‘Ol reliable herself, Vermont Yankee is showing her vulnerabilities again.
We have just learned that the
NRC says VY is on closed cycle thru cooling towers due to low river levels and high water temps in river.
Remember that nasty old condenser?
Now that the NRC has, for all intents and purposes, turned its scrutiny away from VY until 2032, we have yet another reminder that unanticipated environmental challenges to nuclear cooling systems can occur, even in a “land-locked” state like Vermont.
Just a quick reminder that our annual Hamburg Summit, in conjunction with Philip Baruth of Vermont Daily Briefing is coming up next Saturday, July 21, from 1:00 – 5:00PM, at North Beach in Burlington.
We provide the grilled food and trimmings. Everyone is encouraged to bring a little something else to contribute to the festivities: chips, dips, salads, dessert; what-have-you. ‘Doesn’t have to be much.
BYOB so you’ll be sure you have enough refreshment. It may be a hot day, if this is any weekend by which to judge!
Besides Chittenden senatorial candidate Baruth, there should be a number of our other favorite Democratic candidates stopping by to sample the cuisine and press some flesh.
Our own luminary, ex-GMD publisher and current Montpelier City Clerk, John Odum has promised an early appearance. This is your chance to see if he is still the same down-and-dirty blog-jockey you grew to know and love on GMD.
As always, we promise you will return home with bellies full and hoarse from stimulating conversation.
See you there!
With a thicket of candidates competing to represent Chittenden County in the Vermont Senate, David Zuckerman has, early on, secured what is perhaps the premier endorsement of the environmental community in the state, that of Bill McKibben:
Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org and resident scholar at Middlebury College lent his name to Zuckerman’s campaign saying, “I have known David Zuckerman for a number of years and he is one of the most promising environmental political figures I know. He will be a real asset in the Vermont Senate.”
As co-owner (with his wife, Rachel Nevitt) of NOFA certified organic “Full Moon Farm,” Zuckerman has been close to the environmental issues that impact farming and the safety of our food supply.
Zuckerman’s practical experience has been complimented by an academic background in Environmental Science, and he is known as a strong advocate for responsible ag policies like GMO labelling.
An occasional and valued commenter on Green Mountain Daily, as is Bill McKibben, Zuckerman is running in the Democratic primary. He has served fourteen years in the House as a Progressive, representing Chittenden 3-4.
Talk about the perfect convergence of storylines; On the one hand, you have a new report from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident independent Study Commission suggesting that the cascade of accidents at Fukushima was largely the product of a culture of lax regulation and conflicts of interest in Japan; and on the other hand, we have the American Nuclear Society awarding honors to its two most faithful accolades and apologists.
The latter demonstrates all too well how an enabling culture also exists in the U.S. compromising regulatory effectiveness and critical thought.
In the past year and five months, U.S. nuclear proponents have been working the ant-farm overtime in order to generate a constant field of spin through which, it is assumed, the American public will fail to recognize the obvious: that Fukushima was an unprecedented environmental disaster that continues to menace Japan and the world; and that, as bad as it was, had prevailing wind conditions been different, it might have been many times worse.
The culture to be rightly indicted in this instance, is not that of Japan but rather the worldwide nuclear culture which binds industry and government regulators in an unwholesome union of purpose to suppress any line of public discussion that does not have the promotion of nuclear energy as its ultimate goal.
In their new video,Fairewinds Associates, would like you to reconsider the argument that Fukushima’s errors were Japan-centrique and have no place in the U.S. conversation about nuclear energy. Watch:
Nuclear Oversight Lacking Worldwide from Fairewinds Energy Education on Vimeo.
As faithful foot-soldiers for the industry, Meredith Angwyn and Howard Shaffer have been the very models of orchestrated damage control.
That is why Ms. Angwyn and Mr. Shaffer are being honored by the American Nuclear Society, which in its mission statement clearly explains its advocacy role:
Vision: ANS will be the recognized credible advocate for advancing and promoting nuclear science and technology.
