Updated: Anti-nuke activist arrested at nuclear plant meeting

Thursday, June 19, 2008

The Glenns Ferry Opera Theatre was filled nearly to capacity on the evening of June 16 as Elmore County citizens gathered for an informational meeting hosted by Idaho Energy Complex (IEC).

The company, which had originally sought to build a 1,600 megawatt nuclear power plant in Owyhee County, has now set its sights on a 1,400-acre piece of land outside of Hammett. The meeting was conducted to provide citizens information about the plant , and nuclear industry, and serve as a question and answer forum.

Don Gillispie, president and CEO of Idaho Energy Complex, presented the program. He focused largely on dispelling myths about nuclear generation.

The Elmore County site is located off Goldsmith Road about a mile from the home of Nancy and Jeff Blanksma. Mrs. Blanksma said she does not want a nuclear power plant as a "neighbor." She also expressed concern about the noise and air pollution that will be created from nearly 5,000 employees accessing the site during its construction.

The meeting was well underway when an Elmore County Deputy approached Twin Falls Podiatrist and anti-nuclear activist Peter Rickards. Just prior to the start of the meeting, Rickards had been distributing flyers to citizens entering the building. Immediately, an outburst exploded from several members of the audience and heightened in intensity as Rickards was handcuffed and escorted from the building, accompanied by members of the IEC staff.

According to a statement received by the Sheriffšs Department, Mr. Rickards was distributing flyers inside the theater when he was asked by theater owner, Rich Wills, to move outside the building.

Rickards complied with Wills' request, but allegedly reentered the premises and persisted in distributing the flyers. It is alleged that Wills was asked him two additional times to go outside, but Rickards refused to do so.

An IEC staff member alleges that Rickards phyically pushed him while trying to gain access to the meeting.

Wills issued a complaint against Rickards that resulted in his being cited

for trespassing. The staff member, Doug McConnaughey, also registered a

complaint against Rickard, and he was cited for battery.

As Rickards was handcuffed and escorted from the assembly, several people began shouting at the officer and Gillispie, demanding to know why he was being arrested.

Gillispie replied, "I donšt know."

Attempts by a IEC staffer to regain order were unsuccessful as the angry group taunted Gillispie. At least one protestor challenged Gillispie to have her arrested.

After several intense minutes, Glenns Ferry Mayor JoAnne Lanham rose from her seat, faced the angry group and exclaimed, "I'm" the mayor of this town, sit down."

That finally quelled the outburst.

Lanham later told the Gazette that the disruption wasted precious time.

"Most of the people where there to protest," she said.

She indicated that the disruption prevented Gillispie from disseminating important information that would have helped her make a decision on whether or not to support the project.

In a subsequent news release issued by IEC on June 11, a company spokesman wrote, "We regret the unfortunate behavior of one audience member Monday night in Glenns Ferry and we do want to apologize to the citizens of Elmore County for any disruption he caused."

Rickert denies having pushed anyone.

The meeting continued, but the incident had emotions running high. During the course of the meeting, a few people lashed out at Gillispie.

Mountain Home resident Maureen Cox told Gillispie that her father died of cancer after working many years at the Hanford Nuclear Reserve in Washington. Her mother also died from cancer.

However, Gillispiešs claim regarding the safety of modern nuclear power plants was supported in a National Cancer Institute study published in the March 20, 1991, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The study "showed no general increased risk of death from cancer for people living in 107 U.S. counties containing or closely adjacent to 62 nuclear facilities."

A registered nurse, Cox also took exception to Gillispiešs comment that more people have died as a result of mistakes made by the medical staff then as a result of working at or near a nuclear power plant.

"I'm a registered nurse," yelled Cox, "and I've never killed anyone."

But the possibility of radioactive emissions issuing from a reactor is not the only cause for concern. A Hammett resident expressed concern about the safe disposal of waste materials, citing the failure of the federal government to conclude the promised cleanup of radioactive materials from the Idaho National Laboratory.

Gillispie noted that advancements in nuclear technology has reduced the risk of radioactive contamination. He explained that reprocessing spent fuel rods, which contain 95 percent of their potential energy after the first cycle, will greatly reduce the radioactive wastes. The technology is being done successfully in countries such as France, which derives 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, he noted.

Another county resident asked who would benefit from the sale of power generated at the plant. Gillispie said that Idaho would "get the first crack" at purchasing energy from the facility. However, he also noted that other states would be bidding on the power.

The plant is investor-owned and financed, and the return on their investment will be a consideration when bidding begins on the energy generated at the facility, he indicated.

Only a handful of those attending actually expressed an interest in seeing the project succeed.

They believed that the high cost of energy could be reduced; Gillispie said power generated at the plant would cost about 2- to 3-cents per kilowatt hour.

The world's increased demand for energy is also stimulating new interests in nuclear energy, and even some of those formerly opposed to the technology are now supporting it, he commented.

The IEC nuclear power plant would use approximately 100,000 gallons of water per day, Gillispie said. The company has no plans to apply for a new water right, instead it will acquire existing rights.

Water processed through the plant will be used to irrigate crops growing around the facility, and it would not contain any contaminants from the plant, Gillispie explained.

Jennifer Baker, of Glenns Ferry, asked whether the construction of the nuclear power plant would result in the closure of Idaho power generation plants currently in, or being planned for, Mountain Home.

Gillispie does not see that happening. He said the nationšs increased demand for energy does not make practical the closure of any power producing facility.

As to the plant's susceptibility to terrorist attack, Gillispie noted that not only are new reactors designed to withstand catastrophic impact (from aircraft), but that they are highly secure.

He said at least three inspectors will be on-site residents, and will be responsible for the plant's safe operation and submitting daily reports to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The 1,600 megawatt plant is expected to employ over 1,700 people. The average wage for an employee of the plant is $80,000 per year, Gillispie noted. The complex could include a biofuels component, should an independent company express interest in pursuing such a venture.

According to an IEC economic impact study, the plant would grow employment in Elmore and Owyhee counties by 25 percent and produce a total combined county income impact of $52.3 million during operation.

The study also showed that building one reactor would contribute $2.6 billion to the statešs economy while generating $74 million in state tax revenue per annum.

Gillispie expects to apply to the county for a Conditional Use Permit sometime this summer. That permitting process would require at least one public hearing, at which time county residents can give their input.

If all goes as planned, construction of the nuclear plant could begin in 2011, with startup in 2015.

Comments
View 68 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Sounds like a good guy and a real leader. Way to earn respect for your side of the argument.

    -- Posted by IdahoBorn on Tue, Jun 17, 2008, at 11:53 AM
  • Oh, great, I just hate it when an adherent of an issue I happen to also favor -- at least at this point -- spoils it for the rest of us by extreme behavior. That sort of thing usually backfires, often turning others to the opposing point of view.

    I couldn't attend either meeting and it's just as well.

    By the way, all, this forum is for us to express ourselves, and I think that's great. I'd like the personal vilification to be less, however. Oh well, those are opinions too I guess. Too bad they're negative, though. I really love it when folks can differ on the issues, but in a reasonable manner.

    -- Posted by senior lady on Tue, Jun 17, 2008, at 12:06 PM
  • Hi all,

    Please note Senior Lady, I did not refuse the police officer as stated. I was sitting quietly at the meeting, and he came and told me I was under arrest, so he handcuffed me and off to jail I went. There was no "extreme behavior" on my part, as you lament about.

    I did not lay a finger on anybody. There was no battery. But my handout battered every lie Gillispie told, for sure! :-)

    I know Putin in Russia can arrest anyone he wants, but Gillispie and Wills really ought to read the constitution. This was a "public meeting" and I don't think they can ban me because I know too much. If it was an invitation only meeting, or I had interrupted the speaker, they would have every right to ask me to leave. Gillispie and State Rep Wills are desparate to con Elmore county into their money making scheme, but don't invite the public if you don't want me to come and share vital info with my neighbors, especially when your nuclear plans threaten my kids, and every child downwind of this disaster waiting to happen...Peter

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Tue, Jun 17, 2008, at 4:49 PM
  • I wish I'd been there to see for myself. There are two positions given; I don't know which to believe.

    In any event, if it was indeed an open forum and all were behaving themselves, then what did happen?

    Someone without an axe to grind please respond.

    -- Posted by senior lady on Tue, Jun 17, 2008, at 4:58 PM
  • Cut & Paste from our very own Mtn Home News:

    "Nuclear power plant meeting set for June 16 in Glenns Ferry

    Wednesday, June 11, 2008

    Idaho Energy Complex representatives have begun a series of public information meetings meetings to inform the public about their plans to build a 1,600-megawatt nuclear reactor in Elmore county.

    A meeting was held Tuesday night in Mountain Home. Check www.mountainhomenews.com later today for coverage of that meeting.

    The next meeting is scheduled for 7-8:30 p.m. on June 16 at the Glenns Ferry Opera House, 208 E. Idaho Ave."

    If the meeting is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC that includes everyone. If they didn't want everyone there, it should have been posted as such.

    Maybe, Mr. Gillispie did this on purpose - say it's open to the public and then have people arrested and escorted out, KNOWING they would probably be upset when they were told to leave. Obviously, if you were at a public meeting and then were told to go, I would be upset too. It just so happened the deputies were there 'just in case.'

    These same people (or representatives thereof) were at the Mtn Home meeting and no one got arrested. Perhaps they 'arranged' a meeting this time in a privately owned building, (and just who owns this building??) just so they could kick people out, but then forgot to annouce it was only for certain types of 'public.'

    Things that make you go hmmmmmmm??

    -- Posted by froggy on Tue, Jun 17, 2008, at 6:23 PM
  • Senior Lady,

    Dr. Edwin Lyman, a Senior Scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists Global Security Program, testified on May 26, 2005 before the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Safety of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. He was asked to discuss the effectiveness of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in overseeing the security and safety of nuclear power plants in the United States. His written testimony is available here:

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_terrorism/nrc-oversight-of-nuclear...

    Perhaps this will answer any questions you may have.

    -- Posted by AlmaHasse on Tue, Jun 17, 2008, at 7:22 PM
  • Thank you, Ms. Hasse, but I need to hear from someone who was at the Glenns Ferry meeting. I was under the impression it was a public information forum at the opera house (which, I believe, was at least at one time owned by Senator -- is that his current title? -- Rich Wills.) Was is not open to the general public?

    I'd hate to think what Dr Rickards related was the absolutely complete facts about what went on, but if it is, I can't begin to say how disappointed I am.

    I really don't like things forced on the public. Makes one think there are ulterior motives.

    -- Posted by senior lady on Tue, Jun 17, 2008, at 11:01 PM
  • Just a question on how long (or)is mr. Rickards still in jail, and what is his specific charges and how much was his fine....

    Great to have the mayor tell these unrule people to just set down, or were there a few more statements made by the mayor to settle down these people.

    -- Posted by goodllama2 on Wed, Jun 18, 2008, at 10:03 AM
  • DrPeterRickardsDPM,

    "I know Putin in Russia can arrest anyone he wants, but Gillispie and Wills really ought to read the constitution"

    This is one of the oldest hack, fear mongering tactics of any political view point. The only thing missing was the use of the term fascist.

    First we claim some sort of injustice, the more meek and innocent we claim to be the better, second we use the memory of an evil political system, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, or in this case Putin Russia to illustrate how evil the injustice perpetrated was. Third we then remind every one of the constitution in order to clarify, albeit in very ambiguous terms, the level of expression we should be allowed which draws a sharp contrast between the afore mentioned evil political system and our own bastion of freedom.

    It boils down to this, whether we like it or not the "public" meeting was held in a privately owned building. The owner of the building has every right to ask people to leave. Once you refuse the request of the owner of the premises, the owner then has every right to seek the assistance of law enforcement in removing you from the area. No conspiracy no collusion just good ole law enforcement.

    -- Posted by rxjkl on Wed, Jun 18, 2008, at 10:28 AM
  • Hi Goodlama,

    The charges are 1) alleged battery of the 300+ pound Doug Maconahy, who this article notes was trying to block my entry into this "public" meeting, and 2) trespassing at a "public" meeting.

    I was released after the meeting, and have a July 2 court date.

    For video of the peaceful arrest see www.kmvt.com and for more details see the Times-News at www.magicvalley.com

    For more info on nuclear power problems please visit www.MyIdahoEnergy.com

    Hi rxjkl, gee, we will see in court if Mr Wills can advertize a public meeting, and then pick and chose whom he will allow on his private property. I don't think he can say no Mexicans allowed, or no one with a red hat, or no Dr Rickards, just because it is his property. The Constitution transcends his private property rights when he invites the public. Sorry you think it is wrong I quote the Constitution, but no apology for that from me...Peter

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Wed, Jun 18, 2008, at 2:33 PM
  • If asked to leave he should have left. It wasn't his property and our laws give property owners the right to chose who can stay and who can't. How is he an expert on Nuclear Energy anyway?

