ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n266

Internet Message Format | 2000-03-03 | 50KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #266
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest      Saturday, March 4 2000      Volume 01 : Number 266




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

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 17:01:10 +1000
From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NGO sign-on letter calling for forward-looking NPT Review

 Please reply to Hisham Zereffi <[e-mail]> OR Daryl Kimball
<[e-mail]>.

Dear All,
What follows is a letter complementary to the 'heads of State' NPT Review
letter I have been circulating.
If you have signed that one you will want to sign this one.
DO NOT REPLY TO ME, BUT AS BELOW AND ABOVE
John Hallam

WE ASK THAT YOU SIGN-ON NO LATER THAN NOON (Wash. DC time), WEDNESDAY March
15th. Please reply to Hisham Zereffi <[e-mail]> OR Daryl Kimball
<[e-mail]>.

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

=46ebrurary 28, 2000

TO: nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation colleagues

=46R: Daryl Kimball (Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers); Arjun Makhijani
(Institute for Energy and Environmental Research); Martin Butcher (British
American Security Information Council)

RE: NGO sign-on letter calling for forward-looking NPT Review Conference
Statement

REPLY REQUESTED

The following is a "Recommendations for Action" letter to governments
represented at the upcoming Review Conference on the Treaty on the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Weapons (NPT). (See text below or see
<http://www.clw.org/coalition/nptsign-on0300.htm>)

It is intended to help organise NGOs views on the forward-looking portion
of the upcoming Conference with a view to the adoption of these ideas by
the conference or, at least, by a large majority of parties to the
conference. It will be sent to the heads of states and foreign ministers of
NPT States Parties, as well as officials from India, Pakistan, and Israel.

The recommendations in this letter build upon the 1995 NPT "Principles and
Objectives" document <http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/NPT.htm> and draws
upon recommendations contained in the "New Agenda Coalition" resolution of
1999 <http://www.acronym.org.uk/unnac99.htm>.

The letter is motivated by the fact that this NPT Review Conference will be
contentious and may be perceived as a "failure" if agreement is not reached
on forward-looking goals for disarmament and non-proliferation. Reaching
agreement on this aspect of the Review Conference will require the
coordinated efforts of a large number of like-minded states and pressure
>from NGOs in each of several important capitals.

This letter was originally drafted by Arjun Makhijani (IEER), Daryl Kimball
(Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers), and Martin Butcher (BASIC) at the
suggestion of participants at a February 1 meeting on the NPT in Washington
DC involving several disarmament NGOs. It has benefitted from the comments
and suggestions of a number of NGOs.

We invite you to join us is adding your organization's name to this letter.

WE ASK THAT YOU SIGN-ON NO LATER THAN NOON (Wash. DC time), WEDNESDAY March
15th. Please reply to Hisham Zereffi <[e-mail]> OR Daryl Kimball
<[e-mail]>.

Sincerely yours,

Arjun, Daryl, Martin


NOTE: This effort is meant to compliment another NGO letter writing effort
on the NPT organized by John Hallam of FOE/Sydney through the Abolition
2000 listserve. This letter differs in its specific focus on the importance
of a forward-looking "benchmarks and objectives" statement and its
recommendations about what that document should include.

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

March [XX], 2000

RE: Recommendations for Action at the 2000 NPT Review Conference

Dear [Head of State or Government and Foreign Minister],

The upcoming Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (NPT) represents a critical opportunity to build
international resolve to address the threat of nuclear weapons and nuclear
war. We believe this Treaty is a vital cornerstone of the global
non-proliferation regime and an essential basis of efforts to rid the world
of nuclear weapons. In 1995, in conjunction with the indefinite extension
of the Treaty, States Parties agreed to an important set of Principles and
Objectives for Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. While some progress has
been achieved, unfortunately, key elements, particularly those relating to
Article VI of the treaty, remain unfulfilled and new nuclear dangers have
emerged.

Consequently, we, the undersigned non-governmental representatives, believe
it is vital that States Parties redouble efforts to work together to
advance progress toward fulfillment of Article VI of the Treaty. It is
particularly important that the upcoming Review Conference produce an
objective review of the progress on the Treaty and Treaty commitments over
the last five years, and it is essential that consensus be found among
States Parties on new Benchmarks and Goals for action over the next five
years. Our recommendations draw on the expressed views of many parties to
the NPT as well as a broad cross section of civil society around the world.

