From: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com (abolition-usa-digest) To: abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #74 Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest Sender: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk abolition-usa-digest Monday, February 8 1999 Volume 01 : Number 074 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 07:21:15 -0500 From: Peace through Reason Subject: (abolition-usa) NucNews (US-2) 2/8/99 -Sandia Labs Cleanup; Utah Nuc Waste Site - --=====================_56733921==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 3. Tackling a Mess Sandia National Labs has taken a new approach to hazardous waste removal, speeding cleanup and saving millions http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech/1sci02-07.htm 4. No 'Enlibra' with nuclear storage http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,30009979,00.html? - ---------------------------------------- 3. Tackling a Mess Sandia National Labs has taken a new approach to hazardous waste removal, speeding cleanup and saving millions http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech/1sci02-07.htm By John Fleck Albuquerque Journal, February 7, 1999 The smashed plastic bottles and little green trash can Sharissa Young's crew fished out of the dirt of an old Sandia National Laboratories landfill looked like little more than old household discards. The moon suits the workers wear suggest otherwise. Since last fall, the Sandia-funded team has been gingerly picking its way through 30-year-old hazardous waste, attempting to clean up the nuclear weapon research center's worst environmental problem. In the process, they are working themselves out of a job, cleaning up Sandia's environmental messes years before originally planned and at a fraction of what the Department of Energy once thought it would cost. Environmental cleanup efforts at Sandia date to the 1980s, when the Department of Energy realized radioactive and chemical wastes from decades of nuclear weapons research and manufacturing had become a major problem at weapons plants and laboratories throughout the United States. By the early 1990s, it looked like a $500 million job that would stretch well into the next century. But aggressive efforts to streamline the process and spend the money cleaning things up, rather than producing paperwork, has cut the project's cost nearly in half, said Warren Cox, chief of Sandia's cleanup program. "We're actually digging a lot of dirt," Cox said. The approach has won grudging support from one of Sandia's harshest critics, Albuquerque environmental activist Paul Robinson. "I think it's been handled better than it was done in the past," Robinson said. $271 million problem Nowhere is the progress more apparent than at the chemical waste landfill, a fenced patch of desert on Kirtland Air Force Base five miles south of Albuquerque's southern edge. Beneath the landfill, dangerous chromium has seeped deep into the desert soil, while traces of potentially cancer-causing solvents have drained into the ground water 500 feet beneath the arid site. In comparison to other Department of Energy nuclear sites, or to other ground-water contamination problems in New Mexico, Sandia's problems might seem minor. Large Department of Energy nuclear weapons factories like Savannah River Site in South Carolina and Hanford in eastern Washington state have far more serious problems with much higher price tags. "It's not like a Hanford or a Savannah River," Robinson said of Sandia's problems. "Sandia is really a minor site in the DOE world, for the simple reason that this is an R&D facility, not a production facility," said Hu Joy, chairman of the Sandia Citizens Advisory Board, a group of volunteers brought together by the DOE to provide community input into the cleanup process. Minor or not, the chemical waste landfill and a host of other contaminated sites at the New Mexico nuclear weapons laboratory pose a $271 million problem for Sandia and the Department of Energy to clean up. Sandia has had to clean up 50 contaminated sites, ranging from explosives ranges where lead and other debris were scattered around the ground to old landfills with leaking waste. Of the landfills, two have already been cleaned up, and work on the other two is now under way. But of all Sandia's environmental ills, the chemical waste landfill is the worst, because contamination reached the ground water. "It's serious because of the risk it indicates to the aquifer on that side of the city," Robinson said. Contaminated water From 1962 to 1985, chemical wastes from Sandia research programs were sent to the landfill using what was, at the time, standard industrial practice, Sandia cleanup manager David Miller said. Containers of hazardous waste were discarded, and until 1981, liquid waste was dumped in unlined trenches at the site. The result was a mess. In the late 1980s, traces of a cancer-linked solvent began showing up in ground water 500 feet deep in the ground. While the area is three miles from the nearest drinking water well, a Kirtland Air Force Base well, Sandia and the Department of Energy decided it would have to be cleaned up. Test wells showed that none of the contaminated ground water had moved more than 100 yards from the site, said Miller, the Sandia official in charge of the site. Sandia was also able to indirectly clean the ground water by using what amounted to a giant vacuum cleaner, sucking air through the contaminated earth beneath the site and removing the gaseous contaminants. But because of fears that more chemicals could leak from the waste pits, Young's crew began digging up the waste