ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n014

Internet Message Format | 1998-09-01 | 46KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #14
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest   Wednesday, September 2 1998   Volume 01 : Number 014




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 07:14:11 +1000
From: hcaldic <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Dancing for the media

Peter Coombes wrote:
>
> Dear Friend,
>
> On July 26 I gave a speech to about 300 people here in Vancouver at
> the Community Development Institute’s Conference. I was asked to
> reflect on the past ten years of work as a peace activist. You may
> find my comments of interest, especially since I take a critical look
> at our constant need and desire to act for the mainstream media.
> (I’ve made a few editorial changes since it’s
> presentation).  I hope you find it of interest.
>
> Peter Coombes, President
> End the Arms Race
> [e-mail]
> www.peacewire.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reflections on a decade of activism
>
> As a peace activists I’ve spent the past ten years reacting to
> international events. Over the past ten years the fear of nuclear
> annihilation has receded and interest in the peace movement has
> dwindled to a bare-bones group of workers around the world. In that
> time:
>
>    * Gorbachev came to power, and from the start he began easing
>      tensions between East and West.
>    * Then there was the collapse of the Soviet Empire and ultimately
>      an end to the Cold War.
>    * Then there was the Gulf War
>    * Followed by Gulf War II
>    * We had French nuclear testing.
>    * And now India and Pakistan have entered the nuclear Weapons Club.
>
> As peace workers we’ve been in full retreat since the late
> 1980s.
>
> The loss of interest in issues of nuclear disarmament and militarism
> since then has meant for the movement and its organizations:
>
>    * The hemorrhaging of volunteers to the environmental movement and
>      now to the anti-globalization movement.
>    * Decreased revenue.
>    * Disintegrating Coalitions
>    * And thousands of groups have literally disappeared while larger
>      groups outside of peace groups have almost completely ignored
>      peace and disarmament issues.
>
> Yet, these experiences are not unique to the peace movement. But
> likely we’ve felt it harder than anyone else has -- mostly
> because we were so high in the mid-1980s we had a long way to fall.
> Just imagine, in Vancouver, we had a rally in 1986 with over 100,000
> people walking for nuclear disarmament. No one has been able to do it
> since, no one has even tried. But, just two years later in 1988, the
> number of peace walkers had already dropped and it continued to drop
> until we decided to cancel it in 1993. But even then it was attracting
> about 10,000 people. But we were into the numbers game with the media.
> They considered the Walk a failure because it was only attracting
> 10,000 people. Yet, no one else could consistently, year-after-year,
> attract the same numbers.
>
> The media has probably been our biggest downfall. The peace movement
> made a fatal error -- we relied on the media to cover the story, or at
> least to cover the issues. We expected media bias and often we worked
> hard to overcome it, we even expected an ideological battles with the
> media owners. But there was one thing we did not expect.
>
> But, before I continue, let me go back a few steps. My impression is
> that the experience of the peace movement is not unique to the 1900s.
> In the early part of this century we witnessed the struggle of workers
> forming independent trade unions. Women fought for the right of
> citizenship and the vote. In the 1950s the Black Civil rights movement
> came to the forefront, then the anti-Vietnam war protests, by the
> 1970s the women’s movement was in full stride again, then came
> the peace and environmental movements, and today we have the
> anti-globalization movement.
>
> All of these movements have had their ups-and downs, their successes
> and failures. And their successes didn’t always coincide with
> their peaks of popular support. Trade unionism was on the rise in the
> 1920s, thousands of workers were trying to form their own unions, and
> many more were trying to unite to form the "One Big Union". Yet
> activists in the 1920s faced some of the most fierce social battles of
> the century – the military with tanks and machine guns were
> often called upon to crush union activities. Private police here in
> Canada used intimidation and violence to undermine their work.
>
> More than we can imagine, the battles of unionists, feminists, civil
> rights workers and peace activists of the early 1900s to the 1950s set
> the stage for those of us who have been working for progressive social
> change in the 1980s and 1990s.
>
> They achieved some of the major victories – women and blacks
> gained the vote but more importantly they were recognized as citizens.
> Workers succeeded in forming national and international unions to
> improve the plight of millions. And there are many more successes.
> But unfortunately they also lost some major battles and likely the
> single most important battle lost was over the media. By the end of
> World War II, every independent progressive newspaper in Canada was
> either burned, vandalized, shut-down or politically discredited.
>
> In the 1950s anyone actively and politically left of the Liberal Party
> of Canada was essentially purged from every major institution in
> Canada and the US – they were purged from the military, CBC,
> NFB, and from all government postings.
>
> But I didn’t come here to give any of you a history lesson.
> Let’s face it, ten years is not a long time.
> We have to remember to put things in a longer perspective if we truly
> want to understand where we’re at and where we are going.