We respectfully urge that the Benchmarks and Objectives include:

1. Reaffirmation of the commitment to full implementation of Article VI of
the Treaty, and, in this context, acceptance as authoritative the Advisory
Opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning Article VI,
adopted unanimously, which states that:

=93there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a
Conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects
Under strict and effective international control=94;

2. Immediate action by the Russian Federation and the United States of
America to implement the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) II and
conclude and implement START III at an early date. Following the prompt
conclusion of START III, the other nuclear weapon states parties to the NPT
and other states that may possess nuclear weapons should join in the
process of reducing their nuclear arsenals, with the goal of eliminating
all nuclear forces;

3. Adoption of policies that diminish the role of nuclear weapons in order
to create a stable atmosphere for disarmament and contribute to
international confidence and security. In this context the Nuclear Weapon
States and all nuclear capable states, whether not they are parties to the
NPT, should take early steps to:

=B7 eliminate all tactical nuclear weapons from their arsenals,

=B7 proceed to the de-alerting and removal of all nuclear warheads from
delivery vehicles,

=B7 respect the letter and spirit of the Comprhensive Nuclear Test Ban Treat=
y
(CTBT) by recognizing that it is an instrument of nuclear disarmament as
well as non-proliferation in all its aspects, and by ceasing the
development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons and ending the
production of new types of nuclear weapons,

=B7 refrain from producing any weapons-usable fissile materials for
military-purposes pending the conclusion of a ban on their production, put
all fissile materials declared to be in excess of military requirements
under appropriate International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, and
refrain from producing tritium for military purposes, and, put all fissile
materials declared to be in excess of military requirements under
appropriate International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, and,

=B7 refrain from actions that will aid or abet missile proliferation;

4. Action by all States, including non-parties to the NPT, to place all
commercial and research nuclear facilities under International Atomic
Energy Agency safeguards;

5. The immediate and unconditional signature and ratification of the
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) by all States, and, pending
the entry into force of the Treaty, adherence to its terms by not carrying
out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, nor
aiding or abetting others to carry out such explosions;

6. The conclusion of legally-binding assurances to non-nuclear-weapon
States Party to the NPT against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons;

7. Progress toward the implementation of existing Nuclear-Weapon Free Zones
and the establishment of additional Nuclear-Weapon Free Zones, especially
in regions of tension, such as the Middle East;

8. Adherence by States Parties to all obligations under the terms of the
1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty;

9. Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on Nuclear Disarmament at the
Conference on Disarmament.

10. Establishment of appropriate subsidiary bodies to the NPT to address
nuclear disarmament.

Consensus among States Parties about practical benchmarks toward the
fulfillment of Article VI is crucial to the success of the Review
Conference. Substantial progress on Article VI goals during the next five
years will be crucial to the future of the NPT.

Given the particular importance of this Review Conference to global nuclear
non-proliferation and disarmament efforts, we urge States Parties to send
their Foreign Ministers to the opening session of the Conference and their
Heads of State or Government to the concluding session. We urge you to
adopt the strong and practical set of Benchmarks and Goals that we have
suggested above to guide the process of nuclear disarmament and
non-proliferation over this period.

Sincerely,

[Initial Grp. of Signers:]

Martin Butcher, British American Security Council
Rear Admiral Eugene J. Carroll, Jr., US Navy (Ret.)
Gordon Clark, Peace Action
Tom Collina, Union of Concerned Scientists
Ambassador Jonathan Dean, Union of Concerned Scientists
Surendra and Sanghimit Gadekar, Anumukkti (Vedchhi, India)
Spurgeon Keeny, Arms Control Association
Howard W. Hallman, Methodists United for Peace with Justice
John Hallam, Friends of the Earth Australia
=46elicity Hill, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom United
Nations Office
Marylia Kelly, Tri-Valley Cares (Livermore, CA)
Arjun Makhijani, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
Susan Shaer, Women's Action for New Directions
David Krieger, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Allistar Millar, Fourth Freedom Forum
Robert K. Musil, Physicians for Social Responsibility (USA)
Ambassador Roland Timerbaev, Center for Policy Studies in Russia





____________________________________

Daryl Kimball, Executive Director
Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers
110 Maryland Avenue NE, Suite 505
Washington, DC 20002
(ph) 202-546-0795 x136 (fax) 202-546-7970
website <http://www.crnd.org>
____________________________________



- -
 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, 3 Mar 2000 17:01:10 +1000
From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NGO sign-on letter calling for forward-looking NPT Review

 Please reply to Hisham Zereffi <[e-mail]> OR Daryl Kimball
<[e-mail]>.

Dear All,
What follows is a letter complementary to the 'heads of State' NPT Review
letter I have been circulating.
If you have signed that one you will want to sign this one.
DO NOT REPLY TO ME, BUT AS BELOW AND ABOVE
John Hallam

WE ASK THAT YOU SIGN-ON NO LATER THAN NOON (Wash. DC time), WEDNESDAY March
15th. Please reply to Hisham Zereffi <[e-mail]> OR Daryl Kimball
<[e-mail]>.

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

Februrary 28, 2000

TO: nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation colleagues

FR: Daryl Kimball (Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers); Arjun Makhijani
(Institute for Energy and Environmental Research); Martin Butcher (British
American Security Information Council)

RE: NGO sign-on letter calling for forward-looking NPT Review Conference
Statement

REPLY REQUESTED

The following is a "Recommendations for Action" letter to governments
represented at the upcoming Review Conference on the Treaty on the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Weapons (NPT). (See text below or see
<http://www.clw.org/coalition/nptsign-on0300.htm>)

It is intended to help organise NGOs views on the forward-looking portion
of the upcoming Conference with a view to the adoption of these ideas by
the conference or, at least, by a large majority of parties to the
conference. It will be sent to the heads of states and foreign ministers of
NPT States Parties, as well as officials from India, Pakistan, and Israel.

