"HALL GATE" SCANDAL BEGINS

John Hall disgraces his new office

The so-called "return of ethics" principle, upon which the new Democratic majority was elected, will be seriously challenged by the attempt of long-time antinuclear celebrity turned congress member John Hall to launch a private legislative vendetta, calling for an obviously unneeded independent safety assessment of Indian Point power plant, to satisfy the wishes of old adherents.

Modeling itself on the only other such inspection ever held, one at Maine Yankee in 1996, this bill would propose a pointless search for some unknown and unspecified "wrong" ---which is at root, an undoable task. (Maine Yankee's inspection grew from a specific whistle blower complaint in a declining and below average plant.)

Hall's bill would target no specific wrongdoing (no whistleblower has complained), in a vastly improved, previously inspected smoothly functioning above average plant, run by a corporation that offers to manage poorly run plants for other utilities, and bring them up to par.

Hall must know this, and so the motive for this inspection cannot be valid, as was the reason for Maine Yankee's inspection. The motive must be sought in Hall's antinuclear past, and antinuclear following, and washes out as pure legislative harrassment of a well run, and widely accepted business, simply because it is "nuclear".

A Bisconti research poll recently showed that 80% of people living within ten miles of nuclear plants favored the plants, and Hall has access to this poll. So that pushes the status of his antinuclear harrassment bill down another notch, to that of a vanity bill, one concocted with no hope of success, to make him look good to old supporters.

And this is supposedly "a new ethics"?
This might more accurately be termed a corrupt misuse of a newly won office, to punish an old enemy, via legislative harrassment, against the will of the people, to gain press notice.

We might even term it "Hallgate".

Why So Quiet?

In 1995 a whistle blower wrote to the Union of Concerned Scientists, alleging that he had participated in the falsification of computer code at Maine Yankee atomic power plant, in order to gain an undeserved power uprate at that plant. The utmost seriousness of the crime he alleged, and the lack of its detection by the NRC (who had granted the uprate), called into question the honesty and/or criminality of Maine Yankee's management, and the competency and/or complicity of the NRC as an organization, and did it all very credibly, from inside the fence.

A public allegation of a specific criminal act so serious had to be addressed, quickly, and in the most high-level fashion.That is why NRC immediately revoked Maine Yankee's uprate, and did an Independent Safety Assessment there.

The inspection done was a duplicate of NRC's usual inspections, and was "independent" only in the fact that inspectors from other NRC regions made up the team of 25 inspectors (not the previous Maine Yankee residents), and a small group of state inspectors sat in with the NRC team.

Unfortunately for Maine Yankee, and its ultra-thrifty parent company, a host of unacceptable conditions, and license deviations was found by the team, which would have challenged the plant's parent company to spend a lot of cash to fix things up. Two months after the report was issued Maine Yankee ceased operation.

After reading the report, and a host of other documents about the ISA, I have concluded that Maine Yankee, as a situation, and as a plant, bears no resemblance whatsoever to Entergy's Indian Point plant in Buchanan New York.

Maine Atomic corporation was cheap, ignored the plant, held back needed funds, never fixed anything, was short of staff, allowed fakery and evasion in its codes, as long as profits were made. Long-term bad conditions were tolerated so long they were forgotten, and when NRC came in, they were glaringly easily found. The Maine Yankee ISA was needed, and did a decent job. Maine Yankee should have been radically fixed, or shut down. In keeping with its cheapness and lack of faith in itself, Maine Atomic chose to fold.

On the other hand......
Entergy corporation, an organization suffused with belief in America's nuclear future, has undergone a steady series of improvements at Indian Point since 2001, improving not only items that Maine Yankee forgot about, but many others, also.Most importantly, no whistleblower allegation similar to the Maine Yankee false-computer-code allegation, has ever been made at Indian Point, and so...... no immediate prima facia reason, or rationale exists for an independent safety assessment in New York. Entergy's Buchanan plant is not understaffed, as was Maine Yankee, Entergy is not intent only on bleeding profits, as was Maine Atomic, Indian Point's design basis has just undergone a five year $40 million dollar revamp, its testing program is fully certified, its material condition is excellent, there are a minimum of operator burdens and workarounds, backlogs are way down, and the plant has a full complement of system engineers (Maine atomic did not believe in system engineers, never hired any, and so no individual champions ever existed for out of whack plant systems). Entergy has a full complement of system engineers. Every single thing that was bad at Maine Yankee, is exceptionally good at Indian Point. Indian Point's Cable separation and Reactor Protection systems have just undergone exhaustive five year detailed inspections, leading to major upgrades.-- these areas were ignored and completely deficient in Maine. Inspectors in Maine found a wire to start its safety pumps was glaringly not even attached. All these systems are newly inspected at Buchanan.

