemingly bold promises to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by
60 per cent by the year 2050 was all but airbrushed out of the picture.


The much-vaunted pledge to replace many of the existing sources of energy
production – coal, gas and nuclear – with so-called sustainable renewables
was watered down from a firm target to a vague ambition. And Industry
Secretary Patricia Hewitt, in a classic piece of Orwellian logic, made it
appear that, rather than slamming the brakes on the nation's economic growth
rate, her desire sharply to reduce the amount of energy used by industry
will actually be good for Britain plc.
There is much muddle and confusion in the Cleaner, Smarter Energy document.
Mrs Hewitt claims that, for the first time, a government has put the
environment at the heart of its energy policy. She is wrong. What the White
Paper does is to pay lip-service to the principles of the Kyoto
climate-change agreements, but then duck the hard choices. How, for
instance, does she reconcile the desire to meet greenhouse-gas emission
targets with her desire for more liberalised energy trading? The simple
answer is that she does not. Her own DTI reforms of the electricity-pricing
mechanisms, for instance, have exposed how inefficient and uneconomic
renewable energy is, compared with coal, gas and nuclear power. For Mrs
Hewitt to make good her pledge to increase the market share for renewables
she has to abandon her liberal, free-market pretensions and offer this
privileged sector of the energy industry state handouts worth about
£1bn-a-year.
The Coalfield Community Campaigners and their MPs, who have argued that coal
should play a central role in any diverse and secure energy portfolio, have
won but a fraction of that sum and much of this is being used not to
"stimulate growth" in the industry over the long term, but to manage the
destructive consequences of industrial decline. Mrs Hewitt says money will
be spent on funding research into clean coal technology, but Britain has
been at the leading edge of this research for decades. What the industry
needs now is not more academic papers, but the construction of new clean
coal-fired power plants.
Nor has Mrs Hewitt grasped the nuclear nettle. The document puts the
building of new nuclear power plants on hold, while acknowledging that the
Government's Kyoto obligations might require this decision to be reversed.
What she did not say is that her own department has concluded that, if New
Labour is to meet these pledges, it would require the construction of a
further 12 Sizewell B-style nuclear-power stations. She knows that could not
be sold to the party faithful, however, so the result is a familiar Blairite
fudge: promising much, costing plenty, but providing little in the way of
new thinking.

24 February 2003

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=104&ArticleID=239990

--
Hold the door for the stranger behind you.  When the driver a
half-car-length in front of you signals to get over, slow down.  Smile and
say "hi" to the folks you pass on the sidewalk.  Give blood.  Volunteer.



_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

[ 8 p.m. EST (?)  Check your listings. - JH ]

From : "Raymond Shadis" <shadis@...>
To : "Radio Active News" <radioactivenews@...>, "NECNP"
<necnp@...>
CC : "NRC CONCERNS" <nrc_concerns@yahoogroups.com>, "Jersey Shore Nuclear
Watch" <jerseyshorenuclearwatch@yahoogroups.com>, "CAN" <can@...>
Subject : [NRC_CONCERNS] Fw DIRTY BOMB- NOVA- TONITE
Date : Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:11:46 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard J. Redfield" <dojobber@...>
To: <dojobber@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:58 AM


> Hello,
>
> There will be an important broadcast on Tuesday, Feb. 25th. PBS is
> presenting a NOVA program on "dirty" radiological bombs and their
> consequences. Included at the end of this email are the details about the
> program.
>
> Of course those who are informed know that the greatest material for a
dirty
> radiological bomb is already in place at the San Onofre Unit 1 Spent Fuel
> Pool. Tonight, Feb 24th, at a Coastal Commission meeting, attended by
> Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
> (SONGS) Representatives, I asked Ray Golden (SONGS spokesperson) how thick
> the roof structure over the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool was. His answer was
> illuminating and frightening.
>
> "Not thick enough, not as thick that is as at Units 2/3. That's why we are
> moving it into dry cask storage."
>
> If the security and vulnerability of the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool were the
> primary reason for moving the fuel, it should have been done long, long
ago.
> Any mention by Nuclear Activist Groups (NAGs) or filing of 2.206 petitions
> by them to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)  concerning terrorist
> vulnerability  prior to 9-11 were either ignored by the NRC, the Nuclear
> Industry and SONGS or dismissed with an inadequate answer. The story of
Paul
> Leventhal and Dan Hirsch in getting truck bomb barriers installed at the
> nation's nuclear facilities is a perfect example of this. After 9-11 it is
> another story, or so they say.
>
>
> Richard Redfield
> webhead@...
>
> **************************************
>
> NOVA Launches Dirty Bomb Web Site for TV Broadcast
>
> Last summer, an American Al Qaeda sympathizer, Jose Padilla, was arrested
on
> suspicion of planning a "dirty bomb" attack on the United States.
Suddenly,
> one of the ultimate nightmare terrorist scenarios seemed a step closer to
> reality.
> But few know what a dirty bomb really is or what devastation it could
cause.
> In this important and timely film, NOVA explores beyond the alarming
> headlines to answer crucial questions: How easy is it to acquire materials
> and manufacture a dirty bomb? How does it differ from a conventional
nuclear
> bomb, and how destructive would it be? And how can lives be saved if one
> should explode?
>
> The program dramatizes two credible attack scenarios based on
sophisticated
> models developed by radiation experts. These models are then played out in
> two major cities, Washington and London, with results that are both
> frightening and sobering.
>
> Here's what you'll find on the companion Web site at
> www.pbs.org/nova/dirtybomb/
> :
> Preparing for Nuclear Terrorism - Former Deputy Secretary of Defense
Graham
> Allison discusses both radiological and nuclear terrorism.
>
> Ask the Expert - Charles Ferguson of the Center for Nonproliferation
Studies
> answers questions emailed to NOVA about the dirty bomb threat.
>
> Chronology of Events -  Review incidents involving unprotected radioactive
> materials in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere.
>
> Sources of Radiation - Explore a landscape and locate radioactive sources
> both harmful and beneficial, natural and manmade.
>
> http://www.pbs.org/nova/dirtybomb/
>
> Broadcast: February 25, 2003 - (NOVA airs Tuesdays on PBS at 8 p.m. Check
> your local listings as
> dates and times may vary.)
>
> ************************************


