Friday, June 27, 2008

McCain video uncovers hypocrisy on Yucca Nuclear Waste Site

Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:42:47 PM PDT

Busted.

As John McCain travels to Nevada today to raise money and tout his misguided energy proposals, a newly uncovered television interview exposes the Arizona Senator's hypocrisy when it comes to the issue of Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste.

McCain is a major proponent of storing thousands of tons of high-level nuclear waste at the unproven and unsafe Yucca Mountain site and just last week proposed a building 100 new nuclear reactors—a plan that by utilities' own estimates could cost more than $1 TRILLION. Yet, in an interview posted to the YouTube website in May 2007 and uncovered today, McCain says he would not be comfortable with the waste traveling through his own home state on its way to the proposed Nevada repository.

Interviewer: What about the transportation? Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to uh Yucca Mountain?

McCain (Shaking Head): No, I would not. No, I would not.

"It's truly shocking that John McCain is willing to stick the people of Nevada with thousands of tons of dangerous high-level nuclear waste, while acknowledging that he wouldn't even want it traveling through his own state on its way to Yucca Mountain. John McCain needs to explain to the people of Nevada why he thinks their state is a perfect place to dump nuclear waste forever, when he isn't even comfortable with having it in his own backyard for a day," says Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director.

"The Yucca Mountain site is unsafe, unproven and no place to put the thousands of tons of nuclear waste already created by the nuclear industry. What's more, John McCain has proposed a misguided and irresponsible energy plan that would waste at least $1 trillion on 100 new nuclear reactors—effectively doubling the number of reactors and amount of waste we'd have to deal with.

"Nuclear power is simply a costly, dirty, and dangerous distraction from the real solutions to global warming—energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy. Instead of foisting nuclear waste on Nevada, John McCain should put his money where his mouth is on renewable energy and support the clean energy incentives that could make Nevada a leader in building the clean energy economy."

Here's the video:

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Incomplete records cover risks from barrels in Lake Superior

Incomplete records cover risks from barrels in Lake Superior

John LaForge, Duluth News Tribune
Published Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Questions about whether military radioactive waste was dumped by the Army Corps of Engineers into Lake Superior near Duluth were left unanswered by the Minnesota Department of Health’s “consultation” and the News Tribune report of its findings (“Lake Superior barrels pose no health threat, state report says,” May 31).

Indeed, the consultation’s first concluding recommendation is that the dumping records be thoroughly researched — an admission that its officials have yet to do so.

That the department didn’t review even the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s St. Paul records is made clear by the consultation’s claim that, “Despite one unexplainable and unconfirmed report of radioactivity near the barrels, there is no reason to believe that [they] contained radioactive wastes.”

Nukewatch, a small nonprofit, has found many more, and they indicate that radioactive materials are in at least some of the barrels.

In defense of the health department’s failure to review the complete record, the MPCA’s St. Paul files are a mess. Some documents are missing hundreds of pages, others are misfiled under unrelated headings, and many more refer to reports, maps or appendices that have not been found. Ron Swenson, formerly in charge of the MPCA’s barrel investigation, told me he had taken some records from the agency’s St. Paul headquarters to its Brainerd offices.

Still available for study is a “Restoration Assessment” from the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois that mentions “Radiation Data and Lake Superior Rad Dumping: Note from Honeywell,” dated April 24, 1978.

A 1985 barrel report by former MPCA Region 1 Director John Pegors, done for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, includes a “Description of Substances Possibly Present, Known or Alleged,” including, “PCBs, lead, cadmium, chromium, copper, zinc, nickel, barium, uranium-234, uranium-235, uranium-238” (known as “depleted uranium”), and the “volatile organic compounds acetone, butanone, dichloroethylene, trichloroethylene, trichloromethane (chloroform), dichloromethane, carbon tetrachloride, vinyl chloride, and toluene.” The three uranium isotopes were abbreviated, “Ur234, Ur235 and Ur238.”

Under a section titled, “Waste States, Quantities and Characteristics,” Pegors noted that the “potential exists” for these “toxic, corrosive, radioactive, persistent, soluble, flammable, reactive” wastes “to be in the barrels.”

Five years later, in its 1990 Site Safety and Sampling Plan, the MPCA’s Solid and Hazardous Waste Division team leader Bob Cross included “radioactive” in his list of the 1,457 barrels’ “Waste Characteristics.”

Mike Stich of Hazard Control Inc. of Minneapolis (now All Safe) was hired by the Army Corps to help conduct the October 1990 barrel search. In his Aug. 6, 1991 letter to John Pegors, Stich wrote, “From the very beginning I was suspicious. … When the sub captain’s Geiger counter went off and he surfaced, he was very excited and was sure that he had indeed detected something radioactive. The Corps downplayed (and even physically shielded him from the news people) the Geiger counter event. … I’m of the opinion that Harold [Maynard], the sub pilot, did in fact detect something. He was very excited and [was] almost scared when he surfaced that day.”

In an interview broadcast April 12, 1995, and still available on DVD, Duluth’s KBJR-TV Channel 6 questioned Capt. Harold Maynard, the submarine operator hired by Stich, who investigated some of the dump sites with his K-350 submersible. In the report that aired, Maynard alleged a “cover up” of the presence of radiation in the barrels he examined, an accusation that he maintains to this day.

Maynard spoke with me on May 9. He said that from inside his submarine, an Army Corps Geiger counter registered increased radiation near one dump site. He recalled that the tether securing his sub to Stich’s surface ship also made the Corps’ Geiger counter click. Maynard told me that the Corps “has been denying that ever since,” and he said the Corps would not allow him to return with his sub to the same place to verify the radiation reading.

Rather than finding “no health threat,” as the News Tribune reported, the health department consultation found that “the risks of detrimental exposures to people from the barrels are unquantifiable but low.” This startling self-contradiction is both irresponsible and reckless in view of evidence that is being overlooked or ignored. Given the list of official references to radiation contained in or emitted from some of the barrels, and the fact U.S. Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota and U.S. Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin have said some barrels are “perilously close” to Duluth’s drinking water intake, one has to wonder what it would take to raise an alarm at the department of health.

John LaForge of Luck, Wis., and a Duluth native, is on the staff of the nonprofit Nukewatch.

McCain Denounces Top Aide's Comments

McCain Denounces Top Aide's Comments

By Michael D. Shear
A top aide to Sen. John McCain said a terrorist attack in the United States would benefit the Republican nominee politically, a comment that was quickly denounced by the candidate while
campaigning in California.

Charlie Black, one of McCain's most senior political advisers, said in an interview with Fortune Magazine that a fresh attack "would be a big advantage to him." He also said that the December assassination of Benazir Bhutto, which he called an "unfortunate event," helped him win the Republican primary by focusing attention on national security.

"His knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us," Black told the magazine.

Asked about the comments by reporters, McCain said "I cannot imagine why he would say it. It's not true. I've worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America."

His campaign also condemned the remarks, calling them "inappropriate."

"Charlie deeply regrets his comments. They were inappropriate and he recognizes that the candidate we work for has devoted his entire adult life to putting protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration," said Campaign Spokeswoman Jill
Hazelbaker.

Black told reporters in California exactly the same thing, according to the Associated Press: "I deeply regret the comments. They were inappropriate. I recognize that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration."

Stop uranium mining until study is done on impact: coalition

Stop uranium mining until study is done on impact: coalition

Group cites effects on environment, health, land claims

Thulasi Srikanthan, The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Uranium exploration should be suspended in Ontario until its impact on health, the environment and aboriginal land rights is properly addressed, said a report released yesterday by the Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium.