That’s oddly in contradiction of the self-view ANS sets forward on page 31 of its own selective report on Fukushima:
ANS is not intended to be-and is not viewed by the media as-a promotional organization seeking to preserve the reputation of its members. ANS is not a trade association or an advocacy group.
In that document, ANS goes on to examine their role in responding to Fukushima, mapping out a strategy for future containment of “risk communication,” including Congressional lobbying and “embedding” of its proponents in newsroom situations.
They, too, attempt to dismiss the human component of Fukushima’s undoing to Japanese culture. It’s really quite a read!
It’s been a while since Fukushima last made front-page news, but that is only because there have been no positive developments in that arena; and the negatives continue to plague industry spin-doctors.
Fukushima remains a menacing cypher, even though there have been press reports that there will be an attempt to remove spent fuel rods from Unit 4 before the end of the year.
With multiple reactors in various states of cooldown and collapse, the focus has blurred somewhat. News of collateral radiation impacts is constantly being “managed” by the industry and NRC, who are determined not to sour Americans on nuclear.
Fukushima has just become too big and complex a mess for the relatively short attention span of American media. Most people over here are okay with that. They’ve heard enough and simply choose to believe the least disturbing prognosis; the one with the least potential to impact their own lives.
But that is no reflection of the true exigency of unfolding events around Fukushima; and the people of Japan remain vigilantly engaged over the future of nuclear energy use in the island nation.
The urgency of the situation at Unit 4 (see Fairewinds video below) is due in part to the degraded structure of the building which has resulted in loss of containment; and to the fact that #4 holds the largest quantity and the “hotest” (most recently used) spent fuel.
Add to that the location of the spent fuel, which is above the reactor, where it is most vulnerable, and the complicating factor that Tepco has never been able to resolve the problem of maintaining the level of cooling water in the pool; and you have what amounts to a ticking time-bomb. A single seismic event could potentially result in a fuel fire that would jettison highly radioactive material all over much of Japan and beyond.
Fukushima Daiichi: The Truth and the Future from Fairewinds Energy Education on Vimeo.
In Fairewinds newest video, “Fukushima Daiichi: The Truth and the Future,” Maggie & Arnie Gundersen explain that all of the above-ground testing from the 1940’s to the 1970’s didn’t release as much radioactive cesium into the atmosphere as will be released should the spent fuel in Unit 4 catch fire and explode nuclear material into the atmosphere. If this should happen, depending upon the prevailing winds, the city of Tokyo might have to be evacuated.
The concentration of population and limited escape routes make such an evacuation almost unthinkable. Beyond Tokyo, all of Japan and even the rest of the world would experience significant radioactive distributions that would most certainly represent a high risk to all living things.
Fairewinds has been invited to show this video at the Tokyo Peace Film Festival on June 30, 2012. It urges the Japanese people not to buckle to industry urging to restart Japan’s nuclear program.
Pointing out that the cost of the Fukushima accident to the people of Japan will run to half-a-trillion dollars, Fairewinds’ Arne Gundersen says that nuclear no more represents an affordable energy future for the country than it does an environmentally safe one. Instead, Japan could use this opportunity to begin down the path to becoming a world leader in the technology of smaller clean energy distribution systems located all over the country.
Gundersen says it is time to abandon the twentieth century mindset that could only see a single way to deal with the country’s energy needs, by concentrating all energy distribution from a few huge nuclear facilities located on the vulnerable perimeters of the islands. It was the very scale of the Fukushima operation, with multiple reactors on a single site, that compounded the crisis for that region of Japan.
Caroline Bright is one of two Democratic candidates for the Vermont Senate from Franklin County. The recent St. Mike’s graduate has dreamt of serving in the Legislature since she was a girl. Now, with former Democratic senator Don Collins and three Repubs, she finds herself in the thick of a hotly contested race for the two available seats.
