Leaders Pledge To Improve Security Of Nuclear Stocks: (NPR) President Obama warned world leaders gathered at an international security summit in Washington on Tuesday that it would be a catastrophe if they failed to act decisively to keep nuclear weapons from terrorists.
"Two decades after the end of the Cold War, we face a cruel irony of history," Obama said. "The risk of a nuclear confrontation between nations has gone down, but the risk of nuclear attack has gone up."
The president underscored the danger of nuclear materials in the hands of terrorist groups: "Just the smallest amount of plutonium, about the size of an apple, could kill and injure hundreds of thousands of innocent people," he said...
The two-day summit closed Tuesday, with rulers from 47 nations attending. At a news conference at the end of the day, the president said he was confident China will cooperate on possible new sanctions aimed at getting Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions...
Obama said that the new sanctions would make it easier to isolate Iran, as the global community had done for North Korea as it continued to develop nuclear weapons...
In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu added more uncertainty, saying that "pressure and sanctions cannot fundamentally solve" the dispute. She added that Beijing supports a "dual-track strategy" combining diplomacy with the possibility of international sanctions against Iran.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told reporters in Tehran on Tuesday that China's comments did not confirm the U.S. statement, nor did it mean Beijing would cooperate with Washington "in any kind of unjust action" against Iran.
Great Britain, France and Germany have firmly backed sanctions, while Russia has indicated a willingness to join in the effort.
Obama opened the two-day Nuclear Security Summit after rounds of meetings with selected leaders of the 47 countries gathered to discuss ways of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and keeping bomb-making materials and technology out of the hands of terrorist organizations...
Laser Nuclear Technology Might Pose Security Risk: (NPR) World leaders have gathered in Washington to talk about how to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. The discussions are mainly about keeping actual weapons, and weapons-grade material, under strict control.
Some researchers are also concerned about the spread of a new technology that could make it much easier to secretly refine uranium for bombs.
Right now, the technology to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons is big and cumbersome. Typically, countries build enormous centrifuge plants.
And Francis Slakey, a physicist at Georgetown University, says it's relatively easy to catch wind of a project like that.
"If someone's trying to build a covert plant to enrich uranium, they're going to have to move a lot of dirt," Slakey says. "We're going to see that with our satellites. They're going to have to feed it a lot of power. So we're either going to see power lines going in, we're going to see the construction of a dedicated power plant. Or maybe it's going to even just glow, and our infrared sensors can pick it up."
Slakey is nervous about a new technology that's been developed to enrich uranium. It's intended to make fuel for nuclear power plants — but it could be used for weapons, too. This technology uses lasers to separate out the desired isotope of uranium...
But the downside is that a laser-based enrichment plant can be much smaller and use much less electricity. And that could make a clandestine operation much harder to detect, he says.
"That's the worry — things are starting to get so small and so efficient that it's below the detection limit," Slakey says. "Which creates an enormous proliferation challenge."
More than a dozen nations have tried at one time or another to develop laser enrichment technologies, Slakey says. Most gave up, but an Australian company called Silex has apparently succeeded...
"There's been a number of different technologies to enrich uranium," Slakey says. "Every single one of them — despite best efforts to keep secrets — every single one of them has proliferated."
Well, France is nothing but an entire country of nuclear power plants all over the landscape and the populace has adjusted to it. I'm still not thrilled to see America go nuclear for the nation's energy needs when two things are still not resolved: proper security against terrorism, both international and domestic, and, the issue of finding effective inexpensive ways to reprocess the spent fuel.
As in this story, here we go again with the taxpayer getting no say in the matter of risking our funds for unsuccessful projects known for a high failure rate. Why should we guarantee another "too big to fail" group of projects?
Government May Support Nuclear Power's Comeback: (NPR) President Obama is turning his attention to energy. Recently he allowed new drilling for oil and gas along American coastlines. And he's agreed to subsidize new nuclear power plants.
Besides satisfying demands for more energy, these actions could help the president win votes for a new climate and energy bill pending in Congress. But restarting the nuclear power industry — which has been treading water for 30 years — won't be easy.
The threat of global warming might be the best thing to happen to nuclear energy. For three decades, no one built a new plant in the U.S., though some have been built abroad. Now nuclear looks better because it doesn't emit greenhouse gases that warm the planet.
But nuclear power still scares lots of banks and investors. Leslie Kass, director of business policy at the industry's Nuclear Energy Institute, gives two reasons.
"One would be some of the unknowns, because we haven't built here in 30 years," Kass says. "And they want to watch the licensing process work and they want to prove us at our word that we can replicate what's happened overseas."
And No. 2 would be the cost. Kass says American utility companies tend to be smaller than their foreign counterparts. They don't have as much cash, so they have to borrow more. And the typical nuclear project runs about $10 billion, give or take.
"Once you start borrowing almost as much as your net worth, you get penalized by the rating agencies," she says. "Your rating goes down and then your access to capital, the cost of that goes up."
So the Department of Energy is offering a carrot to investors. If a nuclear project goes belly up, the government will pay them back — up to 80 percent of their financial loss.
Kass and DOE say this will help kick-start the industry.