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Good point - there's something fishy going on...  My comment is that
this kind of shows where whistleblower Zeh is coming from - he
certainly seems like a Rambo-type military-experience hard charger,
who MAY have a point of view of if there isn't an overwhelming force
available to repel quasi-military attacks, it ain't worth it...

Rich

--- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "Tim <kemps89@y...>"
<kemps89@y...> wrote:
> You see, it's comments like this that are totally absurb and show
> that people are only telling a fraction of the story to make their
> point.  The simple fact that they have to put such extreme spin on
> the issue shows that things aren't as bad as they are making them
> out to be.  For example, in the article the following claim is made:
>
> > One of the agility requirements for a security guard at Indian
> Point,
> > according to a man who should know, is to be able to walk 800
feet
> in
> > four minutes.
> > Not on crutches, not in a potato sack, or with a blindfold, but
on
> two
> > feet, unencumbered and with a clear line of vision.
>
> Furthermore, the following comment uses the above to qualify
itsself.
>
> > "It's a joke," said Foster Zeh, who was employed as a security
> manager
> > for the plant's owner, Entergy, until he loudly blew the whistle
> on the
> > nuclear plant's vulnerability to attack and was suspended on Nov.
> 1.
> > Zeh stepped forward as the lead vocal critic of the security
> force's
> > poor fitness and lack of training in the wake of a now-infamous
> Entergy
> > report that revealed that most of the guards had little
confidence
> they
> > could stave off a sophisticated, organized assault on the Buchanan
> > complex.
>
> Now, what do the regs say?  They say much more.  10CFR73 states the
> following:
>
> "...guards, armed response personnel, armed escorts and other armed
> security force members shall demonstrate physical fitness for
> assigned security job duties by performing a practical physical
> exercise program within a specific time period. The exercise
program
> performance objectives...shall consider job-related functions such
> as strenuous activity, physical exertion, levels of stress, and
> exposure to the elements as they pertain to each individual's
> assigned security job duties for both normal and emergency
> operations."
>
> So, the question is...does walking 800 feet in under 4 minutes meet
> the following?  Absolutely not.  I don't know IP's physical fitness
> program, but I can tell you 100% that merely walking 800ft in under
> 4 minutes with absolutely no outside influence (like people
shooting
> at you) or stress (like carrying a 200 lb dummy while people are
> shooting at you) is certainly NOT a part of the physical
> fitness/agility requirements.  Of course, they might have to walk
> 800 feet heel-to-toe (for example) to pass a medical examination
> (ex. vertigo), but not a physical fitness agility test.
>
> So, what are some of the physical requirements of armed guards as
> found in 10CFR73?
>
> The use of deadly force, Self defense, Use of and defenses against
> incapacitating agents, Basic armed and unarmed defensive tactics,
> Response force tactical movement, Reponse force use of support
fire,
> Site specific armed tactical procedures and operation, Armed escort
> adversary engagement, Armed escort use of weapons fire (tactical
and
> combat), yada...yada...yada.
>
> Just go to
> http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part073/part073-
> appb.html
>
> to read all about security guard qualifications and training
> programs.  Surely, average private security guards are not trained
> on a fraction of the topics nuclear security guards are.  Just take
> a look at hte list of qualifications.  I defy anyone to identify
one
> private security guard firm that trains their guards to this level.
>
> Why, then, do the anti's still refer to nuclear security guards
> as "average rent-a-cops" and other similar derogatory terms?
>
> Tim

New York has plenty of power for this summer.  Someone should ask NYISO if
there would still be enough power if
Indian Point were shut down.

NY City will have enough power for summer - NYISO
Tuesday February 25, 12:40 pm ET


NY City will have enough power for summer - NYISO Tuesday February 25,
12:40 pm ET

NEW YORK, Feb 25 (Reuters) - New York City and Long Island, which suffer
some of the tightest power supplies in the nation, should have enough
electricity to get through this summer but more capacity is urgently needed
for the longer term, according to a statement Tuesday by the state's power
grid operator.


The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), the grid operator, said
power supplies will be adequate this summer because of improvements to a
number of existing facilities, the addition of new generation and the
implementation of programs to reduce demand during times of peak power
usage.

Electricity usage in New York peaks in the summer months when air
conditioners consume up to a third of all power generated.

