How convenient.  It was just revealed that the dosimeters of over 3,000 workers at Fukushima Daiichi were deliberately shielded with lead in the first three weeks following the accident, so that they would not record excessive exposures to radiation.  Nothing like making absolutely certain that the facts don’t get in the way of your PR line!

________________________________________________________________________

Though the situation at Fukushima remains largely unchanged and unresolved, nuclear power brokers are  trying desperately to regain their footing in the small but economically powerful nation of Japan.  

This one is for all the marbles.

If the Japanese people succeed in securing a nuclear-free future for themselves, how long will it be before other populations demand the same from their governments?  Germany has already handed in its notice.  

This could spell disaster for an industry which is built on the fragile economic illusion that nuclear power is both essential and inexpensive.  Both of these illusions will be laid bare by a complete withdrawal of Japan from the nuclear club.

It’s no wonder the industry is pulling out all the stops in its PR effort to make folks believe there is no there there.

In a badly flawed feature article that was inversely reminiscent of the fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” The Wall Street Journal attempted to convince its investor readership that radiation is essentially harmless and there would be no need to evacuate populations in the event of future Fukushima-style accidents.

If you believe that one, could I interest you in a nice bridge property?

But did the Fukushima disaster truly represent the worst case scenario; or did it rather represent almost the best case scenario, in light of the number of reactors in northern Japan that came perilously close to disaster themselves on that same day?

While the  debate over the future of nuclear roils Japanese society, take a few minutes to reflect on what might have happened to that country, had the worst case scenario played out.  

In the newest video release from Fairewinds Associates, Arnie Gundersen explains how other reactor sites were in peril from the same tsunami waves and fatal design flaws that brought Fukushima to its knees that day; and he explains why a higher level of alert status (“Level 8”) with associated protocols  should be created to apply to accidents at sites where multiple reactors operate in close proximity.

I was disappointed to read that the Governor’s reelection campaign has nixed any and all debates apart from those hosted by media outlets.

Most specifically, I am disappointed that there will be no debate hosted by Toxics Action Center, the VNRC and the rest of the environmental community, who came together in November 2009 to launch the Democratic gubernatorial debates with an extremely friendly forum at their annual “Environmental Action”event in Randolph.

Governor Shumlin should remember that forum well.  He rocked the room with fiery promises, and received thunderous applause for most of his comments.  

Set aside for a moment the fact that this particularly warm reception was bolstered by his campaign posse, who were liberally peppered throughout the audience and conspicuously exited at the end of the debate without staying for any of the closing remarks from the groups who sponsored the forum.  This was the signature event that opened his stellar primary run.

Many of the same people who attended that first forum were present a year later, in November 2010, at the same annual event to hear the new Governor-elect address his environmental supporters in a recorded speech, reiterating his commitment to their shared values.  Despite what had turned out to be a bitterly fought primary race and close election, or perhaps because of it, the Governor’s response from this core constituency could not have been warmer.

Governor Shumlin might be feeling a little uncertain about his reception this time by the environmental community; especially so, in light of his stream-bed reclamation decisions, post-Irene.  This would be his opportunity to square himself with a key-constituency by recognizing their importance to his authority, and by making himself available for questioning.  The environmental community is, for the most part, a sympathetic audience, which stands ready to give a fair hearing to his rationale.  

He can’t possibly think himself more vulnerable than Randy Brock on environmental issues!

The AARP represents another front on which he might seize the opportunity of a debate to take control of the message.  He certainly has the healthcare chops to win a more focussed hearing from the AARP crowd for his rationale in opposing the CVPS payback that AARP (and Randy Brock) supported.  But I can well-understand that this is not necessarily a venue that is to his distinct advantage.

The environmental lobby is very definitely a venue where he needs to do some serious fence mending, and where there is no risk of being bested by Brock.  

It’s a snub that could well come back to bite him sometime in the future.

Color me unimpressed.

News that President Obama has authorized limited drilling by Shell off the Alaskan coast was just the latest in a series of energy decisions made by the President that betray his environmental credibility.

Although the Republicans have attempted to make a lot of hay with the Solyndra failure, relatively little initiative toward a clean energy future has been forthcoming under Obama.  He continues to favor nuclear and the oxymoronic “clean coal,”  still prioritizing expansion of domestic supply over any real progress in the country’s commitment to energy efficiency.

I will not dispute the fact that he has temporarily halted the Keystone XL pipeline, and, through the EPA, advanced the timeline for more fuel-efficient automobiles; but let’s not kid ourselves, there is every reason to believe that he will ultimately cave on Keystone as he has on Arctic drilling; and we know that even with the EPA’s new timeline, the U.S. is way behind the fuel efficiency curve and not trying all that hard to catch-up.

We can see where this drilling off the coast of Alaska is headed.  It may begin as a “cautious” trial but is almost guaranteed to expand to deep-water drilling before you know it.