The recommendations in this letter build upon the 1995 NPT "Principles and
Objectives" document <http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/NPT.htm> and draws
upon recommendations contained in the "New Agenda Coalition" resolution of
1999 <http://www.acronym.org.uk/unnac99.htm>.

The letter is motivated by the fact that this NPT Review Conference will be
contentious and may be perceived as a "failure" if agreement is not reached
on forward-looking goals for disarmament and non-proliferation. Reaching
agreement on this aspect of the Review Conference will require the
coordinated efforts of a large number of like-minded states and pressure
>from NGOs in each of several important capitals.

This letter was originally drafted by Arjun Makhijani (IEER), Daryl Kimball
(Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers), and Martin Butcher (BASIC) at the
suggestion of participants at a February 1 meeting on the NPT in Washington
DC involving several disarmament NGOs. It has benefitted from the comments
and suggestions of a number of NGOs.

We invite you to join us is adding your organization's name to this letter.

WE ASK THAT YOU SIGN-ON NO LATER THAN NOON (Wash. DC time), WEDNESDAY March
15th. Please reply to Hisham Zereffi <[e-mail]> OR Daryl Kimball
<[e-mail]>.

Sincerely yours,

Arjun, Daryl, Martin


NOTE: This effort is meant to compliment another NGO letter writing effort
on the NPT organized by John Hallam of FOE/Sydney through the Abolition
2000 listserve. This letter differs in its specific focus on the importance
of a forward-looking "benchmarks and objectives" statement and its
recommendations about what that document should include.

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

March [XX], 2000

RE: Recommendations for Action at the 2000 NPT Review Conference

Dear [Head of State or Government and Foreign Minister],

The upcoming Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (NPT) represents a critical opportunity to build
international resolve to address the threat of nuclear weapons and nuclear
war. We believe this Treaty is a vital cornerstone of the global
non-proliferation regime and an essential basis of efforts to rid the world
of nuclear weapons. In 1995, in conjunction with the indefinite extension
of the Treaty, States Parties agreed to an important set of Principles and
Objectives for Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. While some progress has
been achieved, unfortunately, key elements, particularly those relating to
Article VI of the treaty, remain unfulfilled and new nuclear dangers have
emerged.

Consequently, we, the undersigned non-governmental representatives, believe
it is vital that States Parties redouble efforts to work together to
advance progress toward fulfillment of Article VI of the Treaty. It is
particularly important that the upcoming Review Conference produce an
objective review of the progress on the Treaty and Treaty commitments over
the last five years, and it is essential that consensus be found among
States Parties on new Benchmarks and Goals for action over the next five
years. Our recommendations draw on the expressed views of many parties to
the NPT as well as a broad cross section of civil society around the world.

We respectfully urge that the Benchmarks and Objectives include:

1. Reaffirmation of the commitment to full implementation of Article VI of
the Treaty, and, in this context, acceptance as authoritative the Advisory
Opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning Article VI,
adopted unanimously, which states that:

ôthere exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a
Conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects
Under strict and effective international controlö;

2. Immediate action by the Russian Federation and the United States of
America to implement the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) II and
conclude and implement START III at an early date. Following the prompt
conclusion of START III, the other nuclear weapon states parties to the NPT
and other states that may possess nuclear weapons should join in the
process of reducing their nuclear arsenals, with the goal of eliminating
all nuclear forces;

3. Adoption of policies that diminish the role of nuclear weapons in order
to create a stable atmosphere for disarmament and contribute to
international confidence and security. In this context the Nuclear Weapon
States and all nuclear capable states, whether not they are parties to the
NPT, should take early steps to:

╖ eliminate all tactical nuclear weapons from their arsenals,

╖ proceed to the de-alerting and removal of all nuclear warheads from
delivery vehicles,

╖ respect the letter and spirit of the Comprhensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT) by recognizing that it is an instrument of nuclear disarmament as
well as non-proliferation in all its aspects, and by ceasing the
development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons and ending the
production of new types of nuclear weapons,

╖ refrain from producing any weapons-usable fissile materials for
military-purposes pending the conclusion of a ban on their production, put
all fissile materials declared to be in excess of military requirements
under appropriate International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, and
refrain from producing tritium for military purposes, and, put all fissile
materials declared to be in excess of military requirements under
appropriate International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, and,

╖ refrain from actions that will aid or abet missile proliferation;

4. Action by all States, including non-parties to the NPT, to place all
commercial and research nuclear facilities under International Atomic
Energy Agency safeguards;

5. The immediate and unconditional signature and ratification of the
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) by all States, and, pending
the entry into force of the Treaty, adherence to its terms by not carrying
out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, nor
aiding or abetting others to carry out such explosions;

6. The conclusion of legally-binding assurances to non-nuclear-weapon
States Party to the NPT against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons;

7. Progress toward the implementation of existing Nuclear-Weapon Free Zones
and the establishment of additional Nuclear-Weapon Free Zones, especially
in regions of tension, such as the Middle East;

8. Adherence by States Parties to all obligations under the terms of the
1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty;

9. Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on Nuclear Disarmament at the
Conference on Disarmament.