But groups such as Taxpayers for Common Sense and environmental organizations say taxpayers are getting a raw deal here. Nuclear projects elsewhere have gone belly up or way over budget.
A congressional study in 2003 said a 50 percent failure rate for nuclear projects isn't an unreasonable estimate. The U.S. industry says it's actually far less than that. But no one knows for sure.
So the government now says it will offer something more to encourage investors to part with their cash: It will make the utilities and developers first pay an upfront fee.
"[The fee will] account for the risk to the federal government that the nuclear developer defaults on the loan," says Richard Caperton, a policy analyst with the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington, D.C.
But calculating the fee is the tricky part.
The industry proposes 1 percent of the loan guarantee. So for a typical project, a developer might pay an upfront fee of $80 million. If the project dies, the taxpayer would be responsible for the rest of the loss, which would very likely run several billion dollars.
Caperton and other analysts say 1 percent is too low. He recommends developers pay a 10 percent fee, or $800 million for a typical project.
This may be more than any utility can afford to pay.
"It seems unlikely to me that they'd be able to get any sort of low-risk financing for the $800 million," Caperton says. "You can see where it becomes a big problem."
So right now, the future of the nuclear industry hangs in part on what DOE and utilities decide that fee will be.
Even if the fee is acceptable, nuclear developers can't depend on government help for long. DOE says it's just for the first few projects. Then the industry will have to swim on its own.
Nuclear analyst Matthew Bunn at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government says it'll have to be a long swim for nuclear power to slow global warming. Right now, he says, only four new nuclear plants are built every year worldwide.
"We have to shift from that to something like 25 every year from now until 2050," Bunn says, "if we want to provide, say, even say 10 percent of the carbon-free energy that's going to be needed to address the climate change problem."
Bunn says that kind of building spree, at least in the U.S., isn't likely. But Charles Forsberg, an engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says what's important is just getting nuclear power back on its feet.
This headline should be rewritten as Depraved Indifference of Boy Scouts Toward Abused Children...
Boy Scouts of America Found Negligent in Landmark Sex Abuse Case: (ABC) Former Scouts Claimed Were Abused for Years While Organization Stood By.
An Oregon jury found the Boy Scouts of America and the local scout chapter negligent today in a landmark case that accused the iconic organization of covering up alleged sexual abuse of several of its boy scouts for years.
The nine-member jury ordered the organization to pay $1.4 million in damages, and will now move into a punitive phase that could result in the Boy Scouts of America paying a penalty that could reach $25 million. That decision is not expected for weeks.
In a written statement, the Boy Scouts of America said that they are "gravely disappointed with the verdict."
"We believe that the allegations made against our youth protection efforts are not valid. We intend to appeal," read the statement...
*** ABC often has problems with their embedded videos, just click on the title link.
There is still a whole lot of living in tents going on in this island nation since the January earthquake. The Haitians seem to be keeping a good sense of humor in the face of this adversity and upheaval, working hard to rebuild their lives. I'm glad to see the First and Second Ladies present to encourage them and let them know America has not forgotten them. It's also a reminder to the rest of the world to keep coming to Haiti and sending help to rebuild and restore.
First Lady: Still 'So Much to Do' in Haiti: (ABC) Michelle Obama Says Visit Comes as Global Attention Starts to Wane.
Michelle Obama said it was evident in her short visit to Haiti today that there is still "so much to do" to get the country back on its feet after January's devastating earthquake.
Michelle Obama tours Haiti, aiming to highlighting U.S. commitment to region.
Obama, on the first stop of her first solo trip out of the United States as first lady, said it was important to come now because Haiti has reached a point when "the relief efforts are under way but the attention of the world starts to wane a bit."
"In order for Haiti to get back to where it needs to be, it's going to take the world continuing to invest, to partner, to show that sense of compassion," she said at the United Nations logistics center in Port-au-Prince.
The first lady said the relief efforts in Haiti have been more than just a U.S. effort, but a global effort.
"America has been a leader, but it has not been the only leader, by any close margin," she said.
Asked if she felt the aid money that Americans have contributed is actually reaching the Haitian people, Obama said yes.
"By all accounts, the Haitian people are very happy with the relief efforts," the first lady said. "Still, accountability is key. And, you know, I know that the governments are going to continue to work together.
"But I think that my sense is the Haitian people feel a deep appreciation for what the world has done, that's for sure," she said...
Oh, this is an interesting comeback to the loud and bizarre entertainment crowd the Republicans hire to fire up the airwaves... What took the progressives so long? Have they finally heard my lone voice crying in the wilderness? After all, there is only so much one prophet can do to get the attention of the people and be heard. :) Sooner or later more voices need to join in and push back against lies and distortions of the truth.
Countering the 'Glenn Beck Effect': (ABC) Progressive Leaders Say Fox News Anchor Distorts Meaning of 'Social Justice.'
Fox News host Glenn Beck has been targeting liberals for years but labor unions and other progressive groups are beginning to fight back.
"We are working to counter the Glenn Beck effect and turn anger into action for real change," said AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka during a Wednesday speech at Harvard University.
