[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 145 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9549-H9552]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE HAZARDS OF NUCLEAR WASTE TRANSPORT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Pease]. Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I believe it was H.G. Wells who was once 
quoted as saying, ``Human history becomes more and more a race between 
education and catastrophe.'' Right now, Mr. Speaker, this Congress is 
in a race and we must not let catastrophe win.
  In examining both the education and catastrophe spectrum here, I 
would first like to do my part in educating the ladies and gentlemen of 
America, Mr. Speaker, on the facts concerning H.R. 1270, the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act of 1997. This legislation will mandate transportation 
of high-level radioactive nuclear waste by way of our national highways 
and railways.
  This deadly waste will traverse 43 States to a nuclear waste dump at 
Yucca Mountain, NV, that is right, through 43 States out of 50, 
traveling right alongside of you during your commute to work or on your 
weekend outing, or with your family over bridges that traverse your 
community's source of water, near schools where your sons and daughters 
are attending their education. On these routes will be nuclear, 
radioactive waste from 109 of our country's nuclear reactors.
  American citizens from Los Angeles to New York, from Atlanta to 
Denver, from Pittsburgh to Dallas, St. Louis to Tucson, Kansas City to 
Baton Rouge, Jacksonville to Chicago, and from here in Washington, DC, 
to Cleveland, are all in harm's way. That is exactly why it is 
important for us to educate Members on H.R. 1270.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GIBBONS. I am happy to yield to my colleague from district 1.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I would ask, is the gentleman aware that in 
the transport of this nuclear waste across the country, that the most 
highly dangerous substance ever produced by mankind is an environmental 
problem, is a health and safety problem? This high-level nuclear waste 
on these routes of transportation will be going near even elementary 
schools, day care centers, and the like across the country?
  Is the gentleman aware that we tried to offer and tried to get 
approved in order an amendment just to make nuclear waste not go within 
1 mile of schools, and that the leadership, the Republican leadership, 
did not allow this amendment to be in order? Is the gentleman aware of 
that?
  Mr. GIBBONS. I thank the gentleman from Nevada for reminding me of 
that fateful day when we proposed those amendments, and certainly were 
told that we could not offer those amendments; an amendment which 
would, in essence, protect children from transportation and the 
exposure to the transportation of nuclear waste by their schools. I am 
aware of that.
  Mr. Speaker, we would like to point out to everyone just exactly 
where the proposed railway and highway routes are going to be. Imagine, 
if you will, that 75 percent of all the nuclear waste in America is 
generated east of the Mississippi, and it is all coming right here to 
southern Nevada. Seventy-five percent of those 109 reactors are going 
to have to funnel their waste through what could be regular hub and 
spoke communities. For example, if we took St. Louis, MO, where I-70 
passes through St. Louis, MO, crosses over the Mississippi River, an 
accident in St. Louis, MO, could have catastrophic results.
  As we recall, earlier, I would remind the gentleman today that we 
heard earlier about a train accident in West Virginia, a terrible 
catastrophe. In fact, there were two train accidents in the last 
several days in West Virginia: a head-on, two trains colliding head on, 
and a train intersecting or a train intersection where it impacted a 
truck.
  Mr. ENSIGN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, 
from what I understand from hearing the gentleman from West Virginia 
this morning, or this afternoon, he talked about this train collision 
happening, and he even said, luckily, only by God's grace, was the 
explosive material on one of the trains taken off just before these 
trains collided.
  Mr. GIBBONS. If the gentleman will yield for point of correction, I 
think he said that that was a truck that was at an intersection that 
was loaded with explosives, or previously loaded with explosives, just 
hours before.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Yes. If the gentleman will yield further, let us take, 
for instance, if we had nuclear waste in these tri-cask cannisters, 
which are supposed to, based on the testing, if I am correct on this, 
they are supposed to be able to withstand temperatures of up to 1,500 
degrees.
  Mr. GIBBONS. One thousand five hundred, that is correct.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Explosive materials could lead to a fire. Diesel fuel, 
what does diesel fuel, if the gentleman would answer, being a geologist 
and a scientist, what does diesel fuel burn at?
  Mr. GIBBONS. Diesel fuel burns at 1,830 degrees, but in addition to 
that, if cooked long enough, the metal surrounding structures will burn 
in excess of 3,000 degrees, sometimes.
  So the problem we have here is twofold. We have natural hazards, 
diesel fuel from trains and trucks and the metal surrounding it, the 
incendiary position of the metal; as well as the explosives, if the 
accident had occurred with a trainload of nuclear fuel and this truck, 
loaded with explosives; or a terrorist act.