The report emerged from a series of public meetings in Ottawa, Sharbot Lake, Kingston and Peterborough in April. It also called for a royal commission to review Ontario's Mining Act, deeming it out of date.

The meetings were part of a citizens' inquiry conducted by the coalition of concerned citizens from the greater Ottawa Valley and the Kingston areas.

"I hope at the end of the day if the province takes it seriously, they will put in a comprehensive inquiry," said former Ottawa mayor Marion Dewar, who is not part of the coalition, but served as a independent panel member at the hearings.

Ontario's Mining Act, passed in 1868 and changed little since, has raised the concern of a number of municipalities that want the province to make changes; including Ottawa, which has asked for an immediate comprehensive public review.

Critics are concerned that prospectors can stake a mining claim on private property without notifying landowners, as long as the latter don't possess the mineral rights. Claims cannot be made in some areas, like gardens, orchards, "pleasure grounds" or land containing homes or churches. While a majority of Ontario landowners do own mineral and surface rights, others have given theirs up, possibly for financial reasons. Landowners pay taxes on mineral rights.

Aside from reviewing the act, council also decided to petition the province to impose an immediate moratorium on uranium prospecting, exploration and mining in Eastern Ontario and the Ottawa River watershed. These activities, according to the city's website, would be suspended until all environmental and health issues were resolved and "there are settlement plans for all related native land claims."

However, the chance of the province agreeing to a moratorium seems remote. "That is not something we are considering," said Anne-Marie Flanagan, a spokeswoman for the Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. Ms. Flanagan said there is a high global demand for uranium.

"It's used not just for energy, but it's also used for detection and treatment of cancer," she said.

"We don't have any operating uranium mines here, but we need to keep the option open." As for the act, Ms. Flanagan said the government is committed to a review.

"At this point, we are studying legislation in other jurisdictions to see what they have done," she said. Ms. Flanagan said the government intends to hold public consultations, but no timeframe has been set.

The report also urged independent studies into the health of residents in areas where uranium is processed. This includes Port Hope, Blind River and Chalk River. The coalition also called for a halt to new nuclear power plants and suggested money be directed to reducing energy use and increasing sustainable sources of energy.

For a full list of recommendations, visit www.ccamu.ca

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

'When John McCain was my captive'

'When John McCain was my captive'

By Andrew Harding
BBC News in Haiphong, Vietnam

Tran Trong Duyet
Tran Trong Duyet claims no torture was carried out at Hoa Lo
Tran Trong Duyet - a sprightly retiree and amateur ballroom dancer - must rank as one of John McCain's more unlikely supporters.

Four decades ago, during the Vietnam war, Mr Duyet was in charge of the notorious Hoa Lo prison - the place where Mr McCain says he was brutally beaten and tortured during five-and-a-half years as an American prisoner of war.

"McCain is my friend," said 75-year-old Mr Duyet as he feeds the caged birds he now keeps in his garden in this coastal city.

"If I was American, I would vote for him."

Informal chats

Navy pilot John McCain was shot down during a bombing raid over the North Vietnamese capital, Hanoi, in 1967.

He ejected from his aircraft and parachuted into a city lake - only to be dragged out by an angry crowd, barely conscious, and with two broken arms and a broken leg.

From there he was taken to Hoa Lo prison, known to its American military inmates as the "Hanoi Hilton".

John McCain is captured in Hanoi
McCain was captured after his plane was shot down in 1967
McCain has since described enduring months of solitary confinement and systematic torture which drove him to try to kill himself.

"I don't know how he'd react if he met me again," said Mr Duyet, flicking through old black and white photographs of himself and his American prisoners at Hoa Lo.

"But I can confirm to you that we never tortured him. We never tortured any prisoners."

Mr Duyet reminisces instead about how he often summoned the future US presidential candidate to his private office for informal chats.

"We used to argue about the war - about whether it was right or wrong," he says.

"He is a very frank man - very conservative, and very loyal to his country and the American ideal.

"He had a very interesting accent and sometimes he taught me words in English and corrected my accent. I have followed his career since he left prison."

Rapprochement

So is Mr Duyet implying that that Senator McCain lied about his treatment at the Hanoi Hilton?

"He did not tell the truth," he says.

"But I can somehow sympathise with him. He lies to American voters in order to get their support for his presidential election."

John McCain's flight suit at the "Hanoi Hilton"
The "Hanoi Hilton" is now a museum - containing McCain's flight suit
But Mr Duyet's propaganda-perfect version of events is impossible to verify - and should be treated with caution in a country where the Communist authorities still keep a tight control over the media.

Relations between Vietnam and the United States have improved dramatically in recent years, following the normalisation of ties between the former enemies in 1995.

Mr McCain played a crucial role in bringing about that initial rapprochement - a fact which helps explain Mr Duyet's enthusiastic support for the McCain presidential campaign.

"I wish him success in the presidential election," he says.

"Of course the Americans started the war in Vietnam and killed so many people - but now we want to leave the past behind.

"So now I consider John McCain my friend because he did much to mend relations between our two countries. And if he becomes president he will do more to improve those ties."

DOE contract for Yucca Mountain attracts attention

DOE contract for Yucca Mountain attracts attention

U.S. Justice Department takes notice

WASHINGTON -- The Department of Justice is raising its eyebrows at a multimillion-dollar legal services contract the Department of Energy awarded in the fall to handle licensing for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

Energy Department officials failed to check with the Justice Department before signing a four-year $47.7 million contract with Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, a firm acknowledged to have conflicts on nuclear waste matters, a Justice official said.

"Neither DOE nor Morgan Lewis consulted with or even notified the Department of Justice before entering into an agreement that involved significant conflicts of interest affecting the United States," said Jeanne E. Davidson, director of the Justice Department's commercial litigation branch.

Davidson indicated that the Justice Department would have had the authority to block the contract. Neither Justice nor DOE officials could be reached Monday evening, and it was not immediately clear whether Justice might be contemplating action at this point.

Davidson conveyed the department's position in a June 16 letter to Gregory Friedman, the Energy Department's inspector general. A copy of the letter was obtained Monday.

In addition to helping the Energy Department win a construction license for the proposed nuclear waste site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Morgan Lewis also represents more than a dozen utility companies that have sued DOE for missing project deadlines dating to 1998.

The Justice Department represents taxpayers in the utility lawsuits that DOE has estimated could cost at least $7 billion in settlements and judgments. Davidson said the Justice Department as a key player should have been consulted.

Davidson said Morgan Lewis is pressing the federal Court of Claims for damage payments to utilities that continue to store their nuclear waste on site. At the same time, Davidson said, the firm will play a role in determining when a Yucca repository might open, if ever.

That means Morgan Lewis has the ability to affect the amount of damages its utility clients will receive, she said.

The Energy Department said it obtained a waiver in order to hire Morgan Lewis, which it contended was the only firm sizable and skilled enough for the Yucca Mountain licensing case. The firm said it erected firewalls to shield its lawyers handling various nuclear waste projects.

Davidson said the Justice Department has asked Morgan Lewis to explain what safeguards it installed to protect against conflicts.

The Morgan Lewis contract includes five one-year options that could raise its total value to $109 million, an amount lawyers said could be a record for a nuclear venture.

Friedman's office issued a report in April faulting the Energy Department for not fully documenting its selection process. Other than that, inspectors said DOE appeared to follow proper procedures in obtaining the waiver to hire Morgan Lewis.