    -- Posted by IdahoBorn on Wed, Jun 18, 2008, at 4:17 PM
  • Dear Idahoborn,

    If you invite the public to a meeting, you really can't exclude anyone in the public, because you are afraid of the information they understand and will share with their neighbors. This was not a private party Wills held that I came to. I did not interupt the speaker. Does Wills have the right to say No Mexicans can come into my private property at the next Opera Theatre event, just because it is his private property? NO, of course not, and Rich wouldn't dream of doing that, of course. But the point is, if you invite the public, ANYONE can come.

    RE: How is he an expert on Nuclear Energy anyway?

    I have never claimed to be an expert. I do have a medical license to use radioactive materials, and understand why pregnant women don't get even a simple foot x-ray, unless there is some life and death diagnosis needed, because of the severe radiosensitivity of the fetus to radiation damage. But if a carpenter shared the same info, it would be just as true. I simply share documents from the Dep't of Energy experts that contradict the lies Mr Gillispie tells. I provide the referrence, I quote the experts, you decide.

    Gillispie claims his Areva reactor will only use 100,000 gallons of water a day. I provided the Areva fact sheet that says they will use 1,000,000 gallons of water a day. Why do you need a degree in nuclear engineering to state the simple truth?

    Gillispie claims no meltdown is possible, and if the "impossible" ever happened, the containment would hold it. Gillispie says earthquakes are no problem. On my website, I reference the latest 2006 Dep't of Energy official study on containment. The DOE says "Seismic loadings coupled with severe accident loads have not been investigated in any

    detail." The DOE says they are concerned about scenarioes that could lead to "catastrophic failure" that are still needing study. What part of "catastrophic failure" does Gillispie not understand? You decide if Gillispie is lying or if I am not trying to tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...Peter

    http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6906/cr6906.pdf

    find at p 147 or p 166/206 on webpages

    4.7 Issues for Future Consideration

    4.7.1 Leakage

    A great deal has been learned about containment behavior and containment analysis methods in

    the last two decades of containment research, but questions still remain. One of the most

    important behavior questions is that it is not known with certainty whether a leakage failure will

    reach an equilibrium state or if it will lead to a catastrophic failure.

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Wed, Jun 18, 2008, at 5:19 PM
  • rxjkl

    Good ol' fashion law enforcement? You mean like on Dukes of Hazzard - Boss Hogg and Roscoe Peco? I think they had an episode similiar to the stunt Mr. Gillispie pulled.

    The meeting was announced as public. Mr. G or Rep W could of easily stated who could or couldn't show when they announced the meeting. The Dr and SRA have been at all or most of Mr. G's other 'public' meetings and weren't arrested.

    The only thing that has changed is that NOW the meetings are being held in Representative Willis' building. And if Willis has the Sheriff's Dept at ready to arrest CERTAIN people of the 'public' at a public meeting b/c it's private property, you bet the Sheriff has to jump.

    I understand it's private property, but then don't invite everyone, if you don't want everyone to come. And ya know what, if this was a public meeting in a private building and they told all the Jews, or Blacks, or women, that they were banned, I wonder what would happen then? Although it WAS private property, it also was discrimination that they told certain people to leave when they were doing nothing wrong - they where just sitting there. It might be legal, but I think it's wrong and deceptive.

    This meeting was a complete set up. I'm sorry the Doctor ended up getting arrested, but on the other hand, it shows what type of guy Mr. G is, who is supporting this kind of behavior and what they are willing to do to get what the want. IMO this is NOT what we want in Idaho.

    -- Posted by froggy on Wed, Jun 18, 2008, at 8:06 PM
  • Like many others in Elmore County I too attended the meeting in Glenns Ferry to hear what Idaho Energy Complex members had to say about the proposed nuclear plant.

    Being a bit concerned and on the fence about what to think; I was prepared to be open minded and weigh both sides.

    One of the first things I noticed was that the IEC members were well organized and very professional; they came prepared to present their proposal. Mr. Gillispie did say that we needed not only wind, solar and geothermal energy sources but also nuclear energy to bring America out of this energy crisis.

    On the other hand the Anti-nuke people were loud and boisterous, making snide remarks when ever the IEC had anything to say.

    Do they no understand that WE as Americans need to do all we can to become energy independent? We as Americans need to do everything we can in order to stop being the energy slaves of the OPEC nations!

    This plant will not only help do that but help the people of Elmore County obtain the jobs that are desperately needed to support their families. It will not only supply construction jobs but also long term employment to a large number of people for years to come. Not to mention the large tax base that IEC will give to Elmore County which will help our schools, roads and every day life.

    One thing that was not mentioned is that Idaho already leads the way in nuclear development. The INEL just outside Arco has been around for years and no one in the communities in eastern Idaho has been exposed to the deadly nuclear radiation the radical anti-nuke people claim will happen here.

    These plants have been in operation in France for years and the technology and safety of these plants have improved greatly.

    Mr. Rickards and his bead wearing radicals not only insulted the people of Elmore County by thinking we were so back woods as to believe their drama of being lead out by the Sheriff Deputy, but also continue to insult us by saying we in Glenns Ferry and the surrounding area are no smarter than the characters of Dukes of Hazzard.

    Mr. Rickards got just what he wanted, too bad the rest of his followers were not removed with him.

    IMO may not be what some want in Idaho; but in order to break away from being slaves to high energy; we must all do everything possible.

    I look forward to this plant and the possibility of the new jobs and future it will bring.

    -- Posted by outatown on Thu, Jun 19, 2008, at 8:46 AM
  • Had you talked to all of the people from CA that were at that meeting, you would have heard all of the "great" things that this has done for CA. It helped their schools little if at all, the really good jobs went to people that were imported in, they got so many tax breaks that it hurt CA far more than it helped and their property taxes have doubled and tripled and in some cases it really hurt property values overall. Some of these people left CA to get away from all of that. In addition, they have hight electric costs. This is from the mouths of the people who have lived it! So, please tell this "bead wearing rebel" again how this is going to help us? I will not say I am sorry for a things that we, in your eyes, did at that meeting. That jerk could not even give a straight answer. He is the one that made the people of Elmore County look like idiots. He is out to ruin Elmore County not help it. Just follow his track record.

    He is out to build this thing and then sell it and make a fortune for himself and his money backers---NOT "help" Elmore County out. He could care less about us or what we think and pretty much said as much in that "meeting" that he paid for. Do not be fooled by all he says he can do for "us." All of his "help" has done so much for people in the past.

    There really is more to life than money such as a nice, clean place to live where you can drink the water and raise healthy, happy kids. There are other forms for generating power like wind and sun that do not produce toxic waste. We have plenty of wind and sun in Elmore County on any given day. Your little slur or PI reference was not appreciated. I am not a "hippy" but I do believe in standing up for my rights, it is what my husband has spent 19 years fighting for. The doctor did nothing wrong in that "meeting" and neither did the rest of us. Mr. G. played the "Boss Hog" card not us. How many nuclear engineers or people that have been educated in the field of nuclear power do you think live in our area? So, how many of the 80K per year jobs do you think will remain within the county? I lived in Illinois and we have nuclear power there. It did not help our power bills and damaged Lake Michigan. Not such a great thing but only my opinion.

    -- Posted by OpinionMissy on Thu, Jun 19, 2008, at 11:58 AM
  • OM,

    So someone who likely voted against a school bond now expects a power plant to improve the schools? You also talk about people moving from out of town to work at said plant as if they are not welcome, yet you keep bringing up the Californians that have moved here. I just don't get it. The Californians were saying that school bonds destroyed California and now you say that they are saying the Nuclear Power did it. I don't buy it and if you do, why would you even listen to a Californian after all that they have done to damage California?

    This is a business venture. If you aren't making money you are not running a viable business or you are not running your business well. I would hope that they would make money.

    By the way, I believe that good jobs in Elmore County would help us out. The jobs at the plant would not be the only jobs either. There would be jobs created by the increase in population and income. I welcome that after the jobs that have been lost in the county over the past year.

    Many of us were not born here in Elmore County. What would be so bad about having some new neighbors that worked at the facility? Were you even born here?

    -- Posted by IdahoBorn on Thu, Jun 19, 2008, at 1:45 PM
  • I too was at the meeting held at the Glenns Ferry Opera House. I wasn't sure how I stood on the issue of the nuclear plant when I arrived. I came to the meeting with an open mind, ready to hear what Mr. Gillespie had to say. It was made very clear from the start of the meeting that Mr. Gillespie would give his presentation and then members of Elmore County would be given a chance to voice their comments and concerns and also ask any questions that they had. Then if there was time, people from other counties could do the same.

    Mr. Rickards came up to me about 20 minutes before the meeting started and handed me his anti-nuke page. Other protesters then followed suit and before I knew it, I had a handful of pages that all basically said the same thing, nuclear plants are bad and Mr. Gillespie is a liar.

    Being a college-educated person and not some hick from the Dukes of Hazzard, I realize the truth of nuclear plants probably lies somewhere between the points the Mr. Gillispie made and the propoganda that the protesters were handing out. After hearing Mr. Gillespie speak and reading the material from Mr. Rickards and his organization, I spoke with my brother who has worked at the INEEL for about 20 years. Nuclear power has come a LONG ways from where it was in the 40's and 50's. I think we need this plant to come into Elmore County because (regardless what people say in California) I think it would be good for our area. It would bring in much needed jobs and revenue.

    The protesters at the meeting made themselves and their opinions seem downright unintelligent. The way they acted and tried to speak as though they were residents of Elmore County (even though when pressed they would admit they live elsewhere), it was shameful and I was embarrassed for them. At this point, even if I didn't want the plant to come in, I would be loathe to say that because I would not want my name associated with the idiots that run that organization. But that doesn't matter because I AGREE 100% that this plant would have an extremely positive impact on this area and on the residents lives!

    -- Posted by elmoreresident on Thu, Jun 19, 2008, at 1:46 PM
  • Peter Rickards,

    You should be embarassed that you brought up race and compared it to what was done. That is absurd and very low. You were asked to leave someone else's property and chose not to. Deal with the repercusions and stop whining. Would you like it if I came to your place of business and handed out propaganda and then wouldn't leave when you asked? I think not and I would face trespassing charges, just as you did. If the charge of battery is not true then I am sorry, but the trespassing seems pretty clear cut to me. I think that you believe that we are fools and will believe whatever you say. I will not do that and I think that you have damaged your credibility with your recent actions.

    -- Posted by IdahoBorn on Thu, Jun 19, 2008, at 3:36 PM
  • Dr. Rickards

    I have to agree with the people who said you deserved what you got. I wasn't at the meeting but after reading your account of what happened you were in the wrong. It seems to me you went to that meeting with the intention of causing problems. You were passing out your papers even after being asked to stop, you went around a person who asked you not to go in. If you even brushed up against him that could be battery. You got exactly what you wanted. By telling people to watch the peaceful arrest shows that it was planned. You have been to enough of these I am sure to know what would happen, you think it brings awareness to your cause, but for me it makes me think twice about the information you have. I am leaning more towards supporting the plant being here. You can thank yourself for that because it has a lot to do with your actions.

    -- Posted by small town on Thu, Jun 19, 2008, at 3:45 PM
  • Hi smalltown, I asked you watch the video of the peaceful arrest because the Mt Home news original version claimed I resisted arrest. This new version deleted that thankfully. This was NOT planned by me, for sure. This was the first time I have been banned, and the first time arrested. The only plan was to peacefully share vital informnation to protect my kids, and all children downwind.

    Hi Idaaborn, I brought up banning a certain race from a "public" meeting on "private property" to point out ALL the public has to be welcome. I CLEARLY stated "Rich wouldn't dream of doing that, of course." No apology

    Hi Outtatown,

    RE: Mr. Rickards and his bead wearing radicals not only insulted the people of Elmore County by thinking we were so back woods as to believe their drama of being lead out by the Sheriff Deputy, but also continue to insult us by saying we in Glenns Ferry and the surrounding area are no smarter than the characters of Dukes of Hazzard.

    Excuse me, but I have the greatest respect for all people. My handout was based on science referrences because I believe the people of Elmore County are smart and have a LOT of common sense. You seem to want to skip over the deadly details, and make this an issue about "bead wearing radicals who insult us." I wore my suit and tie out of respect.

    RE: Your claim that "The INEL just outside Arco has been around for years and no one in the communities in eastern Idaho has been exposed to the deadly nuclear radiation the radical anti-nuke people claim will happen here."