Researching all this has only reinforced how little our politicians know about today's nuclear power industry, especially the Entergy fleet, which in almost every way is the exact opposite of Maine Yankee, and an exemplar of every good quality Maine Atomic Corporation never bothered to achieve. Almost every single shortfall in the Maine Yankee Independent Safety Inspection is in some area that Entergy has addressed previously and vigorously at its Indian Point plant, and thus pre-improved to far beyond what Maine Yankee could have attained, even if its corporation had stayed the course.

It's more than apples and oranges.
It's worm-eaten rotten Maine apples versus fresh golden Indian Point Oranges.

Anti-nuclear press agentry shops have hung their hat on the supposition that something must be wrong at Indian Point, because they want something to be wrong. Unfortunately for that supposition, Entergy got there the firstest, with the mostest, and more or less started their own, internally motivated Independent Safety Assessment in concert with their purchase, beginning over 7 long years ago. The sum total of the very exhaustive, near-complete round of multimillion dollar improvements adds up to a firm, valuable local infrastructure resource, a gem in New York State's energy crown, and a wanted, valued business linchpin, upholding the local area's wellbeing, in ways that talking head activism cannot ever replace, and does not intend to.

Those calling for an independent assessment might more productively assess the source of their negatively-spun misinformation, and the self-inflating claims of those who stand to gain from the notoriety attached to false accusation. That way at least, they will have something to find, and our lights can stay on.

Why so quiet?
Nothing's wrong.

THE MORAL IMPERATIVE OF NUCLEAR

The Moral Imperative of Nuclear

I always knew the earth's core was hot, but It was unclear to me exactly why. On some astronomical bodies, such as Jupiter's moon Io , it's flexing due to Jupiter's gravity that causes purely mechanical rubbing heat. In some white stars, it's nuclear fusion. Guess what the earth's internal heat comes from? Good old U235 decay. In the earth's core, the exact, self-same process that runs every nuclear reactor in the world, is the ancient historical process causing earth's volcanoes, and thus all the geothermal power anywhere on the planet. Thus, ...U235 CAUSES our environment. The scope of this news is staggering, in its philosophical implications for environmentalists. It makes environmentalist opposition to human use of U235 fission into a backward cult of avoidance, a kind of meaningless earth-hating tabu, pure superstition, not tied to science, or love of the planet.

It's implication for those who love the planet, and are truly willing to act on that love outside narrow energy politics, is that just as Watson & Crick outed the double helix of DNA as the essence of biological life, Earth-Philosophers must now accept that U235 fission is in point of fact, the white-hot beating heart of Gaia.

Where does that place the American Nuclear Industry, and all it's spokespeople? It places them firmly in the right. Overwhelmingly on the side of the planet. Undeniably historical. Absolutely ethical. Backed up in all their assertions by both of Stephen J. Gould's "Two Magisteria"-- Science, and Religion (both capitalized).

The powerful arguments deriving from nuclear power being what the planet itself does, easily smash all pseudoscience attacks on nuclear as sophistry,... at their widest scope,... nothing but quibbling over means and methods.
Any argument over merest means and methods can be countered by engineering. Engineering can always find new means, new methods. All that is required is optimism, expertise, and funding.

The knowledge that we are right to use U235 is founded on the broadest philosophical stepping stone, a tacit license to proceed, given by the planet itself. Any person then arguing otherwise, is placed in the unenviable debating stance, of claiming that mankind as a race does not deserve to occupy the earth. That assertion is tantamount to a Lemming's call for mass suicide, and is evil nonsense, closely approaching Hitlerian angst in its self-hate, and its Faustian deathwish.

People at large emotionally recognize this Dr. Strangelove inversion displayed by anti-nukes, but cannot easily pin it down. I hereby share it with the U235 outreach community, exposed in all its magnificent simplicity.