10. Establishment of appropriate subsidiary bodies to the NPT to address
nuclear disarmament.

Consensus among States Parties about practical benchmarks toward the
fulfillment of Article VI is crucial to the success of the Review
Conference. Substantial progress on Article VI goals during the next five
years will be crucial to the future of the NPT.

Given the particular importance of this Review Conference to global nuclear
non-proliferation and disarmament efforts, we urge States Parties to send
their Foreign Ministers to the opening session of the Conference and their
Heads of State or Government to the concluding session. We urge you to
adopt the strong and practical set of Benchmarks and Goals that we have
suggested above to guide the process of nuclear disarmament and
non-proliferation over this period.

Sincerely,

[Initial Grp. of Signers:]

Martin Butcher, British American Security Council
Rear Admiral Eugene J. Carroll, Jr., US Navy (Ret.)
Gordon Clark, Peace Action
Tom Collina, Union of Concerned Scientists
Ambassador Jonathan Dean, Union of Concerned Scientists
Surendra and Sanghimit Gadekar, Anumukkti (Vedchhi, India)
Spurgeon Keeny, Arms Control Association
Howard W. Hallman, Methodists United for Peace with Justice
John Hallam, Friends of the Earth Australia
Felicity Hill, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom United
Nations Office
Marylia Kelly, Tri-Valley Cares (Livermore, CA)
Arjun Makhijani, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
Susan Shaer, Women's Action for New Directions
David Krieger, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Allistar Millar, Fourth Freedom Forum
Robert K. Musil, Physicians for Social Responsibility (USA)
Ambassador Roland Timerbaev, Center for Policy Studies in Russia





____________________________________

Daryl Kimball, Executive Director
Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers
110 Maryland Avenue NE, Suite 505
Washington, DC 20002
(ph) 202-546-0795 x136 (fax) 202-546-7970
website <http://www.crnd.org>
____________________________________



- -
 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, 03 Mar 2000 14:26:19 -0500
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Israel's Open Nuclear Policy Debate

Dear Friends,

Thanks to a few brave Members of Israel's parliament, the Knesset, the
existence of Israel's nuclear arsenal was openly acknowledged for the first
time in a Knesset debate last month.  If you would like to thank them for
their
courageous stand, please send an email to those listed below:

Issam Makhoul: [e-mail]
Zahava Gal-On: [e-mail]
Naomi Chazan: [e-mail]
Uri Savir: [e-mail]
Dalia Rabin-Pelossof: [e-mail]

Many thanks.
Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]
http://www.gracelinks.org

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network for the elimination
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: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 17:11:15 -0500
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Nuclear Madness