    Well, that is not true either. I was on the citizen advisory panel for the government's Centers for Disease Control historical dose study of all the intentional and accidental radioactive releases from INL. The SL-1 reactor criticality released a radioactive plume that spread all the way down to Burley during an inversion layer. This was a small experimental reactor, not a huge reactor that Gillispie wants to stick in Elmore county.

    So people have been exposed from INL, in that any many other examples. Proving anyone's specific cancer was caused by that, or by nature is a near impossible 100% proof, so understand I am not claiming that. But you said no one was exposed, and that is not true. Just like Gillispie claims no one has been exposed from a commercial nuclear power plant, and that is not true.

    On our state cancer registry you can see the report that the 6 counties surounding INL have an elevated brain cancer rate. Just a coincidence, according to the state and INL.

    But make no mistake, Homeland Security demands iodine pills be on hand at nuclear power plant neighborhoods, to try to lessen the damage to your thyroid gland, in case there is a terrorist strike or accidental meltdown. That pill won't stop all the damage, but it helps lessen thyroid damage as you and your family evacuate the area.

    There is no need to risk evacuations and impounding of crops with all the wind power Idaho has. Wind power provides millions of dollars of jobs and taxes, too! Think about your children...

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Thu, Jun 19, 2008, at 6:46 PM
  • Alright Mr. Rickards,

    I am getting real tired of hearing about you. You say that you have all the real facts about these nuke plants but all that I have seen from you is extremist propaganda that exaggerates everything but the truth. Let me give you some examples from some of your statements.

    Let talk first about your statement about "300+ pound Doug Maconahy." I happen to know and have dealt with him on numerous occasions. Granted I don't much care for him I wouldn't say that he is 300 pounds. In fact you only discredit yourself by insulting someone based on their size rather then staying focused on the issue that you are there to discuss.

    Next, "gee, we will see in court if Mr Wills can advertize a public meeting, and then pick and chose whom he will allow on his private property." Mr. Wills absolutely can make you leave his property during a public hearing if you are disrupting the purpose of the meeting. I wasn't there so I will not comment further on this.

    "I do have a medical license to use radioactive materials, and understand why pregnant women don't get even a simple foot x-ray, unless there is some life and death diagnosis needed, because of the severe radiosensitivity of the fetus to radiation damage." I happen to be an Industrial Hygienist Mr. Rickards and I do know for a fact that pregnant women can receive a minimal amount of radiation without adverse health effect to the fetus or mother. The fact is that most of the modern X-Ray equipment used in hospitals today have such concentrated beams a simple foot X-Ray or any other procedures that doesn't involve shooting the beam directly through the uterus is relatively routine but as a doctor I think you would know that. However, this is completely off the subject of the nuclear power plant but I think that is exactly what you want. You are trying to get the attention of this county entirely through fear, shock appeal, distorted facts, and conspiracy theories.

    I would love to keep dissecting your statements but I think that I would rather tell you what I know about nuclear power. I have also done a lot of research on this subject and have even written some college reports on nuclear incidents such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Let's start off with Chernobyl which as you probably know was the largest nuclear disasters ever. Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine was the product of a flawed Soviet reactor design coupled with serious mistakes made by the plant operators in the context of a system where training was minimal. It was a direct consequence of Cold War isolation and the resulting lack of any safety culture. 28 people died within four months from radiation or thermal burns, 19 have subsequently died, and there have been around nine deaths from thyroid cancer apparently due to the accident: total 56 fatalities as of 2004.

    On March 28, 1979 Three Mile Island (TMI) had a failure in the secondary, non-nuclear section of the power plant. The main feed water pumps stopped running, caused by either a mechanical or electrical failure, which prevented the steam generators from removing heat. This caused the turbine and reactor to shut down which in turn caused the pressure to build in the nuclear portion of the plant. A pressure valve located at the top of the plant opened to release the excess pressure but, it failed to close when the pressure returned to normal and it did not signal the operator that there is a problem with the valve. Cooling water came pouring out of the open valve resulting in the reactor overheating. Without the cooling capability the nuclear fuel overheated to the point at which the zirconium cladding (the long metal tubes which hold the nuclear fuel pellets) ruptured and the fuel pellets began to melt. Over half of the core meltdown occurred during the first stage of this incident. Even though this was a disastrous event there were no recorded worker injuries or death as a result of this disaster.

    So many changes have been made since these disasters that these plants are safer and more secure then most military bases. I think I have given you enough information for one day.

    -- Posted by Guardian on Fri, Jun 20, 2008, at 3:59 PM
  • Hi Guardian,

    I can't bench press 300 pounds, so I included Doug's weight for the irony of the charge I shoved him when he admitted he was blocking my entry to this "public" meeting. I haven't shoved anybody since the fourth grade, and I still feel guilty about that! My apology for the implication I was making fun of his weight problem. But in my posts below, and in my "illegal" handout, you can plainly see I dwell on documented references and science that contradict Gillispie's claims. While you re-explain the already acknowledged lack of any containment at Chernobyl, please actually READ my previously posted Dep't of Energy document on containment problems that could lead to "catastrophic failure." I am quoting the experts, and the latest modern reports. In 2002, the Ohio Davis-Besse nuclear power plant accidentally found an unexpected acid leak, that had eaten most the way through the trusted steel containment. It was from an unforeseen problem with the nickel alloy- 600 in the reactor, that became brittle after years of neutron bombardment inside the reactor. It had eaten a football size hole, and left only 3/8ths of an inch of containment! When the nuclear engineer inadvertently discovered it, he decided to lie to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety inspectors, so they could keep running the plant for profit!! LUCKILY this was finally found out, and this trusted nuclear engineer is now in jail. Gillispie didn't mention this at the meetings, did he? When I have forced this issue, he claims it shows the system works! I think common sense says it means there are no guarantees of total safety, as he has claimed in papers and meetings. He now admits a slight , "near impossible" chance of a problem since I have busted him in those same papers. At the peaceful Mt Home meeting, he told an Elmore citizen that it was a "one in a billion chance, like the chance of a meteor hitting the gym, so don't worry." After the meeting, I informed the innocent citizen that the NRC states a normal "one in 17,000 chance of a meltdown." And at the Davis-Besse fiasco in Ohio there was a "one in 1,000 chance of a meltdown within the year." See my website for the references at www.MyIdahoEnergy.com

    Please note that the Three Miles Island melted core is sitting orphaned out at INL, over our water supply. I agree no one was killed, but we have 240,000 years to see if the waste kills any Idahoans.

    The medical study cited by Gillispie focuses only on cancer "DEATH RATES." So the study is real, but death certificates don't always state a person had cancer, if he dies from other complications, as other studies prove. Your statement of 9 thyroid cancer deaths from Chernobyl also obscures the THOUSANDS of thyroid cancers children suffered miles away. That is because thyroid cancer has a 95% cure rate.These kids now take thyroid supplements, and have undergone gruesome cancer treatments. When we can double our present Idaho electric use with wind power, I think common sense says our kids would prefer to stick with the thyroid gland God gave them.

    You are correct to say that a pregnant women can have an x-ray without adverse effects to the fetus, but medical protocol tries to avoid any x-rays unless it is a vitally needed x-ray, because there is INDEED A RISK TO THE FETUS. For example, here is Dr Leroy of the Mayo Clinic at a national imaging conference discussing the MAYO protocol for appendicitis

    found at http://www.dimag.com/webcast05/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=174403404

    LeRoy described several imaging protocols that had been changed to accommodate pregnant women. For appendicitis, he and his colleagues first turn to ultrasound, and if that is nondiagnostic, they go to MR. The protocol is not feasible, of course, for facilities that have no or limited access to MR equipment, he said.

    _________________________________

    Gillispie talks about the benefit of low dose radiation, but the National Academy of Sciences dismissed this hormesis theory. Here is an easy to read news release from 2005 on the NAS's latest study confirming no safe dose level of radiation. The less radiation the better. You will find the references to the actual NAS study within this news release to read it yourself, in context.

    _______________________________________

    http://www.nirs.org/press/06-30-2005/1

    Washington, DC July 30, 2005 The National Academies of Science released an over 700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation--that even very low doses can cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells.

    Here are two references from the official National Institute of Health website of peer reviewed science and medical journals. Please note they study cancer rates in children, NOT DEATH RATES from those cancers. Please note the German study foumd increasing childhood leukemia rates, the closer you live to a nuclear plant! Most important is there was NO ACCIDENT reported from this plant, and they are baffled. It may be from the radioactive nobyl gases routinely released during normal operations, or maybe even the Electro Magnetic Field from the power lines. Or as INL says about the high brain cancer rates surrounding INL, it's probably just a coincidence. The tobacco companies say that too, because you can rarely prove causes of cancer 100% certainly. To me, and hopefully Elmore citizens, it is common sense to avoid these nuclear risks for Gillispie's profits from selling power to heat Hollywood hot tubs, when California bans these nuclear disasters waiting to happen.

    ___________________________________________________________________

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16738412?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEn...

    Journal of Radiological Protection 2006 Jun;26(2):127-40. Epub 2006 Apr 24.

    Cancer consequences of the Chernobyl accident: 20 years on.

    International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon Cedex 08, France. cardis@iarc.fr

    26 April 2006 marks the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident. On this occasion, the World Health Organization (WHO), within the UN Chernobyl Forum initiative, convened an Expert Group to evaluate the health impacts of Chernobyl. This paper summarises the findings relating to cancer. A dramatic increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer has been observed among those exposed to radioactive iodines in childhood and adolescence in the most contaminated territories.

    ________________________________________________

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18067131?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEn... Journal of Cancer 2008 Feb 15;122(4):721-6.

    Leukaemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants.

    Institute for Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, German Childhood Cancer Registry, Obere Zahlbacher Strasse 69, 55131 Mainz, Germany. kaatsch@imbei.uni-mainz.de

    A case control study was conducted where cases were children younger than 5 years (diseased between 1980 and 2003) registered at the german childhood cancer registry (GCCR). Population-based matched controls (1:3) were selected from the corresponding registrar's office. Residential proximity to the nearest nuclear power plant was determined for each subject individually (with a precision of about 25 m). The report is focused on leukaemia and mainly on cases in the inner 5-km zone around the plants. The study includes 593 leukaemia cases and 1,766 matched controls. All leukaemia combined show a statistically significant trend for 1/distance with a positive regression coefficient of 1.75 [lower 95%-confidence limit (CL): 0.65]; for acute lymphoid leukaemia 1.63 (lower 95%-CL: 0.39), for acute nonlymphocytic leukaemia 1.99 (lower 95%-CL: -0.41). This indicates a negative trend for distance. Cases live closer to nuclear power plants than the randomly selected controls. A categorical analysis shows a statistically significant odds ratio of 2.19 (lower 95%-CL: 1.51) for residential proximity within 5 km compared to residence outside this area. This result is largely attributed to cases in previous studies of the GCCR (especially in the inner zone) as there is clearly some overlap between those studies. The result was not to be expected under current radiation-epidemiological knowledge. Considering that there is no evidence of relevant accidents and that possible confounders could not be identified, the observed positive distance trend remains unexplained.

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Fri, Jun 20, 2008, at 8:31 PM
  • Hi Bazookaman,

    I admire your question, and especially admire your support of wind power to make this nuclear plant unneeded. As I have documented, the Dep't of Energy says Idaho can double our present electric consumption with windpower, and Stanford proved it can be a steady baseload, more reliable than coal.

    Your question if I was a "plant" is fair to ask, but I have a 20 year track record of opposing deadly nuclear projects in Idaho, and trying to force full clean up of ALL the buried plutonium dumped over our water at INL.

    But I think that the backlash of resentment to "protesters" was the purpose of arresting me by Gillispie. His only hope is to try to paint opposition as "bead wearing radicals."

    The first project I opposed was the SIS plutonium laser, in 1988. That was the first attempt to cluster all nuclear dirty work in Idaho, including nuclear weapons work, and all nuclear power work. The SIS was to work on both. They are related, which is why we are trying to stop Iran from any nuclear power. My kids and all children downwind are threatened by radioactive fallout, whether it comes from a peaceful reactor meltdown, or atomic weapons. Some pro-nuclear bloggers will now protest I am blurring the issues here, but I share some of my other efforts to protect the innocent citizens of Idaho from ANYMORE radioactive fallout. I paste below the wonderful Mormon Church newspaper article on my efforts to archive the great UNUSED atomic fallout data. The Idaho politicians refused to help, but Utah's Congressman Jim Matheson came through! If you search the www.deseretnews.com for Rickards, 5 articles will appear, that never got any Idaho media. That includes the attempt to renew bomb testing in Nevada 2 years ago, where they planned AGIAN to wait for the wind to blow toward us nobodies in Idaho, before detonation. Here is a sample of my unpaid tireless efforts to protect my fellow Idahoans. I am not a plant for nuclear businesses nor environmental groups. I am just a Dad protecting my children...Peter

    http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635171595,00.html

    deseretnews.com

    Utah

    Sunday, December 25, 2005

    Preserving fallout data called vital for research

    By Joe Bauman

    Deseret Morning News

    Peter Rickards is thrilled about Congress' passing a measure that requires preservation of military records on fallout from nuclear testing. He says he knows what might happen to the records if the government is not forced to keep them.