Why nuclear? Because Gaia tells us so.
Enjoy

John Sweeney
Buchanan New York

Gaia is Nuclear

Nuclear power is the gift of Gaia’s long past
The heat given in ancient times
By Gaia to her progeny
at Oklo then
At Peekskill now
One and the same
heart of matter
heart of gaia
warmth without fire
spontaneous living metals
warmed by history
to give us life

This planet, called Earth, or Terra, which has awakened as the living being known as Gaia has assembled itself over eons , eons in which examples were layed down for the wise to ponder and learn from. What better way to solve some modern day problem, than to observe what the planet or its life forms has done in the past, under similar circumstances.This outlook might be termed biomimetics, or Gaiamimetics, and its lessons ought to help avoid plans or agendae too uninformed, too unconnected to Gaian reality to succeed.

One incident that happened spontaneously 2 billion years ago, was the formation of the mats of Oklo. Bacterial beings, the earliest known life forms, have formed
mats or nodules around the globe, similar to coral reefs, as both their living homes, and as the historical record of their having existed. In Australia, the nodules of their habitations still exist,in coastal waters, and are known as stromatolites. At Oklo, in Gabon, Africa, similar creatures have left not only mats, but a mineralized historical record of the most surprising kind, a record only decipherable recently, using physical knowlege not available until late in the twentieth century. At Oklo, a deposit of heavy minerals existed in a wet environment, perhaps a stream. For 12 billion years or so, nothing notable occurred, until micro-organisms occupied the inner spaces between grains of this mineral deposit, using it as their home, but also inadvertently acting as a living moderator for certain chemical reactions now enabled to occur within the mineral itself.
On a steady basis, interludes of wetting, drying, growing, and changing occurred, completely altering the raw minerals, to suit the needs of the stromatolite population living within the grains, and leaving (as in Australia) , a permanent record of their having lived. Microbiotic symbiosis between bacteria and an inorganic chemical reaction had created the special conditions required to permanently alter the mineral, and thus write the record of the Oklo mats, in stone, or rather, in metal.The stone, a uraninite oxide, now contains an imbalance of its U238 and U235 metals which is easily recognizable to scientists, as the result of a biological nuclear reactor. The depletion in its 235 species of metal can’t be attributed to any other cause, and could not have happened any other way. The Oklo bacteria created their own living Indian Point. Without the bacteria –unmoderated– the reaction could not have occurred (and did not for 12 billion years before they arrived). Without the warmth of the reactor surrounding them, the bacteria could not have flourished as they did, for an estimated billion years, living high on the hog in their self-heating apartment house, their own self-warming coral reef in a river in Africa, a successful nuclearbiotic symbiosis of the first magnitude, teaching us how to use what Gaia provides– the spontaneous warmth of her own body, contained in her own mineral gift, used locally, in full biomimetic respectfulness,
and Gaiamimetic gratitude, only at the Indian Point Energy Center, our own biomimetic triumph on the Hudson. Far from being an interloper, invading a pristine shore, IPEC is seen in this light to be an environmental savior, using its biomimetics to gather Gaia’s gift, her self warming mineral deposits, cleanly, silently, and naturally, to warm & sustain us like the bacteria at Oklo, rather than burning up the dwindling atmosphere as other power plants, on coal, oil, or gas, will surely do.




You enjoy life.
We all, each & every one of us, sleep,
with a chunk of uranium beneath us.
That chunk is known as “Terra” or “Earth” Without the radiating core, Earth would be cold. Therefore we may look on Earth's uranium core as its heart, its "Life", or personalizing a bit, as Gaia herself. The heat of uranium makes the hot volcanic lava beneath us. Would you plunge your hand into the lava?…. Of course not.



HOWEVER …
All these powerful Gaian outpourings are GIFTS!!
Gaia gives, and we are allowed to accept, and use, or die out
and become mere food for whatever creature accepts the gifts.
(Gaia’s first Law).
Neither volcanoes nor uranium are evil,
they are both natural, even supernatural, gifts.
The greenest gifts ever given our humble monkeyrace.
We ought to use them.
Hope to meet you all someday,
and hoist a brandy (organic of course)
to our momma,
Goddess Gaia!