"Despite the forecast for this summer, New York still needs to focus on
getting new generators sited and built on an expedited basis ... demand
continues to rise and shows little sign of abating," said William Museler,
NYISO president and chief executive, in the statement.

"Unless significant generating capacity is added to the system -- and soon
-- demand is going to overwhelm supply and reliability will be at risk," he
warned.

In New York City and Long Island, the NYISO forecast a peak summer demand
of 11,020 MW and 4,849 MW, respectively. The existing all-time peaks are
12,207 in New York City and 5,059 MW on Long Island.

The NYISO forecast a peak summer demand of 31,430 megawatts for the entire
state, up from an all-time record of 30,983 MW set last August.

One megawatt is enough to power about 1,000 average homes.

The report left out a few points:

e. UK will continue to go to war over oil

f. forget about meeting any CO2 goals

g. plan to import more nuclear power cross channel from France

John Hughes



--- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "Prune" <prune.etna@n...> wrote:
> Dear list members
>
> Apologies for the length of this post, but today the UK government
> published its long-awaited energy policy: "Our energy future -
creating a
> low carbon
> economy" and I thought energyoptions and know-nukes list members
might like
> a flavour of it. You will have seen the various leaks in newspapers
over the
> weekend (Jim forwarded a couple), but here is the real thing:
>
> www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper
>
> This afternoon the Prime Minister formally announced that the
government had
> accepted the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental
> Pollution to aim for a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. He
and the
> Prime Minister of Sweden have written a joint letter to the
President of the
> European Union urging this to be taken up as an EU target and
promulgated as
> a global target.
>
> Quote from the white paper:
>
> "We will have four goals for our energy policy:
>
>   a.. to put ourselves on a path to cut the UK's carbon dioxide
emissions -
> the main contributor to global warming - by some 60% by about 2050
with real
> progress by 2020;
>
>   b.. to maintain the reliability of energy supplies;
>
>   c.. to promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond, helping
to raise
> the rate of sustainable economic growth and to improve our
productivity; and
>
>   d.. to ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated.
>
> The white paper has been formulated through wide consultation and
analysis.
> Key supporting documents are published below alongside the white
paper and
> summary" [End quote]
>
> The main tools for achieving these goals will be increased reliance
on
> renewables coupled with an energy conservation strategy.
>
> The government remains neutral on nuclear. The message (after
extensive
> analysis) is: let the market decide but it doesn't look economically
> competitive. Quote:
>
> "Nuclear power is currently an important source of carbon-free
electricity.
> However its current economics make it an unattractive option for
new,
> carbon-free generating capacity. There are also important issues of
nuclear
> waste to be resolved, including legacy waste and continued waste
arising
> from other sources. We do not make specific proposals for building
new
> nuclear power stations. However we do not rule out the possibility
that at
> some point in the future new nuclear build might be necessary if we
are to
> meet our carbon targets." [End quote]
>
> Prune

-- Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave., Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8583 or 609-601-8537; ncohen12@... UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE: http://www.unplugsalem.org/ COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE WEBSITE: http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org The Coalition for Peace and Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.
"First they ignore you; Then they laugh at you; Then they fight you; Then you win. (Gandhi) "Why walk when you can fly?" (Mary Chapin Carpenter)

-- Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave., Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8583 or 609-601-8537; ncohen12@... UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE: http://www.unplugsalem.org/ COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE WEBSITE: http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org The Coalition for Peace and Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.
"First they ignore you; Then they laugh at you; Then they fight you; Then you win. (Gandhi) "Why walk when you can fly?" (Mary Chapin Carpenter)

You see, it's comments like this that are totally absurb and show
that people are only telling a fraction of the story to make their
point.  The simple fact that they have to put such extreme spin on
the issue shows that things aren't as bad as they are making them
out to be.  For example, in the article the following claim is made:

> One of the agility requirements for a security guard at Indian
Point,
> according to a man who should know, is to be able to walk 800 feet
in
> four minutes.
> Not on crutches, not in a potato sack, or with a blindfold, but on
two
> feet, unencumbered and with a clear line of vision.

Furthermore, the following comment uses the above to qualify itsself.

> "It's a joke," said Foster Zeh, who was employed as a security
manager
> for the plant's owner, Entergy, until he loudly blew the whistle
on the
> nuclear plant's vulnerability to attack and was suspended on Nov.
1.
> Zeh stepped forward as the lead vocal critic of the security
force's
> poor fitness and lack of training in the wake of a now-infamous
Entergy
> report that revealed that most of the guards had little confidence
they
> could stave off a sophisticated, organized assault on the Buchanan
> complex.

Now, what do the regs say?  They say much more.  10CFR73 states the
following:

"...guards, armed response personnel, armed escorts and other armed
security force members shall demonstrate physical fitness for
assigned security job duties by performing a practical physical
exercise program within a specific time period. The exercise program
performance objectives...shall consider job-related functions such
as strenuous activity, physical exertion, levels of stress, and
exposure to the elements as they pertain to each individual's
assigned security job duties for both normal and emergency
operations."