    The provision, sponsored in the House of Representatives by Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, became part of the Defense Department Appropriations Bill that has passed both chambers. Final action came Thursday.

    In the 1990s and early 2000s, Rickards experienced the destruction of valuable fallout records while he served on a citizens advisory committee for a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study seeking to reconstruct radiation doses from nuclear material that had leaked from the Idaho National Laboratory.

    "We had hundreds of boxes of documents earmarked for archiving that were destroyed right at the moment . . . right during their study," he said. "The DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) took boxes that were earmarked for archiving by the CDC and destroyed them."

    Rickards, a podiatrist in Twin Falls, Idaho, has closely followed the fallout debate. He believes it's important to save whatever records still remain.

    Although the National Laboratory, based in southwestern Idaho, did not produce atomic blast fallout, the Department of Energy facility did leak radiation. And fallout from nuclear weapons testing during the 1950s and '60s contributed to the overall radiation exposure in the region.

    Winds blowing from the Nevada Test Site did not always deposit the radioactive dust near the NTS. A 1997 study by the National Cancer Institute says Montana and Idaho were slammed by fallout worse than other parts of the country, even harder hit than southwestern Utah, which is close to the NTS. Four of the five counties with most fallout are in Idaho and the fifth is in Montana, according to the institute.

    Sorting out the history of radiation exposure is difficult, with researchers relying on scanty data. That's why Rickards and others feel it is imperative to preserve whatever information is available.

    "The government does regularly dispose of older documents," he said, "and in this case they have a vested interest in destroying all of the great fallout data." That was data, he hastened to add, "which the CDC refused to use" in its study.

    During many of the nuclear tests, according to Rickards, Defense Department aircraft tracked the plumes of atomic debris. They recorded where plumes went, levels of fallout, and where rain fell, he said.

    Rain sometimes caused radioactive dust to fall from the plume.

    Concerned about possible destruction of records, the National Academy of Sciences addressed the issue in a 2003 report reviewing a draft study by the CDC and the National Cancer Institute.

    The report, "Exposure of the American Population to Radioactive Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Tests: A Review of the CDC-NCI Draft Report on a Feasibility Study of the Health Consequences to the American Population from Nuclear Weapons Tests Conducted by the United States and Other Nations." It is available on the Internet at books.nap.edu/books/0309087139/html.

    The committee of the National Academy that reviewed the draft report recommended that Congress take action to protect the records.

    "Data searches and cataloging will not be possible if the underlying records and related material are destroyed," the academy noted. "Recognizing that, DOE (Department of Energy) has placed a moratorium on the destruction of possibly relevant records.

    "At present, there is no such moratorium on the destruction of DOD (Department of Defense) fallout-related records."

    The academy recommended that the CDC "urge Congress to prohibit the destruction of relevant records held by federal agencies and the permit appropriate access to them."

    Rickards said the destruction of DOE records was only for the duration of the Centers of Disease Control studies, "and needs to be made permanent."

    Matheson's bill, the Department of Defense Historical Radiation Records Preservation Act, requires the department to "identify, preserve and publish" information in the records, says a release from Matheson's office.

    "The NAS study found that both the Navy and the Air Force have important documents that should be archived," says the release.

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Sat, Jun 21, 2008, at 3:48 PM
  • Bazooka,

    What does the constitution say about their right to start a new business? I don't think that it says that they need to put it on the ballot. Did McDonalds go on the ballot? What about kid next door's lawn mowing business?

    -- Posted by IdahoBorn on Mon, Jun 23, 2008, at 12:28 PM
  • Hi Idaborn,

    It is legal to put nuclear power plants on the ballot! That is what they do in Oregon to ban these nuclear disasters from their neighborhoods.

    Oregon uses 2 laws to regulate nukes that effectively ban them. One requires an OPEN waste dump with certified room for the waste. That's a common sense law our governor and legislators refuse to enact while they invite foreign waste into our state! The second law says if they ever do get a waste dump open, that statewide voter approval is needed before any permit is given! Here is the url to verify me, and 2 snippets that get to the point of the longer full version...Peter

    http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/469.html

    469.595 Condition to site certificate for nuclear-fueled thermal power plant. Before issuing a site certificate for a nuclear-fueled thermal power plant, the Energy Facility Siting Council must find that an adequate repository for the disposal of the high-level radioactive waste produced by the plant has been licensed to operate by the appropriate agency of the federal government. The repository must provide for the terminal disposition of such waste, with or without provision for retrieval for reprocessing. [1981 c.1 §3]

    469.597 Election procedure; elector approval required. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 469.370, if the Energy Facility Siting Council finds that the requirements of ORS 469.595 have been satisfied and proposes to issue a site certificate for a nuclear-fueled thermal power plant, the proposal shall be submitted to the electors of this state for their approval or rejection at the next available statewide general election. The procedures for submitting a proposal to the electors under this section shall conform, as nearly as possible to those for state measures, including but not limited to procedures for printing related material in the voters' pamphlet.

    (2) A site certificate for a nuclear-fueled thermal power plant shall not be issued until the electors of this state have approved the issuance of the certificate at an election held pursuant to subsection (1) of this section. [1981 c.1 §§4,5]

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Mon, Jun 23, 2008, at 2:05 PM
  • Here we go again,

    Alright, I'll start this one off with exerts from the report that you posted on one of your previous post titled Containment Integrity Research at Sandia National Laboratories published in July of 2006. In the very first part of this report it states on pg. 6 that "The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the operation of civilian nuclear power plants by establishing and enforcing regulatory requirements for their design, construction, and operation. In particular, to protect the health and safety of the public and environment, the NRC requires all nuclear power plants to have a containment structure, which is essentially a leak-tight barrier between the reactor's primary system and the environment." Meaning that before a Nuclear Facility is even permitted to start operations they must prove to the NRC that their facility is designed, constructed, and operated in a way that all contaminants are isolated from reaching the environment.

    In section 2.2.2 titled Containment Design, describes what the containment systems are required to do. "The containment system is primarily designed to: 1. Contain any radioactive material that may be released from the primary system in case of an accident. 2. Protect the nuclear system from weather and other external threats such as missiles produced by earthquakes, tornadoes, wind, and in some cases aircraft impact. 3. Act as a supporting structure for operational equipment, e.g. cranes." I don't know about you but those sound like pretty good design requirements to ensure that there is no leakage of radioactive material from the facility in case of an accident or terrorist attack.

    On the cancer study that you mention that took place in Germany, I have never seen any report within the United States or from any government agency in the US that states for a fact that living in or around a nuclear facility inside the US is a hazard to someone's health.

    Now Mr. Rickards you are bringing up a so called report titled "Exposure of the American Population to Radioactive Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Tests: A Review of the CDC-NCI Draft Report on a Feasibility Study of the Health Consequences to the American Population from Nuclear Weapons Tests Conducted by the United States and Other Nations." Let me remind you again that we are talking about a nuclear power plant and not a nuclear bomb. Of course radioactive fallout from a nuclear explosion would be harmful to the people that were exposed to it, because that is what they are made to do. If you want to convince people about your argument please try and stay on topic.

    Lastly you talk a lot about the Department of Energy in your blogs. The next references I am going to give you are directly from the DOE website and it is a report titled "Nuclear Energy -- an Overview." "Nuclear power is the second-largest source of electric power generation in the United States, and existing plants are among the most economic on the grid today." "Over the past 15 years, U.S. utilities have become the best operators of nuclear power plants in the world. Consolidation of plant ownership to a fewer number of excellent operators has made the operation of U.S. plants: Safer, More cost-effective, and More reliable than ever before." This is a neat little information booklet that can be found at http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/factSheets/NuclearEnergyOverview.pdf. Additionally, you can find a lot more information at the DOE website for nuclear energy http://www.ne.doe.gov/publicInformation/nePIProgramFactSheets2.html

    I would also like to ask you that as a DPM or Doctor of Podiatric Medicine if that is your correct title what reason do you have to use radioactive materials on your patients besides a simple X-Ray? I do agree that ionizing radiation can have a detrimental effect a fetus however what I am telling you is that a fetus can be exposed to a minimal amount ionizing radiation (amount depends on trimester) and it is relatively routine to have a pregnant mother undergo medical evaluations involving radiation. How do I know this? Because my wife is a registered X-Ray and CT scan technician who does a lot of examination on pregnant women.

    Furthermore, for the readers of this post, if you are truly concerned about this issue take a look at all the information not just what Mr. Rickard's or I highlight. Anymore you need to inform yourself about the issues because it is really hard to trust anyone, which is sad to say. However, unlike Mr. Rickards I will not use scare tactics to sway you in a certain direction. I am just trying to explain the argument from the other side of the table. Again, everyone has there own mind and can make there own decisions but please educate yourself on both aspects before you make a decision.

    I'm done for today.

    -- Posted by Guardian on Mon, Jun 23, 2008, at 2:53 PM
  • Your analysis is correct Bazookaman, and please note I already provide the Oregon law that requires statewide voter approval of nuke plants, so your idea was excellent AND legal!

    Hi again Guardian,

    Yes indeed, I had already stated the peer reviewed study revealing increasing childhood cancer rates was from Germany. Please note the referrence provided shows it is on America's official National Institute of Health's website. I have already explained the US studies dwell on death rates, of ALL cancers. The reason their are no US studies focusing on specific childhood cancer rates near nuke plants published, is because NONE have been done! Intentional tunnel vision. The German nuke plants have equal if not tighter requirements to the US. These are not Russian no-containment reactors.

    I shared the article on my efforts to archive UNUSED fallout data in response to Bazookaman questiong if I was planted by nuclear businesses. So complaining I am trying to compare reactors to bombs is silly Guardian, and out of context. But the fact the CDC refused to use this great detailed fallout data is an example of the intentional tunnel vision I mentioned.

    You ask "what reason do you have to use radioactive materials on your patients besides a simple X-Ray?" I can inject radioactive tracers for bone scans, looking for stress fractures like Tiger Woods just got.

    Glad your wife is an x-ray tech, but the Mayo clinic reference I already gave has plenty of examples of pregnant women getting x-rays, in vitally needed situations ONLY, which I already stated. A foot x-ray of a harmless bunion gets postponed for pregnant women, but thanks for trying to lecture me on medical protocol!

    I am glad you read PART of the NRC/DOE referrence on containment. I am sure the goals of the containment "sound like pretty good" statements to you as you stated. But the quotes I already gave seem more important because they admit the problems that could lead to "catastrophic failure" and admit what little they know on key problems after 50 years of "safety" claims. You are free to quote the rosy summaries from DOE websites like Gillispie does, but WHAT PART OF "CATASTROPHIC FAILURE" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? I'll repost the bottom line problems you chose to ignore for any new readers...Peter

    http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6906/cr6906.pdf

    find at p 147 or p 166/206 on webpages

    4.7 Issues for Future Consideration

    4.7.1 Leakage

    A great deal has been learned about containment behavior and containment analysis methods in

    the last two decades of containment research, but questions still remain. One of the most

    important behavior questions is that it is not known with certainty whether a leakage failure will

    reach an equilibrium state or if it will lead to a catastrophic failure.

    _________________

    4.7.2 Other Considerations

    Many aspects of containment integrity have still not been addressed in the various containment

    integrity research programs. Some of these topics are listed below:

    * The behavior of the containment under elevated temperature and pressure loads has not

    been thoroughly investigated. Most of the containment tests have ignored the effects of

    temperature on the material properties and thermal induced stresses associated with

    elevated temperatures.

    * The effect of aerosols within the containment atmosphere during an accident has not been

    investigated. Aerosols may plug holes in the containment that may lead to a higher

    pressure capability, but have the potential to change the mode of failure from a possible

    benign mode to a burst mode. This applies to unlined concrete containments and lined

    containments when the liner has failed.

    * Seismic loadings coupled with severe accident loads have not been investigated in any

    detail.

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Mon, Jun 23, 2008, at 6:40 PM
  • You know what I don't need to lecture you on anything and I don't put that information out there for you. I put that out there for the people of this community so that they can make there own decision based on fact on my side of the argument. I am not saying that your side is absolutly wrong but what I am saying is that you anti nuclear extremist views warps the expert opinions and does not project them entirely. I could give you numerous sites and reference that say nuclear power is the best thing around but quite frankly just like many extremist you are unwilling to listen to anyone except for those who are on your side.