[[Page H9550]]

  Not too long ago in Arizona it was reported that a terrorist blew a 
bridge out in Arizona and a train derailed. The exposure of hazard to 
this material in transportation across America exposes a great risk. 
But it is a fact that these casks are dangerous.
  I would tell the Members, Mr. Speaker, just what is in one of these 
casks. That is the critical part. These concrete and steel casks 
contain 24 nuclear fuel rods, spent nuclear fuel rods. Each one of 
these casks contains 10 times the nuclear radioactive fallout as the 
bomb we dropped on Hiroshima in the Second World War. That is 10 times 
that in one cask, in one cask; and we have nearly 80,000 tons of this 
material being transported primarily from the East Coast over to the 
West.
  Mr. ENSIGN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, 
from what I am understanding, based on the scenario that the gentleman 
has painted, based on this hot metal burning and causing one of these 
casks to come apart, looking at the gentleman's map down there and 
looking at St. Louis, looking at Denver, CO, right through the center 
of Denver, CO, looking at Los Angeles, CA, looking at potentially 
coming across Hoover Dam, which is, from Arizona coming into Nevada, if 
one of these transport mechanisms, say, was on Hoover Dam, had a crash, 
went over the side of Hoover Dam, which is about 450 feet down onto a 
concrete slab, and we had a fire down there, one of these casks broke 
open, what State would be most affected, besides the State of Nevada, 
which is sitting right there, and the State of Arizona? What is the No. 
1 State that would be affected by this radiation fallout?
  Mr. GIBBONS. First, let me address the issue that the gentleman has 
talking about, dropping these casks. These casks are certified to be 
fracture-resistent when dropped from a height of 30 feet. It is a lot 
different from dropping a cask from the top of the Hoover Dam to the 
bottom, 450 feet.
  Only 2 months ago we had an 18-wheel tractor-trailer rig in an 
accident, spun out on the top of that dam, and the back end was hanging 
over the edge of the dam. It can happen. It is not a farfetched idea.