So, the question is...does walking 800 feet in under 4 minutes meet
the following?  Absolutely not.  I don't know IP's physical fitness
program, but I can tell you 100% that merely walking 800ft in under
4 minutes with absolutely no outside influence (like people shooting
at you) or stress (like carrying a 200 lb dummy while people are
shooting at you) is certainly NOT a part of the physical
fitness/agility requirements.  Of course, they might have to walk
800 feet heel-to-toe (for example) to pass a medical examination
(ex. vertigo), but not a physical fitness agility test.

So, what are some of the physical requirements of armed guards as
found in 10CFR73?

The use of deadly force, Self defense, Use of and defenses against
incapacitating agents, Basic armed and unarmed defensive tactics,
Response force tactical movement, Reponse force use of support fire,
Site specific armed tactical procedures and operation, Armed escort
adversary engagement, Armed escort use of weapons fire (tactical and
combat), yada...yada...yada.

Just go to
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part073/part073-
appb.html

to read all about security guard qualifications and training
programs.  Surely, average private security guards are not trained
on a fraction of the topics nuclear security guards are.  Just take
a look at hte list of qualifications.  I defy anyone to identify one
private security guard firm that trains their guards to this level.

Why, then, do the anti's still refer to nuclear security guards
as "average rent-a-cops" and other similar derogatory terms?

Tim

Copyright 2003 Financial Times Information
All rights reserved
Global News Wire - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire
Copyright 2003 Kasturi & Sons Ltd (KSL)
The Hindu


February 20, 2003
HEADLINE: RADIATION EXPOSURE - CONCERNS, FEARS


BODY:
ON MARCH 15, 1999, a major study of about 1,25,000 radiation workers
in the U. K. confirmed that the death rates from all causes and all
forms of cancer are lower for radiation workers than for the general
population. The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), UK set
up the database in 1976.

Several studies of health effects of radiation workers have indicated
that there are no major hazards associated with working in nuclear
industry. If it is so, why is it that there is so much concern about
radiation exposure? Nobody knew about ionising radiation till the
discovery of x-rays in 1895. Uncontrolled use of x-rays emitted from
ill-designed x-ray tubes injured those who handled them carelessly.

In 1927, Mueller irradiated fruit flies with x-rays and demonstrated
the genetic effects of radiation. But no genetic effects were seen in
the children of the survivors of atomic bombings. The study of this
population started in 1950 and continues to-date.

Scientists have assessed radiation risk to fifty population groups of
nearly two million adults and children who were exposed to radiation.
These included radiologists and radium dial painters who were exposed
occupationally, survivors of atomic bomb explosions at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, uranium miners and patients who were treated with radiation
or radioactive substances. In over 3,00,000 persons exposed to doses,
which are 50-100 times the dose limit to workers, excess cancers were
found.

Dr.Boice J.D.Jr who reviewed the data of patients irradiated for
medical reasons observed that a single exposure is sufficient to
elevate cancer incidence many years later. Radiation induced cancer
is indistinguishable from natural cancers. Almost all cancers
appeared to increase after irradiation. Let me reiterate that
conclusive evidence exists only at high doses.

The doses received by radiation workers are relatively low. At these
dose levels, it is difficult to quantify the harmful effects, if any,
of radiation. The survivors of atomic bombing at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki seem to have suffered from statistically significant cancer
risks even at low doses of radiation. International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP) asserted that there is no threshold
dose below which harmful effects are not expected. Gunnar Walinder,
an eminent Swedish radiobiologist criticised the Linear Non Threshold
(LNT) concept of radiological protection. He argued that the whole
chain of events preceding cancer occurs in a multi-step process
within a complex adaptive system.

The extrapolation of data from observed effects at high doses all the
way to zero dose is not justified. The Health Physics Society - the
oldest and the largest of its kind in the world - also disputed the
extrapolation procedure. HPS cautioned that at low dose levels, only
dose is credible and statements of associated risk are more
speculative than credible.

Radiation Protection Bulletin - the official publication of NRPB
endorsed the ICRP view.

The Bulletin stated "foreign readers might be forgiven for fearing
that the deregulatory fervour in Congress is affecting health
physicists and leading them towards a rift with the rest of the
world." Obviously, the controversy generated more heat than light!

Roger Clarke, Chairman, ICRP argued that a single radiation track
traversing a cell in the human body may cause damage to it, which may
manifest as cancer later.

He felt that the pursuit of threshold is misguided. According to him,
the real issue to be decided between scientists, regulators, and the
public is not a threshold for risk but the acceptability of risk.

Regulators have a difficult time! As a conservative step, they will
prescribe dose limits based on the best data and will insist that
workers should avoid all unnecessary radiation exposures; also,
unavoidable exposures must be as low as is reasonably achievable.

If these conditions are fulfilled, radiation work will not entail any
unacceptable risks.

A few mavericks argued that radiation exposure is beneficial! There
are other phenomena, which challenge the bases for radiological
protection. These may be covered in another article.