    Best wishes in your fight to hold back the future but I will be there with many others to welcome it.

    -- Posted by Guardian on Mon, Jun 23, 2008, at 7:40 PM
  • I thought about letting a dead dog lie but I can't. First of all I want to apologize to Mr. Rickard's for some of my comments made about him. I know that he is just trying to explain his views, as am I and we all have a right to do that. In fact I don't think that there has ever been a major decision made without lively debate. So Dr. Rickard please accept my apology. I will keep it civil from now on.

    Now back on the subject. Dr. Rickard talks a lot about cancer, cancer, cancer. Overexposure to ionizing radiation has been proven to cause cancer however, there are many other thing that you use and are around every day that do the same thing, for instance chemicals. OSHA has a list of expanded standard chemicals that cause cancers some of which include lead, cadmium, chromium (VI), and Benzene. Most of these substances are something you can find in everyday household cleaning products and industrial chemicals. For example gasoline contains Benzene but does that mean you are getting cancer every time you fill up your vehicle? Of course not because according to OSHA and many other governmental and private research institutions such as the American Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) you can be exposed to a minimal amount of these chemicals. This is the same for radiation. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that this plant will cause people to be exposed to radiation because the research that I have done on the subject says just the opposite but I personally feel that carcinogens in products are a greater cancer risk then a nuclear power plant.

    I would love to see natural power production from things like wind and solar but these alternatives are still not a proven technology. For example on a day like today were there is no wind to turn the windmills there is no power production. What if there is a week, or although it is not real probable, a month of no wind. That would cause thousands of watts not being produced and available for customers. That is why I see nuclear power, which produces 0 harmful emissions and reduces our dependency on foreign oil, as the way to go until we refine our technology for natural power production.

    I know Dr. Rickard that you can give me all kinds of documentation that says I am wrong but I can do same thing on the other end. I guess that this is a subject that we are going to have to agree to disagree on.

    -- Posted by Guardian on Mon, Jun 23, 2008, at 9:23 PM
  • Mr. Rickards - I was ambivalent about this nuclear powerplant until I had a chance to read this entire blog - especially your postings. It is obvious with your name calling that you use innuendo and falsehood to convince. In your trial, I hope this guy you call 300+lbs. is asked his weight or requests a weigh-in. I understand its not true and GUARDIAN says so. It should shed light upon your veracity in the nuke debate and for the judge to determine the accuracy of your arguments. For the rest of us, we can only determine what kind of cruel individual you are. Perhaps foot doctors don't take a Hippocratic Oath to help and never cause harm. Your namecalling causes harm. We need to know more about you that's for sure. But what we now know about how you behave - says that you are not welcome in our community. Stay in Twin Falls with this kind of sick bluster. I'm torn on this powerplant issue, but folks like you need to start acting respectful.

    -- Posted by Let'sTalk on Mon, Jun 23, 2008, at 9:24 PM
  • Guardian: thank you for all of the helpful information you have shared. I don't think you have engaged in namecalling, but have asserted the research you believes helps in determining the truth. I prefer your manner to that of Mr. Rickards. What kind of profession are you engaged in? You've shown a propensity to research and share the truth on public policy. Again, thank you.

    -- Posted by Let'sTalk on Mon, Jun 23, 2008, at 9:30 PM
  • Hi Guardian,

    Thank you for your apology, and for returning to asking good questions, like about the intermittent nature of wind power. On my website you can see the 2007 Stanford report that detailed that connecting widespread wind farms can be as steady and reliable a baseload as coal. You will also see a new western electric grid is underway, and I have suggested at the hearings we build through the DOE mapped areas of high wind, solar, and geothermal. You can also see the U of Utah stating geothermal can provide 5 times the whole countries electric use. That is clean and steady power, but Bush cut all subsidies! Please visit www.MyIdahoEnergy.com

    Let's keep calmly discussing the details instead of just agreeing to disagree. When I provide the latest DOE/NRC document admitting potential "catstrophic failure", and Gillispie tells Elmore residents that is impossible, I think it is clear he is lying. What is there to disagree about?

    The bottom line to me is since the DOE admits Idaho can double our electric use with wind alone, why risk a meltdown. Have you read the details of the modern 2002 problems at Ohio's Davis-Besse plant? the governments NRC said the risk of a meltdown was 1 in 1,000 within a year. That's a modern American nuke plant, that had an unforeseen nickel alloy-600 problem withthe metal cracking, then the nuke engineer covered up the hole it ate in the containment! Why risk Idaho kids for that?

    Hi "Let's talk,"

    You claim to have read the whole blog, rip into me and warn me to stay in TF, call me cruel, then politely ask Guardian what he does for a living,. He already explained he is an industrial hygenist, so I doubt you read the whole blog as you claim. You are probably just a ringer from Gillispie's business, a new poster with a fake name. You are free to be that in our great country.

    Geez, I already apologized for mentioning Doug's weight, but you want to ignore the documents I provided, and polarize the discussion from facts to label me a "name caller." Here was my previous apology and explanation...

    "I can't bench press 300 pounds, so I included Doug's weight for the irony of the charge I shoved him when he admitted he was blocking my entry to this "public" meeting. I haven't shoved anybody since the fourth grade, and I still feel guilty about that! My apology for the implication I was making fun of his weight problem. But in my posts below, and in my "illegal" handout, you can plainly see I dwell on documented references and science that contradict Gillispie's claims."

    ...Peter

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Mon, Jun 23, 2008, at 10:47 PM
  • The truth hurts (you) doesn't it? We're going to get one of the coffee cups (you can order here online) with you being led away in handcuffs - down at our Senior Center as a prize for being the biggest horse's patoot in the news of 2008. No, neither my husband or I work for Mr. Gillespie - we're retired. But we will spread the word about you and your anti-nuke cause. People like you Mr. Rickards scare us to death! And it has nothing to do with nuclear energy. We are afraid of batterers who might hurt us.

    -- Posted by Let'sTalk on Mon, Jun 23, 2008, at 11:43 PM
  • GUARDIAN: What praytell is an "industrial hygienist"? I spent over 40 years as a schoolteacher, but have never heard of this profession. Do you work for a big company like HP or Micron? I'm sure it'll be the talk of my friends over coffee tomorrow as will this Rickards fellow. I think he's a little bit spooky. There were students that were this way back in the day, but they would be suspended or kicked-out. In this case, however, Rickards would probably have gotten the ACLU to sue the school district over his right to be a bully. I wonder how the state licensing folks see this behavior?

    -- Posted by Let'sTalk on Tue, Jun 24, 2008, at 12:07 AM
  • Bless your heart "Let's Talk", if you are truly an Elmore resident and a retired school teacher. I doubt that, but I am in no way a "batterer,"as you claim to fear. I asked the officer to examine Doug for any signs of battery, since when I watch the "Cops" TV show, there is usually a women bleeding when such an arrest is made, and I never laid a hand on him. I was then informed that "touching someone without their permission" is battery, and there doesn't have to be any harm. Doug was NEVER shoved by me. As I stated before, I haven't shoved anybody since the fourth grade, and I still feel guilty about that.

    I do have an Elmore County resident, the third person I asked if I could share my handout with, who is willing to testify Doug grabbed my arm and told me I must leave. I had not given him permission to grab my arm, but I guess that is battery after my "education" of this term in Elmore County. I also received a picture from a reporter, where State Rep Rich Wills, an ex-police officer, is putting his arm around my shoulder and poking me with his finger. They were trying to bully me, but I don't intimidate easily. If our brave soldiers can die for the right of Iraqi citizens to have free speech like we do, and stop Saddam Husein from dragging innocent citizens off to his jail because they disagree with him, the least I can do is protect the first amendment in Elmore County. As I stated below, my landlord friend has REAL, and dangerous trespassers. He can not touch them, and the police must ask them to leave. They only arrest them if they refuse the police. At the Payette nuclear meeting in December, when Warren Buffet tried to promote his nuclear plant, the Police Officers ASKED for my handout. I was expecting the Police to laugh at their request to have me arrested, or warn me to leave. Live and learn, eh?The Price-Anderson Act limits liability of damage from a nuclear meltdown to $10 BILLION. This is no joke, and I am no bully. The kids I coached on my 2 boys baseball, basketball, and soccer teams liked me. Dogs like me! I was hoping to speak with my neighbors in Elmore County before and after the meeting, like I had peacefully at Mt Home the week before, and hoped they liked me too! Many of my patients are teachers, and I hope we have a chance to meet and speak together sometime. By the end of my first arrest, Officer Belk had asked me questions about his feet, and even admitted if he were told he could not attend a "public" meeting, he probably would have attende as well! We shook hands when I left...Peter

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Tue, Jun 24, 2008, at 1:18 AM
  • Let'sTalk,

    Thank you for the post. It is nice to see that all the things I have posted on here hasn't gone unnoticed. As Dr. Rickard said I work as an industrial hygienist for an organization in Boise but I live in Mountain Home. As an industrial hygienist I do deal with radioactive materials in particular managing NRC radioactive material permits so I absolutely understand the scrutiny the government puts in the use of these materials. I also ensure the workers and general public are not overexposed to the radioactive materials in my possession. My dealings with these materials are one reason why I disagree with Dr. Rickard but please look at all the information including Dr. Rickard's posts and information and make your own educated decision based on facts from both sides. Although I do not agree with all of Dr. Rickard's information, he does bring some valid arguments. In my opinion both of us are showing good information just from different ends of the spectrum.

    Also, I think I have seen you in other posts within this website so I think I can reasonably discredit Dr. Rickard's statement saying "You are probably just a ringer from Gillispie's business, a new poster with a fake name."

    Thanks again.

    Dr. Rickard,

    I took a look at the report titled "Global Wind Map May Provide Better Locations for Wind Farms" and it sounds like a pretty good theory however, for right now at least, that is all it is, theory. Not a proven theory, just theory. Nuclear power is not just a theory but more of a proven science with what I like to call theory in practice. What I mean by that is we are coming up with newer, better, and safer ways to generate power using radioactive isotopes. Nuclear Science and research is only becoming better and will continue to go in that direction. I still believe that even though nuclear power has a ways to go it is still a proven reliable and safe (for both people and the environment) power source in the current state that it is in today.

    I would also like to post some information concerning the use of wind power. This first bit of information also comes from the Department of Energy showing the advantages and disadvantages of wind power generation which can be located at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_ad.html.

    Advantages

    Wind energy is fueled by the wind, so it's a clean fuel source. Wind energy doesn't pollute the air like power plants that rely on combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas. Wind turbines don't produce atmospheric emissions that cause acid rain or greenhouse gasses.

    Wind energy is a domestic source of energy, produced in the United States. The nation's wind supply is abundant.

    Wind energy relies on the renewable power of the wind, which can't be used up. Wind is actually a form of solar energy; winds are caused by the heating of the atmosphere by the sun, the rotation of the earth, and the earth's surface irregularities.

    Wind energy is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies available today, costing between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, depending upon the wind resource and project financing of the particular project.

    Wind turbines can be built on farms or ranches, thus benefiting the economy in rural areas, where most of the best wind sites are found. Farmers and ranchers can continue to work the land because the wind turbines use only a fraction of the land. Wind power plant owners make rent payments to the farmer or rancher for the use of the land.

    Disadvantages

    Wind power must compete with conventional generation sources on a cost basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm may or may not be cost competitive. Even though the cost of wind power has decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.

    The major challenge to using wind as a source of power is that the wind is intermittent and it does not always blow when electricity is needed. Wind energy cannot be stored (unless batteries are used); and not all winds can be harnessed to meet the timing of electricity demands.

    Good wind sites are often located in remote locations, far from cities where the electricity is needed.

    Wind resource development may compete with other uses for the land and those alternative uses may be more highly valued than electricity generation.

    Although wind power plants have relatively little impact on the environment compared to other conventional power plants, there is some concern over the noise produced by the rotor blades, aesthetic (visual) impacts, and sometimes birds have been killed by flying into the rotors. Most of these problems have been resolved or greatly reduced through technological development or by properly siting wind plants.

    These are all great advantages and it also brings up some very serious disadvantages. Nuclear power also has some very distinct advantages and disadvantages but one of the very important advantages that it has over Wind power is that nuclear power plants will always be reliable for producing power. Wind or no wind it will always generate an abundance of power. You can check out more information on wind power at the DOE Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program website at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/. There is a ton of good information there.