last fall. They start with a backhoe, which dumps its contents onto a screen table for sorting. If any intact containers of waste are found in the rubble, they're set aside so they can be sent to an off-site hazardous waste dump. Contaminated soil is set aside for chemical and heat treatment to clean most of the hazardous waste out of it. The remaining soil will be dumped in a huge plastic-lined pit now being completed some 50 yards from the chemical waste landfill where it will be permanently entombed. A different approach The cleanup picture at Sandia today is very different than it was a decade ago. In the late 1980s and early '90s, when Sandia and the Energy Department first began to seriously inventory the labs' waste sites and think about how to clean them up, it seemed like a mammoth task. Hundreds of potentially contaminated sites were found spread across Sandia's sprawling territory on the east mesa and in the hills south of Albuquerque. They ranged from old landfills to test sites where explosives and uranium had been scattered across the ground. By 1993, the estimated price tag for cleaning it all up had climbed to $500 million, Cox recalled. With environmental cleanup costs for larger, more complicated Energy Department nuclear sites spiraling out of control, it became clear that the only way to rein in costs and get the job done was to use a different approach. Cox and his colleagues adopted a technique intended to cut through the regulatory bureaucracy and reduce the amount of money spent without ever cleaning up sites. Under the old approach, huge amounts of money were spent studying a site before cleanup ever began, in order to develop a detailed cleanup plan to be submitted to state and federal regulators. Now, Sandia does a much more modest study, then just goes ahead and cleans a site. It's a technique being adopted at a number of other Department of Energy sites because of its ability to make efficient use of money, said department spokeswoman Tracy Loughead. Once the cleanup is done, an application is submitted to state regulators asking the site to be certified clean. There's a risk the state will say it's not clean enough and won't approve it, Cox said, but that's outweighed by the cost savings. That's how Sandia has cut the estimated cleanup costs from $500 million to $271 million, Cox said. The chemical waste landfill should be done over the next 18 months, and by the end of 2001, Sandia hopes to have the last of its contaminated sites cleaned up. "We're not planning on stretching this out and making careers out of this," Miller said. - -------------------------- 4. No 'Enlibra' with nuclear storage http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,30009979,00.html? Deseret News editorial, February 07, 1999 Critics of Gov. Mike Leavitt are right, the spirit of "Enlibra," or compromise, does have a place in political negotiations outside the wilderness debate but not when he's defending the state's western front. It is no secret that Leavitt has vehemently opposed a proposal to store high-level nuclear waste on Goshute tribal lands in Tooele County. He solidified his position as a frenetic foe during his recent state-of-the-state address, a laudable stance all Utahns should support. Leavitt said he would not allow any vehicles carrying nuclear waste across any rail crossings where state permission is required, and he supports pending state legislation that would eliminate liability protections for anyone shipping such materials. In addition, he is teaming with Rep. Jim Hansen to trade federal lands around the reservation for state lands so the reservation can be turned into a land-locked "moat" inaccessible without the state's blessing. Not surprisingly, his tough talk did not sit well with proponents of the project. Tribal leaders and Private Fuel Storage, the entity seeking the repository, want to sit down with Leavitt in his spirit of Enlibra to resolve differences. But unlike the wilderness debate, with potential to find middle ground on some issues, the nuclear-storage issue is clear-cut: Either the stuff comes, or it doesn't. Its strength will not be diluted, nor will it be shipped only to, say, Vernal. The proposal is all or nothing. Leavitt and others fear that if they give an inch, opponents may take a mile. State concerns about public safety, transportation risks, environmental damage and a detrimental image as a dumping ground outweigh any real or perceived benefits. Yes, there could be some discussion about reasonable support for improving educational and economic opportunities for the Goshutes and other Native Americans within Utah. But no, storage of spent nuclear fuel rods should not be a bargaining chip in those talks. Leavitt is right to slam the door on this deal before the nuclear camel pokes its nose into the state's tent. _____________________________________________________________ * NucNews - to subscribe: prop1@prop1.org - http://prop1.org * Say "Please Subscribe NucNews" NucNews Archive: HTTP://WWW.ONELIST.COM/arcindex.cgi?listname=NucNews since January 13, 1999; for earlier editions - write prop1@prop1.org --------------------------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment, to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: _____________________________________________________________ - --=====================_56733921==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
3. Tackling a Mess                              
Sandia National Labs has taken a new approach to hazardous waste removal,
speeding cleanup and saving millions                    
http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech/1sci02-07.htm