ANS Position statement from
http://www.ans.org/pi/positionstatements/pdfs/ps47.pdf

Disposition of Surplus Weapons Plutonium Using Mixed
Oxide Fuel

Position Statement

November 2002

The American Nuclear Society (ANS) endorses the rapid application of mixed
oxide (MOX) fuel
technology to accomplish the timely disposition of surplus weapons-grade
plutonium in the United States
and in the Russian Federation.
The end of the Cold War has led to universal recognition that both the
United States and Russia possess
stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium that far exceed their defense
requirements. In 1994 the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) stated
The existence of this material (surplus weapons-usable plutonium and highly
enriched uranium)
constitutes a clear and present danger to national and international
security. (parenthetical phrase
added)1
The events of September 11, 2001 lend further emphasis to the need to
minimize the chance of weapons-grade
plutonium falling into the wrong hands.
Russia and the United States have held extensive discussions on plutonium
disposition, culminating in a
September 2000 agreement 2 to dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus
weapons-grade plutonium in each
country. In the United States, the Department of Energy has completed two
major Environmental Impact
Statements on surplus plutonium disposition 3,4 . Implementation of the
associated Records of Decision 5,6
has resulted in an ongoing program to dispose of surplus United States
weapons-grade plutonium by
fabricating the material into MOX fuel and using the fuel in commercial
nuclear reactors. In Russia, the
Ministry of Atomic Energy (MINATOM) is developing a similar program to
dispose of surplus Russian
weapons-grade plutonium as MOX fuel in existing reactors. Russia is also
considering the use of the
surplus plutonium as fuel for future advanced reactors.
Irradiation of MOX fuel destroys much of the weapons-grade plutonium and
isotopically degrades the
remainder so that it is less attractive for use in nuclear weapons. In
addition, spent MOX fuel assemblies
are large, highly radioactive, and maintained under material and security
controls. Use of MOX fuel in
light water reactors has been found to be fully compliant with the “Spent
Fuel Standard” for plutonium
disposition, while proliferation issues remain to be resolved with
alternative technologies such as “can-in-canister”
immobilization 7 .
There are several potential technologies, including immobilization and
advanced reactors, that could be
used to dispose of surplus plutonium, but MOX fuel is the only such
technology that has been proven on
an industrial scale. MOX fuel demonstration programs began in the 1960s in
the United States and
Europe. In the early 1980s, use of significant quantities of MOX fuel began
in European nuclear power
reactors. Commercial MOX fuel fabrication has been ongoing at three
facilities in Belgium and France
for some time, and a fourth facility in the United Kingdom is currently
starting up. Thirty-five nuclear
power reactors in Europe are currently using significant quantities of MOX
fuel to produce electricity.
The safety and performance record of MOX fuel is comparable to that of
low-enriched uranium fuel 8,9 .
While the United States program to dispose of surplus weapons-grade
plutonium using MOX
fuel is underway, successful completion of the overall program is not
assured. Challenges
include achieving commensurate progress in Russia, obtaining regulatory
approvals for MOX
fuel fabrication and MOX fuel use, financing the United States and Russian
programs, and
maintaining public support. To help surmount these challenges, the ANS makes
the following
recommendations.
•The United States and the international community should take the necessary
steps to support
the completion of the United States and Russian disposition programs.
•The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission should perform thorough safety,
security, and
environmental reviews in a timely manner, taking full advantage of the
existing international
MOX fuel experience base.
•Governmental and non-governmental organizations should sponsor information
exchanges
among the United States, Russia, and other industrialized nations with MOX
fuel expertise.
•Industry and professional organizations should work to educate the public
and media about
the nonproliferation benefits of the MOX fuel program and the safe and
successful track
record of manufacturing and using MOX fuel.
_______________________________
The American Nuclear Society, founded in 1954, is a not-for-profit
scientific and educational society of over 10,500 scientists,
engineers, and educators from universities, government and private
laboratories, and industry.
Position Statements are the considered opinions and judgments of the Society
in matters related to nuclear science and
technology. They are intended to provide an objective basis for weighing the
facts in reaching decisions on important
national issues.

1 National Academy of Sciences, Management and Disposition of Plutonium,
Committee on Arms
Control and International Security, 1994, p. 1.
2 Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the
Government of the
Russian Federation Concerning the Management and Disposition of Plutonium
Designated As No Longer
Required for Defense Purposes and Related Cooperation, September 2000.
3 U. S. Department of Energy, Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable
Fissile Materials Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0229), December 1996.
4 U. S. Department of Energy, Surplus Plutonium Disposition Final
Environmental Impact
Statement (DOE/EIS-0283), November 1999.
5 U. S. Department of Energy, Record of Decision for the Storage and
Disposition of Weapons-Usable
Fissile Materials Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, January
14, 1997.
6 U. S. Department of Energy, Record of Decision for the Surplus Plutonium
Disposition Final
Environmental Impact Statement, January 4, 2000.
7 U. S. Department of Energy, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Assessment
of Weapons-Usable
Fissile Material Storage and Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives,
January 1997, Section 7 –
Conclusions Relating to Specific Alternatives.
8 P. Blainpain and F. Frery, Plutonium Recycling in French Power Plants: MOX
Fuel Irradiation
Experience and Behaviour, Institution of Nuclear Engineers, Windermere,
Cumbria, United Kingdom, June 1996.9
Belgian Nuclear Society Conference Report on Plutonium 2000 - International
Conference on the
Future of Plutonium, Brussels, Belgium, October 9-11, 2000.

--
Hold the door for the stranger behind you.  When the driver a
half-car-length in front of you signals to get over, slow down.  Smile and
say "hi" to the folks you pass on the sidewalk.  Give blood.  Volunteer.