    I would also like to interject some excerpts from a story in the Nashville Business Journal on 14 June 2007 titled "Senator Speaks Out Against Windmill Power." Tennessee US Sen. Lamar Alexander has a real issue with wind power generation. Some of which are the same issues I have already written about. "In Tennessee the wind simply doesn't blow enough to produce much electric power," Alexander says. "Residential homeowners can't afford these taxes, industries will take their jobs to states with cheaper power and tourists will spend their dollars where they can see mountaintops instead of giant wind turbines." He also says the windmills will cost Tennesseans $410 million a year in higher bills. "Because of its nuclear and hydro plants, Tennessee is already on the honor roll, ranking 16th among states in production of carbon-free electricity," Alexander says. "Alexander, the senior senator from Tennesse, says TVA scientists allege that it would take 720 wind turbines lining 110 miles of East Tennessee ridge tops, the distance from Knoxville to Chattanooga, to meet just a 2 percent proposed wind standard." For the entire story check out http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2007/06/14/senator-speaks-out-against-windmill-po....

    Now although Tennessee is not Idaho he does bring up some very good points that hit close to home. Unlike Tennessee we do have an abundance of wind and wind farms would probably do very well here however, I personally would not like to see hundreds if not thousands of acres of windmills lining Idaho's scenic areas when you can have one nuclear power plant that would produce more reliable energy with a whole lot less space.

    Anyway it is late and I have go to work tomorrow so more later.

    -- Posted by Guardian on Tue, Jun 24, 2008, at 2:05 AM
  • Let'sTalk,

    The main purpose of an industrial hygienist is to protect the health and safety of the workers in an organization through what we call health risk assessments. Now what that basically means is that we gather information through analytical means such as testing the air for harmful chemicals, measuring the amount of noise in a work area, or in the case of radiation, measuring the amount that someone is exposed to and recommending control (if needed) to protect the workers from exposure. We also manage many federal and state regulatory programs. In my case, as I stated before, I manage Nuclear Regulatory Commission and certain Occupational Safety and Health Administration programs. That is a brief overview of what I do.

    I do work for a large organization in Boise but I would rather not mention there name because some might take that as me representing the views of my organization and that is not the case. DISCLAIMER: These are my own views and do not represent the views of my organization. LOL

    -- Posted by Guardian on Tue, Jun 24, 2008, at 2:34 AM
  • Well said Guardian! But I didn't see a response to my noting the Ohio Davis-Besse nuclear plant fiasco. This alloy-600 problem with brittle metal reaction to continual reactor neutron bombardment effects half the fleet of our 104 reactors.

    A similar problem effets the other half.. If "let's talk" really is an Elmore citizen, like I said, "Bless her heart."

    Here is a official NRC quote on the alloy-600 problem. Yah, time for sleep!! Gotta be at work "sooner than later" ..Peter

    http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/prv.html

    Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking of Upper Reactor Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles in PWRs

    Control rod drive mechanism nozzles and other vessel head penetration nozzles welded to the upper reactor vessel head are subject to another phenomenon - primary water stress corrosion cracking. The issue is a potential safety concern because a nozzle with sufficient cracking could break off during operation. This would compromise the integrity of the reactor coolant system pressure boundary - one of three primary barriers that protect the public from exposure to radiation. The break may also result in the ejection of a control rod, which could damage nearby components.

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Tue, Jun 24, 2008, at 2:50 AM
  • I have a question on alternate power that I am hoping can be answered. I read some on the internet but I really don't understand all of what they say. My question is on wind and solar verses nuclear power. From what I have read wind and solar are cleaner than nuclear but not as cost effective. If we use only wind and solar power how much is that going to cost to build and maintain as opposed to nuclear. I am all for using renewable sources but it has to be cost effective and from what I read solar is very expensive.

    -- Posted by small town on Tue, Jun 24, 2008, at 10:58 AM
  • However, Bazooka far more people have died in this country from eating Big Macs and Lawnmower accidents than Nuclear Meltdowns.

    I wasn't saying that it was illegal to put it on the ballot. I was pointing out that it isn't required just like it isn't required for the other businesses.

    It seems to me that it would be much more effective for people to push for legislation to ensure safety and certain requirements rather than attacking the company or its spokesman personally.

    -- Posted by IdahoBorn on Tue, Jun 24, 2008, at 12:55 PM
  • GUARDIAN: Thanks for explaining about your job. I never could have imagined. I read or heard somewhere that we've had US Navy sailors sleeping next to nuclear reactors. Submarines have had nuclear reactors for over 50 years. Have there been any problems? I know there was a popular movie a few years ago about a Soviet nuclear sub with dangerous problems. Has our Navy hid the dangers of nuclear from us? How safe has it been to live aboard a nuclear sub?

    Its funny how Mr. Rickards tells me, "Bless your heart." and then turns around with spite and says "if you really are from Elmore County and if you are a schoolteacher." There's something wrong here with this guy. We have coffee each morning with a bunch of other retired folks and I brought Walt's new laptop computer complete with this blog exchange and photos this morning. They all laughed and we now say to each other, "if you really are from Elmore as you claim".

    Have you ever been driving and some brash driver speeds by recklessly? You wish there were a cop around to see it and stop them. It would be such a feeling of satisfaction. That's how we all felt when we saw Mr. Rickards in handcuffs being led away by the deputy in the photo. Such a feeling of satisfaction that a spiteful guy like that is getting some comeuppance.

    In school there were always a few young hoodlums like this that then had all kinds of excuses for their behavior. "Its someone else's fault. I didn't do it. The rules are unfair. etc. etc." I think in many instances that would be called anti-social behavior. I wouldn't have paid a bit of attention to this if I hadn't read this blog. And then to have him attack me and try to personally discredit me for MY exercise of free speech. Mr. Rickards is the person under arrest. I know, I know, its the ex-cop (that everyone loves by the way) or its the allegedly-fat guy or its Gillespie or whatever? Next he'll blame his mom and dad or one of his old teachers.

    Mr. Rickards - you should be ashamed. And if you want to be embarrassed further and have a bunch of us oldheads come down and confront you - then so be it. We'll show you our driver's licenses right after we call Ch. 7 to meet us there first. You've got a screw loose!

    -- Posted by Let'sTalk on Tue, Jun 24, 2008, at 1:00 PM
  • Hi small town,

    On your good question about costs of renewables vs nuclear, wind is by far cheaper than nuclear.

    Gillispie has written in papers that he can sell nuclear power at 3 cents a kilowatt (kw). However, please visit page 11 of this keystone report, written by nuclear companies like Areva, and you will see that consumers pay 8-11 cents/kw. California pays about 18 cents/kw, and we will have to outbid them to buy Gillispies merchant power. He tells his remaining stockholders that he will sell to the highest bidder, and refuse to put his cheap power promises in writing with the PUC, of course. See

    http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NuclearFactFinding6_2007(2).pd...

    The INL's wind expert Kurt Myers recently came to Twin Falls and presented the new DOE study on wind, stating the USA can provide 20% of it's electric use from wind by 2030! In his presentation, and the DOE document, Idaho could provide a nameplate of wind over

    5,000 megawatts (MW)!! We presently use about 1,600 MW, with a peak load in the summer of 3,000MW. Kurt agreed that was over double our present use, and it would be cost effective at about 7.5 cents/kw! Hey, that's what I've been saying for years, and now the DOE officially agrees! Our politicians and new western power grid have to help to make this work, and presently Butch Otter claims "Idaho has 3 N's in our future: Nuclear, Natural Gas, or NOTHING!" That's why the nuclear businesses give Butch so many donations! Idaho Power has DRAGGED wind farmers through court, claiming it was impossible to integrate intermittent wind. Now they have lost in court, and only dabble in token wind. The new China Mt wind farm south of Twin Falls offered our wind power to Id Power, who refused because they want their own coal or nuclear plant. We are actually letting Nevada buy our wind power! Anyway, you can email the INL's nice scientist to check for yourself at kurt.myers@inl.gov

    Geothermal is steady, clean and cheap too! Gillispie claimed in the Statesman that the Raft River cost 62 cents a kw, but that happens to be another lie he repeats with a smile. I called the CEO of US Geothermal, and his PUC contract sells it to Idaho Power for 5.25 cents/kw!! You can see the contract he sent me (page 5 or 6/86 webpage) at

    http://www.puc.idaho.gov/internet/cases/elec/IPC/IPCE0717/20071009APPLICATION.PD...

    The figure is in MW per hour not kw so the math is tricky. Call them if you doubt the math, but let me explain The contract is for $52.50 per megawatt per hour. A megawatt is 1,000,000 watts. A kilowatt is 1,000 watts. So that is 5.25 cents per kilowatt as the CEO confirmed. Cheap, and no meltdowns possible!

    Dear "Let's Talk"

    Wow, your tone is so different than any teacher I have known, so I naturally doubted your anonymous post was really a sweet retired teacher. I already defended your right to call me cruel, and drag up the weight problem Doug has, that I already apologized for and explained.

    You still seem intent on avoiding the science, and focusing on polarizing the discussion on emotions alone.

    Could you please tell me where I can order that coffee cup with my arrest picture you spoke of? That'll get me going in the morning more than the coffee, and my kids want me to get them one too.

    To return to your good question (finally) on our brave soldiers in the nuclear navy, I am not aware of nay health problems documented for them. In these peer reviewed studies I quote, they always note what is officially called "the healthy worker effect."This applies to all lines of work, not just nuclear. These folks are in their prime, and their immune systems are much stronger than a fetus, a child, or a senior citizen. The DOE recently found increased problems in their women workers, but that was not in a commercial nuclear power plant.

    While you are welcome to follow through with your plan to come confront me with Chanel 7 at my office, please let me know when you are coming. I am often doing housecalls, or in nursing homes, helping our elder citizens. I wouldn't want to have you waste the gas and miss the chance to meet you. I bet you will find I am a nice guy. I like Rich Wills too! ..Peter

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Tue, Jun 24, 2008, at 4:16 PM
  • Dr. Rickers

    Thank you for the answer but that is not the cost I was referring to, I am sorry if I didn't word it right. I want to know about the cost difference in building and maintianing the plants. How many wind turbines or solar plants do we need to make up the power that a nuclear power plant provides.

    -- Posted by small town on Tue, Jun 24, 2008, at 5:40 PM
  • Mr. Rickards you are not a "nice guy" that's apparent. You're a phony. Your posts say it.

    -- Posted by Let'sTalk on Tue, Jun 24, 2008, at 6:01 PM
  • Hi small town,

    Thank you for clarifying your question, and asking new ones.

    Those cost figures however, already include maintenance and construction. Like the geothermal Raft River contract for 5,25 cents / kw. That is what they agreed to sell for. Maintenance and construction are their responsibility, and included in the price they agreed to sell for.

    A modern wind turbine, like those proposed for the South Hills in Twin Falls county produce between 2.3 - 3 megawatts (MW) each. They move slower than the old egg beater speed smaller ones that hurt so many birds, and produced less. They are MAJESTIC to look at! Gillispie's proposal is bigger than most nuclear power, and will produce 1600 MW, so roughly 600 wind towers are needed. As INL's Kurt Myers graphed, one well paid technician is needed for about every 5 towers. This is included in the eventual consumer price of about 7.5 cents/kw. He had a marvolous graph of all the jobs, taxes, and other many benefits, but I can't remember how many millions of dollars were generated, but it was impressive. A BLM news release verifying that 2.3 - 3 MW / tower can be fund at

    http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/id/nepa/jarbidge_fo/china_mountain_wi...

    About 2 years ago a rancher from the south hills called me after he saw my letter chastising Idaho Power for disobeying the law requiring they buy wind power. This international Enexco wind company had studied this ranchers land for 4 years. He was Class 4 winds, that peaked in the harsh winter 24x7, and in peak summer heat, peaked from noon til 7 PM. They offered 4.5 cents per kw, fixed for 20 years. The rancher loved it and would have made money, as would Enexco. 4.5 / kw is reasonable, and GREAT rate in 15 -20 years from now! They walked away 2 years ago!! Now that court cases have been won by the little guys, we are starting to see some token action and great ads by Id Power. Butch claims the wind is too expensive, so we need his donors nuke plants.

    But most important is realizing this rancher could keep ranching! This was only a supplement to his income. The Company took care of all construction and maintenance. Gillispie has written in papers how much land wind power consumes, but it is a diversionary figure. This rancher keeps on ranching. The land use does not really matter.

    Solar power perfectly matches peak heat summer load. While I love the Nevada solar farm, it is a desert occupying land use, which is great. I and places like New Jersey, advocate assisting finance rooftop solar, which provides shade for your house, and uses no new land. It eventually pays for itself, but helps the little guy pay slowly over years, but stops the need for coal and nukes NOW. Solar is currently about 17 cents/kw, but new innovations look like it may get down to 7 cent/kw. So that ain't a fact yet, just a ray of hope. But we have wind and geothermal ready to go right now.