More recently, the state of Nevada tried to have the firm disqualified from handling Yucca Mountain matters before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the NRC rejected the state's demand.

Several Nevada lawmakers renewed their call for the Morgan Lewis contract to be suspended.

"The Justice Department has finally recognized that this conflict of interest extends beyond the DOE and that it's the American taxpayer who stands to lose at the end of the day," said David Cherry, a spokesman for Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said through a spokesman it was suspicious "that DOE went around the DOJ on a legal matter related to the largest government contract for legal services in history."

Contact Stephens Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault at stetreault@stephensmedia.com or 202-783-1760.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He ‘Thinks Senator Obama’s Going To Win’

Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He ‘Thinks Senator Obama’s Going To Win’»

On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is going to be elected.

However, “if the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out,” Kristol said, reinforcing the fact that McCain is offering a third Bush term on Iran.

“I do wonder with Senator Obama, if President Bush thinks Senator Obama’s going to win, does he somehow think — does he worry that Obama won’t follow through on that policy,” Kristol added. Host Chris Wallace then asked if Kristol was suggesting that Bush might “launch a military strike” before or after the election:

WALLACE: So, you’re suggesting that he might in fact, if Obama’s going to win the election, either before or after the election, launch a military strike?

KRISTOL: I don’t know. I mean, I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can’t — it’s hard to make foreign policy based on guesses of election results. I think Israel is worried though. I mean, what is, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force.

Kristol also suggested that Obama’s election would tempt Saudi Arabia and Egypt to think, “maybe we can use nuclear weapons.” Watch it:

Kristol’s belief that Bush might attack Iran before leaving office is not new. In April, he told Bill Bennett that it wasn’t “out of the question” that Bush would consider such a strike because “people are overdoing how much of a lame duck the president is.”

The claim that Obama’s potential election could force Bush’s hand also isn’t new. Earlier this month, far-right pseudo scholar Daniel Pipes told National Review Online that “President Bush will do something” if the Democratic nominee won. “Should it be Mr. McCain that wins, he’ll punt,” said Pipes.

Both Kristol and Pipes apparently agree with President Bush’s claim in March that McCain’s “not going to change” his foreign policy.

Set your lasers to stun.

Stop – or I’ll use the pain ray

A microwave beam weapon is now reality, and the Home Office seems to be rather interested in it. Mark Harris reports Home Office looks to high-tech pain rays to replace water cannons

A man using a Ray gun

The days of simply reading the riot act to an angry crowd are long gone. The Home Office has been investigating the use of high-tech pain rays against mobs as an alternative to the good old water cannon, according to a report by its Scientific Development Branch due to be published next month.

The so-called active denial system (ADS) projects microwave-like radiation for distances of more than 500 yards, creating an excruciating, full-body burning sensation in anyone caught in its beam. The millimetre-wave rays penetrate skin to a depth of about 1/64in but cause no permanent damage, according to Raytheon, the system’s US-based maker. Prototypes of the weapon, called Silent Guardian, weighed about three tons and were mounted on trucks.

“Directed energy systems such as the ADS have seen major advances over the past few years and are likely to continue to do so in the coming years,” the Home Office said. Although the report found “no options that would currently be considered”, it said that might well change in the future. “We’re not saying that the ADS is never going to be used. We’re not going to write it off.”

The Scientific Development Branch, based in Sandridge in Hertfordshire, has been looking at a portable version of the ADS being developed by Raytheon for the US National Institute of Justice – which sounds suspiciously like something from Judge Dredd. The backpack-sized unit is being designed for American police. A working prototype has already been delivered.

The first customer for the full-size active denial system is the US Air Force, which recently published a medical report from Penn State University on the weapon’s effects, in effect clearing it for use in the field. After more than 10,000 test firings on human volunteers, 99% of those exposed to the pain ray agreed that it was an effective deterrent, and only a handful suffered minor blisters. The Human Effects Advisory Panel, an independent body of doctors and physicists, concluded: “The ADS is a nonlethal weapon that has a high probability of effectiveness with a low probability of injury.”

One test the system has not yet passed is that of public acceptability. The idea of firing energy beams at people is likely to meet with widespread concern and this is probably the reason it has not yet been deployed to disperse antiwar protesters. There is also the danger that it could be misused. The weapon is designed to be fired in short bursts of between one and six seconds, at ranges of several hundred yards. When a serviceman was accidentally exposed to a high-power beam at close range, he received second-degree burns requiring skin grafts.

Active denial isn’t the only new technology being considered by UK authorities. The Taser is already in widespread use, and the Association of Chief Police Officers is investigating weapons that utilise laser and kinetic technologies, although it is not clear yet when such devices will be piloted on our streets.

Laser weapons, also called dazzlers, are handheld devices that can temporarily blind criminals, while kinetic technologies include bean-bag rounds, water cannons and even sponge grenades filled with powdered irritant chemicals.

If you think the British bobby is unlikely to swap his truncheon for a pain ray, laser gun or exploding sponge, think again. Dixon of Dock Green, make way for Robocop.

An Open Letter to the EPA on Whether We Should Give Up on Renewable Fuels

An Open Letter to the EPA on Whether We Should Give Up on Renewable Fuels

by David Blume, Author

The purpose of the Renewable Fuels Standard is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, reverse the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, and eventually end the toxic releases from petroleum, coal, and other fossil fuels. The idea is to replace these fuels with clean alternatives like ethanol, which, unlike fossil fuels, are based on captured solar energy that is constantly renewed.

When the alcohol industry agreed to sacrifice the Clean Air Act's oxygenate standard in exchange for its proposed Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), I was staunchly opposed. Advocates of the RFS said it was a more honest, direct way for us to work toward making our fuel renewable and American, and to wean ourselves from the toxic waste of the petroleum industry (otherwise known as gasoline).

Make no mistake about it: historically, gasoline has ALWAYS been a substance into which oil refineries dispose of whatever waste remains after making valuable products. Just as in the cattle industry, where half of the steer sells as US $15/lb. steaks and the other half ends up as cheap hamburger, in the petroleum business, half of a barrel of oil becomes gasoline. Quite frankly, no one wants to dispose of the 21 gallons of poisonous leftovers at the bottom of each barrel (just how much carcinogenic benzene, toluene, or xylene does anyone really need?)

The Clean Air Act's oxygenate standard made sure that many of the toxic components in vehicle exhaust would be thermally decomposed (read: burned) to carbon dioxide, rather than remaining as Kevorkian carbon monoxide and a witch's brew of volatile organics. Destroying these toxins in vehicle exhaust relies on the presence of plenty of oxygen to do the job, and alcohol is about 30% oxygen. Since the act was a regulation that had to do with our health, no discretion existed for waiving oxygenate. That standard was all that stood between Big Oil's profits and hundreds of thousands of deaths each year from respiratory and cancer illnesses. It also was permanent-it had no expiration date.

But in a poor bargain, we traded a standard based on citizens' health for one based on economic and environmental values, i.e., the Renewable Fuels Standard. The oil companies insisted that we couldn't have both, but if we would let go of the oxygenate standard, they would not stand in the way too much on the RFS. Of course, they lied and then only permitted an RFS level that we were already meeting prior to passage of the legislation, so that the regulation had no teeth to increase our use of renewables (very clever of those oil companies).

Well, we did manage, over much opposition by Big Oil, to increase the RFS modestly above the existing level, and investment into the Midwest to make alcohol took off. Big Oil mistakenly thought it could keep the alcohol genie in the bottle...but much to its dismay, the genie escaped and started building distilleries in 2005-6.