                              {time}  1500

  But, what you present is one of the greatest environmental 
catastrophes for the most populated State in the United States and the 
most populated community that gets a lot of its drinking water and 
agricultural water from the Colorado River, and that is Los Angeles, 
CA. All of those millions and millions of people, the lives along the 
southern Colorado River would be in danger of jeopardy from a nuclear 
contamination spill just off of that one roadway.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, people say if 
we cannot bring it to Nevada in an interim storage facility or a 
permanent repository that Congress is talking about, they ask me, 
``What is the answer?''
  Correct me if I am wrong on this. When they were developing the 
transport mechanism, these things they say are safe, the Committee on 
Commerce says they are safe, but when they were developing this--and I 
had a conversation today with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], 
the lead sponsor of the bill from the Committee on Commerce, and I 
asked him when they were developing the transport mechanism they 
developed these dry casks to store them. I asked him, are these dry 
casks safe for up to 100 years? And he said, yes, they are safe for up 
to 100 years. And I said why not leave them right where they are 
instead of transporting them and talking about the potential accidents?
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Nevada if he sees any 
reason at all for transporting this dangerous waste through cities like 
St. Louis and Denver and Los Angeles and many other cities like Atlanta 
across the country?
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time again, that is exactly 
what the problem is here that we are facing today. It is a poor policy 
developed in the 1980's in order to provide an industry with an escape 
mechanism for something which we should have changed when we allowed 
them to build these nuclear reactors. Notwithstanding the issue of the 
nuclear reactor, what we are talking about is what should the policy of 
this country be with regard to the storage of nuclear waste?
  Current technology today indicates that these dry cask storage 
mechanisms that are on site at the nuclear powerplants are indeed safe 
for the next 25 to 75 years, if not a longer period of time for the 
storage of nuclear waste. During that time we have talked to a number 
of physicists from MIT to Brigham Young University regarding how we 
could better handle the nuclear waste; rather than just burying it in 
the ground to an uncertain fate or transporting it across this country 
with an exposure of danger to all the American people in its path, and 
that is twofold. One is recycling and reprocessing the material to be 
used by the reactors that are still in existence or, No. 2, developing 
the research and the technology that will allow us to change the 
radioactive hazard of the material.
  One physicist that I talked to, a professor from a university in 
Utah, indicated that he has just recently developed technology that 
will allow this material, the radioactive waste, to be converted 
through his process into titanium and copper, to relatively inert but 
precious metals that we can use in the industries around this country. 
But it is a far better policy to convert the nonuseful, very dangerous, 
very deadly toxic substance of nuclear waste into a rather inert 
valuable metal of titanium and copper. That is the policy that this 
country ought to be developing rather than the dangerous transportation 
and uncertain burial.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, could 
the gentleman possibly address what seems to be happening in the 
Congress? We have talked about many different parts of the science, 
whether it be on site, dry cask storage being the best storage up to 50 
years. Second, the gentleman mentioned some type of recycling, 
reprocessing this waste. Even if the new technologies the gentleman 
talked about are not developed, there are older technologies currently 
in the works in Great Britain, in France, and in Sweden, and they are 
doing it very safely and they have obviously a much better nuclear 
power industry in those countries.
  So when we are looking at what is driving this policy in this 
country, I believe and the gentleman's comments on this would be 
appreciated, from my perspective I see several things happening. First 
of all, Members of Congress that have nuclear reactors in their 
districts, they want to get the wastes out of their State. But 
probably, and most significantly, the driving force behind this is the 
nuclear power industry, because the nuclear power industry right now 
only has nuclear powerplants that are going to last 20 to 30 years from 
now. After that, if we left it where it is, they would be responsible 
for storing this waste and paying for that storage.
  If the Yucca Mountain or the interim storage facility is built in 
Nevada, would the case not be that ratepayers and the nuclear power 
industry no longer would have to pay the bill, but now the taxpayers 
from across the country, even in those States which do not have any 
nuclear reactors, all of those States and the taxpayers in those States 
would be left holding the bill? So not only do people have to have this 
stuff transported through their State when they never had nuclear power 
in their State, but they are also going to have to foot the bill to pay 
for the storage of this stuff for thousands of years.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I would like to 
point out something specifically. The gentleman raised absolutely an 
important question that fails to be asked and answered publicly, and I 
am glad he brought the subject up.
  Yes, indeed, what we see today, for example let us take the State of 
Connecticut. It has four nuclear reactors and for the problem of safety 
they have shut those nuclear reactors down. They are not generating 
nuclear waste anymore, but they have it sitting in this dry cask 
storage or on site. They want to get it out of their backyard because 
the nuclear power company sees a serious problem and it is called a 
``stranded capital'' problem. It will ultimately have to be responsible 
for the nuclear waste that that industry, that powerplants generated, 
unless it transfers that to the gullible taxpayer to take care of it. 
And that is what is driving this.

[[Page H9551]]

  If we look here, this chart provides a very insightful window on what 
is taking place in the nuclear industry. As the gentleman said, every 
powerplant that is in America today, due to its shelf life or operating 
life, is scheduled to shut down within the next 20 years or so. This 
nuclear waste takes 10,000 years to at least get through a half-life of 
most of it. They have been charging their customers a mill rate on the 
electricity generated to store this. And it has generated a trust fund. 
This indicates the balance by the mill rate paid by the end user of the 
electricity for that storage of about $600 million.
  But if we take the time from 1995 and spread it out, as those 
powerplants shut down the mill rate drops off. In other words, the fund 
balance goes to zero because expenses are still taking place. Well, 
it is that timeframe out there when the power plants are no longer 
producing electricity and those powerplants are no longer bringing in 
that revenue that that fund balance is zero. Well, guess who gets to 
pick up that fund difference for the storage, the monitoring, and the 
handling of that nuclear waste? The taxpayer.