4. No 'Enlibra' with nuclear storage 
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,30009979,00.html?

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

3. Tackling a Mess      

Sandia National Labs has taken a new approach to hazardous waste removal,
speeding cleanup and saving millions                                                    
http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech/1sci02-07.htm

By John Fleck Albuquerque Journal,  February 7, 1999

The smashed plastic bottles and little green trash can Sharissa Young's crew fished out of the dirt of an old Sandia National Laboratories landfill looked like little more than old household discards.

The moon suits the workers wear suggest otherwise.

Since last fall, the Sandia-funded team has been gingerly picking its way through 30-year-old hazardous waste, attempting to clean up the nuclear weapon research center's worst environmental problem.

In the process, they are working themselves out of a job, cleaning up Sandia's environmental messes years before originally planned and at a fraction of what the Department of Energy once thought it would cost.

Environmental cleanup efforts at Sandia date to the 1980s, when the Department of Energy realized radioactive and chemical wastes from decades of nuclear weapons research and manufacturing had become a major problem at weapons plants and laboratories throughout the United States.

By the early 1990s, it looked like a $500 million job that would stretch well into the next century.

But aggressive efforts to streamline the process and spend the money cleaning things up, rather than producing paperwork, has cut the project's cost nearly in half, said Warren Cox, chief of Sandia's cleanup program.

"We're actually digging a lot of dirt," Cox said.

The approach has won grudging support from one of Sandia's harshest critics, Albuquerque environmental activist Paul Robinson.

"I think it's been handled better than it was done in the past," Robinson said.

$271 million problem                            

Nowhere is the progress more apparent than at the chemical waste landfill, a fenced patch of desert on Kirtland Air Force Base five miles south of Albuquerque's southern edge.

Beneath the landfill, dangerous chromium has seeped deep into the desert soil, while traces of potentially cancer-causing solvents have drained into the ground water 500 feet beneath the arid site.

In comparison to other Department of Energy nuclear sites, or to other ground-water contamination problems in New Mexico, Sandia's problems might seem minor.

Large Department of Energy nuclear weapons factories like Savannah River Site in South Carolina and Hanford in eastern Washington state have far more serious problems with much higher price tags.

"It's not like a Hanford or a Savannah River," Robinson said of Sandia's problems.

"Sandia is really a minor site in the DOE world, for the simple reason that this is an R&D facility, not a production facility," said Hu Joy, chairman of the Sandia Citizens Advisory Board, a group of volunteers brought together by the DOE to provide community input into the cleanup process.

Minor or not, the chemical waste landfill and a host of other contaminated sites at the New Mexico nuclear weapons laboratory pose a $271 million problem for Sandia and the Department of Energy to clean up.

Sandia has had to clean up 50 contaminated sites, ranging from explosives ranges where lead and other debris were scattered around the ground to old landfills with leaking waste.

