Terror threat not weighed in assessing nuke waste shipments

[jpak]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-other/2006/feb/12/566658658.html

WASHINGTON - The National Academy of Sciences did not thoroughly consider the threat of terrorism as it studied the risks involved in shipping nuclear waste from around the U.S. to Yucca Mountain.

The study, partially funded by an affiliate of the nuclear power industry, concluded that the shipments would be safe. But the 292-page report noted that terrorism risks had not been fully considered because some researchers on the 16-member study panel did not have the security clearances required for access to classified government briefings.

Yucca critics have long said that the threat of terrorist attack made a massive waste-shipping campaign dangerous. Nevada officials said the new report does nothing to ease those concerns because the panel did not explore the risk of terrorism, even though the state has been asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review the issue since 1999.

"It's certainly needed," Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency director Bob Loux said. "And it's something we've been asking for for a long time."

<more>

More on the NAS report here...

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=9856

[NNadir]

1. Did the NAS consider the threat of terror when we started importing oil?

There has been zero acts of nuclear terrorism.

When I drive by New York City, the hole in the skyline was created by oil. Or am I mistaken? Was that an act of nuclear terrorism?

Everybody feels compelled to say "nuclear" and "terror" in the same sentence as if it made sense. Unfortunately it doesn't. It is irrational ranting. Nuclear terrorism doesn't happen because nuclear materials are hard to get to. If they were easy to get to, it would have happened. Metric ton quantities fly around the world constantly (in the form of nuclear weapons. If there is a huge inventory of deaths associated with the nuclear materials, one might have noticed it.

For many years both sides of the old East-West German border were traversed by vehicles and aircraft carrying nuclear materials.

The transport of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants, which is done by diffusion through the atmosphere, on the other hand, is frequently deadly and is likely to become even more so in the next decade.

There is no such thing as risk free energy. There is only risk minimized enery. That is nuclear energy.

[jpak]

2. The Good Ol' US of A is a'fixin' to rain Terra on I-ran's

"peaceful" nucular program...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html

Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions. Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme.

"This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months."

<more>

[One_Life_To_Give]

3. Not weighed in over 5000 other hazardous chemicals either

Have you looked at how many hazardous chemicals are routinly shipped around the US. Many of which make Nuclear Waste seem benign by comparison.