ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n063

Internet Message Format | 1999-01-26 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #63
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest     Tuesday, January 26 1999     Volume 01 : Number 063




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

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 14:07:46 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re:  (abolition-usa) Re: US Conditions for the CTB

Dear Jackie,

Please send us your latest analysis of CTBT via email regular text.

Thanks, John Martin, Director

- -
 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, 25 Jan 1999 23:02:40 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Chance For Public To Express Concern

- ------Begin forward message-------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:20:12 -0500
From: Deb Katz <[e-mail]>

To: Balanced <[e-mail]>
Subject: how dirty can cleanup get!


MA: Box 83 Shelburne Falls, MA 01370 P/F: 413-339-5781/8768
CT: 54 Old Turnpike Road, Haddam, CT 06438 P/F: 860-345-8431
VT: C/O Box 566 Putney, VT  05346  P/F: 802-387-4050
NH: 9 Evens Road, Madbury, NH 03820 P/F 603-742-4261
NY: 924 Burnet Ave, Syracuse, NY 13203 315-472-5478/ 7923

CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK
HOW DIRTY CAN CLEAN-UP GET!
=93=85. It brings to mind the Office of Circumlocution in Charles Dickens=
=92
Bleak House=85.=94
      Judge Michael Ponzer, Federal District Court, May, 1994
Regarding NRC=92s actions to violate EPA requirement and a public hearing
in the Rowe decommissioning

=93=85.arbitrary, capricious, and utterly irrational=85..=94
      US Court of Appeals July 1995 CAN v NRC
Describing NRC=92s activities in the Yankee Rowe decommissioning

In what may be the only opportunity for the public to express concerns
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) about the radioactive
pollution Yankee Atomic is leaving behind for us, the NRC will hold a
Pre-hearing, January 26th at the Greenfield Court House. The pre-trial
will establish the boundaries for subject matter for a subsequent
hearing regarding the site release plan for the site of the Yankee Rowe
nuclear reactor. Yankee's lawyers, counsel for the NRC, and Citizens
Awareness Network with other public interest groups including New
England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, will argue before a panel of
three Atomic Safety and Licensing Board judges about how dirty the
clean-up of Rowe can be.  There will be a public comment period,
beginning at 6:30 PM, for citizens to raise concerns over the future of
the reactor site

In November 1998, the NRC Commissioners ordered the elimination of any
discussion of a proposed Dry Cask storage facility on the site for
Yankee Rowe's irradiated fuel with the justification that high-level
waste is the "responsibility" of the Department of Energy (DOE).  This
action attempts to effectively preclude public input into perhaps the
most salient aspect of Yankee's License Termination Plan (LTP).

This may be the only opportunity for members of the public to express
concerns about the dangerous waste Yankee Atomic is leaving behind for
us, its hapless neighbors. The contentions CAN will present at the
hearing include concerns about plans for the creation of an Independent
Fuel Storage Facility.  These concerns are supported by an affidavit by
David Lochbaum, Nuclear Engineer for the Union of  Concerned
Scientists.  In all likelihood the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will attempt to silence any references to this experimental process.
CAN's eight contentions argue that YAEC's License Termination Plan is
not adequate to protect the health and safety of the public and workers,
and that the NRC has not promulgated clear guidelines and standards for
the remediation of the site.  CAN is requesting that YAEC stop:

? Undermining the EPA and MA State exposure standards by manipulating
its calculations for "safe" exposure to protect the public.  The
"public", in Yankee's philosophy, consists solely of males weighing at
least 200 pounds who "inhabit" the site only 8 hours a day.

? Arbitrarily limiting its scoping (characterization) of the site, the
number of radionuclides tested for, the investigation of areas of
unexpected and unexplained contamination in unaffected areas, and
maintaining a consistent bias in its sampling analysis that allows
Yankee to leave more contaminated soil behind.

? Proceeding in the absence of any independent environmental assessments
or analysis to remediate the site or create an experiment within an
experiment- removal of Yankee's fuel pool and the establishing of a dry
cask storage dump.