Of the landfills, two have already been cleaned up, and work on the other two is now under way.

But of all Sandia's environmental ills, the chemical waste landfill is the worst, because contamination reached the ground water.

"It's serious because of the risk it indicates to the aquifer on that side of the city," Robinson said.

Contaminated water

From 1962 to 1985, chemical wastes from Sandia research programs were sent to the landfill using what was, at the time, standard industrial practice, Sandia cleanup manager David Miller said.

Containers of hazardous waste were discarded, and until 1981, liquid waste was dumped in unlined trenches at the site.  The result was a mess.

In the late 1980s, traces of a cancer-linked solvent began showing up in ground water 500 feet deep in the ground. While the area is three miles from the nearest drinking water well, a Kirtland Air Force Base well, Sandia and the Department of Energy decided it would have to be cleaned up.

Test wells showed that none of the contaminated ground water had moved more than 100 yards from the site, said Miller, the Sandia official in charge of the site.

Sandia was also able to indirectly clean the ground water by using what amounted to a giant vacuum cleaner, sucking air through the contaminated earth beneath the site and removing the gaseous contaminants.

But because of fears that more chemicals could leak from the waste pits, Young's crew began digging up the waste last fall.

They start with a backhoe, which dumps its contents onto a screen table for sorting.

If any intact containers of waste are found in the rubble, they're set aside so they can be sent to an off-site hazardous waste dump.

Contaminated soil is set aside for chemical and heat treatment to clean most of the hazardous waste out of it.

The remaining soil will be dumped in a huge plastic-lined pit now being completed some 50 yards from the chemical waste landfill where it will be permanently entombed.

A different approach                            

The cleanup picture at Sandia today is very different than it was a decade ago.

In the late 1980s and early '90s, when Sandia and the Energy Department first began to seriously inventory the labs' waste sites and think about how to clean them up, it seemed like a mammoth task.

Hundreds of potentially contaminated sites were found spread across Sandia's sprawling territory on the east mesa and in the hills south of Albuquerque.

They ranged from old landfills to test sites where explosives and uranium had been scattered across the ground.

By 1993, the estimated price tag for cleaning it all up had climbed to $500 million, Cox recalled.

With environmental cleanup costs for larger, more complicated Energy Department nuclear sites spiraling out of control, it became clear that the only way to rein in costs and get the job done was to use a different approach.

Cox and his colleagues adopted a technique intended to cut through the regulatory bureaucracy and reduce the amount of money spent without ever cleaning up sites.

Under the old approach, huge amounts of money were spent studying a site before cleanup ever began, in order to develop a detailed cleanup plan to be submitted to state and federal regulators.

Now, Sandia does a much more modest study, then just goes ahead and cleans a site. It's a technique being adopted at a number of other Department of Energy sites because of its ability to make efficient use of money, said department spokeswoman Tracy Loughead.

Once the cleanup is done, an application is submitted to state regulators asking the site to be certified clean. There's a risk the state will say it's not clean enough and won't approve it, Cox said, but that's outweighed by the cost savings.

That's how Sandia has cut the estimated cleanup costs from $500 million to $271 million, Cox said.

The chemical waste landfill should be done over the next 18 months, and by the end of 2001, Sandia hopes to have the last of its contaminated sites cleaned up.

"We're not planning on stretching this out and making careers out of this," Miller said.

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

4. No 'Enlibra' with nuclear storage 

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,30009979,00.html?

 Deseret News editorial, February 07, 1999

 Critics of Gov. Mike Leavitt are right, the spirit  of "Enlibra," or compromise, does have a place in  political negotiations outside the wilderness debate   but not when he's defending the state's western  front.

It is no secret that Leavitt has vehemently  opposed a proposal to store high-level nuclear waste  on Goshute tribal lands in Tooele County. He  solidified his position as a frenetic foe during his  recent state-of-the-state address, a laudable stance  all Utahns should support.