>X-Sender: [e-mail]
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
>Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 09:23:48 -0500
>To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>From: Rosemary & Sal / Citizens Awareness Network <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Nuclear Madness
>To: [e-mail]
>X-Loop-Detect: 1
>
>
>Radioactive water alarms Nye officials
>
>Today: March 02, 2000 at 11:15:52 PST
>
>BY MARY MANNING
>LAS VEGAS SUN
>
>Nye County officials are taking a serious look at the radioactive
>contamination discovered in a ground-water sample off the Nevada
>Test Site and expect to have more results in a week, County
>Manager Jerry McKnight said Wednesday.
>
>"Good science dictates that we verify these initial results,"
>said Les Bradshaw, manager of the Nye County Department of
>Natural Resources and Federal Facilities.
>
>Nye officials revealed Wednesday that radiation in ground water
>has been found outside the Nevada Test Site in amounts 25 times
>higher than the federal drinking water standards.
>
>Increasing their concern is the type of radiation found. Two
>types of radioactive particles--alpha, which is found in several
>sources including plutonium, and beta, which causes skin
>burns--make it harder to pinpoint the source of the nuclear
>contamination.
>
>If the radioactive source came from one of the 928 nuclear
>weapons experiments from Cold War activities there, it would be
>the first time radiation has been found outside of the Test Site,
>which is located 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
>
>The Department of Energy's monitoring program has never found
>radiation outside of the Rhode Island-sized nuclear proving
>grounds. In 1998 DOE scientists discovered plutonium that
>traveled on microscopic particles about a mile away from an
>underground nuclear bomb crater on the site.
>
>Sens. Harry Reid and Richard Bryan, both D-Nev., called
>Wednesday's announcement another surprise. Reid said he would
>discuss the issue with Energy Secretary Bill Richardson today.
>
>Reid had planned to meet with Richardson about including Test
>Site workers in legislation that would compensate those harmed by
>exposure to radiation and toxic chemicals.
>
>The senator said the radiation found in the ground water
>indicates why most Nevadans oppose a high-level nuclear
>repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
>Yucca is the only site under consideration as a national dumping
>ground for 77,000 tons of highly radioactive wastes from
>commercial reactors and defense activities.
>
>"It's really important we accelerate the surveillance and
>monitoring at the Test Site," Reid told the Sun. "And it shows
>why we're opposed to Yucca Mountain. We need to know more."
>
>Bryan agreed with Reid.
>
>"This appears to be part of a growing pattern of radioactive
>migration from the Test Site," Bryan said. "More importantly,
>this discovery once again raises the credibility question for the
>Department of Energy."
>
>Nye County began its early-warning well network in 1998 with
>Department of Energy funds. Each year the county adds more wells
>south and west of the Test Site and analyzes test results in labs
>independent of the DOE.
>
>Nye County is officially neutral on Yucca Mountain, McKnight
>said.
>
>"Our position has always been if they have the science, then what
>is the argument?" he said. "If the science is not there, then
>there is a problem."
>
>Nye County's preliminary water result has received some criticism
>because it was such a surprise, found in a shallow test well 26
>feet deep, McKnight said. Further tests will subtract any
>naturally occurring radiation coming from sources such as
>surrounding rocks, the sun or cosmic rays.
>
>The radiation may have been introduced by the drill bit as it
>bored the well or from contaminated soils from the surface, he
>said.
>
>"It is technical, but in this case it is critical," McKnight said
>of the complicated testing procedure. "If the radiation was in
>the water, we have a lot more work to do."
>
>The preliminary findings by Nye County also make it less likely
>that the test result is a mistake, several scientists told the
>Sun.
>
>It is not simple tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen easily
>dissolved in water that usually alerts scientists to other
>radioactive contamination, said Steve Frishman, technical
>coordinator for the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects.
>
>"Now that they know the sample is real, they have to do further
>radiation testing," Frishman said.
>
>The Nevada State Health Division is sampling the well today,
>health physicist Larry Franks said.
>
>"We are going to do a full analysis," Franks said. The state will
>look for nuclear bomb traces such as uranium, plutonium,
>cesium-137 and tritium, as well as naturally occurring radiation,
>he said.
>
>The DOE confirmed that two of the three types of radiation had
>been found in the water sample. While alpha and beta particles
>are particularly dangerous if swallowed or inhaled, gamma
>particles can enter living tissue unless it is protected with a
>lead shield. No gamma source had been measured or identified.
>
>But the DOE questioned the county's method used to analyze the
>water sample.
>
>If the water was not carefully collected, DOE spokeswoman Nancy
>Harkess said, particles of sediment from the well could have
>contaminated the sample.
>
>The U.S. Geological Survey took a water sample from another well
>about 2 feet away from Nye County's hole and found no radiation
>in the water, Harkess said.
>
>
>
>ALL CONTENTS COPYRIGHT 2000 LAS VEGAS SUN, INC.
