Fukushima Crisis Could Have Long-Term Impact, Claims Chernoybl-Era Official

By Anna Cameron

Dr. Alexey Yablokov, a former environmental advisor to the late Russian President Boris Yeltsin, expressed serious concern Friday over response to the nuclear disaster at Japan’s Fukushima energy plant.

“My experience studying Chernobyl gives me a very bleak [and]…negative impression [of] Fukushima,” Yablokov said during a news briefing at the National Press Club.

Though the immediate magnitude of the Fukushima crisis does not compare to that of Chernoybl, Dr. Yablokov expressed heightened concern based on the comparatively high population density of Fukushima, as well as the potential contamination of the surrounding territory by plutonium.

“If plutonium is released, [there will be] enormous consequences, it is forever,” said Yablokov. “This territory will be dead and uninhabited forever [since] it is impossible to clean after plutonium contamination.”

Other experts who appeared with Yablokov chastised officials for their inability to convey legitimate information to the public concerning the current state of the nuclear crisis.

“Industry and government have already begun to downplay these effects,” noted Cindy Folkers, a health specialist at Beyond Nuclear, an organization opposed to nuclear energy and weapons. “They do this by saying that the radiation doses are safe, or radiation will decay to safe levels quickly.”

However, Folkers claims various studies performed by the National Academy of Sciences and other research institutions prove otherwise.

“As with past accidents,…information for Fukushima is incomplete regarding both the radioactive releases and the health impacts that they may have,” noted Folkers. “We need to ask the proper questions of these officials to find out what they are and are not looking for, and what they actually know, versus what they are sharing with the public….We cannot allow the lies and mistakes of [past] nuclear accidents…to be repeated for Fukushima.”

White House Reaches Agreement With Russia On START

President Barack Obama announced Friday that he will head to Prague on April 8 to sign a new arms control agreement with Russian President Dimitry Medvedev. The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the U.S. and Russia is an attempt by the two nations to limit the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide.

"Since I took office, I’ve been committed to a “reset” of our relationship with Russia. When the United States and Russia can cooperate effectively, it advances the mutual interests of our two nations, and the security and prosperity of the wider world...Today, we have reached agreement on one of my administration’s top national security priorities -- a pivotal new arms control agreement," said Mr. Obama during brief remarks in the White House.

The President spoke via telephone with Medvedev shortly before the announcement. According to White House officials, the conversation marked the 14th meeting or phone call between the two leaders. Mr. Obama was joined in the briefing room by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen.

Under the new treaty, both nations would agree to cut their stock of nuclear warheads by 30 percent. Mrs. Clinton said the deal symbolized the ushering of a new era in relations between the U.S. and Russia.

“The START treaty, it says to our country the Cold War really is behind us and these massive nuclear arsenals that both of our countries maintained as part of deterrence no longer have to be so big."

Webb Comes Out Against Cap And Trade, Unveils Alternative Plan

By Ravi Bhatia - Talk Radio News Service

In a news conference Monday, Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) introduced their alternative to the Kerry-Boxer climate bill. The “Clean Energy Act of 2009” would allocate $100 billion in loans for technology-neutral, carbon-free electricity over the next 20 years, with the goal of doubling nuclear production during that time.

The legislation would invest $1 billion over five years on enabling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review new nuclear reactor designs. Hitachi and General Electric are two companies that have worked on a design that would create reactors that use fewer pumps and would cut the construction time of a nuclear power plant to 42 months.

Both senators argued that their bill could easily attract bipartisan support, unlike the cap and trade plan, which they said encourages the outsourcing of American jobs. Webb said he was particularly concerned with the complexity of cap and trade, claiming that that there is “no way to fully measure [its] potential impact on the economy.”

“[Our bill] is measurable, achievable, targeted,” Webb said.

While the Webb-Alexander bill primarily focuses on nuclear energy, it would also fund what Alexander calls five “Mini-Manhattan Projects,” which would invest in clean coal, advanced biofuels, advanced batteries, solar power, and nuclear fuel recycling.