  If I may say so, the cost of storage on site today has been told to 
us by the nuclear contractors who are capable in this field and have 
the knowledge of this field, but the cost of securing that material on 
site, where it is at even for the next 100, 75 to 100 years is about 
$300 million. And giving them the benefit of the doubt, add another 
$100 million in it, $400 million, even if they were wrong, the cost of 
shipping it, just shipping it across this country from the east coast 
to Yucca Mountain, is not $300 million, but $2.3 billion. Well, there 
is no way $2.3 billion is going to come out of this waste fund. So who 
picks that tab up? The taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an unfunded mandate by a nuclear power industry 
that wants the taxpayers to pick up the tab.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, speaking of 
what the taxpayer is going to end up holding the bag on, the Committee 
on Commerce in its infinite wisdom, Republicans and Democrats alike in 
the Committee on Commerce, and correct me if I am wrong on this, from 
what I understand in reading the bill, and we checked with many sources 
that agree with this, if we had a driver of one of these trucks that 
was going through, say, Denver, CO, the driver of the truck happens to 
be drunk, happens to be coming through during the evening one time 
barreling down and ends up crashing through an apartment building 
killing x amount of children and adults, even though that person should 
be held totally responsible and that company should be held totally 
responsible, not only do we have the loss of life but we have an 
incredible environmental disaster.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard that this company, because of what the 
Committee on Commerce did, that this company will not be held liable, 
that the financial end of this will fully be picked up by the taxpayer. 
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, is that correct?
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. It is absolutely 
mind boggling and the answer to his question is yes. Under the current 
law, and the laws that they want to pass with regard to this, we are 
indemnifying the transportation companies. They are going to haul this 
stuff clear across America and what do they have for responsibility or 
accountability? Zero, zip, nada, nothing.
  There is nothing that says they cannot go out and hire somebody who 
has never driven a truck before to haul this stuff around. If they 
crash off one of these bridges or leave the truck in the middle of a 
railway and they create a nuclear accident, that company that hired 
them, who should have known better, who had responsibility to do that, 
who had accountability for any other accident at any other department 
or any other material in America for any damage or environmental 
problem would be liable for that.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I heard the 
gentleman from Nevada speak this morning in front of the Committee on 
Rules on the cost of the potential cleanup if we had one of these 
accidents with leakage in an area. Could the gentleman address the cost 
of cleaning up one of those environmental disasters?
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, this is a Freeland, MI, picture of a train 
accident. Just say this accident occurred somewhere near one of those 
communities. Say it was Denver, CO; Kansas City; St. Louis, just name 
the place the stuff is going to go.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Salt Lake City.
  Mr. GIBBONS. You bet. An accident like this, if it even allowed a 
fraction of the radioactive material out of these casks, would 
contaminate an area that they estimate would be as large as 4 square 
miles. Cleanup of that 4-square-mile area would cost nearly $19 
billion. That is billion with a ``B'' dollars. Because every structure 
on it in that 4 square miles would have to be razed. The soil, 
depending upon the penetration of the cesium and other parts of the 
nuclear reactor content, if they penetrated the soil would also have to 
be removed. And it would be years before they could actually certify 
that they have cleaned up that area.
  Put that in downtown Denver, put that in downtown Cleveland, and put 
that in downtown St. Louis on the Mississippi River and guess what we 
have got? We have a national catastrophe within which the Superfund 
that we have created to handle environmental cleanup would never be 
able to even address in its wildest, richest moments, let alone the 
fighting and the attorneys that would take the money.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, this possibly 
could be why every major environmental group in the United States 
opposes this legislation.
  I have heard Newt Gingrich lately talk about that he wants to be 
friendly to the environment. I think that Newt, the Committee on 
Commerce, and the rest of the people supporting this bill, both 
Republicans and Democrats alike, because make no mistake about it, this 
has been a bipartisan effort to bring nuclear waste, transporting it 
across so many different communities and across this country, across 43 
States, that they have to look themselves in the mirror and say, ``Why 
is every major environmental group opposing this legislation?''
  Mr. Speaker, I think that we have heard the answers today. It is 
because it can be such a potentially damaging incident to our 
environment if we end up with an accident occurring during the 
transporting of this waste.
  I thank my friend from Nevada. I have to go catch a plane back to our 
lovely State. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to participate in 
this special order.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. GIBBONS. I thank the gentleman from Nevada for joining me in this 
dialog here with regard to the hazards of H.R. 1270. I appreciate his 
support. I appreciate his eloquence and his delivery of this 
information.
  I would like to continue the rest of my time to help educate the 
American public a little more about the hazards about what is taking 
place. I know many of my colleagues today, on their way in to work, 
might have driven down 395, taken the House or Senate exit here over to 
the Capitol, and could have noticed one of those big red signs that 
say, no hazardous material transported here. That is because it is not 
in my backyard are we going to have them transport this material. That 
is because they do not want it here. It is the classic NIMBY syndrome.
  But if you look at the transportation of nuclear waste in Maryland, 
guess what? To those people who do not want nuclear waste in our 
Nation's Capital, it is actually going to go right through the Nation's 
Capital, in fact, right through the center of the Nation's Capital; 
that is, Union Station, just down the street, part of the railway 
transportation scheme for transportation of nuclear waste on this 
route.
  In addition to that, let me talk a little more about what was brought 
up about hazards of this material and why the American public is being 
duped in this regard. If we want to take standards and use sound 
scientific evidence to establish hazards of materials, then all we have 
to look at is some of our previous experience in the legislative 
history of this material and come up with a basis of what is taking 
place.
  First of all, the Environmental Protection Agency has established the 
number of millirems per year that is allowable in drinking water. And 
that