I thought I’d take the opportunity to get to know this poised and goal-oriented young woman, as she is likely to figure significantly in the political future of Franklin County. So I asked her to sit down with me over a cup of coffee at Cosmic Bakery in St. Albans.
I had read her bio and general Democratic profile on the campaign website, but I wanted to know more about her views on topics that are important to the folks around here.
It was a pleasant surprise to find that Caroline has depth beyond her tender years, and the self-confidence that would enable her to make an impression in the statehouse on behalf of her constituents. She comes to the table well-grounded in the complex world of politics and public policy, having majored in Political Science and minored in those twin disciplines that underly most modern conflict, History and Religious Studies.
One of the driving motives that brought her into this campaign is the need she sees to balance the legislature with more female voices. Women’s perspective, she believes, is essential and decidedly different when it comes to many issues that tend to impact their lives more substantially than their male counterparts. The lack of equal representation is one flaw that she sees in our citizen legislature, which she otherwise praises for its accessibility and relevance.
Throughout the early weeks of the campaign, Caroline has repeatedly emphasized her particular interest in the future of diversified agriculture and educational opportunity, both of which she feels represent essential cornerstones in the ability of Franklin County to prosper. In addition, she sees expanded technology opportunities as vital to the creation and retention of quality jobs for Franklin County residents.
I ran a bunch of topics past her and here’s what she had to say:
Education; The young candidate feels uniquely positioned to speak to the challenges facing young people in obtaining the education necessary to make their way in life.
She believes that quality education, including access to institutions of higher learning (college, tech and trade schools) should be a priority for the state and for the country; but that we should be looking for efficiencies to improve delivery of education to the broadest possible population at a manageable cost.
She is very much in favor of advancing distance-learning opportunities for rural communities, so that gifted high-school students can have access to A.P. courses and other forms of enrichment learning that are not currently supportable on a local basis.
If we don’t have an educated population, and that includes skilled technical education, there is no economic future for the state or the country.
Caroline brings an interesting and valid perspective to this conversation, as someone who grew up in a rural community she finds herself supporting school choice, not for the nation as a whole, but for the unique challenges of this rural state.
She sees increased distance learning opportunities as a possible way to achieve some of the benefits of school choice without the drawbacks.
She says we have to find a way to bring down the cost of higher education for Vermonters.
Diversified agriculture: Caroline sees a lot of potential in diversified crops and animal farming. She mentioned particularly the opportunities in goat-farming, artisan cheeses, and forestry. She knows the value of a vibrant working landscape. Her grandfather was a county ag agent and she knows well the importance of maple and dairying as traditional Franklin County industries. It is important that we
Develop safely, sustainably and reasonably.
Vermont GMO labelling: She says that consumers have the right to know what is in the food they buy to feed their families.
On water issues: She believes that everyone has a role to play in protecting the lake from further degradation; that everyone in Franklin County is a “stakeholder;” and that every party must have a seat at the table in order to have a successful outcome. She knows the struggle farmers are facing to control phosphorus and is encouraged that more are becoming actively engaged in that effort.
On the loss of young people from the state: Caroline says that a decline in youthful populations is being experienced across the country, so Vermont is not unique in facing that challenge. She believes we need to continue to create new opportunites in technical industries and to attract quality jobs to the area.
However, she also sees opportunities and new markets in the shifting demographics. Northwestern Medical Center represents one of those local growth industries that has recognized and begun to reach the aging client base with services related to preventative care, education and outreach.
Again, she says the appropriate response to a changing market is to be nimble and diversify.
She feels that one of the key factors in attracting a young workforce is to demonstrate how valued their voices are by electing some younger representatives, like herself, to the State House.
About “Trickledown” economics: She observes that it may be an appealing idea but has been demonstrated to be lacking in effectiveness. She says that while she is not a tax expert, the beauty of serving in a citizen-based legislature is that it brings on board individuals with diverse skill sets and she looks forward to learning a great deal from her colleagues in the senate.