    Hi again "Let's talk",

    I again respect and defend your right to call me a "phony"...Peter

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Tue, Jun 24, 2008, at 8:45 PM
  • Small Town,

    Take a look at one of my post from yesterday. There is a ton of information there and as I explained in that blog, I believe that wind power is a great concept however; it does have some serious drawbacks to this technology. Take a look at it and if you would like some additional information let me know. I am going to get some geothermal information on here under my response to Dr. Rickards.

    Additionally, please don't be scared by the term meltdown. Here are some interesting facts surrounding nuclear power.

    Nuclear energy production has existed in the US since the 1950's when the Navy started putting reactors in their submarines and aircraft carriers. During it's nearly 60 year venture in the US we have only had one major incident (Three Mile Island IN 1979).

    There are 104 nuclear plants producing power today within the US with no major problems or "meltdowns"

    There is a ton more information in my previous post but please look at both sides of the issue and do some of your own research because a lot of times, as you probably know, you will get different answers from everyone on both sides of this issue and if you have any other questions please let me know.

    Let'sTalk,

    I am very glad that you brought the US Navy Reactors. The reason that you do not hear about health problems involving radiation with the Sailors on reactor driven carriers and submarines are because there is no documented health risks associated with it. Now, even though these are different then nuclear power plants they still work on the same principle. I saw Dr. Rickards' post citing "The Healthy Worker Effect" but I think the true reason is because they are leak tight reactors and the general populace on the ship receives absolutely no radiation exposure from the reactor while aboard the ship.

    That was great input, thank you.

    Dr. Rickard,

    Don't worry I haven't forgot about you but I am still doing some research on the Ohio Davis-Besse issue that you brought up. I will probably have a response for you tomorrow.

    -- Posted by Guardian on Wed, Jun 25, 2008, at 2:38 AM
  • Hi Guardian,

    I look forward to your next post, while doing my bed time review of new blogs. Please repeat, copy and paste, what info you think on tech problems you tell Small Town to review, because I can not see any that you posted. Glad we agree no evidence of harm to adult Navy troops from Nuclear submarines.

    But RE: your claim "There are 104 nuclear plants producing power today within the US with no major problems or "meltdowns"

    Yes indeed, please examine every detail of the alloy-600 stress crack problem! I think you will see scientists are not as smart as God, and nuclear power is NOT as safe as Gillispie, Butch, and INL smiling speech teams claim they are. I look forward to the enlightening discussion...Peter

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Wed, Jun 25, 2008, at 3:01 AM
  • I'm not going to get into a urinating match with DR. Rickards - he seems to be a bully. BUT, I am going to order a coffee cup and a t-shirt with his photo on them. Let'sTalk told us about them at the Senior Center and we're all going to get one to drink coffee from! This guy is too funny! You shouldn't have beaten up on my old teacher sir.

    -- Posted by Macks9 on Wed, Jun 25, 2008, at 3:56 PM
  • Hi macks9,

    I have been polite, but I defend your right to call me names.

    "Let's Talk" said we could order those coffee cups with my false arrest picture online. I am a good searcher but nothing has come up.

    Can you please tell me where to order them? Both my boys want one. Now my dear 88 year old Mom wants one, and my 86 year old Dad wants one for home and one for work! He loves his work, loves his coffee, and won't retire! My sister wants three. Please let us in on the fun.

    The Price-Anderson act limits liability from a meltdown at $10 BILLION of damages to Idaho families. That won't be fun, so might as well enjoy the coffee...Peter

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Wed, Jun 25, 2008, at 5:08 PM
  • You can order them right here on this site Mr...er..Dr. Good Searcher. Seems your search ability is like your ability to research facts.

    -- Posted by Macks9 on Wed, Jun 25, 2008, at 5:22 PM
  • By the way DR. Rickards, how much of a payout was made to families under the Anderson-Price Act with Three Mile Island? How about other payouts?

    Have any of your insurance providers had to pay out for your acts in the past professionally?

    -- Posted by Macks9 on Wed, Jun 25, 2008, at 5:25 PM
  • And don't overlook the Mousepad with a picture of a rat on it (your pic) - it only costs $10. And the t-shirts and refrigerator magnets will make 'yo momma proud.

    -- Posted by Macks9 on Wed, Jun 25, 2008, at 5:30 PM
  • The "Prisoner of Pit Nine" YAWN!

    -- Posted by Macks9 on Wed, Jun 25, 2008, at 5:40 PM
  • After reading the blogs and doing some research I am leaning towards the plant. I am from upstate NY and we have a plant on Lake Ontario and have heard nothing happening there. I understand it all has a potential for being dangerous but so does everything. Think about airplanes if one crashes it kills hundreds of people yet they are still flying to full capacity.

    -- Posted by small town on Wed, Jun 25, 2008, at 6:40 PM
  • Hi small town,

    Since you are "leaning", but not yet fully endorsing the plant, may I please share some more thoughts?

    Yes, everything has a risk, and an airplane can kill 100's. But they don't impound crops for many miles around, nor evacuate for decades like in a "catastrophic failure" that can happen in Elmore and beyond if you accept this plant. Airplanes can't cause thousands of kids thyroid cancer. Folks that hop on a plane chose the risk, as I have done to visit relatives or holiday. Kids downwind of this plant will have no choice of the potentially devastating risk you will impose on them.

    There are 2 reactors in upper NY where you were born. They have leaked radiation, but yes, no meltdowns yet. I dug up the NRC approval of the re-permitting of the old R.E. Ginna nuke plant on Lake Ontario NY. I searched the pdf for the unforeseen alloy 600 brittle crack acid leak problem assesment. It indeed uses what was once though safe nickel alloy 600. After Davis -Besse's alloy 600 problem was luckily discovered after the cover up, yes NRC has upped inspection to watch if cracks grow etc. But they are willing to see how they do in the next earthquake, and hope for the best. If Idaho can double our power with clean safer no-meltdown wind, why risk it?

    Here is a statement from page 272/591 that the kids in NY have loomong everyday they run. What unforeseen technical problems will be found next? Time will tell, but pleasere-consider the SIZE of the devastation of the risk you are leaning toward. The $10 billion limit to the liability from nuclear meltdowns is indeed the limit, not the full extent of the damage they can do.

    3.1.2.2.11 Crack Initiation and Growth Due to PWSCC, ODSCC, or Intergranular Attack, or

    Loss of Material Due to Wastage and Pitting Corrosion, or Loss of Section

    Thickness Due to Fretting and Wear, or Denting Due to Corrosion of Carbon Steel

    Tube Support Plate

    Crack initiation and growth due to PWSCC, ODSCC, or IGA, or loss of material due to wastage

    and pitting corrosion, or deformation due to corrosion, could occur in Alloy 600 components of

    the steam generator tubes, repair sleeves, and plugs. All PWR licensees have committed

    voluntarily to a steam generator degradation management program described in NEI 97-06,

    ?Steam Generator Program Guidelines." The GALL Report recommends that an AMP based

    on the recommendations of staff-approved NEI 97-06 guidelines, or other alternate regulatory

    basis for steam generator degradation management, should be developed to ensure that this

    aging effect is adequately managed. At present, the staff does not plan to endorse NEI 97-06

    or detailed industry guidelines referenced therein.

    Found at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1786/sr1786.pdf

    Hi Macks9,

    I again respect and defend your right to dwell on name calling.

    Good crack about my inability to locate the coffee cup. I am the first to admit I am not perfect. Only Gillispie promises perfection, not me. And dumb me still can't find the sale of my "mug." Please paste the url of the Mt Home news it is for sale on, because I'd like some T shirts too! I think you are just teasing, but yah, as a human I can sometimes overlook what is right in front of me.

    Well intended doctors unfortunately mean to amputate the diseased leg, and cut off the good one! Nuclear workers goof too. Only Gillispie promises total safety, doctors have you sign a waiver admitting all that can go wrong.

    You asked how much I have paid for my mistakes, a fair question! I have not had any malpractise claims or payments, not even a complaint to the medical board. You are free to check, but I bet you already have, as is your right. I will continue to try my best,and treat patients like family, but they get no false guarantees from me. I try to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God"...Peter

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Wed, Jun 25, 2008, at 9:27 PM
    Response by Webmaster:
    If you click on the story, under the photo you will see "order this photo" click on that and it will bring you to the area where you can purchase items.
  • Um, just a side note.

    If a person has not actually been touched, but only threatened, then the crime is considered to be assault.

    If the person has been actually touched by the person committing the crime, then battery has occurred. The contact can be ever so slight.

    The new story reported that Dr. Rickards squeezed through the entry way at the Opera House. If that report was accurate then Dr. Rickards had to be touching something, or someone.

    "squeezed through" aldo implies that their was a degree of force being used to gain entry.

    -- Posted by Beau on Thu, Jun 26, 2008, at 12:58 AM
  • AAaaa, something is wrong with my keyboard. That last in sentance in my last post should have read:

    "squeezed through" also implies that there was a degree of force being used to gain entry.

    With that said, I would like to thank Dr. Rickards and Guardian. You have presented your respective arguments on this issue in a respective manner. I have learned a lot from each of you.

    I was watching C-SPAN ( yeah, I'm a C-SPAN Junkie) the other day and they were having hearings on this very topic. Someone on the panel that was giving testimony mentioned something about a wind corridor across the U.S., where the winds are prominent and predictable. Here in Mountain Home the winds are also some what predictable. The winds generally come from the NW or from the SE, but predominately from the NW. Mountain Home and much of Elmore County is in a high desert environment. I have spent many years in desert environments and the winds that occur as the earth cools from the daytime sun are predictable and normal. So you could say Mountain Home is perhaps in the wind corridor for Idaho.

    The land in this corridor is owned by someone. That someone, the land owners within this corridor may not be wiling to sell. So here is my point blank question to you Dr. Rickards.

    Do you, or any of the groups you may represent, propose the government taking of that land from him/her under the guise of Eminent Domain for the purpose of erecting these wind mills?

    -- Posted by Beau on Thu, Jun 26, 2008, at 5:29 AM
  • False arrest???? Were you not trespassing? If you can't be honest about that, why should we believe that you are honest about anything else?

    -- Posted by IdahoBorn on Thu, Jun 26, 2008, at 11:02 AM
  • Hi Beau,

    RE: So here is my point blank question to you Dr. Rickards.

    Do you, or any of the groups you may represent, propose the government taking of that land from him/her under the guise of Eminent Domain for the purpose of erecting these wind mills?

    Good question! Absolutely NOT! I oppose any eminant domain taking of private property!

    Please see my example in prevoius post of my south hills rancher friend who WANTED the private Enexco wind company to use his land for wind power. Idaho Power refused this 4.5 cents /kw fixed rate for a 20 year contract! The rancher had no cost to him, would have supplemented his income,, and most important, Bruce would have kept ranching! His cattle would just graze as usual. This is private enterprise at it's best. Win-win!

    RE: Your point on me sliding by Doug when he continued to block my entry, ie, "squeezed through" also implies that there was a degree of force being used to gain entry.

    Well, no doubt I admit our bellies touche while sliding by, like on a crowded subway. All the lawyers I have consulted think Doug's admitting he was blocking my entry when I allegedly shoved him is unlawful.

    The third person I offered my handout to is an Elmore resident who will testify Doug grabbed my arm to stop me. Then a reporter sent me a picture of Rich Wills with his arm around me, poking me with his finger. I just smile as I ask him what law allows them to block me from quietly attending a public meeting. These are both acts of touching me without my permission, but as I wrote on my Police report, I certainly was not injured, but they "touched" the heck out of me trying to intimidate me into leaving.

    My local landlord friend can not "touch" his REAL trespassers. Doug is a lawyer (insert your own lawyer joke here), but as I slid by, he gleefully said "Now I have you for battery!" I just laughed at him, because in my mind, from watching the "Cops" show, battery is like a bloody nose etc. Guess Doug wanted to "edjukate" me on the hair splitting lawyerese he knows so well. I hope the judge applies common sense, and respects my right to attend public meetings quietly, and share conversation and info with my fellow citizens before and after the meeting, as the First Amendment allows ALL Americans to do. Our brave soldiers are dying for the right of Iraqi citizens to speak freely, and avoid having the dictator arrest whomever they want. As we approach the great 4th of July holiday, let us remember and celebrate what a great Constitution we have, and honor how many brave soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice for us all. My little efforts to not let Gillispie dictate who can attend his public misinformation meeting is the LEAST I can do to honor America the beautiful...