[[Page H9552]]

is 4, 4 millirems per year is available to be safe in drinking water in 
our country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says, well, we will up 
it a little bit, for a low-level nuclear waste site, you can be exposed 
to 25 millirems a year and still be healthy.
  EPA again, under the waste isolation pilot project plant in New 
Mexico, where they are taking high level nuclear waste and treating it 
in storage there as a pilot project, they have got a whopping 15 
millirems per year. An independent spent nuclear storage facility is 
estimated to have 25 millirems per year, and the interim storage 
exposure range is about 10.3.
  Under 1270, H.R. 1270, all of those standards, the EPA standards do 
not have to be met. All of the safety guarantees that we have got 
environmentally around this country do not have to be met. In fact, 
they guarantee that they will exceed 100 millirems per year in the 
transportation of nuclear waste.
  Mr. Speaker, absolutely incredible that we could have the American 
public be duped by the nuclear power industry into accepting this 
material.
  Now, we have heard a lot recently about the site or the location 
where this material is going to be placed, in a mountain in southern 
Nevada. Theoretically it is dry, no problem with storing it there. 
After all, people only live miles away.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, from a scientific basis, after all, I 
think I am qualified inasmuch as I have a degree in mining geology, I 
have studied it. I have a master's degree. I understand some of the 
hazards with regard to geologic settings.
  Yucca Mountain did not become a safe storage site unless you take the 
standards and you keep changing and reducing the bar and the acceptable 
level downward and downward and downward. Yucca Mountain did not get to 
be Yucca Mountain because of a stable geotectonic event. It became 
Yucca Mountain due to faulting and geologic volcanic activity which is 
currently active today. Numerous faulting in the area exists and has 
continued even today with 621 seismic events of a magnitude greater 
than 2.5 within a 50-mile radius over the last year. That is 
incredible. There are at least 33 known earthquake faults in Yucca 
Mountain itself, this little piece of land that they want to put this.
  A National Science Foundation study showed that previous testing at 
the Nevada test site, located 20 miles away, had released plutonium 
into the surrounding dry rock during one of the underground testings. 
As a result, they wanted to study that plutonium, very dangerous, half-
life much longer than uranium, enriched uranium, to see what the 
migration into the groundwater would be. Thinking that it would not 
have gone anywhere in the last 20 years, it has gone nearly a mile. It 
has migrated a mile. That is 5,000 feet.
  Well, 10,000 feet below that is the water aquifer, a huge aquifer for 
all of the Southwest, including Las Vegas, a city of 1.2 million 
people, as well as other surrounding communities in the area.
  This tells us one thing, that the standards by which they are judging 
Yucca Mountain are wrong. It is not geologically safe. It is not 
geologically stable. The transportation and migration of radioactive 
nuclides through the rock, through the soil and into the groundwater is 
more than just an expectation. It is an inevitability. It will occur.
  We have today probably one of the greatest opportunities to stop this 
nuisance, to stop this nonsense, to change the policy of this country, 
to change the idea of sticking it in the ground and walking away from 