? Ignoring the on-going epidemic of disease in the Deerfield River
Valley in formulating acceptable levels of exposure in addition to EPA
standards.

What is seen in on-going events at the site, and in Yankee's LTP, is a
philosophical decision to cut costs, limit clean-up, and thereby relieve
itself of its responsibility to monitor and remove dangerous
contamination from the site and from the river where contamination has
migrated.  This philosophical perspective does not protect the health
and safety of our community, but will lead to the firing of Yankee's
skilled workforce and the removal of Yankee's fuel pool to save money.
What YAEC will leave behind, if NRC abdicates its responsibility to
reactor communities, is not a "Greenfield" but an atomic power legacy of
radioactive contamination and storage site for irradiated fuel rod
waste.

=93It is unacceptable that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission values Yanke=
e
Atomic=92s profit margin over the health and safety of our community.=94
said Deb Katz, President of the Citizens Awareness Network. =93 It is a
travesty if NRC sanctions the violation of EPA radiation standards so
that Yankee can cut costs, cut jobs, and create another dangerous
experiment at Rowe. Rowe=92s site remediation must be relevant and
accountability to its neighbors not its shareholders.=94

=93If NRC gives Yankee Atomic the green light to leave the site
contaminated, all reactors in New England will follow Yankee=92s lead and
leave their deadly garbage behind.=94 said Sal Mangiali, Board member of
CAN and resident of Haddam, CT, host to the decommissioning CT Yankee
reactor.  =93We believe that it would be safer, more cost-effective, and
protective of workers and the community if Yankee would stop its strip
and ship policy, and hold its waste on site until an environmentally
sound and just solution is created. To bury the nuclear fiasco in
someone else=92s backyard only masks the problem of how dirty nuclear
power really is.=94

=93Yankee=92s precedent-setting decommissioning will effect how contamina=
ted
Vermont Yankee will eventually leave its site.  What we see with
decommissioning at Yankee Rowe and CT Yankee is that safe, clean nuclear
power is public relations rather than fact. Vermont Yankee should close
rather than creating more waste for which there is no solution.=94 said
Derrik Jordan, Vermont CAN member.






- ------End forward 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: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:50:57 -0500
From: Kathy Crandall <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) THE STAR WARS REVIVAL, THE DISARMAMENT STALL

THE STAR WARS REVIVAL, THE DISARMAMENT STALL
NEWS SUMMARY & ACTION ALERT

ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND:

1) Summary of the Current Situation
2) WHAT YOU CAN DO - with sample letter to the editor
3) State of the Union - Republican Response
4) Cohen Announcement
5) Russia Response to Administration Plans
6) Jesse Helms on STAR WARS & the ABM Treaty
*****************************************************************
1) Summary of the Current Situation

Last week=91s developments on STAR WARS missile defense system will have =
a

major impact on our work as nuclear disarmament advocates in the coming
months.

Starting at the beginning of the week - with Tuesday's State of the
Union Address, Republicans placed missile defense in a high- priority
and high-profile position in their State of the Union Response. STAR
WARS is a key "individual liberty" issue for Republicans. (See excerpts
below # 3)

The following day, On January 20, Secretary of Defense William Cohen
announced major steps toward deployment of a National Missile Defense,
but avoided an outright commitment to a system that is years from
testing. Interpretation and response has varied and has required a great

deal of additional explanation from the White House about U.S.
commitment to the ABM (Anti- Ballistic Missile) Treaty, and actual
deployment plans. (See articles, links to speeches and fact sheets below

#4)

It is clear, however, that the Russian response was especially negative
and will make progress on START II even more difficult. Friday's
Washington Post featured two stories on the same page:
"Pentagon Debates Arms Treaty Changes - Plan Aims to Allow Missile
Defense System " and "Russia Says START II is Imperiled - U.S. Missile
System Plan could End Hopes for Ratification" (See more on Russian
response below #5)