Leavitt said he would not allow any vehicles  carrying nuclear waste across any rail crossings  where state permission is required, and he supports  pending state legislation that would eliminate  liability protections for anyone shipping such  materials. In addition, he is teaming with Rep. Jim  Hansen to trade federal lands around the  reservation for state lands so the reservation can be  turned into a land-locked "moat"  inaccessible  without the state's blessing.

Not surprisingly, his tough talk did not sit well  with proponents of the project. Tribal leaders and  Private Fuel Storage, the entity seeking the  repository, want to sit down with Leavitt in his spirit  of Enlibra to resolve differences. But unlike the  wilderness debate, with potential to find middle  ground on some issues, the nuclear-storage issue is  clear-cut: Either the stuff comes, or it doesn't. Its  strength will not be diluted, nor will it be shipped  only to, say, Vernal. The proposal is all or nothing.

Leavitt and others fear that if they give an inch,  opponents may take a mile. State concerns about  public safety, transportation risks, environmental  damage and a detrimental image as a dumping  ground outweigh any real or perceived benefits.

Yes, there could be some discussion about  reasonable support for improving educational and  economic opportunities for the Goshutes and other  Native Americans within Utah. But no, storage of  spent nuclear fuel rods should not be a bargaining  chip in those talks. Leavitt is right to slam the door  on this deal before the nuclear camel pokes its nose  into the state's tent.  
_____________________________________________________________

       * NucNews - to subscribe: prop1@prop1.org - http://prop1.org *
                         Say "Please Subscribe NucNews"
NucNews Archive: HTTP://WWW.ONELIST.COM/arcindex.cgi?listname=NucNews
           since January 13, 1999; for earlier editions - write prop1@prop1.org
                          - ---------------------------------------

   NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
  distributed without profit or payment, to those who have expressed a prior
       interest in receiving this information, for non-profit research and
             educational purposes only. For more information go to:
                <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml>
_____________________________________________________________ - --=====================_56733921==_.ALT-- - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 07:10:44 -0800 From: Shundahai Network Subject: (abolition-usa) Subcritical nuke test "Clarinet" to be exploded 2/9/99 Good Morning Friends, We have just received word that the Department of Energy plans to explode its sixth subcritical nuclear weapons test "Clarinet" at the Nevada Test Site on Tuesday, February 9, 1999. "Clarinet" is a Lawrence Livermore test. The DOE says it consists of 3 packages containing 145 grams of chemical explosives and 170 grams of plutonium. (We do not know if each package would contain this amount or if this is the total amount of explosives and plutonium involved. If any one has more information we would appreciate it. We are having a meeting today to figure out what our response can be. We will let you know what we plan. Thanks for being out there and doing the good work that you all do! Peace, Reinard ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< SHUNDAHAI NETWORK "Peace and Harmony with all Creation" out,out5007 Elmhurst St., Las Vegas, NV 89108-1304 Phone:(702)647-3095 (FAX)647-9385 Email: shundahai@shundahai.org 0000,0000,fefehttp://www.shundahai.org Shundahai Network is proud to be part of: Healing Global Wounds Alliance, a multi-cultural alliance to foster sustainable living and break the nuclear chain; and Abolition 2000: A Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 10:36:06 -0500 From: ASlater Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Fwd: PUHCA sign-on letter Please sign me on for my organization to the PUHCA letter. Many thanks for doing this. Regards, Alice Slater Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) 15 East 26th Street, Room 915 New York, NY 10010 tel: (212) 726-9161 fax: (212) 726-9160 email: aslater@gracelinks.org GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons. - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:51:37 -0800 From: "David Crockett Williams" Subject: (abolition-usa) PUHCA sign-on letter I support your efforts and would affix my name and organization of Global Emergency Alert Response to the letter David Crockett Williams http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000 ********************************************************* Global Emergency Alert Response: GEAR2000 David Crockett Williams 805-822-3309 20411 Steeple Court, Tehachapi CA 93561 USA ********************************************************* CAMPAIGN for a BETTER AMERICA with General Agency Services ********************************************************* UNITED NATION Global Peace Walk Oakland City Hall to UC Berkeley, February 26th* Annually: 22apr Taos, NM, ---> Santa Fe 26apr 1999: 16sep New York -> Washington DC 24oct Ceremony rededicating Washington Monument as a symbol of peace, UN DAY 24OCT99 2000: 15jan San Francisco --> New York 24oct 16sep Washington, DC ONE NATION, Aware of God as Love for All ! GLOBAL PEACE NOW !! Help Now !!! ********************************************************* http://www.egroups.com/list/global-peace-walk - -----Original Message----- From: smirnowb@ix.netcom.com To: rherried@roxy.sfo.com ; radwaste@rwma.com ; nuke-waste@igc.org ; nukenet@envirolink.org ; Magnu96196@aol.com ; info@noradiation.org ; abolition-usa@lists.xmission.com Date: Sunday, February 07, 1999 11:02 PM Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: PUHCA sign-on letter >------Begin forward message------------------------- > >Return-Path: >Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:56:00 -0500 >From: Charlie Higley >Organization: Public Citizen >To: rage@list.local.org (Rage) >Subject: PUHCA sign-on letter > >Colleagues: > >Below is a letter to the Senate advising senators to oppose stand-alone >PUHCA repeal. > >Please let me know if your organization can sign on. > >If you can sign on your organization by noon (eastern time) on Wednesday, >February 10, then your organization will appear on a letter that will be >hand-delivered on Wednesday to members of the Senate Banking Committee (as >you may have heard, last week's markup of S. 313 was delayed until Thursday, >Feb. 11). Although S. 313 is likely to get through the Banking Committee, >we hope to encourage more senators to request that PUHCA be dealt with only >in the context of comprehensive legislation. > >If you can't make the noon Wednesday deadline, please let me know if you can >sign on by close of business Wednesday, February 17, after which a letter >will be sent to the entire Senate in anticipation of a possible floor vote >on S. 313. > >So, please let me know if your organization can sign on by noon Wednesday, >Feb. 10, or by close of business Wednesday, Feb. 17. > >Thanks, > >-Charlie Higley- >Public Citizen > > >********************************* > >Oppose S. 313: Oppose PUHCA Repeal > >Dear Senator: > >On behalf of our millions of members nationwide, we urge you to oppose S. >313, which would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 >(PUHCA). > >Our members believe that PUHCA reform should only be dealt with in the >context of comprehensive legislation that addresses the changes taking place >within the electric power industry. Such legislation must include strong >consumer and environmental protections as well as policies that create a >level field for all competitors. > >PUHCA is the only federal law that protects consumers and the environment >from market power abuses that are specific to the utility sector. > >The repeal of PUHCA could increase the flow of cross-subsidies from a >holding company's regulated utilities to its unregulated subsidiaries. >Utility ratepayers will pay higher rates as they subsidize other businesses, >especially foreign ventures, without receiving any benefits. Utility holding >companies could compete unfairly with businesses that do not receive >guaranteed profits from captive customers. > >Repealing PUHCA may result in a larger wave of utility mergers than is >taking place today. Mergers reduce the number of potential competitors and >can increase