Instead of making a stronger argument for reducing consumption; an argument that, even economically, makes the best long-term sense; President Obama has moved further to the right on this issue.  

By embracing the Republican meme that we cannot do more with less oil, he has given them the upper hand on all things energy; because whatever drilling he authorizes, whatever regulations he relaxes and whatever dirty industry he enables, it will never be enough to satisfy the right-wing demand for total deregulation.

I think that this is a strategic mistake not just from an environmental standpoint, but also from a political one.  

I seem to recall a successful candidate for Hope and Change who wasn’t afraid to be a one-term president.

By drawing a sharp contrast between his social positions and those of his Republican opponents, the President has solidified and expanded his appeal, even in the face of discouraging economic times.

I believe that he stands a better chance of winning over the undecideds by not caving to the right on environmental regulation.  

By making the case for bolder rules and clean energy initiatives, drawing a deep and vivid distinction between the economic future that responsible environmental decisions will provide for our children and the toxic spiral of catastrophe that would result from deregulation under a Republican administration, the President can demonstrate his charismatic leadership and make good on his promise of real change.

I Hope it isn’t too late for that Change!

Well, if you aren’t completely sick of Republican drama, may I direct your attention to yet another cat fight amidst the Franklin County GOP?

This time, it’s senate candidate Norm McAllister accusing fellow GOP candidate Joe Sinagra of “dirty tricks.”  

Only the trick wasn’t all that dirty and primarily succeeded in demonstrating how clueless candidate McAllister is about all things internet.

According to Michelle Monroe’s story in the Messenger,  upon discovering that Mr. McAllister had not taken the precaution of securing the domain name “normmcallister.com” before listing this on his campaign literature, Mr. Sinagra took the initiative of purchasing that domain name himself on August 2, for the whopping sum of $13.

Now, if you enter http://www.normmcallister.com in your browser, you are smoothly transported to Mr. Sinagra’s  own campaign page.

It’s a neat trick; not all that dirty; and hardly the first time it’s been tried.  Think of it as a cautionary tale for neophyte candidates, warning them to get their .com house in order well in advance of declaring themselves.

As Mr. Sinagra  reasonably points out, if he really wanted to fight dirty, he could have linked the address to an attack ad or even to a porn site.

Given that Mr. Sinagra has himself been the target of some rather more damaging attacks on his reputation (as detailed in my diary last week) and on his campaign materials (to the tune of $1,000. in losses); one might even argue that he has shown remarkable restraint.

Be that as it may, Mr. Sinagra’s opponents have succeeded in having the last word, as today’s Messenger not only carried the story of Mr. Sinagra’s website switch-up, but also a total of five letters, penned by local Republican luminaries,  supporting the other two candidates (McAllister and Degree), in tandem.

Several expressed outrage at Mr. Sinagra’s clever ruse.  No such letters appeared on Mr. Sinagra’s behalf when the story about his own targeting was told.  One might almost suspect about the Franklin County GOP, that “the fix is in.”

Another edition of the Messenger will not be in hand until after most of the county that intends to vote in the Republican primary has already done so.  

Don’t we on the left just love it when we get to stand back and watch the GOP snap and snarl at its own ankles?

It comes as little surprise that the rollback effected early in the Shumlin administration, of ATV access to public lands as was granted in the closing days of the Douglas administration, is now, once again, open to negotiation.  

In fact, I would have been very surprised had the current administration not responded to heavy lobbying from VASA’s (Vermont All Terrain Vehicle Sportsman’s Assoc. Inc.) active membership.  When it comes to land-use regulation, the governor has been nothing if not consistent in repeatedly disappointing the environmental community.  If it weren’t for his stand on Vermont Yankee, he would have little to recommend him to that constituency.

At first blush, it would seem to be only a modest adjustment of the rules, allowing exceptions to prohibitions against ATV use on protected public lands at the discretion of the Fish & Wildlife Commissioner.  One well might assume that the Commissioner would  exercise the utmost caution on behalf of…fish and wildlife, and so be unlikely to grant any dispensation from the rules.

After all, ANR Secretary Deb Markowitz has already granted one exception since the Douglas rule was revoked, permitting a 500-yd. “connector” near Island Pond; and we are assured by the current Fish & Wildlife Commissioner, Patrick Berry that

“It’s a very high bar” that an ATV proposal would have to clear in order to be permitted,

He says that the rule change would “codify” policies and make them more enforceable. This is certainly a compelling argument.  It has long been a sore point for the entire Agency of Natural Resources that so little seemed to be done to enforce its rules or apply penalties when they are broken.

But it is one particular aspect of the proposed rule change that concerns me most.  The current language apparently does not allow for any public input to the Commissioner’s decision-making process with regard to additional exceptions that might be considered down the road.

As drafted, the rule does not require any public notice or comment before such a decision is made.