Meanwhile, like a shark smelling blood, Jesse Helms (R-NC Chair of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee) surfaced on Friday, announcing that
his demand that ABM Treaty protocols be considered by June 1 of this
year, so that "If I succeed, we will defeat the ABM Treaty, toss it into

the dustbin of history and thereby clear the way to build a national
missile defense."
Moreover, according to Helms, only after the ABM protocols and the Kyoto

Protocols (on Global Climate Change) are considered, will the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee consider the Test Ban Treaty. (See Helms'
op-ed below #6)


2)WHAT YOU CAN DO

 a. ORDER Disarmament Clearinghouse
  STAR WARS REVIVAL RESOURCE & ACTION KITS -
  AVAILABLE FEB 10, More information coming soon

 b. Write a Letter to the Editor

There is going to be plenty of news in the coming weeks on STAR WARS
Developments. Please take the opportunity to respond with letters to the

editor. For additional assistance, please contact the Disarmament
Clearinghouse.

*Tips on Successful Letters to The Editor*
(From 20/20 Vision)

*Letters to the editor can be submitted by regular (postal) mail, fax,
and often e-mail.

*Be sure to include your return address and day and evening
hone numbers so that the newspaper can verify your letter. The newspaper

will not print your contact information.

*Letters that are educational, personal, and refer to coverage in the
paper are much more likely to be printed. It is helpful if you can
relate your letter to a relevant event.

*Your newspaper's editorial page will often include the
newspaper's policy on publishing letters such as length requirements as
well as the mailing address, fax number and e-mail address where
available for letters to the editor. If you cannot find this
information, contact the Disarmament Clearinghouse for assistance.

For  more information or assistance please contact the Disarmament
Clearinghouse and  please send us all printed   Letters to the Editor:
- --
DISARMAMENT CLEARINGHOUSE
Kathy Crandall, Coordinator
1101 14th Street NW #700, Washington DC 20005
TEL: [phone] ext. 232
FAX: [phone]
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
(A project of: Friends Committee on National Legislation,  Peace Action,

Physicians for Social Responsibility,   and Women's Action for New
Directions)

**SAMPLE LETTER TO THE EDITOR **
(Please modify this to respond to the news coverage in your papers. Also

see additional resources listed below for additional talking points)

Policy makers in Washington are headed the wrong way on nuclear weapons
policy.


Republicans harkening back to the Cold War days have been leading the
revival of the ineffective, costly STAR WARS missile defense system. Now

it seems that the Clinton Administration is falling in step right behind

them.

The Administration plans to spend another $6.6 billion to get closer to
deploying something that probably won't work any time soon. In fact, the

deployment date has been moved back from 2003 to 2005. After over 40
years of research, and over $100 billion since STAR WARS was first
conceived in the 1950's, there is still no defense system that actually
works reliably.

Even a working STAR WARS defense system wouldn't stop terrorists from
smuggling nuclear materials or other weapons of mass destruction via
plane, truck, train or ship. Moreover, I am much more concerned about
the vast uncontrolled Russian nuclear arsenal. Promoting these STAR WARS

plans make it less likely that we can reduce Russian arsenals and
maintain a stable working relationship with Russia.

Instead, the President and Congress should pursue measures to really
make us safer. The U.S. Senate should ratify the nuclear test ban treaty

finally banning nuclear test explosions and hindering the spread of
nuclear weapons to other countries. The President should pursue measure
to reduce U.S. and Russian arsenals, and to lower the alert status of
the thousands of nuclear weapons currently poised on hair-trigger alert.

MORE RESOURCES ON THE STAR WARS REVIVAL/ DISARMAMENT STALL

"Cohen's National Missile Defense Statement: What Did It Mean?"
January 21, 1999 by John Isaacs, Council for a Livable World
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/clw12199.htm

For more background on Ballistic Missile Defense see:

Physicians for Social Responsibility Fact Sheet
http://www.psr.org/bmd.htm

"Star Wars Missile Defense =97 A Solution in Search of A Problem"
Women's Action For New Directions Fact Sheet
http://www.wand.ORG/getfacts/star_wars/star_wars.html

and don't miss The Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers Ballistic Missile

Defense page:
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/libbmd.htm

More below . . .
*****************************************************************

3) State of the Union - Republican Response from Congressman Steve
Largent (R-OK) on Reviving STAR WARS - A key "Individual Liberty" Issue

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY

                  "First, we must preserve the notion that true liberty
and freedom come from God and are His blessing on this land and that
FREEDOM reigns only as we act responsibly toward God, each other and His

creation. . .