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------------------
>
>Where I Stand--Brian Greenspun: An alarming revelation
>
>Today: March 02, 2000 at 9:53:02 PST
>
>Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.
>
>Ok, what do we do now?
>
>I am not usually an alarmist. It is not my nature to jump to
>conclusions and cry wolf without some very good reason to do so.
>That's why I am not screaming from the rooftops about what I read
>in the Sun Wednesday night. Calm. I am just trying to stay calm
>because this could all be just one big misunderstanding.
>
>But what if it isn't? What if Mary Manning's report about ground
>water contamination in Nye County is right? What if the experts
>are correct in their belief that ground water outside the
>boundaries of the Nevada Test Site contains radiation that is 25
>times higher than the allowable federal drinking water limit?
>
>You see what I mean? I don't want to cry out loud but I am not
>sure what to do when Nye County's experts tell us that radiation
>is now in the ground water which, according to gravity and other
>scientific phenomena, will eventually make its way toward the
>population and food-growing centers of Nevada. And what then? To
>the milk dairies of Southern California?
>
>This is quite a predicament as you can well imagine. I suppose
>the best thing to do is wait. I remember when the Sun reported
>about fish in Lake Mead that were, to say the least, deformed.
>That led to an investigation of the cause, which led to
>uncovering all kinds of ugly things being dumped into Southern
>Nevada's drinking water resource. We waited a long time for the
>scientists to confirm what everyone knew in their gut. Chemicals
>that shouldn't have been allowed to leak into Lake Mead got
>there. In the meantime, the bottled water producers have made out
>like bandits.
>
>So, do we increase our orders for bottled water and wait for the
>scientists to tell us how radiation that is 25 times greater than
>allowable limits got into our ground water? Or do we march on the
>Test Site and demand that all records of nuclear testing be
>released immediately in the interests of public safety and health
>so we can determine if the government has been holding out on us?
>Or do we stick our heads deeply into the desert sands and pretend
>that whatever is in the water and whatever put it there is too
>big for us to deal with and just let our government take care of
>fixing the problem? Not!
>
>The story quoted a Nye County commissioner who said the whole
>thing could be a mistake. Or, he said, the radiation could be the
>result of natural causes--leaking into the ground water from
>Nevada's rock formations. Scientists, he claimed, are trying to
>determine whether the radioactivity in the water is natural or
>man-made-- like from the Test Site--but he was alerting the
>public in the interest of health and safety.
>
>Great. So, back to my first question. What are we supposed to do
>now?
>
>If the reports are true and the radiation levels are as high as
>the experts believe, do we allow our children to continue
>drinking the water? Is it safe for the dairy farmers in Nevada to
>continue watering their milk cows? Is any of that water making
>its way to the alfalfa and hay fields that are grown in Nevada,
>and is it used to feed cows in neighboring California and
>elsewhere?
>
>These questions have nothing to do with what is causing the
>problem and everything to do with how we react to it. If it is
>safe to drink water that is 25 times more polluted by
>radioactivity than the federal standards allow, why are the
>federal limits so low? Who else in the United States may be
>drinking water with similar amounts of nuclear toxins mixed in?
>If there are others, what kind of tests are being performed to
>make sure they and their offspring are healthy? And if there are
>no others, why is it that Nevada is the only place where this
>happens?
>
>You must have noticed that I haven't once blamed the radioactive
>water on the Nevada Test Site. The scientists may come to that
>conclusion by themselves. What I am thinking about is the
>possibility that the water is naturally polluted with the deadly
>radioactivity and how much more it may be diminished by possible
>leaks from a nuclear waste dump that the government is trying to
>force down our throats not far from the Test Site.
>
>If it is already 25 times worse than it should be; how much more
>dangerous will it be if the dumpsite leaks what the government
>deems allowable from nuke dump operations? Thirty, 40, 50 times?
>At what point should we all just pack up and bug out of this
>fabulous place in the sun because the water is so bad that, even
>though it is everywhere, there may not be a clean drop to drink?
>
>So, you see, this is not an easy problem to solve. There are
>seemingly no simple answers to this great big mess we have
>allowed ourselves to get into, but there is one answer to the
>question, "What do we do now?"
>
>And that is to oppose anyone and everyone who even thinks that
>putting a nuclear waste dump in our back yard is a good idea. At
>least until they can guarantee that leaks won't occur and
>accidents will not happen. If we made a foolish mistake before by
>trusting the government apparatchiks with their nuclear games, we
>would be deadly fools to do it again.
>
>Hey, government: Clean up our water. Guarantee our health and
>safety. And only then come talk to us about messing it up all
>over again.
>
>Calm. Just stay calm.
>
>
>
>ALL CONTENTS COPYRIGHT 2000 LAS VEGAS SUN, INC.
>
Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]
http://www.gracelinks.org