>
> This century has truly been the "Best of times and the Worst of
> Times".
>
> We’ve made great strides in progressive social change – a
> coal miner in Glace Bay on Cape Breton Island in 1901 was equal to the
> horses that were driven down under ground to work their lives in the
> dark. (The horses were treated better then the men and their
> families.) Women, Blacks and Coal Miners were chattel. Those attitudes
> have dramatically changed.
>
> But history hasn’t been moving along in a straight progressive
> path. It’s also been an incredibly horrible century. We’ve
> built the largest military systems in history. Our economy is based on
> militarism. The global environment is in danger of collapse. Two
> thirds of the world’s population continues to live in absolute
> poverty. Iraqis, Aboriginal people, East Timoreese, Vancouver’s
> Downtown Eastsiders and Third Worlders are today’s chattel.
>
> Over the past ten years the peace movement has been in decline.
>
> Yet, behind the scenes, we’ve have had some of our most
> successful advances. Nuclear weapons are essentially discredited. And
> how many of you know that the World Court just two years ago gave the
> opinion that nuclear weapons are generally illegal?
>
> But the threat of nuclear warfare is greater today than it was in the
> 1980s. Even the threat of limited nuclear war is a reality that we may
> face in the near future. And generally militarism is on the rise.
>
> All of this leads me to my main point. The failure of peace activists
> in the 1980s was to build a populous anti-nuclear weapon movement.
> This was at the expense of building strong foundations of support for
> anti-militarism – foundations that would not crumble when the
> media got tired of us.
> Earlier I said that we failed because we relied too much on the media.
> As a movement what we failed to understand was the blatant shallowness
> of our media.
>
> I remember calling a journalist here in Vancouver, who I know is on
> the progressive side of the fence, to tell him about the next Walk for
> Peace. He immediately reacted with "OH can’t you guys find
> something better to do, I’m bored." That comment tells me more
> about the system than the person. Over 20,000 people came to the Walk
> for Peace that year, yet the Vancouver media portrayed it as a failure
> and the Canadian media ignored it. Why? Because they were bored.
>
> Once the media got tired of the peace movement they dropped us like a
> hot potato. The issues didn’t go away, in fact they are in many
> was worse.
>
> Around the world we spent enormous energy organizing rallies and other
> media events throughout the 1980s. Millions and millions of people
> participated yet the impact of those events is at best minimal.
>
> The Berlin wall fell because thousands of Germans wanted it to come
> down and they started ripping it down by hand, and they acted as if it
> were already gone even before it was. These people didn’t go out
> and start tearing down the wall in order to get media attention. They
> did it because it was the right thing to do at the right time.
>
> Apartheid came tumbling down because people worked for decades to get
> rid of it, and they began en masse to ignore or undermine its
> insidious rules. The people in power couldn’t keep it together.
> And the media had little to do with it. In fact the media more often
> the not obstructed the anti-apartheid movement.
>
> I strongly believe that each of our movements will have their great
> moments of success. But there are no quick fixes. It took decades to
> build unions, and decades to get rid of apartheid, the fight for equal
> rights for women and Blacks is centuries old and continues. For Third
> Worlders, colonialism has merely changed its face.
>
> We have to work hard. But you’ll end up spinning your wheels if
> you spend too much time trying to inform, appease and lobby the media
> and government. And you’ll be (excuse the expression),
> you’ll be pissing in the wind if you act out of frustration and
> play games for the media.
>
> Getting media attention will not change the world.
>
> Getting thousands or even millions of people actively supporting you
> will change the world, then the media will have no choice but to come
> out and watch.
>
> And when we, the people, make our great leaps of progress the elite
> will rewrite history to show that it was actually they who wanted to
> improve the lives of women, blacks and workers, and it was they who
> wanted to end the Cold War and abolish apartheid.
>
> We will all have to do the right thing (and that does not mean dancing
> for the media) and each of us will have to learn to recognize when the
> time is right.
>
> As an example, I strongly believe that in the next five or ten years
> the peace movement is about to make some of its greatest advances. No,
> we likely will not end all war. But we’ll take a few strides in
> that direction. The time is right, we’ve been doing the work,
> people are on our side, and the right actions are already in our
> hands. Our position is now the common wisdom of the day. Thus, one
> small stride will be the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    Dear Peter I understand your pessimism but there is now a rising and
very active antinuclear movement globally. It revolved around the
fulcrum of the "stockpile stewardship program" which, to my horror, I
found recently was a new vamped up Manhattan 11 program of the same
magnitude to design and build new nuclear weapons, whch of course
totally violates the NPT and CTB. Get the documents on this from Alice
Slater at Grace. Movements only occur in the wake of good solid
education which arouses people who do things which attract the media. We
can never rely upon the media to lead our movements. Peter, if an
appropriate time can be found, I would be willing to come to vancouver
and jazz up the crowds again, Sincerely Helen Caldicott



- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 11:27:52 -0600
From: "BobKinsey" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) re Bagpipe alert-- calling the dept of energy

Having just spent a long time being shunted around DOE to complain about
the bagpipe test I learned that the best number is the Press Office at 1
202 586 5806.  The Secretary's office is 1 202 586 6210.  The number at the
bottom of this e-mail is way off base.
Ask for a response and assurance from the press office that Richardson will
hear about your protest of Bagpipe.

Bob Kinsey

- ----------
> From: Shundahai Network <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: (abolition-usa) "Bagpipe" Subcritical Announcement
> Date: Thursday, August 27, 1998 11:32 AM
>
> Hello Friends,
>
> Yesterday the Department of Energy conducted the first "signal dry run"
for
> the subcritical nuclear weapons test "Bagpipe" at the U-1a underground
> center on the Nevada Test Site.
>
> There is another "signal dry run" scheduled this afternoon at 2pm pacific
> standard time. It seems that they will do daily dry runs. When they begin
> to do daily "Mandatory" Dry runs, we will be getting closer to the
> explosion date.
>
> This morning some friends caught the end of a local TV news program doing
a
> story on the U-1a complex and they mentioned "2 weeks from now" Some
people
> believe they were talking about the test. We have a call into the TV
> station and a call into D.O.E.
>
> If it is two weeks from now that would put it on September 11. We are
> certainly not ready to confirm this date now, but we will have a better
> feeling for it next week. There is still some speculation that the test
> could be delayed until toward the end of September.
>
> Two weeks ago there was an interview with Derrick Scammel, DOE
> spokesperson, and he said the DOE was prepared to do three tests before
the
> end of the year. We are not certain weather that means fiscal year or
> calendar year.
>
> We will start holding demonstrations and possibly daily vigils here in
Las
> Vegas beginning with a kick off demo at the Federal Building on Sept 8th.
> and actions at the test site before the test. (Email us or call us at
(702)
> 647-3095 for more information about these actions)
>
> In the Bay Area: there will be a
>
> Vigil at Livermore 4 PM to 6 PM the evening before the test.
>
> and
>
> Demonstrate at Bechtel HQ in San Francisco at NOON the day of the test.
> Bechtel manages the test site for DOE, and is located at 50 Beale St.
(near
> the Embarcadero BART station).
>
> For more info please call or email Marylia Kelly at Tri-Valley CAREs
> <www.igc.org/tvc/>  [e-mail] [phone] - is our phone
>
> If any one else is planning actions or public events around the
subcritical
> please let us know. If any body has any ideas for strategies to stop
these
> tests please let us know. Is there any way that we can file for an
> injunction without taking a lot of time or resources of which we have
> almost neither.
>
> We will post an update on Monday and probably do bi-weekly updates from
now
> on.
>
> In the meantime...
>
> Please call the Department of Energy and the White House and your
> Congressional representatives and demand:
>
>     "DON'T BY HYPOCRITICAL! STOP THE SUBCRITICAL!"
>
>     *The subcritical nuclear weapons test be canceled!
>     *Stop all new and modified nuclear weapons development.
>     *Close down the Nevada Test Site and all nuclear weapons development
> facilities         except for programs based disarmament.
>     *Begin immediate clean up and containment of the nuclear nightmare
caused
> by         the U.S. Nuclear Weapons program.
>
> President Bill Clinton, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC 20001, (202)
> 456-1111
> Secretary of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave, Washington DC, 20585 (202)
> 586-5230
> State Senators and Representatives [phone] (Congressional
switchboard)
>
> Thank you. Peace Out! Reinard
>
> PS. Thank you to all of the activists with For Mother Earth and TP2000
for
> the incredibly inspiring actions and powerful work that you have been
doing
> in Europe over these past few months. I hope that we can carry some of
your
> energy into our own actions in the U.S.
>
> ***************************************************************
>                    SHUNDAHAI NETWORK
>           "Peace and Harmony with all Creation"
>               *Breaking the Nuclear Chain*
>
>         5007 Elmhurst Ln., Las Vegas, NV 89108-1304
> ph(702)647-3095 Fax: [phone]  Email: [e-mail]
>                     http://www.shundahai.org
>
>      Shundahai Network is proud to be part of:
> Healing Global Wounds Alliance, a multi-cultural alliance to
> foster sustainable living and break the nuclear chain; and
> Abolition 2000: A Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons
> ****************************************************************
>
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to
"[e-mail]"
>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karina Wood <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Turner op-ed from Boston Globe