                  And the good news is that after six years of cutting
spending for our armed forces, the president has signaled that he is
ready to join us in strengthening our national defense.

                  "We must never be complacent in what is still a
dangerous world. Terrorists and rogue nations are rapidly acquiring
technology to deliver weapons of mass destruction to our very doorstep.
Most Americans are shocked to discover that our country is unshielded
from the accidental or ruthless          launch of even a single missile

over our skies. Mr. President, we urge you to join Congress in
establishing a viable missile defense system to protect the United
States.. .


4) Cohen Announcement
On January 20, Secretary of Defense William Cohen announced major steps
toward deployment of a National Missile
Defense, but avoided an outright commitment to a system that is years
from testing.
 See COHEN ANNOUNCES PLAN TO AUGMENT MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan1999/b01201999_bt018-99.html
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/news99/t01201999_t0120md. htm
&
Cohen's National Missile Defense Statement: What Did It Mean?
January 21, 1999 by John Isaacs, Council for a Livable World
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/clw12199.htm



Apn  01/23 1131  Missile Threats

By ROBERT BURNS
 Associated Press Writer
   WASHINGTON (AP) -- In the six years since President Clinton's
first defense secretary declared "the end of the Star Wars era," the
administration has come nearly full circle in weighing the threat posed
to America by long-range nuclear missiles.
   After years of insisting the threat lay far in the future, the
administration says the future has arrived.
   "We are affirming that there is a threat, and the threat is
growing," Defense Secretary William Cohen declared last week in
announcing that the administration is asking Congress for $6.6 billion
over the next five years to build a national defense against missile
attack.
   Cohen's statement provoked criticism from Russia and China --
the only countries with nuclear missiles that can reach American
territory. The comment also marked a turning point in the
administration's view about whether small-scale nuclear wannabes like
North Korea, Iran and Iraq can develop ballistic missiles with
intercontinental range.
   As well, it brought the Democratic administration's approach
closer in line with the Republicans, who have argued for years that
Clinton was underestimating the missile threat. The Republicans favor a
crash program to build missile defenses as soon as possible.
   At a flashy news conference in the Pentagon on May 13, 1994,
then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin declared that the end of the Cold War
and dissolution of the Soviet Union meant the United States had no
further need to invest heavily in a futuristic shield against all-out
nuclear attack. Aspin officially killed the Strategic Defense Initiative

that President Reagan launched in 1983, which became known as Star Wars
for its emphasis on space-based weaponry to shoot down missiles.
   "This signals the end of the Star Wars era, and it signals the
end of a battle that has raged in Washington for a decade over the best
way to avoid nuclear war," Aspin declared.
   Aspin relegated the national missile defense work to a
"technology" program -- meaning mainly lab work rather than engineering
an actual weapons system. His successor, William Perry, began a
turnaround in April 1996 by upgrading the program to "deployment
readiness," to make the technology ready by 2000 for fielding as early
as 2003. Perry saw a widening missile threat on the horizon but none on
the doorstep.
   As recently as last year the view of U.S. intelligence
agencies was that a long-range missile threat from potential Third World

adversaries was unlikely to emerge before 2010.
   Cohen now says the threat has arrived, and a missile system
must be built. Remaining questions are whether it can be made to work,
how much it will cost and whether the United States will have to
abrogate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in order to deploy it.
   Cohen said a formal decision on fielding a national missile
defense will be made in June 2000.
   "We have many new threats with which to deal, and we need to
make sure that we are able to fulfill our responsibilities regarding our