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network for the elimination
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: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 17:13:40 -0500
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Nader Campaign

>
> X-Sender: [e-mail]
> X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
> Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 09:41:21 -0500
> To: (Recipient list suppressed)
> From: Rosemary & Sal / Citizens Awareness Network <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Nader Campaign
> To: [e-mail]
> X-Loop-Detect: 1
>
> >>>>
>>
>> Return-Path:
>> Delivered-To: [e-mail]
>> From: "Paul"
>> To:
>> Subject: Nader Campaign
>> Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 17:43:56 -0500
>> Organization: Microsoft Corporation
>> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>> Disposition-Notification-To: "Paul"
>> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
>>
>>>
>>> harris LEFT="4" BOTTOM="469" TOP="42">  Article courtesy of the
>>> <<http://www.ippn.org>http://www.ippn.org> size=-1>IPPN
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A Nader/LaDuke Campaign and   Movement-Building
>>>
>>> By Ted Glick
>>>
>>> Fundamental, systemic change becomes possible only when    large
numbers of
>>> people, millions, tens of millions, collectively demonstrate    that they
>>> will not tolerate the old system and are prepared to support   something
>>> new. The forms of action that this broad mass of people take will    vary,
>>> but in ways as small as speaking up publicly to neighbors and friends,
>>> to more bold actions like civil disobedience or militant direct action,
>>> a    lesson of history is that the only way substantive, revolutionary
>>> change takes    place is through the emergence of such a popular
>>> movement.
>>>
>>> We need such a movement in the United States. And as the    first year of
>>> the new century gets off the ground, there are abundant signs    that such
>>> a movement may well be in its beginning stages. "The battle in   Seattle"
>>> is the most significant manifestation of this new reality. It is also
>>> seen by the 50,000 people, primarily African Americans, who came together
>>> in    literally a few weeks to demonstrate in Charleston, South
Carolina on
>>> the    Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday weekend against the flying of the
>>> confederate    flag on top of the capitol building. And it is seen by a
>>> number of    indications, Seattle being one of them, that students are on
>>> the move, from    the growth and local victories of United Students
Against
>>> Sweatshops to the    emergence over the past year of SURGE and STARC, two
>>> other national student    networks, to the thousands of young people who
>>> marched to shut down the School    of the Americas in Georgia in
>>> mid-November.
>>>
>>> It is within this political context that, as this article    is written, a
>>> Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke Green Party campaign is beginning to   emerge
>>> onto the national political scene.
>>>
>>> This is another hopeful development, one that is badly    needed. Without
>>> it, we face a year of political rhetoric from the Democrats    and
>>> Republicans, as well as a likely Patrick Buchanan Reform Party
>>> candidacy,    that is, at its best, centrist and another dose of false
>>> promises, and more    often downright reactionary and hostile to
>>> pro-justice, environment, human    rights, peace and labor positions. If
>>> there was no Nader/LaDuke candidacy,    there would be NO progressive
voice
>>> on the national political scene answering    their lies and propaganda
and,
>>> make no mistake about it, that would affect us    all.
>>>
>>> When there is no public expression of our set of politics    during one of
>>> these every-four-years political games we are subjected to,   pro-justice
>>> activists feel weaker and more discouraged. They/we tend to soften    our
>>> positions because we have no standard-bearer who can keep us buoyed up
>>> and    to whom we can point as an alternative to two-party,
>>> corporate-business-as-usual. The "settling phenomenon," settling for
>>> lesser-of-two-evils Democrats even as we know they're untrustworthy and
not
>>> a    part of our movement, takes hold of far too many of us. Our
organizing
>>> is more    difficult. And positive, independent political movement,
such as
>>> what we now    see emerging, is set back.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We need a strong, forthright and broadly-based    Nader/LaDuke campaign!
>>> And it looks as if one could be developing. There are    indications that
>>> sectors of the labor movement, particularly the Labor Party    to whom
>>> Ralph Nader has spoken at 1996 and 1998 conventions, are interested in
>>> this campaign. Jim Hightower, one of the most well-known and respected
>>> progressive Democrats around, and someone who has also been close to the
>>> national leadership of both the Labor Party and the New Party, has
>>> spoken    positively about a Nader campaign and will be speaking at the
>>> Greens    nominating convention in Colorado in June. The Progressive
>>> Populist, a    national bi-weekly newspaper out of Texas which carries a
>>> number of regular    columns by progressive independents and progressive
>>> Democrats, called upon    Nader to run in a recent editorial. And the
>>> Greens generally, despite    persistent divisions, seem to be
significantly
>>> in agreement and are already    hard at work in support of a Nader/LaDuke
>>> campaign. All of these developments,    taken together, are concrete signs
>>> that we can expect to see a very different    campaign this year than what
>>> we saw in 1996.
>>>
>>> Can Nader get 5% of the vote so that, come 2004, the    Greens and their
>>> allies would have millions of dollars, potentially as much as    $10
>>> million, for a 2004 convention and presidential campaign. (Imagine such
>>> a    thing, and what could be done with it!) In 1996, spending less than
>>> $5,000 and    running pretty much of a non-campaign, Nader got a little
>>> less than 2% of the    vote in the 23 states where he was on the
ballot. If
>>> he gets on the ballot in    45 or so states this time, a realistic
>>> objective; if he and LaDuke campaign    seriously, as all indications are
>>> they will; if the campaign is not just    Greens but one taken up by many
>>> activists from the broader progressive    movement, including Labor Party
>>> and some New Party activists; and, finally, if    the Nader/LaDuke
message,
>>> while centered on the anti-corporate, pro-labor,    consumer rights and
>>> environmental issues Nader is most familiar and    comfortable with, also
>>> addresses the broader range of progressive issues so as    to bring in and
>>> hold the allegiance of activists of color, feminists,   lesbian/gay
>>> activists, peace activists and others--well, then we're really    cooking,
>>> and 5% of the vote is by no means out of the question.
>>>
>>> Keep in mind what the playing field is looking like: Al    Gore, George
>>> W.Bush and Patrick Buchanan. And even if McCain or Bradley get    their
>>> respective party's nomination, well, so what? Despite some of the
current