Hi folks,

Did you see this great op-ed from Stansfield Turner in yesterday's Boston
Globe? Our abolitionist colleagues Alistair Millar of the Fourth Freedom
Forum and Steve Kent of Kent Communications helped put it together.

Karina Wood

*******
>This story ran on page A13 of the Boston Globe on 08/31/98.=20
>                  =A9 Copyright 1998 Globe Newspaper Company.=20
>
>Reversing nuclear growth=20
>
>                  By Stansfield Turner, 08/31/98=20
>
>Tomorrow President Clinton is expected to meet with embattled Russian
>President Boris Yeltsin. Global nuclear security will be a topic of
>discussion between the two leaders at their first meeting since the
>recent weapons tests by India and Pakistan.=20
>
>The United States and Russia have by far the largest stocks of nuclear
>weapons in the world. Although Russia's economic woes have serious
>implications for the United States and the world, the new nuclear
>landscape in the wake of the South Asian tests is still the single most
>urgent fact of life in our bilateral relationship today. This situation
>demands decisive coping measures.=20
>
>Traditional treaty negotiations are necessary but not sufficient to
>today's demand. Even if START II is ratified and carried out, the United
>States will still have 10,000 nuclear warheads at the end of 2007. If
>this is the best nuclear arms control our treaty negotiations can offer,
>it sets an irresponsible example for the rest of the world.=20
>
>How can the United States or Russia criticize India and Pakistan, let
>alone take punitive action against emergent nuclear programs, while
>maintaining unnecessarily huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons?
>Traditional efforts to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons are
>backfiring, because the ``do as we say, but not as we do'' approach to
>this problem has failed and will continue to fail.=20
>
>The threat the new wave of proliferation poses on Russia's southern
>flank, and new tensions with Pakistan over the US bombing of
>Afghanistan, have added unpredictable factors into the mix. The need to
>cool the nuclear politics of the region is urgent. Meanwhile, risk of
>proliferation of nuclear weapons to other breakout states such as Iraq,
>Iran, and North Korea grows daily, and the power of established nuclear
>states to prevent it steadily weakens.=20
>
>It is necessary for the United States today not just to maintain the
>momentum of the nuclear arms control treaty process but to accelerate
>it. I have written a letter to President Clinton proposing a viable way
>to begin: a program of "strategic escrow'' to disconnect warheads from
>missiles. Through his presidential authority alone, President Clinton
>has the power to relocate unilaterally at least 1,000 nuclear warheads
>from their missiles and place them in storage at some remote distance
>perhaps a minimum of 200 miles.=20
>
>President Bush established the precedent for this sort of unilateral
>action by a US president in 1991 when he withdrew tactical nuclear
>weapons from their deployed positions. If President Clinton uses this
>precedent to alter the deployment of 1,000 nuclear missiles, we could
>then invite the Russians to send observers who would have authority only
>to count the number of warheads in storage. We would have full control
>and could return the warheads to their missiles at any time. Thus, we
>would not have fewer nuclear weapons than before; 1,000 of them would
>merely be in a state of lower readiness.=20
>
>Our hope would be that the Russians would reciprocate. An initiative
>from their former Cold War adversary would certainly give them an
>incentive to do so. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, their
>nuclear arsenal is inexorably dwindling anway, due to lack of
>maintenance and replacement. Strategic escrow would give them much
>needed cost advantages over other methods of stockpile management and
>arms reduction.=20
>
>If they embraced it, we would realistically expect to embark on a series
>of similar actions and responses that could reduce the number of alerted
>nuclear warheads to less than 1,000 in just a few years. If they did
>not, we would have lost nothing, but gained some credibility among
>nations for having made an attempt they would recognize as meaningful.=20
>
>In the event that we did reach a level of 1,000 warheads outside escrow,
>we could then credibly encourage the other nuclear powers to join in the
>process. This would no longer be a matter of leaving us with 10,000
>missiles in the best case, but of charting a practical course to a world
>in which there were few, if any, nuclear weapons immediately ready for
>use. A successful program of strategic escrow would also markedly reduce
>the risk of a nuclear exchange touched off by accidents or mistakes.=20
>
>Even more important, it would point the world in a new direction with
>respect to nuclear weapons. Those having them would be telling the world
>that they do not really need to deploy them, and, therefore, no one else
>need acquire them.=20
>
>The Moscow summit represents a historic opportunity that the Clinton
>administration should not miss. This is the first time since the end of
>the Cold War and the beginning of our cooperative relationship with
>Russia that the two nuclear superpowers have actually confronted the
>long-dreaded outbreak of proliferation.=20
>
>As a result, we have entered an unprecedented moment in which we have
>both the immediate incentive as well as the working relationship with
>Russia necessary to take a practical step toward halting and reversing
>the renewed growth of nuclear danger. The president should not fail to
>seize this opportunity to leave a legacy for all humankind.=20
>
>Stansfield Turner is a retired Navy admiral and the former director of
>the Central Intelligence Agency.=20
>
>                 =20
>                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
Karina Wood
U.S. Outreach Coordinator,=20
Hague Appeal for Peace=20
43 Nisbet St, 3rd Fl.
Providence, RI 02906
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Join us at the global people's conference for peace & justice,=20
The Hague, May 11-15 1999!