own defenses," Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said Friday.
   Among questions this new emphasis on missile defense raises is
"Why now? What's changed?"
   "What's changed over the last six or seven months has been an
acceleration in the threat" from efforts by North Korea and Iran to
develop and deploy long-range missiles -- "missiles that have the
potential to reach our homeland if launched," said Robert Bell, senior
director of defense programs and arms control on the White House's
National Security Council.
   Last August North Korea fired a three-stage missile over
Japan, signaling a surprising advance in missile technology, but it has
no missile now that could reach U.S. soil.
   Air Force Lt. Gen. Lester Lyles, director of the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization -- created by Aspin to replace the Star
Wars program office -- said the perceived missile threat is so great now

that the Pentagon is willing to push its missile defense effort to a
"high risk" pace.
   No other defense projects are being accelerated at this pace
with as little testing done, he said. "We are doing this," he said,
"because of the urgency of the need" for a defense.
   Some defense analysts are skeptical that the administration
really intends to deploy missile defenses.
   Baker Spring, senior policy analyst at the conservative
Heritage Foundation, said he doubts either Cohen or Clinton is
interested in accomplishing a national missile defense. But he saw
"really good news" in Cohen's talk of the missile threat being
immediate.
   "They have given up the idea that they can run away from the
threat," Spring said.
*****************************************************************
For more background on Ballistic Missile Defense see Physicians for
Social Responsibility Fact Sheet http://www.psr.org/bmd.htm


5) Russia Response to Administration Plans

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Newsline
Friday, January 22, 1999

START-II BLASTED BY LEBED

In an article in "Nezavisimaya gazeta" on 21 January, Krasnoyarsk Krai
Governor and possible presidential contender Aleksandr Lebed slammed the

START-II treaty, urging the Duma not to ratify it. He said that
ratification of the treaty "may cause irreparable damage to Russia's
national security." Lebed called for a more drastic cut in the number of

strategic offensive weapons owned by Russia and the U.S than that
provided for by START-II, from 3,000-3,500 nuclear warheads to
1,500-1,700 each. The same day, Defense Minister Igor Sergeev praised
the treaty, calling it "necessary and beneficial for Russia."

START-II LINKED WITH ABM TREATY

Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, head of the Defense Ministry's
Department for International Military Cooperation, told Interfax on 21
January that the U.S.'s plans to review the ABM treaty could harm
chances for ratification of the START-II treaty. The Duma is scheduled
to debate the treaty in March. Ivashov said that "attempts to bypass the

ABM treaty will upset strategic stability." In a letter sent to
President Boris Yeltsin last week, U.S. President Bill Clinton proposed
lifting the deployment of anti-missile defense systems, ITAR-TASS
reported on 22 January. However, according to the agency, Robert Bell,
special aide to Clinton on defense policy and arms control, said that
deployment of such a system may not require amending the ABM treaty but
that if modification is necessary the U.S. will work with Russia to
reach an agreement.

***************************************************************

6) Jesse Helms on STAR WARS & the ABM Treaty

Amend the ABM Treaty? No, Scrap It
   By Jesse Helms

   01/22/99
   The Wall Street Journal

   Under pressure from the Pentagon and congressional conservatives,
President Clinton reluctantly decided to request $6.6 billion over six
years in his new budget for missile-defense research. And Defense
Secretary William Cohen announced yesterday that the administration
wants permission from Russia to  renegotiate the Antiballistic Missile
Treaty.

   But administration officials have made it clear that unless the
Russians are willing to give that permission, they have no intention of
actually deploying a nationwide missile defense system. Why? Because the

administration believes that any such deployment would violate the ABM
Treaty. And, as National   Security Adviser Samuel Berger affirmed in a
speech just last week, "We remain strongly committed to the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty [as] a cornerstone of our security."

   What that means is that in Mr. Berger's view, deploying even the most

limited missile defense would require getting permission from Russia to
revise the ABM Treaty. Consider that for a moment: The Clinton
administration wants to negotiate permission from Russia over whether
the U.S. can protect itself from ballistic missile attack by North
Korea.

   The ABM Treaty is the root of our problems. So long as it is a
"cornerstone" of U.S. security policy, as Mr. Berger says, we will never

be able to deploy a nationwide missile defense that will provide real
security for the American people.