Now at the time the bargain was made to trade in the oxygenate standard, I complained to everyone in congress and in the alcohol industry that the RFS would be very easy to waive. It was easy to predict all sorts of conditions where governors or the executive branch could say something like, "These environmental regulations are all well and good, but if they get in the way of economic interests, we just won't be able to afford to do the right thing."

"No, no," the RFS advocates retorted, "we will make sure that a ‘no backsliding' provision is written into the new legislation." Well gee, that tidbit didn't quite survive into the final draft. Now some oil-saturated governors are trying to use their statutory power to get the EPA to waive the standard, so oil companies won't be forced to use farmer's fuels.

Instead of cleaning up our air, dealing with Peak Oil, reducing dependence on foreign oil, and reversing global warming, we are doing exactly what I feared. We are talking about simply setting aside the RFS for reasons that ignore health, ignore national security, ignore our dependence, ignore our war to control Mideast oil, and ignore planetary climate stability in favor of simple short-term economic gains. The proposal is even more disingenuous, since the alleged economic gains are not even real. For instance, there is no shortage of corn, no matter what you read in the press. We just had the best crop in 33 years, and we are still trying to find silo space to store the huge surplus. We have increased the amount of animal feed we send around the world to record levels, which is a direct result of our increased alcohol fuel production. We use only cornstarch for alcohol, and all the non-starch parts of the corn become high-quality animal feed. More corn production for alcohol means more animal feed, which means more food. It's simple.

Now that the data is coming in, we are seeing that in addition to the utterly nonexistent corn shortage, grain price increases have no basis in ethanol or the RFS whatsoever. In fact, the price increases result almost exclusively from the rising price of oil and greater demand for meat in China and other developing countries. If it were not for alcohol fuel, the price of gasoline would be even higher than it is today, and the net effect on a citizen's pocketbook would be many times the alleged effect of ethanol on food prices.

This attack on the RFS has been planned since the day it was first passed. Because as we run out of oil, the fossil fuel industry plans to replace petroleum with more tar sands, oil shale, and coal to liquids. As the EPA, you are well aware that these fuels will increase greenhouse gas emissions scores to thousands of times the emissions from petroleum. They will also increase the pollution of our air with countless tons of metals and volatile gases, pollute what water is left after we drain the aquifers to make synfuels, and irradiate/poison the planet with radioactive particles and mercury from coal.

But for these environmentally foul fuels to be economically viable, the price of a barrel of oil needs to climb to about $150. Biofuels, on the other hand, can be produced realistically, ecologically, and sustainably for less than $70 a barrel, without any breakthroughs in technology. If biofuels, and in particular ethanol, increase in volume, the economic viability of all the alternatives that Big Oil wants to develop are in jeopardy. And that's a good thing, since as the EPA, you know for certain that development of these fossil alternatives to petroleum are unbelievably incompatible with continuation of life on Earth as we know it.

No, the RFS is not a discretionary guideline to be set aside, as powerful economic interests and their tamed politicians dictate. The RFS is a health standard meant to protect all living things from the total degradation of our planet. You in the EPA are charged with the responsibility to act as a bulwark against corporate environmental irresponsibility, and doing the right thing requires more than standing firm on the RFS. Far from being waived, the standard needs to be increased annually, bear no expiration date, and remain in force until every single Btu of energy this country uses is renewable. Ultimately, that means an end to fossil fuels and an economic and energy system based on the sun.

A call to action:

The window to submit comment on this critical EPA waiver is closing June 23rd, submit written comments today, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0380, by one of the following methods: One the web at http://www.regulations.gov, follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments, by E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov or by fax: (202) 566-1741.

David Blume is author of Alcohol Can Be A Gas and Executive Director of the International Institute for Ecological Agriculture.

AQ Khan 'nuclear middleman' freed

AQ Khan 'nuclear middleman' freed

Buhary Syed Abu Tahir
It is not clear if Mr Tahir will be able to leave the country

The Malaysian government says it has released an alleged middleman in the nuclear secrets ring run by disgraced Pakistani scientist AQ Khan.

Buhary Syed Abu Tahir, a Sri Lankan businessman, was arrested in Kuala Lumpur in May 2004.

US President George W Bush described him as AQ Khan's "chief financial officer and money launderer".

Malaysia's home minister said that Mr Tahir was no longer a threat to national security.

Police watch

"Four years he has been inside, I think we have investigated what we need to investigate," Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar said.

Abdul Qadeer Khan
Khan was pardoned by Pakistan's President Musharraf for his role

However, he told reporters that Mr Tahir would remain under police watch.

Media reports in Malaysia say Mr Tahir was released on 6 June but will have to report to the police every week.

He was held in a detention camp in northern Malaysia. It is not clear if Mr Tahir, who is married to a Malaysian, will be allowed to leave the country.

In the months before his arrest, he allegedly told Malaysian investigators that Dr Khan had sent enriched uranium to Libya and that Iran had paid Dr Khan $3m for used centrifuge parts in the mid-1990s.

A firm controlled by the son of Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi was also investigated for allegedly supplying Libya's nuclear weapons programme but cleared of wrongdoing.

Dr Khan was pardoned by Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf after admitting illegally transferring nuclear secrets to other countries including Libya, Iran and North Korea.

In recent weeks he has retracted his confession.

CAMPAIGN 2008: Presidential candidates eye Nevada

CAMPAIGN 2008: Presidential candidates eye Nevada

Silver State receiving attention befitting its role as battleground









Photo by K.M. Cannon.

Turn on the television in Las Vegas or Reno or Elko, and you'll see a presidential candidate who wants your vote.

There's the Democrat, Barack Obama, talking about the heartland values he learned from his grandparents. There's the Republican, John McCain, talking about saving the environment.

You don't have to settle for a commercial; you can see them in person. Obama will visit Las Vegas on Tuesday for a campaign event focused on the economy; McCain will be in town on Wednesday, opening a campaign headquarters.

There's no doubt Nevada is in both campaigns' sights as a top battleground.

"Batten down the hatches," said Jennifer Duffy, an analyst for the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan newsletter based in Washington, D.C. "It's going to be a targeted state for both sides. It's going to get a whole lot of attention by the time November rolls around."

Analysts agree that Nevada could swing either way.

"I've seen the state called everything from toss-up to a slight lean Republican from the prognosticators, but there's no scenario where anybody thinks either candidate is going to run away with the state," said Nevada Republican consultant Ryan Erwin, who's not working on the presidential campaign.

Four years ago, President Bush won Nevada by 20,000 votes, earning 50 percent of the vote to Democratic nominee John Kerry's 48 percent. Since 1912, Nevada has voted for the winner of every presidential election, except 1976, when the state chose Republican Gerald Ford rather than Democrat Jimmy Carter.

Ask Democrats, and they'll tell you Nevada is:

• A state that's becoming more receptive to their message.

• A state where growth has changed the demographics, beefing up the Democratic stronghold of Clark County.

• A state where Western libertarianism is being tempered by suburban quality-of-life concerns.

Republicans, on the other hand, say Nevada remains inherently conservative, a state where residents of all political stripes favor low taxes, small government and being left alone. They say McCain, an Arizona senator with a maverick image, fits that ethos.

The signs that both candidates have joined the competition for the state are abundant. McCain has situated his Western regional campaign office in Henderson. Wednesday's visit will be his third to Nevada since he captured the nomination. McCain had a town hall in Reno late last month.

Obama also visited Nevada last month. Even before he captured the nomination, his campaign had a volunteer organizing event in Las Vegas.