Now, to the Protection of Mother Earth’s Daughters!
6000 Chinese coal miners die on average each year, mining the coal used to create the permanent east Asian atmospheric disturbance which has been visible from outer space for the last decade, the brown death-smog which now grows increasingly worse each year. Not only do the massive mining operations mar the breast of mother earth, causing acid runoffs into streams, killing fish, deforesting entire provinces with irreparable open scars, but the impoverishment & lung disease following stunt the lives of millions, to place the sleeping giant, China, at the forefront of the fossil burning nations. The single technology most protective of mother earth, of the miners, of the atmosphere, of the steams, their fish, their trees, and all the poor people dependent on them, is the gift of the Earth itself, giving heat without burning anything, vastly reducing mining operations by a thousand, or ten thousand orders of magnitude for the same power (thus saving 6000 lives directly),
the minerals used by bacteria ages ago, and used today in the biomimetic triumph on the Hudson, Indian Point.




Closing Indian Point would necessitate the burning of oil, or coal in the USA, on the same scale as in China, shooting us backwards 200 years in one fell swoop, back to the age of “Black Birmingham”, when 100,000 people per year would die of lung disease in England, from the soot clouds of Birmingham’s factories. Mother Earth has given us a way out. Are we to deny its existence out of malicious self pride? Gaia’s self warming minerals are here whether we use them or not. You don’t burn them. You need not even mine any more of them (simply use what we already possess). Simply acknowlege the purity, the pristine invisibility of the Indian Point process, which makes no smoke, buries its own waste in its own casks, emits no greenhouse gas, and asks only to be allowed to continue to protect our mother earth with her own gift.



This is the moral fact of it.
This is the one ethical solution to it.
This is the scientific reality of it.
Any denial of this, is malicious self promotion,
based on malicious misinformation,
and is, in fact,
the knowing promotion of intentional death.

PAPIER MACHE' PANDERING ?

There's a papier-mache' mockup of Indian Point, faithful in many details to the real original Indian Point, and it lives in journalist's communal psyche as a dependable knock. Write a few words about aging, ailing, leaking, distressed, woeful, etc., and you've got yourself a story. It's not even required to leave one's chair to investigate,.... all the needed parameters spring right to hand, out of communal memory of a nice hot purple flashing story angle, and blink on the page, obligingly, for our journalist, drawing attention, readership, and the satisfaction of having served up a palatable piece of work.

The only drawback, is that the leaking purple papier mache' model is not the real Indian Point.
The real Indian Point is apparently wearing a cloak of journalistic invisibility, kind of like Harry Potter.
Who built the cloaking device? I must state out front, that I don't believe journalists began the deception on their own... (except for one poor schmuck, who was fired for it). The list of perps is short, 2 organizations, and maybe 8 or 10 individuals, but buoyed by internet chumminess, and the active trading of techniques for capturing press attention, they hovered around their phones, and their letters-to-editors keyboards, and carefully applied papier mache',-- bit by bit, slopping on the bogus concern, the overdrawn and bathetic complaints, until the purple model of the domes rose high enough to obscure the real place ,and a journalistic staple, a dependable hot-button brouhaha, was hatched out of thin air, and activist chutzpah.

Do away with Indian Point? I can't wait! I am sick to death of the lurid claims, the carefully posed mock concern, the politician's sanctimonious puppet acts, mouthing less-than-credible complaints hatched for them by deluded and pushy place-grabbers, the kind of people who sneak to the front of democracy's feeding-line, and eat up all the deliberative attention for their own bogus complaints, leaving the rest of us screwed, annoyed, and without effective politicians, since ours are all tied up mired chin-deep in papier-mache'.

Yes, let us do away with Indian Point immediately--- the papier mache' version, that is.
While the Axis-Of-Anxiety (journalists, politicoes, and activists) fritters away weeks and months in their cute glue-spattered artist's smocks, carefully placing little Al Qaeda action figures on their toy domes, and making "brrrrrr---brrrrr" lip noises, while holding little model airplanes aloft above their papier mache masterpiece, the rest of us have to live here, and not get screwed.

We need an affordable Hudson Valley. That need, slipping ever so steadily out of our grasp, ought not be forgotten by our oh-so-ethical (they say) new Democratic administration, despite Riverkeeper's 5000 name mailing list,....... 5,000,000 of the rest of us need to hold the line, AND DO THEY CARE? Maybe not... you see, we are not pre-captured for them into a convenient voting bloc, like those 5000.

We need the power that the real Indian Point provides us, and I hear no construction plans coming out of Cuomo junior's lips, or new Governor Spitzer's planning office, so I know they have no plans for new power plants.Tell me--- HOW DO YOU ETHICALLY PROPOSE CLOSING INDIAN POINT WITHOUT BUILDING NEW PLANTS?