“I have talked to officials at the Agency of Natural Resources and it seems there is a disconnect between their intention and the actual language in the proposed rule,” said Anthony Iarrapino, an attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation.

Though we are assured that the administration will not use the proposed rule change in order to permit two additional trail connections (one on the Les Newell Wildlife Management Area in Stockbridge and one at Buck Lake Conservation Camp in Woodbury) which are currently being sought by VASA, there would be little to prevent any “exception” from being adopted arbitrarily, without the benefit of public debate.

Both the Conservation Law Foundation and the Vermont Natural Resource Council are keeping a close eye on developments around the proposed rule change, and it behooves us to do the same.

Somebody isn’t playing nice in Franklin County’s Republican race for Senate nominations.  

Two seats are up for grabs, and there are three Republican contenders: Norm McAllister, Dustin Degree and Joe Sinagra.  The two winners will face-off against Democrats Don Collins and Carolyn Bright in the general election.

Saturday afternoon, I discovered a folded paper under my windshield wiper. The car was in the driveway of my house, way up away from the street.  I didn’t see any other cars similarly leafletted, and the page appeared to be printed directly from a computer rather than photocopied.  So presumably, this was intended especially for me… and perhaps a few other selected recipients(?)

The page was headlined “Franklin County Values?”  with a subheading, “Sinagra Linked to Ballot Petition Forgery…Fired by Steve Forbes Campaign in 2000.”  This was followed by two quotes from news articles, contemporary to the 2000 presidential primary race,  including links to those articles.  One simply states that Mr. Sinagra was working on the Steve Forbes campaign at the time.  The other is about then-Secretary of State Deb Markowitz(D)  questioning some of the signatures on the Forbes petitions.  No mention was made of Mr. Sinagra.

Out of curiosity, I followed those links to find that there was absolutely nothing beyond what was quoted.   I’m not inclined to do dirty work for anonymous tipsters, especially not at the behest of GOP anonymous tipsters.

Since the bumper of my car is heavily stickered with liberal and progressive banners, only a fool would be attempting to sway my personal vote in the Republican primary.  

No; it must be assumed that whoever leafleted my car expected me to raise a stink in writing about Mr. Sinagra’s past.   Somehow, this would presumably disqualify him for a weird subset of voters who both listen to what I say and are inclined to vote in Republican primaries!

I know, I know…that sounds pretty screwy; but what other conclusion are we to draw from this set of circumstances?  The message certainly wasn’t left there by some Democrat, any of whom might just pick up the phone and call me; and any of whom would have absolutely no interest in knocking a Republican out of the primary race.

I don’t know all that much about Mr. Sinagra, other than that he has been a lobbyist for the housing industry; but if I were him, I’d be checking my back for knife-wounds.

Politics in Franklin County can be ugly, but it sounds like the FCGOP has a particular problem on its hands.

It looks as if Entergy’s undoing may come as a result of a Michigan holding rather than the redoubtable Vermont Yankee.

Palisades Nuclear Power Plant in Michigan, under Entergy’s stewardship, had already achieved the dubious distinction of being named one of the four worst-performing nuclear plants by the NRC.  After limboing that particularly low-bar in the wake of pesky leaks and employee criticism of the safety culture at the plant, new questions concerning the fitness of the Palisades operation have been raised by the revelation that, during a recent visit to Palisades by then NRC Chairman Gregory Jackzo, he was kept in the dark about an ongoing leak issue

The integrity of the Palisades facility was questioned at the time it was under consideration by the NRC for license renewal. Despite protests of concern for the deteriorated condition of the reactor, the NRC (which has never refused to renew a license) granted the 20 year extension in 2007.  

Since then embrittlement has resulted in persistent leaks, one of which was apparently flooding the control room at the end of May, even as Chairman Jackzo was  visiting the facility.

While Jaczko was touring the plant on May 31st, according to the sources, a significant leak of potentially radioactive water was pouring into the control room. Less than two weeks later, the plant was shut down to repair the leak. Yet Jaczko was never made aware of the issue while inspecting the plant.

Then-chairman Jackzo asked for an investigation of why the leak situation had been kept from him but was thwarted by (Republican appointed) Commissioner William Ostendorff, who is now under investigation himself for possible misconduct.

Commissioner William Ostendorff, however, wanted no such investigation to take place. Shortly after Jaczko ordered it, Ostendorff shouted at the top agency investigator, Cheryl McCrary, in front of several NRC employees. He told her that the inquiry should be halted and that it was a “waste of agency resources,”

Soon after, Jackzo stepped down as chair amid a firestorm of political hostility within the Commission; which revealed just how crippled it has become with regard to its mission to regulate safe operation of nuclear facilities.

A witness to the encounter reported it to the Office of the Inspector General, which launched a probe into Ostendorff’s action. McCrary did not halt her own inquiry, the sources said, despite the pressure from Ostendorff.