>>> election year rhetoric, neither is substantially different on most
>>> issues from Gore and Bush. However things shake out, there's a huge
>>> political    vacuum there. Al Gore is the likely "leftist" in that motley
>>> crew, and with    Bush or McCain and Buchanan attacking him from the
right,
>>> it is unlikely that    this "profile in accommodation" will give more than
>>> a relative handful of    rhetorical nods to progressive positions, as
he is
>>> doing somewhat more of    during the primaries against Bradley. There will
>>> be literally millions upon    millions of discouraged voters who can be
>>> reached by a Nader/LaDuke    campaign!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Potential Obstacles
>>>
>>> What stands in the way of such an historic    development?
>>>
>>> One is the internal divisions within the Greens. The    Greens face a
>>> challenge: will they rise above, get beyond debilitating    internal
fights
>>> and find common ground and a common way of work over the    course of this
>>> year? This is not to be pollyannish. There are differences   within the
>>> Greens over strategy, tactics and program; there always are within    just
>>> about any organization, particularly national organizations. Also,
there
>>> are always personality conflicts and issues over who should be in
>>> leadership.    But these inevitable differences and disagreements can be,
>>> and have to be,    addressed differently than the way they are within the
>>> institutions of the    dominant culture. Instead of competitiveness and
>>> jockeying for power, there    need to be good faith efforts on both sides
>>> of a disagreement to look for the    "common ground." Or, if it is clear
>>> that the disagreements are too deep,   decisions can be made as to how the
>>> disagreements can be put aside until later    so that the necessary and
>>> essential work can proceed as productively as    possible. I hope, and I'm
>>> cautiously optimistic, that the Greens have matured    enough since
1996 so
>>> that the year 2000 Nader/LaDuke campaign will bear    witness to an
>>> emerging, if still fragile, unity in action.
>>>
>>> Many pro-justice activists are concerned about whether    Nader will be
>>> up-front and forthright in support of issues such as a woman's    right to
>>> choose, affirmative action, opposition to police brutality, the
rights of
>>> lesbians and gay people and the need to reduce the military budget.
>>> These are issues that the broad progressive movement is in agreement on,
>>> but    in 1996 Nader either didn't address them or, in the case of
>>> lesbian/gay    rights, made at least one statement which indicated a
fairly
>>> serious lack of    appreciation for the oppression faced by those with
>>> non-heterosexual,    emotional/sexual orientations.
>>>
>>> There's a much deeper issue here. Some progressive    activists believe
>>> that we need to build a "class-based" movement which    de-emphasizes the
>>> "social issues" and instead focuses on issues like living    wage jobs,
the
>>> environment, tax reform and health care, because these are    issues that
>>> cut across lines of race, nationality, culture, gender, sexuality,  etc.
>>> and therefore can bring together the broadest range of people. There is
>>> truth to this position, but the fact is that a movement that calls
>>> itself    progressive, that is about the transformation of society in
>>> fundamental ways,    has to "do the right thing" even if it risks
>>> temporarily losing support from    those who are with us on the broader,
>>> class issues. We have to be consistent    in our opposition to injustice,
>>> oppression and discrimination. If not, we are    building a movement on
>>> sand, and it will eventually break apart as the storms    of corporate
>>> opposition look for any weakness they can exploit to undercut and
destroy
>>> our threat to their continued misrule.
>>>
>>> There is a relatively recent example from our history of    the political
>>> power of such an approach: the Rainbow movement of 1983-1988.    That
>>> movement, under the leadership of Jesse Jackson, consciously brought
>>> together all of the different pieces of the progressive movement and
>>> explicitly articulated their issues, from gay rights to the rights of
>>> farmers    to labor issues to those of people of color. It did this within
>>> an overall    framework which emphasized our common oppression at the
hands
>>> of corporate    power. This approach generated almost 7 million votes for
>>> Jackson during the    1988 Democratic Party primaries, and polls at the
>>> time indicated that if    Jackson had gone on to run as an independent in
>>> the fall, he would have gotten    in the neighborhood of 15% of the
vote.
>>>
>>>
>>> This makes what may well happen as the Nader/LaDuke    campaign gets off
>>> the ground even more sad, since there are indications that    some of
those
>>> Rainbow leaders may be working to undercut support for    Nader.
>>>
>>> This is the third, primary obstacle that I see to this    campaign: the
>>> efforts of certain "progressive leaders" who are tied to the   Democratic
>>> Party to keep it from happening. This is and will be the case for
>>> "progressive leaders" from labor, from the civil rights movement and
>>> from    other groups that are still unwilling to break from the
lesser-evil
>>> orthodoxy.    Some of this may be relatively honest, a reflection of a
>>> political dynamic    with deep, deep roots within our winner-take-all,
>>> big-money-dominated system.    Some of it will be much more
underhanded.
>>>
>>> We can't get discouraged by these inevitable attacks. In    many ways they
>>> are a sign that we are finally becoming a force that cannot be   ignored.
>>> We need to deal with them in the same way we would deal with tender
>>> young shoots of new plants emerging from a garden in the spring that
are
>>> threatened by cold spells, animals or birds: remember what those shoots
>>> can    become, develop plans for how to keep them growing and take
>>> appropriate    action. This new movement of the 21st century that we are
>>> seeing develop in    front of our eyes is too important to be sidetracked.
>>> We are talking about    history here. Let's all do our best to give of the
>>> best within us so that the    year 2000 is remembered as the turning point
>>> for the struggling, besieged,    abused and downtrodden people of this
>>> country and this world, and its air,    land, water, plant and animal
life.
>>> History is calling.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ted Glick is the National Coordinator of the Independent    Progressive
>>> Politics Network, although these are his individual views    only.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Return to    size=-1>Third Party Watch   size=-1>
>>
>> Return to    size=-1>Znet
>
>
>
>
>


Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]
http://www.gracelinks.org

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network for the elimination
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.

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

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #266
***********************************

-
 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.