Trumka's speech, which was delivered to Harvard's Institute of Politics, suggested that Beck was one of the forces in the country who is working to "convert justifiable anger about an economy that only seems to work for a few of us into racist and homophobic hate and violence directed at our President and heroes like Congressman John Lewis."
The head of the AFL-CIO is not alone in trying to counter Beck.
Last month, the 2.2-million member Service Employees International Union began pressuring Beck's advertisers to "stop supporting his dangerous brand of crazy."
"Beck's irresponsible comparisons of progressive leaders to Stalin, Mao and Nazi Germany cannot be dismissed as merely silly or stupid," wrote SEIU Director of Strategic Affairs Michelle Ringuette in an e-mail to the union's supporters. "This kind of rhetoric can instigate unbalanced individuals into committing rash and violent acts. And if Fox News wants to continue giving him a platform to spread hate, they should not profit from it."
The SEIU e-mail asked its supporters to add their names to the letter being sent to Beck's advertisers.
applying pressure to Fox News.
On Thursday, after the mother of Gregory Giusti -- the man arrested for allegedly threatening House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's, D-Calif., life over health care reform -- said that Fox News was a factor in her son's alleged actions, Eric Burns, the president of Media Matters, issued a statement denouncing that the tactics of Fox News.
"The violent language and scare tactics we see on Fox News every day have real consequences," Burns said. "This is a network that ran a 14-month campaign against health care reform, which left their viewers confused and angry. The question is, now that one of those viewers has allegedly threatened Speaker Pelosi's life over health care reform, is Fox News going to do anything about it?"
launched a 24-hour "Twitterstorm" against Beck after he urged listeners of his radio program to leave churches that speak of "social justice."
The "Twitterstorm" entailed tweeting thousands of haikus to Beck's Twitter account in protest of his effort to tie the social justice concept to communism and Nazism...
*** ABC often has problems with their embedded videos, just click on the title link.
OK, guys, if you are a big steak eater then be warned about the serious heavy metal contaminants possibly in your favorite meat. Oh, thank you, George Bush for under funding and breaking all the agencies who used to safeguard our food supply in America. "May the food poisoning be with you" as Lady Karma hitchhikes on your back for your next visit to a steak house.
Weak Regulation Means Tainted Beef on U.S. Plates: (ABC) USDA Report Urges Greater Government Effort to Limit Contaminants in Meat.
The government is doing too little to ensure that the beef Americans eat is uncontaminated by "residual veterinary drugs, pesticides and heavy metals," according to an audit by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's inspector general.
The findings appear in a report issued March 25. Among the recommendations of the report is a call for better coordination among the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to ensure the safety of the country's meat supply.
"We found that the national residue program is not accomplishing its mission of monitoring the food supply for harmful residues," the report concluded. "Together, FSIS, FDA, and EPA have not established thresholds for many dangerous substances (e.g., copper or dioxin), which has resulted in meat with these substances being distributed in commerce."
The report continued, "Additionally, FSIS does not attempt to recall meat, even when its tests have confirmed the excessive presence of veterinary drugs."
At the heart of the problem, according to the report, is that while FSIS inspectors may be able to detect contaminants in meat before it is released to the market, the lack of guidelines on potentially toxic substances prevents a recall. Such guidelines for pesticides and other chemicals would fall under the purview of the EPA, while limits for antibiotics used in the cattle industry would be the responsibility of the FDA.
The report cited one example of the problem. In 2008, Mexican authorities rejected a shipment of U.S. beef because it contained copper in excess of Mexico's tolerances. But upon the meat's return, the FSIS had no way to prevent the meat from being distributed in the United States because the FDA has no guidelines for copper levels in meat...
*** ABC often has problems with their embedded videos, just click on the title link.
This is humorous and actually useful information too!
Your Chances of Getting Bumped (and Dating Supermodels): (ABC) Flying Today Can Lead to Lost Luggage and Other Mishaps, but What are the Odds?
Yes, I will get to the part about the supermodels shortly, but first, let's talk flying -- and specifically, your odds of getting bumped from a plane.
In a word, the chances of this happening are "slim." But it varies from airline to airline, and thanks to a wonderful Web site called "Book of Odds" I can tell you which carriers are the best and worst when it comes to bumping, based on 2008 data.
You know what bumping is: that ugly event that occasionally occurs when your airline oversells its seats to avoid the no-shows. Usually, gate agents start out asking for volunteers who get a sweetener such as a $100 voucher (or more) for future travel; if that doesn't work, the bumping becomes "involuntary." In other words, you're the poor sap who gets kicked off the flight.
For more air travel news and insights visit Rick's blog at: http://farecompare.com.
It is rare, though -- the chances it'll happen to you involuntarily are about 1 in 10,040 (though the chances of getting bumped when you combine voluntarily and involuntarily drop to 1 in 872). Still, it pays to know your rights: involuntary bumpees now get paid as much as $800 for the inconvenience...
*** ABC often has problems with their embedded videos, just click on the title link.
*** THANKS for visiting, feel welcome to drop a comment or opinion, enjoy bookmarking this post on your favorite social site, a big shout out to awesome current subscribers – and if you are new to this blog, please subscribe in a reader or by email updates!