_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

[Thanks for the link to the paper, Prune.  I was going to post the same.
Interesting on how the press simultaneously reported "nuclear power is out"
and "the door's wide open for nuclear power", while the real story was
basically "we aren't touching it; they can build them if they want".

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  With the UK's current
electricity supply, nuclear is certainly expensive there, but by increasing
renewables to 20% of supply from 3% by 2020, it is predicted that
electricity rates will rise about 5-25%.  In my book, that means renewables
are about twice as expensive as conventional sources, even without storage.

Nice goals (and a pretty picture of windmills on the cover), but if the UK
thinks nukes are expensive, they ain't seen nothin' yet.  A 60% reduction in
CO2 emissins by 2050 is something I predict they won't be able to afford
without a massive investment in nuclear technology.

Regards,
Jim]

Blair unveils 'radical' energy plans

The UK is to commit to a big shift towards cleaner forms of energy, Tony
Blair has said.

The prime minister's key-note speech coincides with the publication of a
long-awaited White Paper detailing plans to radically cut pollution blamed
for global warming.

He said that Britain will agree a goal of a 60% reduction in carbon dioxide
emissions by 2050.

Mr Blair also rejected calls for new nuclear power stations and said he
wanted to concentrate on encouraging use of renewable energy, such as wave
and wind power.

But the Conservative Trade and Industry spokesman, Tim Yeo, has said he is
worried that the UK will end up more reliant on energy from abroad.

The White Paper suggests that 10% of electricity should come from renewables
by 2010 - up from 3% now - with an "aspirational goal" of 20% by 2020.

ENERGY PAPER'S MAIN POINTS
CO2 emissions to be cut drastically
No new nuclear power stations to be built for present
More electricity to come from clean sources like waves and wind
New moves to cut energy use and waste

Measures to cut down on the amount of energy actually used, or wasted, are
also proposed.

Earlier, Energy Minister Brian Wilson told the BBC that the White Paper
signalled "a good day" for the environment, although the UK would have to
work hard to meet the goals.

He said: "We have a firm existing target for renewables to make up 10% of
electricity in the UK by 2010 and we say we should be aiming to double that
by 2020.

"Ten per cent by 2010 is a challenging target."

Nuclear concern

But some analysts have thrown doubt on whether targets, particularly those
on CO2, can be achieved without nuclear energy.

Britain's 16 nuclear power stations will all reach the end of their working
lives in about 30 years.

Environmental groups have welcomed the move away from nuclear power.

A spokesperson for Friends of the Earth said: "The White Paper will
hopefully sound the final death knell for nuclear power in Britain."

Some householders as well as the nuclear industry may be disgruntled by the
proposals, which will add to electricity prices.

The paper says the new policies will add between five and 15% to household
electricity prices, up to 25% to industrial electricity prices and up to 30%
to industrial gas prices by 2020.

Energy Saving Trust chief executive Philip Sellwood said: "The government is
right not to invest in nuclear.

"We welcome the government's confirmation, that in the words of the White
Paper, the cheapest, cleanest and safest way of addressing all our goals is
to use less energy.

"By making the right investment decisions now we will ensure that the White
Paper delivers on its objectives."

Coal and gas

Coal, which fuels about 35% of the country's power stations, will continue
to play a role in Britain's energy mix, although the emphasis would need to
be on cleaner technology, says the paper.

Gas, which is cleaner and accounts for more than a third of the energy mix,
will also continue to play a key role and the government will need to ensure
it secures future supplies from foreign markets, according to the White
Paper.

Sir Bernard Ingham, secretary of the Supporters of Nuclear Energy group,
said the government's "so-called" energy policy was no answer to Britain's
needs.

He accused them of avoiding the policy which was staring it in the face -
developing nuclear power.

"As the Royal Society has pointed out, intermittent and unproven renewable
sources of energy are no answer to Britain's needs for reliable, continuous
electricity."

Analysts have also expressed concerned that by 2010 the UK is on course to
be a net fuel importer, for the first time since the industrial revolution -
which brings political and economic implications.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2792731.stm

--
Hold the door for the stranger behind you.  When the driver a
half-car-length in front of you signals to get over, slow down.  Smile and
say "hi" to the folks you pass on the sidewalk.  Give blood.  Volunteer.

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

From: krabin@... [mailto:krabin@...]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:30 PM
To: indianpointsec@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [indianpointsec] 02-20-03 Former Indian Point guard speaks out


THE JOURNAL NEWS
COMMENTARY
Former Indian Point guard speaks out
By PHIL REISMAN

(Original publication: February 20, 2003)
One of the agility requirements for a security guard at Indian Point,
according to a man who should know, is to be able to walk 800 feet in
four minutes.
Not on crutches, not in a potato sack, or with a blindfold, but on two
feet, unencumbered and with a clear line of vision.
This standard of tortoise-like slowness would be laughable if not for
the fact that we currently live under a color-coded veil of terroristic
threats and that the nuclear power facility, one of 103 in the nation,
is considered to be on the A-list of potential targets. But there it is.