Now, both the NRC and Entergy are under the gun for hushing news of the leak; and it’s every man for himself.  

When Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R) of Michigan, a champion in Congress of Entergy’s Palisades operation, asked Mr. Ostendorff for reassurance that safe operation of the plant could be relied upon, he received only tepid return:

“So is it your understanding and belief that Entergy and the owners, the operators of this facility, that they are taking all the right actions at this point?” Upton asked.

“I think the final determination of that, Congressman, remains to be seen,” Ostendorff said.

Congratulations are in order for Democrats, Jim Condos (Sec. of State), Doug Hoffer (for Auditor) and Cassandra Gekas (for Lt. Gov.) who have all been endorsed by the Vermont Progressive Party in their bids for elected office.  

They join Martha Abbott (for Governor), Don Schramm (for Treasurer), and Ed Stanak (for Att. General)…and of course, Bernie Sanders, on the Progressive’s roster of endorsements.

It is a measure of the respect and credibility earned by JIm Condos as Secretary of State, that he is the only currently serving statewide elected official in Vermont who has won the Progressives’ endorsement this year.

Thanks to Nanuq for bringing to my attention the plight of Zizeeria maha butterflies in Japan.  These delicate creatures have the distinction of being the first animal population documented as suffering not just immediate affects from Fukushima radiation, but also proving that genetic mutations having resulted.

By comparing mutations found on the butterflies collected from the different sites, the team found that areas with greater amounts of radiation in the environment were home to butterflies with much smaller wings and irregularly developed eyes.

Apparently, the discovery came as something of a surprise to scientists.  According to Joji Otaki of the University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, who performed the genetic studies,

“It has been (previously) believed that insects are very resistant to radiation,”

Investigative procedures involved collection of live specimens from various sites throughout Japan; comparisons recorded of those specimens; and then subsequent generations being bred in controlled environments over a thousand miles form the site of the Fukushima disaster.  Those subsequent generations were examined for abnormalities, and the changes recorded.

Mr. Otaki and his team observed a worsening of mutations, including new anomalies not observed in the first generation, in later generations of the butterflies bred under lab conditions

A second collection of specimens from the wild was made six months after the first. Those too were examined and abnormalities documented.

It was found that those that remained to feed and breed in the radiation-laced wild fared even worse than their lab raised brethren; averaging double the anomalies of the controlled specimens.

Mr. Otaki’s team concluded that distributions of radiation over feeding ranges meant that the butterflies in the wild kept increasing their exposure with every meal, and the genetic impact grew as a result.

No doubt this is just the tip of the ecological iceberg from Fukushima; but don’t be surprised if you don’t hear a lot about it.  The nuclear fraternity is very good at closing ranks around damaging data and performing exorcisms to banish bad tidings from the news cycle.  Don’t forget that amazing PBS’s “Nature” whitewash, “Radioactive Wolves of Chernobyl!”

It’s too little and too late to prevent Vermont Yankee from continuing to operate past it’s designed-for lifetime, but it seems that the NRC is finally being forced to reconsider its position on nuclear waste:

The U.S. government said it will stop issuing permits for new nuclear power plants and license extensions for existing facilities until it resolves issues around storing radioactive waste.

One has to wonder whether this decision will have any impact on the ongoing Public Service Board review of Yankee’s extended license, but it seems unlikely that the NRC will budge on it’s own position:

“Our view is that the licenses that have been completed are done,” said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the NRC. “They are finalized. This court decision affects only the pending applications.”

But this I found particularly intriguing: voices representing the 23 organizations that collectively mounted the challenge against previous nuclear waste storage standards seem to agree that the possibility that the NRC will be forced to finally resolve the waste issue, is a game-changing conundrum.

David Lochbaum of the Nuclear Safety Project of the Union of Concerned Scientists observes that

The NRC almost has to decide that on-site spent fuel pool storage is acceptable, but what on Earth would be done if the NRC determined it was unacceptable?”

Speaking to Energy Matters, Peter Bradford of the Vermont Law School ventured that, should existing NRC storage standards be overturned, there might in fact be grounds for the state to demand VY’s license renewal be reconsidered:

it would not be a frivolous challenge. The industry will argue that until the court decision, the NRC’s Waste Confidence framework was valid. And, therefore, the actions that it took using the Waste Confidence policy were sufficient…On the other hand, people take the view that it is a simplistic defense and an updated form of the Waste Confidence Rule is not valid and, therefor, every action they took under that umbrella is vitiated. I don’t know how the courts are going to sort that one out.”

This gives Entergy something to worry about other than those pesky tritium leaks that continue to crop up here and there throughout their operations, despite assurances back in 2010 that tritium leaks were a thing of the past

I don’t know about you, but when Entergy has to worry, I sleep better at night.