    RE: Beau's statement "With that said, I would like to thank Dr. Rickards and Guardian. You have presented your respective arguments on this issue in a respective manner. I have learned a lot from each of you."

    You are welcome Beau, and THANK YOU for reading and thinking about this important decision Elmore citizens and County Commissioners will be making...

    Here are the Idaho Statute specifics

    TITLE 18

    CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

    CHAPTER 9

    ASSAULT AND BATTERY

    18-903. BATTERY DEFINED. A battery is any:

    (a) Willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of

    another; or

    (b) Actual, intentional and unlawful touching or striking of another

    person against the will of the other; or

    (c) Unlawfully and intentionally causing bodily harm to an individual.

    Found at

    http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180090003.K

    Here is a lawyer search website definition at

    http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/17A1E180-3796-4CCB-8E65996C566DDC20

    battery:

    "A crime consisting of physical contact that is intended to harm someone. Unintentional harmful contact is not battery, no mater how careless the behavior or how severe the injury. A fist fight is a common battery; being hit by a wild pitch in a baseball game is not."

    So I think it is clear I did not intend to HARM anyone. My handout had documented information that "battered" the heck out of Gillispie's claims of safety and only using 100,000 gallons of water per day! That was the only battery that was done by me! :-) ...Peter

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Thu, Jun 26, 2008, at 12:18 PM
  • Dr. Rickers,

    The problem I am having is your information is way to technical for me. I have a few simple questions to ask please don't get into how it all works because I just don't understand it. In your response to me you mentioned crops being impounded, when and where did that happen in the United States What are the numbers of kids developing Thyroid Cancer living near a plant and what are the numbers of the ones not living near a plant? What was the damage caused by the leak you mentioned? Please give me specific answers not what could happen only what has happend. And please make it simple, nothing scientific

    -- Posted by small town on Thu, Jun 26, 2008, at 1:30 PM
  • Hi Small town,

    Thank you for your honesty and clarification of the questions. I will delete the specific science references.

    With the exception of Russia, European reactors meet the same US regulations for containment and design. In fact, the latest regulations are tougher in Europe, requiring containment to withstand impact from the large commercial airplanes that the terrorists highjacked on 9/11, which exceeds the present US requirements.

    Unfortunately the new Jumbo jet is even larger than those planes now, but back to the questions at hand.

    The US official nuclear agencies admit realistic potential scenarios for meltdowns and "catastrophic failure" of the multiple containment layers at any US nuclear plant. Impoundment of crops, evacuations, and thyroid cancers will only be caused if there is one of these catastrophic failures they admit to.

    So this has not happened in the us YET. But it is the realistic risk that comes with nuclear power. That is why we have the Price-Anderson Act that limits liability to $10 Billion, because this REALLY CAN happen.

    The list of safety violations, including sleeping guards is long. Dangerous problems similar to the Ohio Davis-Besse acid leak are called "near misses" and have happened 4 times since the 1979 Three Miles Island accident. The TMO melted core is orphaned at the INL over our water supply ever since, with no where to go for 240,000 years. The spent fuel rods are also orphaned and stuck at every US reactor.

    The leaks of tritium, or radioactive water, in New York and elsewhere can not be "proved 100%" to have caused any mother's miscarage, or any child's cancer. So please understand I am not claiming that. But the Nat'l Academy of Sciences, and medical protocol, all agree, "there is no safe level of radiation." Any excess dose should be avoided because every extra exposure can cause cancer. The less the better.

    There is natural radiation everywher, and it is thought to be the leading cause of cancers. It is inescapable. For example, radon gas Public Service ads warn people that natural radon gas is the second leading cause of lung cancer. Homes that sit over natural uranium deposits, and have cracks in their foundations, combined with tight insulation of the house, trap and concentrate that radon. So docotrs and EPA health officials recommend free home radon testing. That is because you can cheaply seal the foundation, and greatly lesson your exposure to this natural radiation. That makes your exposure to natural radon MUCH less, greatly reducing your chance of lung cancer. That is GREAT "Preventive Medicine" at work for families. Ask any doctor, "How much extra man made radiation would you recommend for pregnant women?" The answer will be ZERO extra man-made radiation!

    That is why the German study that looked specifically at increased childhood leukemia RATES of kids living near nuclear plants that heve NEVER had an accident is so important, as Elmore considers this nuclear proposal.

    So please don't just look at what has happened, only in America. When we have abundant safer renewables in Idaho, it is important to remember the wise old saying, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." ...Peter

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Thu, Jun 26, 2008, at 3:04 PM
  • Dr. Rickers,

    Thank you for keeping it simple. If I understand people are opposed because of what could happen. Even though there are standards and procedures in place to prevent something from happening and plans in place incase something does. There have been no major incedents in many years. This is the problem I am having, I have a really hard time living in fear of something that may never happen. Anything can happen but I am pretty sure that the people who are building, working, maintaining, and regulating the reactors do not want something to happen and are going to do everything within their power not to have anything happen. As far as cancer everything these days causes cancer, the sun, perservatives, people are dying from tomatoes, spinach, lettuce there is absolutely nothing that is safe anymore.

    -- Posted by small town on Thu, Jun 26, 2008, at 3:50 PM
  • You bet small town,

    I hear ya! While many things can cause cancer, wond, solar, and geothermal can not cause the devastation of a nuclear catastrophic failure. Not even close. This is a case where "size matters"! :-)

    RE: your thought "Anything can happen but I am pretty sure that the people who are building, working, maintaining, and regulating the reactors do not want something to happen and are going to do everything within their power not to have anything happen."

    Please re-read about the Davis-Besse nuclear engineer who is now in JAIL for covering up and lying to the NRC. His crime is not a "could happen"m it did happen. We were lucky someone found out and blew the whistle. If you read the news on the court cases, they tried to crucify that whistle blower! On our website are official government statements on disgruntled nuclear employees and terrorists, and the damage they can do.

    A couple New Years ago, the INL had an armed "security" guard flip out and lock himself in a no-go area. Lucky they talked him down. Any doctor or worker can "go postal" , but a windmill worker can only hurt a few people at a time. Why risk that large a devastation when we have safer alternatives ready to go? ...Peter

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Thu, Jun 26, 2008, at 5:41 PM
  • Dr Rickers,

    I really do understand what you are saying but those are isolated incidents. It proves that they have a plan to handle things like that because nothing happened. It also proves that the whistleblower cared enough to come forward even if he wasn't treated well. I am not saying the nuclear power is the answer but I think there are alot more dangerous things around that have been proven to harm people like pecticides in our foods. I still think you are basing your opinion on what could happen. The people running the plants also know what could happen and plan for that.

    -- Posted by small town on Thu, Jun 26, 2008, at 6:41 PM
  • Hi small town,

    I appreciate that you are reading the information, and the dialog with you. I am still awaiting Guardian's investigation of the unforeseen alloy 600 stress crack problem. It is not an "isolated problem." It effects HALF of the 104 nuclear reactors running today, including that New York one near your hometown. There is a related stress crack problem in the other half of different style reactors.

    I agree, pesticides are a big problem, but Elmore is chosing between nuclear power and the jobs from wind power. Gillispie's merchant plant sells to the highest bidder, like California, that pays 18 cents/ kw.

    RE: "I still think you are basing your opinion on what could happen. "

    Except for the high childhood leukemia that have already happened in the German study, from a normally operating nuclear plant. Remember, no American study has looked for this problem. The German plants are built to the same, if not better standards. But, yes indeed,you are correct, the meltdown threat is a major concern of mine, and indeed, that focuses on prevention of what realistically "could" happen. Remember, Gillispie has written in the Statesman that is "impossible," and that is not true.

    RE: "The people running the plants also know what could happen and plan for that."

    Well, we still have no plan for the nuclear waste we are stuck with. EVEN if we adopt recycling what we can, we still get hot waste.

    Please let me share the latest change in the official PLANS for how to handle a "catastrophic failure." Please note the cheap iodine pills would only protect the thyroid of our kids a little, while they evacuate Elmore County, but it is MUCH better than nothing. It basically helps fill the kids with as much clean fresh iodine as possible before the radioactive iodine-131 spews over southern Idaho as they inhale it during the evacuation. The government decided it might slow you down while you flee Idaho. This paragraph sums up the "plan."

    "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has long opposed wider distribution of potassium iodide pills, arguing that evacuation and protection from contaminated food are more effective ways to prevent cancer. The NRC also has expressed concern that pill distribution could undermine public confidence in the safety of the nation's nuclear plants."

    While the NRC bickers over pills that cost less than a dollar, for people living within ten miles, thousands of thyroid cancers from Chernobyl occured 80 miles away or more!

    My "plan" is to stop this nuclear nightmare from ever happening! Respectfully...Peter

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-28-nuclear-pills_N.htm

    U.S. scraps plan for anti-radiation pills

    "WASHINGTON -- The federal government will not give anti-radiation pills to millions of people who live 10 to 20 miles from a nuclear plant because there are more effective ways to protect people in case of an accident or terrorist attack, the White House said Monday.

    The pills "offer negligible additional protection" against radiation exposure for those who live outside a 10-mile radius of a reactor, said John Marburger, President Bush's top science adviser.

    Some members of Congress and thyroid cancer activists expressed outrage. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., called it "reckless endangerment of the American people."

    The government already stockpiles the pills, which protect against thyroid cancer after radiation exposure, for the 4.7 million people who live within 10 miles of a plant.

    More than five years ago, Congress ordered wider distribution of the pills, to cover 21.9 million people in 33 states, amid concerns that terrorists could attack a nuclear plant.

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has long opposed wider distribution of potassium iodide pills, arguing that evacuation and protection from contaminated food are more effective ways to prevent cancer. The NRC also has expressed concern that pill distribution could undermine public confidence in the safety of the nation's nuclear plants.

    In 2002, Congress ordered the Bush administration to stockpile the over-the-counter pills, but it left a legal loophole allowing the White House to scrap the distribution requirement if officials determined there was a better way to prevent cancer.

    After a six-month study, Marburger invoked that loophole Monday. He said evacuation and distribution of uncontaminated food would be more effective and warned that pill distribution could distract people during a crisis." SNIP

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Thu, Jun 26, 2008, at 8:40 PM
  • Dr. Rickard,

    I apologize for taking so long to get back to you and unfortunately I will be leaving for the next two weeks so this will probably be my last response for a while. Before I get to my response on the Ohio Davis-Besse issue I wanted to thank you for the lively debate over the last week or so. Believe it or not I have thoroughly enjoyed it and even though I stand firm on my thoughts about this nuclear power plant you have certainly brought about some very interesting and valid points that before this I hadn't really thought about.

    Now on to business and to be honest I really don't have a perfect rebuttal about the Ohio plant. The only thing that I can refer to is a statement that I made before saying that even though I believe nuclear power is a proven science there is still that element of theory in practice. They have found a problem that could have potentially cause an even bigger problem within the plant and consequently caused a near miss within that reactor. But please take notice to the wording I am using such as "could have" and "near miss." There are a lot of "what ifs" "could haves" and "near misses" in this nation history but all of these scenarios ultimately make the processes better not worse. I will never say that something is truly perfect because everything has its flaws but I will say is that through my research and professional knowledge of this subject that I have enough confidence (for both safety and reliability) in this method of power generation to support it in my county.

    Again, it has been fun and I hope we can continue this debate in the future.

    To everyone else that has been reading this blog, thank you and remember every big decision that has ever been made in this country has been debated over. Educate yourself on both sides of the spectrum before you make your final decision.

    Thanks again and goodbye for now - Guardian

    -- Posted by Guardian on Fri, Jun 27, 2008, at 12:54 AM
  • Hi Gardian,

    Thank YOU too!

    RE: "Before I get to my response on the Ohio Davis-Besse issue I wanted to thank you for the lively debate over the last week or so. Believe it or not I have thoroughly enjoyed it and even though I stand firm on my thoughts about this nuclear power plant you have certainly brought about some very interesting and valid points that before this I hadn't really thought about.

    Now on to business and to be honest I really don't have a perfect rebuttal about the Ohio plant."

    Thank you for your honesty and I look forward to the continued dialog when you get back, Respectfully...Peter

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Fri, Jun 27, 2008, at 1:37 AM
  • It would appear, at least for now, that the good doctor will be going to trial on Sept. 25, 2008. This is a "great" use of OUR tax dollars and the time of the prosecuting attorneys of Elmore County. I guess that Elmore county has too much money and time if they waste it on things like this! Why not go after the drug dealers, child molesters and vandals. How about the people that violate their probation? What a waste of MY money this is. Maybe just maybe, we will get a new sheriff and this kind of stuff will end.

    -- Posted by Elmorehorselady on Wed, Jul 2, 2008, at 4:03 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: