Nygaard Notes

Independent Periodic News and Analysis
Number 303, August 11, 2005

On the Web at http://www.nygaardnotes.org/

This Week: The (Nuclear) Energy Bill

******

1. “Quote” of the Week
2. The Return of the “Presidential” Quotation Marks
3. “Jingoistic Flag-waving” and The Perfect Nuclear Storm

******


Greetings,

Welcome to all of you new readers! I really enjoy feedback, so if you have any responses to what you read in these pages, please feel free to send them along. I thrive on feedback!

Thanks again to all who sent in their pledges of support for Nygaard Notes during the just-ended Pledge Drive. That’s how this thing continues happening, you know. You all are amazing!

Gratefully yours,

Nygaard

******

1.
“Quote” of the Week

On August 9th the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a press release concerning a new ruling from that agency about nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Yucca Mountain is in Indian territory. Corbin Harney, Western Shoshone spiritual leader, writes that “Yucca Mountain, in the heart of the Western Shoshone Nation, is a place of deep spiritual significance to Shoshone and Paiute peoples.” Looked at from another perspective, the giant energy and engineering corporation Bechtel says that “As mountains go, Yucca Mountain doesn’t really measure up.”

Nevadans in general, and the Western Shoshone in particular, have been resisting this highly-toxic dump at Yucca Mountain for over 20 years, and this EPA ruling is a part of that struggle. The Washington Post characterized the new ruling as “an effort to overcome a court ruling that has threatened to block the project.”

So, the “Quote” of the Week is the first three paragraphs of the official EPA press release. I honestly did not make this up. Really! Here it is:


“EPA is proposing public health standards for the planned high-level radioactive waste disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada that will
protect public health for 1 million years. Under the standards, people living close to the facility would not receive total radiation higher than
natural levels people experience routinely in other areas of the country.

“‘It is an unprecedented scientific challenge to develop proposed standards today that will protect the next 25,000 generations of Americans,’
EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Jeffrey Holmstead said. ‘EPA met this challenge by using the best available scientific approaches
and has issued a standard that will protect public health for a million years.’

“The proposed standards set a maximum dose level for the first 10,000 years, more than twice as long as recorded human history.
To provide safety beyond 10,000 years to 1 million years, EPA is proposing a separate, higher dose limit based on natural
background radiation levels that people currently live with in the United States. The proposed standards also require that the facility must
withstand the effects of earthquakes, volcanoes and significantly increased rainfall while safely containing the waste during the 1 million-year period.”


******

2.
The Return of the “Presidential” Quotation Marks

In light of my correction and apology of last week, I have decided to reinstate the use of the quotation marks when I refer to “President” Bush. I had used these marks for the entire first term that George W. Bush spent in the White House as a way of constantly indicating my rejection of any claim to legitimacy that he might have been assumed to have had in the wake of the questionable election of 2000.

Here is the resolution on the subject that I passed unanimously (1-0!) just now:

WHEREAS I believe that George W. Bush was illegitimately elected in 2000; and
WHEREAS incumbency is such a crucial factor in any election; and
WHEREAS the margin of “victory” in the 2004 presidential election was only 2 percentage points; and
WHEREAS I don’t trust electronic voting machines or the Secretaries of State who are in charge of them, especially these days; and
WHEREAS there have been many allegations of fraud, specifically in the Ohio voting but also elsewhere; and
WHEREAS Ohio’s 20 electoral votes would have been sufficient to award the presidency to John Kerry, given that the final winning margin was only 32 electoral votes; and
WHEREAS there are probably more things I could mention, but don’t feel like it;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Nygaard Notes will continue to use its massive influence with the United States public to encourage them to question the electoral legitimacy of the administration of George W. Bush.

(Signed) Jeff Nygaard

There. How’s that? The main thing I plan to do is to put quotation marks around the word “President” when referring to George W. Bush. If you can think of anything else I should do, as long as it is somewhat amusing and isn’t too inconvenient, please write and tell me your idea.

******

3.
“Jingoistic Flag-waving” and The Perfect Nuclear Storm

On August 8th “President” Bush signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005, more commonly known as “The Energy Bill.” Early reports in the U.S. press on the signing of the 1,724-page bill were remarkably uniform, with most noting, as the New York Times did, that it “will send billions of dollars in tax subsidies to energy companies,” but “will do little to alleviate the high prices of gasoline at the pump for most Americans.”

Reading the corporate press, one could be forgiven for not considering that the energy bill – since it has to do with the cars we drive and the fuels we use, among other things – will also have a huge impact on the environment. But, while the “President” announced that this is an “economic bill,” and a “national security bill,” he never said it was an “environmental bill.” And it’s not (at least, not in any positive sense). As the bill was being negotiated in Congress in July, a spokesman for the conservative Heritage Foundation told the London Observer, “This is an energy bill. If it is morphed into an environment bill, that will not be good.”

He needn’t have worried. The best evidence that the bill that emerged from this process is not an “environmental bill” is the effort it makes to fulfill the ominous prophecy of “President” Bush, who said as he signed the bill, “We will start building nuclear power plants again by the end of this decade.” The official transcript shows that this comment was met with applause, which isn’t too surprising since the “bill-signing ceremony” was held at the Energy Department's Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico, a major nuclear research facility.

Cringing As We Fill Up Our SUVs

The political context in which these words were uttered was neatly summarized by The Resource Investor, a newsletter serving the “mining, drilling and piping sectors” of the U.S. economy. In their June 25th edition they pointed out that “Without the high energy costs currently affecting the American population, it’s likely that the topic of nuclear power generation wouldn’t even come up in discussion. But with Americans cringing every time they fill up their SUVs or pay their sky-high utility bills, it was really only a matter of time before the politicians sought to protect their incumbency with a broad-based plan for energy relief. When rolled together with post-9/11 jingoistic flag-waving about developing domestic energy sources, the perfect political storm for nuclear power may be brewing.”

I don’t agree with The Resource Investor that this bill is a “broad-based plan for energy relief” (unless you count the relief from regulation that the energy corporations will get), but it certainly looks like the storm is done brewing now, and the de facto nuclear energy policy of three decades duration has been discarded.

The Business Press didn’t even try to hide their glee upon passage of this bill. John Kane, senior vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, was moved to tell the Wall Street Journal, “This is a great bill.” Curt Hebert Jr., executive vice president of Entergy Corporation, chimed in, “Congress is to be congratulated.” Had he been interested in accuracy, he would have said that Congress is to be thanked. It is he, and his class, who should be congratulated.

If you look at the bill you’ll see what they’re so excited about. It’s loaded with a hefty package of subsidies, loan guarantees, taxpayer-funded insurance, and other incentives that have the effect of socializing the costs and risks associated with this dangerous technology, while leaving untouched the potential profits. And that’s the name of the game for so-called Free Marketeers: Private profit, public risk.

Adding to the unanimous chorus in the Business press, the Wall Street Journal led off their July 28th story with the words, “The energy bill nearing passage in Congress could be the best news the nuclear-power industry has seen in many years.”

The Journal claimed that the final “package took months of lobbying, including last-minute intervention by President Bush.” That’s probably true, but the phenomenally corrupt and convoluted process goes farther back than that. Although it’s largely dropped out of the news now, the infamous and largely secret Energy Task Force, headed by Vice President Cheney, began the formal planning for this bill in 2001. (More on “phenomenally corrupt” in next week’s issue of Nygaard Notes.)

“Far Safer Than Ever Before?”

There are many problems associated with nuclear power, among them the production of highly-toxic radioactive waste, the “spent” fuel that is a byproduct of the process. The Nuclear Information Resource Service reminds us that “Certain radioactive elements ... in ‘spent’ fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other living beings for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radioisotopes will remain hazardous for millions of years.” No permanent storage area has been found for the currently-existing 49,000 metric tons of this stuff. That’s equal to 108 million pounds of the poison, which is projected to increase to over 232 million pounds by 2035.

Mr. Bush, upon signing the Energy Bill, said that “nuclear plants are far safer than ever before.” That should be a controversial statement, although the media didn’t treat it as such. For example, the media largely ignored it when, just six weeks ago, on June 29th, the National Academy of Sciences put out a report saying that “A preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even low doses of ionizing radiation...are likely to pose some risk of adverse health effects [such as] cancer,” and that “working around radioactive materials” is one of the “factors that could increase exposure.”

And who is it that works “around radioactive materials?” Well, most mining and milling of uranium ore is done on the lands of indigenous peoples: Hopi and Navajo lands in the Southwest United States, Cree land in Northern Canada, Aboriginal lands in Australia, and Tribal Homelands in South Africa. So, any “revival of the nuclear power sector” will involve increased needs for uranium gathered from indigenous lands.

As Winona LaDuke reported in the May edition of Nuclear-Free News, “In communities such as Cove, Arizona, at least one member of every Navajo family is thought to have died from cancer or other diseases resulting from uranium mining.” And the Navajo Nation Council passed the Dine Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005 in May, which bans uranium mining and processing anywhere in Navajo Indian Country. LaDuke reports that the Navajo community has “vowed to build opposition to federal energy bill provisions” that will inevitably target Navajo lands.

The promised nuclear energy revival will also result in the generation of more highly-toxic nuclear waste which, if current plans prevail, will end up on Native lands. (See this week’s “Quote” of the Week for more on this.)

And, finally, the enriching, handling, storing, transporting, and disposal of nuclear materials presents dangers all along the way of accidents, sabotage, theft, nuclear terrorism, and so on and so forth.

In summary, the signing of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 this week by “President” Bush, signals the reversal of a 30-year course on nuclear policy that appears to endanger the public health, intensify environmental racism, and increase the threat of nuclear terrorism. This merits serious debate, but we haven’t seen – and apparently won’t see – that debate in the pages of the Mainstream Corporate For-Profit Agenda-Setting Bound Media. The tragic result is that many people won’t even notice this major change in nuclear policy until – in one way or another – it hits them.

******

4.
Resources for Energy Action and Racial Justice

To learn more about efforts to move toward a rational energy policy and toward a less racist, more humane culture in general, check out these groups (for starters; there are many more):

The Indigenous Environmental Network http://www.ienearth.org/ is “A network of Indigenous Peoples empowering Indigenous Nations and communities towards sustainable livelihoods, demanding environmental justice and maintaining the Sacred Fire of our traditions.”

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service: http://www.nirs.org/ is “the national information and networking center for citizens and environmental activists concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation and sustainable energy issues.” They also “initiate large-scale organizing and public education campaigns on specific issues.”

The Southwest Research and Information Center: http://www.sric.org/ is “is a multi-cultural organization working to promote the health of people and communities, protect natural resources, ensure citizen participation, and secure environmental and social justice now and for future generations.”

The Shundahai Network: http://www.shundahai.org/ is “an international network of activists and organizations bridging the gap between the environmental, peace and justice and indigenous land rights communities.”

A useful “Summary of the Harmful Provisions in the Energy Bill” can be found at the Friends of the Earth website: http://www.foe.org/

If you are the kind of person who likes to see things for yourself, the entire 1,724 pages of the Energy Bill can be read at http://www.ne.doe.gov/EPAct2005/hr6_textconfrept.pdf

**********

If you have received this issue of Nygaard Notes from a friend, or by accident, or through some other bizarre quirk of inexplicable fate which leaves you with no useful return address, be aware that you can receive your own free subscription by asking for it in an E-mail sent to Nygaard Notes at Or visit the Nygaard Notes website at http://www.nygaardnotes.org/

I would like to continue to provide this service for free. You could help by making a voluntary contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00) You can donate online by going to the Nygaard Notes website at http://www.nygaardnotes.org/ Then just get out your credit card and follow the instructions. Of course, you can always just send a good old check through the mail. Make checks payable to “Nygaard Notes” and send to: Nygaard Notes, P.O. Box 14354, Minneapolis, MN 55414. Thank you!

--
Jeff Nygaard
National Writers Union
Twin Cities Local #13 UAW
Nygaard Notes
http://www.nygaardnotes.org