"It's a joke," said Foster Zeh, who was employed as a security manager
for the plant's owner, Entergy, until he loudly blew the whistle on the
nuclear plant's vulnerability to attack and was suspended on Nov. 1.
Zeh stepped forward as the lead vocal critic of the security force's
poor fitness and lack of training in the wake of a now-infamous Entergy
report that revealed that most of the guards had little confidence they
could stave off a sophisticated, organized assault on the Buchanan
complex.
In a phone conversation, Zeh made it clear that his dim view of Indian
Point security hasn't changed, despite the recent news that the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission will resume mock assault drills at the plant as
early as this spring and that two security forces at the facility -
Wackenhut and Entergy's private force - will be merged into one
streamlined unit under Entergy's direct supervision.
Simply put, Zeh is skeptical that Entergy will ever spend the money
needed to truly transform the plant's existing personnel into a
top-notch security force that goes beyond the minimum requirements set
by the NRC.
"You can't look at security as a business," Zeh said. "We don't make
money for anybody. We don't bring income in. But what we do is provide
insurance that nothing is going to happen."
Cost-cutting and merely meeting the minimum standards "is a terrible
mentality," he said. "Because this is not a mall."
Zeh, who is 44 and has an extensive military background, said he trained
most of the guards at Indian Point and believed they would stand and
fight in a crisis. But he also said that the "defense structure of the
plant itself would not be able to withstand a planned attack."
He said an assault drill typically involved three adversaries, armed
with rubber guns and whistles, whose "mission" was to breach the fence
line and hit two "choke points." The scenario never changed and yet, 75
percent of the time, Zeh said, the assault was successful.
Zeh and others wondered why the drills weren't varied or at least more
realistic. He said a real attack would likely come from more than one
side and involve a decoy. "Anybody who's coming at this plant - it's not
going to be that they're driving around in Peekskill and all of a sudden
they make up their minds that they're going to go to Indian Point."
Presumably the NRC's new drills will be more realistic.
Nevertheless, Zeh said Indian Point remains vulnerable from the air and
from the Hudson River. He claimed that the dozen or so National Guard
soldiers on duty have little or no combat experience and have not been
issued standing orders of engagement.
Entergy urgently needs to improve its weapons training and fitness
standards, Zeh said. In effect, he said there are no real standards.
"You can be five-feet-two and weigh 300 pounds," he said. "It doesn't
matter."
When he tried to institute a seven-day training program in the use of
M-16 rifles, Entergy cut it down to three. This left Zeh feeling
frustrated and betrayed.
"I'll get you qualified," he said. "But I'm not going to make a warrior
out of you."
Larry Gottlieb, Entergy's director of communications, replied yesterday
that it was not a goal for "everybody to be a Rambo."
"That's not how our security force is designed," he said.
Gottlieb said much of the security work involves the handling and
monitoring of surveillance equipment. He said the primary responsibility
is to employ a "containment strategy" and protect the plant's core.
Still, he said Entergy's security force at Indian Point is larger than
at any other plant in the nation and that the firm has set "very high
standards," higher than those set by the NRC in fitness and agility. He
said during the merger of the two security forces, 50 to 60 more
officers will be added to alleviate the overtime caused by the weapons
training.
"It's not that we don't want to pay it," he said. "It's just that there
are folks who complain they're working too many hours."
After 9/11, Indian Point is like the proverbial second shoe no one wants
to see drop.
For his part, Zeh said he's "seen it all."
"And what's really frustrating," he added, "is that they know, the
security management knows, that the force they've put in place cannot
defend that plant against an attack."

--
Hold the door for the stranger behind you.  When the driver a
half-car-length in front of you signals to get over, slow down.  Smile and
say "hi" to the folks you pass on the sidewalk.  Give blood.  Volunteer.



_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Know_Nukes has moved.  There are still a few things to be taken care of, but
we now have the 512 MB of message storage space.  It's still called
Know_Nukes, and located at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes.
Hopefully, you didn't even notice.

Important:
Old messages are at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes_Archives

There was some trouble moving the last bit of IDs due to Yahoo's database
being really slow at the time.  If your email address begins with a letter
from "R" (actually "Ro") through "Z",  you might have missed some messages
which can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes/messages .

Some people have their Yahoo profile set up denying "direct adds", so I was
not allowed to move them to the new group.  They were emailed and invited to
come along.  They may have missed some messages also.

Everyone should be set at the options they had before the move, assuming I
didn't make any mistakes with the 500 mouse clicks.  It might take some time
for the database to catch up, but if you are having any problems like not
getting emails or getting too many, please email me directly, and I promptly
check into it and/or fix it.  Of course, if you aren't getting emails, you
probably won't see this one either :-).

Regards,
Jim

--
Hold the door for the stranger behind you.  When the driver a
half-car-length in front of you signals to get over, slow down.  Smile and
say "hi" to the folks you pass on the sidewalk.  Give blood.  Volunteer.



_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Dear list members

Apologies for the length of this post, but today the UK government
published its long-awaited energy policy: "Our energy future - creating a
low carbon
economy" and I thought energyoptions and know-nukes list members might like
a flavour of it. You will have seen the various leaks in newspapers over the
weekend (Jim forwarded a couple), but here is the real thing:

www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper

This afternoon the Prime Minister formally announced that the government had
accepted the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution to aim for a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. He and the
Prime Minister of Sweden have written a joint letter to the President of the
European Union urging this to be taken up as an EU target and promulgated as
a global target.

Quote from the white paper:

"We will have four goals for our energy policy:

   a.. to put ourselves on a path to cut the UK's carbon dioxide emissions -
the main contributor to global warming - by some 60% by about 2050 with real
progress by 2020;

   b.. to maintain the reliability of energy supplies;

   c.. to promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond, helping to raise
the rate of sustainable economic growth and to improve our productivity; and

   d.. to ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated.

The white paper has been formulated through wide consultation and analysis.
Key supporting documents are published below alongside the white paper and
summary" [End quote]

The main tools for achieving these goals will be increased reliance on
renewables coupled with an energy conservation strategy.

The government remains neutral on nuclear. The message (after extensive
analysis) is: let the market decide but it doesn't look economically
competitive. Quote:

"Nuclear power is currently an important source of carbon-free electricity.
However its current economics make it an unattractive option for new,
carbon-free generating capacity. There are also important issues of nuclear
waste to be resolved, including legacy waste and continued waste arising
from other sources. We do not make specific proposals for building new
nuclear power stations. However we do not rule out the possibility that at
some point in the future new nuclear build might be necessary if we are to
meet our carbon targets." [End quote]

Prune

From: <mancino@...>

> Hi everyone,  I have an idea for a science experiment, and I need
> someone to explain what material 'glows' when an electrical
> charge passes near it.  The distance to the electrical wire is 1-2
> mm and the charge is 20 - 40 kV / 20-30mA.  I am trying to
> demonstrate electrical 'presence' in a home made electric motor
> for my experiment.
>
> Thanks, Sam.

Is it AC? I'd try using a fluorescent light tube near it.

You can try running the wire in front of your computer monitor. The magnetic
field (different than the electrical field) surrounding the wire might
distort the image on the screen slightly, and make for some pretty colours.
(I'd only do this on a monitor with an auto degauss button.)

Karl Johanson

Hi everyone,  I have an idea for a science experiment, and I need
someone to explain what material 'glows' when an electrical
charge passes near it.  The distance to the electrical wire is 1-2
mm and the charge is 20 - 40 kV / 20-30mA.  I am trying to
demonstrate electrical 'presence' in a home made electric motor
for my experiment.

Thanks, Sam.

No. 03-024	February 21, 2003
NRC ANNOUNCES OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENT ON SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL TRANSPORTATION TEST PROPOSALS Printable Version
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct four public meetings: on March 6, in Bethesda, Maryland; on March 12 and 13, in Las Vegas and Pahrump, Nevada, respectively; and on March 19, in Rosemont, Illinois, to obtain comments on a proposal to test casks for transporting radioactive spent fuel by rail and by truck. The proposal is part of the Package Performance Study (PPS) that focuses research on the possibilities and consequences of severe transportation accidents. The proposals are described in a test protocols report that outlines full-scale, high speed spent fuel cask impact and fire testing experiments that NRC is considering sponsoring over the next few years. The March 6 workshop will be held from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., in the NRC Two White Flint North Auditorium at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The March 12 workshop will be held from 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m., at the Clark County Building Department, Russell/Cameron Office, 4701 West Russell Road, Las Vegas, Nevada. The March 13 public meeting/seminar will be held from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., at the Mountain View Casino and Bowl, 1750 South Pahrump Valley Boulevard, Pahrump, Nevada. The March 19 workshop will be held from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., at the Embassy Suites Hotel O’Hare, 5500 N. River Road, Rosemont, Illinois. The workshops will be conducted in a roundtable format with a limited number of invited participants. A facilitator will ensure participation by a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including citizen and environmental groups, nuclear and transportation industries, academia, and governmental representatives at the Federal, State and local level. Others are welcome to attend and will have opportunities to comment on each agenda item to be discussed by roundtable participants. The test protocols report (NUREG-1768) is available for comment at the NRC’s website at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1768/. Additionally, copies of the report and other PPS-related documents can be found at http://ttd.sandia.gov/nrc/modal.htm or obtained by contacting Ms. Amy Snyder by e-mail at ams3@... or by telephone at 301-415-8580. Written comments on the report will be accepted until May 30, and can be submitted by e-mail or addressed to Ms. Snyder at the Spent Fuel Project Office, Mail Stop O13-D13, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Was

-- Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave., Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8583 or 609-601-8537; ncohen12@... UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE: http://www.unplugsalem.org/ COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE WEBSITE: http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org The Coalition for Peace and Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.
"First they ignore you; Then they laugh at you; Then they fight you; Then you win. (Gandhi) "Why walk when you can fly?" (Mary Chapin Carpenter)

At 12:20 PM 2/20/2003, Karl Johanson wrote:

------------snip
The AFRL now has other ideas, though... This obtains energy by using X-rays to encourage particles in the nuclei of radioactive hafnium-178 to jump ...
The military interest was triggered by research published in 1999 by Carl Collins and colleagues at the University of Texas at Dallas. They found that by shining X-rays onto certain types of hafnium they could get it to release 60 times as much energy as they put in (New Scientist print edition, 3 July 1999).

Tightly controlled reaction
... X-ray bombardment makes them release this energy and drop down to a more stable energy level.
------------snip

Here is a report that challenges the feasibility of the whole scheme:
http://www.llnl.gov/llnl/06news/NewsReleases/2001/NR-01-08-05.html
Basically, they say that X-rays will not stimulate the isomeric transition.