Short answer--you don't.

Even the National Academy of Scientists told us just that last year,.... but this new administration can only deal with papier mache', and so Cuomo jr. is hell-bent on ignoring both NAS, and us. So...... sadly, indeed, .....that makes new AG Cuomo's latest press-blast against Indian Point into a pandering exercise. Pandering to papier-mache', and a mailing list, while the real Indian Point hums away quietly, powering the last days of Hudson affordability.

If we stripped away the papier mache'---what would we see? We would see an environmentally proactive Entergy Corporation, remaking, improving, and cleaning up the mess Con Ed left here, gathering their national expertise to provide us what we have almost forgotten that we need, helping our communities with charity, volunteers, and positive interaction, maximizing power, minimizing damage, maximizing security, minimizing hype, maximizing value, minimizing loss..... in short..... doing a lot of the functions local and state government might be doing for us---IF THEY WERN'T POSING IN THEIR CUTE LITTLE BERETS AND ARTIST SMOCKS, in front of the big purple papier mache horror castle, for a vid byte to be shown to Riverkeeper's 5000 name mailing list, because Cuomo junior's political ambitions don't end with the state attorney general position!

Therefore, Let us all consider this question:

IS CUOMO JUNIOR'S POLITICAL FUTURE IMPORTANT ENOUGH , TO LET HIM SACRIFICE YOUR FUTURE FOR HIS?

Here, learn some truths about nuclear power

As the U.S. Congress debates energy policy, White Nuclear Snowflake provides this summary review of the answers to frequently raised (false) objections to the only feasible solution to the U.S. and worldwide power shortage, nuclear energy.
Q: Aren't nuclear power plants dangerous to public health?
A: In fact, there has never been any nuclear accident in the United States that has endangered the health or welfare of the public. The worst American accident, at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, in 1979, injured no one.
Q: What about the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine in 1986?
A: The severity of that accident was a function of a poor reactor design, and inadequate training of plant personnel. In the United States, oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission provides the standards for reactor design and plant operation, which has contributed to our excellent nuclear power plant safety record.
The new generation of nuclear power plant designs, already being built internationally, feature passive safety systems, which simply shut the plant down if there is an operator error or equipment failure.
By comparison, during 2006, more than 5,000 miners died in China, during the production of the more than 1 billion tons of coal that power its economy. The health of the public in China's cities is also endangered, by the pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
As far as vulnerability to "terrorist" attacks is concerned, there is no public infrastructure that is as well protected as nuclear power plants. There is no scenario under which a release of radiation (which effect in low dosages is, in any case, completely exaggerated), would significantly affect public health.
Q: What do we do with the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants?
A: There is no such thing as nuclear "waste." This is a term used in popular parlance by anti-nuclear ideologues to frighten the public, and its elected representatives. More than 95% of the fission products created in commercial power plants can be reprocessed and recycled. The spent fuel from a typical 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant, which has operated over 40 years, can produce energy equal to 130 million barrels of oil, or 37 million tons of coal.
In reprocessing, fissionable uranium-235 and plutonium are separated from the high-level fission products. The plutonium can be used to make mixed-oxide fuel, which is currently used to produce electrical power in 35 European nuclear reactors. The fissionable uranium in the spent fuel can also be reused. From the remaining 3% of high-level radioactive products, valuable medical and other isotopes can be extracted.
Q: What about the stalemate over burying radioactive spent fuel in the Yucca Mountain geological depository in Nevada?
A: This is an irrational program which is a result of the success of the anti-nuclear nonproliferation lobby in the 1970s. The Department of Energy's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership proposes to spend billions of dollars, and more than a decade in research and development, to develop new, "proliferation proof," reprocessing technologies, under the guise of preventing the spread of plutonium and nuclear weapons, and bury the spent fuel at Yucca Mountain, in the meantime. This delay is unnecessary. Today, Britain, France, Russia, India, Japan, and China reprocess spent nuclear fuel, and technology today can be used here in the U.S. to eliminate the "nuclear waste" problem, in the short term.
Q: But if the United States goes ahead now with reprocessing, doesn't making this technology available increase the risk that other nations will develop nuclear weapons?
A: No nation has ever developed a nuclear weapon from a civilian nuclear power plant. If a nation has the intention to develop nuclear weapons, it must obtain the specific technology to do so. Israel is an example of a nation that has no civilian nuclear power plants, but has developed nuclear weapons.
The nonproliferation argument—that controlling technology will reduce the risk of weapons proliferation—is an historically demonstrable false one. Nations make decisions based on their security and military requirements, not on which technologies are available.
Q: Isn't it the case that nuclear energy is more expensive than fossil, or "alternative" fuels?
A: The radical escalation in the cost of building nuclear power plants in the late 1970s and 1980s was the result of political actions, not economics. Some plants projected to cost less than $1 billion ended up costing ten times that amount, because anti-nuclear "environmentalists," and legal intervenors were given free rein, using specious and ideological arguments, to delay plant construction for years, sometimes, for decades. Where there has been no political interference, new nuclear power plants have been built in 38 months, on schedule, and on budget, such as in Japan.
While it does require less up-front capital investment to build a gas-fired power plant than a nuclear plant, the operational cost over the 30-or-more-year lifetime of the gas plant swings heavily in favor of nuclear power. And compared to coal, the overall economy is not taxed to transport millions of tons of fuel.
In 2002, faced with increasing demand, and after careful economic analysis, the Tennessee Valley Authority decided that it was more economical to spend $1.8 billion to refurbish its Browns Ferry nuclear plant, which had been shut down since 1986, than build a gas-fired unit.
So-called renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, are not only inefficient because their energy is so dispersed, (see EIR Jan. 19) for discussion of energy flux density), they are so unreliable that back-up power supplies (fossil or nuclear) must be available for any time it is not sunny or windy. So, not only do consumers bear the expense of inefficiency, the entire electric grid system pays the price of having to provide stand-by redundant power-generating capacity to ensure grid reliability.
It was determined in the 1970s, that alternative, "soft" energy sources would only be competitive with fossil and nuclear plants, when energy costs reached a $100/barrel oil-equivalent price. To bring these uneconomical sources on line before then, political decisions were made to spend $20 billion in Federal subsidies for alternative energy, while Federal expenditures for advanced nuclear technologies came to a screeching halt. It has been this irrational investment policy that has made nuclear power "expensive."
Q: How can the large capital cost of new nuclear power plants be financed?
A: There must be a sea-change in economic policy, where the reconceptualization of the Federal budget on the basis of needed capital investment, are the guidelines.
The provision of reliable and affordable electricity, as recognized by President Franklin Roosevelt more than 50 years ago, is not a luxury, but a necessity. For this reason, in the 1930s, the electric utility industry was regulated by Federal and state governments, to protect consumers from financial manipulation and fraud, and to ensure that affordable power would be available to every home, farm, and factory.
The deregulation of the U.S. utility industry, beginning in the early 1990s, has nearly destroyed an electrical energy system that was the envy of the world. Utility companies must have access to low-interest, long-term credit, assurance from government regulators and policy-makers that "environmental" sabotage and delay will not be tolerated; and that a crash effort will be made to rebuild the nuclear manufacturing industry, which has nearly disappeared. These must be approached as a national policy, not dependent upon Wall Street financiers, but by directing resources into infrastructure through fiscal policy.
Q: But the immediate energy crisis is our dependence upon petroleum. How does nuclear energy alleviate that problem?
A: In two ways. In the long term, the only sensible and renewable replacement for petroleum-based liquid fuels is hydrogen. When next-generation, high-temperature nuclear fission reactors (which are under development now in South Africa and China) come on line, splitting water into its constituents elements will make hydrogen available as a versatile and universally available transportation fuel.
In the near term, petroleum consumption could be dramatically reduced through large-scale investment in mass transit and rail. Our decrepit diesel-fueled rail system should be electrified. Half of the nation's truck-hauled freight should be taken off the road and put on the rails. Millions of miles, and hours, of commuters driving automobiles should be eliminated, by using public transportation. A crash program to build conventional intra-city commuter trains, and magnetic levitation (maglev) systems for inter-city transport, would replace finite and polluting fossil fuel-based transport with nuclear power.
Q: But isn't it the case that there is broad opposition to new nuclear plants, and that citizens do not want plants built in "their backyard?"
A: The opposite is the case. Over the past two years, as utilities have indicated they will be applying to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for licenses to build new nuclear plants, communities have been competing with each other, to offer attractive packages to companies, in order to encourage them to build plants in their "backyard."
Last year, resolutions were passed by communities in Louisiana; Oswego, New York; and Fort Gibson, Mississippi, to support the addition of new nuclear reactors to existing nuclear sites. The states of Georgia, Utah, South Carolina, and South Dakota have passed resolutions supporting the building of new nuclear power plants.
At the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, just a stone's throw from Washington, D.C., the Board of County Commissioners voted last August to offer $300 million in tax breaks to the Constellation Energy Group to add a third reactor at the Calvert Cliffs site. The plant is the largest employer in that Maryland county, and the $16 million it pays in taxes each year contributes 9% of the county's total tax revenue.
In September 2006, Bisconti Research Inc. released the results of a telephone survey, of a nationally representative sample of 1,000 adults, about nuclear energy. The survey found that nearly 70% of those queried support nuclear power, and 68% of those who live near an operating plant, support building a new nuclear reactor at the existing site.
In point of fact, the aging and off-base anti nuclear movement is dwindling fast, most of its heroes now well past retirement age, not in touch with the true wishes of the new, 300,000,000-strong US population, and spouting myths so ludicrous, that many just shrug, and consider them an annoyance to all. However, because a media anxious for controversy always gives them inordinate coverage, they try to maintain an illusion of still being as strong as they were in the 1970's. Except among celebrities, they are not. Celebrities use them as a convenient way to get in front of cameras.Behind the cameras, no "movement" exists.

