<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Theenergynet's Favorite Links on nuke.comments from Diigo</title>
    <link>http://www.diigo.com/user/Theenergynet/nuke.comments</link>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:17:15 -0000</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:17:15 -0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>The dangers of nuclear storage: Rutland Herald Online</title>
      <link>http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080703/OPINION02/807030311/1037/OPINION02</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;After a recent opinion piece, facts need to once again be clarified. To this date only a minor fraction of separated uranium has actually been recovered by reprocessing from spent nuclear fuel. And apparently, there are no expectations that this may change in the near future.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/energy' rel='tag'&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/fuel-cycle' rel='tag'&gt;fuel-cycle&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/n-waste' rel='tag'&gt;n-waste&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.comments' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:17:15 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>My Turn: Yankee: Accident waiting to happen | burlingtonfreepress.com | The Burlington Free Press</title>
      <link>http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080630/OPINION/806300303/1006</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY) is scheduled to close for good on the first day of spring 2012 after 40 years of troubled operation. However, in 2006, Entergy Corp., the Louisiana company that owns the plant, applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a 20-year license extension. Also in 2006, the Vermont Legislature passed Act 160, which says ENVY cannot operate after 2012 &amp;quot;unless the general assembly approves and determines that the operation will promote the general welfare.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclera' rel='tag'&gt;nuclera&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/energy' rel='tag'&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.comments' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/vermontyankee' rel='tag'&gt;vermontyankee&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.news' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.news&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:04:06 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>There's downsides to nuclear power: Times Argus Online</title>
      <link>http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080630/OPINION02/806300344/1022/OPINION02</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;The letter from Bill Day highlights the misunderstandings around post-Vermont Yankee electricity costs and the matter of France.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The price of electricity in Vermont is likely to rise significantly no matter what. The current contract with Vermont Yankee will end in 2012.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/energy' rel='tag'&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/vt' rel='tag'&gt;vt&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.comments' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.news' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.news&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:03:24 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The time has come for nuclear power with recycling | www.tennessean.com | The Tennessean</title>
      <link>http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080630/OPINION03/806300355/1008/OPINION01</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Energy experts largely agree that nuclear power is the most environmentally benign and cost-effective method available for generating large amounts of base-load electricity. Nuclear power can help alleviate global climate change due to greenhouse-gas emissions and also help reduce our dependence on imported oil.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/energy' rel='tag'&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.comments' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/pro-nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;pro-nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.news' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.news&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:02:08 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>My Turn: True face of the nuclear endeavor | burlingtonfreepress.com | The Burlington Free Press</title>
      <link>http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080628/OPINION/806280304/1006</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Vermont Yankee's affable radio jingle is nothing more than malignant propaganda, shrink-wrapped in jovial soliloquy and mellifluous melody. It seems the purveyors of nuclear monoliths seek to trick the public into appreciating actinides (that are responsible for long-term radiation in spent fuel) as they mutate and decay the fabric of life -- if not for thousands of years, billions of years.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/energy' rel='tag'&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.comments' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:23:29 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Vue Weekly : Edmonton's 100% Independent Weekly : Well, Well, Well - Health risks from radiation make nuclear power an unsafe option</title>
      <link>http://www.vueweekly.com/article.php?id=8828</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Although those in the industry have recently been pulling out all the stops to convince us otherwise, nuclear power makes little economic or environmental sense, and even less health sense. Can you tell I’ve been reading nuclear guru Dr Helen Caldicott?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/energy' rel='tag'&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/policy' rel='tag'&gt;policy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/safety' rel='tag'&gt;safety&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.news' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.news&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 05:44:08 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Whig Standard - Going nuclear is a bad bet</title>
      <link>http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1084498</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Premier Dalton McGuinty's plan to increase Ontario's dependency on nuclear power smacks of the actions of an inveterate gambler poised to roll the dice one last time for that elusive &amp;quot;big score.&amp;quot; Why else would he bet the farm on a technology that could bankrupt the entire country in the event of a single catastrophic accident?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The minimum bid to get into McGuinty's high-stakes game, $45 billion, could easily top a mind-boggling $135 billion given the nuclear industry's history of at least tripling initial cost projections.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/energy' rel='tag'&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/canada' rel='tag'&gt;canada&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.comments' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.news.int' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.news.int&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:31:51 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Times-News: How to make an easy few billion dollars</title>