The Obama campaign has told donors that if he carries Nevada, other Mountain West states, and possibly Virginia or Georgia, he could get the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency even if he loses Florida and Ohio, The Associated Press reported last week.

A Review-Journal poll this month found that McCain had the support of 44 percent of Nevada voters, Obama 42 percent, with 14 percent undecided.

Strategists for both campaigns are optimistic.

"Nevada voters are conservative voters: independents, Democrats and Republicans," said John Peschong, McCain regional campaign manager for the Western states. "We believe John McCain is the right candidate with the right message to reach out to those folks. He's a Westerner. He understands the issues that concern them on a daily basis."

Obama campaign senior strategist Anita Dunn said Nevada voters are looking for what Obama offers: change.

"Senator Obama's message about the future, his message about moving past the partisan gridlock to a politics that's about solving our problems rather than finger-pointing, is something that does fit the culture of the West," she said. "Senator McCain's policies increasingly resemble George Bush's. ... He's essentially lost his maverick qualities."

Which side wins the argument in the months ahead will depend on several factors. Here are nine questions, the answers to which, according to political analysts and the two campaigns, will determine who wins Nevada.

1. What effect did the caucuses have?

Democrats made Nevada an early state in the primary process, having caucuses right after the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. An astonishing 118,000 Nevadans participated in Democratic caucuses on Jan. 19. Republicans also had caucuses, which, while lower-key, drew 40,000 participants.

Hillary Clinton won more precinct delegates on Jan. 19: 51 percent to Obama's 45 percent. But Dunn of the Obama campaign argues that what matters is both candidates mobilized volunteers and got people involved, creating a campaign infrastructure that can be built on for November while McCain starts essentially from scratch.

Although Obama staffers left the state after the caucuses, the campaign kept its supporters mobilized for the county conventions in February and state Democratic Convention last month, she said.

Republicans had a primary in South Carolina on the same day as the Nevada caucus, which they mostly ignored. Mitt Romney built an organization in the state, but his lopsided win wasn't taken that seriously as the state was seen as basically uncontested.

Erwin, who worked for Romney in Nevada, said, "The organization we built for Romney, much of that is now working for McCain."

2. What does the Democrats' voter registration advantage mean?

On the day of the caucus, Democrats collected 30,000 voter registration forms. The efforts of the presidential campaigns and a strong push by the party have contributed an advantage in voter registration of more than 50,000.

By contrast, as of four years ago, there were 10,000 more Republicans than Democrats in the state, according to the secretary of state's office.

In May 2004, Republicans represented 41 percent of the Nevada electorate, Democrats 40 percent. As of May 2008, Democrats made up 43 percent of active registered voters, while Republicans made up 38 percent.

"There's no question that there's a trend locally and nationally toward the Democrats and away from the Republicans," said Dan Hart, a Nevada Democratic consultant unaffiliated with the presidential campaigns.

But while Republicans say they would like to be on the upside of the 50,000 voter gap, some say it has more to do with the Democrats working harder to get people registered and having a more contested caucus, than with the state truly trending blue.

"Republicans have to do a better job of registering voters, and I think they will, and I think they are starting to," said Republican consultant Sig Rogich, an early McCain supporter. "You will start to see those numbers even out."

In addition, he said, the numbers can be misleading because Nevada has a long tradition of rural Democrats voting for Republicans.

3. What role does rural Nevada play?

In 2004, rural Nevada delivered the state for Bush. Kerry got 25,000 more votes than Bush in Clark County, but with 65 percent of the rural vote, Bush pulled ahead.

They make up only about 15 percent of the state's population, but residents of the rural counties turn out to vote much more reliably than urban voters. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has argued that Kerry could have won the state if he had campaigned in rural areas; he still would have lost there but by a slimmer margin.

"If you're a Democrat, you don't have to carry those places; you just have to up your share of the vote outside Clark County," national analyst Duffy said.

Before the caucuses, Obama campaigned in Elko and released a platform of proposals for rural Nevada. He was stronger there than Clinton.

"The Republicans have had success in the past with high turnout outside of Clark County," said Eric Herzik, a political scientist at the University of Nevada, Reno. "But is McCain enough of a draw to get 80 percent in Douglas County and Elko and those kinds of places? McCain wasn't their first choice, and they still have questions about him on issues like immigration."

4. Who will win the Hispanic vote?

McCain co-sponsored immigration reform legislation with Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy that would have allow some illegal immigrants to become citizens. Under fire from conservatives, McCain since has dialed back that position, saying the borders need to be secured before any other action is taken.

Republicans hope McCain can make inroads with the Hispanic vote as a result. His Spanish-language radio ads, which began airing a couple of weeks ago in Nevada and New Mexico, are evidence his campaign plans to try.

"He crossed party lines to work out solutions to the illegal alien problem," Rogich said. "He was a statesman on that issue and that was noticed. I hear that from the Hispanic community all the time."

In Nevada, Hispanics make up about 15 percent of the voting population. Exit polls from the Jan. 19 Democratic caucuses showed about 65 percent of Hispanics supported Clinton over Obama, and he is thought to have work to do to shore up their support.

"The Hispanic vote can be the deciding factor in this campaign. It has the potential to be the deciding demographic group," Hart, the Democratic consultant, said.

5. Will Democrats be unified?

Hispanics are just one group of Clinton supporters that Obama must bring to his side.

In Nevada, Clinton drew on her husband's network of supporters to build support within the Democratic establishment and lock up most of the major endorsements.

"Senator Clinton was an extraordinarily strong candidate," said Dunn, the Obama strategist. "She always started off as the prohibitive favorite. But we are now a unified Democratic Party."

Obama built a grass-roots network outside of Clinton's institutional advantages, and now that Clinton supports Obama, he will enjoy both, Dunn said.

Plenty of Clinton delegates at the Democrats' convention in Reno last month swore they wouldn't vote for Obama, particularly the older women who were the bedrock of Clinton's support. National analyst Duffy noted that in the recent Review-Journal poll, Obama had less support among Democrats, 71 percent, than McCain did among Republicans, 78 percent, and speculated that might be because Clinton's supporters are still angry.

But Duffy and other analysts expect the Democrats to come together. "It was a superficial split, and it's already beginning to heal," UNR's Herzik said. After their convention in August, "you'll have a unified Democratic Party."

6. Will Republicans be unified?

Herzik expects party unity to be more of a problem for McCain than Obama.

In the primaries, he said, "John McCain had substantive differences with other Republicans. Obama and Clinton pretty much agreed on all the issues; McCain was for an immigration bill that a lot of other Republicans hated."

McCain came in third in the Nevada caucuses, behind Romney and Ron Paul.

Peschong, the McCain regional manager, drew a parallel with the New Hampshire primary, where McCain had more than 100 town hall meetings and revived a campaign that was out of money and left for dead. Republicans, he said, just need to get to know their candidate.

"We do not believe he has a problem with the conservative base," he said. "Senator McCain is pro-life. He supports the Second Amendment. Once we have an opportunity to talk to the base, they will support him."

7. Will Nevada-specific issues resonate with voters?

Although he is a Westerner, McCain has staked out some positions that aren't popular with Nevadans. He once introduced legislation to ban betting on college sports, a major source of dollars for Las Vegas casinos, and he has been a proponent of the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

McCain's position on Yucca Mountain has seemed to soften in recent weeks as he has said he also supports an international nuclear facility.

In 2004, Kerry attacked Bush on the Yucca issue; Bush promised to base decisions about the dump on science, something Democrats charge he has not done.