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 12:40:43 -0700
From: Shundahai Network <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) "Bagpipe" subcrit nuclear test update

Hello Friends,

Today is the first "Mandatory" dry run for the subcritical nuclear weapons
test "Bagpipe" This puts them closer to conducting the actual test. This is
the quickest I have seen them move from conducting "signal" dry runs to
"mandatory" dry runs. From monitoring the situation at the test site, we
believe that the "devices" containing the plutonium to be exploded were
delivered two nights ago and installed on Monday. "In the hole" as they
call it. This means that a "shot" date of next week (Sept 7-11) is very
likely. We will keep updating you with new information as it breaks to help
in your planning.

Thank you to all of those around the world who have responded to the need
for generating more attention around the subcritical s. All of the letters
and phone calls do make a difference.

There is a rough sample letter included below.

Please call the Department of Energy and the White House and your
Congressional representatives and demand:

    "DON'T BY HYPOCRITICAL! STOP THE SUBCRITICAL!"

    *The subcritical nuclear weapons test be canceled!
    *Stop all new and modified nuclear weapons development.
    *Close down the Nevada Test Site and all nuclear weapons development
        facilities except for programs based disarmament.
    *Begin immediate clean up and containment of the nuclear nightmare caused
        by the U.S. Nuclear Weapons program.

President Bill Clinton, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC 20001, (202)
456-1111

Secretary of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave, Washington DC, 20585
To leave a message for Bill Richardson, new Secretary of DOE call the 202
586 6210 and the press office at 202 586 5806 (Thanks to Bob Kinsey for
that information)




THE HONORABLE PRESIDENT  CLINTON,
THE WHITE HOUSE,
WASHINGTON, U.S.,
1-202-456-2461, 1-202-456-2883.

Dear President Clinton,

I am writing to demand that you  "DON'T BY HYPOCRITICAL! STOP THE
SUBCRITICAL!"

By this, I mean that you must immediately cancel the subcritical nuclear
weapons test code named "Bagpipe" which could be detonated as early as next
week (Sept 7 - 11) and all future subcritical tests.

These tests explode plutonium, which is the most deadly material ever
created, 980 feet below the ground at the Nevada Test Site dangerously
close to the largest aquifer in Southern Nevada. This precious groundwater
has already been contaminated by past nuclear tests. It is time to stop the
contamination and begin the clean up!