      <link>http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2008/06/22/opinion/letters/139104_194.txt</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Last Tuesday night in Glenns Ferry, I didn't find out much I didn't already know about AEHI/IEC or its plans to build a 1,600-megawatt nuclear power plant near Hammett. But I learned a few things about how to make $3 billion-plus. For starters:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/energy' rel='tag'&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/develoment' rel='tag'&gt;develoment&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.comments' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:27:26 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Nuclear energy isn't the pure solution to our problems | www.tennessean.com | The Tennessean</title>
      <link>http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080620/OPINION03/806200396/1008/OPINION01</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks, Tennessean, for the good job covering the issue of nuclear waste, particularly the June 13 editorial and the article by Don Safer. I would like to point out, however, that the opposing views of Steve Creamer are full of untruths and distortions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/energy' rel='tag'&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.comments' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/anti-nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;anti-nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/n-waste' rel='tag'&gt;n-waste&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:57:06 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Niagara Falls Review - Nuclear plan carries risks</title>
      <link>http://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1079741</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Ontario's decision to build new nuclear reactors to maintain the province's generating capacity as it shuts coal-fired plants carries long-term risks and will have consumers digging deeper into their pocketbooks to cover inevitable cost overruns, a Niagara opposition MPP warns.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;It has inherent dangers. It has long-term risk in terms of disposing of spent fuel and also it's very, very expensive electricity,&amp;quot; says Welland NDP MPP Peter Kormos. &amp;quot;The cost overruns are huge, inevitably, and that means the consumer will be paying and paying and paying more and more and more.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/energy' rel='tag'&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.comments' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.news' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.news&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.news.int' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.news.int&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:26:50 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Critics of Nuclear Power's Costs Miss the Point</title>
      <link>http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1961.cfm</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Carbon-capping legislation and recent studies[1] that conclude that a massive build-up of nuclear power is needed to minimize the negative economic impact of CO2 &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/energy' rel='tag'&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/economics' rel='tag'&gt;economics&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/pro-nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;pro-nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.comments' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:53:00 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Niagara Falls Review - New nukes too risky, expensive: Kormos</title>
      <link>http://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1078866</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Ontario’s decision to build new nuclear reactors to maintain the province’s generating capacity as it turns away from coal-fired plants carries long-term risks and will have consumers digging deeper into their pocket books to cover inevitable cost overruns, a Niagara opposition MPP warns.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;“It has inherent dangers, it has long-term risk in terms of disposing of spent fuel and also it’s very, very expensive electricity,” says Welland NDP MPP Peter Kormos. “The cost overruns are huge, inevitably, and that means the consumer will be paying and paying and paying more and more and more.”&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/energy' rel='tag'&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/development' rel='tag'&gt;development&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.comments' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/safety' rel='tag'&gt;safety&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:49:32 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RIA Novosti - Opinion &amp; analysis - Gates' reference to Russia's nuclear capabilities alarming</title>
      <link>http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080617/110933648.html</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Kislyakov) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in his address to officers at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia that Russia was focused on strengthening its nuclear capabilities rather than building up its regular armed forces, which makes maintaining the U.S. nuclear arsenal increasingly important.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/n-weapons' rel='tag'&gt;n-weapons&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/proliferation' rel='tag'&gt;proliferation&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/us' rel='tag'&gt;us&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/russia' rel='tag'&gt;russia&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:35:18 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>6/16/2008 - David Freeman's Anti-Nuclear Policy Set TVA Back 20 Years - Opinion - Chattanoogan.com</title>