Webb, whose opposition to the Kerry-Boxer legislation is a serious blow to the oft-debated bill, said that he and Alexander would continue to oppose it even if their legislation was included.

Sec. of State Clinton Previews U.S. Agenda For U.N. General Assembly

By Ravi Bhatia, Talk Radio News Service

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed Friday the U.S agenda for the upcoming United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), touching on issues such as the Obama administration’s missile defense strategy, the conflict in the Middle East, nuclear proliferation and the threat posed by Iran.

While she read her speech at the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C., she discussed the “ambitious” intentions of the Obama administration at next week’s UNGA in New York, and alluded to a long term goal of a world “with no nuclear weapons.” While fielding questions, she reflected on the state of American foreign policy today.

“For many years, [the U.S] outsourced our policy and concerns about the nuclear program to others to try to intervene with and persuade Iran to change course,” she said. “So we were on the sidelines...we were just trying to figure out how to get other people to go on the field and deal with this problem and look where we are today. We’re really nowhere.”

Clinton also discussed the Obama administration’s missile defense strategy, which was retooled to focus on defending the United States and its allies in Europe from short and mid-range missile attacks. The strategy rejects the Bush administration's plan to station interceptors in the Czech Republic and Poland that were intended to stop long-range missiles that the current administration believes Iran does not have. Since Poland and the Czech Republic will no longer have land-based interceptors, the new plan eases pressure on Russia, displeasing some Republican members of Congress upon Obama’s announcement of the strategy on Thursday.

“This decision was not about Russia,” she said. “It was about Iran and the threat its ballistic missile program poses. Because of this position, we believe we will be in a far stronger position to deal with that threat and to do so with technology that works and a higher degree of confidence that what we pledge to do we can actually deliver.”

She later discussed Iran and the repercussions the country must face for not revealing its intentions to the international community for nuclear technology.

“Our concern is not Iran’s right to develop peaceful nuclear energy, but its responsibility to demonstrate that it’s program is intended exclusively for peaceful purposes,” she said. “This is not hard to do. The Iranian government seeks a sense of justice in the world, but stands in the way of the justice it seeks.”

In response to a question from Brookings Institute President Strobe Talbott, Clinton also discussed the U.S. government’s strategy for restructuring the country’s health care policy.

“It’s interesting that what we are proposing is fundamentally so conservative compared with so many of our friends and allies around the world, who do a much better job then we do in covering everybody and keeping costs down,” Clinton said. “And yet some of the political opposition is so overheated. We have to calm down here, take two aspirin, go to bed, think about it in the morning. But I’m optimistic.”

Sen. Alexander: U.S. Should Invest In Nuclear Energy

By Sam Wechsler- Talk Radio News Service

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) announced Monday his plan to build 100 new nuclear power plants in the next 20 years in order to create jobs, clean the air, and solve global warming. His blueprint is part of Senate Republicans’ fourfold plan for more clean energy: 100 new nuclear power plants, electric cars and trucks, offshore exploration of natural gas and oil, and doubling energy research and development to make renewable energy affordable.

Alexander criticized the Waxman-Markey Bill by saying, “What started out as an effort to address global warming by reducing carbon emissions has ended up as a contraption of taxes and mandates that will impose a huge and unnecessary burden on the economy.”

Alexander expects the 100 nuclear reactors to cost $700 billion in total, less than the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act cost. He also expects almost all of the money to come from private investment, some from foreign governments and manufacturers. Only the first dozen reactors would be with government money via loan guarantees, which would cost taxpayers no money at all.

He believes that nuclear energy is the best option for clean energy, partially due to its lack of interference with the ecosystem. “The great American outdoors is a revered part of the American character. We’ve spent a century preserving it; there is no need to destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment,” he said. The Senator later argued that a one square mile nuclear power plant would produce the same amount of energy as a 30 square mile solar plant, or 270 square miles of 50 story wind turbines.

According to Alexander, an exaggerated fear of nuclear technology and a failure to appreciate the density of its energy are holding back nuclear energy’s progression.

“Nuclear power is the obvious first step to a policy of clean and low-cost energy,” said Alexander.