"It's a litmus test for candidates," Hart, the Nevada Democratic consultant, said of Yucca Mountain. "Unfortunately, some candidates give it lip service. They say one thing and then do another. I do think the candidate who wins has to have the right position on Yucca."

But Herzik said voters have bigger things on their minds: the war and the economy.

"I don't think anybody's going to make their choice about John McCain based on where he stands on sports betting," he said. "And the people for whom Yucca Mountain is a to-die-for issue aren't going to vote for a Republican anyway. The issue that the candidates will talk about that has the biggest link to Nevada is the housing market."

8. Who will win independent and moderate voters?

It's an axiom of political science that candidates run to their base, conservative or liberal, to win primaries, then run back to the middle of the political spectrum for the general election.

"The Democrats will try hard to make John McCain the next George Bush, and the Republicans will make Barack Obama out to be a crazy liberal," said Erwin, the Nevada Republican consultant. "But I believe this is a campaign that will be won on a handful of very middle-of-the-road issues."

McCain and Obama's early campaign TV ads send moderate messages. Obama's, titled "Country I Love," talks about his grandparents from Kansas and their values. It emphasizes his work to get people off welfare and cut taxes, traditionally conservative themes.

McCain has run two TV spots. In the first, he declares, "Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war." In the second, he notes that he went against Bush on global warming, taking a stance more traditionally associated with Democrats.

"They're playing for the center," said Hart, the Democratic consultant. "There's that huge group of people out there who don't belong to either party. In most cases, whoever appeals to them more effectively will be more successful."

9. Who will vote?

"Turnout is the critical factor," UNR's Herzik said. "Clark County generally has low turnout, and that's where the Democratic base is. If they can reverse that in a significant way, the chances of a Democratic victory go way up."

No matter what the polls or the registration numbers say, what matters in November is who actually shows up to vote.

"Nevada had a caucus with record turnout, but that's not very reflective of the general electorate," Duffy said. "Now both sides are talking to the people that didn't participate in that process."

Hart agreed, citing lessons from the 2004 race.

"It's nuts-and-bolts politics: They (the Bush campaign) identified voters and got them to the polls, especially in the rural counties," he said. "Presidential elections are a matter of a few points one way or the other. You can look very good in the polls, but unless you get those people to vote, you are not going to win an election."

Contact reporter Molly Ball at mball @reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2919.

CAMPAIGN 2008: Presidential candidates eye Nevada

CAMPAIGN 2008: Presidential candidates eye Nevada

Silver State receiving attention befitting its role as battleground









Photo by K.M. Cannon.

Turn on the television in Las Vegas or Reno or Elko, and you'll see a presidential candidate who wants your vote.

There's the Democrat, Barack Obama, talking about the heartland values he learned from his grandparents. There's the Republican, John McCain, talking about saving the environment.

You don't have to settle for a commercial; you can see them in person. Obama will visit Las Vegas on Tuesday for a campaign event focused on the economy; McCain will be in town on Wednesday, opening a campaign headquarters.

There's no doubt Nevada is in both campaigns' sights as a top battleground.

"Batten down the hatches," said Jennifer Duffy, an analyst for the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan newsletter based in Washington, D.C. "It's going to be a targeted state for both sides. It's going to get a whole lot of attention by the time November rolls around."

Analysts agree that Nevada could swing either way.

"I've seen the state called everything from toss-up to a slight lean Republican from the prognosticators, but there's no scenario where anybody thinks either candidate is going to run away with the state," said Nevada Republican consultant Ryan Erwin, who's not working on the presidential campaign.

Four years ago, President Bush won Nevada by 20,000 votes, earning 50 percent of the vote to Democratic nominee John Kerry's 48 percent. Since 1912, Nevada has voted for the winner of every presidential election, except 1976, when the state chose Republican Gerald Ford rather than Democrat Jimmy Carter.

Ask Democrats, and they'll tell you Nevada is:

• A state that's becoming more receptive to their message.

• A state where growth has changed the demographics, beefing up the Democratic stronghold of Clark County.

• A state where Western libertarianism is being tempered by suburban quality-of-life concerns.

Republicans, on the other hand, say Nevada remains inherently conservative, a state where residents of all political stripes favor low taxes, small government and being left alone. They say McCain, an Arizona senator with a maverick image, fits that ethos.

The signs that both candidates have joined the competition for the state are abundant. McCain has situated his Western regional campaign office in Henderson. Wednesday's visit will be his third to Nevada since he captured the nomination. McCain had a town hall in Reno late last month.

Obama also visited Nevada last month. Even before he captured the nomination, his campaign had a volunteer organizing event in Las Vegas.

The Obama campaign has told donors that if he carries Nevada, other Mountain West states, and possibly Virginia or Georgia, he could get the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency even if he loses Florida and Ohio, The Associated Press reported last week.

A Review-Journal poll this month found that McCain had the support of 44 percent of Nevada voters, Obama 42 percent, with 14 percent undecided.

Strategists for both campaigns are optimistic.

"Nevada voters are conservative voters: independents, Democrats and Republicans," said John Peschong, McCain regional campaign manager for the Western states. "We believe John McCain is the right candidate with the right message to reach out to those folks. He's a Westerner. He understands the issues that concern them on a daily basis."

Obama campaign senior strategist Anita Dunn said Nevada voters are looking for what Obama offers: change.

"Senator Obama's message about the future, his message about moving past the partisan gridlock to a politics that's about solving our problems rather than finger-pointing, is something that does fit the culture of the West," she said. "Senator McCain's policies increasingly resemble George Bush's. ... He's essentially lost his maverick qualities."

Which side wins the argument in the months ahead will depend on several factors. Here are nine questions, the answers to which, according to political analysts and the two campaigns, will determine who wins Nevada.

1. What effect did the caucuses have?

Democrats made Nevada an early state in the primary process, having caucuses right after the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. An astonishing 118,000 Nevadans participated in Democratic caucuses on Jan. 19. Republicans also had caucuses, which, while lower-key, drew 40,000 participants.

Hillary Clinton won more precinct delegates on Jan. 19: 51 percent to Obama's 45 percent. But Dunn of the Obama campaign argues that what matters is both candidates mobilized volunteers and got people involved, creating a campaign infrastructure that can be built on for November while McCain starts essentially from scratch.

Although Obama staffers left the state after the caucuses, the campaign kept its supporters mobilized for the county conventions in February and state Democratic Convention last month, she said.

Republicans had a primary in South Carolina on the same day as the Nevada caucus, which they mostly ignored. Mitt Romney built an organization in the state, but his lopsided win wasn't taken that seriously as the state was seen as basically uncontested.

Erwin, who worked for Romney in Nevada, said, "The organization we built for Romney, much of that is now working for McCain."

2. What does the Democrats' voter registration advantage mean?

On the day of the caucus, Democrats collected 30,000 voter registration forms. The efforts of the presidential campaigns and a strong push by the party have contributed an advantage in voter registration of more than 50,000.

By contrast, as of four years ago, there were 10,000 more Republicans than Democrats in the state, according to the secretary of state's office.

In May 2004, Republicans represented 41 percent of the Nevada electorate, Democrats 40 percent. As of May 2008, Democrats made up 43 percent of active registered voters, while Republicans made up 38 percent.

"There's no question that there's a trend locally and nationally toward the Democrats and away from the Republicans," said Dan Hart, a Nevada Democratic consultant unaffiliated with the presidential campaigns.