   We do not need to renegotiate the ABM Treaty to build and deploy
national missile defense. We can do it today. The ABM Treaty is dead. It

died when our treaty partner, the Soviet Union, ceased to exist. But
rather than move swiftly to declare the treaty dead, and to build and
deploy a national missile
defense, the Clinton administration is attempting to resuscitate the ABM

Treaty with new protocols to apply its terms to Russia and all the other

nuclear states that were once part of the Soviet Union.

   The world has changed a great deal since the ABM Treaty was first
ratified 27 years ago. The U.S. faces new and very different threats
today -- threats which  are growing daily. China has 19 intercontinental

ballistic missiles, 13 of which   are aimed at the U.S. As recently as
1997 a senior Chinese official issued a veiled nuclear threat, warning
that the U.S. would never come to the defense of Taiwan, because we
Americans "care more about Los Angeles than we do Taipei."

   Saddam Hussein is doggedly pursuing nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons and the long-range missiles to deliver them, and the will of
the  international community to confront and disarm him is crumbling.
Iran, which is also developing a nuclear capability, just tested a new
missile -- built with Russian, Chinese and North Korean technology --
which can strike Israel and Turkey, a NATO ally. And, according to the
Rumsfeld Commission, Iran "has acquired and is seeking advanced missile
components that can be combined  to produce ballistic missiles with
sufficient range to strike the United States." If Iran succeeds, the
commission warns, it will be capable of striking all the way to St.
Paul, Minn.
   North Korea's unstable communist regime is forging ahead with its
nuclear weapons program, and test-fired a missile over Japan last August

which is capable of striking both Alaska and Hawaii. And Pyongyang is
close to testing a new missile, the TD-2, which could allow it to strike

the continental U.S.
   America is today vulnerable to ballistic missile attack by unstable
outlaw regimes, and that missile threat will increase dramatically in
the early years of the 21st century. What are we doing today, in this
waning year of the 20th  century, to defend ourselves against these
emerging threats? Practically nothing.
   When the Senate votes on the new protocols expanding the ABM Treaty
to Russia and other post-Soviet states, we will in fact be voting on the

ABM Treaty itself. For the first time in 27 years, the Senate will have
a chance to re-examine the wisdom of that dangerous treaty. If I
succeed, we will defeat the ABM Treaty, toss it into the dustbin of
history and thereby clear the way to    build a national missile
defense.
   The Clinton administration want to avoid that at all costs. So the
president has delayed sending the new protocols to the Senate for
approval. But Mr. Clinton does not have a choice -- he is required by
law to submit the ABM protocols to the Senate. On May 14, 1997, Mr.
Clinton agreed to explicit, legally binding language that he submit the
protocols, a condition that I required during the ratification of
another treaty, the Conventional Forces in Europe Flank Document. It has

been 618 days since Mr. Clinton made that commitment under law. I am
going to hold him to it.
   Today I am setting a deadline for the president to submit the ABM
protocols to the Senate. I expect them to arrive by June 1. In the
meantime, I will begin ratification hearings on the treaty shortly, so
that the Foreign Relations Committee will be ready to vote and report
the treaty to the full Senate by June 1. I say to the president: Let
your administration make its case for the ABM  Treaty, we will make our
case against it, and let the Senate vote. If I have my way, the Senate
this year will clear the way for the deployment of national missile
defense.
   Not until the administration has submitted the ABM protocols and the
Kyoto global-warming treaty, and the Senate has completed its
consideration of them, will the Foreign Relations Committee turn its
attention to other treaties on the president's agenda.
   Mr. Clinton cannot demand quick action on treaties he wants us to
consider, and at the same time hold hostage other treaties he is afraid
we will reject. The president must submit all of them, or we will
consider none of them.