These tests should really be called "hypocritical." They clearly violate
the spirit of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) signed in September
1996, by you, Mr President.  The CTBT commits the U.S. "not to carry out
any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion..." DOE
claims these experiments are permissible because the CTBT does not define
"nuclear weapon" test. These tests make global adoption of the CTBT less
likely by encouraging other nations to copy the U.S. decision to continue
testing and update their nuclear arsenals.

These tests especially contradict the condemnation expressed  by the U.S.
government against India and Pakistan for conducting their own series of
nuclear weapons tests earlier this year.

The subcritical tests are part of a massive "Stockpile Stewardship and
Management" program, intended to maintain and expand U.S. nuclear weapons
capabilities well into the next century. During the next decade, taxpayers
will spend more than $40 billion for the program, an annual rate higher
than the Cold War average. Thus, it is fair to say these tests are intended
to signal to the rest of the world an unflagging U.S. commitment to nuclear
weapons as the ultimate "big stick."

Last year, in the U.S. 44 members of Congress, including key California
Representatives, urged you not to go ahead with the tests. At the
grassroots level, protesters gathered in  California, Nevada, Texas, New
York, New Jersey, Washington, D.C. and elsewhere around the country to
demand the cancelation of this testing program. There is currently a
lawsuit against DOE, charging the agency failed to conduct an adequate
environmental analysis of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan,
including the subcritical tests.

This decision is largely in your hands. I urge you to be courageous and
recognize that the U.S. needs to take the lead in halting our nuclear
weapons designing, testing and production capabilities so that the rest of
the world can take us seriously when we talk about non-proliferation issues
and the Comprehensive Test ban Treaty.

It is time, Mr President, to build that bridge to the 21st century that you
always talk about. The time for nuclear disarmament is now. Do the right
thing. Stop the Subcritical!

Yours Sincerely,
Signed:





***************************************************************
                   SHUNDAHAI NETWORK
          "Peace and Harmony with all Creation"
              *Breaking the Nuclear Chain*

        5007 Elmhurst Ln., Las Vegas, NV 89108-1304
ph(702)647-3095 Fax: [phone]  Email: [e-mail]
                    http://www.shundahai.org

     Shundahai Network is proud to be part of:
Healing Global Wounds Alliance, a multi-cultural alliance to
foster sustainable living and break the nuclear chain; and
Abolition 2000: A Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons
****************************************************************

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 08:30:39 -0400
From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NucNews: NY Times 9/2/98 - Nuc Test Cancers; Sierra Blanca

http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/national/science/sci-radiation-cancer.
html

September 2, 1998 New York Times

        Cancers From Nuclear Tests are Seen as Too Hard to Trace

        By MATTHEW L. WALD

              WASHINGTON -- There is no good way to find the tens
              of thousands of Americans who may have received
        enough radiation from atmospheric nuclear tests to raise their
        chances of cancer significantly, an advisory panel said
        Tuesday.

        The report, by the Institute of Medicine, a panel of
        independent experts who are mostly from universities, is the
        latest contribution to an emotional and politically charged
        dispute over the effect of atmospheric nuclear weapons
        testing from 1951 to 1962. The outside experts reviewed a
        study that was released last year by the National Cancer
        Institute predicting 10,000 to 75,000 extra cancers because
        of the tests.

        The risk came from iodine-131, a radioactive product of the
        explosions that got into milk after cows ate contaminated
        grass. Iodine is concentrated in the thyroid.

        After the release of the report last year, some health
        advocates sought screening of people who grew up
        downwind from the nuclear tests. But the report Tuesday said
        that widespread screening would probably result in many
        "false positive" readings, and that many healthy thyroids
        would be removed as a result.

        While the cancer institute had estimated the radiation dose
        for every county in the nation, the report Tuesday said data
        were too scanty for such estimates and "probably too
        uncertain to be used in estimating individual exposure."

        The Institute of Medicine said government credibility on
        radiation had been hurt by misleading statements during the
        Cold War. More recently, the medicine institute said, the
        cancer institute had damaged its credibility by appearing to
        delay the release of its findings.

        The chairmen of the panel characterized the conclusions of
        their report as "somewhat unsettling" because they found
        contradictory things: "first, that some people (who cannot be
        easily identified) were likely exposed to sufficient
        iodine-131 to raise their risk of thyroid cancer and, second,
        there is no evidence that programs to screen for thyroid
        cancer are beneficial in detecting disease at a stage that
        would allow more effective treatment."