But while Republicans say they would like to be on the upside of the 50,000 voter gap, some say it has more to do with the Democrats working harder to get people registered and having a more contested caucus, than with the state truly trending blue.

"Republicans have to do a better job of registering voters, and I think they will, and I think they are starting to," said Republican consultant Sig Rogich, an early McCain supporter. "You will start to see those numbers even out."

In addition, he said, the numbers can be misleading because Nevada has a long tradition of rural Democrats voting for Republicans.

3. What role does rural Nevada play?

In 2004, rural Nevada delivered the state for Bush. Kerry got 25,000 more votes than Bush in Clark County, but with 65 percent of the rural vote, Bush pulled ahead.

They make up only about 15 percent of the state's population, but residents of the rural counties turn out to vote much more reliably than urban voters. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has argued that Kerry could have won the state if he had campaigned in rural areas; he still would have lost there but by a slimmer margin.

"If you're a Democrat, you don't have to carry those places; you just have to up your share of the vote outside Clark County," national analyst Duffy said.

Before the caucuses, Obama campaigned in Elko and released a platform of proposals for rural Nevada. He was stronger there than Clinton.

"The Republicans have had success in the past with high turnout outside of Clark County," said Eric Herzik, a political scientist at the University of Nevada, Reno. "But is McCain enough of a draw to get 80 percent in Douglas County and Elko and those kinds of places? McCain wasn't their first choice, and they still have questions about him on issues like immigration."

4. Who will win the Hispanic vote?

McCain co-sponsored immigration reform legislation with Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy that would have allow some illegal immigrants to become citizens. Under fire from conservatives, McCain since has dialed back that position, saying the borders need to be secured before any other action is taken.

Republicans hope McCain can make inroads with the Hispanic vote as a result. His Spanish-language radio ads, which began airing a couple of weeks ago in Nevada and New Mexico, are evidence his campaign plans to try.

"He crossed party lines to work out solutions to the illegal alien problem," Rogich said. "He was a statesman on that issue and that was noticed. I hear that from the Hispanic community all the time."

In Nevada, Hispanics make up about 15 percent of the voting population. Exit polls from the Jan. 19 Democratic caucuses showed about 65 percent of Hispanics supported Clinton over Obama, and he is thought to have work to do to shore up their support.

"The Hispanic vote can be the deciding factor in this campaign. It has the potential to be the deciding demographic group," Hart, the Democratic consultant, said.

5. Will Democrats be unified?

Hispanics are just one group of Clinton supporters that Obama must bring to his side.

In Nevada, Clinton drew on her husband's network of supporters to build support within the Democratic establishment and lock up most of the major endorsements.

"Senator Clinton was an extraordinarily strong candidate," said Dunn, the Obama strategist. "She always started off as the prohibitive favorite. But we are now a unified Democratic Party."

Obama built a grass-roots network outside of Clinton's institutional advantages, and now that Clinton supports Obama, he will enjoy both, Dunn said.

Plenty of Clinton delegates at the Democrats' convention in Reno last month swore they wouldn't vote for Obama, particularly the older women who were the bedrock of Clinton's support. National analyst Duffy noted that in the recent Review-Journal poll, Obama had less support among Democrats, 71 percent, than McCain did among Republicans, 78 percent, and speculated that might be because Clinton's supporters are still angry.

But Duffy and other analysts expect the Democrats to come together. "It was a superficial split, and it's already beginning to heal," UNR's Herzik said. After their convention in August, "you'll have a unified Democratic Party."

6. Will Republicans be unified?

Herzik expects party unity to be more of a problem for McCain than Obama.

In the primaries, he said, "John McCain had substantive differences with other Republicans. Obama and Clinton pretty much agreed on all the issues; McCain was for an immigration bill that a lot of other Republicans hated."

McCain came in third in the Nevada caucuses, behind Romney and Ron Paul.

Peschong, the McCain regional manager, drew a parallel with the New Hampshire primary, where McCain had more than 100 town hall meetings and revived a campaign that was out of money and left for dead. Republicans, he said, just need to get to know their candidate.

"We do not believe he has a problem with the conservative base," he said. "Senator McCain is pro-life. He supports the Second Amendment. Once we have an opportunity to talk to the base, they will support him."

7. Will Nevada-specific issues resonate with voters?

Although he is a Westerner, McCain has staked out some positions that aren't popular with Nevadans. He once introduced legislation to ban betting on college sports, a major source of dollars for Las Vegas casinos, and he has been a proponent of the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

McCain's position on Yucca Mountain has seemed to soften in recent weeks as he has said he also supports an international nuclear facility.

In 2004, Kerry attacked Bush on the Yucca issue; Bush promised to base decisions about the dump on science, something Democrats charge he has not done.

"It's a litmus test for candidates," Hart, the Nevada Democratic consultant, said of Yucca Mountain. "Unfortunately, some candidates give it lip service. They say one thing and then do another. I do think the candidate who wins has to have the right position on Yucca."

But Herzik said voters have bigger things on their minds: the war and the economy.

"I don't think anybody's going to make their choice about John McCain based on where he stands on sports betting," he said. "And the people for whom Yucca Mountain is a to-die-for issue aren't going to vote for a Republican anyway. The issue that the candidates will talk about that has the biggest link to Nevada is the housing market."

8. Who will win independent and moderate voters?

It's an axiom of political science that candidates run to their base, conservative or liberal, to win primaries, then run back to the middle of the political spectrum for the general election.

"The Democrats will try hard to make John McCain the next George Bush, and the Republicans will make Barack Obama out to be a crazy liberal," said Erwin, the Nevada Republican consultant. "But I believe this is a campaign that will be won on a handful of very middle-of-the-road issues."

McCain and Obama's early campaign TV ads send moderate messages. Obama's, titled "Country I Love," talks about his grandparents from Kansas and their values. It emphasizes his work to get people off welfare and cut taxes, traditionally conservative themes.

McCain has run two TV spots. In the first, he declares, "Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war." In the second, he notes that he went against Bush on global warming, taking a stance more traditionally associated with Democrats.

"They're playing for the center," said Hart, the Democratic consultant. "There's that huge group of people out there who don't belong to either party. In most cases, whoever appeals to them more effectively will be more successful."

9. Who will vote?

"Turnout is the critical factor," UNR's Herzik said. "Clark County generally has low turnout, and that's where the Democratic base is. If they can reverse that in a significant way, the chances of a Democratic victory go way up."

No matter what the polls or the registration numbers say, what matters in November is who actually shows up to vote.

"Nevada had a caucus with record turnout, but that's not very reflective of the general electorate," Duffy said. "Now both sides are talking to the people that didn't participate in that process."

Hart agreed, citing lessons from the 2004 race.

"It's nuts-and-bolts politics: They (the Bush campaign) identified voters and got them to the polls, especially in the rural counties," he said. "Presidential elections are a matter of a few points one way or the other. You can look very good in the polls, but unless you get those people to vote, you are not going to win an election."

Contact reporter Molly Ball at mball @reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2919.

BLM leaves Reid out of the loop

BLM leaves Reid out of the loop

He learns of big delay for new solar plants in region from the paper



Before bureaucrats slammed the door for almost two
years on new solar plants on 119 million acres of federal land they manage in six western states, they might have mentioned it to Harry Reid.

You know, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader who represents a state that has been called the Saudi Arabia of solar, the senior senator from the state with 67 percent of its land under the control of the Bureau of Land Management, which implemented the freeze.

But in this case, the BLM must have lost Reid’s number.