- --
DISARMAMENT CLEARINGHOUSE
Nuclear Disarmament Information, Resources & Action Tools
Kathy Crandall, Coordinator
1101 14th Street NW #700, Washington DC 20005
TEL: [phone] ext. 232 FAX: [phone]
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
http://www.psr.org/Disarmhouse.htm
http://www.psr.org/ctbtaction.htm

A project of: Friends Committee on National Legislation
     Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility
     and Women's Action for New Directions



- -
 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, 26 Jan 1999 12:41:25 -0500
From: Bob Tiller <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) New brochure

Physicians for Social Responsibility is pleased to announce that in
February we will publish a new four-color brochure on abolition of
nuclear weapons, intended for mainstream distribution.  The abolition
movement needs some easy-to-read pieces that are intended for the
general public, and we hope that this one will help to bring more people
into our effort and enlarge our base.

The brochure was explicitly written so that other organizations will be
able to distribute it.  While it mentions in two places that it is
produced by PSR, that fact is not featured prominently.  Indeed, it
urges people to "join a group working to eliminate nuclear weapons," so
our hope is that other groups will want to distribute it.

The back panel is left blank, but it is not a self-mailer.  Thus you can
not only put your own mailing labels and postage, but also put on your
own return address.  The size is approximately 5x7 inches.

We will provide up to 50 brochures free to any organization that wants
them, though we will not pay for overnight mail.  If you want more than
50, please contact me and we will discuss a price.

For those who will be in Santa Barbara next month, I expect to have some
copies available for you there.

We hope that this brochure will be helpful to you and to the abolition
effort.

Shalom,
Bob Tiller, Physicians for Social Responsibility
phone [phone], ext. 220
fax [phone]
e-mail <[e-mail]>

- -
 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, 26 Jan 1999 14:57:46 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) (Fwd) False saviors

 Friends,

 This is one case where I will leave all "headers" intact in case you want to
follow up. I personally do not respond to or forward petitions for two simple
and not very honorable reasons. (1) I'm never quite sure how to sign and
forward a petition and (2) I get between 60 and 150 posts a day and literally
cannot cope with this flow. As a result I delete automatically any petitions -
I always hope someone else is doing the right thing. As it turns out, these
are not really helping anyone.

 In addition the petition on Afghan women has hit my monitor a dozen times,
and one about gays and lesbians and (I think) American Airlines has come my
way about 24 times in the last TWO YEARS.

 Consider the material below. And when circulating petitions, you need to
understand that human limits force me to simple delete without action as soon
as I find it is a petition.

 Peace,
 David McReynolds

 << Subj:     (Fwd) False saviors
  Date:    1/26/99 10:20:07 AM Eastern Standard Time
  From:    [e-mail] (Mennonite Church Peace and Justice Committee,
Orrville Ohio)
  Sender:    [e-mail]
  Reply-to:    [e-mail] (Mennonite Church Peace and Justice
Committee, Orrville Ohio), [e-mail]
  To:    [e-mail]

  Friends,

  Any time an e-mail protest/chain letter appears, I get several, or
  many, copies sent my way. Is the following basically accurate?
  Opinions?
  Thanks!
  Susan Mark Landis


  ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
  From:          "Judi Broutin" <[e-mail]>
  To:            [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
                 [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
                 [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail],
                 [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail],
                 [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail],
                 [e-mail], [e-mail]
  Subject:       False saviors
  Date:          Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:12:21 PST

  Re: afghanistan women
  Kathy and other friends...
  As important a subject as this is, I regret to inform you that e-mail
  chian letters are an improper form of protest.  Read on to find a memo
  from Brandeis University, which is the school of origination.  at the
  bottom, you will also find a link to the "urban legends" website, where
  this memo came form.  I'm sorry to say, all this e-mailing is doing is
  perpetuating useless junk, IT IS NOT HELPING ANYONE.

  Brandeis memo:
  The information above is accurate and the cause worthy. Unfortunately,
  the well-meaning individual who created this message chose the wrong
  means by which to accomplish her goal. Here is Brandeis University's
  explanation for having cancelled that person's email privileges and
  deleting all submitted copies of the petition unread:

  Please read this message carefully, especially the next two sentences.
  Do not reply to this email. Do not forward this email to anyone else.
  Anyone who needs a copy, already has one. Do not make things worse. Do
  not "help" by forwarding this message to everyone who has corresponded
  with you on this subject. Due to a flood of hundreds of thousands of
  messages in response to an unauthorized chain letter, all mail to
  [e-mail] is being deleted unread. It will never be a valid
  email address again. If you have a personal message for the previous
  owner of that address, you will need to find some means other than email
  to communicate.