A NEW ERA DRAWS NEAR

Do we need a new petition, asking us to shut down our infrastructure?

In 2002, when Indian Point discussion was current, and relevant to ongoing public events, Mr. Ross Weale jr. started a "Close Indian Point" petition. With great effort, utilizing every associated activist group then in operation, teams of canvassers were sent out with clipboards, through the entire region , in a maximum signup effort, with over 100 core canvassers gaining about 8000 signatures. This was the high tide of anti Indian Point concern, and the high tide of activist cross-cooperation, and it garnered 8000 signatures. Never closed, that petition sits online with about 10,000 signatures, the last 2000 having dribbled in, in the intervening 5 years, through the few web activism sites still remaining, the response diminishing steadily over time.

Simultaneously with Mr Weale's creation, a pro-Indian Point petition was begun by those friendly to Indian point. That petition quickly and easily garnered 13,000 signatures, thanks to the efforts of town residents, friends, and workers at or around the plant. It too sits online today, now abandoned, after the 13,000 to 8,000 drubbing given to the supposed "widespread anti coalition" at its own high point in early 2003. There was no further need to demonstrate that the greatest possible efforts of the naysayers, had met up with an almost casual landslide from the silent majority, had definitively lost, and had walked away, sadder but wiser.

What has changed?

The isolated gaggle of bloggers now proposing a new petition, is obviously unaware of this minor piece of local history, and that is sad. However, general feelings in the populace are moving away from nuclear jitters, and swinging toward taxation anxiety, and lifestyle anxiety , in the tough years after Iraq, and into 2007, when what had seemed assured previously, now looks to evaporate in a tide of lost Mirant tax suits, skyrocketing school taxes, a broken housing bubble, and a massive campesino invasion from central America, putting the very stability & viability of the region at risk.

Who is it, that is asking us to revisit the worst months of our lives, the months after September 2001, for strategies on living in 2007 and beyond? We need NEW strategies, ones that ought to be looking to better lives ahead, putting all the shibboleths of the discredited Bush regime behind us forever, especially any false terror fear, or malicious faux "activism", abused covertly for personal power, or gain.(or for no good reason at all).

The monumental impossibility of ever building new infrastructure is becoming more and more clear, as the TZ bridge sits crumbling, route 9 remains a relic of the 1920's, routes 119 and 35 are totally overwhelmed with no enlargements in sight, and White Plains itself sinks slowly into semi-permanent ghetto-hood, despite "renewal" after "renewal", and the jewel in Westchester's crown, the Southern Westchester Children's hospital, gets spun off, simply because it was planned in an earlier, more deep-pocketed time, and we simply can no longer afford it, or anything else like it.

So let us not be so anxious to dig ourselves into a bond-issue hole, inside a lost-electricity trench,
holding a still-radioactive non-producing Indian Point, while new avalanches still unseen, of the 2010's, and the 2020's bury us, and all our future hopes.

We must use what we have to survive. We must manage it , use it, and protect it. To do otherwise would be foolhardy at best, and criminal at worst. Let Indian Point be.