5 July 2008 Register   Login
Library

Current Articles

published Wednesday, February 20, 2008  826 Views

Request Executive Order to Shift Federal Regulation Basis
from “Reference Man” to Groups Most At Risk – Pregnant Women, Children

Takoma Park, Md., February 20, 2008: More than 3,000 groups and individuals today sent a letter to President Bush urging him to shift the basis of many U.S. radiation health protection standards from an adult Caucasian male model, called "Reference Man," to those most at risk, specifically including children and pregnant women.

read more..

published Tuesday, February 19, 2008  1597 Views

Estimated future environmental liability costs for the Pantex Plant top $400 million, according to government figures obtained by a New Mexico environmental group, but a Pantex official said the estimates are a few years old and that such costs are expected to drop over time.
read more..

published Friday, February 15, 2008  1026 Views

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Concerned Citizens of Wisconsin Hold Public Hearing on U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy and Future of Nuclear Arsenal

Madison, Wisconsin (February 16, 2008)--On Saturday, February 16th at 10:00am, at the State Capitol building in Madison, Wisconsin, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will be co-sponsoring a hearing on U.S. nuclear weapons policy and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) proposed nuclear weapons complex transformation.

read more..

published Tuesday, February 12, 2008  1295 Views

Do you want more nuclear weapons?

This is a historic time for the public to speak out about nuclear weapons.  The U.S. government has proposed a plan called Complex Transformation, which would refurbish the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex, the eight sites around the country that produce and maintain our nuclear weapons.

You can comment on these plans and what they mean during the Public Comment Period, which is open now and closes on APRIL 10, 2008. 

Please comment - every voice counts!

read more..

published Friday, February 08, 2008  1026 Views

For many Americans, nuclear weapons bring up old memories and forgotten associations -- the duck and cover drills of the 1950s, President Reagan's exhortations against the "evil empire," and the plot lines of countless straight-to-video political thrillers. It may then come as a surprise that in 2008 the United States is considering a huge new investment in nuclear weapons.
read more..

published Thursday, January 31, 2008  1102 Views

For immediate release Thursday January 31, 2008
Susan Gordon, Director, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
(505) 473-1670

WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
FY 2009 BUDGET REQUEST

The Department of Energy (DOE) FY 2009 budget request will be released on Monday, February 4, 2008. The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA), a national network representing communities downwind and downstream from U.S. nuclear weapons facilities, is concerned that spending on nuclear weapons and power will divert funds away from environmental cleanup, weapons dismantlement, and plutonium disposition.

ANA is concerned about the following likely FY 2009 budget proposals.

read more..

published Monday, October 15, 2007  2681 Views

PUBLIC FORUM – FRIDAY, OCTOBER 19:
National network puts nuclear weapons production at the Kansas City Plant in perspective

Friday, October 19 – 7pm to 9:30pm
All Souls Unitarian Church
4501 Walnut Street
Kansas City, MO

On Friday, October 19, the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, a network of national and grassroots organizations whose members live downwind and downstream from the major U.S. nuclear weapons facilities, will host a public forum detailing the central role of the Kansas City Plant in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.

read more..

published Thursday, October 04, 2007  2489 Views

NUCLEAR EXPERTS AND ACTIVISTS FROM ACROSS
THE NATION CONVENING IN KANSAS CITY:
Key Facility in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex within City Limits


In the third week of October, the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA), a network of national and grassroots organizations whose members live downwind and downstream of the major U.S. nuclear weapons facilities, will be meeting in Kansas City to raise awareness about the importance of the Department of Energy’s Kansas City Plant in the production of new nuclear weapons.

read more..

published Friday, September 21, 2007  1377 Views

ANA Comments for GTCC Scoping Process

ANA staff and colleagues have prepared these scoping comments on the Department of Energy's plans to dispose of Greater-Than-Class-C radioactive waste.  The comment period closed on September 21, 2007; we await the DOE response to these and other comments in the form of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

PAST AND PRESENT
• What is the history of disposal of GTCC and GTCC-like waste? Where was such waste generated and what were its characteristics? How and where was it disposed of in the past?

• How much total GTCC and GTCC-like waste is there currently? Is there any of this kind of waste that is not listed in the NOI? Please provide the total amount of GTCC and GTCC-like waste by state and by site, by radioactivity and volume.

read more..

published Thursday, May 31, 2007  1034 Views

The Bush Adminstration's dangerous Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program would expand global nuclear energy production by creating plutonium fuel to be used in a new generation of nuclear power plants through the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel – extracting the plutonium and uranium from used fuel – is the dirtiest operation of the nuclear fuel cycle and produces separated plutonium and other nuclear weapon-usable materials and vast amounts of extremely dangerous waste.

GNEP is incredibly expensive. Government estimates place the cost between $3 billion and $6 billion in its first five years. However, the Department of Energy (DOE) has provided no costs for operation and eventual decontamination. An estimate by the National Academies of Science states that reprocessing the spent fuel now targeted for Yucca Mountain would cost between $50 billion to $100 billion more than direct disposal (1996 dollars).

Despite the claims of proponents, reprocessing is not “recycling” and will not help the nation’s waste problem—it will only spread the radioactive waste over a greater volume of waste streams. The waste from reprocessing is hotter than the original spent fuel and will still require storage in a geologic repository.


  

For a short period in the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. government reprocessed spent nuclear fuel for use in commercial reactors until the practice was banned in 1976. Even though the ban on reprocessing was lifted in 1981, industry showed no interest due to its exorbitant costs and the availability of inexpensive uranium ore. Reprocessing for nuclear weapons other military programs took place in Washington State, South Carolina, and Idaho from the 1940s through the 1980s. These sites remain some of the most polluted places in the Western Hemisphere. The legacy of reprocessing is 100 million gallons of extremely dangerous high-level radioactive waste, stored in 243 leak-prone tanks and threatening crucial water resources.




  Previous Page
Article List page 2 of 4
Next Page  




© 2008 Alliance for Nuclear Accountability   |  Citadel Hosting  |  Terms Of Use  |  Privacy Statement