   [e-mail] was not an organization, but a person who was
  totally unprepared for the inevitable consequences of telling thousands
  of people to tell fifty of their friends to tell fifty of their friends
  to send her email.

  It is our sincere hope that the hundreds of thousands of people who
  continue to attempt to reply will find a more productive outlet for
  their concerns. There are several excellent organizations and
  individuals doing real work on the issues raised. Some of them were
  mentioned in sarabande's letter. None of them authorized her actions. We
  suggest that you contact them through non-virtual channels to help. They
  all have web sites with information and contact points. Unlike
  sarabande, they can channel your energy in useful directions. Do not let
  this incident discourage you.

  Please do not forward unverified chain letters,
   no matter how compelling they might seem.
  Propagating chain letters is specifically prohibited by the terms of
  service of most Internet service providers; you could lose your account.

   The URL of this page is:
  http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/library/blafghan.htm
  >>

- -
 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, 26 Jan 1999 21:23:59 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: $50 Billion in Nuclear Liabilites

- ------Begin forward message-------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:41:00 -0500
From: Auke Piersma <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Public Citizen
To: [e-mail] (****NUKE-NET*****),
        [e-mail] (***NUKE-WASTE)
Subject: $50 Billion in Nuclear Liabilites
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-Sender: Auke Piersma <[e-mail]>

Public Citizen News Release

For Immediate Release:                    Contact: Jim Riccio, [phone]
Jan. 26, 1999                            Auke Piersma, [phone]

STUDY SHOWS ELECTRICITY DEREGULATION COULD CAUSE UNFUNDED NUCLEAR WASTE
LIABILITIES THAT MAY EXCEED $50 BILLION

    WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A new study released today, Stranded Nuclear Waste,
documents alarming funding shortfalls for decommissioning and nuclear waste
storage. Authored by Synapse Energy Economics, the study indicates that
electric utility deregulation will force early closure of many nuclear
plants, facing policy-makers with difficult and controversial choices
regarding future funding of nuclear plant decommissioning and waste storage
costs totaling as much as $54 billion nationally. Of the 103 nuclear plants,
as many as 90 could be forced to close before their scheduled retirement
dates as a result of the competitive pressures expected from deregulation.

    "It has been evident for decades that nuclear power is expensive and
dangerous," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass
Energy Project. "As the nuclear era dies out, the costs of nuclear power
continually rise, and as a result ratepayers are forced to pay for the
bailout of nuclear utilities."

    Because funding under current law assumes plants will run until their
licenses expire, these economically driven plant closures would create an
unfunded liability for nuclear plant decommissioning, potentially rising to
$15.3 billion. "Since nuclear utilities are being unjustly enriched with a
nuclear bailout, they should pay for the decommissioning of reactors," said
Jim Riccio, a staff attorney with Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy
Project.

    Early plant retirements will also create an unfunded liability for
long-term storage of high level nuclear waste. This could total as much as
$46.5 billion if economics force early closure of these plants, and a recent
independent estimate of the total cost of the planned Yucca Mountain waste
storage facility proves accurate. To make matters worse, H.R. 45, the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999, exacerbates the problem by reducing the
fees paid by the industry for nuclear waste storage. "It is outrageous that
the nuclear industry is not paying the full costs of nuclear waste storage,
but for Members of Congress to support a reduction of the fees is
unthinkable," said Auke Piersma, a energy policy analyst with Public
Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project.

    "Public Citizen will oppose any attempts to burden ratepayers or taxpayers
with additional decommissioning or nuclear waste storage costs," Hauter
said. "The utilities' past mistakes and bad management require that utility
profits be used to balance the books."


- ------End forward 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.

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

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #63
**********************************

-
 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.