      <link>http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_129850.asp</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;It is beyond my belief that David Freeman had the nerve to come back to Chattanooga last week spouting his misguided comments about TVA’s nuclear power program. It was under his leadership, while chairman, that led TVA to abandon its nuclear construction of the many planned nuclear plants that were on the drawing board and some on the way to be a reality.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/energy' rel='tag'&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.comments' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/pro-nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;pro-nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.news' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.news&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:32:33 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Political Affairs Magazine - The Dangers of Yucca Mountain</title>
      <link>http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7015/1/339</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Plans to store the majority of our nation’s spent nuclear fuel and other highly radioactive waste at a central repository underneath Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert 80 miles from Las Vegas were first hatched in the mid-1980s. But the project has languished primarily due to opposition from Nevadans who don’t want to import such dangerous materials into their backyard. Critics of the plan also point out that various natural forces such as erosion and earthquakes could render the site unstable and thus unsuitable to store nuclear isotopes that can remain hazardous to humans for hundreds of thousands of years to come.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/energy' rel='tag'&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/fuel-cycle' rel='tag'&gt;fuel-cycle&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/n-waste' rel='tag'&gt;n-waste&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/yucca-mountain' rel='tag'&gt;yucca-mountain&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:25:28 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Not in my backyard anymore : ICT [2008/06/13]</title>
      <link>http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417537</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON - In an effort to get nuclear waste moved away from Minnesota's Prairie Island Indian Community, its tribal officials are supporting a national nuclear dumping spot in Nevada - despite strong objections from Natives living in the Silver State. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/energy' rel='tag'&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/fuel-cycle' rel='tag'&gt;fuel-cycle&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/n-waste' rel='tag'&gt;n-waste&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/indigenous' rel='tag'&gt;indigenous&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:00:36 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Dangerous waste plan must be stopped | www.tennessean.com | The Tennessean</title>
      <link>http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080613/OPINION01/806130392/1008</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;EnergySolutions has proposed bringing 20,000 tons (1 million cubic feet) of waste from decommissioned nuclear power plants in Italy to Oak Ridge, Tenn.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;These plants were shut down after the Chernobyl disaster in the 1980s. The U.S. government classifies this waste as &amp;quot;low level.&amp;quot; In Europe, it is called low- and intermediate-level waste. This distortion is consistent with the pattern in the U.S. to minimize perceived risk by bureaucratic fiat. As the waste makes its journey over our roads, rails or waterways, many Americans will have the possible misfortune of being in close proximity to the radioactive shipments.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/energy' rel='tag'&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/fuel-cycle' rel='tag'&gt;fuel-cycle&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/n-waste' rel='tag'&gt;n-waste&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/transport' rel='tag'&gt;transport&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:01:54 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Stephen Thomas: This nuclear agenda is losing power | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk</title>
      <link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/12/nuclearpower.nuclear?commentpage=1</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;John Hutton claims there will be no nuclear monopoly. Is this the first chink in the government's no-subsidies armour?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/debate' rel='tag'&gt;debate&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/uk' rel='tag'&gt;uk&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuke.comments' rel='tag'&gt;nuke.comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:44:06 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Uranium mining: It's not over yet | Reader Submissions | The Tribune</title>
      <link>http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/20080612/READERS/713143044/-1/TRIBEDIT</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;When House Bill 1161 -- the Land and Water Stewardship Act -- was signed into law by Gov. Bill Ritter on May 20, I was relieved for a short period of time.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This legislation places restrictions and qualifications on uranium mining companies that propose to mine groundwater via the in-situ leach (ISL) process. The body of ground that I am most concerned with is the Denver Basin Aquifer System, which supplies drinking water to 500,000 to 700,000 Coloradans.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/energy' rel='tag'&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/fuel-cycle' rel='tag'&gt;fuel-cycle&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/uranium' rel='tag'&gt;uranium&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/mining' rel='tag'&gt;mining&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:27:28 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Why Is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes? - WSJ.com</title>
      <link>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121305642257659301.html</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Here's a quick geopolitical quiz: What country is three times the size of Texas and has more than 300 days of blazing sun a year? What country has the world's largest oil reserves resting below miles upon miles of sand? And what country is being given nuclear power, not solar, by President George W. Bush, even when the mere assumption of nuclear possession in its region has been known to provoke pre-emptive air strikes, even wars?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/nuclear' rel='tag'&gt;nuclear&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/energy' rel='tag'&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/policy' rel='tag'&gt;policy&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/saudi-arabia' rel='tag'&gt;saudi-arabia&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet/us' rel='tag'&gt;us&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/theenergynet'&gt;theenergynet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:26:32 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <ttl>60</ttl>
  </channel>
</rss>