In her view, it is most important to keep an open mind and listen to different arguments; and she she sees that working more effectively in Vermont than on the national stage.
She believes that people choose to live in Vermont for a lot of reasons, not just economics. She is in favor of offering tax incentives when the state wishes to keep employers in Vermont, but does not like the “scare tactic” of suggesting that businesses will shut down operation in the state unless they are given unfair advantages.
One of the interesting things she said was that she has been thinking about the other senate candidates from Franklin County, as she has met and gotten acquainted with them. Because there are two open seats, she is thinking about each one and how she might work best in a team with each one so as to bring about the best representation for Franklin County. I am reasonably sure that she is the only candidate who has taken that perspective, but it couldn’t hurt any of them to do so.
We touched on a lot of other things, but my overarching impression is that Caroline will be a force to reckon with in Franklin County politics and beyond. One of the things that carried Peter Shumlin to the governor’s seat was his energetic, confident personality and ability to overlay an argument with compelling passion. Caroline is at the very start of her career, but I see signs of the same drive and nascent political confidence developing in her.
This may be her first rodeo, but it certainly won’t be her last.
Can I hear a Hoorah!?
We interrupt this program to crow briefly over the Supreme Court Decision on so-called “Obamacare;” and to point out that we should contain our enthusiasm, because it is still a long way from secure, and even further from perfect.
There are still many, many battles ahead on the federal and state level before we have truly universal healthcare. But it’s worth the struggle because
“Healthcare is a human right.”
What the hell… “HOO-rah!”
Kestrel, cue the Supremes.
I called it here on GMD, two years ago, when we first learned of the potential F-35 location in Vermont. I said that Burlington sounds like exactly the wrong place to locate such a facility.
Playing off of a VPR quote from Lt. Col. Chris Caputo that was intended to downplay the potential sound impact of the jets on the region but mentioned the possibility of “variables,” I had this observation:
…That got me to thinking about the “variables.” I’m no scientist, but it occurs to me that the topography, geology and other factors, which are specific to the region over which the F-35’s are to be deployed, might have a critical relationship to how the decibel level might play out in that region.
So I had a look at the general land features of Edwards Air Force Base which yielded the more benign test results favored by Caputo. That Air Force Base is located on the edge of a great salt desert; hardly similar to the land features surrounding Burlington. Then, too, neither Airforce base is in the civilian center of the busiest city of the state.
Now, it seems that the recommendation of Burlington as a “preferred alternative” location for the siting may at last be destined for greater scrutiny.
Roseanne Greco of the South Burlington City Council, herself a retired Air Force Col., says it is as plain as the nose on your face. She says it is obvious that “grave mistakes” were made somehow in the scoring process that identified the city as being environmentally suitable to host the jets. The environmental suitability of the location was apparently the one scoring factor that put South Burlington at the top of the Air Force’s list of potential sites.
Ms. Greco, who bravely persists at spitting in the wind, points out how obviously absurd that finding was. Pointing to the fact that local opposition to the the F-35 siting is running fairly high, she suggests that it may be time to examine the scoring process more closely.
All we’re asking is ‘show us the data.’
‘Sounds like a pretty reasonable request.
I don’t buy the political hay some are making over Cabot’s recent logo change. I say this as someone who is neither a fan of Agri-Mark’s waste disposal practices in the Cabot area; nor of Bill Sorrell, who seems to be unsubstantially criticized in this case.
Even Governor Shumlin threw a few elbows on behalf of the “wronged” cheesemaker; but suggesting that the Vermont brand needs Agri-Mark/Cabot has the whole formula ass-backwards, and conveys the impression that the governor cares more about big business than little ones.
Agri-Mark/Cabot is to be complimented for proactively changing its logo to more truthfully reflect the origins of its products. Perhaps recognizing that, inevitably, the growth of the brand will take it even further from its Vermont sourcing practices, the company did not wait to be told.