        The report also said that the number of cancers caused by the
        explosions was probably closer to the low end of the cancer
        institute's estimate, and that the type of cancer linked to
        radiation, papillary carcinoma, was "rarely life threatening."

        But Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said, "Tell that to my brother;
        that's exactly what he had." Harkin's brother died of thyroid
        cancer.

        "Early detection and removal obviously improves your
        chances immensely," Harkin said.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/national/texas-nuke-waste.html

September 2, 1998, New York Times

        For Some, Texas Town Is Too Popular as Waste Disposal Site

        By RICK LYMAN

            SIERRA BLANCA, Texas -- Lupe Bustamante cradled a
            gallon of milk under her arm in the dim and sparsely
        stocked Guerra General Store on the main street of this dusty
        outpost, population 600, and wondered why the whole world
        seems to want to dump on her tiny town.

        First, New York City completed a deal to ship its treated
        sewage to a ranch outside Sierra Blanca, where the sewage
        has been spread on the ground since 1992. Then, a New
        Jersey company announced this summer that it hoped to ship
        New York sludge to a ranch in the nearby town of
        Allamoore. And now, the state of Texas believes it is coming
        to the end of a decade-long effort to enter into a compact
        with Vermont and Maine to store their low-level nuclear
        waste, along with its own, at a site just outside Sierra
        Blanca. The waste would be sealed in concrete and buried
        beneath the rocky desert.

        "I think maybe they choose us because we are a small town,
        because we are so distant from everyone and because we
        have no political power," Ms. Bustamante said. "I think
        maybe they are taking advantage of us. I believe that most of
        the people are opposed to it."

        Many environmentalists and residents said that the town was
        picked only because it is poor and Hispanic. About
        two-thirds of Sierra Blanca's residents are Hispanic, and the
        per capita income is $8,000, according to Census Bureau
        figures.

        But for others in Sierra Blanca, the waste site would bring a
        much-needed economic boost. Already, the town's largest
        employer, with 40 workers, is Merco Joint Venture, the
        company that has shipped 400 tons of New York City sludge
        every day since 1992 to a 128,000-acre ranch outside town.

        A short walk down the lone commercial strip, past the ice
        cream parlor, a couple of auto repair shops and a boarded-up
        movie theater, James Schilling was putting the finishing
        touches on the Sierra Motel, a 67-year-old fieldstone
        complex that he is renovating.

        "As for the low-level nuclear site, I'm all for it, and most of
        the town is for it, too," Schilling said. "We need progress in
        this town, and this facility will bring money and jobs here. I
        feel it will be safe."

        On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on the
        proposed three-state compact, which has been approved by
        the House.

        Several residents of Sierra Blanca joined Sen. Paul
        Wellstone, D-Minn., who has been the project's most vocal
        congressional opponent, for a rally on the Capitol steps
        Tuesday hoping to sway the vote. During Senate debate
        Tuesday night, Wellstone said, "It is a fight for communities
        all across the country who don't have political clout."

        If the proposal passes the Senate, as even many of its
        opponents believe it will, then all it will need is President
        Clinton's signature to become a reality. It would be the 10th
        such compact created since the 1980 passage of a federal
        law urging states to cooperate in dealing with the disposal
        problems of low-level nuclear waste, which includes
        medical waste and parts and machinery from nuclear power
        plants that have become contaminated. States that enter a
        compact have some protection from the federal government's
        forcing them to accept waste from other states.

        The passage of the compact would give Texas permission to
        build the site and provide much of the money for it, said Lee
        Mathews, general counsel for the Texas Low-level
        Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority, which has been
        looking since the early 1980s for a disposal site.

        But the authority would still need a license from the state.
        Earlier this summer, two administrative law judges in Austin
        ruled that the authority's application for the license should be
        rejected because it failed to include a thorough geological
        survey of the site or a proper assessment of the proposal's
        socio-economic impact on Sierra Blanca and surrounding
        Hudspeth County.

        However, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
        Commission, comprised of three officials appointed by Gov.
        George W. Bush, is not bound to follow the judges' ruling
        and can approve the license. Many environmentalists expect
        the commission to do so. Bush, who had supported the
        project, says he is "troubled" by the decision of the judges
        and has urged the commission to "thoroughly review this
        recommendation and the facts to make their decision on
        sound science and the health and safety of Texans."