it.
  As we talked earlier, the cost of transportation, seven times more 
expensive than storage on site where it is at. You pick the difference 
up. You pick up that $2.3 billion. It comes out of your pocket, takes 
away from your children's education, takes away from your highways, 
takes away from anything, the defense of this Nation. That is $2.3 
billion out of your pocket just to move it versus 300 million that the 
industry itself could pay to store it for the next 100 years while 
technology is developed to change the hazard of this material so that 
we do not have to bury it.
  They say they have built a storage site that will last. I defy them 
to answer me how they know that. We in this country have never built 
anything to last longer than 1,000 years. We have never been in 
existence for 1,000 years. The Egyptians built the pyramids 3,500 years 
ago. They are not lasting. What is it that they expect to see, 1,000, 
2,000 or 5,000 years from now when they come across this cavernous 
Yucca Mountain site where they have buried this nuclear waste?
  Who knows what we will find at that point in time, if it is 
accessible, if it has not erupted or some cataclysmic activity 
destroyed or changed the site itself. I wonder what the warnings will 
look like 1,000 years from now that say, do not dig here. We buried 
high-level nuclear waste.
  What sort of paint will they put on the sign that will last for 1,000 
years? Will they chisel it in stone and place it at the entry? Will 
1,000 years or 2,000 years from now allow us to have that warning 
available to those people, if there are people, who may stumble upon 
that area? We do not know. And that is the question of the day. What do 
we know? We do not know what it will be like. We do know we have the 
ability to change the policy today, to ask that we go forward with 
research and development, that we go forward with science to change the 
hazard of this material.

  H.R. 1270 is the transportation of nuclear waste across America. We 
talked earlier about the odds of an accident. River Front Times, June 
12 through the 14, 1996 said it very clearly: No matter how slim the 
odds of an accident, the potential consequences of such a move are 
cataclysmic. Under the plan, tons of radioactive material would likely 
pass through the St. Louis area by either truck or rail a few times a 
week for the next 30 years. Each cask would contain the radiological 
equivalent of 200 Hiroshima bombs. Altogether, the nuclear dunnage 
would be enough to kill everybody on Earth.
  Maybe a little bit eccentric, maybe a little bit exaggerative in 
terms of the cataclysmic event that might occur, but certainly not 
impossible, not farfetched.
  Whether it is a terrorist act on the railway transportation of this 
material or a simple accident along the highway or railway with this 
material, you, the Americans, are both at risk economically, 
environmentally, personally.
  I think it is up to America to advise their representatives in 
Congress of their opposition to H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
of 1997. We have a chance today to educate our Members through your 
phone calls, through your letters, requesting that they oppose H.R. 
1270. Do not let this opportunity, do not let this time go by without 
taking advantage of that opportunity because your future, your 
children's future and the future of this country depend on your ability 
to see through the nuclear wool that the nuclear industry wants to pull 
over the eyes of America.

                          ____________________