the market power of surviving utilities, which could render >competition meaningless. > >With an unfair share of market power, large companies that own and operate >fossil fuel and nuclear power plants could have an interest in squeezing out >renewable energy, energy efficiency, and other clean, high-value energy >options. This could increase our dependence on fossil and nuclear fuels, >further damaging human health and the environment. > >Because of the above concerns, we urge you to oppose S. 313. PUHCA reform >should only be considered as a part of comprehensive restructuring >legislation that includes strong protections against market power, as well >as strong protections for consumers and the environment. > >Sincerely, > >Charlie Higley >Public Citizen > >Ralph Cavanagh >Natural Resources Defense Council > > >------End forward message--------------------------- > > > >- > To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" > with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. > For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send > "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. > - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:23:03 EST From: Squintyrb@aol.com Subject: (abolition-usa) thoughts/fears re: Santa Barbara meeting I serve on the board of a small grassroots peace organization, North Suburban Peace Initiative, near Chicago. We’re one of those few very local, very small shops that has survived the shrinkage of the peace movement. We’re not affiliated to a national organization but realize that our efforts are strengthened or weakened by what happens on a nationwide level. Thanks to being near Chicago, NSPI has the good fortune to work with Kevin Martin at Illinois Peace Action--and I was even involved somewhat with the Chicago meeting for abolition organizers and have seen part of the struggle to get a national abolition campaign up and running. As things heat up for your big upcoming weekend, I need to express my great fear that this upcoming meeting in Santa Barbara will end as the Chicago and New York meetings have. We, as a movement, desperately need an effective abolition campaign to emerge from this coming weekend. We can’t continue to build up the energy for organizational meetings like this and then lose that momentum while waiting for another meeting to be scheduled. Don’t get me wrong, clearly, those meetings were not at all wasted. The Chicago, New York and now Santa Barbara meetings all provide excellent venues for different players to meet each other and build connections that will be critical to the success of any campaign. But despite the strengthened connections, a level of frustration seems to have also been a result of at least the Chicago meeting due to the lack of decisions having been made. Decisions about structure, mission--not even a name has been adopted yet. On the one hand, this dilemna is the result of a beautiful characteristic of the peace movement--activists are acutely aware that the process is just as important as the end result. And in that concern about the process and the desire not to offend, tough decisions are put off. On the other hand--if we do not make the difficult decisions and create a unified voice for the abolition movement, we are missing a fantastic opportunity to generate a nationwide outcry against nuclear weapons. For those of you in larger organizations, maybe that is not a concern, you will still be able to generate your materials and create an uproar from your own constituents. Even little NSPI will create it’s own pocket of outrage but to do so would mean we are missing out on the opportunity to have our members in Chicago’s northern suburbs be energized by those in other parts of the country and vice versa. I’m assuming we all know how important a national campaign is--we all know how entrenched the nuclear weapons complex is--can we dismantle it if we’re working separately like we have been? Plus, by working together I believe we increase our chances of reaching many more than just our dedicated choir members. And considering the graying hairs in our organization, it is critical to reach beyond our current constituents! This is the opportunity to actually meet and pull together the 80% or so of the population that says they support nuclear abolition. Just the thought of the potential is an exciting proposition!! So what’s been holding a national campaign back? Many of you know the answer to this question much better than I do but I’m hoping that in Santa Barbara these obstacles can be overcome. I just hope that whatever egos and obstacles there are, whether they’re organizational or individual, they can be overcome to make the hard decisions and come together behind a unified structure and plan. I’m also hoping that a major point of discussion will be how to reach and energize those outside of our immediate constituencies. How can we capture not just the minds, but the hearts of those who know nuclear weapons need to go? This goes beyond the need for information. Due to excellent work already done on this issue, we already have the forceful arguments and research needed to run a campaign. Valuable information and resources already exist--and are likely to increase now that it appears Warren Buffet has put money towards a think-tank for General Butler. But unless there is some charisma and energy and spark injected into this campaign--it seems likely we may still get stuck. I don’t have the answer on how to do this -- but I do know it’ll require us to think outside our boxes. Inspirational examples are out there: Bob Geldof pulled together rock stars for famine relief; The landmines campaign had graphic images to grab us; Amnesty has a powerful logo; Promise Keepers had preachers and big rallies to energize the masses; Britain has Red Nose Day every other year to raise funds in outrageous ways for developing countries; the AIDS campaign has their red ribbons. We can achieve this. Maybe this letter is simply stating the obvious, but this note is my plea for those of you directly taking on this gargantuan task. In Peace, Debby Reelitz-Bell 50 Sheldon Lane Highland Park IL 60035 (847) 266-1525 squintyrb@aol.com - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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 #74 ********************************** - To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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.