        David Frederick, a lawyer for the Sierra Blanca Defense
        Fund, which was formed to fight the compact, said he thought
        there was "a real chance the commission will uphold the
        judges and reject the application."

        "The common wisdom, however," Frederick said, "is that
        they will not."

        The commission can make its ruling at any time, but it is not
        expected to until at least the fall.

        The march to a low-level waste facility has been a long one
        for Texas.

        An initial site selected in the early '80s in northern Hudspeth
        County was withdrawn following a storm of protest from
        residents. A second plan to locate the facility in South Texas,
        in the scrublands between Laredo and Corpus Christi, was
        scuttled by objections from ranchers who instigated passage
        of a law mandating that the site be built only on state-owned
        land. Since most of that land is in West Texas, it pushed the
        waste disposal authority back into Hudspeth County,
        Mathews said.

        A third site was selected in 1986, this time in Fort Hancock,
        near the El Paso County line. But the City of El Paso fought
        the proposal. Finally, in 1991, a judge ruled against the site
        and it, too, was abandoned.

        By this time, a new state law had been passed mandating that
        the facility be built within a 400-square-mile box of land in
        Hudspeth County.

        The site the authority came up with was a 16,000-acre ranch
        outside Sierra Blanca that the state bought from private
        owners.

        Environmentalists rose up in opposition to this new site,
        charging that it was geologically unsound, that it had been
        developed over known earthquake faults, and that it was
        chosen not for proper scientific reasons but because the
        area's residents were predominantly poor and Hispanic.

        "Look, you and I both know this," Frederick said. "These
        people are low- income, minority populations. They do not
        have a strong spokesperson in state government. It's obvious
        that this area was selected because it did not have the
        financial or political strength to pose serious opposition."

        Project leaders say that the Sierra Blanca site was the best
        one available and that its selection had nothing to do with the
        town's makeup.

        The project has also drawn vehement opposition from
        politicians across the Mexican border, particularly officials
        in nearby Coahuila and Chihuahua and in the Mexican
        Legislature. A city councilman from Juarez and several
        supporters staged a hunger strike on one of the international
        bridges in El Paso. A delegation of Mexican officials flew to
        Austin to protest the project, but were rebuffed in efforts to
        meet with Bush. Mexico's ruling party accused the United
        States of "economic racism."

        Proponents of the facility point to the improvements that have
        already come from tax money turned over to Hudspeth
        County for its decision to take the waste: a new football
        field, a library, a medical clinic, a new fire truck.

        And after the facility is built and operating, the money will
        continue to flow, proponents say. And there will be an
        estimated three dozen jobs at the facility and maybe a few
        more at businesses catering to these new workers.

        Mathews said that if the state license was granted later this
        year, as he expects it will be, the authority will still need to
        appeal to the Texas Legislature early next year for
        construction money.

        Even if all goes well, Mathews said, the first shipment of
        waste would not arrive in Sierra Blanca until late 2000 or
        early 2001.

        Sierra Blanca, some 90 miles southeast of El Paso, was once
        a ranching and railroad center. Now it is little more than a
        stretch of commercial buildings along a feeder road between
        two exits on Interstate 10, separated from the Rio Grande by
        the boulder-strewn Quitman Mountains that create a
        sawtoothed silhouette in the desert haze.

        There are three gas stations, three restaurants, a couple of RV
        parks, two motels, a general store, a grocery, a post office
        and a former rail depot that is now a county museum
        commemorating the moment in 1881 when the Southern
        Pacific's tracks met the Texas Pacific's right here in Sierra
        Blanca. The museum is open 1 to 5 p.m., Wednesdays only.

        Maria Mendez, a retired school aid from Allamoore, was
        part of the delegation that went to Washington this week to
        protest the compact.

        "I don't know," Ms. Mendez said Tuesday. "I think Sierra
        Blanca was chosen for all of this dumping because we don't
        have any political clout. I think it's a racism thing, I really do.
        Here we are, the hugest dump in the whole world. First
        sludge, now nuclear waste. Our home has been taken over as
        the nation's dumping ground."
_______________________________________________________________________

* Peace Through Reason - http://prop1.org - Convert the War Machines! *
_______________________________________________________________________

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #14
**********************************

-
 To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.