Because of its size and national reputation, many voices seem to be saying that Agri-Mark/Cabot should not be held to the same standard as Vermont Butter & Cheese and other award-winning regional brands. In fact, some are arguing that the 75% Vermont sourced milk standard should be reduced or eliminated entirely. This raises the obvious question of what would be acceptable as the benchmark for “Vermont” branded dairy products? Would 60% be a better number? Or 50%? Should Cabot butter, which contains not a dram of Vermont milk, proudly proclaim a mythical Vermont connection?
Sooner or later, given the trajectory of Cabot, even a lowered standard will become unsupportable as the enterprise grows far beyond the capability of its regional suppliers, perhaps sourcing milk from California or processing it in plants in Wisconsin. We hope for the best for our regional entrepreneurs; but at a certain point, they may no longer be legitimately said to produce strictly “Vermont” products.
I believe there is nothing to prevent Cabot from producing a “Vermont” branded cheddar, for instance; and certifiably sourcing the milk for that single product exclusively from Vermont.
So, why have a standard at all? We didn’t for the longest time. But it became apparent that our Vermont entrepreneurs were being competitively handicapped by unscrupulous companies that built their own successes on the Vermont brand while sourcing ingredients from cheaper and potentially lower-quality out-of-state producers. The result threatened a degradation of the valuable brand that our farmers and local entrepreneurs have so carefully nurtured with their own investment over the decades in personal toil for quality control.
It was those same farmers and entrepreneurs who asked their citizen legislature to protect the valuable Vermont brand that they have built. Surely, even those Vermont farmers who are associated with Agri-Mark/Cabot can appreciate this concern.
The name “Cabot” is, in itself, an ongoing reminder of the Vermont history behind the brand. That seems sufficient, given that (according to their own website) the controlling cooperative was created in Delaware, is headquartered in Massachusetts, and sources milk from all over New England. Let the Vermont brand continue to shine, symbolizing the small-scale, responsible husbandry and premium quality that distinguishes the state and it’s unique products.
Like many women from my generation, I have often wondered what happened to the imprint of radical feminism that was left on American political culture as ‘sixties activism evolved into pragmatic action in the ‘seventies .
In this election cycle, Republicans seem determined to roll back the clock on women’s rights, and it appears that the outrageous scope of their overreach may have reignited the timbers that have smoldered quietly for so many years.
The appearance of those gutsy “Nuns on the Bus” takes me back to some of the good Sisters of Charity at Immaculata high school in Chicago.
It was these ladies who first radicalized me in my teenage years. Not all of them, by any means; but a few key role-models carried views on social responsibility, pacifism, fairness, feminism…and even activism… that kept them on the cusp of contemporary relevance.
We were encouraged to think for ourselves and demand answers to tough questions. Post Vatican II, there seemed to be a renewed commitment throughout much of the American Church to charity, tolerance and enlightenment, rolling back hundreds and hundreds of years of intolerance and repression.
Like “radical” feminism, that age of enlightenment in the Church was all too brief; and at the death of John XXIII, conservative forces within the Church quickly whipped it into an about-face, from which it has been marching steadily backwards ever since.
Immaculata is long gone, now. Ironically, the limited success of feminism in popular culture was probably responsible for its demise. The idea that girls and boys had different, and therefore separate, educational needs in high school fell from favor; and the overall decline of the Catholic Church under strict conservative control sealed the deal.
The Vatican is understandably chaffing as the American sisterhood once again takes up the reigns of social justice. With its priesthood under fire for the most offensive possible systemic corruption, Vatican strategists can ill-afford to force a schism among the sisterhoods; but if this new sense of social mission and organized strength begins to expand in the sisterhoods, we could be looking at a dramatic shift in the political weight of the Church.
From where I sit, very much on the outside looking in; I say, “Bring it on, Baby!”