“We read it in (Wednesday) morning’s paper,” Reid spokesman Jon Summers wrote in an e-mail, referring to a Sun story about solar developers protesting a delay they say could break the back of the nascent industry here and in the rest of the Southwest.

The freeze is in effect while the BLM studies the environmental effects of solar development in Nevada, California, Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico. The bureau has accepted about 130 applications, including 23 in Clark and Nye counties, to build solar plants on one million acres of public land in the six states.

Summers said Thursday it’s typical for the congressional delegation of affected states to get a heads up from BLM before such a sweeping policy decision is made. In fact, Summers said, there is frequent collaboration between the Nevada senator’s office and the agency charged with stewardship of 48 million acres of Nevada land.

What we had here, however, was a failure to communicate.

And judging by a Wednesday statement from his office, Reid might have had a thing or two to say about a moratorium on solar applications.

“This ... is the wrong signal to send to solar power developers, and to Nevadans and Westerners who need and want clean, affordable sun-powered electricity soon,” Reid said in the statement. “While the BLM’s proposed delay won’t affect developers with existing applications, it could discourage or slow new development to a crawl.

“This administration should be reprogramming funds urgently so BLM can complete its regulations and work through its application backlog. Right now, the administration’s misplaced higher priority seems to be aimed at fossil fuels. That’s not good for Nevada or for the nation.”

Summers said Reid’s office would send a letter to BLM Director Jim Caswell objecting to the freeze and inquiring as to how the communication breakdown occurred.

The BLM’s Linda Resseguie, who conducted meetings last week across the Southwest to gather public comment on the study, said typically the bureau notifies the affected committees — in this case the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Natural Resources — the day before a study is announced so they aren’t taken by surprise by a flood of constituent calls.

Resseguie said she thought a BLM staffer gave a news release announcing the study and mentioning the 22-month moratorium to committee members’ offices the day before it was sent to media on May 29.

Calls to the offices of several committee members were not returned by press time, so it was unclear whether they received the early notice.

As for the decision itself, Resseguie said “it was a BLM decision, but the Department (of the Interior) was consulted.”

“As far as discussing or debating the merits of a freeze with the congressional delegation before we took that administrative action, I am fairly certain that did not occur,” Resseguie said.

She said it is possible the BLM would reconsider the freeze.

“Policies can always be influenced,” she said.

Nuclear waste dump is closed

Nuclear waste dump is closed
By Rob Pavey| Staff Writer
Friday, June 20, 2008

It was an active dump for 22 years -- and a final resting place for 7 million cubic feet of radioactive waste.


Special
Washington Savannah River Co. Vice President Bill Poulson (left) presents a print to James Rispoli, the Department of Energy's assistant secretary for environmental management, at a ceremony to mark the closure of a waste repository at SRS.

On Thursday, Savannah River Site celebrated the end of an 18-year, $56 million project to formally close the 76-acre area that once served as the site's primary burial ground for low-level nuclear waste.

"Through hard work and cooperation with our regulators, smart solutions were put into action to reduce the risk to the community and the environment," said James Rispoli, the Department of Energy's assistant secretary for environmental management.

Known generically as the "Old Radioactive Waste Burial Ground," the site was used to dump clothing, tools, containers and other low-level wastes contaminated with radioactivity. The area was filled in 1974.

The closure plan completed this month included using grout seals to stabilize 22 underground solvent tanks, each with a capacity of about 25,000 gallons; demolition of three buildings; and the use of soil and impermeable liners to seal the area for good.

The remediation was completed in 2007, but final paperwork certifying the project as complete was transferred this month, Energy Department spokeswoman Fran Poda said, noting that the $56 million cost for the project was below the $75 million estimate.

Also on Thursday, Mr. Rispoli and other guests marked the start of normal operations at the site's interim salt waste processing facilities -- the Actinide Removal Process and the Modular Caustic Side Solvent Extraction Unit.

Removing salt waste, which fills about 90 percent of the tank space in the SRS tank farms, is a major step toward closing the site's 49 high-level waste tanks, which contain 36 million gallons of waste.

The two facilities, designed to decontaminate radioactive salt waste, completed a successful trial run in April and are part of a broader salt-decontamination system scheduled to start up in 2013.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Surge in Uranium Mining Claims Spurs Concern for Drinking Water Safety

Surge in Uranium Mining Claims Spurs Concern for Drinking Water Safety
Southern Nevada Water Authority Cites Potential Uranium Clean Up Costs in Letter to Interior Department

By: Environmental Working Group

June 20, 2008 - In response to the threat that surging mining claims along the Colorado pose to drinking water in Las Vegas, the General Manager for the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA), Patricia Mulroy, sent a letter to Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne requesting that "Interior carefully evaluate the implications for water quality in the Colorado River before authorizing [hardrock] mining operations within its watershed."

SNWA provides drinking water to Las Vegas and surrounding municipalities.

Mining claims within 10 miles of the Colorado River increased dramatically in the past five years, from 2,568 in 2003 to 5,545 in 2008 according to a recent Environmental Working Group analysis of federal government records, Without a Paddle: U.S. Law Powerless to Protect Colorado River From Mining. Claims within five miles of the river tripled during the same time frame, from 395 to 1,195. Mining is the top source of water pollution in western states and the number one toxic polluter in the country, according to the US EPA.

These thousands of mining claims pose a real threat to the Colorado, and Mulroy noted, "It is important to the SNWA that additional contributions of uranium from new sources be minimized…"

But without amendments to the current, antiquated federal mining law, the 1872 Mining Act, Kempthorne is virtually powerless to protect the people of Nevada from the inevitable pollution of southern Nevada drinking water that will result if even a small number of these mining claims are developed.

As Mulroy notes, uranium mining pollution already "contribute(s) measurable quantities of that contaminant to the Colorado River near Moab." This pollution, coupled with low water levels due to drought will exacerbate the level of radionuclides in the water supply for "2 million residents and 40 million visitors" in southern Nevada.

The Environmental Working Group is a strong advocate for reform of the 1872 Mining Act and has published numerous analyses since 2004 on the threats that increased mining claims pose to national parks, rivers, and municipalities throughout the West. Major reforms of the mining law passed the House in the fall of 2007, but have bogged down in the Senate.

"The fate of southern Nevada's drinking water is in the hands of the US Senate, which has an opportunity to reform mining law to protect critical western resources like the Colorado River," said Richard Wiles, Executive Director of Environmental Working Group. "Without mining reform some of these claims will turn into mines, and the source of drinking water for greater Las Vegas will be polluted even further with mining runoff," Wiles added.

Resources:

Without a Paddle: U.S. Law Powerless to Protect Colorado River From Mining:
http://www.ewg.org/sites/mining_google/ColoradoRiver/index.php?nothanks=1

SNWA General Manager's letter to Secretary Kempthorne:
http://www.ewg.org/files/kempthorne061608.pdf

Uranium: Vegas official raises worry about Colorado River water

Uranium: Vegas official raises worry about Colorado River water



LAS VEGAS (AP) - Southern Nevada's top water official is raising concerns about ‘‘measurable quantities'' of uranium showing up in the Colorado River, the region's primary source for drinking water.

Southern Nevada Water Authority chief Pat Mulroy blames uranium mining, particularly near Moab, Utah.

In a letter Monday to federal Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, Mulroy urges the department to ‘‘carefully evaluate'' the effect on water quality before authorizing new mining claims near the river.

She says federal law includes strict limits on uranium in drinking water, and says it's expensive and difficult for cities to get it out.


A report this week found southern Nevada tap water continues to meet or exceed all standards set by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.